[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24898]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 12, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1928
Logging Operations; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1928
[Docket No. S-048]
Logging Operations
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
issuing a final standard specifying safety requirements covering all
logging operations, regardless of the end use of the forest products
(saw logs, veneer bolts, pulpwood, chips, etc.). This standard replaces
the existing standard at 29 CFR 1910.266, that had applied only to
pulpwood logging, and thereby expands coverage to provide protection
for all employees engaged in logging operations. The final standard
addresses the unique hazards found in logging operations, and
supplements other general industry standards in 29 CFR part 1910. The
final standard strengthens and further clarifies some provisions of the
existing standard, and eliminates unnecessary provisions. The revised
standard also requires training for all employees in this high risk
industry. OSHA believes this standard will significantly decrease the
number of employees killed or injured in this industry.
DATES: This final standard is effective on February 9, 1995. Employers
must be in compliance with all requirements of the final standard by
the effective date. The incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the standard is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of February 9, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Send petitions for review of the standard to the Associate
Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor,
Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210.
For additional copies of this standard contact U.S. Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of
Publications, Room N-3101, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210, (202) 219-9667.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Regulatory history
III. Basis for agency action
A. Hazards
B. Accident, injury and other data
C. Need for agency action
IV. Major Issues
V. Summary and Explanation of the Final Standard
VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and
Environmental Impact Assessment
VII. References
VIII. Statutory Considerations
IX. Recordkeeping
X. Federalism
XI. State Plan Standards
XII. Index Terms
XIII. Authority and Signature
XIV. Final Standard
References to the rulemaking record are provided in the text of the
preamble. References are identified as ``Ex.'' followed by a number to
designate the reference in the rulemaking docket. For example, ``Ex.
1'' means exhibit one in the Docket S-048. Exhibit 1 is a copy of the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Logging Operations that was published
in the Federal Register on May 2, 1989 (54 FR 18798).
References to the transcripts of the public hearings are given as
``Tr.'' followed by the location and page. The July 24, 1990,
Washington, D.C., hearing transcript is identified as ``W1.'' The July
25, 1990, Washington, D.C., hearing transcript is identified as ``W2.''
The Oregon hearing transcript is designated as ``OR.''
A list of exhibits, copies of the exhibits and copies of the
transcripts are available in the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210, (202)-219-7894.
I. Introduction
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is issuing
a final standard detailing safety requirements for logging operations,
regardless of the end use of the forest products (saw logs, veneer
bolts, pulpwood, chips, etc.). Logging consists of felling trees
(usually by chain saws), removing the limbs and branches (limbing), and
cutting or splitting the trees into manageable logs (bucking). Trees
and logs are then moved (yarding) to central locations (landings) by
one of several methods (e.g., skidding or forwarding). In relatively
flat terrain, logs are hooked to a tractor and dragged to the landing.
When terrain is very steep or rough, logs may be transported by steel
cables attached to a winching apparatus (cable yarder) via a system of
cables, blocks, pulleys, and carriages (cable yarding). Then logs are
partially suspended and dragged over the ground (high-lead yarding) or
hoisted into the air and conveyed on overhead cables (sky-line yarding)
to the landing. At the landing, logs are mechanically loaded onto
trucks, railroad cars or barges for transport to sawmills. In some
cases logs are formed into log rafts for transport by water to
sawmills. Logging operations require employees to work in all types of
weather, on all types of terrain and in isolated, remote locations.
(Logging operations and regional characteristics are discussed in
greater detail in the profile of the logging industry in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis.)
II. Regulatory History
OSHA's existing pulpwood standard was adopted pursuant to Section
6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act)
(29 U.S.C. 655(a)). Section 6(a) permitted OSHA, within two years of
the enactment of the OSH Act, to promulgate as OSHA standards any
existing national consensus standard or established Federal standard.
At that time, the only national consensus standard covering logging
operations was the American National Standards Institute standard that
was limited to pulpwood logging (ANSI O3.1-1971, Pulpwood Logging
Safety Standard) (Ex 2-13). OSHA's pulpwood standard has remained
virtually unchanged since it was first adopted.
After OSHA adopted the ANSI pulpwood logging standard, trade
associations with interests in the logging of other forest products,
such as sawlogs and veneer bolts, joined with ANSI to revise the
pulpwood logging standard to include all logging operations within the
United States. The expanded ANSI standard was approved May 19, 1977
(ANSI 03.1-1978, Safety Requirements for Logging) (hereafter ``1978
ANSI logging standard'') (Ex. 2-14). That standard adopted most of the
safety practices contained in the earlier standard, applying them to
all logging operations throughout the nation.
The 1978 ANSI logging standard, however, was withdrawn by ANSI in
1984 because no final action was taken to revise or reaffirm it. Since
ANSI procedures require that action be taken to reaffirm, revise, or
withdraw a standard no later than five years after the date of its
publication, the 1978 ANSI logging standard was withdrawn by default.
Currently there is no national consensus standard covering logging
operations.
In July 1976, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH), published a criteria document, Recommendations For An
Occupational Standard For Logging From Felling To First Haul that was
applicable to all logging operations (Ex. 4-3). The NIOSH document
addressed the hazards and safe work practices involved in felling,
bucking, limbing, yarding and loading operations.
The NIOSH criteria document differed from OSHA's pulpwood logging
standard in several ways:
(a) The criteria document included all logging operations such as
those relating to sawlogs, veneer bolts, poles and pilings rather than
being limited only to pulpwood operations;
(b) It included training requirements for employees;
(c) It did not include provisions dealing with equipment protective
devices, personnel transport, off-highway truck transport, chipping
operations, or the construction and maintenance of roads, trails, and
bridges; and
(d) It recommended pre-placement and periodic medical examinations.
This final standard for logging operations, as did OSHA's proposed
rule, adopts many of the recommendations of the NIOSH criteria
document, including expansion of coverage to all logging operations,
emphasis on safe work practices and training, and elimination of
provisions not unique to logging operations, such as that involving
construction of roads and bridges.
Six states have promulgated standards covering logging operations
under the OSH Act State plan procedure set forth in section 18 of the
OSH Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 667) and in OSHA regulations (29 CFR Part
1902), which requires State plan States to adopt standards which are at
least as effective as those promulgated under section 6 of the OSH Act.
29 CFR 1902.03(c). These States, Alaska (Ex. 2-17), California (Ex. 2-
18), Hawaii (Ex. 2-19), Michigan (Ex. 2-20), Oregon (Ex. 2-21) and
Washington (Ex. 2-22), have adopted standards which provide more
protection than OSHA's pulpwood logging standard by covering all
logging operations within their States. The standards of the five
western states also contain a much higher level of detail and
specification than either the 1978 ANSI logging standard or OSHA's
pulpwood logging standard. OSHA used these standards as source
documents during development of this final standard.
On May 2, 1989, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to amend OSHA's pulpwood logging standard, 29 CFR 1910.266, to
include requirements for all logging operations (54 FR 18798).
Thereafter, on May 11, 1990, OSHA published a notice of hearing in
which 10 issues were raised for additional comment (55 FR 19745). There
were 92 comments submitted in response to the proposed rule and hearing
notice.
Informal public hearings were held on July 24-25, 1990, in
Washington, D.C., and on August 21-23, 1990, in Portland, OR, to allow
interested persons who had objections to the proposed rule to have an
opportunity to state those objections. There were 23 companies,
organizations, associations and individuals who participated in the
hearings.
At the close of the hearing Administrative Law Judge John M.
Vittone established a 60-day post hearing comment period, until October
22, 1990, for the submission of additional information and data
supplementing the testimony provided at the hearing. The post-hearing
comment period was followed by another 30 days, until November 21,
1990, for hearing participants to submit final briefs, analyses and
summations. OSHA received 12 comments during the post-hearing comment
period.
OSHA has considered all evidence, comments and testimony entered
into the rulemaking record and presented at the public hearing in
developing this final standard.
II. Basis for Agency Action
A. Hazards
The safety hazards present in the logging industry are well-
known,\1\ and there is no dispute among participants in this rulemaking
that logging is a high hazard industry (Ex. 2-1 through 2-10, 2-30, 5-
18, 38B, 38C). The tools and equipment which logging employees use or
operate, such as chain saws, axes and tractors, pose hazards wherever
they are utilized in industry. As logging employees use their tools and
equipment, they are dealing with massive weights and irresistible
momentum of falling, rolling, and sliding trees and logs. The hazards
are even more acute when dangerous environmental conditions are
factored in, such as uneven, unstable or rough terrain; inclement
weather including rain, snow, lightning, winds, and extreme cold;
remote and isolated work sites where health care facilities are not
immediately accessible. The combination of these hazards present a
significant risk to employees working in logging operations throughout
the country, regardless of the type of timber being logged, where it is
logged or the end use of the wood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has
identified a number of health hazards that are also present in the
logging industry (Ex. 5-42). According to NIOSH, 20 to 50 percent of
employees in felling operations may be affected by hand-arm
vibration syndrome. Logging employees are also exposed to chain-saw
exhaust, wood dust, tree fungi and bacteria. However, NIOSH has said
that at this time there is insufficient data to project the
magnitude of risk for some of these potential health hazards. The
final rule on logging addresses health hazards, but only in certain
specific ways (e.g., safety and health meetings). However, for those
health hazards not specifically addressed in the logging final rule,
other sections of Part 1910 apply. For example, occupational noise
exposure is addressed by 29 CFR 1910.95. A permissible exposure
limit for occupational exposure to wood dust is contained in 29 CFR
1910.1000. OSHA notes that hand-arm vibration, manual lifting and
other risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders are
being addressed in OSHA's rulemaking on ergonomic safety and health
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also no dispute that these hazards and the resulting
injuries and fatalities are severe and are not limited to the pulpwood
sector of the industry (Ex. 2-1, 5-6, 5-10, 5-17, 5-18, 5-21, 5-36, 5-
42, 5-46, 5-48, 5-49, 5-54, 5-61, 5-65). The 1992 Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries, a public report compiled by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), indicated there were 158 fatalities in the logging
industry, which amounts to a 2 in 1,000 risk of death each year. The
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) estimates
that there are 16,500 compensable injuries each year in the logging
industry (Ex. 37). This amounts to an incidence rate of 1 in every 5
loggers. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the
accident rate in the logging industry has pushed workers' compensation
insurance to 40 percent of payroll costs (Ex. 5-18). The USDA estimates
that this now amounts to $90 million annually in the Pacific Northwest
Region alone. According to a study conducted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), as least 47 percent of all injuries reported occurred
in non-pulpwood logging operations (Ex. 2-1).
The following discussion of the accident and injury data shows that
injury incidence rate for the logging industry is among the highest
industry incidence rates in the country.
B. Accident, Injury, and Other Data
OSHA looked at several data sources to identify and characterize
the degree of risk faced by employees in the logging industry. The data
show that the logging industry has one of the highest injury incidence
rates. For example, the most recent injury incidence rate for the
logging industry (15.6) compiled by the BLS is almost double the
incidence rate for the combined private sector (7.9). The logging
incidence rate was also well above the incidence rate for the
manufacturing sector (11.2).
To assess the level of risk in logging operations, OSHA relied
primarily on the following data sources. These data sources are
described and discussed below.
1. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
publishes annual reports that list the estimates of injuries in the
private sector during the year under consideration, Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses in the United States by Industry (Ex. 2-1, 2-2,
2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-30, 38B and 38C). The data
and information are broken down industry by industry according to
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. The BLS injury reports
and data are generated from inquiries to selected employers about the
OSHA Form 200 (Log and Summary of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses).
Table 1 shows BLS occupational injury incidence data for the
logging industry for 1972 through 1991. The data in Table 1 were
derived from the BLS data using SIC code 241 (Logging Camps and Logging
Contractors). While this classification covers the majority of the
employees engaging in logging operations, it does not cover loggers
employed by mills (SIC 242-Sawmills and Planing Mills) and other
loggers working for other miscellaneous employers (SIC 24-Lumber and
Wood Products, Except Furniture). Although the incidence rates for SIC
242 and 24 are very close to the rates for SIC 241, OSHA did not
include incidence rates for those SIC codes in its determination of
incidence rates for logging because BLS does not provide incidence
rates for occupational categories within a SIC code. As such, OSHA was
not able to identify and segregate out the percentage of accidents
which occurred while employees were performing logging as opposed to
other operations in those related industries. OSHA is aware that there
has been a move on the part of some mill owners to increasingly use
private contractors rather than mill employees to harvest the trees
that the mills process. OSHA believes, however, that SIC 241 does
capture the vast majority of employees performing logging operations.
To the extent that some logging operations may still be performed by
employees in other than SIC 241, OSHA does not believe that their
accident data significantly alter the level of risk present in logging
operations.
Table 1.-- Occupational Injuries Logging Camps and Logging Contractors, SIC 241
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfatal without Average lost
Year Total cases Lost workday cases lost workdays workdays Lost workdays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1972. 32.2 16.0 16.0 16.0 266.3
1973. 31.2 16.1 15.0 20.5 307.8
1974. 28.8 15.6 13.0 18.8 296.2
1975.. 25.5 13.9 11.5 20.3 282.5
1976.. 24.6 13.8 10.7 20.6 284.5
1977. 25.8 15.4 10.3 21.2 327.0
1978. 25.6 15.5 9.9 20.4 315.5
1979.. 24.0 14.7 9.1 21.1 310.4
1980. 22.4 13.8 8.5 24.4 338.1
1981. 19.1 12.2 6.8 23.6 288.1
1982. 20.1 12.9 7.1 23.5 302.8
1983. 21.2 13.6 7.5 23.5 319.4
1984. 21.4 13.8 7.5 23.1 318.7
1985. 19.8 12.2 7.5 25.9 316.1
1986. 18.9 12.5 6.3 23.3 291.7
1987. 19.1 12.3 6.7 26.9 330.4
1988.. 19.6 12.7 6.8 27.2 345.4
1989. 19.2 11.6 7.5 26.2 306.0
1990. 17.2 10.7 6.3 26.2 280.3
1991. 15.6 9.9 5.7 27.8 274.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Total cases, lost workday cases and nonfatal without lost workday cases are expressed as incidence rates are
per 100 full-time employees (200,000 person hours).
2. Average lost workdays are the average number of lost workdays per lost workday case.
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin Nos. 1830 (1972), 1932 (1974), 1981 (1975), 2047 (1977), 2097
(1979), 2130 (1980), 2196 (1982), 2236 (1983), 2259 (1984), 2278 (1985), 2399 (1990), 2424 (1991) Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses in the United States by Industry.
While the injury incidence rate remains high in the logging
industry, the BLS data show a steady decrease in the incidence rate for
the industry since the pulpwood logging standard was adopted in
1971.\2\ The decrease in incidence rates occurs in both lost-workday
and non-lost-workday cases. In contrast, the data also show a steady
increase in the average number of lost workdays per case, that
indicates that the severity of injuries has increased over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The decrease in injuries since 1971 is also due in part to
adoption of comprehensive logging standards by six states. For
example, the state of California, which has a comprehensive
standard, reported 457 logging fatalities in the 1950s, prior to
adoption of the standard. In 1981, after the logging standard had
been promulgated, California's logging fatalities hit a record low
(6 fatalities) (Ex. 2-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1991 logging industry incidence rates still remain far above
the total incidence rates and lost-workday incidence rates for other
industries, as Table 2 indicates. For example, the most recent logging
industry incidence rate (15.6) is almost double the incidence rate for
the private sector combined (7.9). It is also 40 percent higher than
the manufacturing sector incidence rate (11.2). The logging injury
incidence rates also are well above the incidence rates for the
construction industry (12.8) and mining (7.1), industries generally
considered as high hazard.
Table 2.--Comparison of Incidence Rates Logging vs. Major Industry
Divisions 1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfatal
Total Lost cases w/o Lost
Industry cases workday lost workdays
cases workdays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logging................... 15.6 9.9 5.7 274.8
Private sector............ 7.9 3.7 4.2 79.8
Agriculture, forestry,
fishing.................. 10.2 5.2 4.9 104.6
Mining.................... 7.1 4.4 2.7 127.8
Construction.............. 12.8 6.0 6.8 146.2
Manufacturing............. 11.2 5.0 6.2 101.1
Transportation and
utilities................ 9.1 5.3 3.7 136.8
Wholesale and retail trade 7.5 3.4 4.1 69.7
Finance, insurance and
real estate.............. 2.3 1.0 1.2 21.5
Services.................. 5.9 2.8 3.2 57.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: 1. Total cases, lost workday cases and nonfatal without lost
workday cases are expressed as incidence rates are per 100 full-time
employees (200,000 person hours).
ASource: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2424, Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses in the United States by Industry, 1991.
The most recent lost-workday incidence rate for logging was 9.9,
which is almost double the 5.0 incidence rate in the manufacturing
sector and almost three times the 3.7 incidence rate for the private
sector combined. The lost-workday rate, that is an indicator of the
severity of cases, is extremely high in the logging industry (274.8
lost workdays per 100 full-time workers). It is more than three times
the private sector lost-workday rate (79.8) and more than double the
manufacturing lost-workday rate (101.1).
2. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics also publishes an annual Census of Fatal Occupational
Injuries (CFOI). The CFOI is a systematic and verifiable count of
fatally injured public and private sector workers. This census uses
administrative records, such as death certificates, workers'
compensation fatality claims, medical examiners' records, and other
reports to Federal and State agencies, to identify the workplace
fatalities and complete descriptive data on the workers and
circumstances of their deaths. According to the 1992 CFOI, the most
recent data available, 158 logging employees were killed while
performing logging operations. Table 3 shows that more than 60 percent
were using power tools and performing cutting activities at the time of
their death. Almost 20 percent were killed while operating logging
machines or vehicles.
Table 3.--Fatal Injuries in SIC 241 by Activity of Employee, 1992
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Activity at time of accident fatalities Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using or Operating Tools, Machines............ 108 68
Operating Heavy Equipment................... 4 ...........
Using Power tools........................... 14
Logging, trimming, pruning.................. 86 ...........
Other....................................... 4 ...........
Vehicular and Transportation Operations....... 24 15
Driving, operating.......................... 15 ...........
Riding in, on............................... 3 ...........
Vehicular and Transportation Operations,
n.e.c...................................... 3 ...........
Other....................................... 3 ...........
Material Handling Operations*................. 6 4
Physical activity, n.e.c...................... 4 3
All other activities.......................... 16 10
-------------------------
Total..................................... 158 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
* Loading, unloading materials.
n.e.c. Not elsewhere classified.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1992 Census of Fatal Occupational
Injuries, April, 1994.
Applying the CFOI fatality estimate to the most recent logging
employment estimate of 72,100 developed for the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (see Section VI of this preamble), the fatality incidence rate
is .22. The logging industry fatality incidence rate is 8.1 times
higher than the fatality incidence rate the mining sector (.027), the
next closest industrial division. In addition, the logging fatality
rate is 53.6 times higher than the fatality rate for the manufacturing
sector (.0041).
3. BLS Work Injury Report (WIR). The most detailed data source
available to the Agency on logging injuries and their causes is a June
1984 BLS Work Injury Report survey of 1,086 injured logging employees,
hereafter referred to as the WIR survey (Ex. 2-1). It is significant to
note that all 1,086 injuries occurred within just a three-month
period.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Not all questions were answered by all survey participants,
therefore, total responses vary in each table of data presented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included in the report are employees who were injured while
performing logging activities at the logging site or while moving or
transporting logs across terrain. Motor vehicle accidents were included
when the accident occurred at the work site, while hauling logs to the
mill, returning from the mill, or transporting tools, equipment, or
workers to or from the logging site in company-owned vehicles.
Almost one half (47%) of those responding indicated they were
performing non-pulpwood logging operations, therefore they were not
covered by OSHA's existing pulpwood logging standard. Another 17
percent did not know what type of timber they were logging.\4\ OSHA
believes it is reasonable to assume that some percentage of those
employees were not covered by OSHA's existing logging standard and
therefore, more than one half of the injured employees were not covered
by the OSHA standard. Approximately 35 percent of the injured employees
were engaged in pulpwood logging operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Of those who responded, 62 percent were engaged in clear
cutting, 27 percent in selective cutting, and 8 percent in salvage
logging. Approximately 4 percent did not know the type of logging
being conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The survey also contained the following information: (1) the work
site where the injury occurred (Table 4); (2) work activity being
performed at the time of the accident (Table 5); (3) causes of the
accidents (Table 6); (4) sources of the accidents (Tables 7-10); (5)
protective equipment in use at the time of the accident (Table 11); (6)
safety features of vehicles or equipments operated at the time of the
accident (Table 12); (7) safety training given prior to the accident
(Table 13); (8) factors contributing to the injury (Table 14); (9)
severity of the injury (Table 15-16).
a. Work site where injury occurred. Table 4 shows that more than
one-half of employees injured were at cutting sites in the woods, while
only 20 percent were injured at landings. In addition, more than one-
half of those injured were working on sloping terrain at the time and
more than 60 percent reported that the work site contained moderate or
heavy brush.
Table 4.--Description of Work Site Where Injury Occurred
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of work site No. Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location of Accident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cutting site........................................ 570 53
Landing............................................. 219 20
Between cutting site and landing.................... 188 18
Employer built road................................. 34 3
Highway............................................. 17 2
Other............................................... 45 4
-------------------
Total........................................... 1,073 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrain Where Accident Occurred
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flat ground......................................... 476 44
Medium slope........................................ 388 36
Steep slope......................................... 206 19
-------------------
Total........................................... 1,070 (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Cover at Accident Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Little or no brush.................................. 369 35
Moderate brush...................................... 386 37
Heavy brush......................................... 273 26
Swampy, marshy, boggy............................... 29 3
-------------------
Total........................................... 1,057 (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Due to rounding, percentages may not add to 100.
2. Because incomplete questionnaires were used, the total number of
responses may vary by question.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR),
Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, dated June 1984 (Ex.
2-1).
b. Work activity at time of accident. Table 5 shows that almost
one-half of all injured employees were engaged in cutting activities
(felling, limbing, bucking) at the time of their accidents, and almost
one-fourth of all injured employees were felling trees. Twenty-eight
percent of the employees were injured during yarding operations (choker
setting or hooking up, tractor or cable skidding, chasing). The
remainder of the accidents occurred when the logs were being prepared
to move from the landing (loading/unloading and rigging) or were being
transported to the mill or other final destination. Other unspecified
logging activities accounted for eight percent of the accidents.
Finally, servicing and maintaining of equipment accounted for four
percent of the accidents, a figure that is consistent with the
information found for servicing or maintenance accidents throughout
general industry. (See Docket S-012A.) Table 3 outlines the activity
being performed at the time of the accidents and the percentage each
activity represents.
Table 5.--Activity Being Performed at Time of Accident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felling trees..................................... 253 23
Limbing........................................... 165 15
Choker setting or hooking up...................... 156 14
Bucking........................................... 134 12
Tractor or cable skidding......................... 92 9
Chasing........................................... 49 5
Loading/unloading................................. 51 5
Rigging........................................... 39 4
Servicing or maintaining equipment................ 43 4
Hauling logs to mill.............................. 15 1
Other logging activity............................ 84 8
---------------------
Total......................................... 1,084 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR),
Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, dated June 1984 (Ex.
2-1).
c. Causes of accidents. Table 6 indicates that almost one-fourth of
the employees were injured when hit by trees, limbs or logs. Another
quarter of the accidents were due to slips and falls. It is important
to note that 20 percent of all injuries were chain saw related.
Table 6.--Cause of Accident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cause of injury/accident Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injured by limb, tree or log (hit by) (See Table
7)............................................... 259 24
Slip, trip or fall (see Table 8).................. 258 24
Injured by chain saw (see Table 9)................ 222 20
Muscular strain................................... 85 8
Hit by cable, hook, chain, etc.................... 60 6
Chip or other object in eye....................... 55 5
Mobile equipment accident (see Table 10).......... 33 3
Other............................................. 114 10
---------------------
Total......................................... 1086 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)
Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984 (Ex. 2-1).
d. Sources of injury. The WIR survey broke down the sources of
injuries into employees hit by trees; injured in slips or falls; while
using chain saws; and while operating equipment or motor vehicles
(Tables 7-10). As Table 7 indicates, almost one-half of those employees
injured by trees were hit by falling wood.
Table 7.--Sources of Injury When Employee Struck by Limb, Tree or Log
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source of injury Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falling wood...................................... 127 49
Rolling logs...................................... 37 14
Logs rigged for yarding........................... 30 12
Other (springpoles, etc.)......................... 65 25
---------------------
Total......................................... 259 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)
Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.
Approximately one-fourth of employees were injured in slips or
falls, as shown in Table 8. Of these employees, 47 percent were injured
when they fell from elevations. Approximately 28 percent fell from some
type of mobile equipment or motor vehicle.
Table 8.--Slips, Trips and Falls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falls from, to Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falls from elevation (surface fell from)........ 105 47
Ground surface.................................. 9 9
Felled trees, rolling or moving................. 16 15
Felled trees, stationary........................ 46 45
Standing timber................................. 2 2
Skidder......................................... 8 8
Truck........................................... 14 13
Yarder.......................................... 3 3
Mobile equipment, n.e.c......................... 4 4
Other........................................... 2 2
Unknown......................................... 1 1
Falls to same level (Fell to)................... 117 53
Ground surface or tools......................... 48 41
Ground wood, stationary......................... 29 25
Skidder......................................... 2 2
Truck........................................... 1 1
Yarder.......................................... 2 2
Other........................................... 8 7
Unknown......................................... 27 23
---------------------
Total......................................... 222 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. The percentages of the major categories are of the total. The
percentages of the subcategories are of the major categories.
2. Due to rounding, the percentages will not necessarily equal 100.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)
Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984 (Ex. 2-1).
It should be noted that in a majority of cases where an employee
slipped or fell, the fall was due to an uneven surface. Many of these
employees lost their balance on those uneven surfaces, such as standing
on felled trees. Other employees slipped and fell from slippery or
loose bark, sudden shifting of trees or logs, protruding roots,
deadwood, leaves, vines, other wood litter and rocks.
As stated above, one-fifth of all employees were injured while
operating chain saws, as shown in Table 9. Of these employees, about
two-thirds were hurt when the chain saw kicked back.
Table 9.--Causes of the Chain Saw Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cause Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chain saw kicked back............................. 140 64
Fell on saw....................................... 28 13
Didn't have tight grip on saw..................... 15 7
Hand slipped into chain........................... 14 6
Wrong cutting method.............................. 7 3
Chain on saw broke................................ 7 3
Using wrong size saw.............................. 3 1
Saw ran after shutoff............................. 2 1
Saw not properly maintained....................... 1 *
Other............................................. 39 18
---------------------
Total......................................... 222 (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\Because more than one response is possible, the sum of the responses
and percentages may not equal the total. Percentages are calculated by
dividing each response by the total number of persons who answered the
question.
*Less than 1 percent.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)
Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.
Table 10 shows the type of machine or vehicle the employee was
operating at the time of injury. Over one-half of those injuries
involved logging trucks, on which logs are loaded for transport to
mills, etc.
Table 10.--Sources of Injury in Mobile Equipment Accidents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source of injury Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skidder........................................... 9 27
Log truck......................................... 17 52
Mobile equipment, n.e.c........................... 2 6
Ground surface.................................... 1 3
Other or non-classifiable......................... 4 12
---------------------
Total......................................... 33 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)
Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.
e. Protective equipment. Also included in the WIR survey was
information about the type of protective equipment being worn or used
at the time of the accident. Table 11 shows that the majority of
employees were wearing logging boots, gloves and head protection when
they were injured. However, less than one-third of those injured were
wearing leg protection, even though almost 60 percent of the injuries
investigated occurred when employees were performing activities that
required the use of a chain saw (brushing, felling trees, limbing, and
bucking). In addition, only six of the 33 employees injured while
operating equipment or vehicles were using seat belts. Since more than
one-half of all injured employees said they were working on sloping
terrain at the time, OSHA believes it is reasonable to assume that some
of the machine accidents were rollovers or tipovers and that seat belts
could have prevented some of those injuries.
Table 11.--Protective Equipment Worn or Used
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type protective equipment used Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calk- or cork-soled boots......................... 659 62
Dust masks........................................ 16 2
Earplugs or other hearing protector............... 264 25
Glasses or goggles................................ 179 17
Gloves............................................ 788 75
Hard hat.......................................... 916 87
Leg protection.................................... 303 29
Seat belts........................................ 6 1
Steel-toed boots.................................. 295 28
Other............................................. 19 2
Not using protective equipment.................... 38 4
---------------------
Total......................................... 1057 (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:\1\ Because more than one response is possible, the sum of the
responses and percentages may not equal the total. Percentages are
calculated by dividing each response by the total number of persons
who answered the question.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)
Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.
f. Equipment and vehicle safety features. Table 12 clearly shows
that a significant number of machines and vehicles involved in the
logging accidents were not equipped with fall protection, rollover
protection or seat belts.
Table 12.--Safety Equipment on Vehicles or Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile equipment safety equipment Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falling object protective structure............... 30 59
Rollover protective structure..................... 27 53
Seat belt......................................... 32 63
Other............................................. 4 8
Not aware of safety devices....................... 5 10
---------------------
Total......................................... 51 (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: \1\Because more than one response is possible, the sum of the
responses and percentages may not equal the total. Percentages are
calculated by dividing each response by the total number of persons
who answered the question.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)
Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.
g. Safety training. The WIR survey also contained information on
whether employees had received safety training prior to their
accidents. Table 13 indicates that over one-third of the injured
employees had never received training on safe work practices or in the
operation of machines and vehicles used in logging operations. Only 40
percent of employees injured said they had received training from the
employer. In fact, 19 percent of those injured said that whatever
training they had received had come from a relative.
Table 13.--Safety Training of WIR Participants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source of safety training Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never received training........................... 392 37
Supervisor or employer............................ 419 40
Co-worker......................................... 300 29
Relative.......................................... 200 19
Other............................................. 72 7
---------------------
Total......................................... 1046 (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: \1\Because more than one response is possible, the sum of the
responses and percentages are calculated by dividing each response by
the total number of persons who answered the question.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)
Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.
h. Factors contributing to the accident. Table 14 shows the
conditions or factors that the injured worker felt contributed to his/
her accident. With regard to natural conditions, more than 30 percent
said the sloping terrain and heavy brush had been a factor. In
addition, 15 percent of the injured employees said that a danger tree
had contributed to the accident.
Human factors also contributed to accidents, according to the
injured employees. More than 20 percent said that the fast speed at
which they had been working contributed to their accident. OSHA notes
that 10 percent of those injured were unaware of the hazards when they
were injured.
Table 14.--Conditions or Factors Contributing to Accident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conditions or factors employee felt contributed to
accident Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural conditions:
Defects in tree................................. 63 7
Snag or deadwood in tree........................ 75 8
Spring pole or wood under tension............... 105 11
Hidden wood on ground........................... 61 7
Weather conditions.............................. 56 6
Slippery conditions............................. 80 9
Heavy brush or ground cover..................... 173 19
Steep terrain................................... 109 12
Other natural conditions........................ 71 8
No natural conditions contributed............... 335 36
---------------------
Total......................................... 934 (\1\)
=====================
Other factors:
Co-worker's activity............................ 54 6
Working too fast................................ 186 22
Too noisy....................................... 13 2
Working when tired or fatigued.................. 64 8
Handling too heavy an object.................... 45 5
Misjudged time or distance...................... 118 14
Not paying full attention....................... 65 8
Unaware of hazards.............................. 83 10
Wrong cutting method............................ 35 4
Other:.......................................... 53 6
No other factors contributed.................... 282 34
---------------------
Total......................................... 839 (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:\1\ Because more than one response is possible, the sum of the
responses and percentages are calculated by dividing each response by
the total number of persons who answered the question.
\2\Due to rounding, the percentages may not add to 100.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Work Injury Report (WIR) Injuries
in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.
i. Severity of injury. The WIR survey also indicates that when
employees were injured in logging operations, their injuries were more
severe than injuries occurring in other industry sectors. Table 15
shows that almost three- fourths of those injured missed more than 1
day of work due to their injuries. Over 30 percent missed more than 10
days of work. The average lost-time case resulted in 23 days away from
work. In addition, Table 16 shows that more than one-fifth of those
injured were hospitalized an average of six nights.
Table 15.--Estimated Days Away From Work
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days away from work Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No days........................................... 270 26
1 to 5 days....................................... 234 22
6 to 10 days...................................... 103 10
11 to 15 days..................................... 57 5
16 to 20 days..................................... 58 6
21 to 25 days..................................... 27 3
26 to 30 days..................................... 47 4
31 to 40 days..................................... 45 4
41 to 60 days..................................... 43 4
More than 60 days................................. 50 5
Lost-time cases for which days not estimated...... 116 11
---------------------
Total......................................... 1,050 100
Mean days away from work: 23
Median days away from work: 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\Total excludes 5 employees for whom data were not available.
\2\Due to rounding, percentages may not add to 100.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Work Injury Report (WIR) Injuries in
the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.
Table 16.--Length of Hospitalization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length of hospitalization Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No hospitalization.................................. 849 80
1 night............................................. 29 3
2 nights............................................ 26 2
3 nights............................................ 27 3
4 nights............................................ 16 2
5 nights............................................ 26 2
6 nights............................................ 11 1
7 nights............................................ 13 1
8 nights............................................ 15 1
9 nights............................................ 3 (\1\)
10 nights........................................... 6 1
11 to 20 nights..................................... 9 1
21 to 30 nights..................................... 8 1
More than 30 nights................................. 4 (\1\)
-------------------
Total........................................... 1,059 100
Mean length of stay in hospital: 6 days
Median length of stay in hospital: 4 days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\1\Due to rounding, percentages may not add to 100.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Work Injury Report (WIR) Injuries in
the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.
4. OSHA First Reports of Serious Injury (FRSI). OSHA also utilizes
a telephone reporting system for the field staff to inform the national
office of the occurrence of serious or significant accidents. This
telephone call system is part of the OSHA emergency communications
system. Regional Administrators are required to file first reports of
fatalities, catastrophes and other important events (such as those that
receive significant publicity) to the National Office. The information
is recorded on a form entitled First Report of Serious Accident (FRSI).
Approximately 1,200 reports are received by the National Office yearly.
None of the reports are screened prior to OSHA receiving them to
eliminate those from a certain industry, occupation or because of other
factors. None of these reports may be considered statistically
significant by themselves in attempting to determine the number of
accidents that have occurred. However, they do give an indication of
where many serious accidents have occurred and the types of work being
performed at the time of the accidents.
OSHA has examined the FRSI reports and identified 105 (Ex. 4-65)
that occurred while employees were performing logging operations. These
accidents occurred between October 1985 and December 1989. Table 17
lists the logging accident reports as a percentage of all accident
reports received.
Table 17.--First Reports of Serious Injury Accidents in Logging Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Period reports Logging Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct-Dec 85................................ 228 12 5.26
Jan-Dec 86................................ 1147 30 2.62
Jan-Dec 87................................ 1236 29 2.35
Jan-Dec 88................................ 1330 23 1.73
Jan-Dec 89................................ 1150 11 .96
-----------------------------
Totals................................ 5091 105 2.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Electronic/Electrical and Mechanical Engineering
Safety Standards, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, OSHA.
The percentages attributable to logging injuries are particularly
large in relation to the total employment in the industries
represented. Using employment rates for 1985-1989 for the private
sector and for the logging industry, OSHA observes that the percentage
of accidents recorded on the FRSI for logging for each year far
exceeded the percentage of employees in logging compared with the
private sector. Whereas, logging employment constituted one tenth of
one percent of total private sector employment, the reports of serious
accidents in logging averaged about two percent of the total accidents.
Table 18 lists these employment rates as they appear in the BLS annual
reports entitled, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United
States by Industry, (followed by the year of the data). (See section A
above.)
Table 18.--Private Sector and Logging Industry Employment Rates (1985-
1989)
[All numbers are in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Logging
Year sector industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985............................................ 81,601.3 82.7
1986............................................ 83,291.2 82.9
1987............................................ 85,686.0 85.0
1988............................................ 88.698.8 90.3
1989............................................ 91,111.0 87.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin Nos. 2278 (1985) (Ex. 2-
30), (1986), (1987) (Ex. 38B), (1988) (Ex. 38C), and (1989).
OSHA was also able to identify from the FRSI reports the activity
that was being conducted at the time of the accident and the causes of
the accidents. For example, more than one-half were involved in cutting
activities when they were seriously injured. OSHA also notes that
almost nine percent were seriously injured in machine rollover or
tipover accidents while only 1 employee was injured by a jillpoke.
Table 19 lists the activity being conducted or the causes of the
accidents.
Table 19.--First Reports of Serious Injuries--Logging Operations October
1985-December 1989 Activity Being Conducted/Cause of the Accident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity/Cause Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felling Tree................................... 30 28.6
Lodged Tree.................................... 17 16.2
Working Around Danger Tree..................... 13 12.3
Struck by Falling Load......................... 10 9.5
Vehicle Tipover................................ 9 8.6
Struck by Vehicle.............................. 8 7.6
Electrocutions................................. 3 2.9
Fall from Vehicle.............................. 2 1.9
Skidding....................................... 2 1.9
Delimbing...................................... 1 1.0
Jillpokes...................................... 1 1.0
Other.......................................... 9 8.6
------------------------
Total...................................... 105 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 1. The percentages may not be equal 100 due to rounding.
Source: Office of Electronic/Electrical and Mechanical Engineering
Safety Standards, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, OSHA.
5. OSHA Fatality/Catastrophe Investigations Report (FCI). OSHA
regulations require that all workplace fatalities be reported to the
nearest OSHA Area Office. Employers are required to complete a
Fatality/Catastrophe Event Report Form (OSHA 36), which is reviewed by
the OSHA Area Director to determine whether an investigation of the
fatality is warranted. In 1989, OSHA published a study of 141 logging
fatalities that occurred during the period of 1978-84 (Ex. 4-61). These
fatalities do not represent all logging industry fatalities during that
time period.
According to the study, 71 percent of those logging employees
killed were out in the cutting area. Only one percent each were killed
on skid trails or at landings.
The study also indicated that 43 percent of those killed were
felling trees at the time. Employees performing yarding and bucking and
limbing operations each accounted for 13 percent of the fatalities. The
overwhelming majority of employees (72%) were killed when they were
struck or crushed by a tree, log or limb, while 17 percent were killed
in machine accidents. One percent were killed in chain-saw accidents.
Unsafe work practices, misjudgments and lack of training or
supervision accounted for 42 percent of the fatalities while less than
one percent were due to equipment failure.
6. Maine Bureau of Labor Statistics. The State of Maine Bureau of
Labor Statistics (Maine BLS) has compiled various statistics on
injuries and fatalities in the logging industry (Ex. 4-174, 4-175, 4-
176).
Maine BLS conducted a detailed survey of 189 logging employee
injuries that occurred between May and July of 1982 (Ex. 4-175). This
number does not represent all logging employees who were injured during
that period. According to this survey, 35 percent of employees
reporting injuries were struck by trees, logs or limbs. Chain-saw
accidents accounted for 26 percent of the reported injuries while 13
percent of the logging employees were injured in slips or falls.
According to Maine BLS, the category that showed a significantly
higher than average percentage of disabling injuries was chain-saw
accidents. Over one-half of all chain-saw accidents involved kickback.
In over 70 percent of the kickback accidents, the chain saws were
equipped with chain brakes. Maine BLS said that chain brakes had played
a significant role in lessening the effects of the injury. Less than 13
percent of chain-saw accidents where chain brakes were present resulted
in hospitalization, while nearly 50 percent of the accidents involving
other than chain saws resulted in hospitalization.
This survey also indicates that two-thirds of all logging accidents
resulted in lost workdays and 13 percent of all injuries required at
least one overnight in the hospital. The average hospitalization was
for five days.
Maine BLS has also compiled statistics from 1980-87 of chain-saw
injuries that resulted in a first report of serious injury (Ex. 4-176).
According to this report, average chain-saw injuries for each year was
362. Of those, an average of 237 (65%) were disabling injuries, that
is, injuries which result in lost workdays.
Maine BLS has also examined disabling logging injuries reported
from 1985-87 that had resulted in lacerations (Ex. 4-174). During those
three years, there were an average of 183 disabling lacerations each
year.
7. Washington State Logging Fatalities. A detailed study has been
compiled on logging fatalities in the State of Washington from 1977-83
(Ex. 4-129). Of the 135 fatalities that occurred during those years,
the study analyzed 92 percent of them. Death certificates and reports
of investigations by Washington OSHA were used in the analysis.
According to this study, the overall annual fatality rate for
logging during this period was approximately 2 per 1,000 full-time
employees. Those employees who were killed had a mean length of
experience in the logging industry of 11.6 years. Less than 10 percent
had less than one year's experience.
More than 40 percent of all loggers killed were engaged in felling
activities, while 23 percent were killed performing yarding operations.
Almost 20 percent of the loggers were operating logging machines at the
time of their accident. Table 20 shows the jobs employees were
performing at the time of their accident.
Table 20.--State of Washington Logging Fatalities, 1977-83
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Job title Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feller/bucker................................... 53 42
Choker-setter................................... 23 18
Mobile equipment operator....................... 16 13
Hook tender..................................... 8 6
Chaser.......................................... 7 6
Yarder operator................................. 6 5
Loader.......................................... 6 5
Rigging slinger................................. 5 4
Pondworker...................................... 1 1
-----------------------
Total......................................... 125 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 65 percent of all employees killed were hit or crushed by
a log or tree. While most of these employees who were hit or crushed by
a tree were the result of their own activity, more than eight percent
were hit by trees being felled by another employee. Approximately nine
percent were killed in machine rollover accidents, while 10 percent of
those employees killed were struck by a machine or vehicle. Table 21
shows the causes of the accidents in which loggers were killed.
Table 21.--State of Washington Logging Fatalities by Type, 1977-83
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Type of accident Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Struck by tree brought down by the deceased........... 34 26
Struck by tree felled by another person............... 11 8
Struck by rolling log................................. 20 15
Struck by log being dragged........................... 18 14
Struck by mobile equipment............................ 13 10
Equipment rollover.................................... 12 9
Struck by boom or rigger.............................. 7 5
Struck by log falling from truck during loading....... 3 2
Electrocution......................................... 2 2
Other................................................. 9 7
Unknown............................................... 3 2
-----------------
Total............................................... 132 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the study, accident investigation reports indicted
that many of the deaths would not have occurred if the employees had
been following safe work practices and had remained out of hazardous
areas (e.g., other occupied work areas).
C. Need for agency action.
OSHA believes that current logging methods and the inherent dangers
posed by work in the woods, such as those caused by inclement weather,
uneven terrain and isolation from health care facilities, present
significant hazards to employees engaged in logging operations across
the nation, regardless of the type logging being conducted or the end
use of the wood. The presentation of data in the preceding section
further demonstrate the level of risk to which all loggers are exposed.
Nevertheless, the existing OSHA safety standard for pulpwood logging
(29 CFR 1910.266) specifically addresses only one segment of the
logging industry--logging operations whose forest product ends up as
pulp. Although OSHA does not know precisely the breakdown of employment
and occupational injuries between pulpwood and other logging
operations, the data and other information available to OSHA indicate
that similar hazards exist in both sectors of the industry.
The preceding section has shown that the logging industry remains a
high risk industry, regardless of the end use of the forest product. In
particular, the data show:
1. Employees engaged in logging operations have a substantially
higher risk of injury and death than workers in many other industries,
including other high hazard industries.
2. If they are injured, loggers are more likely to be hospitalized
and lose workdays compared to employees in most other industries, as
evidenced by the very high lost-workday incidence rate.
3. When loggers are injured, their injuries are much more severe
and result in longer hospitalizations and more lost time per employee
than do the injuries of employees in most other industries.
4. Loggers also have a much higher incidence of fatalities than
employees in other industries.
In addition, the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the final logging
standard estimates, based on the various data in the record, that there
are an average of 158 fatalities, 6,798 lost workday injuries and 3,770
non-lost workday injuries that occur each year in the logging industry.
(For further discussion see section VI of this preamble.)
Of the 72,100 employees engaged in logging operations as defined by
the final rule, only 38 percent (27,170) are covered by State Plan
State logging standards,\5\ which currently provide protection
regardless of kind of logging operation in which the loggers are
employed. Of the estimated 62 percent (44,930) of logging employees who
are not covered by State plan State standards, OSHA estimates that at
only one-third (16,478) are covered by the existing pulpwood logging
standard. That means that almost two-thirds (28,452) are not covered by
any Federal or State logging standard. (This estimate is consistent
with the WIR survey, which indicated that only 35 percent of those
surveyed were engaged in pulpwood logging operations.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\In 1977, the leading states in logging employment (with 48
percent of the total) were Washington (15, 400), Oregon (14,000),
California (6,100) and Maine (4,300). By 1982, the employment
pattern had shifted and the leading states (with 42 percent of the
total) were Washington (11,900, down 3,500); Oregon (11,300, down
2,700); Georgia (5,400, up 1,600); and Alabama (5,000, up 1,200).
California (3,900, down 2,200), was no longer one of the leaders.
Overall logging employment in the Pacific Coast states decreased 22%
during this period. The South was the only region in the country to
show an increase in logging employment (21%). This employment trend,
resulting in the change from harvesting the Pacific Coast's old-
growth timber to increased harvesting of third and forth-growth pine
forests in the south, means that an increasing proportion of logging
employment is in states not covered by state logging standards. (As
noted earlier, only Alaska (16th in 1982), California (7th), Hawaii
(very small), Michigan (19th), Oregon (2nd) and Washington (1st)
have OSHA approved state logging standards covering all loggers.)
This means that as the centers of activity (and employment) shift
from the old growth forests of the pacific coast to the pine forests
of the south, fewer employees conducting general logging (non-
pulpwood logging) will be covered by these State plan State logging
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding section shows there has been a steady decrease in
injury and lost-workday incidence rates since the adoption of OSHA's
existing pulpwood logging standard and the State plan State standards.
In addition to a further reduction in accidents for those employers
currently covered by OSHA and State logging standards, OSHA believes
that a substantial reduction in incidence rates can be achieved by
promulgating a uniform national logging standard that provides
protection for all employees engaged in logging operations.
In developing the proposed rule, OSHA used the l978 ANSI standard
as its model for a uniform national logging standard, since many of its
requirements were stated in performance language. This is in keeping
with the Agency's determination that properly drafted performance
standards can adequately address safety and health hazards without
unnecessarily impeding technological advancement and employer
innovation. The final rule provides a base level of safety for
employees in all logging operations. At the same time, it still allows
those State plan States with more complicated or specialized local
conditions to develop their own detailed standards, as several States
have already done.
Many participants in this rulemaking have said that a comprehensive
performance-based logging standard is necessary to reduce the risk of
injury and death (Ex. 5-6, 5-10, 5-17, 5-18, 5-21, 5-22, 5-42, 5-46, 5-
74 through 5-92; Tr. W1 21, 73, 202). OSHA agrees with these
commenters. The Agency believes that the integrated program of personal
protective equipment; equipment, machine and vehicle protective
devices, inspection and maintenance; work practices; and training
contained in the final rule is reasonably necessary and appropriate to
reduce the high injury and fatality incidence rates in this industry.
V. Major Issues
A. Introduction
As a result of issues raised by those commenting on the proposed
logging standard, OSHA solicited information on 10 major issues in the
notice of public hearing (55 FR 19745, May 11, 1990). OSHA requested
detailed information on a variety of issues including training,
personal protective equipment, first aid, chain-saw protective devices,
and seat belts. These issues were discussed by the participants during
the public hearings and in post-hearing comments. The evidence
submitted to the record is summarized and evaluated in the following
discussion of each issue and in the summary and explanation of the
final rule.
1. Training. Comments on the proposed rule generally supported the
need for training. Several commenters, however, raised specific
questions about particular training issues. As a result, OSHA requested
in the hearing notice further comment on the following training issues:
Effective date of training, sufficiency of training, and portability of
training.
a. Effective date for training. In the proposed rule, OSHA would
have required employers to be in compliance with all provisions of the
final logging standard within 60 days of publication of the rule in the
Federal Register. The proposed rule did not provide extended compliance
time for employers to familiarize themselves with the standard and to
develop and conduct training. Some commenters said additional time to
meet the training requirements of the rule was unnecessary (Ex. 9-3, 9-
13; Tr. OR 343). These commenters said that in many logging
establishments training is already being provided and that employers
would not require significant time to incorporate the proposed training
requirements into their ongoing programs. However, other commenters
argued that the effective date for training should be delayed because
additional time was necessary to develop the required training program
and to train employees (Ex. 5-2, 5-27, 9-1, 9-2; Tr. W2 243-44).
Commenters proposed various effective dates for training. For example,
the Northeastern Loggers Association, Inc., recommended a 2-year phase-
in of the training requirements (Ex. 5-2). The American Pulpwood
Association, Inc. (APA), however, supported a shorter six-month phase-
in period:
Safety training programs for loggers are largely specific to a
function (for example, proper felling technique). A fully
comprehensive training package will have to be developed to meet the
training requirements. APA is attempting to develop training
programs and have them available by the end of 1989. * * * APA will
seek OSHA staff review of its training program as it is developed.
We'd like a brief delay in enforcement, just long enough for us to
have something available for employers (Ex. 5-27).
At the hearing there was little testimony about delaying the
effective date for training. Mr. Doug Domenech, testifying on behalf of
APA, repeated APA's position that employers should be given some
additional time to comply with training requirements:
The training is a very needed thing and, unfortunately, we just
don't have the infrastructure to provide that training. That's why *
* * we * * * hope that OSHA will give some kind of variance on time
before citations are delivered because it's just not out there. If
loggers had to comply with a training requirement today, they'd all
be cited (Tr. W2 243-44).
At the same time, however, Mr. Alex Hansen, of Associated Oregon
Loggers, Inc. (AOL), testified that Oregon loggers already were in
compliance with the training provisions contained in the proposed rule:
As far as we're concerned in Oregon, you could implement the
training tomorrow. We already have it in place. We don't have a
problem with it. We're advocates of safety training in the woods. I
know some other states have some problems. They haven't been doing
it or maybe not as strenuous as the Oregon rules, and I understand
their problems, but as far as our association is concerned, if you
pass it tomorrow, we're in compliance (Tr. OR 343).
The record indicates that training materials and courses for
logging safety are widely available and that many logging
establishments have implemented training programs (Ex. 4-122, 4-123, 4-
181, 5-20, 5-33, 9-1, 9-2, 9-5, 9-6, 36; Tr. W1 163-64, W2 113, 115,
125, 199-201, OR 87, 259-60, 393, 546-47, 566). Trade associations such
as AOL, APA and the Montana Logging Association have been providing
training materials on an on-going basis (Ex. 5-27). APA expected to
have completed a comprehensive training package for its members
companies by 1989. In addition, state agricultural extension services
are a source of training information (Ex. 4-122, 4-123). Several
hearing participants submitted descriptions of their training programs
and the actual training materials (Ex. 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29).
OSHA is aware that many of the existing training programs are based
on the training requirements of OSHA's pulpwood logging standard.
Because the training requirements have been revised in this final rule,
current training programs will have to be reviewed and upgraded, when
necessary, to meet the revised requirements. In addition, the training
provisions of the final rule vary to some degree from the proposed
rule. As such, employers who made changes in their programs in response
to the proposed rule will have to review their training materials to
assure compliance with the final rule.
OSHA is aware that employers, trade associations and other
organizations that provide training will need time to prepare and/or
update training programs to meet the requirements of the final rule and
will need time to provide training to employees. However, the record
also shows that many companies and organizations already have developed
training programs that meet most of the requirements of the final rule
(Ex. 5-20, 5-27, 5-52, 5-69, 9-2; Tr. OR 343). Many establishments,
especially those in States that have logging standards, already are
providing training (Ex. 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29). Therefore, OSHA
does not believe that a lengthy delay is necessary to meet the training
requirements of the final rule. The Agency believes that extending the
effective date of the standard for 120 days after publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register will be sufficient to allow
employers and others to familiarize themselves with the final rule, to
update training programs to meet the provisions of the final rule, and
to conduct initial training. This phase-in period also will give
employers time to determine whether current and new employees have
received the training in all of the elements specified in this section
or whether they will need additional training.
b. Sufficiency of training. The second issue raised in the hearing
notice concerned what training OSHA would consider sufficient to meet
the training requirements in the final rule. Some commenters supported
OSHA's preference for performance based training (Ex. 9-3, 9-15). Other
commenters argued for detailed specifications to be included in the
training requirements, including a minimum number of hours of training
(Ex. 9-13, 9-19).
In general, the final rule contains training requirements in
performance language to allow employer flexibility in tailoring
training programs to the individual circumstances under which they
operate. The final rule sets forth the basic elements that must be
covered in the employer's training program, such as safe performance of
assigned work tasks; safe use of tools; recognition and control of
workplace hazards; prevention and control of general logging hazards;
and the requirements of the final standard. The training provisions
also require that employees initially work under supervision and that
they demonstrate the ability to perform their work tasks safely before
being released from supervision.
As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, each logging establishment
has unique conditions or hazards associated with its logging
operations, that result in unique methods of operation. OSHA believes
that the general elements of the training provisions allow employers to
take into account those differences while still requiring the employer
to assure through training that each employee is able to perform the
job safely.
On the basis of information submitted to the record and the
testimony presented during the hearings, OSHA has determined that
employers will not have difficulty in complying with the training
requirements of the final rule. OSHA believes that the performance-
based elements adopted in the final rule will enhance employee safety
and will provide employees with the tools to permit them to actively
participate in providing their own protection.
The Industrial Truck Association (ITA) recommended that OSHA
specify in greater detail the training required for industrial truck
operators (Ex. W1 5-47, Tr. 221-27). ITA urged OSHA to adopt the
training provisions from the ASME B56.6 standard on rough-terrain
forklift trucks. Mr. William Montweiler, testifying for ITA, stated:
Part Two of the B56.6 standard addresses general safety and
operating practices that are highly relevant to the proposed rule's
training provisions. Although ITA is pleased that the proposed
rule's training provisions provide greater detail than OSHA's
industrial truck rule, these provisions can be made still more
effective by additional particularity.
The proposed rule merely requires that employees be trained to
recognize safety hazards and trained ``in the safe use or
maintenance of any machinery, equipment, or tools that they may be
required to operate or maintain.'' This directive, we feel, is
inadequate because it fails to state the elements that comprise an
effective training program.
By contrast, paragraph 5.17.4 of the B56.6 voluntary standard
lists numerous elements of a proper training program specific to
rough-terrain forklift truck operation, including explanation of the
safety-related aspects of truck and component design; location and
function of controls; supervised practice; oral, written, and
operational performance testing; and refresher courses. ITA
requests, therefore, that the final logging operations rule
incorporate the training provisions contained in the B56.6 standard.
OSHA believes that the performance-based and competency-based
training provisions contained in the final standard adequately address
ITA's concerns, and that more specific requirements in this standard
for forklift truck operator training are not warranted for several
reasons.
First, the record indicates there is not a significant number of
rough-terrain industrial trucks used in logging operations. Mr. Richard
Lewis, testifying on behalf of APA, confirmed the limited use of rough-
terrain industrial trucks in the logging industry:
The American Pulpwood Association currently employs seven
technically trained foresters, two in Washington and five in
division offices throughout the U.S. And collectively we've worked
in the field for approximately 103 man years, and we get out on
logging operations every month and sometimes once a week, and we
have never, never observed the use of a rough terrain fork lift in a
logging operation (Tr. OR 478-79 OR).
Second, the ASME standard to which ITA refers, B56.6, does not
focus on any unique problems with the use of industrial trucks in
logging operations. Conversely, the logging standard is intended
primarily to deal with workplace hazards that are unique to logging
operations.
Third, in any event, the final standard achieves the same training
outcome as the B56.6 standard: demonstrated ability to safely operate a
rough-terrain industrial truck.
OSHA is in agreement with ITA that safety in industrial truck
operation is important in the logging industry as well as all other
industries. OSHA believes that the issue of training of industrial
truck operators is more appropriately addressed in more detail in
OSHA's forthcoming proposed standard on industrial truck operator
training. OSHA believes the major safety issues involving industrial
truck operation can be fully and specifically examined and addressed in
that rulemaking.
c. Portability of training. The third issue raised regarding
training involves the portability of training; that is, whether current
and new employees who are experienced and previously trained must
receive additional or supplemental training. The proposed rule would
have required that each new employee be trained, regardless of whether
he/she had been trained previously.
Some commenters supported the proposed requirement (Ex. 9-2, 9-3,
9-9, 9-13). Several commenters disagreed with the scope of employees
that need training, stating that trained and experienced loggers should
not require the same training as an inexperienced new employee (Ex. 5-
21, 5-33, 5-39, 9-2; Tr. W1 63, OR 85).
OSHA believes that training is important for all loggers regardless
of whether they have no logging experience or have many years of
experience. The need to provide training for even experienced loggers
is buttressed by the WIR survey of injured loggers, which indicated
that over one third of those injured had never received training (Ex.
2-1). In addition, more than 60 percent of those injured had worked 5
years or more in the logging industry. In fact, only 22 percent of
those injured had worked in the logging industry for one year or less.
At the same time, OSHA does not want to penalize those employers
who already have instituted training programs that meet the
requirements of the final rule or can easily be brought into compliance
with the final rule. In addition, OSHA does not want to impose an
unnecessary burden on an employer who hires loggers who have received
the training required by this section on a prior job.
In order to eliminate unnecessary duplication of training in the
final rule, OSHA is not requiring employers to retrain employees who
have received training in the specific requirements of this section.
The final rule only requires the employer to train employees in those
elements in which the current or new employee has not been trained. For
example, an employee may need to be trained to recognize hazards that
are specific to the terrain in which the work is being done, and to
utilize safe work practices to avoid or control these hazards. In
addition, a new employee, even if experienced in logging operations,
may not be familiar with various work site procedures of the new
employer, such as signals to be used. It is important for new employees
to be brought up to speed with the current logging practices so other
members of the logging crew are not placed at risk by the actions or
inactions of the new employee.
OSHA has included in the final rule a provision that each new
employee and each employee who must be trained work under the
supervision of a designated person until they can demonstrate the
ability to perform their new duties safely. OSHA's position on the
supervision requirement was supported by various hearing participants.
For example, various witnesses at the hearing noted that close
supervision of new employees, regardless of their experience, is a
widely accepted practice in the logging industry and a means of
determining whether the employee's previous training was adequate (Tr.
W1 91-92, OR 95-97, 204-05, 275-76, 374, 456-57, 635-36). As such, OSHA
believes that the inclusion of the supervision requirement in the final
rule will provide the necessary safety to both the new and current
employee, and will not impose a significant burden on the employer.
2. Personal protective equipment. In the hearing notice OSHA raised
the issue about who should pay for personal protective equipment (PPE)
that employees are required to use or wear. The Agency proposed that
employers provide PPE and assure it is used by employees when required.
OSHA's intent in the proposed rule was that the employer provide
personal equipment at no cost to the employee. PPE items included in
the proposed rule were gloves, leg protection, logging boots, safety
helmets (hard hats), eye or face protection, and respiratory
protection.
Many commenters agreed that the personal protective equipment
specified in the proposed rule should be used. (Ex. 5-32, 5-42, 5-64,
9-2, 9-15, 9-16, 9-20). Some commenters urged OSHA to require that the
employer be responsible for providing all PPE (Ex. 9-3, 9-13). They
said that only if the employer provided the PPE could he assure its
quality, design and maintenance. However, many other commenters opposed
requiring logging employers to provide certain types of PPE, and their
opposition focused primarily on logging boots (Ex. 5-11, 5-21, 5-32, 5-
39, 5-45, 5-51, 5-55, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-2, 9-5, 9-15, 9-17, 9-18;
Tr. W1 74-75, 110, 177, OR 22, 79, 205, 262, 441, 533, 632, 701). Many
commenters did not give any reason why the employer should not be
required to pay for PPE. Other commenters contended primarily that
employers would be financially burdened if they had to pay for certain
high cost PPE, such as individually-fitted and non-reusable logging
boots, in an industry that has such a high turnover rate. Other reasons
for not requiring the employer to provide certain types of PPE were the
use of certain PPE by employees outside the workplace, and industry
custom.
Commenters noted that employee turnover in the logging industry is
very high (Ex. 5-11, 5-21, 5-39, 5-49, 5-51, 5-55, 5-56, 5-63, 5-65, 5-
74 through 5-92; Tr. W1 74-75, 110, 177, OR 22, 79, 205, 262, 441, 533,
632, 701). Some commenters also indicated that employees sometimes work
only one or two weeks before leaving, often taking jobs at another
logging establishment (Ex. 5-55, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. OR 78). These
commenters argued that it would be unfair to require employers to pay
for expensive logging boots given the high turnover rate of the logging
industry. One commenter said:
[I]t frightens us to think that we might be providing a $300
pair of boots for a man that's there a week (Tr. W1 74).
These commenters also contend that for some PPE, particularly
logging boots, employers might have to buy new PPE every time they hire
a new employee. First, this would be necessary because terminated
employees do not return PPE they are issued (Ex. 5-45). Second, these
commenters argue that, unlike PPE such as ear muffs and head and leg
protection, logging boots are an item of PPE that cannot be reused by
other employees because of size and hygienic concerns (Ex. 5-29, 5-43,
5-44, 5-62, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-1, 9-15, 9-21; Tr. OR 78). Because
logging boots cannot be worn by other employees, these commenters said
employers view logging boots as ``personal clothing.'' In addition,
these commenters said that even if employees did return their logging
boots, new employees would be unwilling to wear used logging boots. One
commenter said:
Suppose a new employee comes to work in the spring and finds he
can't or doesn't want to be a logger so he hands in his $200 boots
with two weeks wear and tear and leaves. Is the next guy going to
accept ``used'' boots someone else wore? (Ex. 5-78)
The commenters said that requiring employers to pay for new PPE,
primarily logging boots, for each new employee would place a
considerable financial burden on employers (Ex. 5-32, 5-39, 5-45, 9-15;
Tr. W1 74, OR 78, 350). They said the cost would be particularly
burdensome for small establishments that comprise the vast majority of
the logging industry. Their basis for this conclusion is that logging
boots are very costly, ranging from $60 to $400 a pair (Ex. 5-45, 9-15;
Tr. W1 74, OR 78, 350). In addition, they said employees need two to
three pairs of logging boots a year. The commenters, however, did not
present any financial or economic evidence as to the burden (e.g.,
effect on profits, sales, etc.) on the industry as a whole, and
particularly small employers as a group, of providing logging boots.
One commenter said employers should not be required to pay for
logging boots that are used by employees away from workplace (Ex. 5-
39). This commenter said employees take their logging boots with them
when they seek new employment (Ex. 5-39). He also said employees use
their logging boots for hunting and cutting their own wood (Ex. 5-39).
In contrast, the record shows that other types of PPE (e.g., leg
protection, safety glasses and hearing protection) remain with the
employer, therefore, they are not used away from the workplace (e.g.,
Ex. 5-32). In addition, one commenter said that these types of PPE are
already being provided by many establishments as standard industry
practice (Ex. 5-32).
Finally, several commenters said that employers should not be
required to pay for certain PPE because the custom in the logging
industry is that employees, especially piece-rate workers, provide
their own PPE, particularly logging boots (Ex. 5-11, 5-24, 5-45, 5-67,
5-74 through 5-92). These commenters said that piece-rate workers
provide all ``tools of the trade,'' that includes some types of PPE.
However, the record also shows that some logging establishments do
provide logging boots (Ex. 5-32; Tr. W1 177). For example, one
commenter said:
[T]he way we set it up is that when you're with us for one year
we will buy you three pair of boots and we will supply all safety
equipment.
After you are with us for one month, we will supply safety
chaps, the helmet, the whole works. The first day you come on the
job we will supply the helmet, a helmet with the eye protection and
the ear protection (Tr. W1 177).
Another commenter said:
In most instances items such as ear plugs, safety glasses,
bucking chaps or any other safety item required to work in a safe
environment are provided (Ex. 5-32).
OSHA has carefully reviewed the evidence in the record and, for
several reasons, has decided in the final rule to delete the general
requirement that the employer be required to provide logging boots.
However, the final rule does require that such boots be worn by logging
employees, and holds the employer responsible for assuring that the
employee has logging boots and wears them. As to the other PPE
requirements specified in paragraph (d), OSHA has retained the language
of the pulpwood logging and proposed standards that the employer
provide such PPE at no cost to the employee.
The OSH Act imposes on employers the responsibility for compliance
with standards and for providing safe working conditions for employees.
This responsibility has been recognized in OSHA's personal protective
equipment standards at 29 CFR 1910.132 through 29 CFR 1910.138. Section
1910.132(a) establishes the employer's obligation to provide and
maintain personal protective equipment whenever such equipment is
necessary by reason of the hazards in the workplace.
Section 1910.132(b) does recognize that in some limited
circumstances that employees may provide their own PPE. However, OSHA
emphasizes that this practice is not the norm, but rather an exception
based on unusual or specific circumstances. In addition, section
1910.132(b) underscores the employer's continuing obligation to assure
the adequacy and maintenance of the PPE.
The record shows that special circumstances exist in the logging
industry which may make it appropriate for employees to provide their
own logging boots. First, the record shows that the logging industry is
highly transient, and that logging boots, unlike other PPE required by
the final rule, are not the kind of PPE that can be reused. Logging
boots purchased to fit one employee may not fit the next employee. It
is important that logging boots fit properly or the boot may not
provide the necessary protection. Therefore, based on current turnover
rates in the industry, employers would have to purchase non-reusable
logging boots costing $200 to $400 many times a year for newly-hired
employees, even though there is a significant likelihood that these
employees will remain in the job for only a short time.
Second, the record shows that logging employees tend to move from
one logging establishment to another, taking their ``tools of the
trade'' with them, particularly their logging boots. OSHA believes it
may be appropriate in this situation to allow employees to take their
logging boots to the next place of employment, rather than requiring
the new employer to provide logging boots. Logging boots are both
portable (i.e., not limited in use to or maintained at a particular
workplace, like respirators for instance) and in most cases they fit
only that particular employee therefore they cannot be reused by other
employees. The other items of PPE required by the final rule, such as
leg and head protection, tend to be both less personal to the employee
and more connected to the workplace itself, and can be readily used by
other employees.
Third, there is evidence in the record that employees do use their
logging boots away from work. Employees come to and leave work wearing
their logging boots, suggesting that the boots are used away from the
workplace. In addition, commenters cited specific activities where
logging boots are used away from the logging work site. The commenters
did not provide any comparable evidence that other items of PPE
required by the final rule are also used by employees away from the
workplace.
Based on the above, OSHA has decided in the final rule not to
require the employer to provide logging boots. The Agency emphasizes
that it is the totality of the special circumstances in the logging
industry that justify this determination. Of the reasons discussed
above, none of them standing alone would provide sufficient
justification for departing from the general requirement that employers
provide PPE. Rather, it is the combination of these reasons and special
circumstances in the logging industry that make it appropriate to allow
employees to provide their own logging boots.
OSHA also emphasizes that regardless of who provides the logging
boots, the final rule makes the employer responsible for assuring that
logging boots are used by the employee and are maintained in a
serviceable condition. In addition, in the final rule the employer is
responsible for assuring that logging boots are inspected before
initial use during a workshift. Attendant to this requirement, the
employer is also responsible for assuring that damaged and defective
equipment is either repaired or replaced before work is commenced.
With regard to the other items of PPE required by the final rule,
OSHA does not believe there is sufficient evidence in the record to
justify a departure from OSHA's long-established policy. Neither
industry practice nor turnover rates compel the Agency to relieve
employers of the obligation to pay for the other items of PPE for
loggers. Indeed, evidence in the record shows that many employers are
currently providing these other items of PPE (Ex. 5-32, 9-15; Tr. W1
177). The record shows that, unlike logging boots, these items of PPE
tend to remain at the workplace and are amenable for use by other
employees. Further, there is no evidence in the record of an
established practice of employees using such PPE away from the
workplace. Also, there is no evidence of established and uniform
industry practice of transporting such PPE from job to job. Therefore,
in the final rule, OSHA is requiring, except for logging boots, that
the employer provide PPE at no cost to the employee.
3. Leg protection. In the hearing notice OSHA raised three issues
concerning leg protection for chain-saw operators: specifications for
leg protection, the area to be protected, and potential disadvantages
of leg protection.
a. Specifications. The proposed rule would have required that
chain-saw operators wear leg protection made of ballistic nylon or
other material that provides at least equivalent protection. Many
commenters supported the leg protection requirement for chain-saw
operators (Ex. 5-5, 5-7, 5-17, 5-30, 5-33, 5-42, 5-45, 5-51, 5-60, 5-
68, 5-73, 9-9-11; Tr. W2 126-28). Several commenters and hearing
participants also supported OSHA's position that leg protection meet
certain criteria (Ex. 5-30, 5-60, 5-68, 5-73; Tr. W2 126-28). Two
commenters suggested that OSHA require leg protection made with KEVLAR
because they believe KEVLAR provides more protection than ballistic
nylon (Ex. 5-5, 5-30). One of these commenters said KEVLAR leg
protection provides 50 percent more protection than ballistic nylon
with a fraction of the weight and bulk, thus allowing easier movement
and reducing fatigue (Ex. 5-30). This commenter also said that the U.S.
Forest Service specifications call for KEVLAR leg protection. Other
commenters stated that a testing protocol for leg protection should be
adopted rather than specifying that leg protection be comprised of any
certain type of material (Ex. 5-60, 5-68, 5-72). One commenter said
OSHA should adopt the ISO or Canadian testing standards for leg
protection (Ex. 9-16). However, other commenters said there was no
consensus in this country regarding an appropriate testing standard
(Ex. 5-60, 5-68, 5-72). One commenter proposed that the following
testing standard be adopted:
[T]he protective garment must have a minimum ``Threshold Chain
Speed'' of 2500 feet per minute for operators using chain saws with
an engine displacement of under 65 cc and 3000 feet per minute for
operators using chain saws with an engine displacement of over 65
cc. Further the test procedure developed and currently used by the
US Forest Service [should] be adopted and defined as the test method
used to measure the ``Threshold Chain Speed'' of safety material
(Ex. 5-68).
Another commenter proposed that a different testing standard be
adopted in OSHA's final rule:
I propose to replace ``ballistic nylon or equivalent protection
covering each leg from the upper thigh to boot top or shoe top'' by
``leg protective device in conformity with the standard NQ 1923-450
``Protective pad for chain saw operators' trousers and leggings.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\NQ 1923-450 is a test standard developed in Quebec Province,
Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This performance standard covers all the requirements for safety
leggings such as the minimum coverage and a minimum performance
level. This performance level is measured in conformity with the
standard NQ 1923-450 ``Protective pads for chain saw operators'
trousers and leggings--Determination of stopping speed and cut-
through time.'' These two standards have been adopted by a consensus
of employers, workers, manufacturers of fabrics and PPE, government
and workers' compensation boards.
Other participants opposed specific criteria for leg protection
performance for several reasons (Tr. W2 206-07, OR 472-75, 496-98, 513-
14). First, some argued that there were no national consensus or State
standard to provide guidance on specification standards. Second, others
commented that a specification standard limited to ``ballistic nylon''
was too restrictive (Ex. 5-30; Tr. W2 189-90). Third, others stated
that there are no standards establishing specific performance criteria
of the material for leg protection. For example, APA testified:
APA does not know of any state leg protection apparel standard
in existence or under development. I can report to you that our
association has a special committee working on the development of a
safety apparel standard, and this committee has generally accepted
the Quebec Research Institute testing method, and now it's kind of
rewriting this testing method to meet the American Society of
Testing Materials guidelines. So the committee is close to
completing its work on endorsing an approved test procedure.
The next step in the committee's charge is to develop a
voluntary performance testing standard that would apply for leg
protection, safety boots and other apparel. That's going to be a
little way down the road. It's own opinion that the work of this
committee is not yet mature and that OSHA should probably not
attempt to include any specific performance testing standard for leg
protection or other safety items at this time. They're recommending
that you defer the inclusion of a specific leg protection
performance testing standard until the next revision of the OSHA
logging regulations, whenever that might be. It may be ten years
from now or fifteen years from now. At this point in time, we feel
it's much more important to get any safety equipment worn, rather
than to worry about whether or not it meets specific performance
standard (Tr. OR 472-75).
APA also testified that regional differences in chain-saw
operations also precludes a specification standard for leg protection:
I would also say in general our feeling is that logging is so
different obviously in every part of the country that often we've
got to have lead-way for the types of leg protection that might be
appropriate for a person working in the swamps of Louisiana as
opposed to the mountains of Montana. Not that we know what those
differences might be, but that in general we feel like the loggers
in those areas should be able to have the opportunity to design or
approve a leg protection that would be appropriate for their
situation (Tr. OR 207-08).
The record shows that leg protection for chain-saw operators is
essential to prevent injuries. According to the WIR survey, 64 percent
of injuries to chain-saw operators were due to kickback, an accident
that usually results in injury to the leg (Ex. 2-1). The WIR survey
also indicates that 22 percent of all injuries reported were to the
leg.
OSHA believes that leg protection made of ballistic nylon or
equivalent material is effective in preventing injuries to the leg. A
study by the French Farmers' Mutuality indicates that ballistic leg
protection was effective in preventing 12 leg injuries in 91 loggers
studies over an eight-month period (Ex. 37). Testimony and comments
show, however, that there is no accepted testing measurements standard
in this country on leg protection performance. In addition, the foreign
standards that do exist have not been generally accepted or used in
this country. Nonetheless, OSHA believes that a performance-based
requirement for leg protection to provide protection against contact
with a moving saw chain will provide flexibility for employers while
encouraging technological innovation, such as the work by APA.
For these reasons, in the final rule OSHA has adopted the proposed
provision requiring that leg protection be worn on each leg by all
chain-saw operators. However, OSHA has revised the final rule to
require that where the employer provides leg protection made of
material other than ballistic nylon, the employer is responsible for
demonstrating that it provides protection which is at least equivalent
to ballistic nylon, such as KEVLAR. This requirement ensures that
employees are protected against moving saw chains, while at the same
time providing flexibility for the employer.
b. Area to be protected and disadvantages of leg protection. The
other issues raised regarding leg protection concerned the parts of the
chain-saw operator's body that should be covered and its effect on
mobility and other potential safety disadvantages of wearing leg
protection.
The proposed rule specified that leg protection extend from the
upper thigh to the boot or shoe top. Many commenters supported the
proposed rule (Ex. 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, 9-11, 9-13, 9-15, 9-16, 9-20).
One commenter said that the proposed rule followed the requirements of
the European draft standard (Ex. 9-11B). Some commenters said the
proposed rule was not protective enough and said the equipment for
protecting chain-saw operators should be expanded (Ex. 5-14, 5-68). One
of these commenters said:
[W]e would recommend that a standard be developed defining the
minimum coverage these garments should have, for example from crotch
to ankle bone with a minimum width measured at the knee of 9.5 (Ex.
5-68).
The other commenter recommended leg protection be extended to also
provide foot protection that is cut resistance to a chain saw (Ex. 5-
14). This commenter said that the additional foot covering protection
would also assure that the entire leg and ankle were covered if the
chaps were not long enough to cover the boot top.
Several commenters, however, said leg protection should be limited
in the final rule (Ex. 5-17, 5-45, 5-56, 5-65, 9-1; Tr. OR 227, 633-
34). Most of these commenters said that OSHA should not require leg
protection to extend from the upper thigh to the boot or shoe top.
First, these commenters said that extending leg protection from the
thigh to the boot or shoe top was not necessary because most of the
injuries occur to the area around the knee. For example, one commenter
stated:
A person using a chain saw would have to do some pretty
spectacular gymnastics to receive a chain saw cut more than 4''
below the knee. Once again, we have no recordable injuries for the
last 7 years involving chain saw cuts more than 4'' below the knee
(Ex. 5-45).
Another commenter stated that leg protection was not necessary for
climbers and bucket truck operators:
The major hazards for these individuals are cuts to the upper
body from saw kick-backs and falling material. Leg protection should
not be required, however the use of some of the new lighter and more
pliable pads sewn into pants should be encouraged whenever feasible
(Ex. 5-19).
Second, commenters stated that the small risk of injury to the
lower leg was outweighed by the risks due to lack of mobility caused by
full-length leg protection. For example, one said:
We have received numerous comments from our membership
throughout the country who use leg protection (or chaps) suggesting
that chaps only extend to just below the knee. Chaps that extend to
the boot top, or shoe top, as required in proposed Section
(e)(1)(ii), impede mobility and cause a greater safety hazard than
the standard works to protect against. Our members believe that the
highest risk for chain saw cuts occurs from the knee to the thigh.
Thus, chaps that cover the leg from the upper thigh to just below
the knee are sufficient (Ex. 5-56).
Third, one commenter testified that leg protection to the boot or
shoe top would pose an unreasonable financial burden on employers (Tr.
OR 633-34). According to the participant, different loggers use the
employer-provided leg protection each day. Because all loggers are not
the same height, the leg protection provided may not reach to the boot
or shoe top or may be too long for other loggers to wear safely. This
participant suggested that the only way an employer could guarantee
compliance with the required fit of the leg protection would be to
provide fitted leg protection to each individual logger. The
participant recommended the following:
We suggest [leg protection extend] to below the knee because
these come in various lengths. And certainly in those times you
can't always stretch a pair of chaps that somebody maybe having to
put on to operate a chain saw all of a sudden to get it down to the
boot top (Tr. OR 633-34).
Fourth, some commenters stated that leg protection that extends to
the boot or shoe top might cause mobility problems, and would therefore
be hazardous for chain-saw operators (Ex. 5-19, 5-20, 5-55). For
example, one commenter stated:
Rigging crews will occasionally use a power saw. If they are
required to wear leggings, it could be more dangerous than not
having anything. This is one of the reasons rigging crews prefer
suspenders rather than a belt because you don't get ``hung up'' so
often. Anything that is going to hinder mobility is a problem (Ex.
5-20).
Another commenter recommended that OSHA limit leg protection to
just one leg for cutters (i.e., the leg in front that is used to
maintain balance during cutting) (Ex. 5-65). However, this commenter
also admitted that any chain-saw operator who is clearing brush needs
to wear protection on both legs because the saw is continuously and
perilously close to either leg at all times.
Other commenters said leg protection should be limited because heat
and humidity could increase worker fatigue or cause problems that might
exceed the benefits of leg protection (Ex. 5-25, 5-26, 5-59, Tr. W2
206-07). For example, one commenter stated:
OSHA proposes that employees are assigned duties that require an
operator of a chain saw to wear ballistic nylon or equivalent
protection that must cover each leg from the upper thigh to the boot
top. This does not take into consideration the various temperature
factors which could increase fatigue. Fatigue is a major cause of
injuries. As stated, on Page 11802 [of the preamble to the proposed
standard], Alabama and Georgia are states that are among the leaders
in logging activities. Due to the high heat and humidity of these
states, the requirement to wear ballistic nylon chaps could possibly
increase injuries as a result of the fatigue caused by hot, humid
summer weather (Tr. W2 206-07).
Another comment added:
Clause (e)(1)(ii) should allow exceptions to the wearing of leg
protectors for all circumstances (not just climbers) in which there
is a greater hazard than working without them (for instance, fatigue
from heat and humidity or loss of mobility in heavy undergrowth
etc.). It would be even more appropriate if the wearing of ``leg
protectors'' were made optional, depending on the individual work
circumstances. One study, (The Role of Personal Protection in the
Prevention of Accidental Injuries in Logging Work, T. Klen and S.
Vayrynen, Journal of Occupational Accidents, 1984) concluded that
personal protectors have not been very effective and that this was a
result of a phenomena known as ``risk compensation'', the tendency
of workers to be more careless when they believe that personal
protectors will prevent injury (Ex. 5-59).
OSHA has carefully reviewed the record on this issue and, for
several reasons, has decided in the final rule to retain the
requirement that leg protection cover the upper thigh to the boot top.
The record clearly shows that chain-saw operators face a significant
risk of injury due to kickback. The WIR survey indicates that 64
percent of all chain-saw injuries reported were the result of kickback
(Ex. 2-1). Further, the WIR survey shows that almost 30 percent of all
injured employees were not wearing leg protection at the time. Also,
almost one-fourth of all injuries reported were to the leg.
According to the Maine BLS survey, chain-saw accidents accounted
for 26 percent of all reported injuries and more than half of those
accidents involved chain-saw kickback.
OSHA does not believe the record supports the commenters' claims
that chain-saw injuries only occur to the area around the knee.
Injuries to the lower leg as well as the knee are significant. The WIR
survey indicated that nine percent of all employees reporting injuries
were hurt in the lower leg or ankle, while 11 percent were injured in
the knee.
The available accident and injury data also do not support the
commenters' argument that lack of mobility is a greater hazard to
chain-saw operators than lack of leg protection. To the contrary, the
data clearly show that the risk of chain-saw kickback is far more
serious than any of the potential dangers that have been suggested with
regard to leg protection (Ex. 2-1). For example, according to the WIR
survey, none of the chain-saw operators said they had been injured
because they did not have enough time to retreat from the falling tree.
On the other hand, almost two-thirds of the chain-saw operators were
injured because the chain saw kicked back. In any event, OSHA believes
that other provisions in the proposed and final rule will adequately
address concerns about mobility. For example, the requirement to plan
and clear retreat paths before commencing cutting will protect
employees who would be at risk from decreased mobility.
Finally, OSHA believes the new innovations in leg protection
technology address the commenters' concerns about costs, mobility,
fatigue and heat stress. First, the record shows that full-leg
protection now being manufactured is light-weight and relatively cool
(Ex. 5-68, 9-4). The record also shows that light-weight leg protection
that is inserted or sewn into logging pants is now available. According
to one commenter, these new innovations make leg protection tolerable
even in the hot and humid southern logging regions. OSHA believes these
innovations will reduce fatigue and heat stress and will prevent
mobility from being impeded. Second, the record shows that foot
coverings are available that can supplement protection in those
instances where leg protection may not fully cover the logger's lower
leg. These devices will provide adequate protection in those isolated
instances where leg protection may not be long enough without requiring
the employer to purchase leg protection in many different sizes.
4. First aid. The hearing notice raised two issues about first aid:
the number of employees who must have first-aid training, and the
elements required as part of that training, such as cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR).
a. Number of employees trained. The proposed standard specified
that all supervisors and all fellers be adequately trained in first aid
methods as prescribed by the American Red Cross, the Mine Safety and
Health Administration or an equivalent training program. In addition,
the proposed rule included a provision that at least one person in the
``operating area'' have first-aid training.
OSHA received many comments regarding the number of employees who
should be trained in first aid in order to provide adequate protection.
There was no consensus among those commenters on the appropriate number
of employees who must be trained. Their recommendations about the
number of employees who should be required to receive first-aid
training covered a wide range of options, including the following:
1. All employees (Ex. 5-7, 5-17, 9-15, 9-20; Tr. W1 175, W2 209, OR
100, 375, 393, 681);
2. All supervisors and fellers (Ex. 9-3, 9-13);
3. All supervisors and enough additional personnel so each work
site would have a trained employee (Tr. OR 21);
4. All supervisors and fellers, plus two additional employees on a
logging job (Ex. 5-54; Tr. OR 647);
5. All supervisors, fellers, and one-fifth of remaining crew
members (Ex. 9-19, Tr. OR 282);
6. All supervisors, fellers and one-fourth of remaining crew
members (Tr. OR 206); and
7. All supervisors and some fellers (Ex. 5-36, 5-53, 5-55, 5-63).
Commenters who recommended first aid training for a limited number
of employees, said that training all fellers or all other employees was
excessive since the proposed rule would also require employees to work
within visual or audible contact of another employee (Ex. 5-36, 5-55).
Another commenter said that requiring all fellers to be trained would
be duplicative since more than one feller may work at a work site (Ex.
5-63).
Other commenters said they already provide first-aid training for
each employee:
Everyone--all the people on our crew are trained [in first aid]
on a rotating basis. Now, the fellow that's been with us six months,
he has not been to the first-aid class yet. Also, one of the--I
believe it's in with the Nortim Corporation, the Nortim self
insured, it is one of the regulations that we do have people on the
job that are versed in first aid (Tr. OR 174).
Another hearing participant stated:
Along with overall safety training, I feel that required first
aid training for all employees is simply common sense (Tr. OR 393).
Other commenters indicated that they are providing first aid
training to a substantial portion of employees, in part because the
company's logging operations are in isolated locations in Alaska:
Mr. Lesser: Does your training program include first aid
training?
Mr. Bell: We provide first aid training to just about whoever
wants it.
Mr. Lesser: Who do you require to have first aid training?
Mr. Bell: We require all supervisors, leadmen, hook tenders,
leaders of crews.
Mr. Lesser: Using the voluntary nature offering the first aid,
do you get a lot of volunteers? What percentage of the work force is
trained in first aid?
Mr. Bell: I'd say 35 percent (Tr. OR 375).
As discussed above, there is no dispute that logging is a hazardous
industry. All data sources in the record show that a significant number
of accidents occur in the logging industry and that the severity of
injuries sustained by loggers is greater than that suffered by
employees in other industries. Loggers often work in isolated locations
that are far from hospitals or health care providers that sometimes are
accessible only by helicopters or vehicles designed to operate on the
most rugged terrain (Ex. 9-20; Tr. OR 21). Accordingly, loggers need to
be trained and equipped to handle the significant number of severe
injuries that might arise. In many instances these trained employees
will be the only persons available to render assistance at a critical
time.
OSHA believes that first aid training for only a select few
individuals, such as supervisors and fellers, is not adequate to ensure
that injured loggers receive first aid that is timely and appropriate.
First, when only a few selected employees are trained, they may not be
close enough to the site of the accident to render assistance in time.
The WIR survey indicates that more than one-half of all injuries
reported occurred at cutting sites, that in most cases are remote from
landings and from medical facilities (Ex. 2-1). The WIR survey is
consistent with the OSHA FCI study, that indicated that more than 70
percent of logging employees killed were working at cutting sites (Ex.
4-61). One hearing participant reinforced this problem:
The rigging crew is often 1,000 feet and sometimes 5,000 feet
from the landing. The work site is usually on rough, steep ground,
and these workers often use hazardous cutting implements such as
axes and chain saws. If the first aid trained person and the first
aid kit are in the yarder, that can be 15 minutes or more from where
the worst exposure is (Tr. OR 21).
In addition, since the final rule allows employees to maintain contact
with another employee by visual or audible contact, an employee may be
miles from the contact person when radio communication is used. In such
cases, the contact person may not be able to provide immediate first
aid assistance.
Second, limiting first aid training to all supervisors and some
additional personnel may not be adequate when supervisors are not at
the work site when an accident occurs. According to the State of
Washington, logging supervisors usually have two or more logging crews
working directly for them (Ex. 5-34). These logging crews are often
dispersed over five square miles or more. In addition, in larger
operations, foremen usually see each crew only once a day and rarely
for more than one hour of the workshift. Another commenters said in his
experience it was not uncommon to find a group of employees working in
a location without a supervisor and no other employee in the group has
a current first aid certificate (Ex. 91-5).
Third, a logger's injuries may be of such severity that several
persons trained in first aid may be needed to stabilize the injured
employee and treat the injury. If only one employee is trained, the
first aid assistance may not be sufficient.
Fourth, when only one employee in a work site is trained, as the
proposed rule contemplates, first aid will obviously be inadequate if
the trained person is the one who is injured. (Although first-aid
training does include instruction in self-aid, the injuries may be
severe enough to incapacitate the trained employee.) For example, in a
small working crew that has no supervisor, the feller may be the only
employee who is trained in first-aid. If the feller is injured, there
may be no other logger in that work crew who is trained to provide
first aid. The WIR survey indicates that one-half of all loggers who
were injured were performing felling tasks (i.e., felling, limbing,
bucking) at the time.
Fifth, when only a few employees receive first-aid training, there
is a greater likelihood that there could be crucial gaps in coverage
due to sickness, vacations, other leave, or employee turnover of those
few who have received training. In addition, an employer may not know
from day to day if an employee will be present that is holding a
current first aid certificate (Ex. 5-7).
OSHA notes that some commenters opposed requiring every employee to
have first-aid training because of the transient nature of the logging
industry. OSHA finds that the commenters' argument does not support the
position that fewer employees should be trained. If there is high
employee turnover, it may be the trained employee who is not employed
any longer. If work continues without a fully-trained person while a
first-aid replacement is being trained, employees may be at great risk.
By contrast, if work has to be stopped until a replacement can be
trained, the employer could incur costs which could be prevented by
having adequate first aid coverage in advance. If all employees working
in the logging industry are required to have first-aid training, a pool
of trained employees will always be available to employers for hiring.
Fifth, requiring that each employee be trained eliminates confusion
and may be less administratively burdensome than making a daily check
and rescheduling of work assignments to assure that supervisors,
fellers and some additional number of employees in each operating area
hold current first aid training certificates.
To ease the training burden for employers, the final rule does not
require that the first-aid training be provided by the employer.
Rather, the final rule requires that the employer assure that each
employee performing logging operations receives or has received first-
aid training and that the first-aid training/certificate is current.
For example, as one means of complying with the final rule, the
employer could make first-aid training a condition of hiring or
continued employment. The employer would be free to hire only those
persons who had previously obtained first-aid training and kept their
certificate current. In addition, when there is employee turnover,
trained employees will be able to bring their first-aid skills from one
workplace to another and thus relieve the training burden for the new
employer.
OSHA is aware that some employers currently provide first-aid
training and most likely will continue to provide such training. OSHA
is also aware that a number of organizations and schools provide first-
aid training that would meet the requirements of Appendix B. For
example, the American Red Cross, the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, State extension services, community colleges, and adult
education programs all provide first-aid training that includes CPR. As
such, OSHA does not believe that the requirement of assuring that all
employees have received first-aid training that remains current will
pose an unreasonable burden on any employer or employee.
b. Elements of first-aid training. In the hearing notice, OSHA
requested comment on the specific elements, such as CPR, that should be
included in first-aid training. In the proposed rule OSHA did not
specify the basic elements in which supervisors and fellers must be
trained. Rather, OSHA proposed that first-aid training meet the
requirements of courses provided by the American Red Cross, MSHA or an
equivalent training program.
Several commenters recommended that OSHA require CPR training as
part of required first-aid training (Ex. 5-42, 5-49, 5-50, 9-2, 9-19).
Both NIOSH and the U.S. Dept. of Interior supported the CPR training
requirement. Because loggers, especially those deep in the woods are
not close to medical facilities during the ``golden hour'' where
resuscitation may save a person's life, OSHA agrees with the commenters
that it is essential that all loggers be able to perform CPR.
Therefore, in the final rule OSHA has included a requirement for annual
CPR training.
In addition, OSHA has specified other basic skills and knowledge in
Appendix B (mandatory) that are important for providing aid to injured
loggers in isolated settings. OSHA is aware that there are many well-
recognized first-aid programs that have broad-based curricula which
already satisfy OSHA requirements.
5. Visual and audible contact. In the hearing notice OSHA requested
comment on the maximum time and/or distance separation between
employees. In the proposed rule, OSHA included a requirement that
employees work within visual or audible contact of another employee, so
that someone would be able to respond quickly in case of an accident or
other emergency. The proposed rule prohibited the use of engine noise,
such as from chain saws, as a means of contact. Various State logging
standards also prohibit the use of chain-saw noise as a means of
signaling (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-21, 2-22, 38J, 38K).
OSHA received many comments on the contact and signaling
provisions. Many commenters testified that the proposed contact
requirement is necessary (Ex. 5-14, 5-17, 5-27, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-2,
9-3, 9-5, 9-13; Tr. W2 197-98). One commenter said:
We think that visual or audible contact is important and will
save lives. There are also electronic devices, some sophisticated
and some like citizen band radios, that can be used by forest
workers to maintain audible contact by electronic means. We
recommend that the existing proposed language be retained but
modified perhaps to allow audible contact by electronic means (Tr.
W2 197-98).
Certain commenters urged OSHA to make the contact requirement
stricter than that proposed. One commenter said employees in solitary
jobs also need to remain in contact and, therefore, should be provided
with two-way radios (Ex. 9-15). Another commenter said OSHA should
require employees to remain within visual contact of another crew
members (Ex. 9-20). Finally, two commenters recommended that OSHA
require employees to work within normal hearing or calling distance of
another employee (Ex. 9-19; Tr. OR 679-81).
However, several commenters expressed various concerns about the
contact provision, and particularly the prohibition against chain-saw
noise as a means of contact. First, some participants said the
requirements would have an adverse impact on small employers,
especially employers with work crews consisting of three or fewer
loggers (Ex. 5-21, 5-28, 5-35, 5-49, 5-53, 5-54, 5-70). For example,
one commenter said:
This requirement may adversely affect the livelihood of many
small-scale loggers in the South who may work alone in the woods, or
operate a single mobile ground skidder or felling machine and are
frequently out of contact with other phases of the logging operation
(Ex. 5-28).
Another commenter stated:
This requirement would not be practical for several reasons:
(1) there are a number of logging contractors that work alone,
(2) log crews with two or three members are often out of contact
because the great distance between the faller and log header,
(3) even at close range, visual and audible signals are
attenuated by thick brush and loud machinery.
My experience has been loggers will keep track of their fellow
workers the best they can but, due to the nature of the job,
individuals will be separated for certain lengths of time. To
require loggers to be within signaling distance of one another will
preclude the existence of one and two man log crews, working in
thick brush, working in hilly topography, skidding long distances,
the use of ear plugs or working with loud machines (Ex. 5-70).
Second, some commenters believed the contact requirement conflicted
with the proposed requirement to maintain a distance of two tree
lengths between work areas (Ex. 5-12, 5-29, 5-4, 5-67, 5-70). These
commenters said that a separation of two tree lengths between work
areas might make it impossible to maintain contact due to saw noise and
obstructions such as hills or vegetation. One commenter explained:
If this code goes through and is enacted, it would change the
timber falling industry in Alaska. Southeast Alaska is a relatively
new geological area. We work on steep ground that is broken up by
draws, gullies, cliffs. We have our timber fallers work together as
partners. One works in one strip or one area of the hillside and the
other one works in another area of the hillside. For safety reasons,
our company requires that they work at least three tree lengths
apart. And often with the broken up terrain, that precludes visual
contact (Tr. OR 353).
Third, comments were received on the prohibition of chain-saw noise
as a signaling device. Some participants supported the prohibition (Ex.
5-27, 5-34, 5-42). Other commenters argued that chain-saw noise is
currently being used as a means of contact in the logging industry and
should be allowed in the final rule (Tr. W1 65; OR 86, 353-55, 356-58,
384-85, 694-96). For example, one commenter said the sound of chain
saws is an indicator that someone is working at a specific location
(Tr. W1 65). Another commenter stated:
[W]e have been counting on chain saw noise for years. Chain saw
noise is possible, and by the way, that's my most dangerous part of
my job is to do a safety inspection or to go up and check on cutters
in a strip, to approach cutters. And I listen to the saw. And I can
tell when they are putting a cut into a standing tree or bucking a
log with the chain saw noise. If we are not allowed to use chain saw
noise as audible contact, that means we may have to go back to
double jacking which is a faller and a bucker working in tandem (Tr.
OR 353-55).
This participant also said that chain-saw noise should also be
permitted because 103-decibel chain-saw engines render 92-decibel
personal alarm systems inadequate as means of audible contact (Tr. OR
355).
Fourth, several commenters urged OSHA to adopt various alternatives
and modifications to the proposed contact requirement (Ex. 5-54, 5-55;
Tr. OR 670-81). For example, commenters suggested that OSHA replace the
contact provision with a ``check-in'' requirement:
In West Virginia, a cutting crew often consists of a worker who
fells and limbs the trees and a worker who operates a skidder.
Consequently, it is often necessary that the feller be left alone in
the woods, without audible or visual contact with another worker,
for short periods of time while the skidder operator is making the
trip to the log landing. Also, it is common practice for workers to
be constantly checking on one another. Upon his return from the
landing, the skidder operator immediately checks on the feller; and,
the feller, if the skidder operator does not return in the normal
time span, will check on the skidder operator.
Considering the common small cutting crew size, the practice of
constantly checking on one another, and the difficulties involved in
using an audible signal capable of being heard over distances, over
machine noise, and through hearing protection devices, it is our
recommendation that this aspect of the Standard be changed to allow
a worker to be out of ``visual or audible signal contact with
another person'' for short periods of time. Due to the normal time
involved for transporting a skidder load to the landing, unhooking,
and returning, we recommend that this short time period be
established at 20 minutes (Ex. 5-54).
Other commenters also suggested that OSHA allow employees to be out
of contact from other employees for short periods of time (e.g., 15 to
20 minutes, the time to take a load to the landing and return) (Ex. 5-
54; Tr. OR 670-81).
OSHA has decided in the final rule to retain the requirement that
employees work within visual or audible contact of another employee. As
discussed above, most commenters indicated that remaining in contact is
important to the safety of loggers. Several commenters said that
supervisors use chain-saw noise to identify where and whether an
employee is working. However, they did not provide evidence that chain-
saw noise provides an effective means of communicating information from
the employee or from the supervisor. For example, data and information
available to OSHA indicates that even though chain-saw noise is
currently used as a means of maintaining contact, there are still
reports from OSHA case file investigations of loggers being injured and
not being discovered until after the shift has ended (Ex. 1). In
addition, chain-saw noise does not provide the cutter with an adequate
means of communicating with others in the event they have become
injured or are in other trouble. Since all chain-saw noise indicates is
whether an employee is working, the cutter must wait until another
employee recognizes that the lack of noise means the cutter needs
assistance. This may delay rendering that assistance. OSHA believes the
cutter, not just the supervisor, needs to have a method for
communicating when necessary. Radios and telephones are modern
communication methods that are increasingly used in this logging
industry. These methods, unlike chain-saw noise, provide immediate two-
way communication.
Although OSHA has decided to retain in the final rule the
prohibition against use of chain-saw noise alone as a means of contact,
the final rule does provide employers with a great deal of flexibility
in maintaining contact with employees. First, permitting radio
communication to be used as a means of contact allows contact to be
maintained while at the same time maintaining a two tree-length
distance between adjacent occupied work areas. Second, permitting
contact to be maintained by radio or whistles allows employees to work
alone rather than limiting employees to working in teams that are
within visual distance of each other. Allowing radio contact will also
provide flexibility for small radio crew operations when visual or
voice contact may not be possible. Third, OSHA also believes that
permitting radio contact will not be unduly burdensome for the industry
since many companies already are utilizing electronic communications
(Ex. 5-27; Tr. W2 227).
With regard to the issue of equipment noise preventing radio
communication, OSHA notes that radios are available with ear phones
that fit inside hearing protection muffs. Where such ear phones and
hearing protectors are provided, equipment noise will neither interfere
with communication nor should result in occupational hearing loss.
Because contact may be maintained by radio, OSHA has removed the
exception to the contact requirement for ``single employee
assignments.'' OSHA believes that radio communication already is
necessary in order for many of those single employee jobs to be
performed (e.g., watchman). As such, OSHA does not believe that
extending the radio contact requirement to all logging operations will
unduly burden employers, while at the same time it will provide
important protection for all loggers.
6. Chain-saw protective devices. In the proposed standard, OSHA did
not include a provision requiring chain saws to be equipped with chain
brakes or other devices that prevent kickback. The proposed standard
also did not require chain saws to meet any performance criteria of any
standards-setting organizations. Rather, OSHA proposed only to require
employers to inspect and maintain chain-saw safety devices when chain
saws were so equipped. The hearing notice requested further comment on
the adequacy of various chain-saw safety devices and what regulatory
action OSHA should take in the final standard regarding chain saws.
There was no dispute among commenters that chain-saw protective
devices are necessary to prevent operators from being injured. The
record shows that the chain-saw bar can kick back in less than 0.3
seconds (Ex. 4-172). The record also shows that average human reaction
time, however, is only 0.75 seconds (Ex. 4-172). That means in many
cases the operator cannot take action quickly enough to avoid being
struck by the chain saw. The record also shows that many injuries in
the logging industry are the result of chain-saw kickback. According to
the WIR survey, 20 percent of all logging injuries reported involved
chain saws and almost two-thirds of those injuries were the result of
chain-saw kickback (Ex. 2-1). The Maine BLS survey also shows that
chain-saw injuries account for a significant number of logging injuries
(26%) in that State (Ex. 4-175). Similar to the WIR survey, the Maine
BLS survey indicated that over half of all chain-saw accidents resulted
from kickback.
a. Devices to prevent chain-saw kickback. Information submitted to
the docket indicates that there are four devices that exist to reduce
or minimize the risk of injury due to chain-saw kickback. These devices
are chain brakes, bar tip guards, reduced-kickback guide bars, and low-
or reduced-kickback saw chains. Information about these devices was
taken from a 1983 report prepared for the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) (Ex. 5-13) as well as comments to the proposed rule.
The discussion that follows explains the different devices and their
advantages and disadvantages.
The chain brake is a device for stopping the saw chain when
kickback occurs before the chain can contact the operator. The most
common type of chain brake is actuated when the operator's hand or arm
hits the brake lever that is located immediately ahead of the front
handle. When kickback occurs, the chain brake may either be actuated by
the operator's hand pivoting forward on the handle, or by the hand
being dislodged from the handle, striking the brake lever. According to
the CPSC report, chain brakes, unlike new technology chains and safety
guide bars, do not have any adverse effect on the cutting effectiveness
of chain saws. The record also indicates that one of the advantages of
chain brakes is that, unlike other protective devices that can be
removed, the chain brake is an integral part of the saw and is
difficult to remove (Ex. 4-174). As such, chain brakes deter the
disabling of the kickback prevention system by the operator (Ex. 5-19).
The bar tip guard (or nose tip guard) is a device that is bolted or
screwed onto the tip of the bar. Its primary function is to prevent
contact with the tip of the bar from which kickback is generated.
Commenters identified three problems with bar tip guards. First, one
commenter said bar tip guards are not usable in felling and bucking of
some trees (Ex. 9-16). This commenter said forward leaning trees
usually require the bar tip to fell the tree safely.
Second, two commenters said the hazards associated with bar tip
guards outweigh their protective value (Ex. 5-42, 9-20). According to
NIOSH bar tip guards reduce kickback danger only under certain
conditions, that is, when the log or limb is elevated and does not have
any off-angle to cause pinching of the bar (Ex. 5-42). NIOSH concluded
that the bar tip guard may pose greater hazards than saws without tips
because they require the bucker to maintain working stances that are
less stable. The other commenter said that the bar tip can get caught
on limbs. Third, the major problem with bar tip guards is that they are
removable (Ex. 5-13, 5-13H). According to the CPSC report, the bar tip
guard is removed by operators because it reduces the utility of the saw
by preventing boring and the cutting of any logs that are wider than
the guide bar. Evidence in the record indicates that bar tip guards are
being removed by a significant number of operators:
Only about half of the operators of saws so equipped always use
such guards. About 36 percent never use them, and about 12 percent
sometimes take them off the guide bar. Thus, while nose tip guards
are effective anti-kickback devices, many operators remove them from
their saws (Ex. 5-13).
The Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association (PPEMA)
submitted testimony from CPSC's own proceedings, which also
acknowledged the extent to which bar tip guards are removed from chain
saws:
[T]he Commission received the benefit of a survey that was done
on the part of the NESDA, National Equipment Servicing Dealers
Association. They on their own surveyed hundreds of their dealers. *
* * [T]heir survey corroborated my own personal observations,
namely, that in real life practice users of chain saws in the droves
are simply not using that nose tip, and while if it were used or if
it were permanently established on the saw, it would be a complete
barrier to kickback, the fact of the matter is because it's
temporary and because it is removed, because in my view it affects
in the case of the dealers, as you'll see from their comments, it
affects the efficacy of the saw, it is taken off, and as a result
provides no protection, zero.
Just to cite from the survey, 73.5 percent of the responding
dealers to the NESDA survey reported that only zero to five percent
of the chain saws brought into their shops for repair, of the ones
that were originally equipped with the nose guards, that 73.5
percent of the dealers responded that only zero to five percent had
nose guards in place. Another 9.3 percent reported that six to ten
percent of such saws had nose guards in place, leaving only 17.1
percent of the dealers who put the figure of nose guards in place at
something more than ten percent.
The unmistakable conclusion is that the overwhelming majority of
consumers are removing the nose guards from their saws and not
putting them on in the first place.
The survey also revealed that almost no consumers are interested
in replacing nose guards that are not in place. Eighty-eight percent
of the dealers, 88 percent, stated that zero percent of their
customers wanted replacements, and an additional 8.9 percent put the
replacement request at a mere one to five percent (Ex. 5-13H).
There are two different types of reduced-kickback guide bars. One
is designed and manufactured with a taper from the back of the bar and
has a correspondingly small radius of curvature at the tip of the bar.
This type of bar is commonly referred to as a narrow nose bar. The
other type of reduced kickback guide bar has a reduced radius nose but
achieves its taper from the fact that the top and bottom edges of the
bar a asymmetrical (the top and bottom edges are curved and have a
different radius of curvature). This type bar is commonly called a
banana bar because of its peculiar shape. According to the CPSC report,
both the narrow nose bar and the banana bar have significant drawbacks,
primarily in the useful life of the bar and chain and the efficiency of
the chain saw. The narrow nose bar, because of its reduced radius of
curvature at the tip, receives more stress at the tip, thereby
requiring more frequent replacement. Because of its asymmetrical
design, the banana bar cannot be merely turned over when the bottom
edge of the bar becomes worn, but must be replaced. This type of bar
also reduces the ability of the operator to use the saw for boring.
This disadvantage is compounded if the saw also is equipped with a low-
or reduced-kickback chain.
[T]he use of low-kickback guide bars results in a tradeoff of
some reduction in utility for an improvement in safety. Industry
sources have suggested that this may be an acceptable tradeoff for
the less powerful saws which are probably purchased by consumers.
Since the tradeoff involves a marginal improvement in safety,
however, manufacturers are probably less willing to equip the more
powerful, more performance oriented saws with the low-kickback guide
bars (Ex. 5-13).
Finally, the potential for kickback can be reduced by the low- or
reduced-kickback chain. This chain is commonly referred to as new
generation chain. Low kickback chain can be identified by an idler or
spacer link between each of the cutting links. In other words, the
chain has a left hand cutter link on the right side of the chain,
followed by a spacer link, followed by a right hand cutter link on the
left side of the chain followed by another spacer link before the
sequence begins again.
Although the low-kickback chain can reduce kickback energy by 40 to
90 percent, there are drawbacks to its use, according to the CPSC
report. These drawbacks include: (1) New technology chains generally
exhibit some loss in cutting efficiency (speed and ease of cutting),
(2) these chains make cutting more tiring for the operator thereby
causing more operator fatigue, and (3) the loss of cutting efficiency
may adversely affect the life of the chain. The loss of cutting
efficiency has been estimated to be anywhere from a 10 to 25 percent.
OSHA has no estimates of the increase in operator fatigue and the
degradation in the service life of the chain.
Of the four protective devices, most commenters said OSHA should
require chain saws to be equipped with a chain brake because it is the
most used and most effective for professional logging operations (Ex.
4-175, 5-17, 5-19, 5-21, 5-27, 5-34, 5-42, 5-46, 9-3, 9-4, 9-13, 9-15,
9-18, 9-20; Tr. OR 536-37). Several of these commenters said that all
chain saws used at their establishments are equipped with chain brakes.
These commenters also said that almost all manufacturers now produce
chain saws with some kind of chain brake and that almost all chain saws
manufactured for commercial logging operations now have chain brakes
(Ex. 5-19; Tr. OR 185-87, 536). In addition, one commenter said that
manufacturers have improved earlier mechanical problems with chain
brakes so that they are reliable in preventing kickback (Ex. 9-4). With
regard to the effectiveness of chain brakes, one commenter said:
The chain brake is, I'd say, one of the most important chain saw
protective devices developed in modern history. In Montana all of
our current professional saws are equipped with chain brakes. Most
of our saws are in the four to six cubic inch range, primarily,
Stihl and Husqvarna with a few other minor brands and seldom on job
visitations do I find anyone who has disconnected the chain brake.
It's so uncommon that it's startling when I find that any more.
The other protective device that I see that's had substantial
improvement is the throttle lock mechanism where it has to be held
down with your palm in order for the trigger to operate. For years
it was common that the first thing a logger did was he got a roll of
black tape and he would tape that down so you didn't have to operate
that. Through our progressive Montana Sawyer Safety Program and
other efforts I brag to people that we now have developed a
genetically superior timber faller in Montana that can now squeeze
with his palm and pull with his trigger finger at the same time.
These two chain saw protective devices combined with leg
protection have had a significant impact on the reduction of
accidents in Montana relative to timber falling. In fact, it's been
so significant that I don't even consider the other options of even
any application to logging when we talk about the low kickback bar,
the low kick-back chains and even the bar tipped guards. They may
have individual special application but I'm thoroughly convinced
with the chain brake, the throttle lock and the leg protection we've
so significantly reduced chain saw injuries that any further
attention is maybe some wasted effort and just further develops
additional conflict (Tr. OR 536).
Mr. David Kludt, Logging Safety Program Supervisor for the State of
Idaho, testified that 10 percent of all logging accidents each month
are the result of chain-saw kickback and that these accidents could be
drastically reduced by the use of chain brakes (Ex. 9-4).
In addition, Maine BLS says that chain brakes have played a
significant role in lessening the effects of chain-saw injuries in that
State (Ex. 5-174). They reported that only 13 percent of chain-saw
accidents where chain brakes were present resulted in hospitalization,
while nearly half of all other accidents required hospitalization.
Some commenters, however, disputed the effectiveness of chain
brakes for preventing kickback (Ex. 5-39, 5-59, 5-66). One of these
commenters said chain brakes were not reliable and required frequent
maintenance, however, no evidence or data were presented to support the
contention (ex. 5-59). Another commenter said that a study showed that
while chain brakes reduced kickback by 80 percent, non-kickback
accidents showed a 400 percent increase (Ex. 5-66). However, the
commenter also admitted that the study was from 1972 and that chain
brakes had undergone significant improvement since that time. Another
commenter said chain brakes, depending on their design, could become
entangled in the brush the saw is clearing and create a safety hazard
(Ex. 5-39). The WIR survey, however, does not support the commenter's
argument. None of the chain-saw operators reporting injuries said their
chain brake had become caught (Ex. 2-1).
b. OSHA regulatory action. Many commenters said that the final rule
should include requirements for chain-saw protective devices (Ex. 5-17,
5-19, 5-21, 5-27, 5-34, 5-42, 5-46, 9-3, 9-4, 9-13, 9-15, 9-18, 9-20;
Tr. OR 536-37). However, some commenters, including chain-saw and
chain-saw accessory manufacturers, said OSHA should include performance
requirements for chain saws in the final standard rather than
specification requirements (Ex. 5-4, 5-8, 5-13, 5-15, 5-26, 5-37, 5-
59). Many of these commenters supported incorporating by reference the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B175.1-1985 standard on
``Safety Requirements for Gasoline Powered Chain Saws'' (Ex. 5-4, 5-8,
5-13, 5-15, 5-26, 5-37, 5-59). The ANSI standard specifies a
performance criteria for manufacture and testing of chain saw safety
features, such as protection from chain-saw kickback. One commenter
summed up their rationale:
[T]he Status Report on Chain Saw Related Hazards since the 1985
Revision to The Voluntary Standard ANSI B175.1, which was prepared
for the Consumer Product Safety Commission in March of this year, is
a testimonial to the fact that the reduction in chain saw injuries
is the result of adherence by manufacturers to the voluntary
standard. There truly is little to be said in defense of OSHA when
it chooses to knowingly ignore the demonstrated success of the chain
saw voluntary standard, which equates compliance with the use of a
combination of devices, in favor of an arbitrary and inexpert agency
decision to the effect that one specific device, in and of itself,
is superior to any other device or combination of devices permitted
by the standard (Ex. 5-4).
These commenters stated that OSHA would create ``confusion in the
marketplace'' if OSHA adopted requirements that were significantly
different from the ANSI chain-saw standard that all manufacturers have
been voluntarily following (Ex. 5-4).
Other commenters, however, opposed incorporating the ANSI standard
in the final rule (Ex. 5-27, 5-48; Tr. OR 118). These commenters said
the ANSI standard was developed to protect consumer chain-saw users,
not professional loggers:
The ANSI B175.1 Standard was developed from an injury data base
that was consumer based and therefore its direct application to pro-
logging may not be justified (Ex. 5-27).
Two commenters said that ANSI standards were not known to most
loggers, were not readily available, and were not written in language
that the average logger would comprehend (Ex. 5-27; Tr. OR 118). One of
these commenters said OSHA, therefore, should put its requirements in
the standard rather than requiring logging employers to obtain and read
another document (Tr. OR 118). He added that placing the requirements
in the regulatory text would increase compliance.
As discussed above, many commenters supported a requirement that
all chain saws be equipped with chain brakes rather than just
referencing the ANSI standard. In general, these commenters said chain
brakes were the most effective device to protect operators from
kickback and to provide extra protection when the saws are carried
between cutting jobs. In addition, one commenter supported a chain
brake requirement for the following reason:
The U.S. should follow the lead of other countries (European)
and require that all saws have an operating chain brake if purchased
after the adoption of these regulations. The cost would be minimal
since the majority of saws now come equipped with these devices.
This would also help deter the disabling of the brake system by
operating personnel (Ex. 5-19).
OSHA agrees with commenters that the final standard should include
requirements on chain-saw protective devices. The final rule does
incorporate by reference the ANSI B175.1 consensus standard, but the
Agency believes that the ANSI standard alone does not provide the
necessary degree of safety for logging employees. Accordingly, for
several reasons, the final rule also requires that chain saws placed
into initial service after the effective date of the standard be
equipped with chain brakes. First, there is considerable evidence in
the record that chain brakes are effective and the most used device to
prevent kickback. Second, they have strong acceptance by logging
professionals, and as a result, already are standard equipment on
almost all chain saws currently manufactured. Third, chain brakes do
not have the disadvantages of the other protective devices. For
example, unlike bar tip guards, chain brakes are not removed by
operators. Unlike reduced-kickback guide bars and low- or reduced-
kickback chains, chain brakes do not affect production efficiency.
Fourth, other countries also have adopted provisions requiring chain
saws to be equipped with chain brakes (Ex. 5-19).
Fifth, OSHA agrees with commenters who are concerned that, in order
to maximize compliance, the standard be comprehensible to the average
loggers. This is especially important for chain-saw safety, since many
employees provide their own chain saws. These employees and their
employers need plain and simple direction about what protection must be
provided for each chain-saw operator. OSHA does not believe that the
ANSI standard contains the type of information needed by those
operating the chain saw. It requires the use of sophisticated equipment
and exacting procedures that are beyond the expertise of the average
logging employer. Much of the ANSI standard deals with a computer
program for simulating chain-saw kickbacks and tests to determine the
accuracy of the computer program. As such, the ANSI standard is
primarily directed to manufacturers of chain saws, rather than
employers and employees in the logging industry. For example, the
standard states:
The purpose of this standard is to establish minimum safety
requirements with respect to the manufacture of portable, hand-held,
gasoline-powered chain saws (Ex. 4-66).
The requirements of the ANSI standard are primarily within the
unique purview of manufacturers, such as requirements for the throttle
control system, handles, pull-type starters, fuel tanks and oil tanks,
exhaust systems, sound levels, and vibration. Only the following
requirements are directed at the employer:
It shall be the responsibility of the owner to maintain the
chain saw in accordance with the instructions in the owner's manual.
Chain saws shall be used in accordance with the operating
instructions and safety precautions listed in the owner's manual. It
shall be the responsibility of the owner to see that such
instructions and precautions are given to every operator who uses
the saw (Ex. 4-66).
In addition, the ANSI standard does not require the employer to
ensure that each chain saw used in their workplace is equipped with
kickback protection. That is, the ANSI standard does not require the
employer to ensure that kickback prevention devices are not removed or
disabled by operators. By specifying that chain saws used by logging
employees be equipped with chain brakes, OSHA emphasizes that
responsibility for compliance with OSHA standards rests with the
employer, not the manufacturer or the employee.
In order to retain flexibility in the final rule, OSHA is requiring
chain saws placed in service after the effective date of this standard
to be equipped with chain brakes or other protective device that
prevents or minimizes kickback. OSHA notes that whatever kickback
device is present, the final rule requires that it not be removed or
otherwise disabled.
7. Operator manuals or instructions. In the hearing notice OSHA
raised two issues regarding operator manuals or instructions (referred
to collectively as instructions) for machines: the location of
instructions, and the experience of employers in obtaining manuals from
manufacturers.
a. Location of operator manuals or instructions. Both the existing
pulpwood standard and the proposed standard contained provisions
requiring either an operator's manual or set of instructions be kept
with each machine. In addition, both stated that the instructions, at a
minimum, must describe the operation, maintenance and safe practices
for the machine. The proposed standard added a provision requiring each
operator and maintenance employee to comply with the manual.
All commenters generally agreed with the need to have instructions
available to operators and maintenance personnel. Several hearing
participants supported OSHA's proposal to require instructions to be
kept with machines (Tr. W1 201, OR 168, 194). For example, one
participant stated:
We urge OSHA to require that operator manuals be kept on the
machine. Operator manuals contain important personal safety and
machine operational information which must be utilized during
training and must be available for reference to assure safety for
all different operating conditions.
Efficient and productive logging operations go hand in hand with
safe work practices and proper machine maintenance and operation.
Ready and immediate access to safety and operational information is
essential to minimize downtime caused by accidents (Tr. OR 168).
Another commenter added that once instructions are placed back at
the office, they are not used:
Ms. Schuster: I just have one question. Do you have any idea of
the percentage of equipment out there in the woods that does not
currently have operator's manuals available?
Mr. Carr: I'm afraid I'd have to agree, most of them probably do
not. This is our concern as manufacturers that most of them do not.
Most of the time they have taken them and put them in the office and
that's the last they see of them.
Mr. Schuster: You say most of them would have put them in the
office. Would you say that many of them do have them available
though somewhere, if not on the equipment?
Mr. Carr: If somebody can find it (Tr. OR 194).
Many commenters, however, stated that for several reasons
instructions should not be kept with machines or instead should be
distributed as part of the training program (Ex. 5-12, 5-34, 5-35, 5-
67, 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, 9-19, 9-22; Tr. W1 66, 134, 185, 235, W2 225,
OR 31, 59, 263, 378, 629). First, these commenters said instructions
kept with machines would be damaged or destroyed. They stated that
instructions would be subject to vandalism or would disappear if kept
with machines or vehicles. They also said instructions would become
dirty or be destroyed due to adverse weather in which machines and
vehicles are operated. As a result, these commenters stated that they
store operator instructions at the company office, in the crew
transport vehicles or at the work site.
Second, several commenters said that it was not necessary to keep
instructions with machines because they have limited utility (Ex. 9-4;
Tr. W1 134, 186, OR 80, 117, 378, 430, 629). Some of these commenters
said instructions pertain primarily to maintenance of machines and
scheduling of maintenance and, therefore, should be kept where the
maintenance will be conducted. Other commenters said that instructions
contain such general information about machine operation that their
only utility is for someone who is unfamiliar with the operation of the
machine. Instead, these and other participants said the manuals should
be used in operator training sessions.
Third, some participants said that instructions are currently given
to new employees to read as part of their orientation sessions (Tr. W1
66; OR 31, 263, 629). These participants also said that if operators
need to refer routinely to instructions at the work site, they should
not be allowed to operate the machine and should receive additional
training rather than being allowed to rely on the instructions.
After reviewing the comments and testimony received, OSHA has
decided in the final rule to require that operating and maintenance
instructions be available on the machine or in the area where the
machine is being operated, such as at the landing or in a crew
transport vehicle located in the area where the machine is being
operated. OSHA believes ready access to instructions is important for
several reasons. As OSHA explained in the preamble to the proposed
rule, instructions are necessary not only for maintenance personnel but
also for operators who are unsure or unaware of safe operating
procedures pose hazards to themselves and co-workers. Maintaining these
materials in the immediate work area of the machine assures their
availability and increases the likelihood of their use when needed by
the operator.
OSHA also believes that instructions have utility for operators in
specific circumstances. Instructions give the operator a ready
reference source when a new or unique situation is encountered (e.g.,
operations on terrain where a combination of hazards are present, such
as swampy, rocky or loose ground). If unusual problems or emergencies
requiring prompt correction arise during operation, the instructions
provide the operator with correct information to resolve the problem
rather than guessing about a solution. In addition, some machine
operators perform their own maintenance. By keeping instructions on the
machine or in the immediate work area, these operators can quickly deal
with maintenance issues as they arise. Therefore, OSHA believes that
instructions are useful for the operator only when they can be
immediately accessed rather than being housed at an office that may be
miles from the work area or maintenance area.
OSHA also agrees with commenters who said that if instructions are
not kept in the work area of the machine they will not be used. OSHA is
concerned that if instructions are not in the area where the machine is
being operated, operators will be discouraged from stopping production
to go get the instructions. Instead, employees will decide to ``take
their chances'' in dealing with unusual problems or emergencies, which
could result in serious injury.
With regard to the issue of weather damage to instructions which
are kept on the machine or in the machine work area, OSHA notes that a
hearing participant pointed out that in recent years, manufacturers
have been providing weather-resistant instructions which may be kept
with machines (Tr. OR 205). Moreover, it should not be overly difficult
for an employer to place the instructions in a weather-proof bag to
keep them with the machine.
OSHA does agree with commenters' position that if an operator must
routinely refer to instructions in order to operate a machine or
vehicle, additional training or supervision is necessary. The final
rule does provide such additional training for that operator. However,
there may well be instances in which the employee may need to consult
the manual in order to deal with a problem that arises during the use
of the equipment. For that reason, the instructions should be
immediately available to employees. Therefore, OSHA is requiring in
this final rule that instructions be maintained in the immediate work
area of the machine so they will be available both to the machine
operator and to maintenance personnel.
b. Obtaining operator manuals or instructions. In the hearing
notice OSHA also requested employers to discuss their experience with
trying to obtain operating instructions or replacement instructions
from dealers and manufacturers. OSHA wanted to gather information on
the number of machines that come with instructions and on the degree of
ease in obtaining replacement instructions. Very few participants
commented in this issue.
One hearing participant said that manufacturers do provide
instructions with new equipment, but used machines that are sold may
have no instructions (Tr. OR 31). However, two hearing participants
said that replacement instructions are available either from the
manufacturer or the dealer, and therefore, they have had no more
difficulty in obtaining instructions than in acquiring any machine
replacement part (Tr. W1 201, OR 197).
OSHA therefore believes that the requirement that instructions for
machine be maintained will not be burdensome for employers, even where
employers must obtain replacement copies from the manufacturer.
8. Riders. In the hearing notice OSHA requested comment on whether
trainers should be permitted to ride on machines to observe operator
performance. The pulpwood logging standard prohibited riders or
observers from riding on machines unless seating and other protection
were provided. The proposed standard continued that prohibition.
Many commenters supported the current and proposed prohibition of
riders on machines (Ex. 5-7, 5-22, 5-42, 9-3, 9-13, 9-18; Tr. W1 202,
205, 235, W2 227, OR 155, 169). These commenters said riders should be
prohibited, unless protection is provided since they are exposed to the
same hazards as machine operators, for whom seating, seat belts and
other protection is required. NIOSH, for example, supported the
prohibition for the following reasons:
Many logging operations occur on rough terrain which would
expose any rider to a high risk of injury or death. Serious errors
made by a trainer or trainee under these conditions endangers both
people; it must be recognized that logging equipment is not designed
for training purposes (i.e., the trainer cannot take control of the
equipment from the trainee in a safe, orderly fashion) (Ex. 5-42).
NIOSH therefore recommended that training be conducted and
completed in pre-worksite training where the environment can be
``controlled'' instead of the employer conducting ``on- the-job''
training with machines that are not designed to carry passengers
safely. Another commenter agreed that the necessary operator training
should be given, and the operator should be afforded the opportunity to
practice on level ground, before the operator moves into work areas.
This training and practice would allow operators to become proficient
without requiring trainers to ride on the machines (Tr. OR 155).
Two commenters, including one who supported the exemption for
trainers, stated that it was not absolutely necessary to have the
trainer riding on the machine in order to maintain communication with
the machine operator (Ex. 5-27; Tr. W2 227). They said communication
could be accomplished through radio contact (one-way or two-way
radios), thus allowing the trainer to remain in a safe location on the
ground. One of the commenters pointed out that this method is currently
used in logging operations in Scandinavian countries (Tr. W2 227).
Many commenters supported an exception permitting trainers to ride
on machines (Ex. 5-12, 5-22, 5-28, 5-36, 5-45, 5-49, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55,
5-63, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-2, 9-5, 9-10, 9-13, 9-19; Tr. OR 32, 201,
206, 337). These commenters said that an exemption be allowed because
trainers were not as great since they ride for only short periods and,
therefore, they are not exposed to hazards to the same extent as
machine operators. However, several commenters said that if instructors
were permitted to ride on machines that at least seat belts should be
required and training should be conducted on level terrain (Ex. 5-27,
9-3, 9-13; Tr. OR 169). Another commenter said that trainers should not
be permitted to ride on machines during actual production because
``such conditions may not be conducive to rider safety'' (Ex. 5-54).
Other commenters said the exemption should include other employees
in addition to training (Ex. 5-27, 9-2; Tr. OR 206). One commenter
supported expanding the exception to allow mechanics to ride on
machines (Tr. OR 206). Another commenter said that the exception should
be permitted for large multi-purpose logging equipment where there is
sufficient room in the enclosed operator cab to permit another person
to ride safely, even though there is not a second seat (Ex. 5-27). One
commenter said fellers should be permitted to ride back to the landing
at the end of the workshift (Ex. 9-2). However, none of these
commenters provided any evidence that these riders were not exposed to
the same hazards as the machine operator.
OSHA has carefully considered all comments and data in the record.
OSHA agrees with the commenters that riders face the same hazards as
machine operators on moving equipment and that they need protection
equivalent to that of the operator. According to logging fatalities
reported to OSHA between 1985-90, there were reports of riders killed
when machines roll over (Ex. 4-65). The OSHA FCI report also indicated
that loggers have been killed riding on unauthorized parts of machines
(Ex. 4-61). Even those who opposed the prohibition on riders recognized
that such an activity is hazardous due to conditions of the work
environment, such as unlevel terrain. In addition, the record indicates
that an exemption for trainers is unnecessary because other methods of
communication between the trainee and trainer are available and in use
in the logging industry. As such, OSHA has retained the requirement in
the final standard that machines must have passenger protection
equivalent to operator protection if the employer allows riders on
machines.
9. Equipment protective devices. In the hearing notice OSHA raised
two issues regarding protective devices for machines: the need and cost
of retrofitting machines with rollover protective structures (ROPS) and
falling object protective structures (FOPS), and the appropriateness of
incorporating various consensus standards covering ROPS and FOPS into
the logging standard by reference.
a. Retrofitting. In the hearing notice OSHA requested comment on
whether the final standard should require machines without ROPS and
FOPS to be retrofitted with those devices. The proposed standard would
not have required retrofitting. In the proposed standard, OSHA
specified that certain machines placed in service after the effective
date of the final standard to be equipped with ROPS and/or FOPS meeting
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) minimum performance criteria.
There was no opposition from commenters on the general requirement
that certain machines used in logging operations be equipped with ROPS
and/or FOPS. NIOSH stated that 80 deaths occurred due to logging
machine rollovers from 1980-85 (Ex. 5-42). This is approximately 13
deaths each year due to rollover accidents. Another commenter cited a
study where 12 loggers were killed in rollover accidents in the State
of Washington from 1977-83 (Tr. W1 27).
Several commenters said that machines without ROPS and FOPS should
be retrofitted (Ex. 5-42, 5-54, 9-3, 9-13; Tr. W1 22). The West
Virginia Forestry Association safety committee said that retrofitting
was necessary because operators were exposed to ``extreme danger'' if
machines were used in the woods without such protective devices (Ex. 5-
54). In addition to the safety necessity of retrofitting, the committee
said that retrofitting was economically feasible for the industry as
whole.
Many commenters, on the other hand, while supporting ROPS and FOPS
requirements for new machines, opposed retrofitting older machinery
(Ex. 5-19, 5-22, 5-25, 5-27, 5-33, 5-53, 5-57, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-5,
9-17; Tr. W1 203, OR 170). Their opposition was based on several
reasons.
First, commenters said that machines should not be required to be
retrofitted to meet current standards when the installed ROPS and/or
FOPS met industry standards in effect at the time of manufacture (Ex.
5-22; Tr. W1 203, OR 170). One commenter said that older machines in
the logging industry were equipped with rollover protection, but those
machine structures still in service do not meet the revised industry
standards (Ex. 5-22).
Second, some commenters said that retrofitting machines would be
very burdensome and costly, especially given the limited useful life of
such machines (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92, 9-5). They said retrofitting
would be expensive because it would require complete rebuilding and
testing of the frame structure. These commenters also said that
employers would have to hire outside contractors to test the
retrofitted equipment since most employers did not have the personnel,
expertise or equipment to install and test protective structures (Ex.
5-35). In addition, other commenters said that the retrofitting
requirement would be too burdensome for small employers, both in terms
of absorbing the cost in small operations and in finding persons who
could do the retrofitting (Tr. OR 119, 263, 307).
Third, commenters indicated that the retrofitting requirement was
not essential since most of the machines specified in the proposed
standard already are manufactured with ROPS and FOPS as standard
equipment (Tr. W1 184, 203, OR 170). For example, most log-skidders
manufactured after 1974 have ROPS and FOPS meeting the performance
criteria specified by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). Most
mobile equipment used in the Southeastern United States already has
ROPS or FOPS (Ex. 5-19). Other commenters said that skidders now come
with fully enclosed cabs (Tr. W1 184).
After consideration of all the comments and information received in
the rulemaking record, OSHA has decided for several reasons not to
require machines placed into service before the effective date of this
standard to be retrofit with ROPS and FOPS, provided that ROPS and FOPS
have not been removed from machines so equipped at the time of
manufacture. First, OSHA has determined that many of the machines
currently in use already have protective structures meeting various
performance criteria. The final standard requires that these protective
structures continue to be maintained throughout the useful life of the
machine, and that they be replaced where they have been removed (e.g.,
removed after machine accident).
Second, many machines currently in use and virtually all machines
recently manufactured meet the performance criteria specified in the
proposed standard (Ex. 9-2; Tr. OR 185-87). OSHA believes that older
machines, that either do not have protective structures or have ROPS
and FOPS meeting earlier standards, are few in number and are rapidly
nearing the end of their useful life. As such, OSHA believes that most
employers are substantially in compliance with the requirement for
machine protective structures and will reach full compliance in short
period of time. Therefore, OSHA determines that compliance with the
protective structure requirement can be achieved without requiring
retrofitting.
b. Incorporation of standards by reference. In the hearing notice,
OSHA requested comment on the appropriateness of incorporating by
reference updated consensus standards governing machine protective
devices. In the proposed standard OSHA required ROPS and FOPS to be
installed, tested and maintained in accordance with the following SAE
national consensus standards: SAE 1040c June 1979 ``Performance
Criteria or Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS) for Construction,
Earthmoving, Forestry, and Mining Machines'' and J231 Jan 1981
``Minimum Performance Criteria for Falling Object Protective Structures
(FOPS).'' The SAE ROPS standard was updated in 1988 as was the SAE
standard on ``Deflection Limiting Volume-ROPS/FOPS Laboratory
Evaluation.''
Several commenters discussed incorporation of updated standards
(Ex. 5-10, 5-22, 5-57, 9-3, 9-13; Tr. W1 203). Most emphasized the need
to reference the most up-to-date standards in the final rule. In
addition, two commenters said OSHA should allow the use of standards
from other standards producing bodies, such as the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) (Ex. 5-22, 5-57). Two commenters
also recommended that OSHA harmonize its regulatory language with ISO
and Mine Safety and Health Administration protective structure
standards (Ex. 5-10, 5-22). However, two commenters opposed
incorporation by reference because they contend that other standards
may not have followed the same notice and public comment rules as do
OSHA standards (Ex. 9-3, 9-13).
OSHA has considered the comments and in the final standard the
Agency has decided to incorporate by reference the current SAE
standards on ROPS and FOPS. While there was some comment about whether
technical publications should be referenced in standards, OSHA believes
it is better in this case to reference technical documents rather than
spell out all of the many specifications the documents contain. Since
the final standard is not requiring employers to retrofit machines, it
is more important for employers to know that new machines they purchase
meet the SAE standards. It is the manufacturer and not the employer who
will have the expertise, personnel and equipment to do the necessary
installation and testing of the protective structures as part of the
manufacturing process, and it is the label of conformance placed on the
equipment by the manufacturer that will be the method that the employer
will usually use to demonstrate compliance with the protective
structures requirement of the final standard.
10. Manual felling. The hearing notice raised two issues regarding
manual felling: should exceptions to the undercut requirement be
allowed, and where should the backcut be required to be made?
a. Undercut requirement. The proposed standard included a provision
requiring each manually felled tree to be undercut. This provision also
required that undercuts be of a size to guide the tree fall in the
intended direction and to minimize the possibility of splitting. The
purpose of this provision was to prevent trees from splitting, kicking
back, or falling in an unintended direction, thereby injuring an
employee.
Some commenters supported the proposed requirement (Ex. 5-42, 9-15;
Tr. OR 485-88). One commenter said:
[Undercutting] helps protect the feller from the butt of the
tree riding back up the sawn notch and springing backwards over the
stump towards him if the tree is felled uphill, or strikes something
during its fall that pushes [the tree] backwards (Ex. 9-15)
However, other commenters said OSHA should revise the undercut
requirement in the final rule (Ex. 5-21, 5-39, 5-46, 5-52, 5-63, 5-74
through 5-92, 9-1, 9-5; Tr. OR 265, 284-88, 324-26). One commenter said
OSHA should make undercutting a recommended practice in the final rule
to allow for innovations in cutting techniques and to allow for
consideration of various production requirements for cutting certain
types of wood (e.g., veneer).
Other commenters stated that OSHA should permit an exception to the
undercut requirement for manual felling of saplings or unmerchantable
trees, that is, of trees with a small diameter at breast height (DBH)
(Ex. 5-21, 5-39, 5-46, 5-63, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-1, 9-5; Tr. OR 265,
284-88, 324-26). These commenters said that the hazards OSHA was
attempting to protect against do not exist for saplings, therefore,
undercuts are not necessary. For example, Mr. Alex Hanson, of AOL,
stated:
On the smaller, nonmerchantable timber that's two, three, four,
five, six inches, generally not very tall, 20 foot or less or maybe
taller, and when you slash it, you push it over. It doesn't need a
face to control the direction of fall.
* * * * *
[W]hen trees start getting to be merchantable size, then you
have safety problems. You get a seven inch or over tree, you want to
know where it's going. You don't want to have it just fall anywhere.
* * * * *
[Y]ou have to buck those merchantable trees. You have to cut the
top out so you just don't want them going everywhere. You want
things in line. And if they're everywhere, then it increases the
risk for the buckers. Generally it's the same guy who is falling it,
but you want to have things in an orderly fashion so that he's not
having to go everywhere to buck the top. If they're just slashing
it, it doesn't really matter where it goes because you're not having
to go out there and limb and cut the tops out and create another
hazard for yourself (Tr. OR 265, 284-88).
However, other commenters disagreed with AOL about what size tree
requires an undercut. One commenter said that undercuts are necessary
for any tree that has more than a three-inch base (Ex. 9-16), while
another commenter said undercuts were not necessary for trees with a
seven-inch DBH (Tr. OR 421-22).
The APA, however, said that even trees with a small DBH should be
undercut:
You heard from one of the associations who is recommending that
with regard to what I call undercuts, they're also called face cuts,
that they not be required on very small trees, and there was a
discussion and possibly a recommendation of an 8-inch or 7-inch size
limit. Unfortunately, I don't have any data. But we do know and I
will watch to see if I can find any and submit it post hearing. I
went through our files and could not find anything. But it is our
perception, after studying these operations, that a tree that's 8
inches in diameter at breast height is probably about 12 inches in
diameter at the stump, and whether it's an oak tree or a Douglas fir
tree that's 60 feet tall and 8 inches and 12, it's a significant
mass of wood that is difficult to control to get on the ground and
could cause and probably has caused injuries and maybe even deaths.
There's enough mass there with a 60-foot tree ripping down,
uncontrolled in its fall, to cause a death. And you heard from the
Montana folks, that they have a little bit of a problem with that
too (Tr. OR 485-88).
Moreover, some commenters opposing the undercut requirement also
admitted that undercuts were necessary for any merchantable tree,
regardless of its size. They said that whenever a tree has a
merchantable stem for a sawlog product, it must be undercut to protect
the fiber recovery (Tr. OR 422, 487-88). They said undercutting was
essential both for production reasons and safety considerations for
employees bucking the felled tree.
After considering the evidence in the record, OSHA believes a
provision requiring that each tree manually felled be undercut is
necessary to protect employees from injury. According to the WIR
survey, four percent of employees injured said they had been using the
wrong cutting method at the time of their accident (Ex. 2-1). The OSHA
FCI report indicated that 10 fellers were injured because of
misjudgments in cutting the tree (Ex. 4-61).
As discussed above, undercutting helps protect the feller from
injury by reducing the potential for the tree splitting and falling in
an unintended direction or kicking back towards the feller. In the
final rule, OSHA is also allowing an exception to the undercutting
requirement when the employer demonstrates that felling the particular
tree without an undercut will not create a hazard for an employee. OSHA
believes that when the hazards of splitting trees, tree kickback and
misdirected falls are not present, it may be appropriate to manually
fell a tree without undercutting. OSHA notes that the employer bears
the burden of demonstrating that the hazards discussed in this section
are not present. OSHA also notes that the employers cannot make a
blanket determination that trees of a particular size never pose the
hazards discussed above if manually felled without an undercut. The
condition of the tree and the surrounding area may make manually
felling even a small a tree hazardous if it is not first undercut. The
tree and those conditions must be assessed on a case by case basis to
determine whether felling the tree without making an undercut would
create a hazard for an employee.
For two reasons, however, OSHA has decided against specifying an
undercut exception for trees of a certain size. First, there is no
agreement among the commenters on what size tree could be safely
exempted from the undercutting requirement. There is evidence in the
record, that manually felling trees of the size that some commenters
say should be exempted from the requirement can pose a serious hazard
to fellers (Tr. OR 265-69, 485-88). Also, while commenters agreed that
unmerchantable trees did not require undercutting, none agreed on what
size tree constituted an unmerchantable tree. The estimates of what
sizes were considered to be merchantable trees varied greatly, from 3
to 10 inches DBH, depending on the type of wood being harvested (Ex. 5-
46; Tr. OR 265, 485-88). And, as some commenters have pointed out,
trees included in this range of sizes can pose hazards to fellers.
Second, some commenters said that any tree that is considered
merchantable is undercut, even if it is within the range of sizes that
commenters say should be exempted. According to commenters the undercut
is also made in merchantable trees to prevent splitting of the product
(Tr. OR 284-88). As such, undercutting may be done on small trees in
any event.
OSHA does note that in many cases when trees are determined to be
unmerchantable they are not manually felled but rather slashed by
mechanical means (Tr. OR 265, 268-69, 285-87, 421-22). This provision
on undercutting does not apply to trees felled by mechanical means.
b. Backcut requirement. The second issue regarding manual felling
on which OSHA requested comment was where backcuts should be required
to be made. In the proposed standard, OSHA required that backcuts be
made above the horizontal cut of the undercut. The 1978 ANSI logging
and various State logging standards contain similar requirements (e.g.,
Ex. 38K).
Several commenters supported the proposed requirement (Ex. 5-42, 9-
15). These commenters said a backcut above the horizontal cut is
necessary to assure that the tree does not fall in an unintended
direction.
However, other commenters said OSHA should permit backcuts to be at
the same level or below the level of the undercut (Ex. 5-28, 5-29, 5-
42, 5-52, 9-1; Tr. W2 229-31, OR 395-96, 421-24, 499-500). Some said
that a same level backcut was more effective:
Backcuts should be made on the same level as the point of the
notch of the undercut. The hinge is what keeps the tree from kicking
back, not the fact that the backcut is higher than the undercut.
High backcuts run the risk of cutting off the hinge, actually
increasing the danger of kickback (Ex. 5-52).
Other commenters said that backcuts above the horizontal cut were
not as critical when using the Humboldt undercutting method (Ex. 5-42,
9-15). They said that when the slanting cut of the undercut is angled
downward, the tree is more likely to fall in the intended direction
without kicking back. However, one of these commenters admitted that
placing the backcut at the same level as the horizontal cut when using
the Humboldt undercut method sacrificed safety for quality control:
Quality control concerns with several companies dictate that
only Humboldt undercuts are permissible with sawlog grade timber, so
that wood loss is minimized by taking the notch wood out of the
stump. Quality control often dictates that there must be a flush
surface on the end of the log. To avoid having to make another cut
to square up a log butt, fallers will attempt to make their backcuts
meet the horizontal face cut as closely as possible. By doing this,
they sacrifice the safety of the step that would have been left on
the stump to catch a possible backwards-moving tree butt, and depend
only on the downward-slanting face on the stump to hold the tree
(Ex. 9-15).
Two commenters said the backcut requirement should be limited to
those situations when tree kickback is a problem, which they contended
was only on steep terrain, when felling uphill or through trees (Ex. 9-
1, 9-4). Other commenters said that believed that the standard should
provide more flexibility because variations frequently found on logging
sites, such as lean of the tree and type of terrain, would make strict
adherence to the regulation difficult (Ex. 5-19, 9-9, 9-22; Tr. OR 206-
7, 395-96). These commenters said that the cutting decisions should be
left to the judgment of the experienced feller.
After reviewing the evidence in the record, OSHA has decided that
the proposed backcut provisions are necessary to protect fellers from
being hit or crushed by the tree they are felling. As discussed above,
the record shows that injuries and fatalities have occurred because of
improper cutting methods. The purpose of undercutting and backcutting
trees is to prevent the tree from splitting, felling an unintended
direction or kicking back into the feller. OSHA agrees with ANSI and
the various State plan States that the proposed backcut provisions are
necessary to protect employees against these hazards.
OSHA does not agree that backcutting should be limited only to
those situations when tree kickback can occur. The record shows that
hazards other than tree kickback necessitate the backcut requirement.
Without appropriately-placed backcuts, trees are more likely to split
and/or fall in an unintended direction. While OSHA agrees that it is
more likely that this could happen when trees are felled uphill, OSHA
also believes the record shows that the possibility exists regardless
of the terrain. According to the WIR survey, the single largest cause
of injuries reported was being hit by a falling tree (Ex. 2-1). Almost
one-half of all injuries reported were due to employees being hit or
crushed by a falling tree.
In the final rule OSHA has provided an exception to the backcut
requirement. The final rule allows the backcut to be placed at or below
the horizontal cut in tree pulling operations. Various State logging
standards also provide this exception to the backcut requirement (e.g.,
Ex. 38K). OSHA believes this exception covers those situations in which
a special cutting technique may be required, such as by Federal
agencies.
V. Summary and Explanation of the Final Standard
The revision of the pulpwood logging standard was undertaken in
response to the concern on the part of OSHA to the number of fatalities
and injuries that occur each year in the logging industry. The industry
itself admits that logging is a high hazard industry. As discussed
above, the injury and fatality incidence rates in the logging industry
are among the highest industry incidence rates in the country.
The OSHA pulpwood logging standard, 1910.266, addressed only the
hazards that exist in the pulpwood logging industry. However,
examination of the descriptions of accidents and other information
available to the Agency indicates that the same hazards exist for
employees performing logging operations regardless of the end use of
the harvested trees.
Many commenters supported the need for a comprehensive logging
standard (Ex. 5-6, 5-10, 5-17, 5-18, 5-21, 5-22, 5-36, 5-41, 5-42, 5-
46, 5-49, 5-59, 5-61, 5-65, 5-69; Tr. W1 pg 21, 73, 202). For example,
one commenter said that in Maine it has generally been acknowledged
that both products (pulpwood logs and logs used for other purposes)
come off the same job (Ex. 5-46).
This final rule provides protection for all loggers involved in
timber harvesting, including loggers employed as part of a mill
operation, regardless of the end use of the forest products (saw logs,
veneer bolts, pulpwood, chips, etc.). This standard fills the current
gap in coverage by providing a basic level of protection for all
loggers. OSHA has changed the title of 1910.266 from ``Pulpwood
Logging'' to ``Logging Operations'' in order to reflect the wider
coverage of this revised standard. In addition, OSHA has added and/or
modified various provisions of the pulpwood logging standard to address
more adequately the hazards faced in different aspects of logging
operations. OSHA also has updated equipment specification requirements
in the revised standard.
Throughout the development of the revised standard, the Agency
strove to promulgate a final rule that is effective, and that is
simple, concise, enforceable, and sustainable.
Paragraph (a) Table of Contents
OSHA has added a table of contents to aid employers and other
persons in using the revised standard. The table of contents identifies
the provisions that are included in the final standard and where
specific requirements can be found. The table of contents also is
included because the final standard represents a significant
reorganization of the elements of the pulpwood logging standard.
The identification of the major paragraphs will, hopefully, aid
persons in reading and understanding the requirements of this final
rule. In order to add the table of contents, each of the subsequent
paragraphs had to be renumbered. The paragraph references in the
following discussion of the individual provisions of the standard are
to the paragraphs of the final rule, unless otherwise noted.
Paragraph (b) Scope and Application
This paragraph defines the scope and application of this standard.
The existing standard applied only to pulpwood logging operations. That
standard adopted, pursuant to section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act, the American National Standards Institute, ANSI 03.1-
1971 Safety Standard for Pulpwood Logging (hereafter 1971 ANSI
standard) (Ex 2-13). Included in the 1971 ANSI standard were
requirements for important safety practices along with provisions
pertaining to personal protective equipment, first aid and stationary
and mobile equipment.
When ANSI revised the 1971 consensus standard in 1978, they
expanded the scope of the standard to include all logging operations.
The revised ANSI standard adopted, virtually unchanged, many of the
requirements of the 1971 pulpwood logging standard, and applied those
provisions to all logging operations throughout the nation. OSHA has
taken a similar approach in this rulemaking. In paragraph (b)(1), the
Agency has expanded the scope of the pulpwood logging standard,
1910.266, and to cover all logging operations regardless of the end use
of the timber products.
In paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the final rule, OSHA makes clear
that the standard applies to all types of logging operations,
regardless of the end use of the wood. Logging operations, as defined
in paragraph (c) of the final rule, include, but are not limited to,
marking, felling, bucking, limbing, debarking, chipping, yarding,
loading, unloading, storing, transporting machines and equipment from
one site to another, and other operations associated with felling and
moving trees and logs from the stump to the point of delivery. Many
commenters supported the application of the standard to all types of
logging and all logging operations (Ex. 5-6, 5-10, 5-17, 5-18, 5-21, 5-
36, 5-42, 5-46, 5-48, 5-49, 5-54, 5-61, 5-65).
One commenter said OSHA should exclude felling operations from the
logging standard and cover only the movement of felled trees from the
stump to the mill (Ex. 17). This commenter said that felling activity
is not the most hazardous part of logging operations. OSHA believes the
record does not support the commenters' recommendation. The record
clearly shows that felling activities are the most hazardous activities
of the logging operation. According to the WIR survey, more than one-
half of all reported injuries involved various felling activities (Ex.
2-1). OSHA believes that if the standard did not include hazards
associated with felling the trees, that the majority of employees in
the logging industry would still be exposed to significant risk of
injury and death. Therefore, in the final OSHA has retained coverage of
tree felling operations.
Another commenter raised the issue about whether establishments
that hire independent contractors to perform various logging activities
are considered employers covered by this standard (Ex. 5-23). The
courts have held in various OSHA cases that when the contractor
exercises control over the means and methods by which the independent
contractor performs the work, that the contractor is regarded as an
employer for purposes of this rule. Loomis Cabinet Co. v. Martin, 15
F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 1994). See also Castillo v. Gibbons, 704 F.2d 181,
188-93 (5th Cir. 1993). For example, establishments that provide
independent contractors with machines, such as yarders or forklift
trucks, to perform the job are exercising control over the means by
which the job is performed.
At paragraph (b)(1) of the final rule, the Agency has excluded from
coverage the construction or use of cable yarding systems. Cable
yarding, as defined in the final standard, is the movement of felled
trees or logs from the area where they are felled to the landing on a
system composed of a cable suspended from spars and/or towers. The
definition further states that the trees or logs may be either dragged
across the ground by the cable or carried while suspended from the
cable. One of the end towers is located in the area where the trees or
logs are attached to the cable yarding system and the other end is at
the landing. Cable yarding systems are used primarily when the terrain
is extremely rugged and the felled trees and logs are otherwise
inaccessible. Important elements of the safe use of a cable yarding
system include the selection and use of climbing devices to install the
system, preparation of head and tail spars and intermediate trees or
towers, component sizing, system rigging and system usage. There are
generally three types of cable yarding systems, namely, high lead,
skyline and slackline. In a high lead system, the mainline is threaded
through the mainline block (pulley) that is attached near the top of
the spar to obtain a lift of the logs being yarded. A skyline system is
one in which the line (cable) is hung between two or more supports on
which a carriage or block travels. A slackline system is a form of
skyline system where the skyline is spooled on a drum so that the line
can be raised or lowered. In all three systems, the spars are usually
held in part and restrained against movement by the use of guylines
that are anchored to the ground or another tree. Trees and logs may be
moved by a cable yarding system by dragging them along the ground or
while they are suspended from the system.
In the preamble of the proposed rule, OSHA explained that this
exemption was included due to the regional nature of the use of cable
logging systems. State plan States in the far west that have the most
significant cable logging activity have developed very detailed cable
logging standards. Many commenters testified that the hazards of cable
yarding in those states have been adequately covered by the specific
state standards (Ex. 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-23, 5-17, 5-27, 5-39, 5-
45, 5-74 through 5-92, 38J, 38K). However, some commenters discussed
the need for increased regulation of cable yarding operations on the
national level because they assert there is increasing use of cable
yarding in non-western regions of the country where no State standards
exist (Ex 5-19, 5-20, 5-36).
After careful consideration of the comments, OSHA has decided to
retain the exclusion for cable yarding operations in this final rule
for several reasons. First, the State logging standards that address
cable yarding are detailed specification standards that adequately
address the unique hazards associated with the construction and use of
cable yarding in those particular States, that are all western States.
For example, those standards deal with construction of cable yarding
systems on steep slopes that are predominently in those western States.
Those State cable yarding standards will not be affected by the Federal
logging standard. Second, there is no evidence in this rulemaking
record that those standards are not addressing particular hazards
associated with cable yarding in those States. Third, OSHA agrees with
the APA that the prevalent use of cable yarding is in those States that
have their own standards that include requirements for cable yarding.
None of the commenters representing non-western logging establishments
indicated that cable yarding is being performed in their area or by
their member companies. Fourth, OSHA believes there is not sufficient
information and data in the record regarding cable yarding activities
in non-western States to determine at this point whether the various
cable yarding regulations of the western States would be appropriate to
apply nationwide. For example, logging in western States is usually
clear cut logging while selective cutting is more prominent in non-
western states (Ex. 2-1). Other logging conditions vary across regions,
such as tree size and type, weather, and terrain. For example, logging
operations in western States are three times more likely to be on steep
slopes, where skidding may be impossible (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes that
these differences might affect what would constitute appropriate cable
yarding rules for non-western States. Therefore, OSHA believes this
issue requires further study before the Agency promulgates a national
cable yarding standard.
However, OSHA emphasizes that the exclusion of cable yarding is
only for the construction and use of the cable yarding system itself.
Other parts of the logging operation taking place where cable yarding
systems are present will be covered by this standard. Just as this
standard extends the pulpwood logging standard to cover the same
hazards experienced elsewhere in the logging industry, OSHA believes
that these same hazards need to be covered by this standard when cable
yarding operations are being performed. For example, the hazards for
loggers felling trees exist regardless of how the trees or logs are
moved about the work site. To this end, the Agency has included in the
final standard the felling of the trees and the other operations that
are conducted in conjunction with the use of a cable yarding system.
It should also be noted that the use of yarding machines with
winches for playing out and retrieving cable is not considered cable
yarding for the purposes of this standard. Therefore, this operation is
covered by this final logging standard. In this type of log retrieval,
a yarding machine plays out cable, to which is attached a choker sling
that is secured to a tree or log. Once the sling is attached to the
log, the cable is wound onto the drum and the tree or log is then
yarded by skidding while attached to and supported by the cable on the
winch. This system of yarding is oftentimes used when logging is being
conducted along a roadway or other area where access to the area where
the tree is felled is not practical and the area where the yarder
(skidder) is operating is on the roadway or in an accessible area.
At paragraph (b)(3) of the final rule OSHA emphasizes that this
standard is not a totally ``vertical'' standard for logging operations.
That is, the requirements of this final rule are to be supplemented by
other applicable requirements found elsewhere in part 1910. When there
is a corresponding provision elsewhere in part 1910 that addresses the
same hazard or condition of work as a provision of the logging
standard, the more specific logging provision takes precedence for
logging operations. By contrast, when hazardous working conditions are
not addressed or covered by the logging standard, the other
requirements of part 1910 apply. For example, employers in the logging
industry must provide employees protection against occupational noise
exposure by meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95. Employers in
this industry must also comply with the permissible exposure limit for
wood dust specified in 29 CFR 1910.1000 and meet the field sanitation
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.28.
Several commenters raised the issue about what standards apply to
the construction of roads and trails (Ex. 5-16, 5-44, and 5-63). These
commenters said there was confusion about whether the entire part 1926
would be applied to logging operations. Construction activities such as
the building of roads and trails are not logging operations, therefore
they are covered by applicable construction standards and not the
logging standard. As such, the use and maintenance of the equipment to
perform the construction of those roads and trails, such as graders,
scrapers, front-end loaders, and bulldozers, are covered by the
construction standards. In addition, the building of roads and trails
to reach logging sites is not a logging operation, but is a
construction activity that is carried out preparatory to the logging
activity. Therefore, in this final standard OSHA has removed references
to road building construction activities. Road building in conjunction
with the establishment of a logging activity is no different than road
building to gain access to any other operation and is covered in the
general construction standards.
However, the felling of trees in preparation for the construction
activities, such as the building of roads, is considered to be a
logging operation. To the extent that any employee is performing a
logging operation in preparation for construction activities, the
employee is performing general industry work, and the requirements of
this standard as well as other applicable sections of part 1910, apply
in order to safely fell those trees. For example, if trees are felled
to prepare for road construction, the requirements in this final rule
and other sections of part 1910 apply. This reasoning also applies to
felling of trees in preparation for agricultural activities (e.g.,
felling trees to prepare land for crops). Felling of those trees is
general industry work and the requirements of this standard as well as
other applicable sections of part 1910 apply. To this end, OSHA has
specifically referenced the applicability of the final logging standard
in 29 CFR Part 1928 to felling of trees in preparation of agricultural
activities.
Paragraph (c) Definitions
In paragraph (c), OSHA is adopting a number of definitions to
clarify the meaning, intent and purpose of certain terms contained in
this standard. Several definitions contained in the pulpwood logging
rule were deleted from the proposed rule because the terms were no
longer used in the regulatory text. In addition, 17 new definitions
were added to the proposal. In the final rule OSHA has added and
changed several definitions to better reflect the intent of the Agency
and to aid interested persons in understanding the requirements of this
standard. In addition, in the final rule OSHA has deleted several
proposed definitions. Many of these terms involved cable yarding and
road construction activities, that are not covered by this final rule.
``Cable yarding'' is defined in this final rule as the movement of
felled trees or logs from the area where they are felled to a landing
by attaching them to a suspended cable system. The supports for the
cable that carries or supports the trees or logs are called head and
tail spars. Spars may be fashioned from standing trees or from metal
towers (commonly called metal spars). There may be additional
intermediate spars if the cable run is of sufficient length to require
intermediate support. OSHA has specifically defined ``cable yarding''
in the final rule to aid persons in understanding the scope of the
exclusion from the standard for this particular type of logging
operation.
``Danger tree'' is defined in the final rule as any standing tree
that presents a hazard to an employee due to conditions such as, but
not limited to, deterioration or physical damage to the root system,
trunk, stem or limbs, and the direction and lean of the tree. The tree
may be dead or alive. This term was not contained in the proposed
standard. Instead, the related term ``snag'' was included and defined
as any dead tree or portion thereof remaining standing. Also, the term
``widow maker'' was included in the proposed rule and defined as an
overhanging limb or section of tree that could become dislodged and
drop to the ground. Several commenters said this term should replace
the use of ``snag'' in the proposed rule because the definition of snag
implies that all dead trees are dangerous (Ex. 5-17, 5-50, 5-64, 17).
Rep. Jolene Unsoeld, from the State of Washington, said that not all
snags were dangerous to employees and many were essential to the health
of the wildlife community (Ex. 17). In this final rule, OSHA has
decided to use the term ``danger tree,'' a term that is used in the
State of Washington logging standard that is more inclusive of the
various conditions that could cause a tree to be dangerous (Ex. 2-22).
``Designated person'' is defined in the final rule as an employee
who has the requisite knowledge, training and experience to perform
specific duties. This definition is a close parallel to the definition
of the term used in consensus standards dealing with material handling
equipment, such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME
B30.5-1989 with Addenda, ``Safety Standard for Mobile Cranes'' (Ex.
38DD and EE). In the ASME standard, a designated person is defined as
an employee who is selected or assigned by the employer as being
competent to perform specific duties. In this final rule, the Agency
has amended that definition to indicate that the employee needs to have
the knowledge, training and experience to perform that job or duty for
which he/she is designated. The possession of those attributes is not a
discretionary decision on the part of the employer but a mandatory
prerequisite that the employee must possess. Knowledge and competency
are normally achieved through training or experience or a combination
of those activities.
In this final rule a signal person, an explosive handler and user,
a machine operator, a trainer, and a supervisor of new and newly-
trained employees must be designated persons. In these cases, the
Agency recognizes that each of those individuals must have knowledge,
experience, and training to competently perform those tasks. For
example, a signal person needs to know the various signals to use when
indicating that a particular operation or movement is to be made. The
signal person also must know and understand how the task is to be
performed and the role of his signals in completing the task safely.
``Domino felling'' is defined in the final rule as the partial
cutting of several trees that are left standing and then pushed over
with a pusher tree. Domino felling is a dangerous practice that is
prohibited by the final standard. When one tree falls into or against
another tree, the direction of fall of each tree may be altered to the
point that either tree may fall in an unexpected, and oftentimes,
dangerous location. Whenever one tree is being felled and it strikes
another tree, the base of the tree being felled can kick back, striking
the feller who has not moved away sufficiently from the tree being
felled. Additionally, one tree falling into another tree can result in
the initial tree becoming lodged in the second tree, thereby making it
necessary for an employee to remove the lodged tree.
``Health care provider'' is defined in this final rule as a health
care practitioner operating within the scope of his/her license,
certificate, registration or legally authorized practice. As used in
this standard, health care providers are practitioners whose
authorization qualifies them to approve first-aid kits that are to be
used in the logging industry.
``Log'' has been defined in the final rule as a segment sawed or
split from a felled tree. This term replaces the terms section, log,
bolt and tree length, that were all used in the pulpwood logging
standard and the proposed standard. The usual practice in the
harvesting of large and/or tall trees is to cut them into shorter, more
manageable lengths before they are yarded so that they may be more
easily handled and transported. In some cases, extremely large diameter
trees may be split lengthwise so that they can be handled and
transported to the mill for further processing. Although the practice
of splitting a very large tree is not as common, the Agency has
included a log as any section of tree, whether that section has been
cut or split from a tree.
``Logging operations'' is defined in the final standard as
operations associated with felling and moving trees and logs from the
stump to the point of delivery, such as, but not limited to, marking,
felling, bucking, limbing, debarking, chipping, yarding, loading,
unloading, storing, and transporting machines, equipment and personnel
from one site to another. The proposed rule did not define logging
operations. OSHA has included this definition in the final rule to
emphasize that this standard covers those operations involving the
felling and moving of felled trees, as opposed to other operations,
such as road building that are preparatory to rather than part of
logging operations.
``Machine'' is defined in the final standard as a piece of
equipment having a self contained powerplant that is operated off-road
and is used for the movement of materials. Machines include tractors,
skidders, front-end loaders, scrapers, graders, bulldozers, swing
yarders, log stackers and mechanical felling devices, such as tree
shears and feller-bunchers. In the pulpwood logging and proposed
standards, terms such as ``machine'' and ``equipment'' were used
interchangeably to describe a piece of equipment that is intended to be
operated off-road and is used primarily for the movement of material.
Some commenters said they were confused about whether ``vehicles'' were
included within the term ``mobile equipment,'' that had been broadly
defined as the kind of equipment which includes mobility as part of its
work function. Because of the potential for confusion regarding the
intention of the Agency in proposing requirements for off-road versus
on-road equipment, the Agency has defined both the terms ``machine''
and ``vehicle.'' The intent of the Agency in including these terms is
to distinguish between machines, whose primary area of operation is
off-road and are primarily material movers, and vehicles that include
personnel and material conveyances operated on highways as well as off-
road.
The operators of many vehicles (primarily trucks, tractor/trailers
and buses) require special licenses or endorsements to qualify as an
operator of that type vehicle. In contrast, machine operators usually
do not have to possess a special license. Therefore, OSHA is defining
and imposing different logging-related requirements for the operation
of machines and vehicles. The use of the term ``machine'' as used in
this standard should not be confused with the use of that term
elsewhere in these general industry standards.
``Rated capacity'' is defined in the final rule as the maximum load
that a piece of material handling equipment can safely lift and move.
This is a term that is commonly used when describing the capability of
a piece of material handling equipment. The rated capacity of a piece
of material handling equipment is initially determined by the
manufacturer and documented in the operators manual and on the
equipment.
``Serviceable condition'' is defined in this final rule as that
quality of a tool, machine, vehicle, or other device to operate as it
was intended by the manufacturer to operate. OSHA believes that there
are many conditions that can exist with a piece of equipment that would
make it unserviceable, as well as other conditions that would not
similarly qualify. For example, seat covering material on a tractor
that has become cracked, although uncomfortable, would not normally
qualify as a condition that would make the machine unserviceable. On
the other hand, worn brakes or a leak in the brake system would
definitely make a machine or vehicle unserviceable. Additionally,
cracked or broken gauges and defective or leaking fuel systems are
other conditions that would render a machine or vehicle unserviceable.
In the case of personal protective equipment, head protection that
has a crack that would compromise the ability of the hard hat to absorb
further impact without injuring the employee is an example of an
unserviceable condition. On the other hand, a small dent in a hard hat
would not necessarily render the head protection unserviceable.
``Tie down'' is defined in the final rule as an assemblage of
binder and strapping (either chain, cable, steel strips or fiber
webbing) that is used to secure a load to the bed of a transport
vehicle. In the proposed rule, OSHA used the term ``binder'' to
indicate the assembly that is used to secure a load to a vehicle during
transport of that load. As pointed out by two commenters (Ex. 5-7; Tr.
OR 20), a binder is a component of a tie down and is the ratchet
assembly that is used to secure and tighten the strapping of the tie
down. In this final rule, the Agency has corrected the definition.
``Vehicle'' is defined as a personnel conveyance and/or material
handling equipment. Included are cars, buses, trucks, trailers and
semi-trailers. Although vehicles normally operate on public roads,
their use is not limited to that environment. Any of these pieces of
equipment may operate not only on public roads, but may also be used to
transport personnel or materials off-road. For example, when a logging
truck or tractor/trailer is moving a load of trees or logs, the vehicle
may have to traverse not only the logging trails or roads, but may have
to operate on the public thoroughfares to deliver its load to the mill
or other off-loading point. This final rule covers the logging
operation from the site of the felling of the trees to the point of
delivery of the trees or logs.
Paragraph (d) General Requirements
Included in the general requirements paragraph of the final rule
are requirements for personal protective equipment, seat belts, first
aid, fire extinguishers, environmental conditions, work areas,
signaling and signal equipment, overhead electric lines, flammable and
combustible liquids and explosives and blasting agents.
Personal Protective Equipment
Paragraph (d)(1) contain requirements for personal protective
equipment (PPE), including its use and maintenance, and the inspection
of PPE before its use during a workshift. Paragraph (d)(1) also
specifies when employees must use gloves, leg protection, logging
boots, head protection, and eye and face protection. This final rule,
however, does not contain requirements for other types of personal
protective equipment that are covered by other general industry
requirements contained elsewhere in part 1910 (i.e., hearing protection
and respiratory protection). Paragraph (b)(3) already makes clear that
other requirements contained in part 1910 automatically apply when the
logging standard has not addressed a particular hazard or working
condition. Therefore, since part 1910 already require the use and
maintenance of PPE, OSHA has included in paragraph (d)(1) only those
items of personal protective equipment that are not contained elsewhere
in that part or that are in some way different from the requirements
contained in elsewhere in part 1910. As such, references to respiratory
protection in subpart I of part 1910 and hearing protection at
Sec. 1910.95 have been deleted from this final rule.
Paragraph (d)(1)(i) of the final rule requires that the employer
assure that all PPE is maintained in a serviceable condition. This
employer responsibility applies whether the PPE is provided by the
employer or provided by the employee. One commenter recommended that
OSHA include this provision in the final rule (Tr. W2 195). This
provision parallels the maintenance requirements of the general
industry PPE standards. Specifically, 1910.132(b) also requires that
when employees are allowed to provide their own PPE, the employer is
still responsible for assuring its proper maintenance. OSHA has
recognized that whether or not the employer pays for particular types
of PPE that must be worn in the workplace, the employer is responsible
for assuring that required PPE is adequately protecting employees from
workplace hazards. The only way for the employer to assure that PPE
adequately protects employees from workplace hazards is to inspect the
PPE and maintain it in the condition that it was intended by the
manufacturer. The final rule, in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) (PPE maintenance)
and (ii) (PPE inspection), imposes such responsibilities directly on
the employer.
In order to assure that all PPE is maintained in a serviceable
condition, paragraph (d)(1)(ii) requires that the employer assure that
all PPE be inspected before initial use during each workshift. This
inspection will assist employers in identifying whether any PPE is not
functioning properly so that unserviceable equipment can be repaired or
replaced. This paragraph also requires that before work is commenced,
the employer must repair defects or damage, or replace the PPE. The
Agency considers defects and damage to be conditions that detract from
the ability of the product to perform its intended function. For
example, worn cuffs on leg protection that do not compromise the
ability of the leg protection to resist chain-saw cuts, is not a defect
or damage within the meaning of this standard. However, a cut of the
leg protection and loss of the fibrous material that is used to resist
the chain saw would definitely be a defect or damage. When there is a
defect or damage, the PPE must be repaired so that the condition no
longer affects the serviceability of the item or the item must be
replaced before work commences.
Discussed below are the specific PPE requirements of the final
rule. OSHA notes that each of the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(iv)
through (vii) require that the employer assures that the employee wears
PPE meeting the requirement of the final rule. It is the responsibility
of the employer to assure that serviceable PPE is available and worn by
employees when required by the final rule. As discussed above in the
Major Issues section, with the exception of logging boots, these
specific PPE requirements impose on the employer the obligation to
provide such PPE at no cost to the employee.
Gloves
Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this final rule requires that the employer
provide, at no cost to the employee, and assure that each employee
handling wire rope wears cotton gloves or other equivalent hand
protection. In the proposed rule, OSHA specified that the employer
provide hand protection consisting of suitable heavy-duty puncture-
resistant gloves when employees were working with wire rope. Several
State logging standards also require the use of gloves for employees
working with wire rope (Ex. 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 38K).
OSHA received many comments regarding the proposed requirement (Ex.
5-7, 5-17, 5-20, 5-27, 5-29, 5-30, 5-32, 5-35, 5-39, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45,
5-51, 5-54, 5-55, 5-62, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. OR 104). Many commenters
objected to the requiring the use of puncture resistant gloves, such as
leather gloves, for logging operations. First, commenters argued that
there are no gloves that are puncture resistant in all circumstances
(Ex. 5-54; Tr. OR 104). They argued that wire rope can puncture even
leather gloves. Second, several commenters indicated that cotton gloves
have become the industry standard and that their experience had shown
that medium weight cotton gloves are considered safer than leather
gloves in logging operations when punctures can occur. According to
these commenters, cotton gloves give the logger a better feel of
jaggers (broken wires in a wire rope) when they penetrate so the logger
is able to quickly let go of the wire rope (Ex. 5-17, 5-74 through 5-
92). They added that break-away gloves are imperative when the wire
rope travels at high speed and reaction time is critical (Ex. 5-74
through 5-92). They said that cotton gloves, but not leather gloves,
will tear away from the hand when caught by a jagger rather than
forcibly pulling the hand along with the jagger, causing the employee
to fall and possibly into the path of the log (Ex. 5-7, 5-74 through 5-
92). These commenters argued that pulling of the hand and glove could
make a minor hand injury more serious such as making a small puncture
wound a tear or laceration of the skin (Ex. 5-29). Third, one commenter
indicated that cotton gloves provide adequate protection because a
review of their recordable accidents since 1982 indicated that no
employee wearing cotton gloves while handling wire rope had suffered an
injury requiring medical attention (Ex. 5-45). Fourth, these commenters
said leather gloves are generally considered hazardous for logging
operations because they do not have good gripping ability on cable when
wet (Ex. 5-7, 5-20, 5-43, 5-46). These commenters asserted that cotton
gloves provided better gripping ability in the same circumstances.
Fifth, commenters argued that the required gloves must be
applicable and efficient for a wide range of logging activities. One
commenter pointed out that employees who use saws also work with wire
rope, and very few will take the time to change gloves between each
operation (Ex. 5-35). For these reasons, OSHA has, in this final rule,
changed the requirement for the use of hand protection to specify that
cotton gloves or other equivalent hand protection must be worn when
handling wire rope.
Leg protection. At paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of the final rule, OSHA is
requiring that the employer provide, at no cost to the employee, and
assure that each employee who operates a chain saw wears leg
protection. This paragraph requires that the leg protection be
comprised of ballistic nylon or other material that the employer
demonstrates provides equivalent protection. In addition, this
paragraph requires that the leg protection cover the full length of the
thigh to the top of the boot on each leg.
The pulpwood logging standard did not have a requirement for the
use of chaps or other leg protection. The proposed rule would have
required that chain-saw operators wear ballistic nylon or equivalent
protection covering each leg from upper thigh to boot top or shoe top.
Both the State of Washington and the State of Oregon logging standards
require the use of leg protection by chain-saw operators (Ex. 2-22,
38K).
The need for and the use of leg protection was one of the issues
raised in the hearing notice and has been discussed above in the Major
Issues section. The evidence in the record, as discussed above,
strongly supports the need for a requirement for leg protection for
each chain saw operator in order to protect that operator against being
injured by contact with a moving saw chain. OSHA points out that the
requirement for using leg protection applies to each employee who
operates any chain saw at any time on the job. This requirement
includes the employee who is a regular chain saw operator as well as
the employee who occasionally uses a chain saw. Some commenters
emphasized the need for any employee who uses a chain saw, even
occasionally, to wear leg protection (Tr. W1 193, W2 61, 115). Other
commenters said OSHA should provide an exception for employees who
operate chains saws only occasionally (Ex. 5-20, 5-59). The Agency
believes that an employee who operates a chain saw for any duration
needs leg protection. OSHA also notes that there were no comments
received saying leg protection was too burdensome for infrequent
operators or for short duration use.
In this paragraph, OSHA also has included an exception to the leg
protection requirement for employees working from bucket trucks and, in
some instances, for climbers. OSHA has allowed the exception for those
working in bucket trucks, because the bucket work platform provides the
necessary protection for these chain saw operators.
With regard to climbers, OSHA has retained an exception in the
final rule for certain situations. Climbers are not required to wear
leg protection when the employer demonstrates that a greater hazard is
posed by wearing leg protection in the particular situation. As the
final rule makes clear, this is not a blanket exception for climbers.
The employer must evaluate the particular situation to determine
whether there is a greater risk to the climber by wearing leg
protection. OSHA points out that the employer will bear the burden of
demonstrating that leg protection poses a greater hazard for the
climber. OSHA received one comment that said leg protection should not
be required because it was a hindrance during tree climbing (Ex. 5-7).
The fact that leg protection may be a ``hindrance'' is not in itself a
showing that leg protection poses a greater danger. When the hindrance
is just that climbing goes more slowly when leg protection is worn, the
employer has not made the requisite showing that leg protection poses
greater safety hazards. However, when the employer shows that in wet
conditions leg protection would substantially increase the likelihood
of falling, it may be appropriate in that case for the climber to
refrain from using leg protection. In such cases, OSHA believes that
alternative methods for protecting the legs, such as light and pliable
pads sewn into work pants, should be used whenever feasible.
Foot protection. At paragraph (d)(1)(v) of the final rule, OSHA is
requiring that the employer assure that each employee wear foot
protection, such as heavy duty logging boots. This provision requires
that the foot protection be waterproof or water repellant, cover and
provide support for the ankle, and protect the employee against chain-
saw penetration. This paragraph allows employees to wear sharp, calk-
soled boots, or other slip-resistant boots, when the employer
demonstrates that they are necessary for the job, terrain, timber type,
or weather conditions. However, this alternative foot protection must
otherwise meet the requirements of this paragraph.
OSHA notes that when the logging boot itself does not provide
protection from penetration by a chain saw, the employee must use some
additional foot protection, such as a foot cover, to provide that
necessary protection. Information in the record indicates such devices
are commercially available in the logging industry, therefore, this
provision should not prove burdensome (Ex. 5-14).
Both the proposed and pulpwood logging standards contained
provisions requiring that safety boots or shoes (excluding low cut
shoes) meet ANSI Safety Standards for Men's Safety-Toe Footwear. The
proposal also would have allowed heavy duty logging style boots with
lug or calk soles to be worn when they are appropriate for the job, the
terrain, the timber type and weather conditions. Several State logging
standards also require that employees wear logging boots (Ex. 2-17, 2-
19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 38K).
While there was considerable comment on the proposed safety boot
requirement, commenters generally supported the need for a safety boot
provision (Ex. 5-11, 5-17, 5-19, 5-24, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-33, 5-43, 5-
50, 5-51, 5-54, 5-55, 5-63, 5-67, Tr. W1 63, 110, W2 115, 139). OSHA
received the most comment on the issue of who must provide and pay for
the safety boots. That issue has been discussed at length above in the
Major Issues section.
OSHA also received considerable comment opposing the incorporation
of the ANSI Z41.1 standard on safety shoes (Tr. W1 147-148). Commenters
from cold climate areas, such as Alaska, northern Washington, Idaho and
Montana, opposed the proposed requirement because they contended that
the steel toes transmit the warmth produced by their feet, thereby
encouraging the onset of frostbite.
For several reasons, OSHA has used performance criteria rather than
incorporating by reference any foot protection standard. First, the
ANSI standard permits low-cut shoes that do not cover the ankle or
provide ankle support. Second, the ANSI foot protection standard is a
testing rule for steel toes of safety shoes. While falling objects may
pose a hazard for logging employees, the greater hazard is penetration
of the boot by a chain saw. The ANSI standard does not address this
hazard and it does not provide adequate protection to the entire foot,
which is necessary. In addition, as discussed above, steel-toed boots
may cause problems for loggers working in extreme cold. OSHA received
comment about efforts to develop, manufacture and market protective
footwear with fiberglass rather than steel toes, but there is no
accepted standard yet. Third, the ANSI standard does not address
hazards that are unique to the logging industry, such as wet conditions
and penetration of the boot by a chain saw. Fourth, there is no
evidence in the record of any other consensus standard regarding
logging boots. OSHA is aware of efforts by various organizations and
associations, in conjunction with the American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM), to develop test standards for personal protective
equipment that is intended to apply directly to loggers and the logging
industry. These standards would be similar to the various Canadian PPE
standards developed by the Safety and Engineering Program Laboratory
Services (IRRST) (Ex. 5-72).
Instead, the Agency has specified that logging boots that meet
certain performance criteria must be worn by each employee. OSHA has
reviewed the rulemaking record and determined some of the most
important performance characteristics that are needed in order to deal
with particular hazards that are present in logging operations (e.g.,
steep and uneven terrain, wet and cold weather, chain-saw kickback).
For example, two hearing participants testified that logging boots must
provide ankle support for the employee (Tr. W1 147, OR 222). Coverage
and support of the ankle is necessary to protect against lacerations
and to prevent ankle injury when navigating the rugged terrain that
characterizes much of the logging environment. One commenter also said
that logging boots must be waterproof or water repellent so that the
logger would not be exposed to getting trench foot or immersion foot
(Tr. W1 147). Finally, commenters said logging boots must provide
protection against penetration by a chain saw if contact is made with
the boot (Tr. W1 148, 195, W2 139).
Several commenters also supported the proposed provision allowing
lug or calk-soled boots to be used (Ex. 5-19, 5-28, 5-29). These
commenters said that working conditions varied too greatly to require
the use of one type of boot sole for all logging regions. For example,
one commenter said that calk boots are considered essential for safe
and secure walking on steep western forest terrain (Ex. 5-28). Another
commenter stated that there are situations in the south where smooth
soled boots are adequate (Ex. 5-29). In addition, this commenter said
that there are conditions when calk boots might pose a greater danger,
such as a machine operator who is continuously mounting and dismounting
a machine via steel platform steps where the calk boots could result in
slipping or falling. As a result, this commenter said that calk and
sharp-soled boots should be limited to those situations when the type
of logging operation, terrain, timber size or weather conditions make
their use appropriate. The U.S. Department of the Interior also
commented that calk-soled boots may contribute to certain types of
logging injuries, such as knee injuries (Ex. 5-50). Based on these
comments, OSHA specifically allows sharp, calk-soled boots or other
slip-resistant type boots to be worn, provided the employer can
demonstrate such boots are needed for the employee's job, the terrain,
the timber type or the weather conditions.
In order for the employer to demonstrate that such footwear is
necessary, the employer must prove that three conditions are met: (1)
that the footwear is appropriate for use in the work environment; (2)
the employee's duties require him/her to work where the footwear is
needed; and (3) that the use of the alternative footwear does not make
the work less safe. For example, if the area where the logging is being
done is moist to wet and has a dense leaf cover, the use of calk-soled
boots (boots with spiked soles) would provide the logger with
additional traction when walking and working on that ground cover. On
the other hand, such footwear is not appropriate when a machine
operator spends little time working on the ground (even if the same
conditions as described above prevail) since spikes make frequent
mounting and demounting of the machine more hazardous. OSHA recognizes
that slips, trips and falls are a major source of injury in the logging
industry, accounting for one third of the injuries to loggers (Ex. 2-
1).
OSHA is also requiring that when an employee wears calk-soled
logging boots, the other foot protection requirements of this paragraph
must also be met. OSHA is aware that most calk-soled boots do not have
steel-toes or other devices that prevent penetration by a chain saw.
However, OSHA is also aware that calk-soled boots are worn primarily by
fellers and buckers operating chain saws on steep terrain. Evidence in
the record indicates that a vast majority of loggers in western States,
where the terrain is steep, wear calk-soled boots (Ex. 2-1). However,
even in those States, almost 20 percent of all injuries reported in the
WIR survey involved chain saws. The vast majority of these injuries
happened when the logger was struck by the chain saw. Therefore, OSHA
believes that it is necessary that even when an employee wears calk-
soled boots, he must also have foot protection providing protection
against chain-saw penetration. As stated above, when the boot itself
does not provide that protection, the employee must wear some other
device that will provide the needed protection. The record shows there
are such devices currently available on the market, therefore, OSHA
does not believe this additional requirement will be unduly burdensome
(Ex. 5-14).
Head protection. At paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of the final rule, OSHA is
requiring each employee who is at risk of injury from falling or flying
objects to wear head protection. The head protection must meet the
requirements of newly-revised subpart I of part 1910. Both the pulpwood
logging standard and the proposed standard contained head protection
requirements. The pulpwood logging standard had identified the
performance criteria that head protection was required to meet, but did
not specifically require employees to wear it. The proposed standard
added that requirement and updated the performance criteria for the
required head protection. Several State logging standards also require
that employees wear head protection (Ex. 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23,
38K).
OSHA did not receive any comments opposing the required use of head
protection and has retained the proposed provision in the final
standard. OSHA believes it is important to stress that in the logging
industry head protection is necessary to protect employees not only
from falling objects, but also from flying objects. According to the
WIR survey, 14 percent of all injuries reported were to the head (Ex.
2-1). OSHA believes this hazard is present especially for fellers,
chain saw operators and persons performing chipping operations,
however, there are other logging operations where the potential for
head injury also exists.
Eye and face protection. Paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of the final rule
requires that each employee who works in an area where there is a
potential for injury due to falling or flying object shall wear eye and
face protection meeting the requirements of subpart I of part 1910.
This provision permits logger-type mesh screen to be worn when the
employer demonstrates it provides equivalent protection. The proposed
rule also contained these provisions. The 1978 ANSI standard contained
a similar requirement. Eye and face protection is also required by
several State logging standards (Ex. 2-18, 2-19, 2-22, 2-23, 38K).
Two commenters said OSHA should require eye protection to be worn
only in certain situations (Ex. 5-43 and 5-64). One commenter stated:
This is a good rule for some logging activities, such as
felling, bucking, splicing, etc.; however, we do not feel that this
is necessary for choker setting and many machine operators, such as
yarder, loader, feller-bunchers (Ex. 5-64).
After reviewing the evidence in the record, OSHA believes that a
requirement mandating eye and face protection is necessary. According
to the WIR survey, 13 percent of all injuries reported involved the
eyes and face (Ex. 2-1). In the final rule, OSHA is requiring only that
such protection be worn whenever there is the potential for head injury
due to falling or flying objects. OSHA agrees with the commenters that
the potential for eye and face injury is present especially for
fellers, buckers and chippers, however, there are other logging
operations in which the potential for this type of injury also exists.
In any logging operations when there is no danger of being struck by
falling or flying objects, eye protection is not required.
Employers, under the PPE standard, will have to conduct a hazard
assessment to determine when and where those hazards may exist in the
logging workplace. In some cases, the presence of the hazard will be
obvious (e.g., fellers and buckers). In other cases, working conditions
may be such that there is no potential for injury (e.g., yarder
operator working inside an enclosed cab).
As with the head protection provision, OSHA has retained the eye
and face protection provision to alert the industry that falling
objects, in addition to flying objects, are a hazard for employees in
the logging industry.
First-Aid Kits
At paragraph (d)(2) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
employers provide first-aid kits. The proposed standard contained this
provision. First aid kits are also required by every State Plan State
logging standard. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this
requirement in general.
Paragraph (d)(2)(i) of the final rule requires that first-aid kits
be at each work site when felling is being conducted, at each landing
and on each employee transport vehicle. The proposed rule stated that
first-aid kits be provided ``at the work site.'' Several commenters
said that OSHA should define the term ``work site'' (Ex. 5-39, 5-53, 5-
55, 5-63) in the final rule. They also said that having kits available
at the landing should provide adequate protection. However, another
commenter said chain-saw operators working away from the landing need
first-aid kits and should each be required to carry a small first-aid
kit that contains supplies to stop bleeding (Ex. 5-28).
In the final rule, OSHA has clarified its intention regarding
having first-aid kits at each work site. First, the records shows that
first-aid kits are necessary at each work site when felling is being
conducted and not just at landings. According to the WIR survey, more
than one-half of all injuries occurred at the cutting site, while only
one-fifth of the injuries were at landings (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes
that immediate assistance must be provided for injured cutters. As
discussed above in the Major Issues section, many logging
establishments have central offices, but their crews are performing
operations miles from that central location. OSHA has received
testimony that cutting crews are often spread out and in remote
locations (Ex. 5-34; Tr. OR 21). These commenters said crews are often
located more than one-half hour away from a central office or spread
across five square miles. First-aid kits that require that much time to
access are of limited value to an injured employee. When an injury is
severe, the lack of immediately accessible first-aid materials and
trained personnel could result in permanent disability or death.
Therefore, OSHA is requiring that first-aid kits be provided at each
work site where trees are being felled.
Second, OSHA is also requiring first-aid kits to be provided at
each landing. As discussed above, one-fifth of all injuries reported in
the WIR survey occurred at landings (Ex. 2-1). First-aid kits at
landings are also necessary to provide assistance to other injured
employees, such as those on skid trails. According to the WIR survey,
nearly one-fifth of employees injured were on skid trails.
Third, OSHA is retaining the requirement from the proposed rule
that first-aid kits be provided on each crew vehicle. The WIR survey
indicates that employees are injured on employer-built roads while
enroute to and from work sites (Ex. 2-1). One commenter stated that
requiring first-aid kits on each employee transport vehicle could
result in several kits being at each work site (Ex. 5-35). Nothing in
the standard prohibits an employer from using the employee transport
vehicle kits by a felling crew during the workshift, provided they are
returned to the crew vehicle when it is moved at the end of the
workshift.
Paragraph (d)(2)(i) of the final rule also requires that the
employer, in determining the appropriate number and contents of first-
aid kits, to consider the degree of isolation of the work site, the
number of employees at the work site and the hazards reasonably
anticipated at that work site. The further a crew is from a central
landing, the more crucial a first-aid kit is for that remote crew. For
example, large and well-supplied first-aid kits are needed where crews
are so remotely located that rescue units (either vehicles or
helicopters) cannot get to the injured person or not get there quickly.
When crews are very small and located close to central landings smaller
kits may be adequate, when supplemented by kits at central landing
areas that contain a more comprehensive supply of first-aid materials.
Paragraphs (d)(2) (ii), (iii) and (iv) all deal with the adequacy
of the contents of first-aid kits. At paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of the final
rule, OSHA has specified that each first-aid kit must meet certain
minimum content requirements. Those minimum content requirements are
delineated in mandatory Appendix A. OSHA received comments urging OSHA
to specify the contents needed for an ``adequately supplied'' first-aid
kit (Ex. 5-21, 5-28, 5-50, 30). These commenters also pointed out that
several State logging standards specify minimum first-aid content
requirements (Ex. 2-18, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 38J, 38K). In addition, one
commenter also provided a list of minimum contents needed for logging
first-aid kits. Based on these comments and OSHA's expert judgment, the
items listed in Appendix A are the type necessary for dealing with
injured persons in remote areas of varying climatic conditions. OSHA
points out that the specified contents are minimally adequate for a
small logging crew of two to three employees. Where crews are larger,
additional kits or kits with more supplies may be needed. In
formulating this final rule, OSHA included Appendix A (First-aid
supplies) and Appendix B (First-aid training) to provide the employer
with a definitive means of determining the adequacy of the first-aid
kits and the training that employees must receive.
OSHA has deleted from the final paragraph the proposed requirement
that first-aid kits include snake bite kits. OSHA received several
comments about this provision (Ex. 5-7, 5-17, 5-29, 5-35, 5-42, 5-50,
5-51, 5-55, 5-67). One commenter said this requirement should be
deleted since there were no poisonous snakes in his area (Ex. 5-7).
Other commenters said that some snake bite kits were not effective in
treating bites or that they are outmoded and can do more damage than
good (Ex. 5-17, 5-29, 5-35, 5-42, 5-50, 5-51, 5-55, 5-67). For example,
NIOSH said that it is possible more serious injury will occur to a
person by improper use of a snake bite kit (Ex. 5-42). According to the
Regional Snake Bite Control Center at the University Medical Center in
Cincinnati, OH, snake bite kits should not be used when medical
treatment is available within one hour of the bite (Ex. 5-42). OSHA has
determined that, given the regional differences in the logging
industry, employers should be allowed to work with their health care
provider to determine whether a snake bite kit is necessary and what
kind of kit would be of most assistance for loggers working in that
area. One of the factors the health care provider should consider is
how far particular loggers are from medical facilities and trained
medical personnel.
Paragraph (d)(2)(iii) requires a health care provider to review and
approve annually the first-aid kits the employer provides, both as to
the adequacy of the kit's contents and the number of kits provided.
OSHA has added this requirement in the final rule for several reasons.
First, 1910.151(b) already requires that first-aid kits be approved by
consulting physicians. OSHA is aware that health care providers in
addition to physicians are qualified to approve first-aid kits and OSHA
wants to provide flexibility for employers in meeting this requirement.
Second, 1910.151(b) only requires initial approval of first-aid kits
rather than periodic approval. However, OSHA believes that a periodic
review of first-aid kits is necessary and appropriate in the logging
industry. This industry is one in which the workplace is often not near
medical personnel, infirmaries, clinics, or hospitals that are best
able to treat logging injuries. Therefore, it is important for a health
care provider to assess the contents of first-aid kits to see that they
contain those supplies that will provide effective assistance for an
injured worker.
Once the kits are reviewed and approved, paragraph (d)(2)(iv)
requires the employer to maintain the first-aid kits in accordance with
the approval conditions. Employers have the duty to ensure that first-
aid kits are adequately supplied and replenished as necessary. In
addition, the employer is responsible for assuring that kit contents
are usable, that is, there is no spoilage or damage due to weather
conditions. For example, employers need to periodically check first-aid
supplies to ensure that materials are still in clean and sterile
condition.
Seat Belts
At paragraph (d)(3) of the final standard, OSHA is requiring the
provision of seat belts for the operator of any vehicle or any machine
equipped with ROPS or FOPS and the use of seat belts by the vehicle and
machine operator and passengers. The pulpwood logging standard required
the provision of seat belts on mobile equipment, but did not require
the use of seat belts by operators and passengers. The proposed rule
required both the provision and use of seat belts by tractor, equipment
and personnel transport operators. In addition, the proposed rule
allowed an exception to using seat belts when the employer had
``reasonable cause to believe that safety of the operator is
jeopardized by wearing a seat belt.'' The 1978 ANSI logging standard
required logging machines to be equipped with seat belts. All State
logging standards also require the use of seat belts by operators and
passengers of machines and vehicles.
OSHA received many comments on the use of seat belts (Ex. 5-17, 5-
19, 5-22, 5-35, 5-39, 5-45, 5-51, 5-54, Tr. W1 79, 113, 183, 213). The
West Virginia Forestry Association recommended expanding the seat belt
requirement to require seat belts be installed and used in all
personnel transport vehicles because West Virginia did not have a state
seat belt law (Ex. 5-4). Other commenters also recommended that OSHA
not permit any exceptions to the use of seat belts (Ex. 5-17, 5-22, 5-
27, Tr. W1 183, 213). One commenter reasoned that any exception would
invite widespread abuse and seriously weaken OSHA's field enforcement
capability (Ex. 5-22). However, other commenters said that seat belts
should not be required because they would unduly restrict operators,
would result in greater injury if an object entered the operator area
(i.e., ``jillpoke''), and would be hazardous for employees operating
machines on steep terrain (Ex. 5-35, 5-45; Tr. W1 79, 113, OR 31-2, 83,
120, 181).
After reviewing the comments in the record and the available
accident data, OSHA has decided in the final rule to eliminate the seat
belt exception for several reasons. First, the record shows that use of
seat belts would save lives in the logging industry (Ex. 4-129). A
State of Washington study also reported 12 loggers killed in rollover
accidents from 1977-83 (Ex. 4-129). All 12 of those employees were
crushed by the machine when they were thrown from the cab. This study
concluded that all of those deaths might have been prevented if the
employees involved had been wearing seat belts because the ROPS and
FOPS were still intact when the machine came to a rest. This study also
concluded that eliminating exemptions on seat belt use would save lives
in the logging industry.
Second, the record does not support the view that the operator's
risk of being injured by a jillpoke entering the cab is greater than
the risk of injury from not wearing seat belts. Of the 105 logging
fatalities reported to OSHA between 1985 and 1990, only one was caused
by a jillpoke (Ex. 4-65). On the other hand, 7 fatalities occurred
during machine rollover accidents when either the machine operator or a
rider was thrown from the machine and crushed because he was not
wearing a seat belt. NIOSH said that 80 deaths occurred due to logging
machine rollovers from 1980-85 (Ex. 5-42). The State of Washington
study indicated that 12 loggers were killed in machine rollover
accidents and no machine operators were killed during that period
because of jillpokes (Ex. 4-129). California OSHA also testified that
their experience has been that the jillpoke hazard is far outweighed by
the hazard of rollovers (Ex. 9-12). They provided examples of logging
accidents in which the employee would not have died or been injured if
he had been wearing a seat belt.
Third, OSHA has dealt directly with the hazard of jillpokes in the
final rule. The final rule requires that all operator cabs be equipped
with screening or other material that will prevent objects from
penetrating the cab. This requirement is expected to prevent jillpoke
injuries, therefore the seat belt exception is not necessary.
Fourth, OSHA agrees with commenters that there should be no
exception to the seat belt requirement for mobile machine operators,
especially those who operate on steep terrain. Mobile logging machines
are operated on unlevel ground and steep terrain where it is well-
recognized that machine rollover and tipover is a primary danger. Seat
belts will restrain the operator in the cab and its protective
structure rather than allowing the operator to try to jump free. In
most instances, when the operator tries to jump free he is pinned,
crushed or hit by the machine, ROPS/FOPS or overhead guard. Finally,
OSHA notes that seat belts have been designed that keep operators
restrained within the cab in the event of a rollover or tipover, while
at the same time providing them with maximum movement within the cab.
One commenter said these seat belts, which resemble carnival harnesses,
have been designed by the Forest Engineering Research Institute of
Canada (Ex. 32). These seat belts would meet the requirements of this
section while addressing the concerns raised by the commenters.
Paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of the final rule requires that each employee
fasten the seat belt securely and tightly so that the employee is
restrained in the vehicle or machine cab in the event of an accident.
Evidence in this record (Ex. 5-35; Tr. W2 190) indicates that employees
frequently keep their seat belts loose in order to move in the cab more
easily. However, if the machine rolls over, the loose seat belt may not
be effective in keeping the operator in the cab. In such cases, the
operator may be thrown from the cab and pinned or crushed by the
machine because the seat belt was too loose to keep the operator fully
contained in the cab.
Paragraph (d)(3)(iv) of the final rule requires that machine seat
belts meet the requirements of the Society of Automotive Engineers
standard (SAE J386 June 1985) for seat belts for construction machines.
This incorporation by reference of SAE J386 June 1985, has been
approved by the Office of the Federal Register, in accordance with the
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. The final rule has
been revised to reflect this approval and provides the requisite
information regarding access to the text of SAE J386, June 1985. This
provision updates the proposed standard to incorporate the latest SAE
seat belt standard. There were no comments opposing this provision.
Paragraph (d)(3)(v) of the final rule requires employers to assure
that seat belts are not removed from any vehicle or machine. This
paragraph also requires the employer to replace the missing seat belts
if seat belts were installed in the vehicle or machine at the time of
manufacture and have subsequently been removed. OSHA is aware that seat
belts are removed from machines because operators do not like to wear
them. OSHA is requiring the replacement of seat belts because the
Agency believes they are essential in protecting machine and vehicle
operators from being killed or seriously injured in accidents.
Paragraph (d)(3)(vi) of the final standard requires employers to
assure that seat belts are maintained in a serviceable condition.
Employers have the duty to ensure that seat belts are functioning
properly and are not damaged. The standard also requires inspection of
seat belts as part of the general machine and vehicle inspection
required at the start of each workshift. (See discussion of maintenance
in paragraphs (f) and (g)).
Fire Extinguishers
At paragraph (d)(4) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring employers
to provide and maintain a portable fire extinguisher on each machine
and vehicle. The extinguisher must meet the requirements of subpart L
of part 1910. The pulpwood logging and proposed standards required a
fire extinguisher at locations where machines and vehicles are being
operated.
Several commenters urged OSHA to limit this requirement (Ex. 5-21,
5-36, 5-39). Two of these commenters said that fire extinguishers
should only be required on heavy equipment and at refueling stations
(Ex. 5-21, 5-36). The other commenter said fire extinguishers should
only be required during forest fire seasons.
OSHA has decided in the final rule to require extinguishers on each
machine and vehicle for several reasons. First, repeatedly in this
rulemaking commenters have requested that OSHA more clearly define what
constitutes a ``work site,'' an ``operating area,'' or a ``work area.''
OSHA's intention in the proposed rule was that a fire extinguisher be
located where each machine and vehicle is operated, including areas
where they are refueled. OSHA believes that requiring the fire
extinguisher be located on each machine most clearly conveys the
Agency's intention that the fire extinguisher move with the machine or
vehicle as it is operated and refueled.
Second, the potential for fire is a major concern in this industry
(Ex. 5-20). It is important that extinguishers be immediately available
so that a fire can be extinguished before it goes out of control and
endangers employees and the forest. A fire extinguisher that is located
at a landing where the machine begins its operation, may be of no use
when the machine is miles away from the landing picking up a load.
Third, one of the areas where the potential for fire is great is
during refueling of the machine. However, the proposed standard only
required the extinguisher to be located where machines and vehicles
were being operated and did not address refueling directly. If the
extinguisher remains with the machine or vehicle, it will be there to
protect against fire hazards during refueling.
Fourth, OSHA is aware that in many industrial settings, the
extinguisher is already mounted on the machine or vehicle so that it is
immediately accessible when a fire occurs. Therefore, OSHA does not
believe complying with this requirement will pose a significant burden
on the employer.
Environmental Conditions
At paragraph (d)(5) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that all
work be stopped and that each employee move to a place of safety when
environmental conditions may endanger an employee in the performance of
their job. This provision also specifies that hazardous environmental
conditions include, but are not limited to, electrical storms, high
winds, heavy rain or snow, extreme cold, dense fog, fires, mudslides,
and darkness. The pulpwood logging and proposed rules contained a
similar provision, however, it only specifically identified electrical
storms and high winds. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained a
similar requirement and, in addition, required logging operations to
cease when visibility is inadequate, unless artificial lighting is
provided. All State logging standards, except the State of Alaska, have
provisions requiring work to cease when environmental conditions are
hazardous to employees.
OSHA received several comments on this provision (Ex. 5-50, 5-51,
5-55, 5-66; Tr. W1 139). Some of these commenters recommended expanding
the conditions listed in this provision. These commenters also said
logging should be stopped when darkness impairs visual ability, unless
artificial light is provided. One commenter said they do not allow
their employees to work in blowing snow, extreme cold or winds (Ex. 5-
51). Another commenter said OSHA should specify that the work stoppage
requirement should be limited to only that work that is affected by the
environmental conditions (Ex. 5-55; Tr. W1 139).
OSHA does not believe it is possible to delineate each and every
environmental condition that would necessitate termination of work and
moving employees to a place of safety. OSHA is aware that the
employer's judgment will be essential in carrying out this provision in
the various environmental conditions that affect different regions of
this industry. However, the criteria that must form the basis of the
employer's assessment is uniform--when a reasonable employer would
believe that environmental conditions may endanger employees performing
a specific job or operating a specific piece of equipment, work must
stop and the employees must move to a place of safety. For example,
darkness may prevent a feller from accurately assessing the distance
between occupied work areas or the condition of the tree to be cut
(e.g., loose bark, damaged trunk or limbs). If the feller is not able
to properly assess these conditions, he may endanger himself and others
in the area. Therefore, work would have to stop unless artificial light
were available to alleviate the danger.
Another element of the determination as to whether an environmental
condition may endanger an employee is the particular job being
performed and the tools of that job. For example, dense fog may
endanger a feller because they may not be able to see the top of the
tree and accurately judge its lean. If such conditions exist, felling
must be stopped. However, fog may not necessarily endanger employees
who are loading transport vehicles at a landing. In that case, the
employees might still be able to perform their job under such
conditions.
Work Areas
At paragraph (d)(6) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that work
areas be so organized and spaced that the actions of one employee will
not create a hazard for any other employee. This paragraph also
requires that each employee work in a position or location that is
within visual or audible contact with another employee. These
provisions were adopted from the proposed standard. The pulpwood
logging and 1978 ANSI logging standards also recommended a two tree-
length distance between work areas. Requirements similar to the final
rule exist in various State logging standards (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-
20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 38J, 38K).
At paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
work areas be assigned so that trees cannot fall into adjacent occupied
work areas. This provision also requires that the distance between
adjacent occupied work areas be at least two tree lengths of the trees
being felled. The proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard
contained similar requirements.
OSHA received comments supporting this provision (Ex. 5-29, 5-41,
5-67, 5-70; Tr. W2 163). These commenters said that two tree lengths is
already used in the industry to ensure safe spacing of work areas. Some
commenters, however, said that the provision should be limited (Ex. 5-
28, 5-36, 5-39, 5-44, 5-49, 5-53, 5-54, 5-63, 5-74 through 5-92). One
commenter said OSHA should require minimum spacing requirements only
when physical control of the timber was unpredictable, such as felling
and skidding (Ex. 5-28). Other commenters recommended that the
requirement be limited to slopes that are greater than 25 or 35 percent
(Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-39, 5-63).
The purpose of these requirements is to protect employees in
adjacent occupied work areas from being hit by misdirected trees. One
of the major causes of injury in the logging industry is being hit by a
tree. According to the WIR survey, almost one-quarter of all those
injured were hit by a tree (Ex. 2-1). The State of Washington study
showed that more than 65 percent of all employees were killed when they
were hit by a tree or log (Ex. 4-129). In addition, the study showed
that almost nine percent of that reported fatalities resulted from an
employee being hit by a tree being felled by another employee (Ex. 4-
129).
Employees can be hit by a tree that falls in the wrong direction or
by one that rolls or slides down sloping terrain. There is no dispute
that there is increased difficulty in directional felling on unlevel
terrain. OSHA believes that these work spacing requirements in the
final rule will help to prevent these types of accidents. Moreover,
adopting any of the limitations that the commenters proposed would
still leave employees exposed to other foreseeable hazards. Since the
two tree-length distance has become accepted practice in the industry,
it appears that industry itself recognizes the need for a minimum work
spacing requirement and that the provision should not prove overly
burdensome for any establishments in the industry.
In paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of the final rule OSHA is also requiring
that employers assess conditions to determine whether additional
spacing between adjacent occupied work areas is necessary. Some of the
conditions that employers must examine include the degree of slope, the
density of the growth, the height of trees, the soil structure, and
other hazards reasonably anticipated at that work site. This paragraph
also requires that additional distance be maintained between adjacent
occupied work areas on any slope where rolling or sliding of logs is
reasonably foreseeable. These provisions were also contained in the
proposed rule and in various State logging standards (Ex. 2-17, 2-18,
2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 38J, 38K). The 1978 ANSI logging standard also
contained a similar requirement.
Some commenters said greater distance should only be required when
the slope is greater than 25 or 35 percent (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-39, 5-
63). These commenters, however, did not provide any information on why
such a limitation would provide adequate protection for employees. OSHA
does not agree that greater distance may only be necessary on such
steep slopes. OSHA believes there is a potential for trees and logs to
roll and slide on lesser slopes when conditions such as snow and ice
accumulation or wet soil are present. Therefore, OSHA does not believe
that adequate protection would be provided if the commenters'
recommendation were adopted.
Other commenters said that a greater distance on slopes should not
be required when employees are working to the side of each other,
pointing out that the Alaska logging standard allows this (Ex. 5-74
through 5-92). OSHA believes that the final standard is consistent with
the Alaska logging standard. The final rule only requires that a
greater distance is required on any slope where rolling or sliding of
trees or logs is reasonably foreseeable. Nothing in the final rule
requires a greater distance on slopes when there is no danger that an
employee could be hit by a rolling or sliding log. For example, when
employees work side by side on a slope, rather than uphill and downhill
from each other, there is no danger that the employee will be injured
by a rolling log.
At paragraph (d)(6)(iii), OSHA is requiring that each employee,
without exception, be located within visual or audible contact of
another worker. This provision must be read in conjunction with the
requirements in paragraph (d)(7) specifying what methods of audible
contact may be used (i.e., not chain-saw engine noise). This
requirement parallels the proposed standard, however the proposed rule
did not apply this requirement to motor vehicle operators, watchmen and
other single employee assignment jobs. The pulpwood logging standard
required that employees work within the vocal range of other loggers
but also allowed employers to use an alternative procedure that
provided for periodic checks of employee welfare.
Much of the comment on this requirement has already been discussed
in the Major Issues section above. Some commenters opposed various
aspects of this provision (Ex. 5-29, 5-36, 5-39, 5-49, 5-53, 5-54, 5-
67, 5-70, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. W1 65). One commenter recommended
allowing manual fellers to be out of contact with other employees, such
as skidder operators, for up to 20 minutes (Ex. 5-54). This commenter
said that was the amount of time necessary to transport a load to the
landing and return to the cutting area. However, the commenter has not
provided any information or data to support why such an exception would
still allow for adequate protection for fellers. OSHA does not believe
that permitting periods of time in which contact is not maintained will
provide adequate protection for employees. A chain-saw operator who
severely cuts himself could bleed to death within 20 minutes.
Other commenters opposed this provision because it would be
difficult to comply with this requirement and maintain the required two
tree-length separation between adjacent work areas (Ex. 5-29, Tr. W1 pg
65). For several reasons, OSHA believes employers will be able to
comply with both requirements. First, this paragraph requires each
employee to be within visual or audible contact with ``another''
employee. It does not require that the person with whom contact is
maintained be in an adjacent work area. Second, the provision requiring
at least two tree-length spacing between adjacent occupied work areas
is intended to prevent trees from falling from one work area into
another. The purposes of a visual or audible contact is to provide a
method for employees to remain in contact in case of an emergency
(e.g., a chain-saw operator requesting first aid after being cut by the
saw, an employee alerting others of severe weather approaching).
Therefore, if employees are provided with radio communication, it would
be possible for employees whose work areas are spaced far apart to
maintain contact with each other.
Third, as discussed above in the issues section, the final rule
does not require that visual contact be maintained. Instead, audible
contact may be maintained by the use of horns, whistles or radio
communication. As such, employees can be great distances from each
other and still remain in contact satisfying the requirements of this
provision. Fourth, OSHA is also aware that many logging establishments
are currently using radio communication to maintain contact, that is
the best evidence of its effectiveness.
As stated above, in this paragraph OSHA has eliminated all proposed
exceptions to the requirement of maintaining contact with another
employee. As discussed above in the Major Issues section, OSHA has
eliminated the proposed exceptions for several reasons. First, various
State standards do not include an exception to the contact requirement
(Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 38J, 38K). Second, several
commenters supported the proposal that all employees remain in contact
and indicated that they do maintain contact with all employees,
including employees in single employee assignments, via radio and
telephone (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92). As a result, these commenters
suggested the exceptions may no longer be necessary (See also, Ex. 5-
33). These commenters also reasoned that all employees, including
mobile machine operators performing single employee assignments, need a
method of summoning help in an emergency. OSHA agrees with these
commenters. The Agency believes that the contact requirement will help
to provide prompt assistance to all employees who are injured or are
otherwise in emergency situations. As discussed above in the Major
Issues section, with the advent of radio communication, it is feasible
to maintain contact with workers performing single employee
assignments.
OSHA notes that it is implied in this provision that not only will
means for contact be provided, but also that contact will be maintained
with each employee. All but one State logging standard require check-in
systems to assure that contact is maintained (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-
20, 2-21, 38J, 38K). In addition, several commenters say they have
initiated check-in systems to assure that employees working in remote
locations are all right.
At paragraph (d)(6)(iv) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring the
employer to account for each employee at the end of the workshift. OSHA
has adopted this provision from the pulpwood logging and the proposed
standards. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained a similar
requirement. Several State logging standards also require check-in
systems at the end of the workshift to ensure no employees are left in
the woods (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 38K). Several commenters said
that it was not necessary for small felling and bucking crews to be
accounted for by anyone other than the crew members (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-
39, 5-53, 5-63). In response, OSHA points out that nothing in the final
rule would prevent the employer from allowing a crew supervisor, for
example, to account for the rest of the crew at the end of the
workshift. In such cases, the employer is responsible for establishing
and enforcing a regular system whereby there is a check on each
employee at the end of the workshift. The most important thing is that
no employee is unaccounted for at the close of the shift. As with the
contact requirement, OSHA believes that this provision will help to
assure timely assistance to employees in emergencies.
In addition, end of shift accounting offers several other benefits
to the employer and employee. First, the employer can remain appraised
of the progress made on the job during the last workshift. Second, any
hazardous conditions that were not contemplated during pre-shift
meetings with employees can be relayed to the employer for
dissemination to other employees. Third, unserviceable tools and
machines can be reported to the employer so that replacements can be
obtained or repairs can made before the next workshift. Therefore, OSHA
has retained this provision in the final standard.
Several commenters said this provision would interfere with
contracting situations when the logger is an independent contractor
(Ex. 5-21, 5-23, 5-36, 5-53, 5-55, 5-63). However, they did not provide
any evidence as to how this provision might conflict with contracting
agreements.
Signaling and Signal Equipment
At paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this final rule, OSHA is requiring that
hand or audible signals such as whistles, horns, or radios, be utilized
whenever noise, distance or other factors prevent clear understanding
of normal voice communications between employees. Paragraph (d)(7)(ii)
prohibits the use of engine noise, such as from chains saws, as a means
of maintaining contact. These provisions supplement and support the
requirement for the maintenance of audible or visual contact contained
in paragraph (d)(6)(iii). The proposed rule also contained a contact
requirement. However, it would not have prohibited the use of chain-saw
noise as a means of signaling. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also
contained a requirement similar to the proposed rule. Several State
logging standards also prohibit the use of chain-saw noise as a
signaling device (Ex. 2-22, 2-23, 38K). The Washington State logging
standard requires fellers to carry whistles, which are to be used for
no other purpose than to summon help (Ex. 2-22, 5-7).
OSHA received many comments on this provision opposing the
prohibition of chain-saw noise as a signaling device, that have been
discussed above in the Major Issues section. Other commenters supported
the provision, focusing their comments on allowing communication
devices such as telephones and radios in the final rule (Ex. 5-54, 5-
70, 7-74; Tr. W2 197). One of these commenters supported the provision
because the use of electronic communication, such as citizen band
radios, makes controlling trainees easier (Tr. W2 197). Another
commenter supported the use of whistles for signalling because they
produce a very unusual sound in the woods that can be heard for a great
distance (Ex. 5-7).
In general, there are two principal safety-related needs for a
signalling system in logging operations. The first is for the
maintenance of communication between employees working in adjacent
occupied work areas, both to warn other employees of potential
hazardous situations and to summon help in an emergency. The second
need for a signaling system is to provide guidance to the operators of
machines and vehicles, such as cranes and other material handling
machines, when work site conditions prevent operators from seeing and
controlling the operation. For example, if a crane is used to move a
load from below an overhang such as a cliff, a signal person might be
needed to observe the load and to signal the crane operator when and
how to move the load.
As discussed above in the Major Issues section, paragraph
(d)(7)(ii) of the final rule prohibits the use of engine noise as a
signaling device. This paragraph does permit other locally and
regionally recognized signals to be used. This provision has been
adopted from the proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard. OSHA
did not receive any comments opposing the use of locally or regionally
recognized signals, therefore, the Agency has retained this provision
in the final rule.
At paragraph (d)(7)(iii) of the final rule, OSHA has added a
provision requiring that only designated persons give signals except in
an emergency. The proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard also
contained this requirement. Several State standards also require that
only designated persons give signals (Ex. 2-18, 2-21, 2-22, 38K). As
defined in this standard, a designated person is one who has the
necessary knowledge, training and experience to perform specific job
tasks. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this provision.
OSHA has included this provision in the final rule for several
reasons. First, OSHA believes that the signaling system should be
included in the employer's training-program so that employees who are
called upon to act as signal persons will know how to signal
appropriately. This is especially important when an employee performs
signaling to assist with the safe operation or movement of a machine or
load. It is also important that employees know the appropriate signals
in the event that help must be summoned. The employee requiring help
needs to know what means are to be used to communicate the necessary
information and how to use those means of communication properly. In
addition, other employees must be trained in what they should listen
for so they can avoid potential hazards or provide assistance. Second,
OSHA believes that employees without the necessary training should not
be permitted to act as a signal person for assisting with the operation
and movement of machines and loads. When the signal person has not been
adequately trained, the risk of harm to the signal person, the machine
operator and other employees in the vicinity is great. Third, the use
of trained signal persons should reduce the potential for conflicting
signals that could create a hazard.
Overhead Electric Lines
At paragraph (d)(8)(i) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
logging operations near overhead electric lines be done in accordance
with the requirements of 1910.333(c)(3). The proposed rule repeated
some of the requirements of 1910.333(c)(3). The pulpwood logging
standard did not contain any provision regarding overhead electric
wires. All State logging standards contain restrictions regarding
felling near power lines.
One comment was received addressing minimum clearance from overhead
lines (Ex. 5-34). This commenter suggested that when the line voltage
is unknown and other information indicates that the line is obviously
high voltage, a minimum clearance of 20 feet must be maintained from
the line until the line voltage is established by the electrical system
operator. The separation distance recommended by the commenter would
provide clearance that would only be warranted by a 350 KV line. OSHA
believes that maintenance of that great a separation distance is
unnecessary in this rule. High voltage lines of this order of magnitude
are usually on tall transmission towers, therefore it is highly
unlikely any employee would come in contact with the line or have any
means of getting near the line.
OSHA believes that 1910.333(c)(3) adequately spells out the
precautions and clearances that must be taken when working near
overhead lines. OSHA finds nothing indicating that logging is different
from the rest of general industry, therefore, the Agency does not
believe a special provision is necessary to address the logging
industry.
At paragraph (d)(8)(ii) OSHA is requiring the employer to
immediately notify the power company when any felled tree comes into
contact with a power line. This provision also requires each employee
to remain clear of the area until the power company advises there are
no electrical hazards. OSHA has adopted this provision from the
proposed standard. OSHA did not receive any comments on this provision.
Flammable and Combustible Liquids
At paragraph (d)(9) of the final rule, OSHA is including
requirements for the safe handling and use of flammable and combustible
liquids. As was proposed, the final rule requires such liquids to be
stored, handled, transported and used in accordance with subpart H of
Part 1910.
Two commenters opposed this provision (Ex. 5-7, 5-34). One
commenter stated:
After carrying a 40 pound saw, lunch, water, wedges and
wrenches, the last thing the timber faller wants to add is more
weight. So when he goes to carry fuel and oil it's normally carried
in labeled plastic containers, generally in sizes not exceeding two
quarts. To carry fuel in approved containers would do nothing more
than add back injuries to the statistics (Ex. 5-7).
In response, OSHA points out that there are approved plastic
storage containers available in small sizes, such as two quart
containers. Nothing in the final rule or subpart H of part 1910
prohibits employers from using small plastic storage containers,
provided they meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.106. Further under
29 CFR 1910.106, the maximum allowable size of approved plastic fuel
container is one gallon. OSHA does not believe that carrying one gallon
or less of fuel in a plastic container will substantially increase back
injuries.
At paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
flammable and combustible liquids not be transported in the driver's
compartment or in any passenger-occupied area of a machine or vehicle.
OSHA is aware that pick-up trucks are often used to transport employees
to a logging work site. Transportation of flammable and combustible
liquids in the passenger compartment of these vehicles exposes the
driver and passenger to fire and explosion hazards and is not a safe
practice.
At paragraph (d)(9)(iii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
each machine, vehicle and portable powered tool, such as chain saw, be
shut off during refueling. OSHA has added this requirement because it
believes that when handling flammable and combustible liquids, it is
essential to eliminate sources of ignition. The requirement to shut off
the engines of motor vehicles when they are refueled is mandatory in
most states and is clearly posted in service stations. Because OSHA
believes that it is essential to minimize the sources of ignition when
refueling vehicles, the Agency has retained the requirement as
proposed.
At paragraph (d)(9)(iv) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
flammable or combustible liquids not be used to start fires. The
proposed rule contained a requirement that chain saw fuel not be used
to start fires. While several commenters supported this requirement
(Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-74 through 5-92), other commenters, including the
State of Washington, opposed the provision (Ex. 5-34, 5-66). They said
that loggers would use whatever material they have to start a fire
rather than losing production time to return to a vehicle to obtain
materials. In addition, the State of Washington said they were not
aware of any injuries occurring as a result of this practice.
OSHA has carefully considered these comments. OSHA understands that
in cold weather employees must be able to warm their hands and feet to
prevent frostbite and to maintain proper grip of tools. However, OSHA
believes that the use of a flammable liquid, such as gasoline, to start
a fire can quickly result in an uncontrolled fire that endangers the
loggers and others in the vicinity. Other commenters have told OSHA
about the dangers of fires, especially during the dry season (Ex. 5-7,
5-21, 5-39). In particular, when an area is cold and wet, gasoline will
not volatilize or burn rapidly. However, as the fire gains intensity,
the gasoline will evaporate more rapidly, causing the fire to suddenly
flame up and can rapidly get out of control. Instead of using gasoline
or a gasoline mixture, there are products available that are not
combustible to start fires, such as fire starters comprised of sawdust
and wax. These products are small, light weight and will not suddenly
accelerate their combustion.
OSHA has deleted from the final rule the proposed requirement that
chain-saw fuel not be used as a solvent. Two commenters said that
chain-saw fuel is recommended by manufacturer's as a cleaning solvent
for chain-saws (Ex. 5-7, 5-34). For example, manufacturers'
specifications indicate that chain-saw fuel is the most effective
solvent for cleaning chain-saw air filters. OSHA agrees with the
commenters and has eliminated the prohibition from the final rule.
Explosives and Blasting Agents
At paragraph (d)(10) of the final standard, OSHA is including
requirements on the safe use of explosives and blasting agents.
Paragraph (d)(10)(i) of the final requires that explosives and blasting
agents be stored, handled, transported and used in accordance with the
requirements of subpart H of this part. This provision has been adopted
from the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI logging standard contained a
similar requirement. All State logging standards contain requirements
on the use of explosives and blasting agents. There were no comments
opposing this provision.
Paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of the final rule requires that only
designated persons handle or use such materials. As discussed above, a
designated person is one who possesses the requisite training,
knowledge and experience to perform the specific duties. The proposed
rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard also required that explosives
only be handled by trained and experienced personnel. All State logging
standards also require that only trained employees handle explosives.
OSHA did not receive any comments on these provisions.
At paragraph (d)(10)(iii) of the final standard, OSHA is requiring
that explosives and blasting agents not be transported in the driver
compartment or any passenger-occupied area of a machine or vehicle. The
proposed rule did not contain a similar requirement. OSHA has added
this provision in the final rule for the same reason that it included a
similar provision regarding flammable and combustible liquids. OSHA
believes that employees may be gravely endangered by riding over rough
terrain and trails in close proximity to explosives.
Paragraph (e) Hand and Portable Powered Tools
Paragraph (e) of this final rule contains requirements for the safe
use of hand and portable powered tools, including chain saws. For the
most part, these requirements were derived from corresponding
provisions in the pulpwood logging standard.
In the final rule OSHA has combined provisions regarding both hand
tools and chain saws. This was done to provide uniformity in how tools
are addressed in the logging standard. In addition, OSHA has combined
these provisions to reduce duplicative provisions, such as those
dealing with maintenance and inspection of tools.
General Requirements
Paragraph (e)(1) deals with general requirements for all hand and
portable powered tools. At paragraph (e)(1)(i) of the final rule, OSHA
is requiring employers to assure that each hand and portable powered
tool is maintained in serviceable condition. This employer
responsibility applies whether the tool is provided by the employer or
employee. This paragraph adopts the proposed provision. All State
logging standards contain similar requirements about the maintenance of
logging tools.
OSHA received several comments on this provision (Ex. 5-35, 5-39,
5-53, 5-54, 5-62, 5-63, 5-66). These commenters supported the need for
tools to be properly maintained. One commenter said that lack of proper
maintenance of chain saws contributes to a number of accidents (Ex. 5-
35). However, most of the commenters stated that the maintenance of
tools that are supplied by employees should be the employees'
responsibility (Ex. 5-35, 5-53, 5-54, 5-62, 5-63, 5-66).
One commenter stated:
We feel that it is not reasonable and it is burdensome to
logging companies to have to be responsible for the condition and
safety of an employee's own tools. We feel very strongly that there
should be a recognition of one's individual responsibility in this
area. A more general statement might be appropriate in this item
simply stating that ``tools shall be properly maintained so as to
assure safe operation and shall be used only for their intended
purpose and design'' (Ex. 5-39).
OSHA does not agree with these commenters. OSHA believes that the
Agency's reasoning in including a maintenance provision in the PPE
section applies here as well (See summary and explanation of paragraph
(d)(1)(i)). The requirement for employers to assure that tools are
maintained in a serviceable condition does not prohibit the employer
from allowing an employee to inspect, maintain and repair tools he
provides. The employer's responsibilities for compliance with standards
and for safe working conditions that the OSH Act imposes, applies even
if the employee provides the tools.
This paragraph is meant to be viewed in conjunction with paragraph
(e)(1)(ii), that requires inspection of tools before they are used in
each workshift. As discussed above, ``serviceable condition'' is the
state or ability of a tool to operate as it was intended by the
manufacturer.
At paragraph (e)(1)(ii), OSHA is requiring that the employer assure
that each tool is inspected before initial use during each work shift.
This paragraph also specifies the minimum elements to be inspected,
such as chain brakes, handles, guards, and controls, to assure that the
tools are functioning properly. In the proposed standard, OSHA
specified that hand tools be checked during use to ensure continued
serviceability. The proposed rule also required chain saws to be
``frequently'' inspected. The proposed rule also contained elements
that must be included in hand tool inspections. The 1978 ANSI logging
standard also required periodic inspection of tools.
OSHA received comments on these provisions. Some commenters
recommended that OSHA establish the frequency that tools, such as chain
saws, should be inspected (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-39, 5-53). One commenter
objected to inspection of chain saws:
The need for chain saws to be ``frequently inspected'' should be
clarified further. How often is frequently and who would be
responsible for the inspections? (Ex. 5-39).
OSHA believes that the final rule adequately addresses the
commenter's concerns. First, OSHA explicitly identifies the required
frequency for inspection of tools. Second, nothing in the final rule
prohibits the employer from allowing the tool user or operator to
conduct the workshift inspection, provided that such inspection and the
required content of the inspection are accomplished in the manner and
time frame specified by OSHA. Finally, the standard specifies the
minimum elements that must be covered by the inspection.
At paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
the employer assure that each tool is used only for purposes for which
it has been designed. OSHA has adopted the provision from the proposed
rule. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained this requirement.
OSHA received only one comment on this provision that supported its
inclusion (Ex. 5-39).
At paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
when the head of any shock, impact-driven or driving tool begins to
chip, it shall be repaired or removed from service. The proposed rule
would have required that tools be repaired when ``any mushrooming''
occurs. A similar requirement was contained in the 1978 ANSI logging
standard.
The State of Washington opposed the proposed provision, stating
that the language was too restrictive (Ex. 5-34, 9-10). The State said
that as soon as a plastic wedge if firmly struck there will be some
small amount of mushrooming. In the final rule, OSHA has clarified this
provision by requiring that the tool be repaired or removed from
service when it begins to chip. OSHA believes that this language more
accurately describes the hazard that arises over time with these tools.
Over time there is a tendency for the steel in these tools to become
brittle and chip. When a tool has reached that point, continued use of
the tool can cause metal fragments to chip off the tool and fly into
the air, thereby endangering employees. The metal fragments could be
small enough to strike the eye or large enough to cause a sizeable
laceration.
At paragraph (e)(1)(v) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
the cutting edges of each tool be sharpened in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications whenever they become dull during a
workshift. OSHA received little comment on this provision. One
commenter stated:
With regard to the sharpness of cutting tools, we have had some
interpretive problem in California where fire suppression agencies
who have been requiring various tools to be razor sharp rather than
sharp enough to do the task for which they are intended. The result
has been unnecessary cuts to employees who have inadvertently had
incidental contact with such tools. We would suggest that the word
``adequately'' be inserted between the words ``kept'' and ``sharp''
to provide a more ``moderate'' meaning to this requirement. (Ex. 5-
55).
The need for tools to be inspected and sharpened as necessary is
well-recognized and has been a part of OSHA's and ANSI's logging
standards from the start. OSHA believes that the final rule adequately
addresses the commenter's concerns. OSHA has added to the final rule
the requirement that tools be sharpened according to the manufacturer's
specifications. This addition has also been supported by other
commenters (Ex. 5-51, 5-53, 5-55).
At paragraphs (e)(1) (vi) and (vii) OSHA is requiring that each
tool be stored and transported so it is not damaged and will not create
a hazard for an employee. These provisions require that racks, boxes,
holsters or other means shall be provided and used for transporting
tools. These provisions parallel requirements contained in the proposed
and pulpwood logging standards. The proposed rule specified that tools
be secured during transport but did not require that storage containers
be provided. In addition, these provisions as proposed were included in
the 1978 ANSI logging standard. OSHA received only limited comments on
these provisions. Two commenters stated that the storage provision was
unnecessary and, at most, should be limited to cutting tools (Ex. 3-53
and 5-55). The other commenter said that the proposed transportation
provision was not protective enough (Ex. 5-7). This commenter stated
that outside boxes or storage units should be utilized especially for
crew vehicles, because tools can bounce around when transported in such
a vehicle, particularly when the vehicle is operated on off highway
roads or trails, and could injure employees who are riding with the
tools.
OSHA believes that provisions for proper tool storage and
transportation are necessary to protect employees from injuries. Such
provisions have been in OSHA and ANSI standards for many years. In this
regard, however, OSHA also believes that it is not necessary to require
that tools be stored outside of passenger areas during transport if
there are appropriate containers or other means to adequately secure
the tools. Therefore, in the final rule OSHA has clarified that
employers must provide and use some means, such as racks, boxes or
holsters, of securing tools during transport.
Chain Saws
At paragraph (e)(2) of this final rule, OSHA specifies various
requirements for the proper use of chain saws in the logging industry.
OSHA believes these requirements are necessary to protect loggers from
injury when using chain saws. Several commenters also supported the
proposed chain saw requirements as reasonable practices (Ex. 5-21, 5-
36, 5-74 through 5-92). As discussed earlier, the WIR survey indicates
that chain saw accidents accounted for 20 percent of the reported
accidents (Ex. 2-1). According to a Maine BLS, from 1980-87 there were
an average of 362 disabling chain-saw injuries each year (Ex. 4-176).
In recent years there have been many improvements in chain saw
safety due to the introduction of devices such as chain brakes, bar tip
guards, and reduced kickback bars and chains. Also, the availability of
protective chaps and pads of ballistic nylon or other lightweight
protective materials have provided further protection for chain-saw
operators. OSHA believes that proper use of improved chain saws and
personal protective equipment, and compliance with the work practices
will greatly improve the safety record of chain saw operations. OSHA
also believes that proper training in these requirements will result in
better understanding of how these safety devices and work practices can
work to reduce chain-saw related injuries.
At paragraph (e)(2)(i), OSHA is requiring each chain saw placed
into initial service after the effective date of this section be
equipped with a chain brake. In addition, this paragraph requires that
chain saws meet all other requirements of the ANSI standard B175.1-1991
``Safety Requirements on Gasoline-Powered Chain Saws.'' This
incorporation by reference of ANSI B175.1-1991, has been approved by
the Office of the Federal Register, in accordance with the requirements
of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The final rule has been revised
to reflect this approval and provides the requisite information
regarding access to the text of ANSI B175.1-1991.
Paragraph (e)(2)(i) also requires that each chain saw placed into
service before the effective date of this section be equipped with a
protective device that minimizes chain-saw kickback. Finally, this
provision also requires that chain-saw kickback devices not be removed
or otherwise disabled.
The proposed rule did not require installation of chain brakes or
other devices. The proposed rule did, however, require that when such
devices were present they should be inspected frequently and
maintained. The need for devices to prevent kickback was specifically
raised as an issue in the notice of hearing.
OSHA received many comments on whether chain-saw protective devices
should be required in the final rule. These comments have been
discussed above in the Major Issues section. One commenter suggested
that loggers be allowed to remove chain brakes when, in the judgment of
the operator the presence of the chain brake creates a hazard greater
than the hazard the brake was designed to avoid (Ex. 5-55). This
commenter suggested that it is more hazardous to have a chain brake
when the saw is operated on its side and at other unspecified times.
However, the commenter did not provide any data or other evidence to
support his contention. There is no other data or evidence in the
record that chain brakes may create additional hazards at any time
during the cutting process. Additionally, OSHA believes that once the
chain brake is removed it is likely the operator will leave it off and
remain exposed to injury from chain saw kickback. As noted in the
earlier discussion, commenters stated that removal of devices is
occurring, thereby exposing the operator to the risk of injury due to
kickback. Therefore, OSHA is requiring that chain-saw kickback devices
not be removed or otherwise disabled.
At paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
each gasoline-powered chain saw be equipped with a continuous throttle
system which stops the running chain when pressure on the throttle is
released. This provision has been adopted from the proposed rule. OSHA
received one comment that stated that if the safety equipment that came
with the chain saw were in place, the accidents listed in the preamble
would not have occurred (Tr. W1 66). Therefore, this requirement has
been retained in the final rule.
NIOSH recommended that OSHA require chain saws be equipped or
retrofitted with mufflers meeting the chain-saw manufacturer's
specifications (Ex. 5-42). NIOSH said mufflers would be effective for
noise reduction. OSHA has not adopted NIOSH's recommendation. First,
retrofit mufflers may cause operational difficulties. Second, retrofit
mufflers may also contribute to an increase in back pressure for the
operator.
Paragraphs (e)(2)(iii) through (e)(2)(xiv) specify various
requirements for safe operation of chain saws. OSHA believes these work
practices are essential in reducing the number of injuries that occur
to chain-saw operators. According to the WIR survey, the vast majority
of chain-saw injuries reported indicates that unsafe work practices
were involved (Ex. 2-1). In contrast, only four percent of chain-saw
injuries were the result of equipment failure.
At paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
the chain saw be operated and adjusted in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions. This provision adopts the requirement
contained in the proposed rule. OSHA did not receive any comments
opposing this requirement.
At paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
the chain saw be refueled at least 20 feet from any open flame or other
source of ignition. This provision adopts the requirements contained in
the proposed rule. This requirement was also contained in the 1978 ANSI
logging standard. The OSHA pulpwood logging standard required only that
chain saw operators be instructed to refuel the saw only in safe areas
and not in areas conducive to fire.
OSHA believes that a separation between a fueling area and any
source of ignition, such as a cigarette, is necessary to prevent
ignition of vapors from spills or from overfilled chain-saw tanks. The
final rule clarifies what constitutes at least a minimal safe fueling
area. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this requirement.
At paragraph (e)(2)(v) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
the chain saw be started at least 10 feet from any fueling area. This
provision also adopts the requirement contained in the proposed rule.
Only one commenter opposed this provision, saying that in some
instances it would be impossible to move 10 feet from a fueling area to
start the chain saw (Ex. 5-7). However, no substantive evidence was
presented.
OSHA believes that when a chain saw is started, there is a
potential that spilled fuel in the area could also become ignited. For
example, a faulty spark plug wire can cause an arc between the wire and
metal casing, resulting in the igniting of spilled fuel. In addition,
the record shows that the danger of fire is a major concern in the
logging industry (Ex. 5-20). OSHA believes that this provision will
help to reduce the potential for fires.
At paragraph (e)(2)(vi) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
the chain saw be started on the ground or where otherwise firmly
supported. The provision is the same as the requirement contained in
the proposal and the pulpwood logging standard. Two commenters opposed
the requirement (Ex. 5-34, 5-35). One commenter stated:
In many instances, there is not any way to comply, i.e., when a
cutter is felling while standing on springboard jacks, it would be a
greater hazard for him to climb up carrying a running saw. This
means that the chain saw must be started on the springboard with no
place left to rest the saw. The same situation occurs when limbing
and bucking large trees after they are on the ground. The cutter/
bucker would have to climb up on the trunk while carrying a running
saw. The proposed standard should be amended to read ``whenever
possible'' chain saws should be started [on the ground] (Ex. 5-34).
The other commenter said starting the chain saw on the ground was
not necessarily the safest way to start it, and, in any event, saws
equipped with chain brakes could be drop started when the chain brake
is engaged (5-35). Another commenter said that they had had no injuries
resulting from starting chains saws when standing in an upright
position (Ex. 5-45).
For several reasons, OSHA believes that this provision is necessary
to protect chain saw operators. First, the record supports the need for
chain saws to be firmly supported when they are started. The WIR survey
indicates that a significant portion of chain saw injuries were related
to the operator not having firm control or grip of the saw (e.g.,
didn't have tight grip on saw, hand slipped into chain, operator fell
on saw). While the survey does not indicate whether these injuries
occurred while the operator was starting the saw, the presence of these
injuries does reinforce the need for appropriate work practices that
require proper support for equipment so the operator is able to
maintain a firm grip and control of the saw.
Second, OSHA believes that there is a potential for injury when
operators attempt to drop-start chain saws. There is a potential for
the operator to lose his grip when starting the saw. In addition,
especially when the saw is not properly adjusted, the engine can flood.
This can cause the saw to fly upward and hit the operator. When the
chain saw starts there is potential for sudden movement of the chain
because of the increase in rpm. Third, while OSHA believes that
starting the chain saw on the ground will provide the best control and
support, OSHA is aware that there may be some circumstances in which a
chain saw cannot be started in this manner. Nonetheless, even in those
circumstances, OSHA believes that it is necessary for operator safety
that the saw be firmly supported. Fourth, even when the chain brake is
on, the saw needs to be firmly supported when it is started. When the
chain saw is started, the chain will move until the engine returns to
idle. If the chain saw is not firmly supported when the operator starts
the engine, he could lose control of the saw and the moving chain could
strike and injure him.
At paragraph (e)(2)(vii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
chain brakes be engaged when the saw is started. Although this
requirement was not contained in the proposed rule, OSHA believes it is
necessary for chain brakes to be engaged when the engine is started. As
discussed above, when chain saws are started, the chain will run
momentarily. When a chain brake is present, it will hold the chain when
the engine returns to idle. However, when the chain brake is not
engaged, the chain may continue to run at idle, further exposing the
operator to the hazard. OSHA believes that the many comments
recommending that the final rule require chain saws to be equipped with
chain brakes, also imply that the chain brakes should be properly
engaged during use of the chain saw. In addition, none of those
commenters supporting a chain brake provision indicated that there were
situations in which it would be safe to allow the chain brake not to be
engaged during operation of the saw.
At paragraph (e)(2)(viii) of the final standard, OSHA is requiring
that the operator hold the chain saw with both hands during operation.
This requirement does not apply when the employer can demonstrate that
a greater hazard is posed by keeping both hands on the saw in that
particular situation. This provision is the same as the provision
contained in the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also
recognized the occasional need for momentary release of one hand from
the saw in some situations.
Some commenters urged OSHA to require that a chain saw must never
be operated with only one hand (Ex. 5-34, 5-50, 5-66). One commenter
said:
Regardless of what organization recognizes and sanctions
momentary one-handed chain saw use, it is extremely dangerous. I do
not agree it is necessary to operate a saw with one hand and place a
wedge with the other. By so doing, the right hand is on the pistol
grip controlling the throttle, the left handling the wedge. If,
during this one-handed process a kick back should occur, the left
hand which has the primary responsibility for maintaining a distance
between the operator and the saw chain is absent. Sufficient time
exists between the initiation of the backcut and its completion for
the cutter to momentarily halt his sawing to insert a wedge (Ex. 5-
66).
The U.S. Dept. of Interior also said that chains saws should be
held with both hands unless the motor is at idle (Ex. 5-50). It is not
difficult for chain-saw operators to put the saw in idle before
removing one hand from the saw. Before placing a wedge the feller can
stop the chain by simply removing his finger from the throttle, that
will idle the chain saw, thereby reducing the possibility of injury
resulting from operating the saw with only one hand. OSHA agrees that
in this situation as well as most other operating situations, the
greater hazard is posed by removing the hand from the chain saw.
According to the WIR survey, 13 percent of chain-saw operators injured
reported that their hand slipped into the chain or they did not have a
tight grip on the saw. However, OSHA believes there are other
situations in which the hazard may be greater if the operator attempts
to hold the saw with two hands. For example, when an operator has
climbed a tree to top the tree, the operator may not be able to keep
his balance if he tries to operate the saw with both hands. In that
case, the safest method may be to use one hand to control the saw and
the other hand to steady himself.
OSHA notes that the employer bears the burden of demonstrating that
a greater hazard exists by keeping both hands on the saw in a
particular situation. OSHA also notes that the limited exception
involves a case-by-case determination by the employer.
At paragraph (e)(2)(ix) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
the chain saw operator be certain of his footing before starting to
cut. This provision also requires that the chain saw not be operated in
a position or at a distance that could cause the operator to become
off-balance, to have insecure footing, or to relinquish a firm grip on
the saw. This provision adopts requirements contained in the proposed
rule. Commenters supported this provision (Ex. 5-7, 5-21, 5-34, 5-36,
5-55), and there were no comments opposing this requirement.
OSHA believes this work practice will help to reduce the number of
slip and fall injuries occurring in the logging industry. According to
the WIR survey, slips and falls account for 24 percent of all injuries
and 13 percent of all chain saw injuries reported resulting from
operators falling on the saw.
At paragraph (e)(2)(x) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
prior to felling a tree the chain saw operator clear away brush or
other potential obstacles that might interfere with cutting or using
the retreat path. This provision adopts the requirement contained in
the proposed rule. There were no comments opposing this requirement.
OSHA believes this provision will help to reduce the number of injuries
that result from loggers being hit by trees. According to the WIR
survey, 24 percent of all injured loggers were hit by trees (Ex. 2-1).
In addition, of employees reporting injuries, over one-fourth said that
heavy brush, ground cover and hidden wood on the ground had contributed
to their accident.
At paragraph (e)(2)(xi) of the final rule, OSHA is prohibiting
cutting directly overhead with a chain saw. This provision was
contained in the proposed rule. Several commenters supported the
proposed provision (Ex. 5-34, 5-42, 9-10) and no comments were received
opposing it.
At paragraph (e)(2)(xii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
the chain saw be carried in a manner that will prevent operator contact
with the chain and muffler. The proposed rule contained the same
requirement. Evidence in the record suggests that this work practice
already is being used extensively in the logging industry (Ex. 5-66).
Some commenters said that for many years chain saw operators have
carried the saw on their shoulder and used a felt and/or leather pad to
protect their neck and shoulder from being cut by the chain or burned
by the hot engine (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-63). OSHA notes that any other
method of carrying the chain saw that prevents these hazards would also
meet this requirement.
In paragraphs (e)(2)(xiii) and (xiv) of the final rule, OSHA is
specifying requirements for carrying a chain saw. In paragraph
(e)(2)(xiii), OSHA is requiring that the chain saw be shut off or at
idle before the operator starts a retreat after cutting a tree. This
provision also clarifies OSHA's intent that these work practices apply
not only to carrying the saw between cuts but also to retreating after
a cut has been made. This provision has been adopted from the proposed
rule.
NIOSH supported this provision, and further recommended that OSHA
should require the chain brake to be engaged when an operator is moving
from one location to another, except while working on the same tree or
log, regardless of distance traveled (Ex. 5-42). Another commenter also
supported the NIOSH recommendation (Ex. 5-52). However, three other
commenters opposed requiring saws to be at idle or shut off before
starting a retreat (Ex. 5-7, 5-50, 5-66). One commenter said:
The cutter may lose precious seconds worrying about compliance
with the proposed standard, meanwhile a life could be in danger.
Better to immediately remove the cutter from the base of the tree
than worry about the saw (Ex. 5-50).
OSHA believes that the requirement that chain saws be shut off or
at idle before starting a retreat is necessary and can be accomplished
without creating additional hazards for the operator. First, OSHA
believes that carrying a chain saw with the chain moving may present a
great hazard for the operator. The WIR survey indicates that a
significant portion of chain saw injuries result from the operator
falling on the saw, the saw chain contacting the employee, or the
operator's hand slipping into the chain (Ex. 2-1).
Second, as OSHA explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the
saw can be at idle rather than shut off, provided that the chain brake
is engaged. OSHA is allowing operators to comply by either method
because it recognizes that idling the saw with the chain brake engaged
is as effective as shutting off the engine in terms of preventing
serious lacerations due to coming into contact with the moving chain.
Third, OSHA does not think that idling the saw will add a
significant amount of time to the operator's retreat. All the operator
must do to idle the chain saw and safely carry it is to release
pressure on the throttle and grasp the front handle. Fourth, in any
event, chain saws are designed to be carried by the front handle rather
than by the rear throttle. Carrying the saw by the front handle is
easier and there is no risk of the bar tip contacting the operator's
leg or toe. Carrying the saw by the rear throttle guard can cause the
bar tip to swing downward and possibly strike the operator. Therefore,
OSHA believes that the operator should grasp the front handle thereby
idling the saw. That way the operator will both protect himself from a
falling tree and from saw lacerations without undue difficulty.
Paragraph (e)(2)(xiv) of the final rule requires that when the
operator must carry the chain saw further than 50 feet that the chain
brake be engaged or, if there is no chain brake, that the saw be shut
off. This provision also requires that the chain brake be engaged or
the saw shut off when carrying a saw for a lesser distance if
conditions, such as but not limited to, the terrain, underbrush and
slippery surfaces, may create a hazard for an employee.
The proposed rule also contained these provisions. The 1978 ANSI
logging standard required that chain saws be shut off when carried for
a distance greater than from tree to tree. In addition the ANSI
standard also required that when the terrain and other physical
factors, such as underbrush and slippery surfaces, make the carrying of
a running saw for such short distances, the saw shall be shut off for
carrying. Some State logging standards also require the chain saw to be
shut off or at idle when moving from tree to tree (Ex. 2-18, 2-22). For
example, the State of Washington logging standard requires that after
the chain-saw operator has felled the tree, the saw must be shut off or
at idle while moving to another tree (Ex. 2-22). This standard also
requires the chain saw to be shut off when moving to the next tree when
hazardous conditions are present.
Some commenters supported this provision (Ex. 5-27, 5-42, 5-66).
One of these commenter said that their experience had been that a
chain-saw operator could carry a chain saw any distance without being
injured, provided the chain brake was engaged (Ex. 5-27). Another
commenter supported the provision because carrying a running chain saw
any distance promotes additional fatigue that can also contribute to
accidents and errors (Ex. 5-66). The reasoning and explanation for
shutting off chain saws before beginning retreat also applies to
carrying chain saws for longer distances. According to the WIR survey,
13 percent of all chain-saw operators were injured when they fell on
their saws (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes this provision is necessary to
reduce exposure to the hazard of a running chain-saw chain.
Paragraph (f) Machines
At paragraph (f) of this final rule, OSHA is promulgating
requirements for stationary and mobile machines. These provisions
include requirements for machine operation, protective structures,
overhead guards, machine access, stability and reliability, exhaust
systems and brakes. As previously defined, a machine is a piece of
equipment having a self-contained powerplant that is operated off-road
and used for the movement of material.
OSHA believes these machine requirements are necessary to protect
operators and other employees who are in the area where machines are
being operated. According to the FRSI, 20 percent of all serious
logging injuries involved machines (Ex. 4-65). Of all serious injuries
reported, almost eight percent of employees injured were struck by a
logging machine or vehicle.
The record also shows that a significant number of logging
employees are killed in machine accidents. The OSHA FCI report
indicates that 17 percent of all employees were killed in machine
accidents. The State of Washington fatality study in consistent with
the FCI report. According to that study, almost 20 percent of the
employee deaths resulted from machine rollover or being struck by a
machine (Ex. 4-129).
General Requirements
At paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of the final rule, OSHA is
requiring the employer to assure that each machine used by an employee
is maintained and inspected so that the machine remains in serviceable
condition. The employer must assure that any machine is inspected
before initial use during a workshift, and that defects or damage be
repaired or the unserviceable machine be replaced before work is
commenced. Maintenance and inspection requirements were also contained
in the proposed standard.
Some commenters supported the general maintenance and inspection
requirement for each machine (Ex. 5-10, 5-16). For example, one
commenter said that daily cleaning and inspection of machines was a
necessary element of fire prevention as well as other workplace
protection (Ex. 5-10).
OSHA believes that the reasoning and explanation for the
maintenance and inspection requirements for PPE and hand and portable
powered tools also applies to machines. (See discussion above of
paragraphs (d)(1)(i), d(1)(ii), (e)(1)(i), and (e)(1)(ii).) As with
tools and PPE, OSHA is imposing on the employer the obligation of
assuring that machines are in serviceable condition. This obligation
applies regardless of whether the employer or employee provides the
machine.
OSHA notes that because a general machine maintenance and
inspection requirement has been included in the final rule, the Agency
has deleted from the final rule proposed maintenance and/or inspection
requirements for any particular machine safety feature.
At paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
the employer assure that operating and maintenance instructions are
available on the machine or in the area where the machine is being
operated. This paragraph also requires that each machine operator and
maintenance employee comply with the instructions. The pulpwood logging
standard and the proposal both specified that instructions be kept with
each machine. The proposed rule also contained a provision requiring
operators and maintenance personnel to comply with the instructions.
Some commenters supported the proposed provision, however, other
commenters opposed requiring that instructions be kept on machines.
These comments have been discussed above in the Major Issues section.
Machine Operation
At (f)(2)(i) of this final rule, OSHA is requiring that machines be
operated only by designated persons. As explained above, a designated
person is an employee who has the requisite knowledge, training and
experience to perform specific duties.
OSHA has included this provision in the final rule for two reasons.
First, this provision must be read in conjunction with the training
requirements in the final rule. The training provisions require that
each machine operator be trained and demonstrate the ability to safely
operate a machine before he/she is allowed to work independently. This
provision reinforces the requirement that the employer not allow
untrained personnel to operate machines. Second, training and skill are
particularly necessary in an industry when machines are being operated
in adverse weather conditions and on steep or unlevel terrain.
Employees who have not been trained to safely operate a logging machine
under such conditions could injure themselves or others. As noted
earlier, over one-third of all employees reporting injuries in the WIR
survey had never received any kind of training (Ex. 2-1).
In paragraphs (f)(2)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the final rule, OSHA is
specifying various requirements regarding stability limitations for
machines. Stability limitations of machines used in logging are
determined by three factors: (1) load size; (2) what is done with the
load when it is being handled; and (3) the physical environment in
which the machine is being operated. These requirements address each of
those factors.
In paragraph (f)(2)(ii), OSHA is requiring that stationary logging
machines and their components be anchored or otherwise stabilized to
prevent movement during operation. The proposed standard contained a
provision requiring that stability limitations of machines not be
exceeded. The proposed standard also contained a provision specifying
that truck and crawler mounted rigid boom cranes and other yarders meet
the stability requirements of the ANSI B30.2-1983 ``Safety Code for
Cranes, Derricks and Hoists--Overhead and Gantry Cranes'' or the ANSI
B30.5-1982 ``Safety Code for Cranes, Derricks and Hoists--Crawler,
Locomotive and Truck Cranes.'' The pulpwood logging standard required
only that the operator be advised as to the stability limitations of
the machine. Several commenters pointed out that machines referenced in
those standards were not used for logging operations (Ex. 5-17, 5-25,
5-29, 5-34, 5-51, 5-67).
In the final rule OSHA has deleted reference to the ANSI standards
because those machines are covered elsewhere in part 1910. Overhead
cranes are covered in 29 CFR 1910.179 and mobile cranes are covered in
29 CFR 1910.180. OSHA believes that these standards adequately spell
out the requirements for safe operation when operating cranes. OSHA
finds nothing indicating that the use of cranes is different from the
rest of general industry, therefore, the Agency does not believe a
special provision is necessary to address the logging industry. In
addition, most of the machines referenced in the ANSI standards,
overhead and gantry cranes, crawlers locomotive cranes and truck
cranes; either are not used or are infrequently used in logging
operations covered by this standard. OSHA also has deleted the proposed
provisions on reliability and stability of cranes for the same reasons.
At paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
the rated capacity of any machine not be exceeded. As discussed above,
OSHA has defined rated capacity as the maximum load a system, vehicle,
machine or piece of equipment was designed to handle. This provision
was not explicitly contained in the proposed standard. Rather, it was
implied as part of the requirement that machine operators comply with
the operating manuals or instructions. The pulpwood logging standard,
however, did require that operators at least be advised about the load
capacity of machines.
OSHA believes that it is necessary to explicitly state this
requirement in the final standard. When the rated capacity of the
machine is exceeded, rollover and tipover accidents occur. As discussed
above, many logging injuries and deaths are the result of machine
rollover accidents. The State of Washington study showed that nine
percent of the reported logging fatalities resulted from machine
rollover accidents (Ex. 4-129). The OSHA FCI report also showed that 10
percent of fatalities were due to machine rollover accidents (Ex. 4-
61). The Agency believes that it is not sufficient to merely inform
operators of the machine's capacity, rather operators must be
instructed that load capacities shall not be exceeded. As part of the
training of machine operators, the operator also needs to be instructed
on how to keep the load within the rated capacity and what foreseeable
conditions or actions can affect the machine's rated capacity.
At paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
no machine be operated on any slope that is greater than the maximum
slope recommended by the manufacturer. In the proposed standard, this
requirement was implied in the provision that operators comply with
operating manuals or instructions. The pulpwood logging standard had
specified that operators be advised of the stability limitations of the
machine. As with the requirement on rated capacity, OSHA believes this
provision is necessary to reduce the potential for machine rollover and
tipover accidents. Therefore, the Agency has explicitly stated this
requirement in the final standard.
At paragraph (f)(2)(v) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring the
operator to determine that no employee is in the path of the machine
before starting or moving the machine. This provision parallels the
proposed rule. In the pulpwood logging standard, the operator was
required to walk completely around the machine before start up to
ensure no employee was in the area. There were no comments on the
proposed requirement. OSHA believes this provision is necessary to
reduce the number of accidents when employees are struck by machines.
According to the State of Washington study, 10 percent of all logging
fatalities occurred when employees were struck by machines (Ex. 4-129).
The OSHA FCI report indicated similar results. Eight percent of the
employees killed were struck by a logging machine (Ex. 4-61).
Therefore, this requirement has been retained in the final rule.
At paragraph (f)(2)(vi) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
the machine be started and operated only from the operator's station or
as otherwise recommended by the manufacturer. This requirement adopts
the provision contained in the proposed rule. Again, there were no
comments opposing this provision. Under normal conditions, the only
safe place for an operator to be during the use of a machine is at the
operator's station. However, some types of material handling equipment
have more than one operator's station. In those situations, the
operator may choose which available operator's station to use when
operating the machine.
At paragraph (f)(2)(vii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
the machine be operated at such a distance from other employees and
machines that a hazard is not created for any employee. This
requirement parallels provisions contained in both the proposed
standard and the pulpwood logging standard. OSHA did not receive any
comment on the proposed requirement. The reasoning and explanation for
checking the area before starting or moving a machine applies to this
provision as well. The record shows that many employees are injured and
killed when they are hit by logging machines (Ex. 2-1, 4-61, 4-129).
Therefore, OSHA has adopted the provision as proposed.
At paragraphs (f)(2)(viii) and (ix) of the final rule, OSHA is
prohibiting riders on machines and loads. At paragraph (f)(2)(viii),
OSHA is specifying that no employee, other than the operator, be
allowed to ride on the machine unless seating, seat belts and other
protection equivalent to that provided for the operator is available
for the rider. There were no comments opposing this provision. In
paragraph (f)(2)(ix), OSHA is prohibiting riding on any load. These
requirements parallel the provisions contained in the proposed rule.
Several comments were received on these provisions and have been
discussed above in the Major Issues section.
Paragraph (f)(2)(x) of the final rule requires that before any
machine is shut down, the machine brake locks or parking brakes shall
be applied. This provision also requires that each moving element, such
as but not limited to, blades, buckets and shears, shall be grounded.
As defined in the final rule, grounded means the placement of a
component of a machine on the ground or on a device where it is firmly
supported. This requirement was also contained in the pulpwood logging
and the 1978 ANSI logging standards. The proposed rule would have
required that the moving elements of any machine be lowered to the
ground.
Several commenters said employers should be viewed in compliance
with this provision if the moving element is placed in on a device on
the equipment designed to hold moving elements in a stationary, secure
position (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92). This is the method used to ground
moving elements on certain machines, such as knuckleboom loaders. OSHA
agrees with these commenters that it may be appropriate for the moving
elements of a machine to be grounded if the moving elements can be
placed on a device that can hold it in a stationary and secure
position. However, in those situations when the machine does not have a
device to place the moving element, the moving element must be lowered
to the ground. OSHA believes this provision is necessary because the
record shows that logging employees are injured and killed when they
are crushed between equipment and equipment parts or struck by falling
and swinging equipment components (Ex. 4-61).
Paragraph (f)(2)(xi) of the final rule requires that after each
machine is shut down, pressure or stored energy from hydraulic and
pneumatic storage devices shall be discharged. This provision has been
adopted from the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also
contained a similar requirement. OSHA believes this provision is
necessary because if pressure or stored energy is not discharged water
will accumulate in the storage device thereby decreasing the amount of
fluid to carry out the function of the system. For example, many
machines use air brake systems. If the compressed air reservoir fills
up with water and displaces the air, there may not be enough air to
stop the machine.
At paragraphs (f)(2)(xii) and (xiii) of this final rule, OSHA is
adopting provisions for transporting machines. Paragraph (f)(2)(xii)
requires that the rated capacity of any vehicle transporting a machine
not be exceeded. Paragraph (f)(2)(xiii) requires that the machine be
loaded, secured and unloaded so that it will not create a hazard for
any employee. These provisions parallel requirements contained in the
proposed rule. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing these
requirements.
OSHA believes that the reasoning and explanation on machine rated
capacity (paragraph (f)(2)(iii)) applies as well to transporting
machines on trailers. Machines, as defined in this standard, are
material handling equipment that are not operated on the public
highways. Therefore, they must be transported on trailers across public
roads from work site to work site. The loading and unloading of a
machine on a trailer can be a hazardous event. The principal hazards
occur due to rollover of the machine as it is driven up or down the
trailer ramp or the ramp failing under the weight of the machine.
Rollover can occur when a machine is not properly aligned when being
driven onto or off a trailer or when the machine operator
unsuccessfully attempts to make minor corrections in the direction of
travel of the machine on the ramp. The latter case is particularly
likely when the machine runs on tracks rather than wheels, and
directional corrections are much more difficult to achieve. OSHA
believes these machine transport provisions are necessary to prevent
injury to machine operators and other employees in the area.
Protective Structures
At paragraph (f)(3) of this final rule, OSHA is adopting various
requirements for protective structures on machines.
At paragraph (f)(3)(i) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
the specified logging machines that are placed into initial service
after the effective date of the final standard be equipped with falling
object protective structures (FOPS) and/or rollover protective
structures (ROPS). This provision applies to each tractor, skidder,
swing yarder, log stacker, and mechanical felling device, such as a
tree shear or feller-buncher. This provision combines the FOPS and ROPS
requirements contained in the proposed standard. ROPS requirements are
also contained in several State logging standards (Ex. 2-18, 2-19, 2-
20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 38J, 38K). In addition, FOPS and ROPS
requirements are contained in OSHA Construction Safety Standards, 29
CFR Part 1926, and Agriculture Safety Standards, 29 CFR Part 1928.
OSHA received many comments supporting the FOPS and ROPS
requirement (Ex. 5-6, 5-7, 5-10, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-35, 5-36, 5-54, 5-
74 through 5-92) and did not receive any comments opposing this
provision in general. Many of the commenters addressed the issues of
retrofitting machines with ROPS and FOPS and incorporation by reference
of SAE standards have been discussed above in the Major Issues section.
One commenter said that the ROPS requirement should also apply to
loaders on self-loading logging trucks (Ex. 5-7). However, three other
commenters said this machine should be excluded from the requirement
because the machine would not meet most state highway height
restrictions if FOPS and/or ROPS were added to the operator station
(Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-49). OSHA agrees with these three commenters and has
not expanded the FOPS and ROPS requirements to cover loaders on self-
loading logging trucks.
The necessity of ROPS and FOPS on logging machines is not disputed.
Steep terrain, slippery or uneven ground, large loads, top-heavy
equipment with loads, and other environmental conditions and unsafe
work practices increase the potential for logging machine rollover.
ROPS reduce the likelihood that operators will be crushed in the event
their machine rolls over. FOPS prevent falling objects such as trees,
limbs and winch lines from penetrating the cab and injuring the
operator. As OSHA noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, ROPS and
FOPS are standard features on all currently manufactured logging
machines.
Based on other comments in the record, OSHA has made the following
changes to the ROPS and FOPS provision in the final rule:
1. The ROPS and FOPS requirements have been incorporated in one
provision because the SAE FOPS standard (J231, January 1981) specifies
that only machines equipped with ROPS can also be equipped with FOPS.
The ROPS-FOPS requirement of the SAE standard was pointed out by three
commenters (Ex. 5-16, 5-22, 5-57).
2. Machines only used in construction activities, such as road
building, rather than logging operations have been deleted from this
provision (e.g., graders, scrapers, bulldozers, front-end loaders).
Construction machines and activities continue to be covered under 29
CFR Part 1926.
3. Forklift trucks have been deleted from this provision and
included in a separate provision in the final standard (see paragraph
(f)(4)). One commenter pointed out that forklift trucks were
manufactured with overhead guards rather than ROPS and FOPS and,
therefore, were not included in the SAE standards (Ex. 5-16, 5-47; Tr.
W1 224)).
4. An exception to the ROPS and FOPS requirement has been added for
machines capable of 360-degree rotation. Two commenters pointed out
that the mast assembly of these machines, usually converted excavators,
protects against machine rollover (Ex. 5-16, 5-22, 5-27, 5-39, 5-40, 5-
49, 5-53, 5-63). In addition, the boom structure provides crush
protection during rollover or tipover (Ex. 5-16).
At paragraphs (f)(3) (ii) and (iii) of the final rule, OSHA is
requiring that ROPS and FOPS be tested, installed and maintained in
accordance with the following Society of Automotive Engineers
standards: ``Performance Criteria for Rollover Protective Structures
(ROPS) for Construction, Earthmoving, Forestry, and Mining Machines''
SAE J1040, April 1988; ``Minimum Performance Criteria for Falling
Object Protective Structures (FOPS)'' SAE J231, Jan 1981; and
``Deflection Limiting Volume-ROPS/FOPS Laboratory Evaluation'' SAE
J397, April 1988. This incorporation by reference of SAE J1040; April
1988, SAE J231, Jan 1981, and SAE J397; April 1988, have been approved
by the Office of the Federal Register, in accordance with the
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. The final rule has
been revised to reflect this approval and provides the requisite
information regarding access to the text of SAE J1040, April 1988, SAE
J231, 1981, and SAE J397, April 1988.
These provisions update the requirements contained in the proposed
rule. OSHA received various comments on incorporating consensus
standards by reference, and this issue has been discussed above in the
Major Issues section.
In paragraph (f)(3)(v) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
the protective structure on each machine be of a size that does not
impede the operator's normal movements in the cab. This provision
parallels the provision contained in the proposed rule and the 1978
ANSI logging standard. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this
provision.
In paragraphs (f)(3)(vi) through (xii) specify requirements for
enclosing the operator's cab. OSHA did not receive any comments
opposing these provisions in general. One commenter did recommend that
OSHA replace these provisions with a reference to the Society of
Automotive Engineers J1084, April 1980, standard on force requirements
for tractors and skidders (Ex. 5-16). However, since the SAE standard
does not cover all of the machines referenced in paragraph (f)(3), OSHA
has specified in the final rule the cab force requirements which are
applicable to machines used in logging operations.
Paragraph (f)(3)(vi) of the final rule requires that the overhead
covering of each cab be of solid material extending over the entire
canopy. This provision parallels the requirement contained in the
proposed rule.
Paragraph (f)(3)(vii) requires that the lower portion of the cab
(up to the top of the instrument panel or 24 inches (60.9 cm) if there
is no instrument panel) be completely enclosed, except at entrances,
with solid material to prevent objects from entering the cab. The
proposed rule stated generally that the lower portion of the cab be
fully enclosed. One commenter said that what constitutes the ``lower
portion'' of the cab should be specifically defined (Ex. 5-16). OSHA
has incorporated the commenter's recommendation that the lower portion
be defined as below the top of the instrument panel or at 24 inches.
Paragraph (f)(3)(viii) of the final rule requires that the upper
portion of the cab be fully enclosed. The enclosure must be made of
mesh material with openings no greater than 2 inches (5.08 cm) at its
least dimension or other material that the employer demonstrates
provides equivalent protection and visibility. This provision combines
two requirements contained in the proposed rule: full enclosure of the
upper rear portion of the cab and enclosure extending forward as far as
possible from the rear corners of the cab sides. The proposed rule also
required that the mesh material openings be no greater than 1\3/4\
inches. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also required metal mesh when
glass alone is not sufficient to provide operator protection. In the
final rule, OSHA has combined these provisions because one commenter
said that ``upper rear portion'' and ``as far as possible'' were not
adequately defined (Ex. 5-16). In addition, OSHA has changed the final
rule to allow mesh material with openings no greater than two inches,
that one commenter pointed out is the accepted standard in the western
States (See Ex. 2-22, 5-71, 38K).
Some commenters said that OSHA should limit the types of vehicles
requiring mesh material (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92). They said mesh should
not be required on front-end loaders, log stackers, forklifts, scrapers
and graders. They contend some of these machines are used in log
stacking areas where there is no danger of branches entering the cab.
In the final rule, OSHA has deleted front-end loaders, trucks, graders,
and scrapers from paragraph (f)(3) because they are used in performing
construction activities rather than logging operations. With regard to
log-stackers, OSHA believes it is necessary for these machines to be
equipped with mesh material or equivalent protection. Log-stackers are
used to raise and move trees as well as logs. In some cases trees are
not topped until they are taken to the landing. When trees still
contain branches, they could enter the cab and injure the operator if
no cab protection is provided.
Paragraph (f)(3)(viii) of the final rule also specifies that the
cab may be enclosed with a material other than mesh, provided the
employer demonstrate that it provides equivalent protection and
visibility. The proposed rule implied that transparent material could
be used but did not specify what level of protection it must provide.
The 1978 ANSI logging standard specified that when glass enclosures
were used, they must be safety glass or its equivalent.
OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this provision. One
commenter stated that many machines are already enclosed with other
material, such as safety glass, that offers equivalent protection and
visibility (Ex. 5-16). In addition, the Society of Automotive Engineers
SAE J1084, April 1980, ``Operator Protective Structure Performance
Criteria for Certain Forestry Equipment, Recommended Practice'' allows
cabs to be enclosed with safety glass.
OSHA notes that the employer bears the burden of demonstrating that
when transparent material, other than safety glass is used, that it
provides both equivalent protection and visibility. Paragraph
(f)(3)(ix) of the final rule requires that the upper cab enclosure
allow maximum visibility. The proposed rule required that the upper cab
enclosure allow maximum visibility to the rear. OSHA believes that it
is necessary that the enclosure allow maximum visibility in all
directions so that the operator and other employees in the area are not
injured.
Paragraph (f)(3)(x) of the final rule requires that if transparent
material, rather than mesh, is used to enclose the upper cab, it shall
be of safety glass or other material that the employer demonstrates
provides equivalent protection and visibility. This provision parallels
the provision contained in the proposed rule. The proposed standard
also specified that a metal screen must also be used where transparent
material alone does not provide adequate protection. In the final rule,
OSHA specifies the preferred transparent material (i.e. safety glass).
OSHA agrees with various commenters that when safety glass is used,
additional metal mesh screens are not necessary. The final rule does
allow alternative material to be used, and makes clear OSHA's intent
that it is the employer who bears the burden of proving that the
alternative material provides protection and visibility that is
equivalent to safety glass.
Paragraphs (f)(3) (xi) and (xii) of the final rule require that
transparent material be kept clean and be replaced when it is cracked,
broken, scratched or damaged in any other way that may create a hazard
for the operator. These requirements parallel the provisions contained
in the proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard.
Paragraph (f)(3)(xiii) of the final rule requires that deflectors
be installed in front of each cab to deflect whipping saplings and
branches. This provision also requires that deflectors be located so
they do not impede visibility or access to the cab. This provision
adopts the requirement contained in the proposed rule. OSHA did not
receive any comments opposing the provision.
Paragraph (f)(3)(xiv) of the final rule requires that the height of
each cab entrance be at least 52 inches, or 1.3 meters, from the floor
of the cab. This provision has been adopted from the proposed rule. No
commenters opposed this requirement.
Paragraph (f)(3)(xv) of the final rule requires that each machine
operated near yarding systems (high lead and skyline) shall be equipped
with sheds or roofs of sufficient strength to provide protection from
breaking lines. This provision has been adopted from the proposed rule.
There were no comments opposing this provision.
Overhead Guards
At paragraph (f)(4) of the final rule, OSHA is specifying that each
forklift truck used in logging operations be equipped with an overhead
guard. The overhead guard must meet the requirements of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B56.6-1987 (with addenda),
``Safety Standard for Rough Terrain Forklift Trucks.'' This
incorporation by reference of ASME B56.6-1987, has been approved by the
Office of the Federal Register, in accordance with the requirements of
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. The final rule has been revised to
reflect this approval and provides the requisite information regarding
access to the text of ASME B56.6-1987.
In the proposed rule, OSHA had included forklift trucks in the
provisions requiring installation of ROPS and FOPS. However, commenters
informed OSHA that the manufacture of forklift trucks used in rough
terrain conditions such as the logging industry are covered by the ASME
standard (Ex. 5-22, 5-47, Tr. W1 224), and that forklift trucks are
manufactured with overhead protection, rather than ROPS and FOPS (Ex.
5-47).
OSHA believes that this overhead protection requirement is
necessary and will adequately protect logging forklift operators from
falling objects. Since the mast assembly of the forklift truck prevents
it from rolling onto its top, ROPS protection is not necessary. When
accidents do occur, forklift trucks are more likely to tip over on
their sides. OSHA believes that, in the event of a tipover, the seat
belt requirement contained in this standard will prevent operators from
being pinned or crushed by the truck or overhead guard by safely
restraining them within the cab.
In paragraph (f)(4) OSHA has not included a provision excepting
fork lift trucks placed into service before the final rule from being
equipped with overhead guards. The manufacturing requirements for rough
terrain forklift trucks have been in place since 1978. Since the useful
life of these machines is approximately 10 years, OSHA is confident
that almost all forklift trucks currently used in the logging industry
do contain overhead guards meeting the ASME standard.
Machine Access
Paragraph (f)(5) of the final rule specifies various requirements
regarding machine access. Paragraph (f)(5)(i) of the final rule
requires that machine access be provided for each machine when the
operator or another employee must climb onto the machine to enter the
cab or an operating element to perform maintenance. This provision also
requires that the machine access system meet the requirement of the SAE
J185 June 1988, standard on ``Recommended Practice for Access systems
for Off-Road Machines.'' This incorporation by reference of SAE J185,
June 1988, has been approved by the Office of the Federal Register, in
accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51.
The final rule has been revised to reflect this approval and provides
the requisite information regarding access to the text of SAE J185,
June 1988.
The proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained
machine access provisions. The proposed rule specified that steps,
ladders, handhold, catwalks, or railings installed after the effective
date of this standard comply with the SAE J185, June 1981, or be in
accordance with a design by a professional engineer which offers
equivalent employee protection. There were no comments opposing the
proposed provision.
OSHA believes this provision is necessary to prevent logging
injuries due to slips and falls. The WIR survey indicated that these
types of injuries accounted for almost one-fourth of all logging
injuries reported, and that 28 percent of all injuries resulting from
falls involved machines and vehicles (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes that
compliance with the SAE standard, in conjunction with work practices
and training, will prevent these types of accidents. OSHA notes that in
the final rule, the reference to the SAE standard has been updated from
the 1981 to the 1988 edition.
Paragraph (f)(5)(ii) of the final rule requires that each machine
cab have a second means of egress. This provision has been adopted from
the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained this
requirement. According to one commenter, nearly all logging machines
currently in use have a second means of egress (Ex. 5-29). Therefore,
OSHA does not believe compliance with this provision will be
burdensome.
Paragraphs (f)(5) (iii) and (iv) of the final rule require that
walking and working surfaces of each machine have slip resistant
surfaces and be kept free of waste, debris and other material which
might result in slipping, falling or fire. These requirements parallel
provisions contained in the proposed rule.
OSHA received three comments opposing these provisions (Ex. 5-7, 5-
22, 5-55). These commenters stated that the debris must be hazardous
(Ex. 5-7) and that the requirement should be changed to indicate that
the walkways of machines should be ``substantially free'' of debris
(Ex. 5-55). As discussed above, slips, trips and falls account for a
significant number of injuries in the logging industry. The Agency's
primary intent in this provision is to minimize the potential for
employees to slip, trip or fall when mounting or dismounting a machine.
OSHA believes these provisions will reduce the hazards that result in
those types of injuries. OSHA does not agree with the characterization
implied by the commenters that this provision requires employers to
keep every machine walking and working surface ``spotless'' at all
times. OSHA is aware that in outdoors environments material may
accumulate on machine surfaces. OSHA is only requiring that when such
accumulated material might result in a fire or in an employee slipping
or falling that it must be removed.
Exhaust Systems
Paragraph (f)(6) of the final rule contains various requirements
regarding exhaust pipes and mufflers. Paragraphs (f)(6) (i) and (ii) of
the final rule require that exhaust pipes on each machine be so located
that exhaust is directed away from the operator, and be mounted or
guarded to protect the employee from accidental contact. These
provisions have been adopted from the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI
logging standard also contained a similar requirement. OSHA did not
receive any comments opposing these provisions.
Paragraph (f)(6) (iii) of the final rule requires that exhaust
pipes be equipped with spark arresters. This provision also provides
that when an engine is equipped with a turbocharger, spark arresters
are not required. The proposed rule also required a spark arrester for
each machine, but did not make an exception for machines equipped with
turbochargers.
Several commenters said that spark arresters were not needed when
engines are turbocharged (Ex. 5-10, 5-16, 5-17, 5-22, 5-25, 5-27, 5-55,
5-74 through 5-92). These commenters said that the flow of exhaust
gases through the turbocharger requires sufficient time for any sparks
to be extinguished and unburned fuel and particulate matter to be
burned. One commenter said that functional turbocharged engines do not
produce exhaust sparks like normally aspirated engines (Ex. 5-27). For
this reason, these commenters said turbochargers were an acceptable
substitute for spark arresters (Ex. 5-16). In addition, the U.S. Forest
Service allows turbochargers in lieu of spark arresters (Ex. 5-16).
Based on this evidence, OSHA has incorporated an exception to the use
of spark arresters when the machine engine is turbocharged.
Paragraph (f)(6)(iv) of the final rule requires that the muffler
provided by the manufacturer, or the equivalent, be in place at all
times the machine is in operation. This provision is the same as the
corresponding provisions of the proposal and the pulpwood logging
standard. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this requirement.
Brakes
Paragraph (f)(7) of the final rule specifies provisions regarding
machine brakes. Paragraph (f)(7)(i) of the final rule requires that the
brakes must be sufficient to hold each machine and its maximum load on
the slopes on which the machine is being operated. As discussed above,
rated capacity is the maximum load a machine was designed by the
manufacturer to handle. This provision was adopted from the proposed
rule. Machine brake provisions are also included in various State
logging standards (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-22, 38J, 38K), and in the
1978 ANSI logging standard.
Several commenters supported this provision (Ex. 5-10, 5-16, 5-22).
These commenters also said that OSHA should include provisions
requiring brakes to meet certain criteria in respective SAE and ANSI
standards.
The variety of terrain encountered in logging operations makes the
adequacy of brakes a critical safety issue. For example, information
presented in the preamble to the proposed rule indicated that an
operator was unable to stop the machine he was operating on a slope and
the machine rolled over (54 FR 18799-80). The injured operator was
trapped in a cab for 45 minutes until he could be rescued. This
provision requires that the braking system, that consists of the
service and emergency brakes, must be adequate to hold the machine and
its maximum allowable load on the slope. For certain machines (tractors
and rubber tired skidders), employers can look to national consensus
standards for guidance on brake system performance (See SAE J1041,
October 1991, ``Breaking System Test Procedure and Braking Performance
Criteria for Agricultural Tractors'' and SAE J1178, June 1987,
``Braking Performance--Rubber Tired Skidders''). However, these
standards do not cover all machines used in logging operations.
Therefore, OSHA is specifying certain minimum brake system requirements
for all machines used in logging operations.
Paragraph (f)(7)(ii) requires that each machine be equipped with a
secondary braking system, such as an emergency brake or parking brake.
This provision also requires that the secondary system be effective in
stopping the machine and maintaining parking performance, regardless of
the direction of travel or of whether the engine is running. These
requirements parallel the provisions contained in the proposed rule.
These provisions are also contained in the 1978 ANSI logging standard.
There were no comments opposing these provisions.
Guarding
Paragraphs (f)(8) (i) and (ii) of the final standard requires that
each machine be equipped with guarding to protect employees from
exposed moving elements and flying objects. These provisions also
require that guarding must meet the requirements specified in subpart O
of part 1910. These provisions clarify that guarding requirement also
applies to each machine used in debarking, limbing and chipping. The
proposed standard also contained a provision requiring machine
guarding. The 1978 ANSI logging standard contained a similar
requirement.
Three commenters stated that the provision should be applied only
to stationary equipment to prevent misapplication to mobile equipment
(Ex. 5-10, 5-22, 5-57). OSHA believes the record does not support the
commenters' recommendation. The Agency believes that both mobile and
stationary machines pose a risk of injury due to exposure to moving
parts. According to the WIR survey, a significant number of employee
injuries involved mobile equipment (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes that
employees working with or near both types of machine need to be
protected. Additionally, requiring all machines to be guarded
eliminates the ambiguity as to whether a machine is stationary or
mobile (e.g. mobile machines that are used in place, such as a trailer
mounted chipper).
OSHA notes that guarding satisfies the requirements of subpart O
when it is in the form of a specially constructed and installed barrier
or when the structure of the machine itself prevents employee contact
with the moving element of the machine. Each machine shall be equipped
with guarding to protect employees from exposure to moving elements,
such as but not limited to, shafts, pulleys, belts on conveyors, and
gears, in accordance with the requirements of subpart O of part 1910.
Paragraph (f)(8)(iii) of the final rule requires that the guarding
on each machine be in place at all times the machine is in operation.
This provision was contained in the 1978 ANSI logging standard. This
provision makes explicit OSHA's intent in the proposed rule that
machines be equipped with guarding and that such guarding not be
removed or otherwise disabled while the machine is in operation. If
machine guarding is removed or disabled, employees still remain exposed
to the danger of moving elements and flying objects when they are near
or using the machine. OSHA believes the reasoning and explanation for
requiring that chain-saw chain brakes be engaged when starting the
machine and not be removed is also applicable to this provision.
Paragraph (g) Vehicles
At paragraph (g) of the final rule, OSHA has included various
requirements regarding vehicles when used off public roads in logging
operations. OSHA has decided to include a separate paragraph on
vehicles in this final rule because of the confusion commenters said
existed in the definition and requirements regarding ``mobile
equipment'' verses ``motor vehicles'' in the proposed rule (Ex. 5-16,
5-18, 5-19, 5-22). Certain of the proposed provisions on vehicles were
limited to personnel transport vehicles. In the final rule, OSHA has
defined vehicles to include trucks and trailers used to transport logs
and machines, as well as personnel transport vehicles. Therefore, the
provisions covering vehicles apply to all vehicles used in any logging
operation. OSHA believes that the reasoning and explanation supporting
the need for protection for those in personnel transport vehicles also
apply to operators and passengers of other vehicles.
OSHA received some comment that employee-provided vehicles should
be excepted from the standard's vehicle requirements (Ex. 5-21, 5-36,
5-39). OSHA has not distinguished between employer-provided and
employee-provided equipment anywhere in this standard. OSHA believes
that when any equipment is used in logging operations, the employer is
responsible for assuring that it is in proper working condition.
However, this final standard does not address the personal vehicle an
employee drives on public roads. By contrast, when the employer allows
employees to use their own vehicles to transport themselves and other
employees off public roads to and from logging work sites rather than
providing such transportation, those vehicles are exposed to the unique
hazards of logging operations. Such vehicles must be adequately
equipped and properly running, just as employer provided vehicles must
be, in order to cross what may be difficult terrain and other hazardous
conditions encountered enroute to and from the logging site. The OSH
Act imposes on the employer the responsibility for compliance with
standards and for assuring safe conditions in the workplace, even if
the employee provides the vehicle for the logging operation.
OSHA believes it is necessary in the final rule to specify
requirements for vehicles used to transport employees off public roads
and vehicles used to perform logging operations. The record shows that
a number of injuries and fatalities have occurred in the logging
industry that involve vehicles (Ex. 2-1, 4-61, 4-129).
At paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2), OSHA is requiring the employer to
assure that each vehicle used to transport employees off public roads
or to perform any logging operation, including vehicles provided by
employees, is maintained, and is inspected before initial use during a
workshift. These provisions also require that defects or damage be
repaired or the vehicle be replaced before work is started. These are
the same general maintenance and inspection as required for machine and
tools. OSHA believes that the explanation and reasoning for including
these provisions in the paragraphs covering PPE, tools and machine
apply here as well. (See discussion above of paragraphs (d)(1)(i),
(d)(1)(ii), (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), (f)(1)(i), and (f)(1)(ii).)
OSHA has included paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) in the final rule in
an effort to clarify its proposed intention. As stated above,
commenters said it was not clear in the proposed rule whether the
definition of ``mobile equipment'' included both machines and vehicles,
and therefore, whether the general maintenance and inspection
requirements applied to both types of equipment. ``Mobile equipment''
was defined in the proposal as that kind of equipment that includes
mobility as a part of its work function. In the final rule, OSHA is
defining machines and vehicles separately, and placing the requirements
governing each in different paragraphs. In making these clarifications,
however, the Agency emphasizes that all mobile equipment used in
logging operations, whether vehicles or machines, must operate
properly, and that maintenance and inspections are needed to assure
that only properly functioning mobile equipment is used.
Paragraph (g)(3) of the final rule requires that the employer
assure that operating and maintenance instructions are available in
each vehicle. This provision also requires that each vehicle operator
and maintenance employee comply with the instructions. These are the
same provisions as required for machines. OSHA believes that the
explanation and reasoning for including these provisions in the
paragraph covering machines applies to vehicles as well. (See
discussion above of paragraph (f)(1)(iii).)
Paragraph (g)(4) of the final rule requires that the employer
assure that each vehicle operator has a valid operator's license for
the class of vehicle being operated. This provision applies to all
vehicle operators, not just employees who operate personnel transport
vehicles. The proposal applied the licensing requirement only to
personnel transport vehicle operators and no comments opposing the
requirement were received.
OSHA believes that it is also essential that an employee operating
any type of vehicle possess a current license for that vehicle. Any
employee operating a vehicle for logging operations needs to have met
the necessary qualifications and shown that they have operated the
vehicle in a manner responsible enough to maintain a current license.
This provision ensures that the employee has the proper kind of license
for the type of vehicle being operated and the load being carried.
Paragraph (g)(5) of the final rule requires that mounting steps and
handholds be provided on each vehicle whenever it is necessary to
prevent an employee from being injured while entering or leaving the
vehicle. The proposed rule specified that mounting steps and handholds
be provided for every personnel transport vehicle. The 1978 ANSI
logging standard also contained a similar provision.
One commenter opposed applying this provision to pickup trucks (Ex.
5-51). This commenter said steps would rip off of high center pickup
trucks during the ride. In addition this commenter said that steps
would prevent access of fire fighting vehicles to roads that have water
barriers or speed bumps. OSHA does not believe the record supports the
exceptions recommended by the commenter. First, according to the WIR
survey, 13 percent of all injuries resulted from falls from vehicles
(Ex. 2-1). Second, there are mounting steps for vehicles used in
logging operations that can be retractable or high enough to prevent
contact with the ground while the vehicle is moving. In addition, the
record does not indicate that there are many speed bumps on logging
roads. OSHA is aware that mounting steps and handholds may not be
necessary for every vehicle. OSHA is only requiring mounting steps when
there is a danger that an employee could be injured while entering or
leaving the vehicle without being provided with such assistance.
Paragraph (g)(6) of the final rule requires that each seat be
securely fastened to the vehicle. The final rule adopts the proposed
requirement and applies it to all vehicles used in logging operations.
The 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained this requirement. OSHA
did not receive any comments opposing this provision.
Paragraph (g)(7) of the final rule requires applies the
requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(v), (f)(2)(vii),
(f)(2)(x), (f)(2)(xiii) and paragraph (f)(7) to each vehicle used to
transport any employee off public roads or to perform any logging
operation, including any vehicle provided by an employee. OSHA believes
these general work practices and brake requirements are necessary to
prevent accidents involving vehicles as well as machines. OSHA believes
the reasoning and explanation for including these general provisions in
the paragraph covering machines applies here as well.
Paragraph (h) Tree Harvesting
At paragraph (h) of the final rule, OSHA establishes various
general and specific work practice requirements regarding tree
harvesting. OSHA believes these work practice requirements are
necessary, especially given the high injury rate in the logging
industry. According to the WIR survey, in more than two-thirds of all
reported injuries unsafe working practices contributed to the accident
(Ex. 2-1). The work practices specified in this paragraph address those
work practices that when not used contributed to accidents such as
those reported in the WIR survey (e.g., co-worker activity, working too
fast, misjudging time or distance to avoid injury, using wrong cutting
method).
OSHA notes that those provisions in the proposed rule that
specified requirements other than work practices (e.g., equipment
specifications) have been moved to the applicable equipment
specification paragraphs of the final rule.
General Requirements
Paragraph (h)(1)(i) requires that trees not be felled in a manner
that may create a hazard for an employee, such as, but not limited to,
falling on an employee, or striking a rope, cable, power line or
machine. The proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard contained
similar provisions. The proposed rule required that trees not be felled
in a manner that could endanger an employee.
Three commenters said that the proposed provision was too broad to
be useful since they believed all felling activities are dangerous (Ex.
5-21, 5-36, 5-63). While OSHA agrees that it may not be possible to
eliminate all hazards in a workplace, the employer does have the
responsibility to prevent or minimize hazards the employer can
reasonably anticipate. To comply with this provision, it is incumbent
on the employer to train employees in proper felling work practices and
to point out when employee actions or workplace conditions could create
hazards for employees.
Paragraph (h)(1)(ii) requires that the immediate supervisor be
consulted before felling is commenced, whenever unfamiliar or unusually
hazardous conditions necessitate the supervisor's approval. The final
rule adopts the provision contained in the proposed rule. One commenter
supported the proposed requirement (Tr. W1 85). He said that consulting
supervisors when heavy accumulations of snow are present would prevent
injuries. OSHA believes that unusual, hazardous situations may arise
during felling operations and the supervisor should be involved in
making decisions about the safest way to fell a tree. These situations
may include, but are not limited to, felling very large or tall trees;
cutting trees whose lean, location or structure make it difficult to
fell in the desired or a safe direction. Adding the supervisor's
knowledge, training and experience to the decision-making process
should help to minimize the hazards to loggers. In addition, this
consultation process is especially important when logging crews are
relatively new and may not have dealt with such situations before.
Paragraph (h)(1)(iii) of the final rule requires that no yarding
machine be operated within two tree lengths of any tree being manually
felled. This provision has been adopted from the proposed rule. The
1978 ANSI logging standard also contained a similar requirement.
Several commenters raised questions about or discussed this
provision (Ex. 5-12, 5-43, 5-67; Tr. W1 104, W2 197). None of the
commenters denied that yarding machine operators may be endangered when
they operate too close to manual felling activities. However, two
commenters stated that the provision should be revised because, in some
circumstances, the assistance of a yarding machine is necessary to
assure that the tree is felled in the desired direction or to keep the
area clear (Ex. 5-12, 5-67). For example, one commenter said that
failure of yarders to clear an area of a build up of felled trees or
logs can result in timber breakage or can pose problems for fellers
working on slopes (Ex. 5-67).
In general, OSHA believes that allowing yarding machines within two
tree lengths of trees being manually felled would pose a risk of harm
to both the machine operator and the feller. First, a manual feller who
is cutting a tree is concentrating on that work activity and not on
other logging activities in the area. If that tree were to fall on a
yarding machine that is too close to a manual felling operation, the
machine operator could be injured by the tree. Second, it also is
important for their own safety that manual fellers work at a safe
distance from yarding activities. Yarder operators and chasers and
choker setters concentrating on slinging and moving logs could cause
injury to the feller if a tree or log were to shift, roll or slide
suddenly.
Third, yarding machine operators are often working downhill from
manual fellers. It may be dangerous for the operator to approach the
feller because the falling tree could roll or slide into the machine.
Fourth, the requirements of this paragraph can still be met even where
the feller and yarder work as a team. After the feller has cut a tree
and is moving on to size up another tree for cutting, the yarder can
remove the felled tree before the feller begins cutting the next tree.
The feller should check to make sure the yarder has removed the tree
out of the work area before he starts cutting. Therefore, OSHA believes
that its general rule that each work area be separated by at least two
tree lengths should also apply to yarding and manual felling
operations.
One commenter, who said that ``cat skidding crews'' in the
northwest work in close proximity of tree fellers, suggested that this
provision should allow skidding directly away from a timber feller as
long as the feller is not actively trying to fell a tree (Ex. 5-43).
OSHA notes that the final rule does not prohibit what the commenter
suggests. The final rule only says that yarding machines shall not be
within a two-tree length distance while manual felling is in progress.
The final rule does not prohibit the yarding operator from clearing
logs when the feller is not engaged in cutting trees. While the feller
is moving onto the next tree and assessing its condition, this
provision allows yarder operators to remove the trees that have been
felled, provided that the other requirements or this paragraph have
been met (e.g., the feller acknowledging that it is safe for the yarder
to enter the work area).
Paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of the final standard requires that no
employee approach a felling operation closer than two tree lengths of
the tree being felled until the feller acknowledges it is safe to do
so. This provision includes an exception to the two-tree length
requirement when the employer demonstrates that a team of employees is
necessary to manually fell a particular tree. The proposed rule and the
1978 ANSI logging standard also contained provisions specifying that
employees remain two tree lengths from the feller. The proposed rule
did not contain the felling team exception.
Several commenters urged OSHA to permit exceptions to the two tree-
length requirement (Tr. W1 152, 183-86, W2 163, OR 126). These
commenters discussed, for example, the need for shovelers to work in
conjunction with fellers.
OSHA believes the two tree-length distance requirement is necessary
for several reasons. First, a feller may not be aware of approaching
employees due to noise or the feller's concentration on the work. It is
therefore possible that employees may inadvertently enter an area where
a tree is falling. This could result in injury to the approaching
employee, and even to the feller if he attempts to take corrective
action. According to the WIR survey, six percent of employees injured
reported that co-worker activity had contributed to the accident (Ex.
2-1). The State of Washington study indicated that eight percent of
employees who were killed were hit by a tree being felled by another
employee (Ex. 4-129). According to the OSHA FCI report, nine logging
employees were killed when they were struck by a tree that was being
cut by another logger (Ex. 4-61). Second, an approaching employee could
be injured if he is unaware of or misjudges the falling direction of a
tree. The feller is the best judge of the direction that a tree is
likely to fall and, therefore, should be the one to signal when a work
area is safe. Third, approaching employees could be injured if a tree
were to inadvertently fall in the wrong direction. The best way for
employees to prevent such injury is to remain clear of the work area
while the felling operation is being conducted. Once the felling of the
tree is completed, the feller can signal that it is safe for other
employees to approach. Therefore, OSHA believes the safer approach for
both the feller and other employees is to wait until the feller has
acknowledged it is safe to enter the felling area.
OSHA has included an exception to this rule for particular
situations when more than one employee is needed to manually fell a
particular tree. However, OSHA notes that this exception covers only
manual fellers and those whom the employer demonstrates are needed to
assist in manually felling a tree (e.g., shovelers). It does not
include mechanical felling operations and it does permit machines to
enter the manual felling area. In those situations, paragraphs
(h)(1)(iii) and (h)(1)(v) apply. If a machine is necessary to push or
pull over a tree, the manual feller must move at least two tree lengths
away and must not enter the area until the machine operator
acknowledges that it is safe. OSHA notes that this is not a blanket
exception for all team felling activities. The general rule is that no
person is to approach a feller until the feller has indicated it is
safe to do so. The exception is meant to be applied on a case-by-case
basis. That is, the employer bears the burden of demonstrating that a
particular tree or a particular felling situation requires a team. Only
then is more than one person allowed within the immediate work area. In
addition, the employer bears the burden of showing that a team is
necessary to manually fell the tree in that particular situation.
Paragraph (h)(1)(v) of the final rule requires that no employee
approach a mechanical felling operation closer than two tree lengths of
the tree being felled until the machine operator has acknowledged that
it is safe to do so. The proposed rule required that employees remain
clear of any mechanical felling operation.
OSHA received many comments recommending that OSHA apply the two
tree-length minimum work distance to mechanical felling operations as
well (Ex. 5-18, 5-21, 5-34, 5-36, 5-39, 5-63, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. W2
163, 197). These commenters said that such distance was needed, for
example, to protect other employees from flying metal fragments from
broken mechanical disc saw blades. In addition, the reasoning and
explanation supporting the distance requirement for approaching fellers
also applies to this provision. For example, a feller-buncher operator
who is not expecting an employee to enter the work area may move in
reverse and not see the employee in time to prevent an accident. OSHA
has therefore added the two tree-length distance requirement to this
provision of the final rule.
Paragraph (h)(1)(vi) of the final rule requires that each danger
tree, including lodged trees and snags, be felled, removed or avoided.
When the danger tree is felled or removed, it must be felled or removed
using mechanical or other techniques that minimize employee exposure
before felling is commenced in the area of the danger tree. When the
danger tree is avoided, it must be marked and no work be conducted
within two tree lengths of the danger tree, unless the employer
demonstrates that a shorter distance will not create a hazard for an
employee. As defined in the final rule, a danger tree includes any
standing tree that presents a hazard to employees due to conditions
such as, but not limited to, deterioration or damage to the tree, and
direction or lean of the tree.
The proposed rule required that lodged trees be marked and lowered
to the ground using mechanical or other safe techniques before any work
is continued within two tree lengths of the lodged tree. The proposed
rule did not allow any exceptions to the two tree-length distance. Many
State logging standards include requirements to fell danger trees or
not to commence work within a two tree-length distance of the danger
tree (Ex. 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 38J, 38K).
The record shows that danger trees pose many hazards for employees.
According to the WIR survey, 15 percent of those injured said that the
dangerous conditions of the tree had contributed to their accident (Ex.
2-1). The OSHA FCI report indicated that 23 logging employees were
killed by danger trees (Ex. 4-61).
OSHA received several comments on this proposed provision (Ex. 5-7,
5-21, 5-34, 5-39, 5-43, 5-74 through 5-92, 17; Tr. W1 187, W2 6-7).
Some commenters supported the provision (Ex. 5-39, 5-34). Some
commenters suggested that this provision conflicts with other federal
regulations requiring retention of some ``snags'' to preserve wildlife
habitats in the area (Ex. 5-7, 5-27, 5-39, Tr. W2 6) and Rep. Jolene
Unsoeld commented that OSHA should attempt to harmonize the final rule
with various environmental regulations (Ex. 17, 31). Other commenters
said that OSHA's provision was excessive in those situations when a
tree is securely lodged a few feet above the ground (Ex. 5-21, 5-74
through 5-92; Tr. W1 187, W2 6-7). Another commenter said that
prohibiting any felling within two tree-lengths of a danger tree would
take a large volume of timber out of production, especially strips of
trees on steep slopes (Ex. 5-43).
OSHA has addressed the commenters' concerns in the final rule.
First, OSHA is more explicitly stating in the final rule that dangers
trees may be avoided, when necessary, rather than being felled or
removed. OSHA believes that this requirement harmonizes with and does
not conflict with the rules and regulations of other Federal agencies.
The U.S. Department of the Interior participated in this rulemaking and
did not indicate that this provision was in conflict with their
regulations (Ex. 5-50). The change to the final rule further clarifies
OSHA's proposed intent that danger trees do not have to be felled or
removed. This provision of the final rule only requires two actions of
the employer. One, when the employer wishes to fell a danger tree, it
must be removed or felled before other trees in the area are felled.
Two, when the employer elects not to fell or remove a danger tree, the
employer must not conduct any other felling in that area. Therefore,
when other regulations require the preservation of a particular snag,
this final standard requires only that fellers be protected from
potential injury from the snag. This is accomplished by keeping all
other felling activity out of the immediate area of that snag.
Second, in the final rule OSHA has addressed the concerns of other
commenters by allowing work to commence within two tree lengths of a
marked danger tree, provided that the employer demonstrates that a
shorter distance will not create a hazard for an employee. This change
will assure the safety of logging employees without removing
significant timber from production. OSHA notes that the employer bears
the burden of demonstrating that a distance of less than two tree
lengths will not create a hazard for an employee. Supervisors should
actively participate in identifying and training employees about
providing safe distances. Whether a shorter distance does create a
hazard is a case-by-case determination. What constitutes a safe
distance for other work to be conducted will require an evaluation of
various factors such as, but not limited to, the size of the danger
tree, how secure it is, its condition, the slope of the work area, and
the presence of other employees in the area. For example, excessive
root deterioration or damage might indicate that the danger tree is
unstable and that there is a possibility it could fall. In such case, a
two tree-length distance would be required.
Some commenters recommended that OSHA designate dislodging a tree
by felling another one into it as a safe technique ``in certain
situations'' (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92). However, these commenters did not
identify any situations in which it would be safe to dislodge a tree in
this manner. There is no information in the record that identifies any
situation in which it is safe to use domino felling to fell a danger
tree. In fact, other commenters have indicated they know of no
situation when felling another tree into a danger tree is considered
safe practice (Ex. 5-42, 5-46). OSHA also believes that it is not safe
to dislodge a tree in this manner. First, there are already hazards
associated with domino felling trees that are not danger trees. Trying
to domino fell danger trees such as lodged trees can only increase the
seriousness of the hazard. One of the factors that makes a tree a
danger tree is that the physical damage to the tree may cause it to
fall in an unintended direction. Felling another tree into the danger
tree increases the potential for a misdirected fall. Second, the
possibility exists that danger trees being domino felled also will
become lodged, thereby increasing the number of trees to be avoided or
removed and, consequently, increasing the risk to employees when those
lodged trees are removed. The safest way to remove a lodged tree, first
is remove all unnecessary employees from the area and then to hook the
tree to a skidder, and pull the tree down (Ex. 5-43). Therefore, OSHA
is not permitting removal of any tree, including a danger tree, by
domino felling (See discussion of paragraph (h)(1)(ix).
Paragraph (h)(1)(vii) of the final rule requires that each danger
tree be carefully checked for signs of loose bark, broken branches and
limbs or other damage before it is felled or removed. This provision
also requires that loose bark and other damage that may create a hazard
be removed before felling or removing the tree. This requirement has
been adopted from the proposed rule. In the proposed rule, OSHA
specified that snags be carefully checked for dangerous bark before
they are felled and that accessible loose bark be removed before
felling.
One commenter opposed this provision (Ex. 5-65). This commenter
said that removing loose bark increases dangers from above since upper
bark will slough off if lower bark is no longer supporting it. As such,
this commenter recommended that OSHA require loose bark to be pinned to
the tree. OSHA has changed the final rule to include removing loose
bark or holding it in place.
Paragraph (h)(1)(viii) of the final rule requires that felling
activity on any slope when rolling or sliding of trees or logs is
reasonably foreseeable be kept uphill from, or on the same level as,
previously felled trees. This provision has been adopted from the
proposed standard and the pulpwood logging rules. Various State
standards contain similar requirements (Ex. 2-19, 2-22, 38K).
OSHA received various comments on this provision (Ex. 5-7, 5-12, 5-
16, 5-17, 5-53, 5-74 through 5-92). Several commenters said that OSHA
should more clearly define what constitutes sloping terrain (Ex. 5-16,
5-21, 5-53, 5-74 through 5-92). These commenters suggested that the
provision be limited to slopes exceeding 25 or 35 percent. They also
indicated that mechanical felling in southern states should be excluded
because slopes are gentler and shorter than in other regions.
The record shows that this provision is necessary to protect
employees from being injured by rolling or sliding trees. The WIR
survey supports the need for this work practice requirement. According
to the WIR survey, nearly three-fifths of the workers who reported
injuries said that their accidents occurred on moderately or steeply
sloped terrain, and 10 percent of all injured workers blamed the steep
terrain for their accident (Ex. 2-1). The OSHA FCI report indicated
that 20 employees were killed when they were struck by rolling trees or
logs (Ex. 4-61).
OSHA has not adopted a precise minimum slope that would trigger
this requirement or excempt any region from the requirement, however,
the final rule does address the commenters' concerns by limiting this
provision to those sloping terrains where rolling or sliding of felled
trees is reasonably foreseeable. OSHA is aware that logging work sites
are often not completely level, and that many logging sites could be
considered to be sloping terrain. Elements other than the mere slope of
the terrain also must be considered in determining whether there is a
reasonable possibility that the trees could roll or slide. When a given
slope does not present the reasonable possibility that felled trees
will slide or roll, OSHA agrees that this requirement should not apply.
However, when the terrain slopes to the degree that a reasonable
employer would believe that sliding or rolling is foreseeable, then
this work practice requirement is necessary to protect loggers from
being injured.
Whether a particular terrain slope poses a possibility that trees
or logs may slide or roll requires an assessment of the condition of
the terrain. All conditions that might contribute to a hazard must be
considered (e.g., tree size, weather conditions). For example, when the
terrain is either wet or covered with snow or ice, the possibility of
trees sliding and rolling is greater and these conditions must be
considered in determining whether uphill felling is required. As long
as the hazard of sliding or rolling trees exists, felling must be done
on the uphill side even if industry practice has been downhill felling,
or even if roads have generally been located on the tops of ridges.
One commenter said that this provision of the final rule may be
counter to some environmental considerations in timber harvest plans
which require opposite felling schemes (Ex. 5-7). However, the
commenter has not provided substantive information to support his
assertion. OSHA has previously discussed the danger of manual felling
operations being conducted in adjacent work areas due to the potential
for a felled tree falling into another work area. In light of that the
fact that most trees fall down hill when felled, the hazard to
employees working below another felling activity exposes those
employees to an unacceptable risk of injury or death.
Finally, one commenter said downhill felling should be permitted
because it can reduce the feller's fatigue (Ex. 5-12). While NIOSH
suggests that worker fatigue may be a factor in logging accidents,
NIOSH did not recommend downhill felling as being a method to reduce
worker fatigue (Ex. 5-42). Rather, NIOSH said that the employer should
reduce worker fatigue and the potential for accidents that results from
such fatigue by planning appropriate work schedules. NIOSH suggested
that the employer's planning of work schedules should include an
evaluation of the amount of heat stress, physical exertion and other
factors contributing to fatigue in planning those work schedules. OSHA
agrees with NIOSH that planning appropriate work schedules rather than
downhill felling would be the appropriate way to reduce worker fatigue
without exposing the employee to further hazards and to assure that
jobs fit the capabilities of the person. (OSHA is addressing these
factors in its rulemaking on ergonomic safety and health management.)
Paragraph (h)(1)(ix) of the final rule prohibits the practice of
domino felling. As previously discussed, domino felling involves
cutting wedges and making partial backcuts in a series of trees that
form a continuous line. The last tree is then felled into the line thus
pushing the line of trees to the ground in a chain reaction fashion.
This requirement was not included in the proposed rule, however,
several commenters urged OSHA to prohibit domino felling in the final
rule (Ex. 5-42, 5-46; Tr. W2 231, OR 659). NIOSH said that domino
felling was a hazardous practice because there was a loss of stability
in the standing tree when it had been backcut (Ex. 5-42). Therefore,
NIOSH recommended that OSHA include a requirement in the final rule
allowing only one tree to be felled at a time. There are also other
hazards associated with domino felling. First, when trees are used to
knock down other trees, the likelihood that the trees will not fall in
the expected direction is greatly increased. A small miscalculation in
the falling direction can be significantly magnified down the line and
result in serious injury to the feller or other employees in the area.
In addition, a falling tree could hit another object and either fall in
another direction or become lodged. This would require an employee to
fell the lodged tree, which is a hazardous operation.
Second, the hazards can be magnified when domino felling is not
successful in knocking down the entire line of trees. The feller may be
placed in an extremely hazardous situation if he must try to fell any
of the line of trees that may remain standing. For example, part of the
line of trees may have fallen over and lodged against the standing
tree. A feller who attempts to fell the final standing tree(s) could be
injured when the lodged line of trees and the final tree finally do
fall. The risk of injury is greater because it is more likely that the
lodged trees may fall in an unexpected direction, and the combined
weight of the lodged trees further increases the risk. In this sense,
the prohibition against domino felling is similar to the requirement in
the final rule that trees be felled in a manner that prevents them from
striking things such as ropes, cables, or power lines. For these
reasons, OSHA is requiring that trees be felled one at a time rather
than allowing trees to be used to knock down other trees.
Manual Felling
Paragraph (h)(2) of the final rule specifies various work practices
for manual felling. OSHA believes these provisions are essential to
reduce the number of injuries that occur during felling activities.
According to the WIR survey, tree felling is the most dangerous
activity in the logging industry. Of those who reported injuries in the
WIR survey, 23 percent were engaged in felling trees at the time.
OSHA's FCI report also indicates that felling operations are the
most hazardous operation in the logging industry (Ex. 4-61). The report
indicated that 43 percent of all employees who died did so when they
were felling trees.
The State of Washington study indicated that more than 40 percent
of employees killed from 1977-83 were performing felling operations
(Ex. 4-129). This study concluded that many of the deaths would have
been prevented had logging employees been following safe work practices
and had remained out of hazardous areas (e.g., adjacent occupied work
areas).
One commenter said that certain of the work practices proposed by
OSHA should not be required of each feller (Ex. 5-54). This commenter
said the work practices did not take into account the variation in
feller experience, production requirements, and the trees themselves.
This commenter also said the work practice requirements did not allow
for innovations in felling technology and for recognition of other safe
ways to perform felling tasks. OSHA points out that these work practice
requirements have been widely recognized and accepted in the logging
industry. Most of the State logging standards contain most of these
work practices (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-23, 38J, 38K). These
requirements were included in OSHA's pulpwood logging standard, that
adopted the 1971 ANSI logging standard. In addition, these requirements
were contained in the 1978 ANSI logging standard. The ANSI standards
are national consensus standards which were developed, approved and
followed by the logging industry itself. Presumably, they represent
what the industry has viewed to be necessary and reasonable to prevent
injuries and deaths in this high hazard industry.
In paragraph (h)(2)(i) of the final rule, OSHA requires that before
a feller even begins felling a tree, a retreat path must be planned and
cleared. This provision also requires that the retreat path extend
diagonally away from the expected felling line. This provision also
includes an exception to the diagonal retreat path when the employer
demonstrates that in the particular situation such a retreat path is
not feasible or poses a greater hazard than an alternative retreat
path. The proposed rule contained a requirement for planning and
clearing a retreat path before commencing cutting. However, the
proposed rule required that the retreat path ``extend back and
diagonally to the rear'' of the expected felling line. This language
also was contained in the 1978 ANSI logging standard.
One commenter contended that a diagonal retreat path may not lead
to the safest location in the felling area, therefore, it would be
inappropriate for OSHA to designate a required retreat direction in the
standard (Ex. 5-35). The record shows that the clearance of a retreat
path so the feller is able to move rapidly and safely away from a
falling tree is essential to prevent injuries. According to the WIR
survey, 24 percent of all reported injuries resulted from being hit by
a tree and half of these injuries involved falling trees. OSHA believes
there are many kinds of hazards that necessitate a quick and clear
retreat path. For example, the tree being felled can split and part of
the tree may then fall in an unexpected direction. In heavily wooded
areas, the tree being felled can strike another tree that can cause the
first tree or parts of either tree to fall or fly in an unexpected
direction. In addition, planning and clearing a path prior to cutting a
tree is especially important when the terrain is covered with
obstructions such as snow, water or heavy undergrowth. These
obstructions could cause the feller to be injured if they impede the
feller's ability to rapidly retreat or cause him to trip or fall. For
these reasons, OSHA has retained the requirement to plan and clear a
retreat path before felling the tree.
OSHA has addressed in the final rule the concerns raised by the
commenter. As a general rule, OSHA believes that a diagonal retreat
path is the safest location in the felling area. The ANSI standard,
developed by persons experienced in the logging industry, recognized
that same general safe work practice. OSHA recognizes that when the
retreat path is planned prior to cutting, the employer may find that a
diagonal retreat path poses greater hazards than an alternative path.
For example, excessive slopes, rocks or other trees in the path of a
diagonal retreat may create hazards that are not present in an
alternative retreat path. In such cases, the final rule permits the
employee to use an alternate retreat path.
OSHA notes that the employer bears the burden of demonstrating that
the diagonal retreat path poses a greater hazard. OSHA also notes that
the exception is a case-by-case determination. That is, the general
rule requiring a diagonal retreat path is to be applied in all manual
felling activities. The exception only applies when the feller, in
planning a particular retreat path, determines that a diagonal retreat
poses a greater hazard.
Paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of the final rule requires that before each
tree is felled, conditions shall be evaluated in the work area and
precautions taken so a hazard is not created for an employee.
Conditions that must be evaluated include, but are not limited to, snow
and ice accumulation, wind, lean of the tree, dead limbs and location
of other trees. This provision parallels the requirement contained in
the proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard.
OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this provision. Many
commenters discussed the hazardous nature of working conditions in the
logging industry, and noted that these conditions are constantly
changing (Ex. 5-12, Tr. W1 76, 88). Because conditions can change with
each tree that is being felled, it is important that the feller assess
in advance the conditions and hazards that may be present. In order for
fellers to understand what conditions and hazards may be present and
must be appraised, it is important that the employer should include
this discussion in training sessions and monthly safety and health
meetings.
Paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of the final rule requires that each tree be
checked for accumulations of snow or ice. This provision also requires
that accumulations of snow and ice that may create a hazard for an
employee must be removed before felling is started in the area or the
area must be avoided. This provision parallels the requirement
contained in the proposed rule.
One commenter said that this provision would require logging
establishments to cease felling operations during winter months (Ex. 5-
51). OSHA does not agree with the characterization that the commenters
draw about the proposed rule. OSHA is aware that logging operations are
carried out in many types of weather conditions. OSHA does not believe
that this provision requires logging operations to close down during
the winter. However, when accumulations of snow and ice may create a
hazard for an employee, that hazard must be removed or avoided. The
record shows that removing or avoiding hazardous accumulations of snow
and ice is necessary to protect logging employees from injury.
According to the WIR survey, six percent of employees injured said that
weather conditions such as snow and ice had contributed to their
accident (Ex. 2-1).
Paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of the final rule requires that when a spring
pole or other tree is under stress, no employee other than the feller
may be closer than two tree lengths when the stress is released. This
provision was included in the proposed rule, however, the proposed rule
did not require that employees be at least two tree lengths away.
Rather, it required that employees be in the clear when the stress is
released.
Various commenters recommended that OSHA establish a uniform
minimum safe distance for all work areas (Ex. 5-18, 5-21, 5-34, 5-36,
5-39, 5-63, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. W2 163, 197). OSHA agrees with these
commenters and has included a minimum two tree-length distance in this
provision. The record shows that this distance is necessary to protect
employees from being injured or killed by trees under stress. According
to the WIR survey, 11 percent of employees who reported injuries said
that wood being under tension had contributed to their accident (Ex. 2-
1). The OSHA FCI report indicated that four employees were killed when
they were struck by propelled or whiplashing tree limbs (Ex. 4-61).
Paragraphs (h)(2) (v), (vi) and (vii) require undercutting and
backcutting of each tree being felled.
In paragraph (h)(2)(v) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
each tree being felled be undercut unless the employer demonstrates
that felling the particular tree without an undercut will not create a
hazard for an employee. This paragraph also requires that the undercut
be of a size so the tree will not split and will fall in the intended
direction. The proposed rule contained a provision requiring
undercutting of each tree being felled, however, the proposed provision
did not provide for any exceptions. OSHA received many comments on this
provision, which have been discussed above in the Major Issues section.
At paragraphs (h)(2) (vi) and (vii) of the final rule, OSHA is
requiring that each tree be backcut. OSHA is also requiring that the
backcut allow for sufficient hinge wood to guide the tree and prevent
it from prematurely slipping or twisting off the trunk. OSHA is
requiring that the backcut be above the horizontal cut of the undercut.
In the final rule, OSHA is allowing one exception to the backcut
requirements. In tree pulling operations, the backcut may be at or
below the horizontal cut of the undercut. The proposed rule also
contained provision requiring backcutting of each tree being felled.
The proposed rule did not allow any exceptions to the backcut
requirement. OSHA received many comments on these provisions, which
have been discussed above in the Major Issues section.
Bucking and Limbing
Paragraph (h)(3) of the final rule establishes various necessary
work practices for bucking and limbing activities. According to the WIR
survey, 12 percent of the reported logging injuries occurred when the
employee was bucking or limbing (Ex. 2-1). The OSHA FCI report showed
that 16 employees were killed during bucking and limbing operations
(Ex. 4-61). The work practice requirements contained in this paragraph
address the hazards presented by log movement on slopes, by wind-thrown
timber and by trees that are yarded for bucking.
Paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the final rule requires that bucking and
limbing that are done on any slope where rolling or sliding of trees or
logs is reasonably foreseeable must be done on the uphill side of the
tree, unless the employer demonstrates that it is not feasible for
bucking or limbing to be done on the uphill side. This paragraph also
requires that whenever bucking or limbing is done on the downhill side,
the tree must be secured against movement to prevent rolling or
sliding. The proposed rule also contained a provision requiring bucking
and limbing to be done from the uphill side.
This provision was supported by one commenter (Ex. 5-17). The
record shows that bucking and limbing from the uphill side is necessary
to protect employees from being hit or crushed by rolling or sliding
trees or logs. As discussed above, according to the WIR survey, nearly
three-fifths of workers who reported injuries were working on moderate
to steep terrain at the time of their accident, and 10 percent of all
injured workers said steep terrain had been a factor in their accident
(Ex. 2-1). Bucking or limbing can cause loss of support for the tree
and cause it to shift, roll or slide unexpectedly. Blocking or chocking
a tree on a slope can never provide as much protection as avoiding the
hazard in the first place. The record shows that the only work method
in which it can be assured that an employee will not be hurt by a
rolling or sliding tree is by performing bucking and limbing on the
uphill side. As such, bucking and limbing from the downhill side is
permitted only in those cases when the employer is able to demonstrate
that it is not feasible to work from the uphill side. In those
particular cases, the tree must be restrained to reduce as much as
possible the possibility of the tree rolling or sliding. OSHA notes
that the burden of demonstrating infeasibility is on the employer. In
addition, the issue of the infeasibility of bucking and limbing from
the uphill side must be determined on a case-by-case basis when the
tree and the conditions in the area are carefully assessed.
Paragraph (h)(3)(ii) requires that when bucking or limbing wind-
thrown trees, precautions must be taken to prevent the root wad, tree
butt, or logs from striking an employee. These precautions include, but
are not limited to, chocking or moving the tree to a stable position
before bucking or limbing. The proposed rule also contained a
requirement for bucking or limbing wind-thrown trees. However, the
proposed rule did not specify what precautions should be taken.
Several commenters said that the proposed provision was too general
to be useful (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-74 through 5-92). These commenters said
that this was one of a series of proposed work practice requirements
which should be deleted from the final rule and included in topics that
must be covered in training sessions. OSHA believes that this work
practice requirement is necessary to address the significant risk of
injury during these activities. According to the WIR survey, 12 percent
of reported injuries occurred during bucking and limbing. OSHA does
agree with the commenters that these work practice requirements should
also be addressed in training sessions.
Chipping
At paragraph (h)(4) of the final rule, OSHA has specified various
work practices regarding chipping that is performed at in-woods
locations. Paragraph (h)(4)(i) of the final rule requires that access
covers or doors not be opened until the drum and disc is at a complete
stop. The access covers and doors are the means by which employees are
safeguarded from the risk of contacting these parts while they are
moving. This provision is adopted from the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI
logging standard also contains a similar provision. OSHA did not
receive any comment opposing this provision.
OSHA believes that this requirement is necessary to keep employees
away from the dangerous moving drums, discs, knives and blower blades
of a chipper. OSHA's FCI reported indicated that two employees have
been killed while operating a chipper or trying to free jammed logs
(Ex. 4-61). The moving chipper mechanism presents significant hazards,
and employees need protection from contact with those mechanisms when
they are moving.
Paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of the final rule requires that infeed and
discharge ports be guarded to prevent contact with the disc, knives, or
blower blades. This provision has been adopted from the proposed rule.
There were no comments opposing this provision.
Paragraph (h)(4)(iii) of the final rule requires that the chipper
be shut down and locked out in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.147 when an
employee performs any servicing of maintenance on the chipper. The
proposed rule required that the chipper be shut down and locked out
before an employee works in the infeed.
OSHA did not receive any comments opposing lockout of the chipper
while working on the infeed. OSHA received one comment stating that
lockout should be expanded to apply when an employee is working on the
drive mechanism or chipping disc (Ex. 5-28). The lockout/tagout
standard, 29 CFR 1910.147, applies to servicing and maintenance of all
machines and equipment in which the unexpected energization or start up
of the machine or equipment, or release of stored energy could cause
injury to employees. This includes machines and equipment used in
logging operations.
The lockout-tagout standard permits employers to either place a
lock or tag on any machine before beginning servicing. However, OSHA
believes that the environmental conditions involved in logging
operations necessitates the use of locks rather than tags when
servicing chippers. As OSHA stated in the preamble of the lockout/
tagout standard, it is intended to interact with any new or revised
standard to address the use of specific control measures on an
individual basis (54 FR 36644, 36665, Sept. 1, 1989). Selection of the
specific method of control, at that time, will reflect a thorough
evaluation of the extent of exposure to the hazard, the risk of injury
involving the particular machine or industry, and the feasibility of
applying a particular method of control. OSHA also pointed in the
preamble of the lockout/tagout standard that damage to or loss of
tagout devices is a serious drawback to the use of tagout. Logging
operations are carried out in all kinds of weather, including rain,
snow, ice and wind, and there is a significant possibility that tags
could be damaged or lost. In such circumstances, OSHA believes only
locking machinery will provide adequate protection for employees who
are servicing it. Therefore, OSHA is requiring chippers to be shut down
and lockout out before an employee performs any servicing or
maintenance activities.
Paragraph (h)(4)(iv) of the final rule requires that detached
chippers be chocked during usage on any slope when movement of the
chipper is reasonably foreseeable. As with other mobile equipment that
is intended to be operated from a stationary position, the unexpected
movement of the equipment can endanger employees who are either
operating the equipment or in the path of the equipment when it moves.
The vibration caused by the operation of the equipment can enhance the
potential for unintended equipment movement. Chocking of mobile
equipment to prevent movement is recognized throughout industry as a
necessary and appropriate means to prevent unintended movement. For
example, OSHA requires in 29 CFR 1910.178(k)(1) that trailers be
chocked before being boarded by powered industrial trucks.
Yarding
Paragraph (h)(5) specifies various work practice requirements
covering yarding activities. Paragraph (h)(5)(i) of the final rule
requires that logs not be moved until each employee is in the clear.
This provision has been adopted from the proposed rule. Movement of
logs when employees are in the immediate area can result in an injury
to those employees.
According to the WIR survey, almost 20 percent of employees injured
were involved in yarding operations at the time of their accident (Ex.
2-1). When a log is moved on uneven, unimproved terrain, the exact path
that the log will follow is impossible to predict. When they are being
moved, logs may roll over, or the loose end of a log may flip back and
forth (fishtail). Movement in an unanticipated direction can cause the
log to strike an employee, causing serious injury. OSHA has included
this requirement in the final rule to ensure that when logs are moved,
all personnel must be safely positioned and not exposed to a hazard.
OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this provision.
Paragraph (h)(5)(ii) of the final rule requires that each choker be
hooked and unhooked from the uphill side or end of the tree or log when
rolling or sliding is reasonably foreseeable, unless the employer
demonstrates that it is not feasible in the particular situation to
hook or unhook the choker from the uphill side. This provision also
requires that when the choker is hooked or unhooked from the downhill
side, the log shall be securely blocked or chocked to prevent rolling
or swinging. The proposed rule also specified that chokers be hooked
and unhooked from the uphill side when feasible unless the log is
securely blocked to prevent rolling or swinging. The 1978 ANSI logging
standard also contained a similar requirement. There were no comments
opposing this provision.
Employees who hook and unhook chokers on sloping terrains face the
same hazard of rolling or sliding logs as do fellers, buckers, limbers
and other employees. According to the WIR survey, 19 percent of the
injuries reported occurred during choker setting, hooking and unhooking
(Ex. 2-1). In addition, the WIR survey indicates that nearly three-
fifths of all workers injured were working on moderate to steep terrain
at the time of their accidents. The final rule makes clear OSHA's
intention that all hooking and unhooking of chokers must be from the
uphill side or end when rolling or sliding is reasonably foreseeable.
This is the only work location in which it can be assured that an
employee will not be hurt by a rolling or sliding tree. For this
reason, hooking or unhooking chokers from the downhill side is not
permitted simply because the tree has been secured with a chock.
Rather, the employer must evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether it
is possible to hook or unhook from the uphill side. Only when the
employer has demonstrated that hooking or unhooking the choker from the
uphill side or end is not feasible in the particular situation is
hooking or unhooking the choker from the down hill side permitted.
Paragraph (h)(5)(iii) of the final rule requires that each choker
be positioned near the end of the log or tree length. This provision
was adopted from the proposed rule. There were no comments opposing
this provision.
Positioning a choker at the end of the log ensures that the log is
moved along its longitudinal axis. Hooking up and skidding a tree or
log requires much less energy than trying to move the tree or log
sideways. If an employee were to try to move a tree or log by dragging
it sideways (perpendicular to its longitudinal axis) the tree or log
could become wedged behind another tree, a rock, or a stump, causing
the premature failure of the haulage equipment and the possibility of
employee injury if the restraint were to suddenly break or release the
tree or log. Because of these hazards, the usual practice in non-cable
yarding is to skid or drag a tree or log when moving it. When trees or
logs are skidded, the choker is hooked to the end of the tree or log
and it is pulled along the ground.
Paragraph (h)(5)(iv) of the final rule requires that each machine
be positioned during winching so the machine and winch are operated
within their design limits. The proposed rule required that the machine
be positioned so that the winch line is as near in alignment as
possible with the long axis of the machine, unless the machine is
designed to be used under different conditions of alignment.
One commenter opposed the proposed provision for several reasons
(Ex. 5-34). First, the commenter said that some machines, such as cats
and skidders, are designed to sustain winching strain from a much
broader angle than straight behind the machine, therefore, the proposed
provision was needlessly restrictive if the machine is being operated
within its rated capacity. Second, the commenter said it was not
possible to comply with the provision in many situations. For example,
the commenter said arches are normally equipped with fairleads and
grapples that swing sideways out of alignment with the long axis of the
machine. Third, the commenter said the provision would create a greater
hazard when winching is conducted on very steep terrain. In such cases,
the commenter said, it is more important that the machine be positioned
to assure maximum stability rather than positioning the machine
relative to the log being winched.
OSHA recognizes that exact alignment is not always possible in the
woods. OSHA also recognizes that a machine may have a winch mounted on
it that may work off the side or front of the machine, and that
aligning the winch line with the long axis of the machine may not be
the safest manner to operate the winch.
OSHA agrees with this commenter that what is most important is that
the design limits of the machine and winch not be exceeded. Therefore,
OSHA has revised the wording of this provision to ensure that winching
operations conducted with machines are performed within the design
limitations of the machines.
Paragraph (h)(5)(v) of the final rule requires that no line be
moved unless the yarder operator has clearly received and understood
the signal to do so. This provision also requires that when the yarder
operator is in doubt, the operator must repeat the signal and wait for
a confirming signal before moving any line. This provision has been
adopted from the proposed rule. A similar provision also was contained
in the 1978 ANSI logging standard and in various State logging
standards (Ex. 2-14, 2-18, 2-20, 38J). OSHA did not receive any
comments opposing this provision.
OSHA believes that adequate communication is necessary for the safe
movement of trees and logs. If the yarder operator begins moving the
tree or log before the choker setter or chaser has moved to a safe
location, the choker setter or chaser could be injured if struck or
caught by a yarding line, carriage, or choker, or by the tree or log.
Paragraph (h)(5)(vi) of the final rule requires that the load shall
not exceed the rated capacity of the pallet or other carrier. This
provision has been adopted from the proposed rule. OSHA did not receive
any comments opposing this provision. This provision is an outgrowth of
the requirement that the rated capacity of machines shall not be
exceeded. In order to prevent machines from rollovers and tipovers, it
is also essential that loads on trailers not exceed the maximum
capacity the trailer was designed to carry and the machine was designed
to transport. If loads exceed the maximum capacity, the machine
operator will be at greater risk of rollover or tipover. As discussed
above, a significant number of fatalities have occurred in the logging
industry due to rollover accidents. NIOSH reported that 80 logging
employees were killed in machine rollover accidents from 1980-85 (Ex.
5-42). The State of Washington reported that 12 logging employees were
killed in rollover accidents from 1977-83 (Ex. 4-129).
Paragraph (h)(5)(vii) of the final rule requires that towed
equipment must be attached to the machine or vehicle in such a manner
as to allow a 90 degree turn, to prevent overrunning of the towing
machine or vehicle and to assure that the operator is always in control
of the towed equipment. Towed equipment includes but is not limited to
skid pans, pallets, arches and trailers. This provision parallels the
proposed requirement. There were no comments opposing this provision.
OSHA's intention in this provision is two-fold. First, OSHA
believes this provision is necessary to help reduce the potential for
rollover of vehicles or machines that are moving equipment to various
work sites. For example, a trailer carrying a maximum load could tip
over or roll over and cause the towing machine or vehicle to roll over
if the loaded trailer cannot make a full 90 degree turn. Second, this
provision is necessary to help assure that material handling equipment
is not overloaded. This provision must be viewed in conjunction with
the requirement that loads must not exceed the rated capacity of the
trailer or other carrier on which it is being towed. For example, when
towed equipment exceeds the rated capacity of the towing trailer, it
may overrun the towing machine or vehicle. When the rate capacity of
the trailer is exceeded there is an increased likelihood that the
operator may lose control over the towed equipment and an accident
could result.
Paragraph (h)(5)(viii) of the final rule requires that each yarding
machine or vehicle, including its load, must be operated with safe
clearance from all obstructions. This provision has been adopted from
the proposed rule. There were no comments opposing this requirement.
Paragraph (h)(5)(ix) of the final rule requires that each yarded
tree must be placed in a location that does not create a hazard for an
employee and be placed in an orderly manner so that the trees are
stable before other work, such as bucking or limbing, is commenced. The
proposed rule required that trees yarded for bucking shall be safely
located and stable before bucking is commenced. There were no comments
opposing this provision.
In the final rule, OSHA has expanded this provision to provide that
no work is commenced until yarded trees are stabilized and safely
located. OSHA believes it is necessary to apply this provision to all
work done in the area of yarded trees. The WIR survey indicates that
the single greatest cause of accidents in the logging industry is being
injured by a tree, log or limb and a significant number of employees
were injured performing bucking and limbing (Ex. 2-1). If operations,
such as bucking or limbing, are located too close to other work
operations, unsuspecting loggers could be injured by a rolling log.
Moreover, if yarded trees or stacks of trees are not stabilized,
loggers performing work activities involving these trees could be at
substantial risk of injury if the unstabilized trees move, shift or
roll.
In the final rule, OSHA has not retained two proposed requirements
from this paragraph. The first would have required the examination of
spar trees for defects before they are rigged. This provision has been
deleted because it relates to the construction of cable yarding systems
that is not covered by the final rule.
The second provision would have required unstable trees and spars
to be guyed to ensure stability. Some commenters said that requiring
employees to climb on and rig unstable trees presents a greater hazard
than does felling an unguyed tree (Ex. 5-17, 5-21). The weight of the
climber and his rigging gear could cause the tree to break off and fall
over, resulting in serious injury or death to the climber. OSHA has
addressed in other ways the hazards associated with danger trees
through other practice requirements. For example, the final rule
requires danger trees to be felled or removed before any work can be
commenced in the area.
Loading and Unloading
Paragraph (h)(6) of the final rule specifies various work practice
requirements regarding loading and unloading trees onto transport
machines or vehicles. These requirements were based on those in the
1978 logging standard and various State logging standards (Ex. 2-17, 2-
18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 38J, 38K). OSHA believes these work practices are
necessary to protect employees from being hit by machines, vehicles,
trees and logs during loading and unloading. The WIR survey indicates
that five percent of the injuries reported occurred during loading or
unloading (Ex. 2-1). The State of Washington study indicated that five
percent of all deaths occurred during loading and unloading operations
(Ex. 4-129).
Paragraph (h)(6)(i) of the final rule requires that the transport
machine or vehicle be positioned to provide working clearance between
the vehicle and deck of trees or logs. This provision parallels the
requirement contained in the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI logging
standard contained a similar provision.
Several commenters supported the need for adequate room between
transport equipment and trees or logs (Ex. 5-21, 5-74 through 5-92).
These commenters pointed out that room needs to be provided on the
landing for the transport machine or vehicle and its counterweights,
especially when landings are on sloped terrain. The record supports
these commenters' position. According to the State of Washington study,
almost 10 percent of all deaths reported occurred when an employee was
struck by mobile equipment and five percent of all deaths involved
employees performing loading operations (Ex. 4-129). OSHA believes that
the employer must consider several factors in determining an adequate
work clearance for loading and unloading. These factors include, but
are not limited to, the type of loading machine and transport vehicle
being used, the physical characteristics of the load being moved, and
the layout of the area where the operation is being conducted. For
example, if the vehicle is a self-loading log truck, it will have to be
positioned close to the deck of logs to allow the truck to be loaded.
On the other hand, if a crane or other material handling machine is
used to load and unload the transport vehicle, the machine must be
positioned so that it can reach both the deck of logs and the vehicle
without exceeding the rated capacity of the machine.
Paragraph (h)(6)(ii) of the final rule requires that only the
loading or unloading machine operator and other personnel that the
employer demonstrates are essential shall be allowed in the work area
during loading and unloading. This provision parallels the provision
contained in the proposed rule and in the 1978 ANSI logging standard.
There were no comments opposing this provision. OSHA believes this
provision is necessary because, as discussed above, many injuries and
fatalities in the logging industry involve loading operations. For
example, the State of Washington study reported that three employees
were killed when they were struck by logs falling from the transport
vehicle during loading (Ex. 4-129).
In the final rule, OSHA is clarifying its intention that the
employer bears the burden of proving that personnel other than the
machine operator who are in the loading or unloading area are essential
to that activity. OSHA notes that this is a case-by-case determination
that requires the employer to evaluate the needs and conditions present
at the time.
Paragraph (h)(6)(iii) of the final rule requires that no transport
vehicle operator remain in the cab during loading and unloading if logs
are carried or moved over the cab, unless the employer demonstrates
that it is essential for the operator to be in the cab. This provision
also requires that when the transport vehicle operator remains in the
cab during loading or unloading operations, the employer must provide
operator protection such as, but not limited to, reinforcement of the
cab. The proposed rule specifies that no transport vehicle operator
remain in the cab during loading and unloading unless the employer
demonstrates that it was necessary for the operator to be in the cab.
The 1978 ANSI logging standard contained a similar requirement.
OSHA received many comments on this provision (Ex. 5-17, 5-21, 5-
33, 5-34, 5-74 through 5-92). Several commenters stated that there were
so many situations in which it is essential for transport vehicle
operators to be in the cab or on the vehicle during loading and
unloading that the exceptions would overwhelm the rule (Ex. 5-21, 5-34,
5-36, 5-74 through 5-92). For example, commenters said that self-
loading logging trucks must be operated by the driver from an elevated
seat above the cab (Ex. 5-21, 5-36). In other loading operations the
operator is required to move the transport vehicle back and forth in
the loading chute to position the log on the load (Ex. 5-34).
Several commenters said that the cab may be the safest place for
the transport vehicle operator to be during loading and unloading (Ex.
5-17, 5-33, 5-34). One commenter said that greater hazards were posed
for the operator when not in the cab (Ex. 5-34). For example, the
operator outside the cab can be struck by logs that fall off the load
or come out of the jaws of the loading machine, or by the loading
machine itself. This commenter pointed out that in the State of
Washington there have been numerous fatalities and serious injuries
reported when the operator was outside the cab, but none reported when
the operator was in the cab (Ex. 5-34). As such, this commenter said
that many logging establishments will only permit logs to be unloaded
if the transport vehicle operator is in the cab (Ex. 5-34).
OSHA believes the record shows that in some situations the safest
place for the transport vehicle operator will be in the cab (e.g., Ex.
4-129). The WIR survey appears to support this position, in that only
three percent of all injuries reported involved mobile equipment (Ex.
2-1). By contrast, almost one-fourth of all injuries reported resulted
from being hit by a tree or falling in the work site. However, there
are some hazards to operators who remain in cabs during loading and
unloading. Any time logs are carried or moved over the cab, it is
possible due to equipment failure or operator error that the log could
fall on the cab and seriously injure the operator.
In other standards OSHA has recognized the hazard of carrying loads
over people. These standards include requirements that material
handling equipment operators avoid this practice (See 29 CFR 1910.179,
29 CFR 1910.180, 29 CFR 1910.181). In many new self-loading trucks, the
hoist mechanism is behind the cab, a location which prevents the
movement of logs over the cab (Ex. 5-71). In other situations, however,
logs are still moved or carried over the cab. It is not safe for the
operator to be in the cab in those situations. Therefore, when logs are
carried or moved over the cab, the final rule requires that the
operator not remain in the cab if the employer has not demonstrated
that it is essential for the operator to do so. If it is essential for
the operator to be in the cab when logs are carried or moved over the
cab, the employer must provide protection for the operator. The final
rule states that this protection includes but is not limited to
reinforcement of the cab.
Paragraph (h)(6)(iv) of the final rule requires that each log be
placed on the transport vehicle in an orderly manner and tightly
secured. This provision parallels the requirement contained in the
proposed rule. There were no comments opposing this provision.
OSHA believes that this provision is necessary to protect employees
from the hazards that result from haphazard loading and inadequately
securing the load. For example, when the load is not properly stacked
and/or tightly secured, logs can swing in the tie downs and hit an
employee. In addition, the load can shift and cause both the trailer
and transport machine or vehicle to rollover. Proper stowage of vehicle
loads has the added advantage of providing, in most cases, a more
compact load with a lower center of gravity, one that is safer to move.
Paragraph (h)(6)(v) of the final rule requires that the load be
positioned to prevent slippage or loss during handling and transport.
This requirement parallels the provision contained in the proposed
rule. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this provision. A load
that is improperly positioned can roll or shift at any time, thereby
potentially endangering any employee who might be close at hand.
Paragraph (h)(6)(vi) of the final rule requires that each stake and
chock used to trip loads must be constructed so the tripping mechanism
is activated on the side opposite the release of the load. OSHA has
adopted this provision from the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI logging
standard also contained a similar provision. There were no comments
opposing this provision. OSHA believes this provision is necessary to
protect employees from sudden or unexpected shifts or movements of the
logs when a load is released. Only by keeping employees out of the
potential paths of the shifting or moving logs can there be assurance
that the employee will not be struck by a log.
Paragraph (h)(6)(vii) of the final rule requires that each tie down
be left in place over the peak log to secure the logs until the
unloading lines or other equivalent protection have been put in place.
This provision also specifies that a stake of sufficient strength to
withstand forces of shifting logs shall be considered to provide
protection equivalent to a tie down, provided that the logs are not
loaded higher than the stake. This provision parallels the requirement
contained in the proposed rule.
The West Virginia Forestry Association supported this provision
(Ex. 5-54). They said that several recent serious logging accidents had
occurred in their state because logs loaded too high have fallen off
the transport vehicle.
Due to the vibration of the load during transport, the load can
shift or move so that when the restraints are removed, the load will
roll or otherwise fall off the truck, thereby endangering the employee
who must remove the restraints. For this reason, OSHA has specified the
necessary and appropriate work practices that must be followed to
ensure the safe unloading of transport vehicles.
Paragraph (h)(6)(viii) of the final rule requires that each tie
down be released only from the side on which the unloading machine
operates. This provision also permits two exceptions to this
requirement in situations when the tie down is released by a remote
control device and when the employee making the release is protected by
racks, stanchions or other protection the employer demonstrates is
capable of withstanding the force of moving and shifting logs. This
requirement parallels the provision contained in the proposed rule and
the 1978 ANSI logging standard.
Several commenters suggested that the exceptions to the release
requirement be eliminated (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-74 through 5-92). However,
these commenters did not provide any discussion to support their
position. OSHA believes that adequate protection is provided in the
alternate releasing methods that are excepted from this provision to
protect the machine or vehicle operator from being hit by moving or
shifting trees or logs.
Transport
Paragraph (h)(7) of the final rule requires the transport vehicle
operator to assure that each tie down is tight before transporting the
load. In addition, this paragraph requires that while en route, the
operator shall check and tighten tie downs whenever there is reason to
believe that the tie downs have loosened or the load has shifted. The
proposed rule also contained a provision requiring the transport
operator to assure that tie downs have been tightened and to check and
tighten the tie downs as necessary while en route. The 1978 ANSI
logging standard contained a provision similar to the proposed rule.
One commenter opposed the provision, believing that the provision
required transport vehicle operators to implement a regular schedule of
stopping and checking on tie downs, regardless of whether there is
reason to suspect they are loose (Ex. 5-35). OSHA has more clearly
stated its original intention in the final that the operator must check
tie downs whenever there is reason to believe they are loose or the
load has shifted. For example, this would occur if an operator can feel
the load shift, or knows that the transport vehicle has hit an object
or pothole which jarred the load. OSHA believes this work practice is
necessary to protect the transport vehicle operator from having an
accident due to logs shifting or breaking the tie downs. In addition,
this provision is necessary to protect the transport vehicle operator
from being hit by shifting or moving trees when he unloads the vehicle.
Storage
Paragraph (h)(8) of the final rule requires that each deck of logs
be stacked and located so it is stable and provides each employee with
enough room to safely move and work in the area. This provision has
been adopted from the proposal. The 1978 ANSI logging standard
contained a similar requirement. There were no comments opposing this
provision.
This provision combines two different requirements. First, this
paragraph requires that decks and piles of logs be constructed so they
are stable. OSHA believes that decks must be carefully stacked so logs
do not shift, roll or fall off the deck and strike an employee who may
be working or passing through the storage area. Second, this paragraph
requires that the work activities in the vicinity of the storage are
well-planned so enough room is provided for those work activities so
that an employee is not harmed if the stacked logs shift, roll or fall.
OSHA believes these work practices are necessary to protect employees
working in the landing area. According to the WIR survey, 20 percent of
injuries reported involved accidents at landing areas.
Paragraph (i) Training
In paragraph (i) of the final rule OSHA has specified various
training requirements. For several reasons OSHA believes training is a
critical element in a integrated control program to reduce the number
of accidents, and consequently, the number of fatalities and injuries
in the logging industry. First, the logging industry is a high hazard
industry. Employees need to be made aware of the various hazards so
they can actively participate in making the workplace safe. According
to the WIR survey, 10 percent of the workers who reported injuries said
that being unaware of the hazard had contributed to their accident.
Second, training is also essential in achieving compliance with the
substantive requirements of the standard, including the use of personal
protective equipment and safe work practices. Without effective
training, employees may not be aware of how to perform their job safely
or how the integrated controls can reduce injuries and fatalities.
Third, training is especially important in complying with the logging
standard because the standard relies heavily on safe work practices to
prevent accidents from occurring. Employees who are not trained in how
to perform their job safely can put themselves and other employees at
risk of injury. Various studies of accidents in the logging industry
indicate that poor work practices are a major contributing factor (Ex.
2-1, 4-3, 4-14, 4-15, 4-61, 4-63, 4-121, 4-125, 4-129, 4-138, 4-172, 5-
20). For example, according to an accident study conducted by one
commenter, 40 percent of accidents were due to poor planning, 40
percent were due to poor technique, and 15 to 18 percent were due to
carelessness (Ex. 5-20). Only 2 to 5 percent of the accidents were due
to equipment failure. The WIR survey indicated that poor work practices
of employees or a co-worker were a contributing factor in more than
one-half of all accidents reported (Ex. 2-1). OSHA's FCI report
indicated that unsafe work practices and misjudgments accounted for 42
percent of logging employees who were killed (Ex. 4-61).
Fourth, training is necessary to correct unsafe behavior before it
results in injury to the employee or others. In the WIR survey, injured
loggers reported that among the factors that contributed to the
accident were coworker's activity, misjudging time and distance needed
to avoid injury, using wrong cutting methods and not paying full
attention to work. In addition, a State of Washington study of
fatalities in the logging industry from 1977-83 concluded that over 90
percent of the deaths had been preventable (Ex. 4-129). Therefore, when
unsafe behavior is observed, it is important that proper work practices
be reinforced through additional training. Fifth, according to the WIR
survey, more than one third of all those injured had never received
training. Moreover, more than one half of injured loggers working in
non-western States (i.e., States without logging standards and training
requirements) had never received training.
Sixth, the logging industry itself supports the value of training
in reducing accidents (Ex. 4-181, 5-6, 5-17, 5-19, 5-20, 5-22, 5-29, 5-
33, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-47, 5-59, 9-5, 9-6; Tr. W2 125, OR 566).
Many commenters said their accident rates decreased after they
implemented a training program (Ex. 5-33, 9-5, 9-6; Tr. W2 125, OR
566). One company achieved a 63-percent reduction in lost workdays
within a year of implementing training (Tr. W2 125). The Montana
Logging Association reported that member companies had decreased
accidents by 52 percent after implementing training (Tr. OR 566). A
study for the International Woodworkers of America found a 71-percent
reduction in accidents in establishments in the Pacific Northwest
region who had implemented training programs (Ex. 4-181).
Paragraph (i)(1) requires that training be provided for each
employee, including supervisors, at no cost to the employee. The
proposed rule also required each employee to be trained. This provision
clarifies OSHA's intent that supervisors also must receive training.
OSHA believes that it is important that supervisors be trained since
they are responsible for making work assignments, determining work
areas, providing consultation when hazardous situations arise,
determining when new employees can begin to work independently, and
identifying and correcting unsafe job performance of employees they
supervise.
Some commenters raised the issue of cost and availability of
training programs, especially for small establishments (Ex. 5-19, 5-32,
5-51). However, other commenters said there are training resources that
are readily available for logging establishments (Ex. 5-20, 5-27, 5-52,
5-69, 36, 9-1). These include logging associations and companies which
currently offer logging training programs and traveling training
seminars, and video tapes which are available to employers. For
example, the Alaska Timber Insurance Exchange has established a video
library for policyholders to use as training supplements (Ex. 9-15).
The American Pulpwood Association said it was developing a logging
training that was to be available by the end of 1989 (Ex. 5-27). The
Associated Oregon Loggers has also developed logging training programs
for member companies (Ex. 36). One training company indicated it was
currently providing a variety of different logging training programs in
six different States (Ex. 5-20). OSHA also notes that several
commenters have expressed their willingness to work with OSHA to train
loggers (Ex. 5-18, 5-20, 5-27, 5-47, 5-52, 5-69).
Paragraph (i)(2) requires that training be provided as follows: as
soon as possible but not later than the effective date of this section
for initial training of each current employee who has not previously
received training; prior to initial assignment for each new employee
who has not previously received training; whenever an employee is
assigned new work tasks, tools, equipment, machines or vehicles; and
whenever an employee demonstrates unsafe job performance. When the
proposed rule did not require initial training for each current
employee, the proposed rule would have required training prior to
initial assignment; annual retraining of each employee; and retraining
whenever changes in job assignment would expose the employee to new or
additional hazards. OSHA received many comments on the training
provisions, some of which have already been discussed above in the
Major Issues section.
Many commenters raised the issue of whether experienced and/or
previously trained employees would be required to be retrained (Ex. 5-
19, 5-21, 5-28, 5-29, 5-33, 5-35, 5-39, 5-43, 5-49, 5-74 through 5-92,
9-1; Tr. W1 63, OR 85). Some commenters favored training of all
workers, regardless of their previous employment experience (Ex. 5-19,
5-28, 5-29, 5-35). Other commenters said that previously trained or
experienced workers should be excepted from training requirements (Ex.
5-21, 5-36, 5-39, 5-43, 5-49, 5-52, 5-74 through 5-92).
As discussed above in the Major Issues section, OSHA believes that
employees who have never received training must be trained, regardless
of their level of experience. The need to provide training for
experienced loggers who have not previously received such training is
supported by the WIR survey, that indicates that over one third of
those injured had never received training and 56 percent of those
injured had worked in the logging industry for 5 years or more. By
contrast, only 22 percent of those injured had worked in the logging
industry for one year or less. In addition, the WIR survey indicates
that the employees who were injured performed the activity in which
they were injured on almost a daily basis. (OSHA is allowing an
exception to initial training for previously trained employees. See
discussion of paragraph (i)(5)).
OSHA also received several comments on annual retraining of
employees. Some commenters said annual retraining is necessary (Ex. 5-
34, 5-43, 9-3, 9-9, 9-13, 9-20). One commenter said that machine
operators should be retrained at least annually (Ex. 5-34). However,
other commenters questioned the need for annual retraining of loggers
and suggested that retraining could be handled in regular safety and
health meetings (Ex. 5-19, 5-29, 5-43). One commenter also said
retraining should be limited to an ``as needed basis'' (Ex. 5-19).
OSHA has addressed these concerns in the final rule. Instead of an
annual retraining provision, the final rule contains provisions
requiring employers to hold safety and health meetings at least once a
month (paragraph (i)(11)), and to retrain any employee who demonstrates
unsafe job performance. OSHA agrees with the commenters that these new
provisions are more responsive to addressing new hazards and unsafe job
performance than is an annual retraining requirement. These provisions
also require the employer to address unsafe job performance
immediately. These provisions require the employer to address new
hazards as they appear in the workplace in monthly safety and health
meetings. In addition to being more responsive to hazards as they
appear in the workplace, OSHA believes these provisions will be less
burdensome on employers, especially small employers with limited
resources. OSHA anticipates that only a portion of employees will need
to be retrained due to unsafe job performance. Also OSHA believes that
for many employers ongoing monthly safety and health meetings will be
incorporated into job planning meetings that are well-established in
the logging industry. (Safety and health meetings are addressed further
in discussion of paragraph (i)(11)).
OSHA received comments supporting the need for training of new
inexperienced employees and training employees assigned to new job
tasks, tools, equipment, machines or vehicles (Ex. 5-19, 5-21, 5-28).
There were no comments opposing these provisions, therefore, OSHA has
retained these requirements in the final rule.
OSHA has added the requirement of retraining of employees
demonstrating unsafe job performance based on practice in the industry.
OSHA received comment that some employers who are providing training do
require retraining where unsafe job performance is identified (Ex. 29).
The proposed rule also contained minimum training elements that
included recognition of safety hazards associated with the employee's
particular work tasks and the protective and preventive measures to
deal with those hazards; recognition and prevention of general safety
hazards in the logging industry; and safe use and maintenance of any
machine, equipment or tool used by an employee. One commenter agreed
that training should list the hazards of each step of an employee's job
and describe how these particular hazards could be controlled (Ex. 5-
17). There were no comments opposing this provision.
In the final rule, OSHA has added the requirement that employees be
trained in the procedures, practices and requirements of the employer's
work site in recognition of the number of comments who describe the
logging industry as highly transient (Ex. 5-21, 5-74 through 5-92).
While new employees may be experienced and well-trained in the
recognition of hazards of the job and in the safe use of equipment of
the trade, they may be unaware of the operating protocol of a
particular establishment, such as how work activities are organized, or
what system of signals is being used. OSHA has also added a provision
in the final rule requiring that each employee be trained in the
requirements of this section. OSHA believes it is important that
employees know the various provisions of this section so they can
actively participate in contributing to their own protection. This
provision is included in other OSHA standards (e.g., 29 CFR 1910.132,
29 CFR 1910.146, 29 CFR 1910.1047).
Paragraph (i)(4) of the final rule permits the employer to limit
training of an employee due to unsafe job performance and for any
employee assigned to new work tasks, tools, equipment, machines or
vehicles to those content elements in paragraph (i)(3) that are
relevant to the circumstances giving rise to the need for training. The
proposed rule did not contain a similar provision. OSHA has added this
provision to reduce the burden of the training requirement by allowing
employers to focus the additional training on the elements necessary to
prepare the employee to safely perform the job or operate a new piece
of equipment. For example, OSHA is aware that an employee who is
assigned to operate a new machine, may not need retraining in
recognition of general hazards in the logging industry or the
requirements of the logging standard.
In paragraph (i)(5) of the final rule OSHA establishes certain
exceptions to the training requirement. Current and new employees who
have received training previously do not need to be retrained in those
elements of paragraph (i)(3) for which they have received training.
This paragraph also reinforces that each current and new employee must
still receive training in those elements for which they have not
previously been trained. Even though certain limited exceptions to the
training requirements are allowed, this paragraph reinforces that the
employer is responsible for ensuring that each current and new employee
can properly and safely perform the work tasks and operate the tools,
equipment, machines and vehicles used in their job. The proposed rule
would have required new employees to be trained, regardless of whether
they were experienced or had been trained previously, before initial
assignment. The proposed standard also would have required each new and
current employee to receive annual retraining.
Several commenters were confused about who was required to be
trained under the proposed rule and many commenters opposed retraining
of previously trained workers (Ex. 5-21, 5-33, 5-35, 5-39, 5-43, 5-53;
Tr. W1 63, OR 85). According to these commenters, employees move from
employer to employer and requiring retraining of each new employee
would be both duplicative and costly. As discussed above in the Major
Issues section, OSHA has addressed the commenters' concerns by allowing
previous training to be acceptable in lieu of new initial training for
both current and new employees. In order to determine whether the
training exception is applicable to a particular employee, the employer
must first ascertain whether previous training has satisfied the
training content requirements of paragraph (i)(3). Determining whether
previous training meets the requirements of this section should not be
difficult with regard to current employees. Employers can examine their
training materials to ensure that each of the training content
requirements has already been covered in training sessions. OSHA notes
that each current and new employee will at least have to be trained in
the requirements of this new standard. OSHA believes that many
employers will provide training on the new final rule in the monthly
safety and health meetings
It may, however, require additional effort for the employer to
determine whether a new employee has received training that meets the
requirements of the final rule. An employer cannot merely ask the new
employee whether he has been trained. Rather, under the training
certification requirements of this paragraph (see paragraph (i)(10)),
the employer must make a determination of whether and when the past
training was adequate to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph.
To determine whether past training was adequate, the employer will
have to go through two steps. First, the employer must inquire whether
the new employee had training in each of the elements specified in
paragraph (i)(3). When the new employee indicates that he has not
received training in a particular element, the employer will need to
provide training in that element. Second, when the employee indicates
that he had received training in each of the required elements, the
employer must then determine whether the particular training was
adequate. Most likely, the employer will make that determination while
the new employee is working under close supervision of a designated
person, as required by this paragraph. When the new employee, who has
been previously trained, can demonstrate the ability to safely perform
the job independently, the employee can then determine and certify that
previous training had been adequate.
At paragraph (i)(6) of the final rule, OSHA requires that each new
employee and each employee who is required to be trained by this
paragraph, to work under the close supervision of a designated person
until the employee is able to demonstrate the ability to safely perform
the new job independently. The proposed rule contained two provisions
specifying initial close supervision. One provision specified initial
close supervision for all power tool and machine operators and
associated maintenance personnel. The second provided initial close
supervision for each new employee, and each newly trained employee. In
addition, the State of Oregon logging standard requires initial close
supervision for new employees and requires experienced new employees to
demonstrate their competence before being allowed to perform the job
independently (Ex. 38K).
Several commenters supported this provision (Ex. 5-22, 5-42, 5-33,
5-39, 5-53, 5-55, 5-63, 9-9; Tr. W1 91-92, 172-73, OR 151-52, 216, 373,
377, 410). NIOSH said it was important in the logging industry to have
an adequate balance of classroom and on-the-job training (Ex. 5-42).
NIOSH said working with a designated person would be especially
effective for pointing out poisonous plants to inexperienced workers
(Ex. 5-42). Several commenters also supported limiting this provision
to only inexperienced workers (Ex. 5-33, 5-39, 5-53, 5-62, 5-74 through
5-92).
OSHA has carefully considered the comments and has decided for
several reasons that it is necessary in the final rule to retain the
requirement that each new and each newly-trained employee work under
the close supervision of a designated person initially. There are
several reasons for this determination. First, this requirement acts as
a final check on the competency of a newly-trained employee by allowing
the employer to measure in practical terms how well the employee has
absorbed the training. Second, this provision is also a measure of the
general effectiveness and adequacy of the employer's training program.
When employees are not able to demonstrate the ability to perform the
job safely, the employer needs to review and correct the training
program and retrain the workers.
Third, OSHA believes this provision is essential given the
inclusion of an initial training exception in the final rule for
previously trained workers. As discussed earlier, more than 60 percent
of all loggers who reported injuries in the WIR survey had been
previously trained (Ex. 2-1). This data supports the need for
safeguards to integrating new employees into the workplace if initial
training of each new employee is not required. Finally, this provision
is also a safeguard for integrating newly-trained employees and
employees whose unsafe job performance has necessitated retraining.
Paragraph (i)(7) of the final rule specifies various requirements
regarding first-aid training for each employee, including supervisors.
Paragraph (i)(7)(i) of the final rule requires that the employer assure
that each employee receives or has received first-aid and CPR training.
This provision also requires that first-aid training meet at least the
requirements of Appendix B. The proposed rule would have required only
supervisors, fellers and at least one additional person in each
operating area to have first-aid training. The proposed rule also would
have required that the first-aid training content meet the training
programs of the American Red Cross, the Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) or other equivalent program.
As discussed above in the Major Issues section, OSHA is expanding
the requirement on first-aid training to all employees. According to
the WIR survey, more than one-half of all injuries occurred at cutting
sites, that in most cases are remote from medical facilities and
personnel (Ex. 2-1). Also as discussed above in the Major Issues
section, OSHA is not requiring employers to provide the first-aid
training. The employer can meet the requirements of the standard by
assuring that employees he hires already have taken first-aid training.
The employer can also meet this requirement by requiring any worker in
his employ to take a first-aid training course from any organization in
the community whose program meets the requirements of this standard. In
addition, the standard does not require repeat first-aid training for
workers who have received first-aid training previously, provided the
training has met the content requirements of this standard and their
first-aid certificate is current.
With regard to first-aid training content, Appendix B specifies the
minimum content of required first-aid training. This content list
includes training in emergency situations that are most likely to arise
in the logging industry, such as control of bleeding and shock,
immobilization of injured persons, treatment of sprains and fractures,
and treatment of contact with poisonous plants or animals.
For several reasons, in the final rule, OSHA has specified the
minimum first-aid training requirements rather than simply referring to
programs provided by various organizations. First, the content list is
in keeping with OSHA's goal of developing performance language
standards. Second, the content list in Appendix B focuses on the types
of situations that are most likely to occur in the logging industry and
in remote work sites. General first-aid training programs may not
thoroughly cover the kinds of situations found in the logging industry.
Third, the content of training programs offered by various
organizations may change and an element crucial to first aid in remote
outdoor locations may be dropped. By specifying the minimum content,
the standard places training organizations on notice as to what
elements their program must include in order to meet the requirements
of this standard.
Fourth, by expressing the first-aid training requirements in
performance language, OSHA is providing employers with maximum
flexibility. Employers will not have to research the Red Cross and MSHA
training programs to see if a training program offered locally by
another organization meets the requirements of this standard. In
addition, by specifying the content, the standard leaves employers free
to develop their own first-aid training program or rely on outside
organizations to provide first aid training. Fifth, since the final
standard permits employers to require their employees to take first-aid
training rather than providing the training, it is important to provide
employees with an understandable criteria for determining whether the
training program they select meets the requirements of this standard.
Paragraph (i)(7)(ii) of the final rule requires that the employer
assure that each employee receives first-aid training at least every
three years and receives CPR training at least annually. The proposed
rule did not contain a similar requirement. Most first-aid training
organizations require retraining at the above frequency in order to
maintain a current certificate (Ex. 5-42). OSHA agrees with these
organizations that it is necessary to refresh one's first-aid skills on
a regular basis. Since these skills are not usually used on a daily
basis, trained persons may become less able to render these skills over
time without periodic refresher training. In addition, what constitutes
the best first-aid techniques and procedures changes over time.
Employees need to be retrained so their skills include the best and
most current practices.
Paragraph (i)(7)(iii) of the final rule requires that the employer
assure that each employee's first aid and CPR training and/or
certificate of training remain current. The proposed rule did not
contain a similar requirement. OSHA believes this provision is
essential given the inclusion of the exception in the final rule for
previously trained workers. In addition, it is essential because
employers can comply with the first-aid training provisions without
actually providing the training themselves. In essence, this provision
is similar to the provision in paragraph (i)(5) reinforcing that the
employer is responsible for assuring that the employee can safely
perform the job, even if the employer has not been required to actually
provide the training. Regardless of whether the employer provides
training or allows employees to take a first-aid program offered by
another organization, the employer is still responsible for assuring
that employees can render first aid properly if called upon.
At paragraph (i)(8) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that
training be conducted by a designated person. As discussed above, a
designated person is an employee who has the requisite knowledge,
training and experience to perform the specific duties. The proposed
rule did not contain a similar requirement.
Some commenters said that it was important that training be
conducted by a qualified or certified person (Ex. 9-3, 9-13, 9-16).
OSHA has included this provision in the final rule because the Agency
wants to assure that regardless of whether employers rely on their own
personnel to conduct training or utilize outside experts, the person
providing training must have the necessary qualifications and
background in the subject matter being taught.
Paragraph (i)(9) of the final rule requires that training required
by this section be presented in a manner that the employee is able to
understand. This provision also requires that the employer assure that
training materials are appropriate in content and vocabulary to the
educational level, literacy and language skills of the employees being
trained. A similar provision was not contained in the proposed rule.
OSHA has added this provision in the final rule as a way of ensuring
that all employees, regardless of their cultural or educational
background, will receive adequate training on how to perform their job
safely. OSHA notes that this requirement applies to both logging and
first-aid training.
Paragraph (i)(10) requires the certification of training. While
this provision was not contained in the proposed rule, several
commenters stressed the need to document training (Ex. 9-16, 9-18; Tr.
OR 137, 558-59, 643-44). OSHA agrees with these commenters that
documenting training is necessary. First, in the final rule OSHA has
allowed prior training to be acceptable in lieu of initial training. In
the proposed rule, OSHA had required that each new employee, regardless
of experience and prior training, receive training prior to initial
assignment. In order to accept prior training in lieu of new training,
OSHA believes employers must establish a process for determining
whether the prior training was adequate. The certification procedure
provides that process without imposing a significant burden. Second,
several commenters said that many establishments do not currently
document training (Tr. W1 95, OR 92). As such, employers do not have
any records to indicate whether appropriate training has been provided.
Third, some commenters testified that all training programs should
be written programs (Ex. 5-17, 5-42). While many large logging
establishments already have implemented impressive written training
programs, OSHA is also aware that a written training and recordkeeping
requirement would impose a paperwork burden and significant burden on
small employers in this industry (Ex. 5-44). OSHA believes that
training certification is a less burdensome way of documenting whether
employees have been adequately trained. OSHA notes that the time and
costs of training certification have been included in the final
regulatory impact analysis.
Paragraph (i)(10)(i) of the final rule requires that the employer
verify compliance with paragraph (i) of this section by preparing a
written certification record. This provision also requires that the
written certification record contain the name or other identity of the
employee trained, the date(s) of the training, and the signature of the
person who conducted the training or the signature of the employer. In
addition, this provision requires that if the employer relies on
training conducted prior to the employee being hired or prior to the
effective date of this section, the certification record shall indicate
the date the employer determined the prior training was adequate rather
than the date of actual training. The proposed rule did not contain a
certification requirement.
The Agency is adding this new provision to the final rule in large
part because it is allowing prior training to be accepted in place of a
new round of training. OSHA recognizes, given the transient nature of
the workforce in this industry, that in many cases an employer will be
unable to identify the date on which previous training was provided by
another employer. In those cases, OSHA believes that knowing the date
of the prior training is not as important as the employer's
determination as to whether the prior training is adequate. As such,
OSHA is requiring employers to certify on what date they determine the
prior training to be adequate. In the final rule OSHA has included a
measurable way to determine when and whether prior training had been
adequate. The final rule requires that each new employee work under
close supervision of a designated person until the employee
demonstrates the ability to safely perform the job independently. In
most cases, therefore, this demonstration date will constitute the
certification date.
Paragraph (i)(10)(ii) of the final rule requires that the most
recent training certification be maintained. This provision has been
included to limit the number of records that the employer is required
to maintain on training.
Paragraph (i)(11) of the final rule requires that the employer hold
safety and health meetings as necessary and at least each month for
each employee. This provision allows safety and health meetings to be
conducted individually, in crew meetings, in larger groups, or as part
of other staff meetings. The proposed rule did not contain a safety and
health meeting requirement. Many State logging standards also require
regular safety and health meetings in the logging industry (Ex. 2-17,
2-22, 2-23, 36, 38K). For example, the State of Washington logging
standard requires safety meetings to be held monthly and whenever work
is started at a new work site.
Many commenters supported the need for regular and ongoing safety
and health meetings for both inexperienced and experienced workers (Ex.
5-7, 5-19, 5-28; Tr. W1 93-95, 163, OR 92, 110, 137, 197, 204, 276,
335, 374, 643-44, 691-92). Several of these commenters indicated that
many establishments in the industry already hold safety and health
meetings on a regular basis. Several commenters said safety and health
meetings were an effective way of informing employees about hazards and
keeping their safety awareness high (Ex. 5-19, 5-28; Tr. W1 93-95, 163,
189-90, OR 92, 110, 137, 204, 276, 374, 643-44). One commenter said
that documented monthly safety and health meetings were necessary on
all logging operations ``to instill the necessary safe work attitude in
all logging employees'' (Ex. 5-28). Commenters also said safety and
health meetings were good for providing targeted information (Tr. W1
94, 164, 189, OR 110, 204-05, 373, 643). For example, they said safety
and health meetings were a way of informing employees about recent
accidents and about lapses in safe work practices, and to alert
employees about conditions and hazards peculiar to the job to be
performed or the site to be logged that day.
Commenters also said that safety and health meetings were necessary
for both inexperienced and experienced loggers (Ex. 5-19, 5-28, 5-45;
Tr. OR 335). One of these commenters said:
We don't feel that just new employees or green men ought to be
sitting in safety and health meetings. Repetition increases
retention, and everyone can benefit if they've heard it a hundred
times. Maybe they forgot it 99 [times] and it might save their life
or their buddy's life the next day (Tr. OR 335).
OSHA agrees with these commenters that safety and health meetings
are necessary to reinforce proper work practices and to alert employees
to particular hazards which are present in the workplace. OSHA believes
that regular safety and health meetings will provide adequate
retraining for employees in the logging industry, and that these
meetings are necessary in lieu of requiring annual retraining of
experienced workers.
Paragraph (j) Effective Date
As stated in paragraph (j), this final rule becomes effective 120
days after publication of the revised rule and preamble in the Federal
Register. Employers must be in compliance with all requirements of this
section by the effective date. One commenter recommended a three-year
delay in the effective date of this final rule to allow for
manufacturers' design and lead time and retrofitting of old equipment
(Ex. 5-22). OSHA believes that 120 days is a reasonable compliance time
for this standard for several reasons. First, the Agency is not
requiring retrofitting ROPS and FOPS on old machines or chain brakes on
chain saws. Those equipment requirements apply only to machines and
chain saws placed into initial service after the effective date. OSHA
believes that replacement of safety devices that have been removed,
such as seat belts, should not require additional compliance time.
Second, in the final rule OSHA has not adopted any equipment
requirements that are not already standard safety features of equipment
currently manufactured and readily available. Therefore, additional
compliance time is not warranted.
Finally, OSHA believes that allowing 120 days for employers to come
into compliance will provide employers with adequate time to
familiarize themselves with the final rule, to purchase needed
equipment, and to develop and conduct required training.
OSHA notes that the requirements of the existing pulpwood logging
standard remain in effect until the effective date.
Paragraph (k) Appendices
In paragraph (k) of the final rule, OSHA is specifying that
Appendix A on contents of first-aid kits and Appendix B on content of
first-aid training are mandatory. First-aid kits must contain at least
the items listed in Appendix A to meet the requirements of paragraph
(d)(2). First-aid training programs must cover the topics listed in
Appendix B to meet the requirements of paragraph (i)(7). Appendix C
contains a listing of comparable ISO standards to those Society of
Automotive Engineer standards referenced in the final rule. These SAE
standards cover ROPS, FOPS, seat belts and machine access. The
information contained in Appendix C (Corresponding ISO Agreements) is
purely informational and is not intended to create any additional
obligations not otherwise imposed or to detract from existing
obligations.
2. Summary and Explanation of Technical Amendments to 29 CFR
1910.269(r) and 29 CFR 1928.21(a)(3)
In this Federal Register document OSHA is also issuing technical
amendments to the Electric Power Generation standard (29 CFR 1910.269)
and to the standards for the agriculture industry (29 CFR
1928.21(a)(3)). Both standards have included a reference to the
existing logging standard. OSHA intends that both standards now
reference the revised logging standard in place of the pulpwood logging
standard.
VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and
Environmental Assessment
A. Introduction
The purpose of the revision of the existing pulpwood logging
standard, 29 CFR 1910.266, is to protect all loggers from the hazards
encountered during timber harvesting regardless of the end use of the
wood. Hazards are present, for example, due to falling, rolling or
sliding trees and logs, the use of hazardous equipment such as chain
saws, and improper work practices. According to BLS, these hazards
resulted in an accident incidence rate of 15.6 injuries per 100 full-
time workers in 1991, which is nearly twice the incidence rate of 7.9
injuries per 100 full-time workers for overall private sector. The
number of lost workdays in logging in 1991 was 274.8 per 100 full-time
workers, which is about three times that of manufacturing and four
times that of the overall private sector.
The existing logging standard applies only to the logging of wood
that is used to make pulp for paper and paperboard. Other logging
operations are not covered by the existing standard. However, other
general industry safety and health standards in Part 1910, such as but
not limited to, Occupational Noise Exposure (29 CFR 1910.95), Lockout/
Tagout (29 CFR 1910.147), and Personal Protective Equipment (29 CFR
Subpart I), apply to non-pulpwood logging operations, as well as the
General Duty clause of the OSH Act (Section 5(a)(1)).
The final rule expands the coverage of the pulpwood logging
standard to include all logging operations, regardless of the end use
of the wood. Many of the provisions in the pulpwood logging standard
have been retained in this standard. Some provisions have been
modified, such as those requiring safety and first-aid training for all
employees, and personal protective equipment. In certain cases, work
practices have been made more specific.
It should be noted that six State Plan States (Alaska, California,
Hawaii, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington) have developed logging
standards that cover all logging operations and are not limited to just
pulpwood logging.
This Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) has been prepared by OSHA
in compliance with Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The analysis was developed based on
information and comments in the OSHA logging docket and informal public
hearings.
B. Affected Industries and Workers
For purposes of analysis, logging operations in the United States
were divided in four relevant geographical regions--the North, the
South, the Rocky Mountains, and the Pacific Coast. The leading States
in logging employment in 1987 were Oregon, Washington, Alabama and
Georgia, which accounted for 40 percent of logging employment. The
final rule will affect approximately 72,100 employees engaged in
logging operations covered by the final rule and 11,936 logging
establishments. Almost 94 percent of all logging establishments employ
fewer than 20 employees and 60 percent of all logging employees work in
small establishments. These estimates do not include independent
contractors.
Affected workers include, but are not limited to, fellers and
buckers, who cut the trees; skidder and yarder operators, choker
setters, and chasers, who are responsible for delivering a felled tree
to the landing; and loader operators and truck drivers, who load the
trees onto trucks for transport to a mill. Although all stages of
logging present hazards to workers, the loggers most at risk are manual
felling crews rather than those who operate mechanical harvesting
equipment and are protected by enclosed cabs.
C. Technological Feasibility Determination
The work practice and training provisions as well as the
requirements regarding personal protective equipment and equipment
protective devices in the final rule are technologically feasible. The
fact that the requirements of the standard already are being achieved
in the logging industry is the best evidence of feasibility. The record
shows that many logging establishments are currently providing the
training, equipment protection devices and personal protective
equipment that would meet the requirements of the new standard. In
addition, the record also shows they are operating under the same work
practices as those required by the standard. Based on the record, OSHA
has determined that numerous logging establishments of all sizes are
already in compliance with most of the provisions of the final
standard. In addition, equipment protective devices and personal
protective equipment which are required by the final rule are all
commercially available. Therefore, OSHA has determined that the final
rule is technologically feasible.
D. Costs of Compliance
OSHA estimated compliance costs using data in the record on current
practices and exposed population, including a report prepared by
Centaur Associates, Inc. (Ex. 3). Based on all the data and evidence in
the record, OSHA estimates that first-year costs associated with
compliance will be $14.3 million. Total annualized cost of compliance
with the standard is estimated to be $12.5 million. Table 22 shows the
summary of costs of compliance with the final rule.
Table 22.--Summary of Costs to Comply With the Logging Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First year Annualized
Provision ----------------------------- Recurring cost ----------------------------
Cost (\1\) Cost (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training provisions:
Safety training..................... $1,481,635 10.3 $120,695 $120,695 1.0
Safety meetings..................... 469,251 3.3 469,251 469,251 3.7
First aid training.................. 3,410,935 23.8 3,410,935 3,410,935 27.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
5,361,820 37.4 4,000,881 4,000,881 31.9
Operators manuals..................... 189,293 1.3 189,293 189,293 1.5
Inspection and maintenance............ 5,396,789 37.6 5,396,789 5,396,789 43.0
Safety belt replacement............... 493,282 3.4 .............. 80,279 0.6
First aid kits........................ 267,593 1.9 232,028 232,028 1.8
Personal protective equipment......... 2,637,597 18.4 2,637,597 2,637,597 20.6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 14,346,375 ........... 12,456,588 12,809,333 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: (\1\) The number in these columns represent the percentage of the total cost that each provision
represents and that are incurred in the first year and in each year thereafter.
Source: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
Of the total annualized cost, 43 percent is attributable to
inspection and maintenance of logging equipment. Training costs, which
include safety and first-aid training as well as monthly safety and
health meetings, account for 32 percent. Personal protective equipment
accounts for about 21 percent of total annual costs. First-aid kits for
1.9 percent. Replacement of operator manuals or instructions accounts
for 1.5 percent and replacement of seat belts removed from machines and
vehicles accounts for about 0.6 percent of total costs.
D. Benefits of the Revised Standard
The record shows that injury rates in the logging industry are
high. In 1991, there were 15.6 injuries per 100 workers in the logging
industry as compared to an injury incidence rate of 7.9 and 11.2 per
100 workers in the private industry and manufacturing sectors,
respectively. Lost workday rates are especially high in the logging
industry, indicating that most logging accidents are serious. Based on
the data in the record, OSHA estimates that there are approximately 158
fatalities, 6,798 lost workday injuries, and 3,770 nonlost workday
injuries annually in the logging industry.
The revised standard mandates a variety of methods of control to
reduce hazards in the logging industry. Included in the standard are
provisions for personal protective equipment, machine protective
devices, equipment inspection and maintenance, work practices, and
training. The revised standard is expected to significantly reduce the
number of accidents, and, consequently, fatalities and injuries that
occur in the logging industry. The ability of the revised standard to
reduce accidents, injuries and fatalities depends largely on this
integrated program of controls to deal with the range of hazards that
exist in logging operations. For this reason, the effects of the
overall standard on workplace safety is expected to be greater than the
effects of the elements of the standard when considered individually.
OSHA estimates that compliance with the final standard will prevent 111
fatalities, 4,759 lost workday cases, and 2,639 nonlost workday cases
annually (Table 23). These estimates were developed based on the
comprehensiveness of the standard in dealing with the range of
workplace hazards in logging.
Table 23.--Reduction in Fatalities and Injuries From Compliance With the
Logging Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lost Non-lost
Fatalities Total workday workday
injuries injuries injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline cases................ 158 10,568 6,798 3,770
Cases avoided by compliance
with standard................ 111 7,398 4,759 2,639
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis,
1994.
F. Economic Feasibility Determination
The projected economic impact of the final standard on the logging
industry is small. The cost of full compliance with the standard
represents only 0.1 percent of the value of shipments for this industry
as a whole. Although these annual costs of compliance represent a
relatively insignificant amount of total shipments, some firms will
bear more costs than others depending on their existing compliance with
the various provisions of the standard.
The annual cost of compliance per logging establishment ranges from
about $38 in California where firms are at a high level of compliance
with their own State logging standard, to an average of $1,300 per
establishment in the South where no comprehensive logging standards
exists. These annual costs per establishment are insignificant when
viewed in terms of other costs incurred by logging employers. It is
expected that the costs of compliance with the final rule are too small
to have a significant effect on price, employment, production, or
profit rates.
The impact of compliance with the final rule is expected to fall
primarily on small businesses, because the vast majority of logging
establishments employ fewer than 20 workers. The record shows that most
large logging establishments are already in compliance with many of the
provisions of the final rule. However, many small firms are also
located in States that have comprehensive logging standards. These
firms are currently in compliance with these standards and are able to
operate while incurring these costs. Even if it is assumed that small
firms will bear all the costs of compliance with the final rule, the
economic impact is still small. OSHA estimates that the average cost
per small firm is substantially less than 0.5 percent of the average
annual value of shipments per firm and will be more than offset by the
probable decrease in workers' compensation costs resulting from fewer
injuries. Even small establishments that operate on less than a full-
time basis could incur the costs of compliance without experiencing an
economic disruption that would threaten the competitive structure of
the industry or cause any dislocation.
Based on these estimates developed from data and evidence in the
record, OSHA has concluded that the economic impact of the standard
would not threaten the stability or profitability of the logging
industry. In addition, neither the Gross National Product (GNP), the
level of international trade, the price of consumer goods, nor the
level of employment would be significantly affected.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Assistant
Secretary has made a preliminary assessment of the impact of the rule
on small entities. As discussed above, the estimated compliance costs
for small firms (i.e, those employing fewer than 20 workers) are
estimated to be less than 0.5 percent of the average annual value of
shipments per firm and will be more than offset by the probable
decrease in workers' compensation costs resulting from reduction in
logging accidents. As is the case for compliance costs for all firms
covered under the standard, the costs of compliance for small firms
would be very small compared with net income. Therefore, OSHA does not
anticipate the final rule will have a significant impact on small
firms.
H. Environmental Impact Assessment
The revisions to the standard have been reviewed in accordance with
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1500), and the Department of Labor
(DOL) NEPA Procedures (29 CFR 11). As a result of this review, OSHA has
determined that the rule will have no significant environmental impact.
The provisions focus on training, work practices, personal
protective equipment, and protective devices on equipment in order to
reduce worker fatalities and injuries. In general, these provisions do
not impact on air, water, or soil quality, plant or animal life, the
use of land, or other aspects of the environment. The revisions are
considered excluded actions under Subpart B, Section 11.10 of the DOL
NEPA regulations.
VII. References
In this preamble to the revised logging standard, OSHA has referred
to the following public documents in addition to the materials
contained in the docket for this rulemaking:
1. Bureau of the Census, 1987 Census of Manufacturers, Industry
Series, Logging Camps, Sawmills and Planing Mills, U.S. Department
of Commerce, February 1987.
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, U.S.
Department of Labor, June 18, 1993.
3. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation--March 1993, U.S. Department of Labor, June 18, 1993.
4. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1992:
A Collection of Data and Analysis, U.S. Department of Labor, April
1994.
5. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses in the United States by Industry, 1990, Bulletin 2399,
U.S. Department of Labor, April 1992.
6. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses in the United States by Industry, 1991, Bulletin 2424,
U.S. Department of Labor, May 1993.
7. Burgess, Joe, et al., Timber Harvesting Equipment Costs 1994.
8. Eastern Research Group, Inc. An Economic Analysis for an OSHA
Standard for Occupational Motor Vehicle Safety. October 1989.
9. Forestry Suppliers, Inc., Forestry, Engineering and
Environmental Equipment Catalog, Jackson, Mississippi, 1994.
10. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Industrial Outlook 1993,
January 1993.
11. U.S. Forest Service, An Analysis of the Timber Situation in
the United States: 1989-2040, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
December 1990.
VIII. Statutory Considerations
A. Introduction
OSHA has described the hazards confronted by employees who work in
the logging industry and the measures required to protect affected
employees from those hazards in Section I, Background, and Section III,
Summary and Explanation of the Standard, respectively, earlier in this
preamble. The Agency is providing the following discussion of the
statutory mandate for OSHA rulemaking activity to explain the legal
basis for its determination that the logging operations standard, as
promulgated, is reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from
significant risks of injury and death.
Section 2(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
authorizes ``the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational
safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting
interstate commerce'', and section 5(a)(2) provides that ``[e]ach
employer shall comply with occupational safety and health standards
promulgated under this Act'' (emphasis added). Section 3(8) of the OSH
Act (29 U.S.C. 652(8)) provides that ``the term `occupational safety
and health standard' means a standard which requires conditions, or the
adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations,
or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or
healthful employment and places of employment.''
In two recent cases, reviewing courts have expressed concern that
OSHA's interpretation of these provisions of the OSH Act, particularly
of section 3(8) as it pertains to safety rulemaking, could lead to
overly costly or under-protective safety standards. In International
Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the District of
Columbia Circuit rejected substantive challenges to OSHA's lockout/
tagout standard and denied a request that enforcement of that standard
be stayed, but it also expressed concern that OSHA's interpretation of
the OSH Act could lead to safety standards that are very costly and
only minimally protective. In National Grain & Feed Ass'n v. OSHA, 866
F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1989), the Fifth Circuit concluded that Congress
gave OSHA considerable discretion in structuring the costs and benefits
of safety standards but, concerned that the grain dust standard might
be under-protective, directed OSHA to consider adding a provision that
might further reduce significant risk of fire and explosion.
OSHA rulemakings involve a significant degree of agency expertise
and policy-making discretion to which reviewing courts must defer. (See
for example, Building & Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838
F.2d 1258, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v.
American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 655 n. 62 (1980).) At the same
time, the agency's technical expertise and policy-making authority must
be exercised within discernable parameters. The lockout/tagout and
grain handling standard decisions sought from OSHA more clarification
on the agency's view of the scope of those parameters. In light of
those decisions, OSHA believes it would be useful to include in the
preamble to this safety standard a statement of its view of the limits
of its safety rulemaking authority and to explain why it is confident
that its interpretive views have in the past avoided regulatory
extremes and continue to do so in this rule.
Stated briefly, the OSH Act requires that, before promulgating any
occupational safety standard, OSHA demonstrate based on substantial
evidence in the record as a whole that: (1) The proposed standard will
substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm; (2)
compliance is technologically feasible in the sense that the protective
measures being required already exist, can be brought into existence
with available technology, or can be created with technology that can
reasonably be developed; (3) compliance is economically feasible in the
sense that industry can absorb or pass on the costs without major
dislocation or threat of instability; and (4) the standard is cost
effective in that it employs the least expensive protective measures
capable of reducing or eliminating significant risk. Additionally,
proposed safety standards must be compatible with prior agency action,
must be responsive to significant comment in the record, and, to the
extent allowed by statute, must be consistent with applicable Executive
Orders. These elements limit OSHA's regulatory discretion for safety
rulemaking and provide a decision-making framework for developing a
rule within their parameters.
B. Congress Concluded That OSHA Regulations Are Necessary To Protect
Workers From Occupational Hazards and That Employers Should Be Required
To Reduce or Eliminate Significant Workplace Health and Safety Threats
At section 2(a) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651(a)), Congress
announced its determination that occupational injury and illness should
be eliminated as much as possible: ``The Congress finds that
occupational injury and illness arising out of work situations impose a
substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in
terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disability
compensation payments.'' Congress therefore declared ``it to be its
purpose and policy * * * to assure so far as possible every working man
and woman in the Nation safe * * * working conditions [29 U.S.C.
651(b)].''
To that end, Congress instructed the Secretary of Labor to adopt
existing federal and consensus standards during the first two years
after the OSH Act became effective and, in the event of conflict among
any such standards, to ``promulgate the standard which assures the
greatest protection of the safety or health of the affected employees
[29 U.S.C. 655(a)].'' Congress also directed the Secretary to set
mandatory occupational safety standards [29 U.S.C. 651(b)(3)], based on
a rulemaking record and substantial evidence [29 U.S.C. 655(b)(2)],
that are ``reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe * * *
employment and places of employment.'' When promulgating permanent
safety or health standards that differ from existing national consensus
standards, the Secretary must explain ``why the rule as adopted will
better effectuate the purposes of this Act than the national consensus
standard [29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)].'' Correspondingly, every employer must
comply with OSHA standards and, in addition, ``furnish to each of his
employees employment and a place of employment which are free from
recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or
serious physical harm to his employees [29 U.S.C. 654(a)].''
``Congress understood that the Act would create substantial costs
for employers, yet intended to impose such costs when necessary to
create a safe and healthful working environment. Congress viewed the
costs of health and safety as a cost of doing business. * * * Indeed,
Congress thought that the financial costs of health and safety problems
in the workplace were as large as or larger than the financial costs of
eliminating these problems [American Textile Mfrs. Inst. Inc. v.
Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 519-522 (1981) (ATMI); emphasis was supplied in
original].'' ``[T]he fundamental objective of the Act [is] to prevent
occupational deaths and serious injuries [Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall,
445 U.S. 1, 11 (1980)].'' ``We know the costs would be put into
consumer goods but that is the price we should pay for the 80 million
workers in America [S. Rep. No. 91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970);
H.R. Rep. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), reprinted in Senate
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Legislative History of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, (Committee Print 1971)
(``Leg. Hist.'') at 444 (Senator Yarborough)].'' ``Of course, it will
cost a little more per item to produce a washing machine. Those of us
who use washing machines will pay for the increased cost, but it is
worth it, to stop the terrible death and injury rate in this country
[Id. at 324; see also 510-511, 517].''
[T]he vitality of the Nation's economy will be enhanced by the
greater productivity realized through saved lives and useful years
of labor.
When one man is injured or disabled by an industrial accident or
disease, it is he and his family who suffer the most immediate and
personal loss. However, that tragic loss also affects each of us. As
a result of occupational accidents and disease, over $1.5 billion in
wages is lost each year [1970 dollars], and the annual loss to the
gross national product is estimated to be over $8 billion. Vast
resources that could be available for productive use are siphoned
off to pay workmen's compensation and medical expenses. * * *
Only through a comprehensive approach can we hope to effect a
significant reduction in these job death and casualty figures. [Id.
at 518-19 (Senator Cranston)]
Congress considered uniform enforcement crucial because it would
reduce or eliminate the disadvantage that a conscientious employer
might experience when inter-industry or intra-industry competition is
present. Moreover, ``many employers--particularly smaller ones--simply
cannot make the necessary investment in health and safety, and survive
competitively, unless all are compelled to do so [Leg. Hist. at 144,
854, 1188, 1201].''
Thus, the statutory text and legislative history make clear that
Congress conclusively determined that OSHA regulation is necessary to
protect workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be
required to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety
threats.
C. As Construed by the Courts and by OSHA, the OSH Act Sets a Threshold
and a Ceiling for Safety Rulemaking That Provide Clear and Reasonable
Parameters for Agency Action
OSHA has long followed the teaching that section 3(8) of the OSH
Act requires that, before it promulgates ``any permanent health or
safety standard, [it must] make a threshold finding that a place of
employment is unsafe--in the sense that significant risks are present
and can be eliminated or lessened by a change in practices [Industrial
Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 642
(1980) (plurality) (Benzene); emphasis was supplied in original].''
When, as frequently happens in safety rulemaking, OSHA promulgates
standards that differ from existing national consensus standards, it
must explain ``why the rule as adopted will better effectuate the
purposes of this Act than the national consensus standard [29 U.S.C.
655(b)(8)].'' Thus, national consensus and existing federal standards
that Congress instructed OSHA to adopt summarily within two years of
the OSH Act's inception provide reference points concerning the least
an OSHA standard should achieve (29 U.S.C. 655(a)). As a result, OSHA
is precluded from regulating insignificant safety risks or from issuing
safety standards that do not at least lessen risk in a significant way.
The OSH Act also limits OSHA's discretion to issue overly
burdensome rules, as the agency also has long recognized that ``any
standard that was not economically or technologically feasible would a
fortiori not be `reasonably necessary or appropriate' under the Act.
See Industrial Union Dep't v. Hodgson [499 F.2d 467, 478 (D.C. Cir.
1974)] (`Congress does not appear to have intended to protect employees
by putting their employers out of business.') [American Textile Mfrs.
Inst. Inc., 452 U.S. at 513 n. 31 (a standard is economically feasible
even if it portends `disaster for some marginal firms,' but it is
economically infeasible if it `threaten[s] massive dislocation to, or
imperil[s] the existence of,' the industry)].''
By stating the test in terms of ``threat'' and ``peril,'' the
Supreme Court made clear in ATMI that economic infeasibility begins
short of industry-wide bankruptcy. OSHA itself has placed the line
considerably below this level. (See for example, ATMI, 452 U.S. at 527
n. 50; 43 FR 27,360 (June 23, 1978). Proposed 200 g/m\3\ PEL
for cotton dust did not raise serious possibility of industry-wide
bankruptcy, but impact on weaving sector would be severe, possibly
requiring reconstruction of 90 percent of all weave rooms. OSHA
concluded that the 200 g/m\3\ level was not feasible for
weaving and that 750 g/m\3\ was all that could reasonably be
required). See also 54 FR 29,245-246 (July 11, 1989); American Iron &
Steel Institute, 939 F.2d at 1003. OSHA raised the engineering control
level for lead in small nonferrous foundries to avoid the possibility
of bankruptcy for about half of small foundries even though the
industry as a whole could have survived the loss of small firms.
Although the cotton dust and lead rulemakings involved health
standards, the economic feasibility ceiling established therein applies
equally to safety standards. Indeed, because feasibility is a necessary
element of a ``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' standard, this
ceiling boundary is the same for health and safety rulemaking since it
comes from section 3(8), which governs all permanent OSHA standards.
All OSHA standards must also be cost-effective in the sense that
the protective measures being required must be the least expensive
measures capable of achieving the desired end (ATMI, at 514 n. 32;
Building and Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258,
1269 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). OSHA gives additional consideration to
financial impact in setting the period of time that should be allowed
for compliance, allowing as much as ten years for compliance phase-in.
(See United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1278 (D.C.
Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981).) Additionally, OSHA's
enforcement policy takes account of financial hardship on an
individualized basis. OSHA's Field Operations Manual provides that,
based on an employer's economic situation, OSHA may extend the period
within which a violation must be corrected after issuance of a citation
(CPL. 2.45B, Chapter III, paragraph E6d(3)(a), Dec. 31, 1990).
To reach the necessary findings and conclusions that a safety
standard substantially reduces a significant risk of harm, is both
technologically and economically feasible, and is cost effective, OSHA
must conduct rulemaking in accord with the requirements of section 6 of
the OSH Act. The regulatory proceeding allows it to determine the
qualitative and, if possible, the quantitative nature of the risk with
and without regulation, the technological feasibility of compliance,
the availability of capital to the industry and the extent to which
that capital is required for other purposes, the industry's profit
history, the industry's ability to absorb costs or pass them on to the
consumer, the impact of higher costs on demand, and the impact on
competition with substitutes and imports. (See ATMI at 2501-2503;
American Iron & Steel Institute generally.) Section 6(f) of the OSH Act
further provides that, if the validity of a standard is challenged,
OSHA must support its conclusions with ``substantial evidence in the
record considered as a whole,'' a standard that courts have determined
requires fairly close scrutiny of agency action and the explanation of
that action. (See Steelworkers, 647 F.2d at 1206-1207.)
OSHA's powers are further circumscribed by the independent
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which provides a
neutral forum for employer contests of citations issued by OSHA for
noncompliance with health and safety standards (29 U.S.C. 659-661;
noted as an additional constraint in Benzene at 652 n. 59). OSHA must
also respond rationally to similarities and differences among
industries or industry sectors. (See Building and Constr. Trades Dep't,
AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1272-73 (D.C. Cir. 1988).)
OSHA safety rulemaking is thus constrained first by the need to
demonstrate that the standard will substantially reduce a significant
risk of material harm, and then by the requirement that compliance is
technologically capable of being done and not so expensive as to
threaten economic instability or dislocation for the industry. Within
these parameters, further constraints such as the need to find cost-
effective measures and to respond rationally to all meaningful comment
militate against regulatory extremes.
D. The Logging Operations Standard Complies With the Statutory Criteria
Described Above and Is Not Subject to the Additional Constraints
Applicable to Section 6(b)(5) Standards
Standards which regulate hazards that are frequently undetectable
because they are subtle or develop slowly or after long latency
periods, are frequently referred to as ``health'' standards. Standards
that regulate hazards, like explosions or electrocution, that cause
immediately noticeable physical harm, are called ``safety'' standards.
(See National Grain & Feed Ass'n v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d 717, 731,
733 (5th Cir. 1989). As noted above, section 3(8) provides that all
OSHA standards must be ``reasonably necessary or appropriate.'' In
addition, section 6(b)(5) requires that OSHA set health standards which
limit significant risk ``to the extent feasible.'' OSHA has determined
that the revised PPE standard is a safety standard, because the revised
PPE standard addresses hazards, such as molten metal, falling objects
and electricity, that are immediately dangerous to life or health, not
the longer term, less obvious hazards subject to section 6(b)(5).
The OSH Act and its legislative history clearly indicate that
Congress intended for OSHA to distinguish between safety standards and
health standards. For example in section 2(b)(6) of the OSH Act,
Congress declared that the goal of assuring safe and healthful working
conditions and preserving human resources would be achieved, in part:
* * * by exploring ways to discover latent diseases, establishing
causal connections between diseases and work in environmental
conditions, and conducting other research relating to health
problems, in recognition of the fact that occupational health
standards present problems often different from those involved in
occupational safety.
The legislative history makes this distinction even clearer:
[The Secretary] should take into account that anyone working in
toxic agents and physical agents which might be harmful may be
subjected to such conditions for the rest of his working life, so
that we can get at something which might not be toxic now, if he
works in it a short time, but if he works in it the rest of his life
might be very dangerous; and we want to make sure that such things
are taken into consideration in establishing standards. [Leg. Hist.
at 502-503 (Sen. Dominick), quoted in Benzene at 648-49]
Additionally, Representative Daniels distinguished between
``insidious `silent killers' such as toxic fumes, bases, acids, and
chemicals'' and ``violent physical injury causing immediate visible
physical harm'' (Leg. Hist. at 1003), and Representative Udall
contrasted insidious hazards like carcinogens with ``the more visible
and well-known question of industrial accidents and on-the-job injury''
(Leg. Hist. at 1004). (See also, for example, S. Rep. No. 1282, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess 2-3 (1970), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1970, pp.
5177, 5179, reprinted in Leg. Hist. at 142-43, discussing 1967 Surgeon
General study that found that 65 percent of employees in industrial
plants ``were potentially exposed to harmful physical agents, such as
severe noise or vibration, or to toxic materials''; Leg. Hist. at 412;
id. at 446; id. at 516; id. at 845; International Union, UAW at 1315.)
In reviewing OSHA rulemaking activity, the Supreme Court has held
that section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA to set ``the most protective
standard consistent with feasibility'' (Benzene at 643 n. 48). As
Justice Stevens observed:
The reason that Congress drafted a special section for these
substances * * * was because Congress recognized that there were
special problems in regulating health risks as opposed to safety
risks. In the latter case, the risks are generally immediate and
obvious, while in the former, the risks may not be evident until a
worker has been exposed for long periods of time to particular
substances. [Benzene, at 649 n. 54.]
Challenges to the grain dust and lockout/tagout standards included
assertions that grain dust in explosive quantities and uncontrolled
energy releases that could expose employees to crushing, cutting,
burning or explosion hazards were harmful physical agents so that OSHA
was required to apply the criteria of section 6(b)(5) when determining
how to protect employees from those hazards. Reviewing courts have
uniformly rejected such assertions. For example, the Court in
International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
rejected the view that section 6(b)(5) provided the statutory criteria
for regulation of uncontrolled energy, holding that such a ``reading
would obliterate a distinction that Congress drew between `health' and
`safety' risks.'' The Court also noted that the language of the OSH Act
and the legislative history supported the OSHA position (International
Union, UAW at 1314). Additionally, the Court stated: ``We accord
considerable weight to an agency's construction of a statutory scheme
it is entrusted to administer, rejecting it only if unreasonable''
(International Union, UAW at 1313, citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC,
467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)).
The Court reviewing the grain dust standard also deferred to OSHA's
reasonable view that the Agency was not subject to the feasibility
mandate of section 6(b)(5) in regulating explosive quantities of grain
dust (National Grain & Feed Association v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d
717, 733 (5th Cir. 1989)). It therefore applied the criteria of section
3(8), requiring the Agency to establish that the standard is
``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' to protect employee safety.
As explained in Section III, Basis for Agency Action, and Section
V, Summary and Explanation of the Standard, and Section VI, Summary of
the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, of this preamble, OSHA has determined that logging operations
pose significant risks to employees (158 fatalities, 6,798 lost workday
injuries, and 3,770 nonlost workday injuries each year). The Agency
estimates that compliance with the logging operations standard will
cost $12.8 million annually and will reduce the risk of the hazards
encountered during logging operations (i.e., 111 fatalities, 4,759 lost
workday injuries, and 2,639 nonlost workday injuries). This constitutes
a substantial reduction of significant risk of material harm to the
72,100 logging industry employees affected. The Agency believes that
compliance is technologically feasible because the rulemaking record
indicates that the hazard control measures required by the standard
have already been implemented, to some extent, for all the logging
operations covered by the standard. Additionally, OSHA believes that
compliance is economically feasible, because, as documented by the
Regulatory Impact Analysis, all regulated sectors can readily absorb or
pass on compliance costs and economic benefits will exceed compliance
costs.
As detailed in Section V, Summary and Explanation of the Standard,
and in Section VI, Summary of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, the standard's costs, benefits, and
compliance requirements are reasonable and consistent with those of
other OSHA safety standards, such as PPE ($52.4 million annual cost of
compliance and will prevent 4 fatalities and 102,000 injuries annually)
and Grain Handling ($5.9 to 33.4 million annual cost of compliance and
will prevent 18 fatalities and 394 injuries annually) (Cf., 59 FR
16359, April 6, 1994).
OSHA assessed employee risk by evaluating exposure to hazards in
the logging industry. The Regulatory Flexibility Assessment, Section VI
above, presents OSHA's estimate of the costs and benefits of the
revised logging standard.
OSHA has considered and responded to all substantive comments
regarding the proposed logging standard on their merits in Section IV,
Major Issues, and Section V, Summary and Explanation of the Standard,
earlier in this preamble. In particular, OSHA evaluated all suggested
changes to the proposed rule in terms of their impact on worker safety,
their feasibility, their cost effectiveness, and their consonance with
the OSH Act.
IX. Recordkeeping
This final rule does not contain any recordkeeping requirements.
X. Federalism
This standard has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order
12612, 52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987), regarding Federalism. This Order
requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting
State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any actions
that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions only
when there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a
problem of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of State
law only if there is a clear Congressional intent for the agency to do
so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act),
expresses Congress' clear intent to preempt State laws relating to
issues with respect to which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational
safety or health standards. Under the OSH Act a State can avoid
preemption only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan
for the development of such standards and their enforcement.
Occupational safety and health standards developed by such Plan-States
must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing safe
and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal
standards.
The logging standard is drafted so that loggers in every State
would be protected by general, performance-oriented standards. To the
extent that there are State or regional peculiarities caused by the
types of timber to be logged, the terrain, the climate or other
factors, States with occupational safety and health plans approved
under Section 18 of the OSH Act would be able to develop their own
State standards to deal with any special problems. Moreover, the
performance nature of this proposed standard, of and by itself, allows
for flexibility by States and loggers to provide as much safety as
possible using varying methods consonant with conditions in each State.
In short, there is a clear national problem related to occupational
safety and health in the logging industry. While the individual States,
if all acted, might be able collectively to deal with the safety
problems involved, most have not elected to do so in the twenty-four
years since the enactment of the OSH Act. Those States which have
elected to participate under Section 18 of the OSH Act would not be
preempted by this standard and would be able to deal with special,
local conditions within the framework provided by this performance-
oriented standard while ensuring that their standards are at least as
effective as the Federal standard. State comments are invited on this
proposal and will be fully considered prior to promulgation of a final
rule.
XI. State Plan Standards
The 25 States with their own OSHA approved occupational safety and
health plans must adopt a comparable standard within six months of the
publication date of the final standard. These States are: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Connecticut (for State and local government
employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York (for State and local government
employees only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and
Wyoming. Until such time as a State standard is promulgated, Federal
OSHA will provide interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in
these States.
List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 1910
Chain saw, Forestry, Harvesting, Incorporation by reference,
Logging, Occupational safety and health, Pulpwood timber, Safety,
Training.
29 CFR Part 1928
Agriculture, Migrant labor, Occupational safety and health.
XII. Authority and Signature
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.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033), and 29 CFR part 1911, 29 CFR parts
1910 and 1928 are amended as set forth below.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of October 1994.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
PART 1910--[AMENDED]
Subpart R--Special Industries
1. The authority citation for subpart R of part 1910 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 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, 1910.272, 1910.274, and 1910.275 also issued under 29 CFR
part 1911.
Section 1910.272 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
2. Section 1910.266 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.266 Logging operations.
(a) Table of contents.
This paragraph contains the list of paragraphs and appendices
contained in this section.
a. Table of contents
b. Scope and application
c. Definitions
d. General requirements
1. Personal protective equipment
2. First-aid kits
3. Seat belts
4. Fire extinguishers
5. Environmental conditions
6. Work areas
7. Signaling and signal equipment
8. Overhead electric lines
9. Flammable and combustible liquids
10. Explosives and blasting agents
e. Hand and portable powered tools
1. General requirements
2. Chain saws
f. Machines
1. General requirements
2. Machine operation
3. Protective structures
4. Overhead guards
5. Machine access
6. Exhaust systems
7. Brakes
8. Guarding
g. Vehicles
h. Tree harvesting
1. General requirements
2. Manual felling
3. Bucking and limbing
4. Chipping
5. Yarding
6. Loading and unloading
7. Transport
8. Storage
i. Training
j. Effective date
k. Appendices
Appendix A--Minimum First-aid Supplies
Appendix B--Minimum First-aid Training
Appendix C--Corresponding ISO Agreements
(b) Scope and application.
(1) This standard establishes safety practices, means, methods and
operations for all types of logging, regardless of the end use of the
wood. These types of logging include, but are not limited to, pulpwood
and timber harvesting and the logging of sawlogs, veneer bolts, poles,
pilings and other forest products. This standard does not cover the
construction or use of cable yarding systems.
(2) This standard applies to all logging operations as defined by
this section.
(3) Hazards and working conditions not specifically addressed by
this section are covered by other applicable sections of Part 1910.
(c) Definitions applicable to this section.
Arch. An open-framed trailer or built-up framework used to suspend
the leading ends of trees or logs when they are skidded.
Backcut (felling cut). The final cut in a felling operation.
Ballistic nylon. A nylon fabric of high tensile properties designed
to provide protection from lacerations.
Buck. To cut a felled tree into logs.
Butt. The bottom of the felled part of a tree.
Cable yarding. The movement of felled trees or logs from the area
where they are felled to the landing on a system composed of a cable
suspended from spars and/or towers. The trees or logs may be either
dragged across the ground on the cable or carried while suspended from
the cable.
Chock. A block, often wedge shaped, which is used to prevent
movement; e.g., a log from rolling, a wheel from turning.
Choker. A sling used to encircle the end of a log for yarding. One
end is passed around the load, then through a loop eye, end fitting or
other device at the other end of the sling. The end that passed through
the end fitting or other device is then hooked to the lifting or
pulling machine.
Danger tree. A standing tree that presents a hazard to employees
due to conditions such as, but not limited to, deterioration or
physical damage to the root system, trunk, stem or limbs, and the
direction and lean of the tree.
Debark. To remove bark from trees or logs.
Deck. A stack of trees or logs.
Designated person. An employee who has the requisite knowledge,
training and experience to perform specific duties.
Domino felling. The partial cutting of multiple trees which are
left standing and then pushed over with a pusher tree.
Fell (fall). To cut down trees.
Feller (faller). An employee who fells trees.
Grounded. The placement of a component of a machine on the ground
or on a device where it is firmly supported.
Guarded. Covered, shielded, fenced, enclosed, or otherwise
protected by means of suitable enclosures, covers, casings, shields,
troughs, railings, screens, mats, or platforms, or by location, to
prevent injury.
Health care provider. A health care practitioner operating with the
scope of his/her license, certificate, registration or legally
authorized practice.
Landing. Any place where logs are laid after being yarded, and
before transport from the work site.
Limbing. To cut branches off felled trees.
Lodged tree (hung tree). A tree leaning against another tree or
object which prevents it from falling to the ground.
Log. A segment sawed or split from a felled tree, such as, but not
limited to, a section, bolt, or tree length.
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, felling, bucking, limbing, debarking,
chipping, yarding, loading, unloading, storing, and transporting
machines, equipment and personnel from one site to another.
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 and mechanical felling devices, such as tree
shears and feller-bunchers.
Rated capacity. The maximum load a system, vehicle, machine or
piece of equipment was designed by the manufacturer to handle.
Root wad. The ball of a tree root and dirt that is pulled from the
ground when a tree is uprooted.
Serviceable condition. A state or ability of a tool, machine,
vehicle or other device to operate as it was intended by the
manufacturer to operate.
Skidding. The yarding of trees or logs by pulling or towing them
across the ground.
Slope (grade). The increase or decrease in altitude over a
horizontal distance expressed as a percentage. For example, a change of
altitude of 20 feet (6 m) over a horizontal distance of 100 feet (30 m)
is expressed as a 20 percent slope.
Snag. Any standing dead tree or portion thereof.
Spring pole. A tree, segment of a tree, limb, or sapling which is
under stress or tension due to the pressure or weight of another
object.
Tie down. Chain, cable, steel strips or fiber webbing and binders
attached to a truck, trailer or other conveyance as a means to secure
loads and to prevent them from shifting or moving when they are being
transported.
Undercut. A notch cut in a tree to guide the direction of the tree
fall and to prevent splitting or kickback.
Vehicle. A car, bus, truck, trailer or semi-trailer that is used
for transportation of employees or movement of material.
Winching. The winding of cable or rope onto a spool or drum.
Yarding. The movement of logs from the place they are felled to a
landing.
(d) General requirements. (1) Personal protective equipment. (i)
The employer shall assure that personal protective equipment, including
any personal protective equipment provided by an employee, is
maintained in a serviceable condition.
(ii) The employer shall assure that personal protective equipment,
including any personal protective equipment provided by an employee, is
inspected before initial use during each workshift. Defects or damage
shall be repaired or the unserviceable personal protective equipment
shall be replaced before work is commenced.
(iii) The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and
assure that each employee handling wire rope wears cotton gloves or
other hand protection which the employer demonstrates provides
equivalent protection.
(iv) The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and
assure that each employee who operates a chain saw wears ballistic
nylon leg protection or other leg protection the employer demonstrates
provides equivalent protection. The leg protection shall cover the full
length of the thigh to the top of the boot on each leg to protect
against contact with a moving chain saw. Exception: This requirement
does not apply when an employee is working as a climber if the employer
demonstrates that a greater hazard is posed by wearing leg protection
in the particular situation, or when an employee is working from a
vehicular mounted elevating and rotating work platform meeting the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.68.
(v) The employer shall assure that each employee shall wears foot
protection, such as heavy-duty logging boots, that are waterproof or
water repellant, cover and provide support to the ankle, and protect
the employee from penetration by chain saws. Sharp, calk-soled boots or
other slip-resistant type boots may be worn where the employer
demonstrates that they are necessary for the employee's job, the
terrain, the timber type, and the weather conditions, provided that
foot protection otherwise required by this paragraph is met.
(vi) The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and
assure that each employee who works in an area where there is potential
for head injury from falling or flying objects wears head protection
meeting the requirements of subpart I of Part 1910.
(vii) The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and
assure that each employee who works in an area there is a potential for
injury due to falling or flying objects wears eye and face protection
meeting the requirements of subpart I of Part 1910. Logger-type mesh
screens may be worn where the employer demonstrates that they provide
equivalent protection.
(2) First-aid kits. (i) The employer shall provide first-aid kits
at each work site where felling is being conducted, at each landing,
and on each employee transport vehicle. The number of first-aid kits
and the content of each kit shall reflect the degree of isolation, the
number of employees, and the hazards reasonably anticipated at the work
site.
(ii) At a minimum, each first-aid kit shall contain the items
listed in Appendix A at all times.
(iii) The number and content of first-aid kits shall be reviewed
and approved at least annually by a health care provider.
(iv) The employer shall maintain the contents of each first-aid kit
in a serviceable condition.
(3) Seat belts. For each vehicle or machine (equipped with ROPS/
FOPS or overhead guards), including any vehicle or machine provided by
an employee, the employer shall assure:
(i) That a seat belt is provided for each vehicle or machine
operator;
(ii) That each employee uses the available seat belt while the
vehicle or machine is being operated;
(iii) That each employee securely and tightly fastens the seat belt
to restrain the employee within the vehicle or machine cab;
(iv) That each machine seat belt meets the requirements of the
Society of Automotive Engineers Standard SAE J386, June 1985,
``Operator Restraint Systems for Off-Road Work Machines.'' This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
may be obtained from the Society of Automotive Engineers, 400
Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. Copies may be inspected at
the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., room N2625,
Washington, DC 20210, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(v) That seat belts are not removed from any vehicle or machine.
The employer shall replace each seat belt which has been removed from
any vehicle or machine that was equipped with seat belts at the time of
manufacture; and
(vi) That each seat belt is maintained in a serviceable condition.
(4) Fire extinguishers. The employer shall provide and maintain
portable fire extinguishers on each machine and vehicle in accordance
with the requirements of subpart L of Part 1910.
(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, high winds, heavy rain
or snow, extreme cold, dense fog, fires, mudslides, and darkness, may
endanger an employee in the performance of their job.
(6) Work areas. (i) Employees shall be spaced and the duties of
each employee shall be organized so the actions of one employee will
not create a hazard for any other employee.
(ii) Work areas shall be assigned so that trees cannot fall into an
adjacent occupied work area. The distance between adjacent occupied
work areas shall be at least two tree lengths of the trees being
felled. The distance between adjacent occupied work areas shall reflect
the degree of slope, the density of the growth, the height of the
trees, the soil structure and other hazards reasonably anticipated at
that work site. A distance of greater than two tree lengths shall be
maintained between adjacent occupied work areas on any slope where
rolling or sliding of trees or logs is reasonably foreseeable.
(iii) Each employee shall work in a position or location that is
within visual or audible contact with another employee.
(iv) The employer shall account for each employee at the end of
each workshift.
(7) Signaling and signal equipment. (i) Hand signals or audible
contact, such as but not limited to, whistles, horns, or radios, shall
be utilized whenever noise, distance, restricted visibility, or other
factors prevent clear understanding of normal voice communications
between employees.
(ii) Engine noise, such as from a chain saw, is not an acceptable
means of signaling. Other locally and regionally recognized signals may
be used.
(iii) Only a designated person shall give signals, except in an
emergency.
(8) Overhead electric lines. (i) Logging operations near overhead
electric lines shall be done in accordance with the requirements of 29
CFR 1910.333(c)(3).
(ii) The employer shall notify the power company immediately if a
felled tree makes contact with any power line. Each employee shall
remain clear of the area until the power company advises that there are
no electrical hazards.
(9) Flammable and combustible liquids. (i) Flammable and
combustible liquids shall be stored, handled, transported, and used in
accordance with the requirements of subpart H of Part 1910.
(ii) Flammable and combustible liquids shall not be transported in
the driver compartment or in any passenger-occupied area of a machine
or vehicle.
(iii) Each machine, vehicle and portable powered tool shall be shut
off during fueling.
(iv) Flammable or combustible liquids shall not be used to start
fires.
(10) Explosives and blasting agents. (i) Explosives and blasting
agents shall be stored, handled, transported, and used in accordance
with the requirements of subpart H of part 1910.
(ii) Only a designated person shall handle or use explosives and
blasting agents.
(iii) Explosives and blasting agents shall not be transported in
the driver compartment or in any passenger-occupied area of a machine
or vehicle.
(e) Hand and portable powered tools. (1) General requirements. (i)
The employer shall assure that each hand and portable powered tool,
including any tool provided by an employee, is maintained in
serviceable condition.
(ii) The employer shall assure that each tool, including any tool
provided by an employee, is inspected before initial use during each
workshift. At a minimum, the inspection shall include the following:
(A) Handles and guards, to assure that they are sound, tight-
fitting, properly shaped, free of splinters and sharp edges, and in
place;
(B) Controls, to assure proper function;
(C) Chain-saw chains, to assure proper adjustment;
(D) Chain-saw mufflers, to assure that they are operational and in
place;
(E) Chain brakes and nose shielding devices, to assure that they
are in place and function properly;
(F) Heads of shock, impact-driven and driving tools, to assure that
there is no mushrooming;
(G) Cutting edges, to assure that they are sharp and properly
shaped; and
(H) All other safety devices, to assure that they are in place and
function properly.
(iii) The employer shall assure that each tool is used only for
purposes for which it has been designed.
(iv) When the head of any shock, impact-driven or driving tool
begins to chip, it shall be repaired or removed from service.
(v) The cutting edge of each tool shall be sharpened in accordance
with manufacturer's specifications whenever it becomes dull during the
workshift.
(vi) Each tool shall be stored in the provided location when not
being used at a work site.
(vii) Racks, boxes, holsters or other means shall be provided,
arranged and used for the transportation of tools so that a hazard is
not created for any vehicle operator or passenger.
(2) Chain saws. (i) Each chain saw placed into initial service
after the effective date of this section shall be equipped with a chain
brake and shall otherwise meet the requirements of the ANSI B175.1-1991
``Safety Requirements for Gasoline-Powered Chain Saws.'' Each chain saw
placed into service before the effective date of this section shall be
equipped with a protective device that minimizes chain-saw kickback. No
chain-saw kickback device shall be removed or otherwise disabled. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
may be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 11 West
42nd Street, New York, NY 10036. Copies may be inspected at the Docket
Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., room N2625, Washington, DC
20210, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(ii) Each gasoline-powered chain saw shall be equipped with a
continuous pressure throttle control system which will stop the chain
when pressure on the throttle is released.
(iii) The chain saw shall be operated and adjusted in accordance
with the manufacturer's instructions.
(iv) The chain saw shall be fueled at least 20 feet (6 m) from any
open flame or other source of ignition.
(v) The chain saw shall be started at least 10 feet (3 m) from the
fueling area.
(vi) The chain saw shall be started on the ground or where
otherwise firmly supported.
(vii) The chain saw shall be started with the chain brake engaged.
(viii) The chain saw shall be held with the thumbs and fingers of
both hands encircling the handles during operation unless the employer
demonstrates that a greater hazard is posed by keeping both hands on
the chain saw in that particular situation.
(ix) The chain-saw operator shall be certain of footing before
starting to cut. The chain saw shall not be used in a position or at a
distance that could cause the operator to become off-balance, to have
insecure footing, or to relinquish a firm grip on the saw.
(x) Prior to felling any tree, the chain-saw operator shall clear
away brush or other potential obstacles which might interfere with
cutting the tree or using the retreat path.
(xi) The chain saw shall not be used to cut directly overhead.
(xii) The chain saw shall be carried in a manner that will prevent
operator contact with the cutting chain and muffler.
(xiii) The chain saw shall be shut off or at idle before the feller
starts his retreat.
(xiv) The chain saw shall be shut down or the chain brake shall be
engaged whenever a saw is carried further than 50 feet (15.2 m). The
chain saw shall be shut down or the chain brake shall be engaged when a
saw is carried less than 50 feet if conditions such as, but not limited
to, the terrain, underbrush and slippery surfaces, may create a hazard
for an employee.
(f) Machines. (1) General requirements. (i) The employer shall
assure that each machine, including any machine provided by an
employee, is maintained in serviceable condition.
(ii) The employer shall assure that each machine, including any
machine provided by an employee, is inspected before initial use during
each workshift. Defects or damage shall be repaired or the
unserviceable machine shall be replaced before work is commenced.
(iii) The employer shall assure that operating and maintenance
instructions are available on the machine or in the area where the
machine is being operated. Each machine operator and maintenance
employee shall comply with the operating and maintenance instructions.
(2) Machine operation. (i) The machine shall be started and
operated only by a designated person.
(ii) Stationary logging machines and their components shall be
anchored or otherwise stabilized to prevent movement during operation.
(iii) The rated capacity of any machine shall not be exceeded.
(iv) The machine shall not be operated on any slope which is
greater than the maximum slope recommended by the manufacturer.
(v) Before starting or moving any machine, the operator shall
determine that no employee is in the path of the machine.
(vi) The machine shall be operated only from the operator's station
or as otherwise recommended by the manufacturer.
(vii) The machine shall be operated at such a distance from
employees and other machines such that operation will not create a
hazard for an employee.
(viii) No employee other than the operator shall ride on any mobile
machine unless seating, seat belts and other protection equivalent to
that provided for the operator are provided.
(ix) No employee shall ride on any load.
(x) Before any machine is shut down, the machine brake locks or
parking brakes shall be applied. Each moving element, such as but not
limited to, such as blades, buckets and shears, shall be grounded.
(xi) After the machine engine is shut down, pressure or stored
energy from hydraulic and pneumatic storage devices shall be
discharged.
(xii) The rated capacity of any vehicle transporting a machine
shall not be exceeded.
(xiii) The machine shall be loaded, secured and unloaded so that it
will not create a hazard for any employee.
(3) Protective structures. (i) Each tractor, skidder, swing yarder,
log stacker 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). The employer shall replace
FOPS or ROPS which have been removed from any machine. Exception: This
requirement does not apply to machines which are capable of 360 degree
rotation.
(ii) ROPS shall be installed, tested, 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.'' This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
may be obtained from the Society of Automotive Engineers, 400
Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. Copies may be inspected at
the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., room N2625,
Washington, DC 20210, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(iii) FOPS shall be installed, tested and maintained in accordance
with the Society of Automotive Engineers SAE J231, January 1981,
``Minimum Performance Criteria for Falling Object Protective Structures
(FOPS).'' This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies may be obtained from the Society of Automotive
Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096. Copies may be
inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.
Room N2625, Washington, DC 20210, or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
(iv) ROPS and FOPS shall meet the requirements of the Society of
Automotive Engineers SAE J397, April 1988, ``Deflection Limiting
Volume-ROPS/FOPS Laboratory Evaluation.'' This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from the Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth
Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. Copies may be inspected at the Docket
Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW. Room N2625, Washington, DC
20210, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
(v) Each protective structure shall be of a size that does not
impede the operator's normal movements.
(vi) The overhead covering of each cab shall be of solid material
and shall extend over the entire canopy.
(vii) The lower portion of each cab, up to the top of the
instrument panel, or extending 24 (60.9 cm) inches up from the cab
floor if the machine does not have an instrument panel, shall be
completely enclosed, except at entrances, with solid material to
prevent objects from entering the cab.
(viii) The upper portion of each cab shall be fully enclosed with
mesh material with openings no greater than 2 inches (5.08 cm) at its
least dimension, or with other materials which the employer
demonstrates provides equivalent protection and visibility.
(ix) The enclosure of the upper portion of each cab shall allow
maximum visibility.
(x) When transparent material is used to enclose the upper portion
of the cab, it shall be made of safety glass or other material that the
employer demonstrates provides equivalent protection and visibility.
(xi) Transparent material shall be kept clean to assure operator
visibility.
(xii) Transparent material that may create a hazard for the
operator, such as but not limited to, cracked, broken or scratched
safety glass, shall be replaced.
(xiii) Deflectors shall be installed in front of each cab to
deflect whipping saplings and branches. Deflectors shall be located so
as not to impede visibility and access to the cab.
(xiv) The height of each cab entrance shall be at least 52 inches
(1.3 meters) from the floor of the cab.
(xv) Each machine operated near cable yarding operations shall be
equipped with sheds or roofs of sufficient strength to provide
protection from breaking lines.
(4) Overhead guards. Each forklift shall be equipped with an
overhead guard meeting the requirements of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, ASME B56.6-1992 (with addenda), ``Safety Standard
for Rough Terrain Forklift Trucks.'' This incorporation by reference
was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, United Engineering Center,
345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017-2392. Copies may be inspected
at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW. Room N2625,
Washington, DC 20210, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(5) Machine access. (i) Machine access systems, meeting the
specifications of the Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE J185, June
1988, ``Recommended Practice for Access Systems for Off-Road
Machines,'' shall be provided for each machine where the operator or
any other employee must climb onto the machine to enter the cab or to
perform maintenance. This incorporation by reference was approved by
the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the Society of
Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096.
Copies may be inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW. Room N2625, Washington, DC 20210, or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,
DC.
(ii) Each machine cab shall have a second means of egress.
(iii) Walking and working surfaces of each machine and machine work
station shall have a slip resistant surface to assure safe footing.
(iv) The walking and working surface of each machine shall be kept
free of waste, debris and any other material which might result in
fire, slipping, or falling.
(6) Exhaust systems. (i) The exhaust pipes on each machine shall be
located so exhaust gases are directed away from the operator.
(ii) The exhaust pipes on each machine shall be mounted or guarded
to protect each employee from accidental contact.
(iii) The exhaust pipes shall be equipped with spark arresters.
Engines equipped with turbochargers do not require spark arresters.
(iv) Each machine muffler provided by the manufacturer, or their
equivalent, shall be in place at all times the machine is in operation.
(7) Brakes. (i) Brakes shall be sufficient to hold each machine and
its rated load capacity on the slopes over which it is being operated.
(ii) Each machine shall be equipped with a secondary braking
system, such as an emergency brake or a parking brake, which shall be
effective in stopping the machine and maintaining parking performance,
regardless of the direction of travel or whether the engine is running.
(8) Guarding. (i) Each machine shall be equipped with guarding to
protect employees from exposed moving elements, such as but not limited
to, shafts, pulleys, belts on conveyors, and gears, in accordance with
the requirements of subpart O of part 1910.
(ii) Each machine used for debarking, limbing and chipping shall be
equipped with guarding to protect employees from flying wood chunks,
logs, chips, bark, limbs and other material in accordance with the
requirements of subpart O of part 1910.
(iii) The guarding on each machine shall be in place at all times
the machine is in operation.
(g) Vehicles. (1) The employer shall assure that each vehicle used
to transport any employee off public roads or to perform any logging
operation, including any vehicle provided by an employee, is maintained
in serviceable condition.
(2) The employer shall assure each vehicle used to transport any
employee off public roads or to perform any logging operation,
including any vehicle provided by an employee, 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.
(3) The employer shall assure that operating and maintenance
instructions are available in each vehicle. Each vehicle operator and
maintenance employee shall comply with the operating and maintenance
instructions.
(4) The employer shall assure that each vehicle operator has a
valid operator's license for the class of vehicle being operated.
(5) Mounting steps and handholds shall be provided for each vehicle
wherever it is necessary to prevent an employee from being injured when
entering or leaving the vehicle.
(6) The seats of each vehicle shall be securely fastened.
(7) The requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(v),
(f)(2)(vii), (f)(2)(x), (f)(2)(xiii), and (f)(7) of this section shall
also apply to each vehicle used to transport any employee off public
roads or to perform any logging operation, including any vehicle
provided by an employee.
(h) Tree harvesting. (1) General requirements. (i) Trees shall not
be felled in a manner that may create a hazard for an employee, such as
but not limited to, striking a rope, cable, power line, or machine.
(ii) The immediate supervisor shall be consulted when unfamiliar or
unusually hazardous conditions necessitate the supervisor's approval
before cutting is commenced.
(iii) While manual felling is in progress, no yarding machine shall
be operated within two tree lengths of trees being manually felled.
(iv) No employee shall approach a feller closer than two tree
lengths of trees being felled until the feller has acknowledged that it
is safe to do so, unless the employer demonstrates that a team of
employees is necessary to manually fell a particular tree.
(v) No employee shall approach a mechanical felling operation
closer than two tree lengths of the trees being felled until the
machine operator has acknowledged that it is safe to do so.
(vi) Each danger tree shall be felled, removed or avoided. Each
danger tree, including lodged trees and snags, shall be felled or
removed using mechanical or other techniques that minimize employee
exposure before work is commenced in the area of the danger tree. If
the danger tree is not felled or removed, it shall be marked and no
work shall be conducted within two tree lengths of the danger tree
unless the employer demonstrates that a shorter distance will not
create a hazard for an employee.
(vii) Each danger tree shall be carefully checked for signs of
loose bark, broken branches and limbs or other damage before they are
felled or removed. Accessible loose bark and other damage that may
create a hazard for an employee shall be removed or held in place
before felling or removing the tree.
(viii) Felling on any slope where rolling or sliding of trees or
logs is reasonably foreseeable shall be done uphill from, or on the
same level as, previously felled trees.
(ix) Domino felling of trees, including danger trees, is
prohibited.
(2) Manual felling. (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
retreat path.
(ii) Before each tree is felled, conditions such as, but not
limited to, snow and ice accumulation, the wind, the lean of tree, dead
limbs, and the location of other trees, shall be evaluated by the
feller and precautions taken so a hazard is not created for an
employee.
(iii) Each tree shall be checked for accumulations of snow and ice.
Accumulations of snow and ice that may create a hazard for an employee
shall be removed before felling is commenced in the area or the area
shall be avoided.
(iv) When a spring pole or other tree under stress is cut, no
employee other than the feller shall be closer than two trees lengths
when the stress is released.
(v) An undercut shall be made in each tree being felled unless the
employer demonstrates that felling the particular tree without an
undercut will not create a hazard for an employee. The undercut shall
be of a size so the tree will not split and will fall in the intended
direction.
(vi) A backcut shall be made in each tree being felled. The backcut
shall allow for sufficient hinge wood to guide the tree and prevent it
from prematurely slipping or twisting off the stump.
(vii) The backcut shall be above the level of the horizontal cut of
the undercut. Exception: The backcut may be at or below the horizontal
cut in tree pulling operations.
(3) Bucking and limbing. (i) Bucking and limbing on any slope where
rolling or sliding of trees or logs is reasonably foreseeable shall be
done on the uphill side of each tree, unless the employer demonstrates
that it is not feasible to buck or limb on the uphill side. Whenever
bucking or limbing is done from the downhill side, the tree shall be
secured with chocks to prevent it from rolling, sliding or swinging.
(ii) Before bucking or limbing wind-thrown trees, precautions shall
be taken to prevent the root wad, butt or logs from striking an
employee. These precautions include, but are not limited to, chocking
or moving the tree to a stable position.
(4) Chipping (in-woods locations). (i) Chipper access covers or
doors shall not be opened until the drum or disc is at a complete stop.
(ii) Infeed and discharge ports shall be guarded to prevent contact
with the disc, knives, or blower blades.
(iii) The chipper shall be shut down and locked out in accordance
with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.147 when an employee performs any
servicing or maintenance.
(iv) Detached trailer chippers shall be chocked during usage on any
slope where rolling or sliding of the chipper is reasonably
foreseeable.
(5) Yarding. (i) No log shall be moved until each employee is in
the clear.
(ii) Each choker shall be hooked and unhooked from the uphill side
or end of the log, unless the employer demonstrates that is it not
feasible in the particular situation to hook or unhook the choker from
the uphill side. Where the choker is hooked or unhooked from the
downhill side or end of the log, the log shall be securely chocked to
prevent rolling, sliding or swinging.
(iii) Each choker shall be positioned near the end of the log or
tree length.
(iv) Each machine shall be positioned during winching so the
machine and winch are operated within their design limits.
(v) No yarding line shall not be moved unless the yarder operator
has clearly received and understood the signal to do so. When in doubt,
the yarder operator shall repeat the signal as it is understood and
wait for a confirming signal before moving any line.
(vi) No load shall exceed the rated capacity of the pallet,
trailer, or other carrier.
(vii) Towed equipment, such as but not limited to, skid pans,
pallets, arches, and trailers, shall be attached to each machine or
vehicle in such a manner as to allow a full 90 degree turn; to prevent
overrunning of the towing machine or vehicle; and to assure that the
operator is always in control of the towed equipment.
(viii) The yarding machine or vehicle, including its load, shall be
operated with safe clearance from all obstructions.
(ix) Each yarded tree shall be placed in a location that does not
create a hazard for an employee and an orderly manner so that the trees
are stable before bucking or limbing is commenced.
(6) Loading and unloading. (i) The transport vehicle shall be
positioned to provide working clearance between the vehicle and the
deck.
(ii) Only the loading or unloading machine operator and other
personnel the employer demonstrates are essential shall be in the work
area during loading and unloading.
(iii) No transport vehicle operator shall remain in the cab during
loading and unloading if the logs are carried or moved over the truck
cab, unless the employer demonstrates that it is necessary for the
operator to do so. Where the transport vehicle operator remains in the
cab, the employer shall provide operator protection, such as but not
limited to, reinforcement of the cab.
(iv) Each log shall be placed on a transport vehicle in an orderly
manner and tightly secured.
(v) The load shall be positioned to prevent slippage or loss during
handling and transport.
(vi) Each stake and chock which is used to trip loads shall be so
constructed that the tripping mechanism is activated on the side
opposite the release of the load.
(vii) Each tie down shall be left in place over the peak log to
secure all logs until the unloading lines or other protection the
employer demonstrates is equivalent has been put in place. A stake of
sufficient strength to withstand the forces of shifting or moving logs,
shall be considered equivalent protection provided that the logs are
not loaded higher than the stake.
(viii) Each tie down shall be released only from the side on which
the unloading machine operates, except as follows:
(A) When the tie down is released by a remote control device; and
(B) When the employee making the release is protected by racks,
stanchions or other protection the employer demonstrates is capable of
withstanding the force of the logs.
(7) Transport. The transport vehicle operator shall assure that
each tie down is tight before transporting the load. While enroute, the
operator shall check and tighten the tie downs whenever there is reason
to believe that the tie downs have loosened or the load has shifted.
(8) Storage. Each deck shall be constructed and located so it is
stable and provides each employee with enough room to safely move and
work in the area.
(i) Training. (1) The employer shall provide training for each
employee, including supervisors, at no cost to the employee.
(2) Frequency. Training shall be provided as follows:
(i) As soon as possible but not later than the effective date of
this section for initial training for each current and new employee;
(ii) Prior to initial assignment for each new employee;
(iii) Whenever the employee is assigned new work tasks, tools,
equipment, machines or vehicles; and
(iv) Whenever an employee demonstrates unsafe job performance.
(3) Content. At a minimum, training shall consist of the following
elements:
(i) Safe performance of assigned work tasks;
(ii) Safe use, operation and maintenance of tools, machines and
vehicles the employee uses or operates, including emphasis on
understanding and following the manufacturer's operating and
maintenance instructions, warnings and precautions;
(iii) Recognition of safety and health hazards associated with the
employee's specific work tasks, including the use of measures and work
practices to prevent or control those hazards;
(iv) Recognition, prevention and control of other safety and health
hazards in the logging industry;
(v) Procedures, practices and requirements of the employer's work
site; and
(vi) The requirements of this standard.
(4) Training of an employee due to unsafe job performance, or
assignment of new work tasks, tools, equipment, machines, or vehicles;
may be limited to those elements in paragraph (i)(3) of this section
which are relevant to the circumstances giving rise to the need for
training.
(5) Portability of training. (i) Each current employee who has
received training in the particular elements specified in paragraph
(i)(3) of this section shall not be required to be retrained in those
elements.
(ii) Each new employee who has received training in the particular
elements specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this section shall not be
required to be retrained in those elements prior to initial assignment.
(iii) The employer shall train each current and new employee in
those elements for which the employee has not received training.
(iv) The employer is responsible for ensuring that each current and
new employee can properly and safely perform the work tasks and operate
the tools, equipment, machines, and vehicles used in their job.
(6) Each new employee and each employee who is required to be
trained as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, shall work
under the close supervision of a designated person until the employee
demonstrates to the employer the ability to safely perform their new
duties independently.
(7) First-aid training. (i) The employer shall assure that each
employee, including supervisors, receives or has received first-aid and
CPR training meeting at least the requirements specified in Appendix B.
(ii) The employer shall assure that each employee receives first-
aid training at least every three years and receives CPR training at
least annually.
(iii) The employer shall assure that each employee's first-aid and
CPR training and/or certificate of training remain current.
(8) All training shall be conducted by a designated person.
(9) The employer shall assure that all training required by this
section is presented in a manner that the employee is able to
understand. The employer shall assure that all training materials used
are appropriate in content and vocabulary to the educational level,
literacy, and language skills of the employees being trained.
(10) Certification of training. (i) The employer shall verify
compliance with paragraph (i) of this section by preparing a written
certification record. The written certification record shall contain
the name or other identity of the employee trained, the date(s) of the
training, and the signature of the person who conducted the training or
the signature of the employer. If the employer relies on training
conducted prior to the employee's hiring or completed prior to the
effective date of this section, the certification record shall indicate
the date the employer determined the prior training was adequate.
(ii) The most recent training certification shall be maintained.
(11) Safety and health meetings. The employer shall hold safety and
health meetings as necessary and at least each month for each employee.
Safety and health meetings may be conducted individually, in crew
meetings, in larger groups, or as part of other staff meetings.
(j) Effective date. This section is effective February 9, 1995. All
requirements under this section commence on the effective date.
(k) Appendices. Appendices A and B of this section are mandatory.
The information contained in Appendix C of this section is
informational and is not intended to create any additional obligations
not otherwise imposed or to detract from existing regulations.
Appendix A to Sec. 1910.266--First-aid Kits (Mandatory)
The following is deemed to be the minimally acceptable number
and type of first-aid supplies for first-aid kits required for
logging work sites under paragraph (d)(2). The contents of the
first-aid kit listed should be adequate for small work sites,
consisting of approximately two or three employees. When larger
operations or multiple operations 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'').
2. Two large gauze pads (at least 8'' x 10'').
3. Box adhesive bandages (band-aids).
4. One package gauze roller bandage at least 2'' wide.
5. Two triangular bandages.
6. Wound cleaning agent such as sealed, moistened towelettes.
7. Scissors.
8. Blankets.
9. Tweezers.
10. Adhesive tape.
11. Latex gloves.
12. Resuscitation equipment, such as a resuscitation bag,
airway, or pocket mask.
13. Indelible marking pen.
14. Two elastic wraps.
15. Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride elixir or capsules.
16. Tourniquet.
17. Wire splint.
18. Directions for requesting emergency assistance.
19. Recordkeeping forms.
Appendix B to Sec. 1910.266--First-aid and CPR Training (Mandatory)
The following is deemed to be the minimal acceptable first-aid
and CPR training program for employees engaged in logging
activities.
First-aid and CPR training shall be conducted using the
conventional methods of training such as lecture, demonstration,
practical exercise and examination (both written and practical). The
length of training must be sufficient to assure that trainees
understand the concepts of first aid and can demonstrate their
ability to perform the various procedures contained in the outline
below.
At a minimum, first-aid and CPR training shall consist of the
following:
1. The definition of first aid.
2. Legal issues of applying first aid (Good Samaritan Laws).
3. Basic anatomy.
4. Patient assessment and first aid for the following:
a. Respiratory arrest.
b. Cardiac arrest.
c. Hemorrhage.
d. Lacerations/abrasions.
e. Amputations.
f. Musculoskeletal injuries.
g. Shock.
h. Eye injuries.
i. Burns.
j. Loss of consciousness.
k. Extreme temperature exposure (hypothermia/hyperthermia)
l. Paralysis
m. Poisoning.
n. Loss of mental functioning (psychosis/hallucinations, etc.).
Artificial ventilation.
o. Drug overdose.
5. CPR.
6. Application of dressings and slings.
7. Treatment of strains, sprains, and fractures.
8. Immobilization of injured persons.
9. Handling and transporting injured persons.
10. Treatment of bites, stings, or contact with poisonous plants
or animals.
Appendix C to Sec. 1910.266--Comparable ISO Standards (Non-mandatory)
The following International Labor Organization (ISO) standards
are comparable to the corresponding Society of Automotive Engineers
(Standards that are referenced in this standard.)
Utilization of the ISO standards in lieu of the corresponding
SAE standards should result in a machine that meets the OSHA
standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAE standard ISO standard Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAE J1040 ISO 3471-1 Performance Criteria for Rollover
Protective Structures (ROPS) for
Construction, Earthmoving, Forestry
and Mining Machines.
SAE J397 ISO 3164 Deflection Limiting Volume--ROPS/
FOPS Laboratory Evaluation.
SAE J231 ISO 3449 Minimum Performance Criteria for
Falling Object Protective
Structures (FOPS).
SAE J386 ISO 6683 Operator Restraint Systems for Off-
Road Work Machines.
SAE J185 ISO 2897 Access Systems for Off-Road
Machines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The introductory text of paragraph (r)(5) of Sec. 1910.269 is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.269 Electrical protective equipment.
* * * * *
(r) * * *
(5) Gasoline-engine power saws. Gasoline-engine power saw
operations shall meet the requirements of Sec. 1910.266(e) and the
following:
* * * * *
PART 1928--[AMENDED]
Subpart B--Applicability of Standards
4. The authority citation for part 1928 continues to read as
follows:
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; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1928.21 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
5. Paragraph (a)(3) of Sec. 1928.21 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1928.21 Applicable Standards in 29 CFR Part 1910.
(a) * * *
(3) Logging Operations--Sec. 1910.266;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-24898 Filed 10-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
