Logging Operations; Final Rule DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Federal RegisterOct 12, 1994
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
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 o
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.