[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 174 (Friday, September 8, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47022-47037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22386]
[[Page 47021]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VII
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
29 CFR 1910
Logging Operations; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 47022]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. S-048]
Logging Operations
ACTION: Final rule; corrections and technical amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice corrects and amends the final rule on Logging
Operations which was published by OSHA on October 12, 1994 (59 FR
51672). In response to questions raised about certain provisions in the
rule, OSHA is clarifying language in the regulatory text so it most
accurately expresses the Agency's intent with respect to the provisions
in question and to provide additional information with regard to some
of the provisions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 1995.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Ms. Anne Cyr, Office of Information and
Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room
N-3637, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, (202)-219-8148.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 12, 1994, OSHA published a revised standard providing
protection for workers performing logging operations (59 FR 51672). The
final rule (29 C.F.R. 1910.266) had an effective date of February 9,
1995.
After the final rule was published, the Equipment Manufacturers
Institute (EMI), the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association
(PPEMA), and Homelite, a manufacturer of chain saws, filed timely
petitions with the court seeking judicial review of the standard. The
deadline for filing a petition for judicial review was December 12,
1994. After the deadline had passed, the Associated California Loggers,
the Associated Oregon Loggers, Inc., the Montana Logging Association,
and the Washington Contract Loggers Association also filed objections
to the final rule.
These parties and organizations raised questions about certain
provisions of the final rule. After consideration of their questions,
OSHA published a Federal Register notice (60 FR 6447, February 8, 1995)
staying enforcement of 12 provisions of the standard for six-months,
until August 9, 1995. The other provisions of the final rule were not
affected by the partial stay and became effective on February 9, 1995.
In the February 8 notice, OSHA explained that the partial stay
would give the Agency time to clarify language in the regulatory text
and preamble so it most accurately expressed the Agency's intent with
respect to the provisions in question and to provide additional
information with regard to some of the provisions. The provisions OSHA
stayed were: (d)(1)(v)--insofar as it requires foot protection to
protect the employee against chain-saw penetration; (d)(1)(vii)--
insofar as it requires face protection; (d)(2)(iii)--annual review and
approval of first-aid kits by a health care provider; (f)(2)(iv)--
machine operation on slopes; (f)(2)(xi)--machine shutdown procedures;
(f)(3)(ii)--ROPS specifications; (f)(3)(vii) and (viii)--machine cab
enclosures; (f)(7)(ii)--machine parking brakes; (g) (1) and (2)--
maintenance and inspection of employee-owned vehicles; (h)(2)(vii)--
location of the backcut in Humboldt cutting.
PPEMA and Homelite also requested OSHA to stay enforcement of the
requirement that chain saws be equipped with chain brakes. OSHA denied
their request. Thereafter, PPEMA withdrew its petition for judicial
review. Homelite filed a motion for a stay pending review of the chain-
brake requirement with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit. OSHA opposed Homelite's motion and American Pulpwood
Association (APA) filed an amicus opposing the stay. OSHA also filed a
motion to dismiss Homelite's petition for lack of standing. The court
denied both Homelite's and OSHA's motions. Homelite continues to
challenge the chain brake provision of the final rule in the Fourth
Circuit. EMI withdrew its petition for review pursuant to a settlement.
During the six-month stay of enforcement, OSHA received other
inquiries about the final rule. In addition, OSHA met with
representatives of various logging associations such as APA and the
Western Logging Council (WLC), equipment manufacturers such as EMI and
PPEMA, and other individuals in order to discuss the stayed provisions
as well as other questions they had regarding the final rule.
On August 9, 1995, OSHA published a Federal Register notice
extending the partial stay for 30 days, until September 8, 1995, in
order to complete its reconsideration of the issues, to complete
corrections and clarifications in the regulatory text and preamble, and
to revise its compliance directive to reflect those changes (60 FR
40457). This notice corrects and amends the final rule, and provides
information and clarification regarding the stayed provisions and other
issues.
Stayed Provisions
Paragraph (d)(1)(v)--Cut-Resistant Foot Protection
The final rule requires that the employer assure that each employee
wears foot protection, covering and supporting the foot and ankle,
which is waterproof or water repellant. OSHA stayed one aspect of the
foot protection provision which required that logging boots provide
protection from penetration by chain saws. Some parties requested OSHA
to drop the chain-saw penetration requirement, contending that rubber
and calk-soled logging boots providing employees protection from
penetration by chain saws were neither necessary nor available.
The rulemaking record strongly supports the need for logging
footwear which protects chain-saw operators against penetration by
chain saws. As OSHA discussed in the preamble to the final rule, 10
percent of injuries reported in the WIR survey were to the foot and
ankle (Ex. 2-1). In addition, APA submitted to the record an injury
report where a chain-saw operator who was not wearing protective
footwear cut off his foot when the bar went through the soft spot of a
tree trunk and into his foot (Ex. 26A).
Reports of foot injuries resulting from chain saws led several
commenters to recommend that OSHA require foot protection be cut-
resistant (Tr. W1 148, 195; Tr. W2 139). For example, Mr. Joseph
William, owner of Jayfor Logging, said he provides and requires
employees to wear cut-resistant logging boots (Tr. W1 195). In
addition, Mr. Williams said all employers that are members of the
Nortim program, a logging workers' compensation insurance group, must
assure that employees wear cut-resistant foot protection (Tr. W1 158,
195).
Based on its reconsideration of the record, OSHA maintains that an
employee operating a chain saw needs to wear logging boots which will
provide protection against penetration by the saw. However, based on
discussions during the stay, OSHA is correcting the language of this
requirement to express more clearly the Agency's intent regarding the
type of chain-saw protection that is required for the foot. In the
final rule, OSHA intended by the language ``protect the employee from
penetration by chain saws'' to mean that foot protection worn by
employees be equipped with material that is cut-resistant to chain
saws. That
[[Page 47023]]
is, OSHA intended that foot protection prevent the chain saw from
cutting the employee before the employee is able to react, or before
the protective material jams the chain saw. The language in the final
rule was not intended to require that the protective material itself
must be totally impervious to penetration by a chain saw. Rather, the
available protective clothing and footwear is equipped with multiple
layers of protective material, such as but not limited to ballistic
nylon, Kevlar, or the layered-material in heavy-duty logging boots;
which provide cut resistance as follows: the protective material must
either provide enough resistance to the saw chain to give the operator
time to react and pull the saw away from the foot before the saw chain
penetrates through all the layers, or jam the flywheel and chain,
thereby stopping the saw. OSHA is revising the regulatory text to
indicate that leg protection must be made of material that is cut-
resistant, as OSHA has defined it above. OSHA stresses that this change
is merely adoption of terminology which is used in the industry, but
the use of this term does not change the meaning or intention of the
final rule.1
\1\ OSHA notes that the most important aspect of the protective
material is not that it be made specifically of ballistic nylon, but
that it is comparably cut-resistant. OSHA intended its use of the
term ``ballistic nylon'' in the final rule to be consistent with the
industry's generic use of the term as shorthand for cut-resistant
materials in general. Indeed, in the preamble to the final rule,
OSHA discussed several types of materials which are currently
available to provide protection against chain-saw cuts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some parties also said that rubber and calk-soled boots which are
needed in working in the steep terrain of the northwest were not
manufactured with chain-saw cut-resistant material. However, the
rulemaking record shows that such boots are available and have been
available for a considerable period of time (Ex. 4-103, 5-30).
Specifically, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, the manufacturer of
Kevlar, told OSHA in 1989 that rubber logging boots were available that
contain Kevlar, and which du Pont ``feel[s] offers adequate protection
against chain saw injuries, based on European test standards'' (Ex. 5-
30). In addition, an article from the June 1987 The Logger and
Lumberman said that a cut-resistant rubber boot, which had been
successfully tested by the U.S. Forest Service, was available (Ex. 4-
103). Moreover, in discussions with other manufacturers and
distributors of personal protective equipment during the six-month
stay, OSHA has confirmed its original conclusion that a variety of
companies currently manufacture logging boots, including rubber and
calk-soled boots, which are equipped with material to protect against
chain saw cuts. Therefore, OSHA is lifting the stay of this
requirement. Effective September 8, 1995, employers shall assure that
foot protection worn by each employee who operates a chain saw,
including rubber, calk-soled and other slip-resistant boots, is chain-
saw cut-resistant.
OSHA has also clarified the final rule to indicate that the cut-
resistant foot protection requirement applies only to employees who
operate a chain saw. OSHA notes and is specifying in the revised
compliance directive that this applies to any operation of a chain saw,
whether as a regular part of the employee's job or incidental to the
job. There is nothing in the records that indicates chain-saw accidents
involve only those who operate chain saws on a regular basis. OSHA
believes that those who operate chain saws only infrequently may be at
particular risk because they may be less familiar with the chain saw
and less experienced in managing the hazards associated with its
operation. Based upon the hazards to employees when they use a chain
saw and the ready availability of the protective equipment to minimize
such hazards, OSHA believes that all employees who use a chain saw must
be protected against foot injury regardless of the frequency of the
chain saw usage. Logging employees who do not operate chain saws at all
need not have foot protection that is chain-saw cut-resistant.
OSHA also stresses that the foot protection requirement in the
final rule is expressed in performance terms. For example, nothing in
the final rule requires that employees wear steel-toed logging boots in
order to meet the cut-resistance requirement. Steel-toed boots meeting
the ANSI foot protection requirements do provide adequate protection
against chain-saw cuts for the toe. However, if such boots do not have
material to protect the rest of the foot from chain-saw cuts they do
not comply with the final rule. The final rule requires that logging
boots for chain-saw operators must provide cut-resistant protection for
the foot, not just the toe. The record indicates that there is
available supplemental cut-resistant foot protection which can be
attached to logging boots to provide the needed protection (Ex. 5-14).
After publication of the final rule, OSHA was requested by some
parties to clarify the rule to indicate from what type of material
logging boots must be constructed. They recommended that OSHA specify
that logging boots be made of industrial grade or top grain leather or
other material. Instead of specifying the type of material which must
be used, OSHA has expressed the requirement in performance terms. For
example, OSHA has specified that foot protection cover and provide
support to the ankle. The purpose of this requirement is to help reduce
the significant number of ankle and foot injuries (sprains and
fractures) (Ex. 2-1). OSHA is confident that employers and employees
will be able to select logging boots that provide adequate ankle
support because various logging associations already recognize that
hiking and other light duty boots do not provide sufficient
protection.2
\2\ OSHA notes that the final rule does not require the employer
to provide logging boots for employees. The cost of providing
logging boots may be borne by employees. The employer, however, must
assure that logging boots which are worn by an employee are in
serviceable condition and meet the requirements of paragraph
(d)(1)(vi) of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (d)(1)(vii)--Face Protection
In the final rule, OSHA required that employers provide and pay for
protection for the eyes and face for any employee where there is a
potential for injury due to falling or flying objects. After
publication of the final rule, OSHA was requested by some parties to
stay the face protection requirement in order to clarify the following
concerns.
First, these parties requested OSHA to clarify in what logging
operations face protection is required. The rulemaking record shows
that some employees do need protection for the face as well as the eyes
(e.g., chipper operators) (Ex. 2-1). In the WIR survey 42 face injuries
were reported during the three-month survey period which involved other
than the eye (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes that chipper operators, employees
cutting limbs, branches or spring poles, and employees moving through
dense underbrush are among those for whom the risk of facial
lacerations from wood, wood chips, needles or splinters is most likely.
OSHA is revising the final rule to indicate that where employees are at
risk of facial injury they must wear protection meeting the
requirements of subpart I of Part 1910 (29 CFR 1910.133).
For other employees, however, eye protection alone may be adequate
to protect them from the hazards present. For example, an employee
performing machine maintenance may only require eye protection. For
these employees, the most likely hazards are dirt, particles or other
substances flying or splashing into the eyes. For example, maintenance
employees need eye protection where they are using metal cut-off or
grinding
[[Page 47024]]
tools. Subpart I requires employers to assess the hazards in the
workplace to what personal protective equipment is necessary. OSHA is
revising the final rule to emphasize that where the assessment
indicates a risk of facial injury exists, face protection must also be
provided and worn.
Second, these parties requested that OSHA clarify whether the final
rule requires employees to wear both eye and face protection
simultaneously. It was OSHA's intention that of face protection would
adequate protection for both the eyes and the face. Therefore, OSHA is
adding a note to the final rule to clarify that where the employer
determines that protection against eye and face injury is necessary and
provides the employee with a device that protects both the eyes as well
as the face, the final rule does not also require the employee to wear
separate eye protection.
Finally, these parties said that face protection should not be
required because it may interfere with the logger's vision, thereby
creating additional hazards. They said optical characteristics of face
shields made of solid transparent material, as required by subpart I,
could distort peripheral vision. However, they did not provide evidence
to this effect during the rulemaking and they have not identified any
data in the rulemaking record that would support this contention. There
is nothing in the record that would lead the Agency to believe that
potential distortion of peripheral vision by face shields creates a
greater hazard than lack of face protection. Of the injuries reported
in the WIR survey, obstructed vision was not identified as the cause of
any injury (Ex. 2-1).
They also said that the logger's vision could be reduced in wet
weather because of wood chips or sawdust sticking to the face shield or
the transparent material fogging up. Once again, the record does not
indicate that this is a significant problem. In any event, the final
rule allows flexibility in selecting face protection for employees
working in different conditions. Specifically, with the exception of
chipping operations, the final rule expressly permits logger-type mesh
screens to be used for face protection. Such screens provide protection
from penetration by branches, limbs and saplings, yet do not restrict
vision in wet weather or fog up. Information in the record indicates
that face protection comprised of mesh screens is readily available in
the industry. In fact, many types of safety headgear manufactured for
the logging industry are equipped with mesh screen face protection.
OSHA notes, however, that most logger-type mesh face screens do not
meet the literal requirements of Subpart I because they do not comply
with the referenced ANSI standards, ANSI Z87.1-1989 or ANSI Z87.1-1968.
Mesh face screens are not constructed with impervious transparent
material and do not necessarily meet the impact resistance requirements
of the ANSI standards. For this reason, they may not be used in
chipping operations where impact resistance is needed to prevent injury
from wood, wood chips, needles, or splinters being propelled from
chipping machines at great speed. For chipping operations, therefore,
eye and face protection must meet the requirements of subpart I.
However, for other logging operations such as chain-saw operation,
OSHA believes that logger-type mesh screens will provide adequate
protection. In these operations there is not the same hazard of objects
hitting the face screen at a high speed or penetrating through the mesh
openings. Mesh screens provide adequate protection to keep small limbs,
branches, and saplings from poking the employee's eye or cutting the
employee's face when the employee is moving through the woods.
Therefore, OSHA is revising the final rule and compliance directive to
indicate that an employer who provides and requires chain saw operators
performing felling, limbing and bucking activities to use a logger-type
mesh face screen would be deemed to be in compliance with this
paragraph. Additionally, logger-type mesh face screens may also be used
by those employees performing yarding operations. For all other logging
tasks (e.g., machine and vehicle maintenance, cutting winch cables,
drilling, grinding, and welding during equipment repair) for which the
hazard assessment indicates eye and face protection are necessary, the
employer must provide protection which meets the requirements of
subpart I.
Paragraph (d)(2)(iii)--First-Aid Kits
Paragraph (d)(2) of the final rule requires that employers provide
and maintain first-aid kits. In addition, this paragraph specifies the
minimum content requirements for first-aid kits (Appendix A). These
provisions became effective February 9, 1995.
OSHA stayed the requirement that the number and contents of first-
aid kits be reviewed and approved annually by a health care provider.
Some parties told OSHA that annual approval of first-aid kits by health
care providers would be burdensome for employers. Because the final
rule already contains a list of minimum contents for the first-aid kit,
OSHA is persuaded that eliminating the requirement of annual health
care provider review will not reduce protection for logging employees.
The minimum first-aid kit and first-aid training requirements
provided in the final rule were developed in consultation with the OSHA
offices of occupational medicine and occupational health nursing. This
careful review of the minimum contents of the required first-aid kits
makes it unnecessary for OSHA to require employers to have the kits
reviewed annually by a health care provider. Therefore, OSHA is
correcting the final rule accordingly.
At the same time, however, OSHA encourages logging employers to
conduct an annual review of the contents of first-aid kits, including
engaging in consultation with a health care provider regarding approval
of those contents. Such review can help to ensure that the contents are
adequate for the number of employees and conditions of the particular
logging worksite, and that first-aid kits contain the latest first-aid
innovations and technologies which would be useful to the logging work
environment. Because of the remoteness of logging worksites from
professional medical services, OSHA believes that for some logging
sites, additional attention should be given to the contents of first-
aid kits. Annual health care provider review is clearly permitted in
these circumstances, and the final rule provides for such review as a
``best practice'' recommendation for employers.3
\3\ OSHA notes that the employer does not need to take the
actual first-aid kits themselves to the health care provider for
review and approval. Rather, the health care provider may review the
list of the items contained in the first-aid kits, along with a
description of the conditions of the particular worksite.
Paragraph (f)(2)(iv)--Machine Operation on Slopes
OSHA stayed the provision requiring that logging machines not be
operated on any slope greater than the maximum slope recommended by the
manufacturer after learning that logging machine manufacturers do not
specify a maximum slope on which particular logging machines can be
safely operated. The intent of this requirement was to ensure that
machines used on sloping terrain are operated in a manner that will
prevent the machine from tipping or rolling over. As OSHA explained in
the preamble to the final rule, injuries and fatalities resulting from
tipping and rollover accidents are
[[Page 47025]]
prevalent in the logging industry because of the rough terrain on which
logging machines operate (Ex. 2-1).
The maximum slope of operation varies depending on the conditions
under which the machine is being operated. These conditions include the
terrain (e.g., wet, muddy, dry, compacted, rocky), the direction of the
machine operation (e.g., cross-slope, uphill, downhill, diagonally
across the slope), and the operation being performed. OSHA is revising
the final rule to require that employers assure that machine operators
follow the instructions, directions and limitations described by the
manufacturer in the operating and maintenance manuals.
There are many ways in which an employer can accomplish this
obligation. Manufacturers' operating instructions can be incorporated
into operator training programs. Compliance with these operating
instructions can be reinforced during regular safety and health
meetings, and through spot checks on employees' operating performance.
Paragraph (f)(2)(xi)--Machine Shutdown Procedures
The final rule specifies procedures which must be followed when a
machine is shut down. These include applying brakes and grounding or
securing moving elements (paragraph (f)(2)(x)), and discharging
pressure and stored energy (paragraph (f)(2)(xi)). With regard to the
discharge requirements, this provision is intended to prevent moving
elements, such as blades, buckets, saws and shears from being
unexpectedly or inadvertently activated or engaged after the machine
has been shut down. Such activation has resulted in severe injury or
death to logging operators, maintenance personnel or others in the
vicinity of the machine (Ex. 2-1, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 26A).
OSHA stayed the discharge provision (paragraph (f)(2)(xi)) in order
to reconsider whether the provision could be misinterpreted to require
unnecessary discharging of pressure and stored energy. For example,
OSHA was concerned whether employers might misinterpret the provision
as requiring the discharge of pressure and stored energy not related to
moving elements of the machine, such as bleeding machine brakes, a
result which OSHA had not intended.
OSHA is therefore correcting this provision so it more accurately
identifies and addresses the hazards OSHA intended to control in the
final rule. Revised paragraph (f)(2)(xi) requires that the hydraulic
and pneumatic storage devices which can move the moving elements of a
logging machine after machine shut down and expose employees to serious
hazards must be discharged as specified by the manufacturer.
OSHA is also correcting paragraph (f)(2)(x) to require that any
time the operator leaves the machine cab, the parking brakes must be
applied, the moving elements must be grounded or secured, and the
transmission must be placed in park. A further review of the record
indicates that such a correction is necessary since the hazard of
unexpected or inadvertent activation of logging machines is present any
time an operator leaves the machine cab, whether to perform another
logging operation or to stop work for the day. The record includes
several reports of machine operators and others who died or were
severely injured when they failed to engage the parking brakes and
lower moving elements to the ground before dismounting from the machine
(Ex. 4-61, 4-64, 26A).
OSHA has addressed the hazard of inadvertent machine engagement in
other rules as well (e.g., 29 CFR 1910.147, 29 CFR 1910.178). OSHA
believes the same hazard addressed by those rules is present in logging
operations. Therefore, OSHA is correcting the final rule and compliance
directive to indicate that braking, grounding and parking procedures
must be followed any time the operator leaves the machine cab.
Paragraph (f)(3)(ii)--ROPS Specifications
The final rule requires that logging machines be equipped with
rollover protective structures (ROPS) that are tested, installed and
maintained in accordance with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
J1040, April 1988, performance criteria for ROPS. OSHA stayed this
requirement for six months and is now amending the ROPS requirement to
state that only machines manufactured after August 1, 1996 must have
ROPS which meet the 1988 SAE standard.
OSHA is making this change because, while many machines currently
manufactured do meet the 1988 SAE ROPS standard, other machines
currently manufactured or in use do not. These machines do have ROPS
for the most part. However, the ROPS on these machines meet the 1979
SAE standard instead. While machines that meet the 1988 standard have
additional protection (e.g., protection for longitudinal rollover),
machines meeting the 1979 standard do provide protection for the most
frequently occurring hazard: horizontal rollover. As such, OSHA
believes that permitting an exception for machines already in service
should not reduce significantly the level of protection provided to
machine operators. Therefore, OSHA is revising the compliance directive
to indicate that machines manufactured on or before August 1, 1996,
which comply with the 1979 SAE ROPS standard are appropriate for use,
provided the ROPS is maintained at its designed level of effectiveness
(See paragraph (f)(1)(i)--machine general maintenance
requirement).4
\4\ The final rule also provides that ROPS and FOPS required on
logging machines placed into initial service after the effective
date must also meet the requirements of SAE J397, April 1988,
``Deflection Limiting Volume--ROPS/FOPS Laboratory Evaluation.'' The
1988 standard updated a 1979 SAE standard on deflection limiting
volume. OSHA notes that there is no functional difference between
the criteria of the 1988 and 1979 SAE standards. Therefore, ROPS and
FOPS certified to meet the requirements of either the 1988 or 1979
SAE standards shall be deemed to be in compliance with the final
logging standard. OSHA is revising the compliance directive to
reflect this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, EMI has agreed to use its best efforts to provide OSHA
with a list of the model numbers of the last logging machines
manufactured on August 1, 1996. OSHA will use this list to update its
logging compliance directive as to which logging machines must meet the
1988 SAE ROPS standard.
Paragraph (f)(3) (vii) and (viii)--Machine Cab Enclosures
OSHA stayed two provisions in the final rule dealing with cab
enclosures.5 Paragraph (f)(3)(vii) required that the lower portion
of machine cabs, up to the top of the instrument panel or 24 inches, be
enclosed with solid material, except at entrances. Paragraph
(f)(3)(viii) required that the upper portion of cabs be enclosed with
mesh material (no greater than 2 inches at its least dimension) or with
other material(s) that provide equivalent protection and visibility.
The intention of these provisions was to ensure that the cab enclosure
provided the machine operator with protection from objects penetrating
the cab, without impeding the operator's vision.
\5\ OSHA intends the term ``cab'' to include any machine
operator station, even if it is not a total enclosure providing
weather and other protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA stayed these provisions because it was concerned that this
language could be misconstrued in ways that would reduce protection for
machine operators. OSHA is revising the final rule to require that
logging machines manufactured after August 1, 1996, have cabs which are
completely enclosed, including at entrances (paragraph (f)(3)(vii)).
The revised provision also clarifies that the
[[Page 47026]]
enclosure must be constructed with mesh material (with openings no
greater than 2 inches at its least dimension), or with other
material(s) which the employer demonstrates will provide equivalent
visibility and protection from penetrating objects.6
\6\ OSHA is noting in the revised compliance directive that
material(s) that satisfy the performance criteria of the Society of
Automotive Engineers SAE J1084, April 1980, ``Operator Protective
Structure Performance Criteria for Certain Forestry Equipment'' are
deemed to comply with the revised provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some logging machines currently manufactured do meet this
requirement, others do not. For those logging machines manufactured on
or before August 1, 1996, OSHA is clarifying in paragraph (f)(3)(viii)
that such machines may either comply with revised paragraph (f)(3)(vii)
or continue to meet the protective canopy requirements specified in the
1971 pulpwood logging standard.7
\7\ OSHA notes and is clarifying the compliance directive to
indicate that extended compliance time and exceptions to compliance
apply only where specifically indicated. With regard to all other
provisions, the extensions and exceptions do not apply for machinery
already in use. The employer must assure that any machine used for
logging operations is in compliance with the other provisions of
paragraph (f)(3). For example, all machines used in logging
operations, whether initially placed in service before or after the
effective date, must have two means of egress. To the extent that
any machine in service does not have a second means of egress, the
machine must be retrofitted (e.g., replacing the stationary
windowshield with a hinged window to allow egress) or removed from
service.
Paragraph (f)(7)(ii)--Machine Brakes
In the final rule, OSHA required that logging machines be equipped
with service brakes (primary brakes) (paragraph (f)(7)(i)), and a
secondary braking system, such as emergency brakes or parking brakes
(paragraph (f)(7)(ii)). The final rule specified that the secondary
braking system be sufficient to stop the machine, in the event that the
service brakes fail, and to maintain parking performance.
OSHA stayed paragraph (f)(7)(ii) insofar as it implied that parking
brakes were adequate secondary brakes for stopping a moving logging
machine if the service brakes failed. Primary brakes (service brakes),
secondary stopping brakes (backup brakes), and parking brakes are all
necessary devices for logging machines. OSHA is correcting paragraph
(f)(7)(ii) to clarify that logging machines placed into initial service
after September 8, 1995, must be equipped with three braking systems--
service brakes, secondary brakes and parking brakes.
Some older machines were manufactured with primary brakes, but
without secondary or backup brakes, and OSHA has learned that
retrofitting these machines may not be feasible. OSHA is permitting
these older machines to remain in use, provided that the employer
assures the service brakes are inspected and maintained at their
designed level of effectiveness. Therefore, OSHA is correcting
paragraph (f)(7)(ii) to specify that only machines placed into initial
service on or after September 8, 1995 must be equipped with secondary
and parking brakes.8
\8\ OSHA is noting in the revised compliance directive that
logging machines with braking systems meeting the Society of
Automotive Engineers standards for forestry (SAE J1178, June 1987,
``Braking Performance--Rubber Tired Skidders'') or earthmoving (SAE
J1026, April 1990, ``Brake Performance--Crawler Tractors and Crawler
Loaders'') equipment are deemed to be in compliance with the final
rule, provided that the employer assures that such braking systems
are maintained in a serviceable condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (g) (1) and (2)--Maintenance and Inspection of Employee-Owned
Vehicles
The revised logging rule required employers to assure that any
vehicle used off public roads to perform any logging operation,
including transporting employees, be maintained in a serviceable
condition and be inspected before it is used during a work shift. OSHA
agreed to reconsider the maintenance and inspection requirements as
they pertained to employee-owned vehicles and stayed the requirements
for six months.
OSHA explained in the preamble to the final rule that it was aware
that logging employees operate vehicles on private roads or on private
property where there may be no roads or only rugged trails. The WIR
survey shows that vehicle operators and employees riding in such
vehicles are being injured in vehicle accidents where employees are
being asked to drive vehicles over terrain that may be quite hazardous
(e.g., extremely muddy, steep, and unlevel). For example, according to
the WIR survey, there were 33 mobile equipment accidents resulting in
employee injury during the three-month survey period (Ex. 2-1). Of
these, 24 (72 percent) occurred during other than skidding or yarding
operations (Ex. 2-1). In addition, the WIR survey reported 34 injuries
on employer-built roads during the same period (Ex. 2-1).
Based on the record evidence, OSHA determined that it was important
that logging employees on and between logging sites only drive vehicles
that are in proper condition and of the appropriate type for the
terrain in question. Because many employers require or permit employees
to drive their own vehicles over this terrain to reach the logging work
site, OSHA applied the inspection and maintenance requirements to these
vehicles as well. However, OSHA is also aware, and others have pointed
out, that most States do have periodic vehicle inspection requirements.
These inspections are more detailed and comprehensive than the
inspection contemplated by the logging rule. As such, OSHA believes
that such inspections are adequate, at least with regard to employee-
owned vehicles, and that imposing additional vehicle inspection
requirements on logging employers is unnecessary. Therefore, OSHA is
revising the final rule to apply the vehicle inspection and maintenance
requirements only to vehicles which the employer owns, rents or leases.
OSHA has done this by revising the definition of ``vehicle'' covered by
the final rule. OSHA also notes that the employer has the duty to
provide safe access to the worksite.9
\9\ OSHA is deleting from revised paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2)
specific reference to application of vehicle maintenance and
inspection requirements to vehicles used to transport employees.
Since transportation of employees to, from and between logging sites
off public roads is included in the definition of logging
operations, OSHA believes it is not necessary to repeat the
reference in these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to inspections of vehicles, as well as other equipment
covered by the final rule such as personal protective equipment, tools,
and machines; OSHA never intended that the employer must conduct the
actual inspection of such equipment. The compliance directive clarifies
that employers may delegate to others, including employees using the
items, the performance of inspection and maintenance tasks; but
ultimately the employer remains responsible for safe equipment at the
workplace. There are different ways in which the employer can assure
that equipment is properly maintained and inspected. Employers can
inform employees of maintenance and inspection procedures during
training, reinforce the requirements during regular safety and health
meetings, and conduct spot checks of equipment.
Finally, OSHA notes in the compliance directive that equipment
inspection requirements in the final rule apply only if the equipment
is used during the work shift. If it is not to be used, it does not
need to be inspected.
Paragraph (h)(2)(vii)--Backcuts
The final rule requires that backcuts be placed above the
horizontal face cut
[[Page 47027]]
in all felling except tree pulling operations. OSHA was requested to
clarify whether the requirement in paragraph (h)(2)(vii) applies to
Humboldt cutting and open face felling. OSHA stayed for six months the
backcut requirement in paragraph (h)(2)(vii) as it applied to felling
trees using the Humboldt cutting method. OSHA also explained that it
would use the six months to further clarify the backcut requirement as
it applies to both cutting methods.
Open face felling. After OSHA published the final rule, the Agency
was requested to clarify whether the backcut requirement applied to
open face felling. In brief, the backcut requirement does not apply to
open face felling, and OSHA is clarifying the final rule and compliance
directive accordingly.
In open face felling, two facecuts are made diagonally into the
stem so there is no horizontal face cut. The backcut requirement
applies only where a horizontal face cut has been made. Where a
horizontal face cut is used, there is a greater potential that the
notch (or wedge) is not as open or that very little or no hinge wood
will be left if the backcut is made at the same level. This may result
in the tree kicking back or falling in the wrong direction.
In open face felling, the notch is much more open than in
conventional felling. As such, there is little or no danger that
placing the backcut at the level of the notch will result in the notch
closing (i.e., the falling tree hitting the stump) too soon and the
tree kicking back off the stump. This is because the openness of the
notch permits the tree to fall in the intended direction for a greater
interval before the notch closes and the hinge breaks. Either the tree
is on the ground or almost parallel to the ground, and thus committed
to falling in the intended direction, before the hinge breaks. In
addition, there is little danger that no hinge wood will be left to
help direct the falling of the tree.
Humboldt cutting. In the Humboldt cutting method a horizontal cut
is made into the face of the tree and a notch is cut below the
horizontal cut at an angle. By contrast, in conventional felling, the
notch is cut at a diagonal above the horizontal face cut.
In several regions the Humboldt cutting method has replaced the
conventional method. The Humboldt cutting method is heavily used in the
western States and is also used on high quality trees, such as veneer
logs and redwoods. Loggers have switched from the conventional to the
Humboldt method primarily for productivity reasons. In Humboldt
cutting, the notch is made into the stump rather than the log (Ex. 9-
15). Thus, if properly done, the cutting of the notch does not result
in the loss of useable wood. OSHA is aware that some fellers who use
the Humboldt cutting method prefer to make the backcut at the level of
the horizontal face cut, but the record indicates their preference is
due to these production rather than safety reasons (Ex. 9-15). Some
contractors and mills want log butts to be smooth. By placing the
backcut at the same level as the face cut, these loggers do not have to
make an additional cut after the tree is felled in order to smooth out
the log butt. In some cases, to make the additional cut might require
walking down a hill where the felled tree has rolled or the additional
cut might have to be made by the employee bucking the tree.
In logging operations where the Humboldt method is most heavily
used, fellers most often only cut a notch that is no greater than 45
degrees, making the openness of the notch similar to that of
conventional felling. Fellers do this in order to keep the stump as
short as possible and thereby reduce the lost of useable wood. At 45
degrees, the face notch alone does not fully address both the hazards
of misdirected falling and kickback.
Proper backcuts that provide sufficient hinge wood are critical.
Sufficient hinge wood helps to hold the tree to the stump during most
of its fall and thereby allows the hinge to steer the falling tree in
the right direction. If the hinge is inadequate or if pressure is
placed on the hinge, it will break too soon and the tree will be left
without a steering mechanism. Without the hinge wood, the tree may
twist and bend, and fall in the wrong direction. (OSHA is revising
paragraph (h)(2)(vi) to expressly state that this requirement is
intended to address the hazard of misdirected falling.)
Placing the backcut above the horizontal face cut is also necessary
to provide a platform to block the tree from kicking back once the
hinge does break. Where there is a potential that the face notch will
close before the tree hits the ground, which is the case with most
cutting using the conventional and Humboldt methods, this platform is
necessary to prevent kickback. Where the backcut is at the same level
as the horizontal cut, there is no platform to block the backward
movement of the tree should kickback start to occur. (OSHA is revising
paragraph (h)(2)(vii) to expressly state that this requirement is
intended to address the hazard of tree kickback.)
In both, misdirected falling and kickback, the feller or other team
member could be hit by the tree. The risks of such injury are further
increased if other conditions are present, such as wind, sloping
terrain, or tree lean.
To address these risks, most State logging safety rules require
that backcuts be above the face cut in all felling, including Humboldt
cutting. For example, in Oregon, a State-plan State, the backcut
requirement applies to any tree with an 8-inch or larger diameter base
height. Only the State of Montana, which has advisory criteria, permits
the backcut to be level with the face cut in Humboldt cutting.
After reviewing the record in this rulemaking, OSHA reaffirms that
the record supports the necessity of applying the backcut requirement
specified in paragraph (h)(2)(vii) to Humboldt cutting (Ex. 2-1, 4-61,
4-64, 26A; 59 FR 51675). The record clearly shows that manual felling
is the single most dangerous occupation in logging. The BLS Census of
Fatal Occupational Injuries indicates that more than one-half of all
logging employees killed in 1992 were felling trees at the time of
their accident (59 FR 51675). In addition, the WIR survey indicated
that almost one quarter of all employees reporting injuries were
felling trees at the time they were injured, and that the most
frequently reported cause of their injuries was being hit by a tree
(Ex. 2-1). The record also shows that tree kickback and misdirected
falling are two of the major reasons why employees are hit by falling
trees. For example, the record contains many reports of employee
injuries and deaths due to misdirected falling and tree kickback (Ex.
4-61, 4-64, 26A).10
\10\ It has been argued by some parties that placing the backcut
above the horizontal face cut is only necessary in selective cutting
operations, and not in clear cut operations. The reason they give is
that in clear cut felling trees are felled into the downhill side of
the slope and there is no danger the tree will kick back or fall
against gravity in the wrong direction. However, the injury data in
the rulemaking record do not support this position. According to the
WIR survey, 62 percent of all injuries reported occurred in clear
cut operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proper backcuts where adequate hinge wood and a platform are left
will reduce the potential for such injuries (Ex. 4-5, 21D, 22, 38I). In
fact, manual felling training materials entered into the record
instruct fellers, for safety reasons, to place the backcut above the
horizontal face cut (Ex. 4-5, 4-6, 4-10, 4-19, 4-169, 4-173, 5-1, 5-29,
8-18, 21, 29). Moreover, the record demonstrates that the primary
reason that fellers prefer to place backcuts at the same level as the
face cut is not because of safety, but rather because they do not want
to have to make an additional cut to trim the log butt. However, there
is no evidence in the record which
[[Page 47028]]
indicates that making an additional cut would have any significant
impact on productivity.
The purposes of this standard are best realized by requiring that
the backcut provide sufficient hinge wood to direct the fall of the
tree, and that the backcut be above the horizontal face cut so a
platform is formed. These safe manual felling practices will help to
ensure the tree falls in the intended direction and does not kick back
off the stump when the notch closes. OSHA is revising the final rule
and compliance directive to more clearly reflect OSHA's intent that
these work practices be followed.11
\11\ OSHA notes that one safe technique for making the backcut
is to start the backcut with a plunge cut/bore cut to establish the
hinge. The backcut should then be moved toward the back of the tree.
This backcut method provides for two holding points until the tree
is finally released. This backcutting method will prevent the tree
from releasing too soon or moving before the feller has moved to a
point of safety. The record shows that this backcutting method is a
safe technique for felling (Ex. 9-20), and OSHA suggests this
technique when conditions such as, but not limited to, tree lean,
slope, and large tree size indicate that felling the particular tree
may present additional hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA has not specified in the final rule how far above the face cut
the backcut must be placed. By contrast, the Washington and Michigan
logging standards require that the backcut be approximately 2 inches
above the face cut to provide adequate hinge wood. On the other hand,
the Oregon logging rule does not specify a minimum vertical distance.
OSHA believes that a backcut placed at least one inch above the face
cut should provide an adequate platform to prevent kickback and to
allow the hinge to help steer the falling of the tree in the intended
direction. OSHA believes that a one-inch platform would provide an
adequate margin of safety for the feller while still providing the
contractor with a fairly square-end log.12
\12\ OSHA's decision to require that backcuts in Humboldt
cutting be above the horizontal face is based in part on the fact
that most loggers currently using this method are making the notch
the same size as in conventional felling--45 degrees. A 45-degree
notch is generally not open enough to control for both misdirected
falling and kickback hazards. However, where a notch of 70 degrees
or greater is cut, the notch in Humboldt cutting acts as it does in
open face felling. As discussed above, in open face felling, because
of the 70- to 90-degree notch, it is unlikely that the tree will
fall in the wrong direction or kick back. OSHA stresses that this is
due to the openness of the notch rather than the type of cutting
method being employed. As such, OSHA is clarifying the compliance
directive to indicate that where the notch is at least 70 degrees,
it is not as critical that the backcut be above the horizontal face
cut or the notch of the face cut, regardless of whether the open
face or Humboldt method is being used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Corrections and Clarifications
Paragraph (c)--Definitions
Logging operations. The definition of ``logging operations'' in the
final rule includes ``marking'' operations. OSHA is revising this
definition to clarify the type of marking operations covered by the
logging standard. OSHA intended that marking include operations that
are done attendant to and at the same time as felling, cutting and
moving trees in a particular logging work site. Such marking operations
include marking danger trees, and sizing and marking felled trees to be
cut to length. These particular marking operations inform loggers
working in the area or on that tract whether and how to cut trees.
OSHA did not intend marking operations to include those operations
that are done independently of or in advance of cutting trees in a
particular logging site. These preparatory operations include marking
of tracts of land to determine the order in which tracts will be
logged, and marking and designating boundaries of tracts of land that
will be bid upon for harvesting. Harvesting of trees does not take
place on the tracts while these marking operations are being done.
These preparatory operations do not involve the hazards of logging
operations, and the record indicates that the high injury and fatality
rates in the logging industry are not associated with these activities
(e.g., Ex. 2-1). Therefore, OSHA is revising the compliance directive
to indicate that marking activities which take place in advance of and
separate from tree harvesting are not covered by the final logging
rule.
For the same reasons, OSHA is also revising the compliance
directive to specify that incidental marking of danger trees or
wildlife trees at the same time tracts of land are being marked also is
not covered by the final rule if no tree harvesting is undertaken in
the area at this time.
OSHA is also revising the definition of logging operation to more
accurately express its intention about what transportation activities
the Agency considers to be logging operations covered by the final
rule. The final rule had stated that logging operations include
transport of machines, equipment and personnel from one logging site to
another. The Agency had intended the definition to include
transportation of machines, equipment and personnel to and from as well
as between logging sites. As discussed above, with regard to
transportation of employees, the revised rule includes only their
transportation in vehicles owned, rented or leased by the employer.
OSHA has been requested to clarify what loading and unloading
operations are covered by the final rule. OSHA is revising the
compliance directive to indicate more clearly that loading of trees at
the logging work site and loading/unloading of trees at trans-shipment
points such as satellite wood yards are covered by the final rule. With
regard to unloading logs at pulp, paper and paperboard mills (hereafter
pulp mills) and sawmills, OSHA has other standards which address some
of the hazards associated with such unloading (See, Pulp, Paper and
Paperboard Mills, 29 CFR 1910.261, and Sawmills, 29 CFR 1910.265). To
the extent that hazards associated with unloading trees at these
worksites are addressed by these other standards, they apply instead of
the final logging rule. For example, both the pulp mill and sawmill
standards include provisions specifying how binders and stakes are to
be released from the load of logs. As such, the similar provision
contained in the logging final rule does not apply. However, to the
extent that the final logging rule addresses hazards not covered by the
pulp and saw mill standards, the logging rule applies if it is a
logging operation. For example, neither the pulp mill or sawmill
standards address the hazards faced by log truck operators who remain
in their cabs during unloading. Thus, paragraph (h)(6)(iii) applies to
loading and unloading of trees at pulp mills and sawmills as well as at
logging sites and satellite log yards.
Machine. In the final rule OSHA included a definition of the
machines covered by the logging rule. The definition included material
handling equipment that is operated off-road. OSHA was asked to clarify
whether the definition of logging machine includes aircraft, such as
helicopters. OSHA never intended that logging machines include
airplanes or helicopters and is clarifying its intention by expressly
excluding airplanes and helicopters from the definition of machines
covered by the final rule.
Paragraph (d)(1)(iii)--Gloves
The final rule specified that all loggers who handle wire rope must
wear cotton gloves or other hand protection that the employer
demonstrates provides equivalent protection. The proposed rule would
have required employees to wear heavy-duty puncture resistant gloves
such as leather. Many commenters said that such gloves would pose
additional hazards and urged OSHA to permit employees to wear
[[Page 47029]]
cotton gloves (Ex. 5-17, 5-29, 5-54, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. OR 104).
They said that during winching leather gloves would not tear away when
caught on a ``jagger'' (i.e., broken wires of a wire rope) and would
forcibly pull the logger's hand. This could result in a more severe
laceration of the hand, or could cause the employee to be dragged into
the machinery or to fall. Thus, they said the leather glove could turn
a minor injury into a more serious injury. Based on this, in the final
rule OSHA specified that cotton gloves must be worn.
OSHA is correcting the final rule to indicate that it was not the
Agency's intention, in specifying cotton gloves, that employees be
permitted to have their hands on wire rope when winching is started or
underway. OSHA emphasizes that employees are not permitted to be
handling the winching line when the yarding machine is in operation.
The final rule requires that they must be clear of the choked log
before the yarding machine operator begins to winch the choked trees.
Paragraph (h)(5)(i) of the final rule clearly requires that before any
log is moved that employees must be in the clear. In addition,
paragraph (h)(5)(v) requires that employees who assist with yarding
(i.e., choking logs) must signal the machine operator that they are in
the clear and the machine operator must not begin winching the load
until he has clearly understood the received signal that other
employees are in the clear (paragraph (h)(5)(v)). OSHA included these
requirements because employees have been injured where logs being
winched hit obstacles, causing them to swing suddenly and strike an
employee (Ex. 2-1, 4-63, 4-64).
OSHA is making clear in the revised provision what hazards hand
protection are intended to address--puncture wounds, cuts and
lacerations that could occur from handling wire rope, especially rope
with broken wires. Employers are free to use cotton gloves, provided
they adequately address the hazards of handling wire rope. Employers
are also free to use rubber gloves with cotton liners or leather gloves
that protect employees from the hazards associated with handling wire
rope as well as from extreme environmental conditions.
Paragraph (d)(1)(iv)--Leg Protection
Some parties requested OSHA to exempt from the leg protection
requirement the incidental use of chain saws. However, OSHA has not
made such an exemption because the record clearly does not support it.
As OSHA explained in the preamble of the final rule, the risk of
injury from chain saw is present whenever a chain saw is being used (59
FR 51702). The WIR survey showed that 20 percent of injuries reported
were chain-saw injuries (Ex. 2-1). Chain-saw kickback and sudden cut-
through, which are major causes of chain-saw injuries, are not
dependent on whether the chain saw is used frequently or regularly by
the operator. There is no evidence in the record that employees who
only occasionally operate chain saws are not subject to these risks.
OSHA believes that a feller, who operates a chain saw as a regular part
of the job, and a logging truck operator, who may operate a chain saw
occasionally or incidentally to operating a vehicle, both face a
significant risk of injury when using a chain saw. As such, OSHA
believes that leg and foot protection are needed whenever an employee
is operating a chain saw. The revised compliance directive notes that
the leg protection requirement applies to any employee who operates a
chain saw for any amount of time.
OSHA realizes that protective material may be damaged or destroyed
in the process of stopping a chain saw. Because of this, OSHA is
revising the compliance directive to indicate that when the outer
covers of the protective equipment have been penetrated it does not
necessarily mean that the equipment is no longer serviceable. However,
where there are also cuts or tears in the protective material of the
leg protection or logging boot, such equipment is no longer in
serviceable condition. OSHA agrees with manufacturer warning labels
that such cuts and tears in the protective material compromise the
ability of the PPE to provide the level of protection which is
necessary. OSHA is revising the compliance directive to specify that in
such situations footwear and leg protection cannot be repaired and must
be replaced with serviceable PPE.
Paragraph (d)(2)(i)--Location of First-Aid Kits
In the final rule, OSHA required that employers provide first-aid
kits at each landing, on each employee transport vehicle, and at each
worksite where felling is being conducted. After the final rule was
published, OSHA was requested to clarify whether first-aid kits must be
provided at both active and inactive landings. It was not OSHA's
intention to require employers to provide first-aid kits at landings
which are not currently in use. OSHA is correcting the final rule to
clarify that the provision of first-aid kits at landings refers to only
``active'' landings.
OSHA was also requested to clarify at what point a felling work
site is considered separate or remote from another work site, thus
triggering the requirement for an additional first-aid kit. In the
revised compliance directive, OSHA has indicated that where employees
are cutting trees more than one-half mile from an active landing or an
employee transport vehicle, a first-aid kit also must be provided at
that work site. In these situations, the first-aid kits which are at
the landing or on the vehicle are too distant to be considered
immediately accessible.
The compliance directive also indicates that where conditions are
not optimal, such as steep or mountainous terrain, very muddy terrain,
heavy brush, or snowy and icy conditions, first-aid kits cannot be as
far as one-half mile from a cutting area and still be considered
immediately accessible. Traveling under such conditions is likely to
take far longer than under optimal conditions, thus rendering the
first-aid kit too isolated to be of any prompt use. Where such
conditions exist or are reasonably anticipated, the employer will have
to evaluate their severity in determining whether cutting operations
need first-aid kits to be located closer to the worksite.
Finally, OSHA is also correcting the final rule to clarify which
felling work sites need first-aid kits. In the final rule, OSHA stated
that first-aid kits must be provided ``at each work site where felling
is being conducted.'' It was OSHA's intention that felling work sites
include any work site where trees are being cut; that includes limbing,
bucking, and trimming as well as felling. The rulemaking record clearly
shows there are a significant number of injuries wherever trees are
being cut. For example, the WIR survey indicated that 23 percent of
employees reporting injuries were felling trees and 27 percent were
limbing and bucking felled trees (Ex. 2-1). Injuries to these employees
are primarily due to chain saws or being hit by a falling or rolling
tree. Because of the significant risk of injury, employees performing
all of these logging operations need to have immediate access to a
first-aid kit.
A further review of the record indicates that in many situations
limbing and bucking are not done at the landing, but rather, at the
place where the tree is felled (e.g., Ex. 4-63, 4-64, 26A). In
addition, in-forest limbing and bucking is not always done near felling
operations. For example, felling operations may be far from limbing and
bucking crews. To the extent that a limbing or bucking work site is
more than one-half mile from the nearest first-
[[Page 47030]]
aid kit (i.e., felling area, active landing, or employee transport
vehicle), OSHA is clarifying that a first-aid kit must also be provided
for that limbing or bucking work site.
Paragraph (d)(5)--Environmental Conditions
The final rule requires that employees terminate work and move to a
safe location where environmental conditions may endanger them in that
work or at a given location. While OSHA cannot specify every
environmental condition that might necessitate employees moving to a
place of safety, OSHA did provide a list of certain types of conditions
that would create hazards for employees working in the area.
After publication of the final rule, OSHA was told that the
provision was too broad and did not provide adequate instruction for
compliance officers because it included conditions which did not pose a
real possibility of danger for logging employees. However, OSHA
believes that the final rule included clear examples of environmental
conditions which would be considered dangerous for an exposed employee.
Paragraph (d)(5) specifies that work stop and employees move to a place
of safety in electrical storms (as opposed to rainy weather), dense fog
(as opposed to pocket fog), heavy rain and snow (as opposed to wet
weather), extreme cold (as opposed to cold weather), and mudslides (as
opposed to muddy conditions). OSHA believes this list of extreme
environmental conditions does identify hazardous conditions and
provides adequate guidance for compliance officers.
It was also requested that OSHA revise these provisions to require
that employees be moved to a place of safety only if winds were ``gale
force.'' Gale force winds are defined as those which are at least 40
miles per hour. OSHA is aware, however, that even winds of less than
gale force can significantly affect the fall of a tree, particularly if
other adverse conditions are present (e.g., leaning tree, steep
terrain, large tree, lodged tree, tree under pressure). As such, OSHA
does not believe one specific wind speed is an appropriate indicator of
whether an environmental hazard is present. However, OSHA is revising
the final rule to more fully express the type of wind conditions it
believes create a hazard for an employee working in the area. The final
rule and compliance directive are being revised to indicate that all
work must terminate and each employee shall move to a place of safety
when strong winds which may adversely affect the fall of a tree are
present.
OSHA also included fires among hazardous environmental conditions.
Some parties have interpreted this example as requiring employees to
leave the area any time a fire starts rather than putting out the fire.
However, the final rule, viewed in its entirety, does not support that
interpretation. For example, paragraph (d)(4), directly preceding the
environmental conditions provision, requires employers to provide fire
extinguishers on each machine and vehicle. This requirement
contemplates that an employee may be called upon to put out a small
fire which has started. However, if a fire were to start in an area
where there is no fire extinguisher or other equipment or supplies
which would allow the employee to safely suppress it, the employer
would be responsible for assuring that the employee is moved out of the
area of danger. Likewise, where a fire, because of its size, intensity
or the conditions of the area, creates a hazard for an employee who
remains in the area, either to work or attempt to suppress the fire,
the employer must also assure that employee is moved from the area of
danger. OSHA notes that the standards on fire protection in subpart L
of Part 1910, and not the revised logging standard, govern the fighting
and suppression of fires at logging worksites.
Paragraph (d)(6)(iii)--Working Within Visual or Audible Contact
In the final rule, OSHA requires that each employee work within
visual or audible contact of another employee. OSHA was requested to
clarify whether this requirement applies only to employees working at a
logging site or also to employees working away from logging work sites
(e.g., logging vehicle operators transporting a load of logs off the
logging site on public roads).
OSHA intended that this provision of the final rule apply to each
employee working at a logging work site, including watchmen and other
employees performing logging operations at remote logging work sites.
OSHA did not intend the requirement to apply to vehicle operators who
are not at the logging site, but rather driving vehicles miles away.
However, this provision does apply to vehicle operators while they are
at a logging work site. OSHA is revising the final rule to clarify its
intention and to provide the exception for vehicle operators working
away from the logging work site.
Paragraph (d)(6)(iv)--End of Workshift Accounting of Employees
The final rule requires that the employer account for each employee
at the end of each workshift. OSHA was requested to provide additional
clarification of this requirement in the revised compliance directive.
First, the employer need not personally conduct the actual end of
shift accounting of each employee. The employer may delegate this task,
but the employer remains ultimately responsible under the standard for
assuring that employees are not inadvertently left in the woods,
especially an employee who may be injured.
Second, this provision does not require employers to prohibit
employees from remaining at the work site after the end of the work
shift to engage in personal activities, such as hunting, camping, or
cutting fire wood for personal use. Rather, OSHA's intent was to assure
that no employee, particularly an injured employee, be inadvertently
left in the woods without assistance. The rulemaking record includes
several reports of accidents in which employees were not discovered in
a timely fashion and died (Ex. 4-64, 26A). The revised compliance
directive also makes clear that after the workshift has ended and the
employer has ascertained that the employee is done with work, including
overtime work, and is safely accounted for, the final rule does not
prohibit the employer from allowing the employee to remain in the area
for personal reasons. OSHA is revising the compliance directive to
reflect this.
Paragraph (d)(9)(i)--Storage and Handling of Flammable and Combustible
Liquids
The final rule requires that flammable and combustible materials be
stored, handled and transported (hereafter stored) in accordance with
the requirements of subpart H of Part 1910. OSHA was requested to
provide an exception from subpart H to allow logging machine operators
to carry plastic cans of chain-saw fuel for refueling away from fueling
stations, when necessary. Some parties have interpreted paragraph
(d)(9) as prohibiting machine operators from storing and transporting
logging machine fuel in 5-gallon plastic containers which are approved
by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or meet U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) requirements. For the reasons discussed below,
OSHA does not believe that an exception to subpart H
[[Page 47031]]
is necessary to allow the practice that these parties seek to
authorize.
First, Subpart H permits Class IB liquids, which OSHA interprets as
including chain-saw fuels, to be carried in 5-gallon plastic safety
cans approved by UL or Factory Mutual (FM). Subpart H permits Class IB
fuels to be carried in ``safety cans'' that have a maximum allowable
size of 5 gallons (29 CFR 1910.106(d)). Safety cans are defined as
containers approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory
(NRTL) and otherwise meeting the requirements of the definition. This
requirement is broad enough to encompass plastic safety cans, provided
that such containers are approved by a NRTL as meeting all the
requirements of the definition. In response to concerns raised, OSHA
also notes that UL and FM are recognized by the Agency as NRTLs for
testing and listing equipment meeting the requirements of subpart H.
Second, subpart H also permits flammable and combustible liquids to
be stored in containers meeting the requirements of regulations issued
by the Hazardous Materials Regulations Board, Department of
Transportation (See, 49 CFR 171-178). These regulations permit
flammable liquids such as chain-saw fuel to be stored in plastic
jerricans holding up to 5 gallons which meet DOT specifications for
non-bulk packaging (See, 49 CFR 193.202(c) and 178.502).
Therefore, read in its entirety, the logging standard does not
prohibit plastic safety containers under the conditions described
above, and an exception is not necessary. OSHA is including this
discussion in the revised compliance directive.
Paragraph (d)(9)(iii)--Machine Fueling
The final rule requires that tools, machines and vehicles be shut
off during fueling. The purpose of this provision is to eliminate
potential sources of ignition when handling flammable and combustible
liquids in order to prevent a fire from erupting.
OSHA is revising the rule to permit diesel-powered machines and
vehicles to be fueled while at idle, provided that continued operation
is intended and that the employer follows safe fueling and operating
procedures. OSHA believes this exception is warranted because the
hazard which this provision seeks to address, sudden flash fires, is
typically not present during fueling of diesel-powered engines. This is
because diesel fuel has a higher flash point than that of gasoline, and
unlike gasoline its vapors do not evolve as suddenly. In fact, in many
cases diesel fuel must be heated before it will give off sufficient
vapors to ignite. As such, there is little potential for fire if a
diesel-powered engine is running during fueling.
At the same time, however, OSHA is requiring that other safe
fueling and operating procedures be followed during fueling of diesel-
powered machines and vehicles. OSHA is revising the compliance
directive to indicate that employers must train employees in safe
practices during fueling. These include vapor containment, spill
prevention, and other procedures the operator must follow when leaving
the machine cab to fuel the engine.
Paragraph (d)(9)(iv)--Starting Fires
The final rule required that flammable and combustible liquids not
be used to start fires. The purpose of this provision was to prevent
fires being started by employees from erupting and burning them and
others.
After publication of the rule, OSHA was requested to allow fires to
be started with chain-saw fuel, which is a flammable liquid, provided
that the fuel was not used in an unsafe manner or in a situation which
might create a hazard for any employee. OSHA agrees that the rulemaking
record does not identify the use of chain-saw fuel to start fires as a
major cause of accidents and injuries in the logging industry (e.g.,
Ex. 2-1). However, the record does indicate that using chain-saw fuel
can create a hazard in certain situations. For example, a Forest
Products Accident Prevention Association (FPAPA) Industry Alert
reported that employees suffered third-degree burns when a fire in a
warming hut was reignited with chain-saw fuel and caused an explosion
(Ex. 4-64). In that case, an employee had added wood and chain-saw fuel
to a woodstove which had been started earlier in the day. The coals
left over from the earlier fire vaporized the fuel and then ignited it.
The action that the employer could have taken to prevent the accident
included prohibiting the use of chain-saw fuel to start a fire in an
enclosure. In addition, according to FPAPA, the accident could have
been prevented if the employer had trained the workers about the
hazards of improper fuel handling.
OSHA is revising the final rule to allow flammable and combustible
liquids, such as chain-saw and diesel fuel, to be used to start a fire.
OSHA believes that this flexibility will allow piles of wood or slash
to be burned when permitted by forestry officials. However, the revised
provision does not permit flammable and combustible liquids to be used
whenever a fire is needed. The revised provision only permits such
liquids to be used where the employer assures that their use does not
create a hazard for an employee. OSHA agrees with FPAPA that employers
must train employees to know under what conditions it is safe to start
a fire with chain-saw fuel and those situations in which using fuel may
create a hazard for an employee. In the compliance directive OSHA is
indicating particular situations in which starting a fire with chain-
saw fuel would not be safe. For example, using chain-saw fuel to start
a fire in an enclosure is not safe. There is a greater chance that fuel
vapors may collect in the enclosed area and ignite or cause an
explosion. The record shows there are other ways to start fires where
chain-saw fuel may create a hazard. For example, light-weight fire
starters made of sawdust and wax are available.
Paragraph (e)(2)(iv)--Refueling Chain Saws
The final rule required that chain saws be fueled at least 20 feet
from any open flame or other source of ignition and started at least 10
feet from the fueling area. The purpose of these provisions is to
assure that chain-saw fuel was kept a minimum safe distance from any
potential source of ignition.
After publication of the final rule, some parties pointed out that
OSHA had established two different minimum safe distances between fuel
and ignition sources--20 feet between fueling areas and ignition
sources, and 10 feet between fueling areas and chain saw startup, which
is another potential source of ignition. They urged OSHA to establish a
uniform safe distance and recommended that OSHA adopt a 10-foot minimum
safe distance. While OSHA believes that an open fire is a much more
likely source of ignition than a chain saw being started, nonetheless
OSHA believes that a 10-foot distance is adequate in both situations.
This is because in the out-of-doors, where constant air movement
dissipates vapors, it would be unlikely there could be a concentration
of flammable vapors sufficient to cause an increased potential for fire
at a distance greater than 10 feet. Therefore OSHA is revising the
final rule and compliance directive to establish a 10-foot minimum safe
distance between fueling areas and potential sources of ignition.
Paragraph (e)(2)(vi)--Starting Chain Saws
The final rule requires that chain saws be started on the ground or
where otherwise firmly supported. OSHA was requested to clarify
expressly in the regulatory text whether ``drop starting''
[[Page 47032]]
a chain saw is prohibited under the final rule, and whether operators
are allowed to start the chain saw while standing in an upright stance.
In the preamble to the final rule, OSHA explained that the purpose
of this requirement was to assure that employees did not attempt to
drop start chain saws. As noted in that discussion, an employee could
lose his grip when drop starting a chain saw and the saw could fly
upward and cut the employee. Nonetheless, OSHA is amending the final
rule to emphasize the Agency's intention that drop starting of chain
saws is prohibited.
With regard to employee position during chain-saw start up, nothing
in the final rule prohibits an employee from standing in upright when
starting a chain saw, provided that the employee has firmly supported
or secured the chain saw. For example, a chain saw operator would be in
compliance with the final rule if he rested the chain saw firmly on a
log or other stationary item and started the chain saw while standing
upright. OSHA notes that such a starting position is a safe technique
because it provides protection both from chain saw kickback and from
overexertion of the back.
Paragraph (e)(2)(xii)--Carrying Chain Saws
The final rule requires that chain saws be carried in a manner that
will prevent operator contact with the cutting chain and muffler.
OSHA's intention is to assure that chain-saw operators are not cut by
the saw or burned by the hot muffler when carrying the chain saw
between felling points.
The record indicates there are certain devices currently available
and used in the logging industry to prevent cuts and burns (Ex. 5-21,
5-36, 5-63), including leather and felt shoulder pads. By citing these
examples, OSHA did not intend to imply that these particular devices
are required by the final rule. In fact, OSHA expressly stated in the
preamble that ``any other method of carrying the chain saw that
prevents these hazards would also meet this requirement'' (59 FR
51713). OSHA is including this clarification in the revised compliance
directive.
Paragraph (e)(2)(xiii)--Retreating With Chain Saws
The final rule required that after cutting a tree the feller must
shut off or idle the chain saw before beginning his retreat. OSHA's
intention was to help assure that employees are not cut by a running
chain saw when they are moving quickly to a safe distance from the
falling tree. As discussed in the preamble, a significant number of
chain-saw injuries result from falling on the saw or losing the grip on
a running saw (Ex. 2-1). As a result, any time a feller moves with a
chain saw, precautions must be taken to prevent contact with the moving
chain. These precautions include shutting off the saw, engaging the
chain brake, or idling the engine by releasing pressure on the throttle
and grasping the front handle.
It has been pointed out to OSHA that it takes a moment's delay for
a saw to idle down once the throttle is released. As was noted in the
rulemaking record ``[t]he cutter may lose precious seconds worrying
about compliance with the * * * standard, meanwhile a life could be in
danger'' (Ex. 5-50). It is not OSHA's intention that the feller be
required to remain next to the tree waiting for the chain saw to idle
down before retreating a safe distance from the falling tree. Rather,
OSHA's intention is that as soon as the feller releases the throttle,
placing the machine into idle, he should immediately move on the
retreat path a safe distance from the falling tree. Once the throttle
is released, it should only take a brief moment a properly maintained
chain saw to stop. OSHA is revising the final rule and compliance
directive to more accurately express OSHA's intention.
Paragraph (f)(3)(i)--Protective Structures for Logging Machines
The final rule requires that the following logging machines placed
into initial service after February 9, 1995, have FOPS and/or ROPS:
tractors, skidders, swing yarders, log stackers and mechanical felling
devices. OSHA intended that the term ``log stackers'' be viewed as a
general term covering any logging machine that stacks logs during
loading and unloading. However, the more common term used in the
industry to refer to machines that load and unload logs is ``log
loader.'' OSHA is therefore revising the final rule to clarify that
paragraph (f)(3)(i) covers log loaders.
Paragraph (h)(1)(ii)--Unfamiliar or Unusually Hazardous Conditions
This section requires that the immediate supervisor be consulted
for approval when unfamiliar or unusually hazardous conditions are
encountered before cutting is commenced. OSHA included this provision
in the final rule because the record indicates that many injuries occur
when inexperienced employees encounter unfamiliar situations, and even
when experienced loggers believe they can handle particularly hazardous
situations on their own (Ex. 2-1, 4-63, 4-64, 26A).
OSHA was requested to clarify the situations which are intended to
be covered by this provision. While OSHA cannot provide an exhaustive
list of the situations which may necessitate the employee consulting
with a supervisor, there are certain situations which are clearly
covered by this paragraph. These situations include worsening weather
conditions (e.g., weather changes which begin to impair the logger's
vision); deepening snow or mud which begins to affect a logger's
mobility; felling very large or very tall trees; cutting trees whose
lean, structure, or location make it difficult to fell in the desired
or safest direction; and using a driver tree to fell a danger tree.
These are situations in which loggers have been killed or severely
injured because the conditions caused unexpected results during felling
(Ex. 2-1, 4-63, 4-64, 26A). When these conditions arise, adding the
supervisor's knowledge, training, and experience to the decisionmaking
process should help minimize the hazards to which the logger may be
exposed.
In addition to such consultation, it is also important in training
for employers to train their new employees that when they encounter
situations with which they have not dealt before, they need to work
with the supervisor to safely handle the situation. This concept should
also be reinforced in regular safety and health meetings.
Paragraph (h)(1)(iii)--Felling Distances
The final rule requires that while manual felling is in progress,
yarding machines must not be operated within two tree lengths of the
trees being manually felled. OSHA's intention was to assure that
neither the yarding machine operator nor the manual feller is injured
because of the independent actions of the other. For example, the
feller may not be conscious of the fact that the yarding machine
operator has entered the area to remove the tree which the feller has
just cut. This work practice requirement helps to assure that yarding
machine operators are not hit by other trees the feller or felling team
has begun to cut.
After the final rule was published, OSHA was requested to clarify
whether this provision prohibits tree pulling by teams of employees.
Tree pulling was not intended to be prohibited under paragraph
(h)(1)(iii). Indeed, paragraph (h)(1)(iv) addresses tree harvesting by
employee teams, and sets forth procedures which must be followed where
a team is necessary to fell a tree. In any event, OSHA is correcting
the final rule to provide an explicit exception to paragraph
(h)(1)(iii) for tree pulling operations. OSHA is also
[[Page 47033]]
revising the compliance directive to indicate that the procedures
governing team felling also apply in tree pulling operations.
Paragraph (h)(1)(ix)--Domino Felling
The final rule prohibits domino felling. OSHA defined domino
felling in the final rule as ``[t]he partial cutting of multiple trees
which are left standing and then pushed over with a pusher tree.'' In
the preamble OSHA explained that domino felling was a method of
attempting to fell a line or row of trees by partially cutting the
trees and then pushing the end tree into the others, thereby creating a
domino falling effect. (59 FR 51699, 51724). There was considerable
evidence in the rulemaking record that such a method of felling a group
of trees is extremely dangerous because there is greater likelihood the
line of trees will not fall in the intended direction or may not fall
completely, thereby creating even greater hazards (Ex. 5-42, 5-46; Tr.
W2 231, OR 659). The hazards associated with domino felling are further
increased where a danger tree is among the line or row of trees to be
felled using this chain reaction method. Therefore, OSHA emphasized
that danger trees also could not be felled using domino felling.
After publication, OSHA was requested to further clarify whether
the felling of a single danger tree by felling another single tree into
it is prohibited under the final rule. The final rule does not prohibit
this practice in all cases, since the definition of domino felling in
the final rule does not include the felling of a single tree with
another tree. The domino felling that is prohibited in the final rule
is the felling of multiple trees with a pusher tree. OSHA is revising
the final rule to identify practices which are not considered to be
domino felling, and therefore, are not prohibited by the standard.
However, the practice of felling a danger tree by felling another
one into it, while it is not prohibited, is not automatically permitted
to be used whenever a danger tree is felled. Paragraph (h)(1)(vii) of
the final rule also requires that where a danger tree is felled or
removed, the feller must use a technique that minimizes employee
exposure to the hazard. In some cases, felling a danger tree by felling
another tree into it will not minimize employee exposure to the
hazards, and may even increase the risk the feller faces in removing
the danger tree. As OSHA pointed out in the preamble, commenters told
OSHA that felling a danger tree by felling another one into it is a
safe technique when used by an experienced feller, but only ``in
certain situations'' (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92). Other commenters told
OSHA that this technique is generally not considered safe practice (Ex.
5-42, 5-46). In clarifying that this technique is not prohibited under
the final rule, OSHA is permitting that a danger tree be felled in this
manner only where a careful examination of mechanical techniques is
first made and where it is also determined that the hazards felling the
danger tree in this manner can be sufficiently minimized. The revised
compliance directive notes that felling a danger tree by this method
does not always minimize employee exposure to the hazard under
paragraph (h)(1)(vii), and emphasizes that a safer method to remove a
danger tree is to pull the tree down with a skidder or mechanical
feller (Ex. 5-43).
Paragraph (h)(2)(i)--Retreat Paths
The final rule requires that a feller must plan and clear a retreat
path before he begins cutting a tree. This provision assures that the
feller has an accessible path for moving away from the falling tree,
especially if the tree falls in an unintended direction. The rulemaking
record indicates that a significant number of injuries have resulted
from not having a clear retreat path. For example, the WIR survey
indicates that almost 15 percent of logging injuries reported resulted
from loggers misjudging the time and distance required to move to a
safe place (Ex. 2-1).
It has been pointed out to OSHA that while this provision requires
employees to plan and clear a retreat path, it does not expressly state
that the feller must take that retreat path a safe distance from the
falling tree once the tree is cut. While OSHA is confident that the
vast majority of employers and fellers understand the purpose of the
retreat path, OSHA is correcting the final rule to make the retreat
requirement explicit.
Paragraph (h)(3)(i)--Limbing and Bucking
The final rule requires that whenever rolling or sliding of the
tree is reasonably foreseeable, limbing and bucking must be done on the
uphill side of the tree. While it is possible to limb and buck from the
uphill side in almost all situations, the Agency provided an exception
for those cases where the employer demonstrated that it was not
feasible to limb or buck from the uphill side. In those limited cases,
the provision required that the tree be secured with chocks to prevent
rolling, sliding or swinging.
After publication of the final rule, OSHA was told by various
parties that they knew of no cases where manual bucking and limbing
from the uphill side would be infeasible. They also said that the
procedure of setting chocks itself would put the employee in a
dangerous position. Therefore, they told OSHA that the exception
allowing work on the downhill side should be deleted from the final
rule.
A review of the rulemaking record supports these comments. There
were no comments or hearing testimony identifying any situations in
which it would be infeasible to buck or limb a tree from the uphill
side. Moreover, the Agency is aware that machines can move trees to a
stable position so there is no potential for rolling of the tree during
limbing and bucking. Therefore, OSHA agrees that the exception to allow
limbing and bucking from the downhill side is unnecessary, and is
correcting the final rule to remove it.
Paragraph (h)(5)(v)--Yarding
The final rule requires that yarding lines not be moved unless the
yarder operator has clearly received and understood the signal. This
provision also specifies that when in doubt, the machine operator must
repeat the signal and wait for a confirming signal before moving the
line. OSHA intended the term ``yarder operator'' to be a generic
reference to any employee operating a machine used for yarding,
including a yarder or skidder. However, since a yarder is also a
specific kind of yarding machine, the provision could be read as
applying only to the operator of that particular type of machine.
Because of the potential for misinterpretation, OSHA is correcting the
final rule to more clearly express the Agency's intention that the
provision apply to all machines used for yarding felled trees.
Paragraph (h)(5)(viii)--Hazardous Obstructions in Yarding
The final rule requires that yarding machines or vehicles and their
loads must be operated with safe clearance from all obstructions. This
provision was included in the proposed rule and there were no comments
opposing it. However, after publication of the final rule, OSHA
received requests for clarification of the language and scope of this
provision.
OSHA is revising the final rule and compliance directive to more
clearly define the hazards being addressed by this provision. OSHA
intended that yarding machines and their loads be operated in a manner
that prevents contact with hazardous obstructions. The types of
obstructions which the record shows to be hazardous include, but are
not limited to, boulders, danger
[[Page 47034]]
trees, stumps, log piles, power lines, and cable rigging (Ex. 2-1, 4-
61, 4-64, 26A). OSHA is also revising the compliance directive to
include examples of hazardous obstacles that have resulted in employee
death and injury.
Paragraph (h)(6)(ii)--Loading
The final rule requires that only the machine operator and other
essential personnel be allowed in the work area during loading and
unloading. The work area covered by this provision is the immediate
loading work area as opposed to the entire logging site (e.g.,
landing). OSHA is correcting the final rule and compliance directive to
express more clearly the Agency's intention.
Paragraph (i)(7)(i)--First-Aid Training
The final logging rule requires the employer to assure that each
employee receives or has received first-aid training, including CPR,
which meets the minimum requirements set forth in mandatory Appendix B.
OSHA was requested by some parties to clarify whether the provision
requires employers to provide new employees with first-aid training
before they are allowed to begin work, and if so, to permit employers
to have a 90-day training phase-in period for new employees.
The final rule does not require employers to provide the first-aid
training to their employees. Employers are only required to assure that
every employee performing logging operations has a first-aid training
certificate which is current. Employers are free to require, as a
condition of employment, that new employees have or obtain a first-aid
training certificate. As the rulemaking record indicates, there are
many organizations, schools, extension services, and others throughout
the country which provide first-aid training on a continuous basis.
At the same time, OSHA is aware that some employers do provide
first-aid certificate training for new employees who do not have a
current first-aid training certificate. Where employers elect to
provide such training, the general training requirements of paragraph
(i) require that it be provided prior to the employee's initial
assignment. It is vital that new and untrained employees not be allowed
to begin work until they have been trained.
Remote and isolated locations are typical of logging operations. If
employees working in these locations do not have the necessary first-
aid training, they would not be able to help themselves or others if an
accident were to occur. For example, one fatality report submitted by
APA involved a feller being sent to work alone in an isolated area (Ex.
26A). The feller suffered a cut to the upper leg and did not perform
any first-aid on himself. Instead, he attempted to walk out of the
woods but bled to death before he was found. Teaming an untrained
employee with a trained logger would not solve the problem. In case of
emergency, the untrained employee would not be able to provide first-
aid assistance if it were his trained partner that was injured. Many
crews work in pairs in remote areas and each crew member needs to be
trained to help his partner.
Therefore, OSHA is not allowing a phase-in period for first-aid
training. The employer is responsible for assuring that untrained
employees have had first-aid training prior to initial assignment or,
in the case of current employees, by the effective date of the final
rule. OSHA believes that the logging rule can best reduce the number
and severity of logging injuries if employees have a current first-aid
training certificate before they begin logging operations.
Paragraph (i)(7) (ii) and (iii)--Frequency of First-Aid Training
The final rule requires employers to assure that each logging
employee receives first-aid training at least every three years and CPR
training at least annually. The final rule also requires the employer
to assure that each employee's first-aid and CPR training certificate
remain current. It has been suggested to OSHA that CPR training is only
necessary every three years. For the following reasons, OSHA believes
that the record does not support such a change.
As OSHA explained in the preamble to the final rule, the American
Red Cross first-aid training program, which is the most widely used
program in the country, requires first-aid training every three years
and annual CPR training in order to maintain a current certificate (Ex.
5-42). The American Heart Association follows the same requirements for
maintaining current certification. The American Medical Association
also recommends following the training procedures established by the
American Red Cross and the American Heart Association. In addition,
States have established minimum requirements for first-aid training
certification.
While OSHA is aware that some States only require CPR training
every two years to maintain a current certificate (e.g., Idaho), there
are no States which permit CPR certificates to remain current for three
years. OSHA is correcting the final rule to conform its retraining
requirements to the requirements established by State regulations and
organizations that provide first-aid and CPR certificate training
programs. Therefore, as long as the employer assures that each employee
has a current first-aid and CPR training certificate which meet State
requirements or the requirements of certifying organizations, the
employer is in compliance with the final rule. To reflect this
clarification, OSHA is deleting paragraph (i)(7)(ii) and redesignating
paragraph (i)(7)(iii) as paragraph (i)(7)(ii).
Appendix A to Section 1910.266--First-Aid Kits (Mandatory)
The final rule specifies the minimum contents of first-aid kits
that employers must provide. The minimum content list was developed in
conjunction with OSHA's offices of occupational medicine and
occupational health nursing.
After publication of the final rule, OSHA was requested by some
parties to drop tourniquets from the required list of items in first-
aid kits. They told OSHA that current first-aid training courses teach
people to use direct pressure to stop bleeding and to avoid the use of
tourniquets in all but the most severe cases or when no other method
will work. They were concerned that if tourniquets were included in
logging first-aid kits, their use would be encouraged rather than
discouraged. While OSHA is confident that employees trained and
certified in proper first-aid techniques will use tourniquets properly,
OSHA is also aware that other items commonly present at logging sites
could be used as tourniquets (e.g., belts, ropes) if the need arose.
Therefore, OSHA is correcting the final rule to delete tourniquets from
the mandatory appendix specifying required first-aid contents.
OSHA is also deleting recordkeeping forms from the list of
mandatory first-aid kit contents. The recordkeeping forms referred to
here were not OSHA 200 accident logs; rather, they were forms that
would provide information for the health care provider about the
employee's injury and condition if medical attention is necessary and
the employee is unable to communicate. Nonetheless, OSHA is removing
this requirement to avoid confusion with recordkeeping that is required
in accidents and injuries in general. At the same time, OSHA emphasizes
that employers should establish a method for communicating to health
care providers information concerning injured employees.
[[Page 47035]]
OSHA is also deleting the requirement that first-aid kits contain
diphenhydramine hydrochloride elixir or capsules (i.e., Benadryl). Even
though this over-the-counter medicinal product is frequently used in
the logging industry to reduce the effects of insect bites and bee
stings, prescribing its use is beyond the scope of first-aid training
in this standard.
The requirement that each first-aid kit contain blankets is being
revised to indicate that each kit must, at a minimum, contain at least
one blanket. OSHA intended the term blankets to be used generically and
not to set forth a required number of blankets which must be present.
Finally, OSHA is correcting the splint requirement in Appendix A.
In the final rule OSHA had specified that first-aid kits be equipped
with wire splints. However, the rulemaking record indicates that other
types of splints would be as effective as wire splints and OSHA did not
intend to preclude their use. These include, for example, inflatable or
air splints. This correction will provide more flexibility for
employers in providing first-aid kits that incorporate the latest
medical technology and innovations.
Need for Correction
As discussed above, the final rule on Logging Operations published
on Oct. 12, 1994 (59 FR 51672) contains errors which may prove to be
misleading and are in need of clarification.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553, OSHA finds that there is good cause for making
these amendments and corrections to the final logging standard
effective upon publication in the Federal Register. These amendments
represent minor changes and clarifications to the final rule and they
do not increase regulatory burdens over those imposed by the final
logging standard.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910
Chain saw, Forestry, Harvesting, Incorporation by reference,
Logging, Occupational safety and health, Pulpwood timber, Safety,
Training.
Accordingly, 29 CFR Part 1910 is revised by making the following
corrections and technical amendments:
PART 1910--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for subpart R of part 1910 continues to
read:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or 1-90 (55 FR
9033), as applicable.
Sections 1910.261, 1910.262, 1910.265, 1910.266, 1910.267,
1910.268, 1910.269, 1910.272, 1910.274 and 1910.275 also issued
under 29 CFR Part 1911.
2. In paragraph (c) of 1910.266, the definitions of ``logging
operations,'' ``machine,'' and ``vehicle'' are revised to read:
Sec. 1910.266 Logging Operations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Logging operations. Operations associated with felling and moving
trees and logs from the stump to the point of delivery, such as, but
not limited to, marking danger trees and trees/logs to be cut to
length, felling, limbing, bucking, debarking, chipping, yarding,
loading, unloading, storing, and transporting machines, equipment and
personnel to, from and between logging sites.
* * * * *
Machine. A piece of stationary or mobile equipment having a self-
contained powerplant, that is operated off-road and used for the
movement of material. Machines include, but are not limited to,
tractors, skidders, front-end loaders, scrapers, graders, bulldozers,
swing yarders, log stackers, log loaders, and mechanical felling
devices, such as tree shears and feller-bunchers. Machines do not
include airplanes or aircraft (e.g., helicopters).
* * * * *
Vehicle. A car, bus, truck, trailer or semi-trailer owned, leased
or rented by the employer that is used for transportation of employees
or movement of material.
* * * * *
Sec. 1910.266 [Amended]
3. Section 1910.266 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(iii);
the first sentence of paragraph (d)(1)(iv); the first sentence of
paragraph (d)(1)(v); paragraph (d)(1)(vii); the first sentence of
paragraph (d)(2)(i); and paragraphs (d)(2)(iii), (d)(5), (d)(6)(iii),
(d)(9)(iii), and (d)(9)(iv) to read:
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and
assure that each employee handling wire rope wears, hand protection
which provides adequate protection from puncture wounds, cuts and
lacerations.
(iv) The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and
assure that each employee who operates a chain saw wears leg protection
constructed with cut-resistant material, such as ballistic nylon. * * *
(v) The employer shall assure that each employee wears foot
protection, such as heavy-duty logging boots that are waterproof or
water repellant, cover and provide support to the ankle. The employer
shall assure that each employee who operates a chain saw wears foot
protection that is constructed with cut-resistant material which will
protect the employee against contact with a running chain saw. * * *
* * * * *
(vii) The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and
assure that each employee wears the following:
(A) Eye protection meeting the requirements of subpart I of Part
1910 where there is potential for eye injury due to falling or flying
objects; and
(B) Face protection meeting the requirements of subpart I of Part
1910 where there is potential for facial injury such as, but not
limited to, operating a chipper. Logger-type mesh screens may be worn
by employees performing chain-saw operations and yarding.
Note to paragraph (d)(1)(vii): The employee does not have to
wear a separate eye protection device where face protection covering
both the eyes and face is worn.
(2) * * *
(i) The employer shall provide first-aid kits at each work site
where trees are being cut (e.g., felling, bucking, limbing), at each
active landing, and on each employee transport vehicle. * * *
* * * * *
(iii) The employer also may have the number and content of first-
aid kits reviewed and approved annually by a health care provider.
* * * * *
(5) Environmental conditions. All work shall terminate and each
employee shall move to a place of safety when environmental conditions,
such as but not limited to, electrical storms, strong winds which may
affect the fall of a tree, heavy rain or snow, extreme cold, dense fog,
fires, mudslides, and darkness, create a hazard for the employee in the
performance of the job.
(6) * * *
(iii) Each employee performing a logging operation at a logging
work site shall work in a position or location that is within visual or
audible contact with another employee.
* * * * *
(9) * * *
(iii) Each machine, vehicle, and portable powered tool shall be
shut off during fueling. Diesel-powered machines and vehicles may be
fueled while they are at idle, provided that continued operation is
intended and that the employer follows safe fueling and operating
procedures.
(iv) Flammable and combustible liquids, including chain-saw and
diesel
[[Page 47036]]
fuel, may be used to start a fire, provided the employer assures that
in the particular situation its use does not create a hazard for an
employee.
* * * * *
4. Section 1910.266 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(2)(iv),
(e)(2)(vi) and (e)(2)(xiii) to read:
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) The chain saw shall be fueled at least 10 feet (3 m) from any
open flame or other source of ignition.
* * * * *
(vi) The chain saw shall be started on the ground or where
otherwise firmly supported. Drop starting a chain saw is prohibited.
* * * * *
(xiii) The chain saw shall be shut off or the throttle released
before the feller starts his retreat.
* * * * *
5. Section 1910.266 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(2)(iv),
(f)(2)(x) and (f)(2)(xi); the first sentence of (f)(3)(i); by removing
the first sentence of (f)(3)(ii); redesignating the remaining text as
paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(C) and adding paragraphs (f)(3)(ii) (A) and (B);
and by revising paragraphs (f)(3)(vii), (f)(3)(viii) and (f)(7) (i) and
(ii) to read:
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) To maintain stability, the machine must be operated within the
limitations imposed by the manufacturer as described in the operating
and maintenance instructions for that machine.
* * * * *
(x) Before the operator leaves the operator's station of a machine,
it shall be secured as follows:
(A) The parking brake or brake locks shall be applied;
(B) The transmission shall be placed in the manufacturer's
specified park position; and
(C) Each moving element such as, but not limited to blades,
buckets, saws and shears, shall be lowered to the ground or otherwise
secured.
(xi) If a hydraulic or pneumatic storage device can move the moving
elements such as, but not limited to, blades, buckets, saws and shears,
after the machine is shut down, the pressure or stored energy from the
element shall be discharged as specified by the manufacturer.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Each tractor, skidder, swing yarder, log stacker, log loader
and mechanical felling device, such as tree shears or feller-buncher,
placed into initial service after February 9, 1995, shall be equipped
with falling object protective structure (FOPS) and/or rollover
protective structure (ROPS). * * *
(ii) (A) ROPS shall be tested, installed, and maintained in
serviceable condition.
(B) Each machine manufactured after August 1, 1996, shall have
ROPS tested, installed, and maintained in accordance with the Society
of Automotive Engineers SAE J1040, April 1988, ``Performance Criteria
for Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS) for Construction,
Earthmoving, Forestry, and Mining Machines.'' * * *
* * * * *
(vii) Each machine manufactured after August 1, 1996, shall have a
cab that is fully enclosed with mesh material with openings no greater
than 2 inches (5.08 cm) at its least dimension. The cab may be enclosed
with other material(s) where the employer demonstrates such material(s)
provides equivalent protection and visibility. Exception: Equivalent
visibility is not required for the lower portion of the cab where there
are control panels or similar obstructions in the cab, or where
visibility is not necessary for safe operation of the machine.
(viii) Each machine manufactured on or before August 1, 1996 shall
have a cab which meets the requirements specified in paragraph
(f)(3)(vii) or a protective canopy for the operator which meets the
following requirements:
(A) The protective canopy shall be constructed to protect the
operator from injury due to falling trees, limbs, saplings or branches
which might enter the compartment side areas and from snapping winch
lines or other objects;
(B) The lower portion of the cab shall be fully enclosed with solid
material, except at entrances, to prevent the operator from being
injured from obstacles entering the cab;
(C) The upper rear portion of the cab shall be fully enclosed with
open mesh material with openings of such size as to reject the entrance
of an object larger than 2 inches in diameter. It shall provide maximum
rearward visibility; and
(D) Open mesh shall be extended forward as far as possible from the
rear corners of the cab sides so as to give the maximum protection
against obstacles, branches, etc., entering the cab area.
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(i) Service brakes shall be sufficient to stop and hold each
machine and its rated load capacity on the slopes over which it is
being operated.
(ii) Each machine placed into initial service on or after September
8, 1995 shall also be equipped with: back-up or secondary brakes that
are capable of stopping the machine regardless of the direction of
travel or whether the engine is running; and parking brakes that are
capable of continuously holding a stopped machine stationary.
6. Section 1910.266 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) to read:
(g) * * *
(1) The employer shall assure that each vehicle used to perform any
logging operation is maintained in serviceable condition.
(2) The employer shall assure that each vehicle used to perform any
logging operation is inspected before initial use during each
workshift. Defects or damage shall be repaired or the unserviceable
vehicle shall be replaced before work is commenced.
* * * * *
7. Section 1910.266 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(1)(iii),
(h)(1)(ix), (h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(vi), and (h)(2)(vii); the heading of
paragraph (h)(3); and paragraphs (h)(3)(i), (h)(5)(v), (h)(5)(viii),
and (h)(6)(ii) to read:
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) While manual felling is in progress, no yarding machine shall
be operated within two tree lengths of trees being manually felled.
Exception: This provision does not apply to yarding machines performing
tree pulling operations.
* * * * *
(ix) Domino felling of trees is prohibited.
Note to paragraph (h)(1)(ix): The definition of domino felling
does not include the felling of a single danger tree by felling
another single tree into it.
(2) * * *
(i) Before felling is started, the feller shall plan and clear a
retreat path. The retreat path shall extend diagonally away from the
expected felling line unless the employer demonstrates that such a
retreat path poses a greater hazard than an alternate path. Once the
backcut has been made the feller shall immediately move a safe distance
away from the tree on the retreat path.
* * * * *
(vi) A backcut shall be made in each tree being felled. The backcut
shall leave sufficient hinge wood to hold the tree to the stump during
most of its fall so that the hinge is able to guide the tree's fall in
the intended direction.
(vii) The backcut shall be above the level of the horizontal
facecut in order to provide an adequate platform to
[[Page 47037]]
prevent kickback. Exception: The backcut may be at or below the
horizontal facecut in tree pulling operations.
Note to paragraph (h)(2)(vii): This requirement does not apply
to open face felling where two angled facecuts rather than a
horizontal facecut are used.
(3) Limbing and bucking. (i) Limbing and bucking on any slope where
rolling or sliding of trees or logs is reasonably foreseeable shall be
done on the uphill side of each tree or log.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(v) No yarding line shall be moved unless the yarding machine
operator has clearly received and understood the signal to do so. When
in doubt, the yarding machine operator shall repeat the signal and wait
for a confirming signal before moving any line.
* * * * *
(viii) The yarding machine or vehicle, including its load, shall be
operated with safe clearance from all obstructions that may create a
hazard for an employee.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) Only the loading or unloading machine operator and other
personnel the employer demonstrates are essential shall be in the
loading or unloading work area during this operation.
* * * * *
8. Section 1910.266 is amended by removing paragraph (i)(7)(ii) and
redesignating paragraph (i)(7)(iii) as paragraph (i)(7)(ii).
9. Section 1910.266 is amended by revising Appendix A to read:
Appendix A to 1910.266--First-Aid Kits (Mandatory)
The following list sets forth the minimally acceptable number
and type of first-aid supplies for first-aid kits required under
paragraph (d)(2) of the logging standard. The contents of the first-
aid kit listed should be adequate for small work sites, consisting
of approximately two to three employees. When larger operations or
multiple operations are being conducted at the same location,
additional first-aid kits should be provided at the work site or
additional quantities of supplies should be included in the first-
aid kits:
1. Gauze pads (at least 4 x 4 inches).
2. Two large gauze pads (at least 8 x 10 inches).
3. Box adhesive bandages (band-aids).
4. One package gauze roller bandage at least 2 inches wide.
5. Two triangular bandages.
6. Wound cleaning agent such as sealed moistened towelettes.
7. Scissors.
8. At least one blanket.
9. Tweezers.
10. Adhesive tape.
11. Latex gloves.
12. Resuscitation equipment such as resuscitation bag, airway,
or pocket mask.
13. Two elastic wraps.
14. Splint.
15. Directions for requesting emergency assistance.
This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of September, 1995.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 95-22386 Filed 9-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
