Yes, The addition of products or replacement of components is considered a modification. When replacing components they must be identical to what is delivered with the equipment from the factory. Installation of additional safety products, accessories, attachments, or off-brand components is in fact a modification on mobile elevated work platforms (MEWPs). There is more information and insight that can be gained by reading the Overview of Subpart L - Scaffolds

Only two entities are currently allowed to approve a modification to aerial lifts. OSHA 1967(b)(2) sets the requirement for vehicle-mounted elevating and rotating work platforms. OSHA 1926.453(a)(2) details the rules for aerial lifts. In both regulations only the "manufacturer" an "equivalent entity, such as a nationally recognized testing laboratory".

An "equivalent entity" is defined by the general industry standard 29 CFR 1910.184(b), which states: A person or organization (including an employer) which, by possession of equipment, technical knowledge and skills, can perform with equal competence the same repairs and tests as the person or organization with which it is equated.

In general, Manufacturers of Access Equipment and their designated service representatives are considered to be "equivalent entities"  with regard to making repairs. Manufactures in many industries often designate "equivalent entities" under a licensing arrangement between the parties.

In 1979 OSHA wrote the first interoperation letter on equivalent entity that we are aware of. You can read Director Grove C. Wrenn response to Mr. Lee Dale by selecting standard number 1910.184

Yes, the definition of equivalent entity is clear that written approval to modify equipment may be granted by a competitive brand. Service representatives may also write the authorization.

Opinion: This is not a clear path to gaining approval. To our knowledge manufactures or service representatives do not, have not, and will not write such an approval.

Our experience has shown us that manufactures will sale aftermarket components on their competitors and the service representatives will perform modifications on equipment other than the brand they are designated.

Yes, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) tracks the financial cost associated to the record retention of field modifications.

Manufacturer's Certification of Modifications (§ 1910.67(b)(2)). The Standard requires that when aerial lifts are “field modified” for uses other than those intended by the manufacturer, the manufacturer or other equivalent entity, such as a nationally recognized testing laboratory, must certify in writing that the modification is in conformity with all applicable provisions of ANSI A92.2-1969 and the OSHA standard and that the modified aerial lift is at least as safe as the equipment was before modification. Employers are to maintain the certification record and make it available to OSHA compliance officers upon request. This record provides assurance to employers, workers, and compliance officers that the modified aerial lift is safe for use, thereby preventing failure while workers are being elevated. The certification record also provides the most efficient means for the compliance officers to determine that an employer is complying with the Standard.

If you would like to submit a comment regarding this issue comments must be submitted by July 2, 2021.

To read the full report visit 1218-0230

Yes, and we derive our answer from the Interpretation request from Mr. Sund in his June 28, 2002 letter regarding 29 CFR 1910.178, Powered Industrial Trucks.

To our surprise even in the event that the manufacturer does not respond to a request for modification the utilization of an attachment would be considered a de minimis violation if you had obtained written approval from a qualified Registered Professional Engineer.

This was Director Richard E. Fairfax response in full to Mr. Sund: "Please be aware that OSHA would consider the lack of manufacturer's approval to be a de minimis violation if you had obtained written approval from a qualified Registered Professional Engineer after receiving no response or a negative response from the powered industrial truck manufacturer. If the manufacturer's response was negative then the engineer, prior to granting approval for the modification or addition, would need to perform a safety analysis and address all safety and/or structural issues contained in the manufacturer's disapproval. OSHA might not accept an engineer's written approval if it did not address all of the manufacturer's safety and structural issues."

Yes, Director Richard E. Fairfax explains in his written response to Mr. Boyles on March 30, 2004.

Yes, written approval from the manufacturer of a powered industrial truck is required for modifications and/or additions if the modifications and/or additions affect the capacity and safe operation of the truck. However, please be aware that OSHA would consider the lack of manufacturer's approval to be a de minimis violation if the employer has obtained written approval from a qualified Registered Professional Engineer after receiving no response or a negative response from the powered industrial truck manufacturer. If the manufacturer's response was negative, then the engineer, prior to granting approval for the modification or addition, would need to perform a safety analysis and address all safety and/or structural issues contained in the manufacturer's disapproval.

Even where the addition of a work platform to a powered industrial truck is permitted under §1910.178(a)(4) or the de minimis policy stated above, employers must also address the fall hazards that result from the use of elevated platforms. OSHA has proposed revisions to Subpart D of 29 CFR Part 1910 that include, in a new section §1910.31, requirements for mobile elevating work platforms, mobile ladder stands, and powered industrial truck platforms. (See 55 FR 13396, April 10, 1990, and 68 FR 23530, May 2, 2003.) Until a final rule is promulgated, an employer's failure to prevent or correct, to the extent feasible, fall hazards from elevated work platforms might be citable as a violation of Section 5(a)(1) of the OSHAct. OSHA's evaluation of the existence of a serious, recognized hazard and the availability of feasible means of abatement would include consideration of the relevant provisions of the ASME B56.1-2000 standard.

You can understand the full context by visiting the interpretation letter for 1910.178(a)(4)

To modify equipment without the OEM involved could affect the safe use of the equipment. Genie a Terex Brand bulleted seven key facts in a Genie Safety Minute on Sep 13, 2017.

You learn that modifying your equipment requires you to know your options. That even a class leader retains an independent engineering firm to evaluate and verify that each model is in compliance with the most current standards. The company you purchase the accessory from "the modifier" will be seen as taking on the role as the new manufacturer.

The manufacturer will always have the most accurate data on the equipment you need a solution for. All responsible OEMs have a process to give guidance or assist with third party modifications.  Read more by going to Genie Safety Minute: Modifying Your Equipment.

Read the operators manual of the equipment you desire to modify. In the operators manual which will either be in the weatherproof box on the lift, or on the manufactures website. Read the section which covers modifications and you will find detailed contact information how to request to modify.

OSHA created the NRTL program to ensure that certain types of equipment be tested and certified for their safe use in the workplace. OSHA's NRTL regulations were established in 1988. The first organization became recognized as a NRTL in 1989.

A Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) is a private-sector organization that OSHA has recognized as meeting the legal requirements in 29 CFR 1910.7 to perform testing and certification of products using consensus based test standards. These requirements are:

• The capability to test and evaluate equipment for conformance with appropriate test standards;
• Adequate controls for the identification of certified products, conducting follow-up inspections of actual production;
• Complete independence from users (i.e., employers subject to the tested equipment requirements) and from any manufacturers or vendors of the certified products; and
• Effective procedures for producing its findings and for handling complaints and disputes

An organization must have the necessary capability both as a product safety testing laboratory and as a product certification body to receive OSHA recognition as an NRTL.

OSHA Recognizes 20 NRTL's. The Current List of NRTLs includes.

• Applied Research Laboratories of South Florida, LLC

• Bay Area Compliance Laboratories

• Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services, Inc. (BVCPS)

• CSA Group Testing and Certification Inc.

• DEKRA Certification, Inc.

• Eurofins Electrical and Electronic Testing NA, Inc.

• FM Approvals (FM)

• International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials EGS (IAPMO)

• Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (ITSNA)

• Nemko North America, Inc. (NNA)

• NSF International (NSF)

• QAI Laboratories, LTD (QAI)

• QPS Evaluation Services Inc.

• SGS North America, Inc.

• SolarPTL, LLC

• Southwest Research Institute

• TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.

• TÜV SÜD America Inc.

• TÜV SÜD Product Services GmbH

• Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

With respect to an installation or equipment of a kind that no nationally recognized testing laboratory accepts, certifies, lists, labels, or determines to be safe, if it is inspected or tested by another Federal agency, or by a State, municipal, or other local authority responsible for enforcing occupational safety provisions of the National Electrical Code, and found in compliance with the provisions of the National Electrical Code as applied in this subpart;

or

With respect to custom-made equipment or related installations that are designed, fabricated for, and intended for use by a particular customer, if it is determined to be safe for its intended use by its manufacturer on the basis of test data which the employer keeps and makes available for inspection to the Assistant Secretary and his authorized representatives.

Yes, the regulations around the requirement for OEM approval are extensive and very clear. All responsible manufacturers understand their role in the "chain of safety" and failure to respond to a request could result in injury or death if the applicant is not informed of the known danger.

The United States Chamber of Commerce explains Antitrust Laws in way that makes it clear failure to respond to a request stifles innovation and harms the American consumer. Antitrust laws, are meant to promote competition and protect consumers. Ensuring competitors work together amicably without unfair advantages. A company that provides products and services should ultimately only be subjected to the consumers power to choose them.

America’s Antitrust Laws Protect Competition and Benefit Consumers

Antitrust laws ensure competition in a free and open market economy, which is the foundation of any vibrant economy. And healthy competition among sellers in an open marketplace gives consumers the benefits of lower prices, higher quality products and services, more choices, and greater innovation.

The core of U.S. antitrust law was created by three pieces of legislation: the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Clayton Antitrust Act. These laws have evolved along with the market, vigilantly guarding against anti-competitive harm that arises from abuse of dominance, bid rigging, price fixing, and customer allocation.