On two occasions, we have been issued an OOS violation for warning flags not being present on a projecting load under 393.87 (a). In both situations, the forklift was properly secured to the rear of a flatbed trailer and was considered the projecting load. The lights on the forklift were being utilized as the rear lighting of the flatbed trailer, and included all required stop lamps, turn signals, and identification lamps. A DataQ was submitted for one of the violations as I did not agree with the interpretation that a forklift was a projecting load. The DataQ was denied because the inspector determined that a forklift mounted to the rear of a trailer does not constitute an extension of the trailer, and is still part of the caried load or cargo. Further, because the forklift extends at least 4 feet to the rear and is over 2 feet wide, two red or orange 18” warning flags were required. The Inspector stated that the auxiliary lighting on the forklift did not negate the need for warning flags.

It appears there is a lack of consistency as to whether forklifts are considered a projecting load when properly secured to a trailer. A forklift should not be considered a projecting load but instead an extension of the trailer when equipped with working lighting devices.

I recommend that guidance be added to Operational Policy 15 to clarify forklift properly secured to a trailer is not considered a projecting load nor does it require a rear impact guard.

A similar issue was submitted in 2016. John Sova gave a brief history of the Vehicle Committee minutes from 2016 and stated that the carrier never followed up with an exemption request. It is still recommended that the best course of action is to send in an exemption request to FMCSA, as any exemption granted would cover all industries with forklifts attached to the back of trailers. This information was provided to the submitter. No motion was made. Item was CLOSED with no action taken.