Compliance Just Got Easier: Stay ahead of regulatory changes with instant notifications on updates that matter.
['Walking Working Surfaces']
['Dockboards', 'Walking Working Surfaces']
05/01/2026
:
|
InstituteSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyWalking Working SurfacesDockboardsWalking Working SurfacesUSAEnglishAnalysisFocus AreaIn Depth (Level 3)
Wheel chocks/sand shoes in general industry
['Walking Working Surfaces']

- Wheel chocks or sand shoes may be needed to prevent transport vehicles from moving while a dockboard is in use.
If a transport vehicle moves when an employee is on the dockboard, the sudden movement may cause the employee to fall off the dockboard, or the dockboard may be displaced and fall to the ground along with the employee. Therefore, the OSHA regulation at 29 CFR 1910.26(d) requires measures, such as wheel chocks or sand shoes, to be used to prevent the transport vehicle (e.g., a truck, semi-trailer, trailer, or rail car) from moving while dockboards are in place and employees are using them.
The regulation gives employers flexibility in selecting measures to prevent the transport vehicle from moving. The catch is that employers must ensure whatever measures they use are effective in preventing movement, regardless of the type of transport vehicle the employer is loading/unloading. For example, for wheel chocks, which are one of the most frequently used measures to prevent transport vehicles from moving, the size of the transport vehicle wheel determines the size of the wheel chock that will be effective to prevent the vehicle from moving.
At the same time, there are some jurisdictional issues with the Department of Transportation (DOT) parking-brake requirement, which that agency deems appropriate to prohibit movement of vehicles during all loading conditions. Specifically, DOT regulates interstate transportation of “commercial motor vehicles” (CMVs) traveling on public roads; thus, pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, OSHA is preempted in that situation. DOT regulations define a CMV, in part, as a self-propelled or towed vehicle used on the highways in interstate commerce, if the vehicle:
- Has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of at least 10,001 pounds, whichever is greater; or
- Is used in transporting materials found by the DOT to be hazardous as defined by DOT regulations and transported in a quantity requiring placarding under DOT regulations (per 49 U.S.C. 31132).
However, DOT regulations do not apply to transport vehicles that do not meet the definition of CMV, do not operate in interstate transportation, or are not used on public roads. OSHA continues to have authority over:
- Transport vehicles that do not meet the definition of CMV; and
- CMVs not operated in interstate commerce, which includes CMVs that transport materials on private roads or within a work establishment.
In fact, OSHA has the authority to enforce chocking requirements in these situations that are not covered by DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). OSHA believes paragraph 1910.26(d) is necessary because not all transport vehicles are CMVs or used on public roads. For example, employers use transport vehicles to move material and equipment within their facilities. In addition, most transport vehicles are loaded and unloaded off public roads.
Furthermore, because the FMCSA parking-brake regulations do not apply to employers that do not own, operate, or lease CMVs, OSHA is not pre-empted from enforcing standards requiring such employers to take precautions to protect their employees, such as forklift operators, from the movement of trailers.
Note that the OSHA jurisdictional limits pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act and relevant case law are not directly applicable to the OSHA state-plan states. The 22 state plans covering the private sector are not required to have a provision equivalent to section 4(b)(1) in their state enabling legislation and may have different statutory language regarding overlap of jurisdictional authority with other federal agencies. If a state does not honor the federal jurisdictional limitations, it would be expected to litigate any challenges to its exercise of a broader authority to establish its own body of relevant case law.
For further information, see the OSHA letters of interpretation on chocking dated November 8, 2005, March 7, 2011, and June 14, 2011.
:
walking-working-surfaces
walking-working-surfaces
FOUNDATIONAL LEARNING
Wheel chocks/sand shoes in general industry
InstituteSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyWalking Working SurfacesDockboardsWalking Working SurfacesUSAEnglishAnalysisFocus AreaIn Depth (Level 3)
['Walking Working Surfaces']

- Wheel chocks or sand shoes may be needed to prevent transport vehicles from moving while a dockboard is in use.
If a transport vehicle moves when an employee is on the dockboard, the sudden movement may cause the employee to fall off the dockboard, or the dockboard may be displaced and fall to the ground along with the employee. Therefore, the OSHA regulation at 29 CFR 1910.26(d) requires measures, such as wheel chocks or sand shoes, to be used to prevent the transport vehicle (e.g., a truck, semi-trailer, trailer, or rail car) from moving while dockboards are in place and employees are using them.
The regulation gives employers flexibility in selecting measures to prevent the transport vehicle from moving. The catch is that employers must ensure whatever measures they use are effective in preventing movement, regardless of the type of transport vehicle the employer is loading/unloading. For example, for wheel chocks, which are one of the most frequently used measures to prevent transport vehicles from moving, the size of the transport vehicle wheel determines the size of the wheel chock that will be effective to prevent the vehicle from moving.
At the same time, there are some jurisdictional issues with the Department of Transportation (DOT) parking-brake requirement, which that agency deems appropriate to prohibit movement of vehicles during all loading conditions. Specifically, DOT regulates interstate transportation of “commercial motor vehicles” (CMVs) traveling on public roads; thus, pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, OSHA is preempted in that situation. DOT regulations define a CMV, in part, as a self-propelled or towed vehicle used on the highways in interstate commerce, if the vehicle:
- Has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of at least 10,001 pounds, whichever is greater; or
- Is used in transporting materials found by the DOT to be hazardous as defined by DOT regulations and transported in a quantity requiring placarding under DOT regulations (per 49 U.S.C. 31132).
However, DOT regulations do not apply to transport vehicles that do not meet the definition of CMV, do not operate in interstate transportation, or are not used on public roads. OSHA continues to have authority over:
- Transport vehicles that do not meet the definition of CMV; and
- CMVs not operated in interstate commerce, which includes CMVs that transport materials on private roads or within a work establishment.
In fact, OSHA has the authority to enforce chocking requirements in these situations that are not covered by DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). OSHA believes paragraph 1910.26(d) is necessary because not all transport vehicles are CMVs or used on public roads. For example, employers use transport vehicles to move material and equipment within their facilities. In addition, most transport vehicles are loaded and unloaded off public roads.
Furthermore, because the FMCSA parking-brake regulations do not apply to employers that do not own, operate, or lease CMVs, OSHA is not pre-empted from enforcing standards requiring such employers to take precautions to protect their employees, such as forklift operators, from the movement of trailers.
Note that the OSHA jurisdictional limits pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act and relevant case law are not directly applicable to the OSHA state-plan states. The 22 state plans covering the private sector are not required to have a provision equivalent to section 4(b)(1) in their state enabling legislation and may have different statutory language regarding overlap of jurisdictional authority with other federal agencies. If a state does not honor the federal jurisdictional limitations, it would be expected to litigate any challenges to its exercise of a broader authority to establish its own body of relevant case law.
For further information, see the OSHA letters of interpretation on chocking dated November 8, 2005, March 7, 2011, and June 14, 2011.
2656867199
2656867196
UPGRADE TO CONTINUE READING
RELATED TOPICS
J. J. Keller is the trusted source for DOT / Transportation, OSHA / Workplace Safety, Human Resources, Construction Safety and Hazmat / Hazardous Materials regulation compliance products and services. J. J. Keller helps you increase safety awareness, reduce risk, follow best practices, improve safety training, and stay current with changing regulations.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.
