[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24898]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 12, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Labor





_______________________________________________________________________



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1928




Logging Operations; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1928

[Docket No. S-048]

 
Logging Operations

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
issuing a final standard specifying safety requirements covering all 
logging operations, regardless of the end use of the forest products 
(saw logs, veneer bolts, pulpwood, chips, etc.). This standard replaces 
the existing standard at 29 CFR 1910.266, that had applied only to 
pulpwood logging, and thereby expands coverage to provide protection 
for all employees engaged in logging operations. The final standard 
addresses the unique hazards found in logging operations, and 
supplements other general industry standards in 29 CFR part 1910. The 
final standard strengthens and further clarifies some provisions of the 
existing standard, and eliminates unnecessary provisions. The revised 
standard also requires training for all employees in this high risk 
industry. OSHA believes this standard will significantly decrease the 
number of employees killed or injured in this industry.

DATES: This final standard is effective on February 9, 1995. Employers 
must be in compliance with all requirements of the final standard by 
the effective date. The incorporation by reference of certain 
publications listed in the standard is approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register as of February 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send petitions for review of the standard to the Associate 
Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor, 
Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210.
    For additional copies of this standard contact U.S. Department of 
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of 
Publications, Room N-3101, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210, (202) 219-9667.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Cyr, Office of Information and 
Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room 
N-3637, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20210, (202) 219-8148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Regulatory history
III. Basis for agency action
    A. Hazards
    B. Accident, injury and other data
    C. Need for agency action
IV. Major Issues
V. Summary and Explanation of the Final Standard
VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and 
Environmental Impact Assessment
VII. References
VIII. Statutory Considerations
IX. Recordkeeping
X. Federalism
XI. State Plan Standards
XII. Index Terms
XIII. Authority and Signature
XIV. Final Standard

    References to the rulemaking record are provided in the text of the 
preamble. References are identified as ``Ex.'' followed by a number to 
designate the reference in the rulemaking docket. For example, ``Ex. 
1'' means exhibit one in the Docket S-048. Exhibit 1 is a copy of the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Logging Operations that was published 
in the Federal Register on May 2, 1989 (54 FR 18798).
    References to the transcripts of the public hearings are given as 
``Tr.'' followed by the location and page. The July 24, 1990, 
Washington, D.C., hearing transcript is identified as ``W1.'' The July 
25, 1990, Washington, D.C., hearing transcript is identified as ``W2.'' 
The Oregon hearing transcript is designated as ``OR.''
    A list of exhibits, copies of the exhibits and copies of the 
transcripts are available in the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210, (202)-219-7894.

I. Introduction

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is issuing 
a final standard detailing safety requirements for logging operations, 
regardless of the end use of the forest products (saw logs, veneer 
bolts, pulpwood, chips, etc.). Logging consists of felling trees 
(usually by chain saws), removing the limbs and branches (limbing), and 
cutting or splitting the trees into manageable logs (bucking). Trees 
and logs are then moved (yarding) to central locations (landings) by 
one of several methods (e.g., skidding or forwarding). In relatively 
flat terrain, logs are hooked to a tractor and dragged to the landing. 
When terrain is very steep or rough, logs may be transported by steel 
cables attached to a winching apparatus (cable yarder) via a system of 
cables, blocks, pulleys, and carriages (cable yarding). Then logs are 
partially suspended and dragged over the ground (high-lead yarding) or 
hoisted into the air and conveyed on overhead cables (sky-line yarding) 
to the landing. At the landing, logs are mechanically loaded onto 
trucks, railroad cars or barges for transport to sawmills. In some 
cases logs are formed into log rafts for transport by water to 
sawmills. Logging operations require employees to work in all types of 
weather, on all types of terrain and in isolated, remote locations. 
(Logging operations and regional characteristics are discussed in 
greater detail in the profile of the logging industry in the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis.)

II. Regulatory History

    OSHA's existing pulpwood standard was adopted pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) 
(29 U.S.C. 655(a)). Section 6(a) permitted OSHA, within two years of 
the enactment of the OSH Act, to promulgate as OSHA standards any 
existing national consensus standard or established Federal standard. 
At that time, the only national consensus standard covering logging 
operations was the American National Standards Institute standard that 
was limited to pulpwood logging (ANSI O3.1-1971, Pulpwood Logging 
Safety Standard) (Ex 2-13). OSHA's pulpwood standard has remained 
virtually unchanged since it was first adopted.
    After OSHA adopted the ANSI pulpwood logging standard, trade 
associations with interests in the logging of other forest products, 
such as sawlogs and veneer bolts, joined with ANSI to revise the 
pulpwood logging standard to include all logging operations within the 
United States. The expanded ANSI standard was approved May 19, 1977 
(ANSI 03.1-1978, Safety Requirements for Logging) (hereafter ``1978 
ANSI logging standard'') (Ex. 2-14). That standard adopted most of the 
safety practices contained in the earlier standard, applying them to 
all logging operations throughout the nation.
    The 1978 ANSI logging standard, however, was withdrawn by ANSI in 
1984 because no final action was taken to revise or reaffirm it. Since 
ANSI procedures require that action be taken to reaffirm, revise, or 
withdraw a standard no later than five years after the date of its 
publication, the 1978 ANSI logging standard was withdrawn by default. 
Currently there is no national consensus standard covering logging 
operations.
    In July 1976, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health (NIOSH), published a criteria document, Recommendations For An 
Occupational Standard For Logging From Felling To First Haul that was 
applicable to all logging operations (Ex. 4-3). The NIOSH document 
addressed the hazards and safe work practices involved in felling, 
bucking, limbing, yarding and loading operations.
    The NIOSH criteria document differed from OSHA's pulpwood logging 
standard in several ways:
    (a) The criteria document included all logging operations such as 
those relating to sawlogs, veneer bolts, poles and pilings rather than 
being limited only to pulpwood operations;
    (b) It included training requirements for employees;
    (c) It did not include provisions dealing with equipment protective 
devices, personnel transport, off-highway truck transport, chipping 
operations, or the construction and maintenance of roads, trails, and 
bridges; and
    (d) It recommended pre-placement and periodic medical examinations.
    This final standard for logging operations, as did OSHA's proposed 
rule, adopts many of the recommendations of the NIOSH criteria 
document, including expansion of coverage to all logging operations, 
emphasis on safe work practices and training, and elimination of 
provisions not unique to logging operations, such as that involving 
construction of roads and bridges.
    Six states have promulgated standards covering logging operations 
under the OSH Act State plan procedure set forth in section 18 of the 
OSH Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 667) and in OSHA regulations (29 CFR Part 
1902), which requires State plan States to adopt standards which are at 
least as effective as those promulgated under section 6 of the OSH Act. 
29 CFR 1902.03(c). These States, Alaska (Ex. 2-17), California (Ex. 2-
18), Hawaii (Ex. 2-19), Michigan (Ex. 2-20), Oregon (Ex. 2-21) and 
Washington (Ex. 2-22), have adopted standards which provide more 
protection than OSHA's pulpwood logging standard by covering all 
logging operations within their States. The standards of the five 
western states also contain a much higher level of detail and 
specification than either the 1978 ANSI logging standard or OSHA's 
pulpwood logging standard. OSHA used these standards as source 
documents during development of this final standard.
    On May 2, 1989, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) to amend OSHA's pulpwood logging standard, 29 CFR 1910.266, to 
include requirements for all logging operations (54 FR 18798). 
Thereafter, on May 11, 1990, OSHA published a notice of hearing in 
which 10 issues were raised for additional comment (55 FR 19745). There 
were 92 comments submitted in response to the proposed rule and hearing 
notice.
    Informal public hearings were held on July 24-25, 1990, in 
Washington, D.C., and on August 21-23, 1990, in Portland, OR, to allow 
interested persons who had objections to the proposed rule to have an 
opportunity to state those objections. There were 23 companies, 
organizations, associations and individuals who participated in the 
hearings.
    At the close of the hearing Administrative Law Judge John M. 
Vittone established a 60-day post hearing comment period, until October 
22, 1990, for the submission of additional information and data 
supplementing the testimony provided at the hearing. The post-hearing 
comment period was followed by another 30 days, until November 21, 
1990, for hearing participants to submit final briefs, analyses and 
summations. OSHA received 12 comments during the post-hearing comment 
period.
    OSHA has considered all evidence, comments and testimony entered 
into the rulemaking record and presented at the public hearing in 
developing this final standard.

II. Basis for Agency Action

A. Hazards

    The safety hazards present in the logging industry are well-
known,\1\ and there is no dispute among participants in this rulemaking 
that logging is a high hazard industry (Ex. 2-1 through 2-10, 2-30, 5-
18, 38B, 38C). The tools and equipment which logging employees use or 
operate, such as chain saws, axes and tractors, pose hazards wherever 
they are utilized in industry. As logging employees use their tools and 
equipment, they are dealing with massive weights and irresistible 
momentum of falling, rolling, and sliding trees and logs. The hazards 
are even more acute when dangerous environmental conditions are 
factored in, such as uneven, unstable or rough terrain; inclement 
weather including rain, snow, lightning, winds, and extreme cold; 
remote and isolated work sites where health care facilities are not 
immediately accessible. The combination of these hazards present a 
significant risk to employees working in logging operations throughout 
the country, regardless of the type of timber being logged, where it is 
logged or the end use of the wood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has 
identified a number of health hazards that are also present in the 
logging industry (Ex. 5-42). According to NIOSH, 20 to 50 percent of 
employees in felling operations may be affected by hand-arm 
vibration syndrome. Logging employees are also exposed to chain-saw 
exhaust, wood dust, tree fungi and bacteria. However, NIOSH has said 
that at this time there is insufficient data to project the 
magnitude of risk for some of these potential health hazards. The 
final rule on logging addresses health hazards, but only in certain 
specific ways (e.g., safety and health meetings). However, for those 
health hazards not specifically addressed in the logging final rule, 
other sections of Part 1910 apply. For example, occupational noise 
exposure is addressed by 29 CFR 1910.95. A permissible exposure 
limit for occupational exposure to wood dust is contained in 29 CFR 
1910.1000. OSHA notes that hand-arm vibration, manual lifting and 
other risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders are 
being addressed in OSHA's rulemaking on ergonomic safety and health 
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is also no dispute that these hazards and the resulting 
injuries and fatalities are severe and are not limited to the pulpwood 
sector of the industry (Ex. 2-1, 5-6, 5-10, 5-17, 5-18, 5-21, 5-36, 5-
42, 5-46, 5-48, 5-49, 5-54, 5-61, 5-65). The 1992 Census of Fatal 
Occupational Injuries, a public report compiled by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS), indicated there were 158 fatalities in the logging 
industry, which amounts to a 2 in 1,000 risk of death each year. The 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) estimates 
that there are 16,500 compensable injuries each year in the logging 
industry (Ex. 37). This amounts to an incidence rate of 1 in every 5 
loggers. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the 
accident rate in the logging industry has pushed workers' compensation 
insurance to 40 percent of payroll costs (Ex. 5-18). The USDA estimates 
that this now amounts to $90 million annually in the Pacific Northwest 
Region alone. According to a study conducted by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS), as least 47 percent of all injuries reported occurred 
in non-pulpwood logging operations (Ex. 2-1).
    The following discussion of the accident and injury data shows that 
injury incidence rate for the logging industry is among the highest 
industry incidence rates in the country.

B. Accident, Injury, and Other Data

    OSHA looked at several data sources to identify and characterize 
the degree of risk faced by employees in the logging industry. The data 
show that the logging industry has one of the highest injury incidence 
rates. For example, the most recent injury incidence rate for the 
logging industry (15.6) compiled by the BLS is almost double the 
incidence rate for the combined private sector (7.9). The logging 
incidence rate was also well above the incidence rate for the 
manufacturing sector (11.2).
    To assess the level of risk in logging operations, OSHA relied 
primarily on the following data sources. These data sources are 
described and discussed below.
    1. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 
publishes annual reports that list the estimates of injuries in the 
private sector during the year under consideration, Occupational 
Injuries and Illnesses in the United States by Industry (Ex. 2-1, 2-2, 
2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-30, 38B and 38C). The data 
and information are broken down industry by industry according to 
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. The BLS injury reports 
and data are generated from inquiries to selected employers about the 
OSHA Form 200 (Log and Summary of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses).
    Table 1 shows BLS occupational injury incidence data for the 
logging industry for 1972 through 1991. The data in Table 1 were 
derived from the BLS data using SIC code 241 (Logging Camps and Logging 
Contractors). While this classification covers the majority of the 
employees engaging in logging operations, it does not cover loggers 
employed by mills (SIC 242-Sawmills and Planing Mills) and other 
loggers working for other miscellaneous employers (SIC 24-Lumber and 
Wood Products, Except Furniture). Although the incidence rates for SIC 
242 and 24 are very close to the rates for SIC 241, OSHA did not 
include incidence rates for those SIC codes in its determination of 
incidence rates for logging because BLS does not provide incidence 
rates for occupational categories within a SIC code. As such, OSHA was 
not able to identify and segregate out the percentage of accidents 
which occurred while employees were performing logging as opposed to 
other operations in those related industries. OSHA is aware that there 
has been a move on the part of some mill owners to increasingly use 
private contractors rather than mill employees to harvest the trees 
that the mills process. OSHA believes, however, that SIC 241 does 
capture the vast majority of employees performing logging operations. 
To the extent that some logging operations may still be performed by 
employees in other than SIC 241, OSHA does not believe that their 
accident data significantly alter the level of risk present in logging 
operations.

                Table 1.-- Occupational Injuries Logging Camps and Logging Contractors, SIC 241                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Nonfatal without        Average lost                       
 Year       Total cases       Lost workday cases      lost workdays           workdays          Lost workdays   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1972.             32.2                  16.0                  16.0                 16.0                266.3   
 1973.             31.2                  16.1                  15.0                 20.5                307.8   
 1974.             28.8                  15.6                  13.0                 18.8                296.2   
1975..             25.5                  13.9                  11.5                 20.3                282.5   
1976..             24.6                  13.8                  10.7                 20.6                284.5   
 1977.             25.8                  15.4                  10.3                 21.2                327.0   
 1978.             25.6                  15.5                   9.9                 20.4                315.5   
1979..             24.0                  14.7                   9.1                 21.1                310.4   
 1980.             22.4                  13.8                   8.5                 24.4                338.1   
 1981.             19.1                  12.2                   6.8                 23.6                288.1   
 1982.             20.1                  12.9                   7.1                 23.5                302.8   
 1983.             21.2                  13.6                   7.5                 23.5                319.4   
 1984.             21.4                  13.8                   7.5                 23.1                318.7   
 1985.             19.8                  12.2                   7.5                 25.9                316.1   
 1986.             18.9                  12.5                   6.3                 23.3                291.7   
 1987.             19.1                  12.3                   6.7                 26.9                330.4   
1988..             19.6                  12.7                   6.8                 27.2                345.4   
 1989.             19.2                  11.6                   7.5                 26.2                306.0   
 1990.             17.2                  10.7                   6.3                 26.2                280.3   
 1991.             15.6                   9.9                   5.7                 27.8               274.8    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:                                                                                                          
1. Total cases, lost workday cases and nonfatal without lost workday cases are expressed as incidence rates are 
  per 100 full-time employees (200,000 person hours).                                                           
2. Average lost workdays are the average number of lost workdays per lost workday case.                         
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin Nos. 1830 (1972), 1932 (1974), 1981 (1975), 2047 (1977), 2097     
  (1979), 2130 (1980), 2196 (1982), 2236 (1983), 2259 (1984), 2278 (1985), 2399 (1990), 2424 (1991) Occupational
  Injuries and Illnesses in the United States by Industry.                                                      

    While the injury incidence rate remains high in the logging 
industry, the BLS data show a steady decrease in the incidence rate for 
the industry since the pulpwood logging standard was adopted in 
1971.\2\ The decrease in incidence rates occurs in both lost-workday 
and non-lost-workday cases. In contrast, the data also show a steady 
increase in the average number of lost workdays per case, that 
indicates that the severity of injuries has increased over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\The decrease in injuries since 1971 is also due in part to 
adoption of comprehensive logging standards by six states. For 
example, the state of California, which has a comprehensive 
standard, reported 457 logging fatalities in the 1950s, prior to 
adoption of the standard. In 1981, after the logging standard had 
been promulgated, California's logging fatalities hit a record low 
(6 fatalities) (Ex. 2-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1991 logging industry incidence rates still remain far above 
the total incidence rates and lost-workday incidence rates for other 
industries, as Table 2 indicates. For example, the most recent logging 
industry incidence rate (15.6) is almost double the incidence rate for 
the private sector combined (7.9). It is also 40 percent higher than 
the manufacturing sector incidence rate (11.2). The logging injury 
incidence rates also are well above the incidence rates for the 
construction industry (12.8) and mining (7.1), industries generally 
considered as high hazard.

   Table 2.--Comparison of Incidence Rates Logging vs. Major Industry   
                             Divisions 1991                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Nonfatal            
                               Total       Lost    cases w/o     Lost   
         Industry              cases     workday      lost     workdays 
                                          cases     workdays            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logging...................        15.6        9.9        5.7       274.8
Private sector............         7.9        3.7        4.2        79.8
Agriculture, forestry,                                                  
 fishing..................        10.2        5.2        4.9       104.6
Mining....................         7.1        4.4        2.7       127.8
Construction..............        12.8        6.0        6.8       146.2
Manufacturing.............        11.2        5.0        6.2       101.1
Transportation and                                                      
 utilities................         9.1        5.3        3.7       136.8
Wholesale and retail trade         7.5        3.4        4.1        69.7
Finance, insurance and                                                  
 real estate..............         2.3        1.0        1.2        21.5
Services..................         5.9        2.8        3.2        57.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: 1. Total cases, lost workday cases and nonfatal without lost     
  workday cases are expressed as incidence rates are per 100 full-time  
  employees (200,000 person hours).                                     
ASource: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2424, Occupational        
  Injuries and Illnesses in the United States by Industry, 1991.        

    The most recent lost-workday incidence rate for logging was 9.9, 
which is almost double the 5.0 incidence rate in the manufacturing 
sector and almost three times the 3.7 incidence rate for the private 
sector combined. The lost-workday rate, that is an indicator of the 
severity of cases, is extremely high in the logging industry (274.8 
lost workdays per 100 full-time workers). It is more than three times 
the private sector lost-workday rate (79.8) and more than double the 
manufacturing lost-workday rate (101.1).
    2. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. The Bureau of Labor 
Statistics also publishes an annual Census of Fatal Occupational 
Injuries (CFOI). The CFOI is a systematic and verifiable count of 
fatally injured public and private sector workers. This census uses 
administrative records, such as death certificates, workers' 
compensation fatality claims, medical examiners' records, and other 
reports to Federal and State agencies, to identify the workplace 
fatalities and complete descriptive data on the workers and 
circumstances of their deaths. According to the 1992 CFOI, the most 
recent data available, 158 logging employees were killed while 
performing logging operations. Table 3 shows that more than 60 percent 
were using power tools and performing cutting activities at the time of 
their death. Almost 20 percent were killed while operating logging 
machines or vehicles.

   Table 3.--Fatal Injuries in SIC 241 by Activity of Employee, 1992    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of              
         Activity at time of accident            fatalities    Percent  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using or Operating Tools, Machines............          108           68
  Operating Heavy Equipment...................            4  ...........
  Using Power tools...........................           14             
  Logging, trimming, pruning..................           86  ...........
  Other.......................................            4  ...........
Vehicular and Transportation Operations.......           24           15
  Driving, operating..........................           15  ...........
  Riding in, on...............................            3  ...........
  Vehicular and Transportation Operations,                              
   n.e.c......................................            3  ...........
  Other.......................................            3  ...........
Material Handling Operations*.................            6            4
Physical activity, n.e.c......................            4            3
All other activities..........................           16           10
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................          158          100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:                                                                  
* Loading, unloading materials.                                         
n.e.c. Not elsewhere classified.                                        
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1992 Census of Fatal Occupational   
  Injuries, April, 1994.                                                

    Applying the CFOI fatality estimate to the most recent logging 
employment estimate of 72,100 developed for the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (see Section VI of this preamble), the fatality incidence rate 
is .22. The logging industry fatality incidence rate is 8.1 times 
higher than the fatality incidence rate the mining sector (.027), the 
next closest industrial division. In addition, the logging fatality 
rate is 53.6 times higher than the fatality rate for the manufacturing 
sector (.0041).
    3. BLS Work Injury Report (WIR). The most detailed data source 
available to the Agency on logging injuries and their causes is a June 
1984 BLS Work Injury Report survey of 1,086 injured logging employees, 
hereafter referred to as the WIR survey (Ex. 2-1). It is significant to 
note that all 1,086 injuries occurred within just a three-month 
period.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Not all questions were answered by all survey participants, 
therefore, total responses vary in each table of data presented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Included in the report are employees who were injured while 
performing logging activities at the logging site or while moving or 
transporting logs across terrain. Motor vehicle accidents were included 
when the accident occurred at the work site, while hauling logs to the 
mill, returning from the mill, or transporting tools, equipment, or 
workers to or from the logging site in company-owned vehicles.
    Almost one half (47%) of those responding indicated they were 
performing non-pulpwood logging operations, therefore they were not 
covered by OSHA's existing pulpwood logging standard. Another 17 
percent did not know what type of timber they were logging.\4\ OSHA 
believes it is reasonable to assume that some percentage of those 
employees were not covered by OSHA's existing logging standard and 
therefore, more than one half of the injured employees were not covered 
by the OSHA standard. Approximately 35 percent of the injured employees 
were engaged in pulpwood logging operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\Of those who responded, 62 percent were engaged in clear 
cutting, 27 percent in selective cutting, and 8 percent in salvage 
logging. Approximately 4 percent did not know the type of logging 
being conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The survey also contained the following information: (1) the work 
site where the injury occurred (Table 4); (2) work activity being 
performed at the time of the accident (Table 5); (3) causes of the 
accidents (Table 6); (4) sources of the accidents (Tables 7-10); (5) 
protective equipment in use at the time of the accident (Table 11); (6) 
safety features of vehicles or equipments operated at the time of the 
accident (Table 12); (7) safety training given prior to the accident 
(Table 13); (8) factors contributing to the injury (Table 14); (9) 
severity of the injury (Table 15-16).
    a. Work site where injury occurred. Table 4 shows that more than 
one-half of employees injured were at cutting sites in the woods, while 
only 20 percent were injured at landings. In addition, more than one-
half of those injured were working on sloping terrain at the time and 
more than 60 percent reported that the work site contained moderate or 
heavy brush. 

        Table 4.--Description of Work Site Where Injury Occurred        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Description of work site                   No.     Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Location of Accident                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
Cutting site........................................       570        53
Landing.............................................       219        20
Between cutting site and landing....................       188        18
Employer built road.................................        34         3
Highway.............................................        17         2
Other...............................................        45         4
                                                     -------------------
    Total...........................................     1,073       100
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Terrain Where Accident Occurred                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
Flat ground.........................................       476        44
Medium slope........................................       388        36
Steep slope.........................................       206        19
                                                     -------------------
    Total...........................................     1,070     (\1\)
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Ground Cover at Accident Site                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
Little or no brush..................................       369        35
Moderate brush......................................       386        37
Heavy brush.........................................       273        26
Swampy, marshy, boggy...............................        29         3
                                                     -------------------
    Total...........................................     1,057     (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:                                                                  
1. Due to rounding, percentages may not add to 100.                     
2. Because incomplete questionnaires were used, the total number of     
  responses may vary by question.                                       
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR),      
  Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, dated June 1984 (Ex. 
  2-1).                                                                 

    b. Work activity at time of accident. Table 5 shows that almost 
one-half of all injured employees were engaged in cutting activities 
(felling, limbing, bucking) at the time of their accidents, and almost 
one-fourth of all injured employees were felling trees. Twenty-eight 
percent of the employees were injured during yarding operations (choker 
setting or hooking up, tractor or cable skidding, chasing). The 
remainder of the accidents occurred when the logs were being prepared 
to move from the landing (loading/unloading and rigging) or were being 
transported to the mill or other final destination. Other unspecified 
logging activities accounted for eight percent of the accidents. 
Finally, servicing and maintaining of equipment accounted for four 
percent of the accidents, a figure that is consistent with the 
information found for servicing or maintenance accidents throughout 
general industry. (See Docket S-012A.) Table 3 outlines the activity 
being performed at the time of the accidents and the percentage each 
activity represents. 

         Table 5.--Activity Being Performed at Time of Accident         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Activity                        Number     Percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felling trees.....................................        253         23
Limbing...........................................        165         15
Choker setting or hooking up......................        156         14
Bucking...........................................        134         12
Tractor or cable skidding.........................         92          9
Chasing...........................................         49          5
Loading/unloading.................................         51          5
Rigging...........................................         39          4
Servicing or maintaining equipment................         43          4
Hauling logs to mill..............................         15          1
Other logging activity............................         84          8
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................      1,084       100 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR),      
  Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, dated June 1984 (Ex. 
  2-1).                                                                 

    c. Causes of accidents. Table 6 indicates that almost one-fourth of 
the employees were injured when hit by trees, limbs or logs. Another 
quarter of the accidents were due to slips and falls. It is important 
to note that 20 percent of all injuries were chain saw related. 

                      Table 6.--Cause of Accident                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Cause of injury/accident                Number     Percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injured by limb, tree or log (hit by) (See Table                        
 7)...............................................        259         24
Slip, trip or fall (see Table 8)..................        258         24
Injured by chain saw (see Table 9)................        222         20
Muscular strain...................................         85          8
Hit by cable, hook, chain, etc....................         60          6
Chip or other object in eye.......................         55          5
Mobile equipment accident (see Table 10)..........         33          3
Other.............................................        114         10
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................       1086       100 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)       
  Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984 (Ex. 2-1). 

    d. Sources of injury. The WIR survey broke down the sources of 
injuries into employees hit by trees; injured in slips or falls; while 
using chain saws; and while operating equipment or motor vehicles 
(Tables 7-10). As Table 7 indicates, almost one-half of those employees 
injured by trees were hit by falling wood.

  Table 7.--Sources of Injury When Employee Struck by Limb, Tree or Log 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source of injury                     Number    Percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falling wood......................................        127         49
Rolling logs......................................         37         14
Logs rigged for yarding...........................         30         12
Other (springpoles, etc.).........................         65         25
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................        259        100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)       
  Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.           

    Approximately one-fourth of employees were injured in slips or 
falls, as shown in Table 8. Of these employees, 47 percent were injured 
when they fell from elevations. Approximately 28 percent fell from some 
type of mobile equipment or motor vehicle.

                    Table 8.--Slips, Trips and Falls                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Falls from, to                      Number    Percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Falls from elevation (surface fell from)........        105         47
  Ground surface..................................          9          9
  Felled trees, rolling or moving.................         16         15
  Felled trees, stationary........................         46         45
  Standing timber.................................          2          2
  Skidder.........................................          8          8
  Truck...........................................         14         13
  Yarder..........................................          3          3
  Mobile equipment, n.e.c.........................          4          4
  Other...........................................          2          2
  Unknown.........................................          1          1
  Falls to same level (Fell to)...................        117         53
  Ground surface or tools.........................         48         41
  Ground wood, stationary.........................         29         25
  Skidder.........................................          2          2
  Truck...........................................          1          1
  Yarder..........................................          2          2
  Other...........................................          8          7
  Unknown.........................................         27         23
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................        222        100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:                                                                  
1. The percentages of the major categories are of the total. The        
  percentages of the subcategories are of the major categories.         
2. Due to rounding, the percentages will not necessarily equal 100.     
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)       
  Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984 (Ex. 2-1). 

    It should be noted that in a majority of cases where an employee 
slipped or fell, the fall was due to an uneven surface. Many of these 
employees lost their balance on those uneven surfaces, such as standing 
on felled trees. Other employees slipped and fell from slippery or 
loose bark, sudden shifting of trees or logs, protruding roots, 
deadwood, leaves, vines, other wood litter and rocks.
    As stated above, one-fifth of all employees were injured while 
operating chain saws, as shown in Table 9. Of these employees, about 
two-thirds were hurt when the chain saw kicked back.

               Table 9.--Causes of the Chain Saw Injuries               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Cause                          Number     Percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chain saw kicked back.............................        140         64
Fell on saw.......................................         28         13
Didn't have tight grip on saw.....................         15          7
Hand slipped into chain...........................         14          6
Wrong cutting method..............................          7          3
Chain on saw broke................................          7          3
Using wrong size saw..............................          3          1
Saw ran after shutoff.............................          2          1
Saw not properly maintained.......................          1          *
Other.............................................         39         18
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................        222      (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:                                                                  
\1\Because more than one response is possible, the sum of the responses 
  and percentages may not equal the total. Percentages are calculated by
  dividing each response by the total number of persons who answered the
  question.                                                             
*Less than 1 percent.                                                   
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)       
  Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.           

    Table 10 shows the type of machine or vehicle the employee was 
operating at the time of injury. Over one-half of those injuries 
involved logging trucks, on which logs are loaded for transport to 
mills, etc. 

       Table 10.--Sources of Injury in Mobile Equipment Accidents       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source of injury                     Number    Percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skidder...........................................          9         27
Log truck.........................................         17         52
Mobile equipment, n.e.c...........................          2          6
Ground surface....................................          1          3
Other or non-classifiable.........................          4        12 
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................         33       100 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)       
  Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.           

    e. Protective equipment. Also included in the WIR survey was 
information about the type of protective equipment being worn or used 
at the time of the accident. Table 11 shows that the majority of 
employees were wearing logging boots, gloves and head protection when 
they were injured. However, less than one-third of those injured were 
wearing leg protection, even though almost 60 percent of the injuries 
investigated occurred when employees were performing activities that 
required the use of a chain saw (brushing, felling trees, limbing, and 
bucking). In addition, only six of the 33 employees injured while 
operating equipment or vehicles were using seat belts. Since more than 
one-half of all injured employees said they were working on sloping 
terrain at the time, OSHA believes it is reasonable to assume that some 
of the machine accidents were rollovers or tipovers and that seat belts 
could have prevented some of those injuries. 

              Table 11.--Protective Equipment Worn or Used              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Type protective equipment used             Number     Percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calk- or cork-soled boots.........................        659         62
Dust masks........................................         16          2
Earplugs or other hearing protector...............        264         25
Glasses or goggles................................        179         17
Gloves............................................        788         75
Hard hat..........................................        916         87
Leg protection....................................        303         29
Seat belts........................................          6          1
Steel-toed boots..................................        295         28
Other.............................................         19          2
Not using protective equipment....................         38          4
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................       1057     (\1\) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:\1\ Because more than one response is possible, the sum of the     
  responses and percentages may not equal the total. Percentages are    
  calculated by dividing each response by the total number of persons   
  who answered the question.                                            
                                                                        
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)       
  Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.           

    f. Equipment and vehicle safety features. Table 12 clearly shows 
that a significant number of machines and vehicles involved in the 
logging accidents were not equipped with fall protection, rollover 
protection or seat belts. 

          Table 12.--Safety Equipment on Vehicles or Equipment          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mobile equipment safety equipment            Number     Percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falling object protective structure...............         30         59
Rollover protective structure.....................         27         53
Seat belt.........................................         32         63
Other.............................................          4          8
Not aware of safety devices.......................          5         10
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................         51     (\1\) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: \1\Because more than one response is possible, the sum of the     
  responses and percentages may not equal the total. Percentages are    
  calculated by dividing each response by the total number of persons   
  who answered the question.                                            
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)       
  Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.           

    g. Safety training. The WIR survey also contained information on 
whether employees had received safety training prior to their 
accidents. Table 13 indicates that over one-third of the injured 
employees had never received training on safe work practices or in the 
operation of machines and vehicles used in logging operations. Only 40 
percent of employees injured said they had received training from the 
employer. In fact, 19 percent of those injured said that whatever 
training they had received had come from a relative. 

             Table 13.--Safety Training of WIR Participants             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Source of safety training                Number     Percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never received training...........................        392         37
Supervisor or employer............................        419         40
Co-worker.........................................        300         29
Relative..........................................        200         19
Other.............................................         72          7
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................       1046     (\1\) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: \1\Because more than one response is possible, the sum of the     
  responses and percentages are calculated by dividing each response by 
  the total number of persons who answered the question.                
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Report (WIR)       
  Injuries in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.           

    h. Factors contributing to the accident. Table 14 shows the 
conditions or factors that the injured worker felt contributed to his/
her accident. With regard to natural conditions, more than 30 percent 
said the sloping terrain and heavy brush had been a factor. In 
addition, 15 percent of the injured employees said that a danger tree 
had contributed to the accident.
    Human factors also contributed to accidents, according to the 
injured employees. More than 20 percent said that the fast speed at 
which they had been working contributed to their accident. OSHA notes 
that 10 percent of those injured were unaware of the hazards when they 
were injured.

       Table 14.--Conditions or Factors Contributing to Accident        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conditions or factors employee felt contributed to                      
                     accident                        Number     Percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural conditions:                                                     
  Defects in tree.................................         63          7
  Snag or deadwood in tree........................         75          8
  Spring pole or wood under tension...............        105         11
  Hidden wood on ground...........................         61          7
  Weather conditions..............................         56          6
  Slippery conditions.............................         80          9
  Heavy brush or ground cover.....................        173         19
  Steep terrain...................................        109         12
  Other natural conditions........................         71          8
  No natural conditions contributed...............        335         36
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................        934      (\1\)
                                                   =====================
Other factors:                                                          
  Co-worker's activity............................         54          6
  Working too fast................................        186         22
  Too noisy.......................................         13          2
  Working when tired or fatigued..................         64          8
  Handling too heavy an object....................         45          5
  Misjudged time or distance......................        118         14
  Not paying full attention.......................         65          8
  Unaware of hazards..............................         83         10
  Wrong cutting method............................         35          4
  Other:..........................................         53          6
  No other factors contributed....................        282         34
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................        839     (\1\) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:\1\ Because more than one response is possible, the sum of the    
  responses and percentages are calculated by dividing each response by 
  the total number of persons who answered the question.                
\2\Due to rounding, the percentages may not add to 100.                 
                                                                        
 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Work Injury Report (WIR) Injuries  
  in the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.                    

    i. Severity of injury. The WIR survey also indicates that when 
employees were injured in logging operations, their injuries were more 
severe than injuries occurring in other industry sectors. Table 15 
shows that almost three- fourths of those injured missed more than 1 
day of work due to their injuries. Over 30 percent missed more than 10 
days of work. The average lost-time case resulted in 23 days away from 
work. In addition, Table 16 shows that more than one-fifth of those 
injured were hospitalized an average of six nights.

                Table 15.--Estimated Days Away From Work                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Days away from work                   Number     Percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No days...........................................        270         26
1 to 5 days.......................................        234         22
6 to 10 days......................................        103         10
11 to 15 days.....................................         57          5
16 to 20 days.....................................         58          6
21 to 25 days.....................................         27          3
26 to 30 days.....................................         47          4
31 to 40 days.....................................         45          4
41 to 60 days.....................................         43          4
More than 60 days.................................         50          5
Lost-time cases for which days not estimated......        116        11 
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................      1,050        100
Mean days away from work:                                  23           
Median days away from work:                                10           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:                                                                  
\1\Total excludes 5 employees for whom data were not available.         
\2\Due to rounding, percentages may not add to 100.                     
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Work Injury Report (WIR) Injuries in
  the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.                       


                  Table 16.--Length of Hospitalization                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Length of hospitalization                Number    Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No hospitalization..................................       849        80
1 night.............................................        29         3
2 nights............................................        26         2
3 nights............................................        27         3
4 nights............................................        16         2
5 nights............................................        26         2
6 nights............................................        11         1
7 nights............................................        13         1
8 nights............................................        15         1
9 nights............................................         3     (\1\)
10 nights...........................................         6         1
11 to 20 nights.....................................         9         1
21 to 30 nights.....................................         8         1
More than 30 nights.................................         4     (\1\)
                                                     -------------------
    Total...........................................     1,059       100
Mean length of stay in hospital: 6 days                                 
Median length of stay in hospital: 4 days                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:                                                                   
\1\Due to rounding, percentages may not add to 100.                     
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Work Injury Report (WIR) Injuries in
  the Logging Industry, Bulletin 2203, June 1984.                       

    4. OSHA First Reports of Serious Injury (FRSI). OSHA also utilizes 
a telephone reporting system for the field staff to inform the national 
office of the occurrence of serious or significant accidents. This 
telephone call system is part of the OSHA emergency communications 
system. Regional Administrators are required to file first reports of 
fatalities, catastrophes and other important events (such as those that 
receive significant publicity) to the National Office. The information 
is recorded on a form entitled First Report of Serious Accident (FRSI). 
Approximately 1,200 reports are received by the National Office yearly.
    None of the reports are screened prior to OSHA receiving them to 
eliminate those from a certain industry, occupation or because of other 
factors. None of these reports may be considered statistically 
significant by themselves in attempting to determine the number of 
accidents that have occurred. However, they do give an indication of 
where many serious accidents have occurred and the types of work being 
performed at the time of the accidents.
    OSHA has examined the FRSI reports and identified 105 (Ex. 4-65) 
that occurred while employees were performing logging operations. These 
accidents occurred between October 1985 and December 1989. Table 17 
lists the logging accident reports as a percentage of all accident 
reports received.

Table 17.--First Reports of Serious Injury Accidents in Logging Industry
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Total                      
                  Period                    reports  Logging  Percentage
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct-Dec 85................................      228       12       5.26 
Jan-Dec 86................................     1147       30       2.62 
Jan-Dec 87................................     1236       29       2.35 
Jan-Dec 88................................     1330       23       1.73 
Jan-Dec 89................................     1150       11        .96 
                                           -----------------------------
    Totals................................     5091      105       2.06 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Electronic/Electrical and Mechanical Engineering      
  Safety Standards, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, OSHA.     

    The percentages attributable to logging injuries are particularly 
large in relation to the total employment in the industries 
represented. Using employment rates for 1985-1989 for the private 
sector and for the logging industry, OSHA observes that the percentage 
of accidents recorded on the FRSI for logging for each year far 
exceeded the percentage of employees in logging compared with the 
private sector. Whereas, logging employment constituted one tenth of 
one percent of total private sector employment, the reports of serious 
accidents in logging averaged about two percent of the total accidents. 
Table 18 lists these employment rates as they appear in the BLS annual 
reports entitled, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United 
States by Industry, (followed by the year of the data). (See section A 
above.)

 Table 18.--Private Sector and Logging Industry Employment Rates (1985- 
                                  1989)                                 
                     [All numbers are in thousands]                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Private     Logging 
                      Year                          sector     industry 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985............................................    81,601.3        82.7
1986............................................    83,291.2        82.9
1987............................................    85,686.0        85.0
1988............................................    88.698.8        90.3
1989............................................    91,111.0       87.4 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin Nos. 2278 (1985) (Ex. 2-  
  30), (1986), (1987) (Ex. 38B), (1988) (Ex. 38C), and (1989).          

    OSHA was also able to identify from the FRSI reports the activity 
that was being conducted at the time of the accident and the causes of 
the accidents. For example, more than one-half were involved in cutting 
activities when they were seriously injured. OSHA also notes that 
almost nine percent were seriously injured in machine rollover or 
tipover accidents while only 1 employee was injured by a jillpoke. 
Table 19 lists the activity being conducted or the causes of the 
accidents.

Table 19.--First Reports of Serious Injuries--Logging Operations October
   1985-December 1989 Activity Being Conducted/Cause of the Accident    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Activity/Cause                     Number      Percent  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felling Tree...................................          30         28.6
Lodged Tree....................................          17         16.2
Working Around Danger Tree.....................          13         12.3
Struck by Falling Load.........................          10          9.5
Vehicle Tipover................................           9          8.6
Struck by Vehicle..............................           8          7.6
Electrocutions.................................           3          2.9
Fall from Vehicle..............................           2          1.9
Skidding.......................................           2          1.9
Delimbing......................................           1          1.0
Jillpokes......................................           1          1.0
Other..........................................           9          8.6
                                                ------------------------
    Total......................................         105       100   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 1. The percentages may not be equal 100 due to rounding.          
Source: Office of Electronic/Electrical and Mechanical Engineering      
  Safety Standards, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, OSHA.     

    5. OSHA Fatality/Catastrophe Investigations Report (FCI). OSHA 
regulations require that all workplace fatalities be reported to the 
nearest OSHA Area Office. Employers are required to complete a 
Fatality/Catastrophe Event Report Form (OSHA 36), which is reviewed by 
the OSHA Area Director to determine whether an investigation of the 
fatality is warranted. In 1989, OSHA published a study of 141 logging 
fatalities that occurred during the period of 1978-84 (Ex. 4-61). These 
fatalities do not represent all logging industry fatalities during that 
time period.
    According to the study, 71 percent of those logging employees 
killed were out in the cutting area. Only one percent each were killed 
on skid trails or at landings.
    The study also indicated that 43 percent of those killed were 
felling trees at the time. Employees performing yarding and bucking and 
limbing operations each accounted for 13 percent of the fatalities. The 
overwhelming majority of employees (72%) were killed when they were 
struck or crushed by a tree, log or limb, while 17 percent were killed 
in machine accidents. One percent were killed in chain-saw accidents.
    Unsafe work practices, misjudgments and lack of training or 
supervision accounted for 42 percent of the fatalities while less than 
one percent were due to equipment failure.
    6. Maine Bureau of Labor Statistics. The State of Maine Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (Maine BLS) has compiled various statistics on 
injuries and fatalities in the logging industry (Ex. 4-174, 4-175, 4-
176).
    Maine BLS conducted a detailed survey of 189 logging employee 
injuries that occurred between May and July of 1982 (Ex. 4-175). This 
number does not represent all logging employees who were injured during 
that period. According to this survey, 35 percent of employees 
reporting injuries were struck by trees, logs or limbs. Chain-saw 
accidents accounted for 26 percent of the reported injuries while 13 
percent of the logging employees were injured in slips or falls.
    According to Maine BLS, the category that showed a significantly 
higher than average percentage of disabling injuries was chain-saw 
accidents. Over one-half of all chain-saw accidents involved kickback. 
In over 70 percent of the kickback accidents, the chain saws were 
equipped with chain brakes. Maine BLS said that chain brakes had played 
a significant role in lessening the effects of the injury. Less than 13 
percent of chain-saw accidents where chain brakes were present resulted 
in hospitalization, while nearly 50 percent of the accidents involving 
other than chain saws resulted in hospitalization.
    This survey also indicates that two-thirds of all logging accidents 
resulted in lost workdays and 13 percent of all injuries required at 
least one overnight in the hospital. The average hospitalization was 
for five days.
    Maine BLS has also compiled statistics from 1980-87 of chain-saw 
injuries that resulted in a first report of serious injury (Ex. 4-176). 
According to this report, average chain-saw injuries for each year was 
362. Of those, an average of 237 (65%) were disabling injuries, that 
is, injuries which result in lost workdays.
    Maine BLS has also examined disabling logging injuries reported 
from 1985-87 that had resulted in lacerations (Ex. 4-174). During those 
three years, there were an average of 183 disabling lacerations each 
year.
    7. Washington State Logging Fatalities. A detailed study has been 
compiled on logging fatalities in the State of Washington from 1977-83 
(Ex. 4-129). Of the 135 fatalities that occurred during those years, 
the study analyzed 92 percent of them. Death certificates and reports 
of investigations by Washington OSHA were used in the analysis.
    According to this study, the overall annual fatality rate for 
logging during this period was approximately 2 per 1,000 full-time 
employees. Those employees who were killed had a mean length of 
experience in the logging industry of 11.6 years. Less than 10 percent 
had less than one year's experience.
    More than 40 percent of all loggers killed were engaged in felling 
activities, while 23 percent were killed performing yarding operations. 
Almost 20 percent of the loggers were operating logging machines at the 
time of their accident. Table 20 shows the jobs employees were 
performing at the time of their accident.

       Table 20.--State of Washington Logging Fatalities, 1977-83       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Job title                        Number     Percent  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feller/bucker...................................          53          42
Choker-setter...................................          23          18
Mobile equipment operator.......................          16          13
Hook tender.....................................           8           6
Chaser..........................................           7           6
Yarder operator.................................           6           5
Loader..........................................           6           5
Rigging slinger.................................           5           4
Pondworker......................................           1           1
                                                 -----------------------
  Total.........................................         125        100 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More than 65 percent of all employees killed were hit or crushed by 
a log or tree. While most of these employees who were hit or crushed by 
a tree were the result of their own activity, more than eight percent 
were hit by trees being felled by another employee. Approximately nine 
percent were killed in machine rollover accidents, while 10 percent of 
those employees killed were struck by a machine or vehicle. Table 21 
shows the causes of the accidents in which loggers were killed.

   Table 21.--State of Washington Logging Fatalities by Type, 1977-83   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
                   Type of accident                     Number          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Struck by tree brought down by the deceased...........       34       26
Struck by tree felled by another person...............       11        8
Struck by rolling log.................................       20       15
Struck by log being dragged...........................       18       14
Struck by mobile equipment............................       13       10
Equipment rollover....................................       12        9
Struck by boom or rigger..............................        7        5
Struck by log falling from truck during loading.......        3        2
Electrocution.........................................        2        2
Other.................................................        9        7
Unknown...............................................        3        2
                                                       -----------------
  Total...............................................      132     100 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the study, accident investigation reports indicted 
that many of the deaths would not have occurred if the employees had 
been following safe work practices and had remained out of hazardous 
areas (e.g., other occupied work areas).

C. Need for agency action.

    OSHA believes that current logging methods and the inherent dangers 
posed by work in the woods, such as those caused by inclement weather, 
uneven terrain and isolation from health care facilities, present 
significant hazards to employees engaged in logging operations across 
the nation, regardless of the type logging being conducted or the end 
use of the wood. The presentation of data in the preceding section 
further demonstrate the level of risk to which all loggers are exposed. 
Nevertheless, the existing OSHA safety standard for pulpwood logging 
(29 CFR 1910.266) specifically addresses only one segment of the 
logging industry--logging operations whose forest product ends up as 
pulp. Although OSHA does not know precisely the breakdown of employment 
and occupational injuries between pulpwood and other logging 
operations, the data and other information available to OSHA indicate 
that similar hazards exist in both sectors of the industry.
    The preceding section has shown that the logging industry remains a 
high risk industry, regardless of the end use of the forest product. In 
particular, the data show:
    1. Employees engaged in logging operations have a substantially 
higher risk of injury and death than workers in many other industries, 
including other high hazard industries.
    2. If they are injured, loggers are more likely to be hospitalized 
and lose workdays compared to employees in most other industries, as 
evidenced by the very high lost-workday incidence rate.
    3. When loggers are injured, their injuries are much more severe 
and result in longer hospitalizations and more lost time per employee 
than do the injuries of employees in most other industries.
    4. Loggers also have a much higher incidence of fatalities than 
employees in other industries.
    In addition, the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the final logging 
standard estimates, based on the various data in the record, that there 
are an average of 158 fatalities, 6,798 lost workday injuries and 3,770 
non-lost workday injuries that occur each year in the logging industry. 
(For further discussion see section VI of this preamble.)
    Of the 72,100 employees engaged in logging operations as defined by 
the final rule, only 38 percent (27,170) are covered by State Plan 
State logging standards,\5\ which currently provide protection 
regardless of kind of logging operation in which the loggers are 
employed. Of the estimated 62 percent (44,930) of logging employees who 
are not covered by State plan State standards, OSHA estimates that at 
only one-third (16,478) are covered by the existing pulpwood logging 
standard. That means that almost two-thirds (28,452) are not covered by 
any Federal or State logging standard. (This estimate is consistent 
with the WIR survey, which indicated that only 35 percent of those 
surveyed were engaged in pulpwood logging operations.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\In 1977, the leading states in logging employment (with 48 
percent of the total) were Washington (15, 400), Oregon (14,000), 
California (6,100) and Maine (4,300). By 1982, the employment 
pattern had shifted and the leading states (with 42 percent of the 
total) were Washington (11,900, down 3,500); Oregon (11,300, down 
2,700); Georgia (5,400, up 1,600); and Alabama (5,000, up 1,200). 
California (3,900, down 2,200), was no longer one of the leaders. 
Overall logging employment in the Pacific Coast states decreased 22% 
during this period. The South was the only region in the country to 
show an increase in logging employment (21%). This employment trend, 
resulting in the change from harvesting the Pacific Coast's old-
growth timber to increased harvesting of third and forth-growth pine 
forests in the south, means that an increasing proportion of logging 
employment is in states not covered by state logging standards. (As 
noted earlier, only Alaska (16th in 1982), California (7th), Hawaii 
(very small), Michigan (19th), Oregon (2nd) and Washington (1st) 
have OSHA approved state logging standards covering all loggers.) 
This means that as the centers of activity (and employment) shift 
from the old growth forests of the pacific coast to the pine forests 
of the south, fewer employees conducting general logging (non-
pulpwood logging) will be covered by these State plan State logging 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preceding section shows there has been a steady decrease in 
injury and lost-workday incidence rates since the adoption of OSHA's 
existing pulpwood logging standard and the State plan State standards. 
In addition to a further reduction in accidents for those employers 
currently covered by OSHA and State logging standards, OSHA believes 
that a substantial reduction in incidence rates can be achieved by 
promulgating a uniform national logging standard that provides 
protection for all employees engaged in logging operations.
    In developing the proposed rule, OSHA used the l978 ANSI standard 
as its model for a uniform national logging standard, since many of its 
requirements were stated in performance language. This is in keeping 
with the Agency's determination that properly drafted performance 
standards can adequately address safety and health hazards without 
unnecessarily impeding technological advancement and employer 
innovation. The final rule provides a base level of safety for 
employees in all logging operations. At the same time, it still allows 
those State plan States with more complicated or specialized local 
conditions to develop their own detailed standards, as several States 
have already done.
    Many participants in this rulemaking have said that a comprehensive 
performance-based logging standard is necessary to reduce the risk of 
injury and death (Ex. 5-6, 5-10, 5-17, 5-18, 5-21, 5-22, 5-42, 5-46, 5-
74 through 5-92; Tr. W1 21, 73, 202). OSHA agrees with these 
commenters. The Agency believes that the integrated program of personal 
protective equipment; equipment, machine and vehicle protective 
devices, inspection and maintenance; work practices; and training 
contained in the final rule is reasonably necessary and appropriate to 
reduce the high injury and fatality incidence rates in this industry.

V. Major Issues

A. Introduction

    As a result of issues raised by those commenting on the proposed 
logging standard, OSHA solicited information on 10 major issues in the 
notice of public hearing (55 FR 19745, May 11, 1990). OSHA requested 
detailed information on a variety of issues including training, 
personal protective equipment, first aid, chain-saw protective devices, 
and seat belts. These issues were discussed by the participants during 
the public hearings and in post-hearing comments. The evidence 
submitted to the record is summarized and evaluated in the following 
discussion of each issue and in the summary and explanation of the 
final rule.
    1. Training. Comments on the proposed rule generally supported the 
need for training. Several commenters, however, raised specific 
questions about particular training issues. As a result, OSHA requested 
in the hearing notice further comment on the following training issues: 
Effective date of training, sufficiency of training, and portability of 
training.
    a. Effective date for training. In the proposed rule, OSHA would 
have required employers to be in compliance with all provisions of the 
final logging standard within 60 days of publication of the rule in the 
Federal Register. The proposed rule did not provide extended compliance 
time for employers to familiarize themselves with the standard and to 
develop and conduct training. Some commenters said additional time to 
meet the training requirements of the rule was unnecessary (Ex. 9-3, 9-
13; Tr. OR 343). These commenters said that in many logging 
establishments training is already being provided and that employers 
would not require significant time to incorporate the proposed training 
requirements into their ongoing programs. However, other commenters 
argued that the effective date for training should be delayed because 
additional time was necessary to develop the required training program 
and to train employees (Ex. 5-2, 5-27, 9-1, 9-2; Tr. W2 243-44). 
Commenters proposed various effective dates for training. For example, 
the Northeastern Loggers Association, Inc., recommended a 2-year phase-
in of the training requirements (Ex. 5-2). The American Pulpwood 
Association, Inc. (APA), however, supported a shorter six-month phase-
in period:

    Safety training programs for loggers are largely specific to a 
function (for example, proper felling technique). A fully 
comprehensive training package will have to be developed to meet the 
training requirements. APA is attempting to develop training 
programs and have them available by the end of 1989. * * * APA will 
seek OSHA staff review of its training program as it is developed. 
We'd like a brief delay in enforcement, just long enough for us to 
have something available for employers (Ex. 5-27).

    At the hearing there was little testimony about delaying the 
effective date for training. Mr. Doug Domenech, testifying on behalf of 
APA, repeated APA's position that employers should be given some 
additional time to comply with training requirements:

    The training is a very needed thing and, unfortunately, we just 
don't have the infrastructure to provide that training. That's why * 
* * we * * * hope that OSHA will give some kind of variance on time 
before citations are delivered because it's just not out there. If 
loggers had to comply with a training requirement today, they'd all 
be cited (Tr. W2 243-44).

    At the same time, however, Mr. Alex Hansen, of Associated Oregon 
Loggers, Inc. (AOL), testified that Oregon loggers already were in 
compliance with the training provisions contained in the proposed rule:

    As far as we're concerned in Oregon, you could implement the 
training tomorrow. We already have it in place. We don't have a 
problem with it. We're advocates of safety training in the woods. I 
know some other states have some problems. They haven't been doing 
it or maybe not as strenuous as the Oregon rules, and I understand 
their problems, but as far as our association is concerned, if you 
pass it tomorrow, we're in compliance (Tr. OR 343).

    The record indicates that training materials and courses for 
logging safety are widely available and that many logging 
establishments have implemented training programs (Ex. 4-122, 4-123, 4-
181, 5-20, 5-33, 9-1, 9-2, 9-5, 9-6, 36; Tr. W1 163-64, W2 113, 115, 
125, 199-201, OR 87, 259-60, 393, 546-47, 566). Trade associations such 
as AOL, APA and the Montana Logging Association have been providing 
training materials on an on-going basis (Ex. 5-27). APA expected to 
have completed a comprehensive training package for its members 
companies by 1989. In addition, state agricultural extension services 
are a source of training information (Ex. 4-122, 4-123). Several 
hearing participants submitted descriptions of their training programs 
and the actual training materials (Ex. 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29).
    OSHA is aware that many of the existing training programs are based 
on the training requirements of OSHA's pulpwood logging standard. 
Because the training requirements have been revised in this final rule, 
current training programs will have to be reviewed and upgraded, when 
necessary, to meet the revised requirements. In addition, the training 
provisions of the final rule vary to some degree from the proposed 
rule. As such, employers who made changes in their programs in response 
to the proposed rule will have to review their training materials to 
assure compliance with the final rule.
    OSHA is aware that employers, trade associations and other 
organizations that provide training will need time to prepare and/or 
update training programs to meet the requirements of the final rule and 
will need time to provide training to employees. However, the record 
also shows that many companies and organizations already have developed 
training programs that meet most of the requirements of the final rule 
(Ex. 5-20, 5-27, 5-52, 5-69, 9-2; Tr. OR 343). Many establishments, 
especially those in States that have logging standards, already are 
providing training (Ex. 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29). Therefore, OSHA 
does not believe that a lengthy delay is necessary to meet the training 
requirements of the final rule. The Agency believes that extending the 
effective date of the standard for 120 days after publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register will be sufficient to allow 
employers and others to familiarize themselves with the final rule, to 
update training programs to meet the provisions of the final rule, and 
to conduct initial training. This phase-in period also will give 
employers time to determine whether current and new employees have 
received the training in all of the elements specified in this section 
or whether they will need additional training.
    b. Sufficiency of training. The second issue raised in the hearing 
notice concerned what training OSHA would consider sufficient to meet 
the training requirements in the final rule. Some commenters supported 
OSHA's preference for performance based training (Ex. 9-3, 9-15). Other 
commenters argued for detailed specifications to be included in the 
training requirements, including a minimum number of hours of training 
(Ex. 9-13, 9-19).
    In general, the final rule contains training requirements in 
performance language to allow employer flexibility in tailoring 
training programs to the individual circumstances under which they 
operate. The final rule sets forth the basic elements that must be 
covered in the employer's training program, such as safe performance of 
assigned work tasks; safe use of tools; recognition and control of 
workplace hazards; prevention and control of general logging hazards; 
and the requirements of the final standard. The training provisions 
also require that employees initially work under supervision and that 
they demonstrate the ability to perform their work tasks safely before 
being released from supervision.
    As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, each logging establishment 
has unique conditions or hazards associated with its logging 
operations, that result in unique methods of operation. OSHA believes 
that the general elements of the training provisions allow employers to 
take into account those differences while still requiring the employer 
to assure through training that each employee is able to perform the 
job safely.
    On the basis of information submitted to the record and the 
testimony presented during the hearings, OSHA has determined that 
employers will not have difficulty in complying with the training 
requirements of the final rule. OSHA believes that the performance-
based elements adopted in the final rule will enhance employee safety 
and will provide employees with the tools to permit them to actively 
participate in providing their own protection.
    The Industrial Truck Association (ITA) recommended that OSHA 
specify in greater detail the training required for industrial truck 
operators (Ex. W1 5-47, Tr. 221-27). ITA urged OSHA to adopt the 
training provisions from the ASME B56.6 standard on rough-terrain 
forklift trucks. Mr. William Montweiler, testifying for ITA, stated:

    Part Two of the B56.6 standard addresses general safety and 
operating practices that are highly relevant to the proposed rule's 
training provisions. Although ITA is pleased that the proposed 
rule's training provisions provide greater detail than OSHA's 
industrial truck rule, these provisions can be made still more 
effective by additional particularity.
    The proposed rule merely requires that employees be trained to 
recognize safety hazards and trained ``in the safe use or 
maintenance of any machinery, equipment, or tools that they may be 
required to operate or maintain.'' This directive, we feel, is 
inadequate because it fails to state the elements that comprise an 
effective training program.
    By contrast, paragraph 5.17.4 of the B56.6 voluntary standard 
lists numerous elements of a proper training program specific to 
rough-terrain forklift truck operation, including explanation of the 
safety-related aspects of truck and component design; location and 
function of controls; supervised practice; oral, written, and 
operational performance testing; and refresher courses. ITA 
requests, therefore, that the final logging operations rule 
incorporate the training provisions contained in the B56.6 standard.

    OSHA believes that the performance-based and competency-based 
training provisions contained in the final standard adequately address 
ITA's concerns, and that more specific requirements in this standard 
for forklift truck operator training are not warranted for several 
reasons.
    First, the record indicates there is not a significant number of 
rough-terrain industrial trucks used in logging operations. Mr. Richard 
Lewis, testifying on behalf of APA, confirmed the limited use of rough-
terrain industrial trucks in the logging industry:

    The American Pulpwood Association currently employs seven 
technically trained foresters, two in Washington and five in 
division offices throughout the U.S. And collectively we've worked 
in the field for approximately 103 man years, and we get out on 
logging operations every month and sometimes once a week, and we 
have never, never observed the use of a rough terrain fork lift in a 
logging operation (Tr. OR 478-79 OR).

    Second, the ASME standard to which ITA refers, B56.6, does not 
focus on any unique problems with the use of industrial trucks in 
logging operations. Conversely, the logging standard is intended 
primarily to deal with workplace hazards that are unique to logging 
operations.
    Third, in any event, the final standard achieves the same training 
outcome as the B56.6 standard: demonstrated ability to safely operate a 
rough-terrain industrial truck.
    OSHA is in agreement with ITA that safety in industrial truck 
operation is important in the logging industry as well as all other 
industries. OSHA believes that the issue of training of industrial 
truck operators is more appropriately addressed in more detail in 
OSHA's forthcoming proposed standard on industrial truck operator 
training. OSHA believes the major safety issues involving industrial 
truck operation can be fully and specifically examined and addressed in 
that rulemaking.
    c. Portability of training. The third issue raised regarding 
training involves the portability of training; that is, whether current 
and new employees who are experienced and previously trained must 
receive additional or supplemental training. The proposed rule would 
have required that each new employee be trained, regardless of whether 
he/she had been trained previously.
    Some commenters supported the proposed requirement (Ex. 9-2, 9-3, 
9-9, 9-13). Several commenters disagreed with the scope of employees 
that need training, stating that trained and experienced loggers should 
not require the same training as an inexperienced new employee (Ex. 5-
21, 5-33, 5-39, 9-2; Tr. W1 63, OR 85).
    OSHA believes that training is important for all loggers regardless 
of whether they have no logging experience or have many years of 
experience. The need to provide training for even experienced loggers 
is buttressed by the WIR survey of injured loggers, which indicated 
that over one third of those injured had never received training (Ex. 
2-1). In addition, more than 60 percent of those injured had worked 5 
years or more in the logging industry. In fact, only 22 percent of 
those injured had worked in the logging industry for one year or less.
    At the same time, OSHA does not want to penalize those employers 
who already have instituted training programs that meet the 
requirements of the final rule or can easily be brought into compliance 
with the final rule. In addition, OSHA does not want to impose an 
unnecessary burden on an employer who hires loggers who have received 
the training required by this section on a prior job.
    In order to eliminate unnecessary duplication of training in the 
final rule, OSHA is not requiring employers to retrain employees who 
have received training in the specific requirements of this section. 
The final rule only requires the employer to train employees in those 
elements in which the current or new employee has not been trained. For 
example, an employee may need to be trained to recognize hazards that 
are specific to the terrain in which the work is being done, and to 
utilize safe work practices to avoid or control these hazards. In 
addition, a new employee, even if experienced in logging operations, 
may not be familiar with various work site procedures of the new 
employer, such as signals to be used. It is important for new employees 
to be brought up to speed with the current logging practices so other 
members of the logging crew are not placed at risk by the actions or 
inactions of the new employee.
    OSHA has included in the final rule a provision that each new 
employee and each employee who must be trained work under the 
supervision of a designated person until they can demonstrate the 
ability to perform their new duties safely. OSHA's position on the 
supervision requirement was supported by various hearing participants. 
For example, various witnesses at the hearing noted that close 
supervision of new employees, regardless of their experience, is a 
widely accepted practice in the logging industry and a means of 
determining whether the employee's previous training was adequate (Tr. 
W1 91-92, OR 95-97, 204-05, 275-76, 374, 456-57, 635-36). As such, OSHA 
believes that the inclusion of the supervision requirement in the final 
rule will provide the necessary safety to both the new and current 
employee, and will not impose a significant burden on the employer.
    2. Personal protective equipment. In the hearing notice OSHA raised 
the issue about who should pay for personal protective equipment (PPE) 
that employees are required to use or wear. The Agency proposed that 
employers provide PPE and assure it is used by employees when required. 
OSHA's intent in the proposed rule was that the employer provide 
personal equipment at no cost to the employee. PPE items included in 
the proposed rule were gloves, leg protection, logging boots, safety 
helmets (hard hats), eye or face protection, and respiratory 
protection.
    Many commenters agreed that the personal protective equipment 
specified in the proposed rule should be used. (Ex. 5-32, 5-42, 5-64, 
9-2, 9-15, 9-16, 9-20). Some commenters urged OSHA to require that the 
employer be responsible for providing all PPE (Ex. 9-3, 9-13). They 
said that only if the employer provided the PPE could he assure its 
quality, design and maintenance. However, many other commenters opposed 
requiring logging employers to provide certain types of PPE, and their 
opposition focused primarily on logging boots (Ex. 5-11, 5-21, 5-32, 5-
39, 5-45, 5-51, 5-55, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-2, 9-5, 9-15, 9-17, 9-18; 
Tr. W1 74-75, 110, 177, OR 22, 79, 205, 262, 441, 533, 632, 701). Many 
commenters did not give any reason why the employer should not be 
required to pay for PPE. Other commenters contended primarily that 
employers would be financially burdened if they had to pay for certain 
high cost PPE, such as individually-fitted and non-reusable logging 
boots, in an industry that has such a high turnover rate. Other reasons 
for not requiring the employer to provide certain types of PPE were the 
use of certain PPE by employees outside the workplace, and industry 
custom.
    Commenters noted that employee turnover in the logging industry is 
very high (Ex. 5-11, 5-21, 5-39, 5-49, 5-51, 5-55, 5-56, 5-63, 5-65, 5-
74 through 5-92; Tr. W1 74-75, 110, 177, OR 22, 79, 205, 262, 441, 533, 
632, 701). Some commenters also indicated that employees sometimes work 
only one or two weeks before leaving, often taking jobs at another 
logging establishment (Ex. 5-55, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. OR 78). These 
commenters argued that it would be unfair to require employers to pay 
for expensive logging boots given the high turnover rate of the logging 
industry. One commenter said:

    [I]t frightens us to think that we might be providing a $300 
pair of boots for a man that's there a week (Tr. W1 74).

    These commenters also contend that for some PPE, particularly 
logging boots, employers might have to buy new PPE every time they hire 
a new employee. First, this would be necessary because terminated 
employees do not return PPE they are issued (Ex. 5-45). Second, these 
commenters argue that, unlike PPE such as ear muffs and head and leg 
protection, logging boots are an item of PPE that cannot be reused by 
other employees because of size and hygienic concerns (Ex. 5-29, 5-43, 
5-44, 5-62, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-1, 9-15, 9-21; Tr. OR 78). Because 
logging boots cannot be worn by other employees, these commenters said 
employers view logging boots as ``personal clothing.'' In addition, 
these commenters said that even if employees did return their logging 
boots, new employees would be unwilling to wear used logging boots. One 
commenter said:

    Suppose a new employee comes to work in the spring and finds he 
can't or doesn't want to be a logger so he hands in his $200 boots 
with two weeks wear and tear and leaves. Is the next guy going to 
accept ``used'' boots someone else wore? (Ex. 5-78)

    The commenters said that requiring employers to pay for new PPE, 
primarily logging boots, for each new employee would place a 
considerable financial burden on employers (Ex. 5-32, 5-39, 5-45, 9-15; 
Tr. W1 74, OR 78, 350). They said the cost would be particularly 
burdensome for small establishments that comprise the vast majority of 
the logging industry. Their basis for this conclusion is that logging 
boots are very costly, ranging from $60 to $400 a pair (Ex. 5-45, 9-15; 
Tr. W1 74, OR 78, 350). In addition, they said employees need two to 
three pairs of logging boots a year. The commenters, however, did not 
present any financial or economic evidence as to the burden (e.g., 
effect on profits, sales, etc.) on the industry as a whole, and 
particularly small employers as a group, of providing logging boots.
    One commenter said employers should not be required to pay for 
logging boots that are used by employees away from workplace (Ex. 5-
39). This commenter said employees take their logging boots with them 
when they seek new employment (Ex. 5-39). He also said employees use 
their logging boots for hunting and cutting their own wood (Ex. 5-39). 
In contrast, the record shows that other types of PPE (e.g., leg 
protection, safety glasses and hearing protection) remain with the 
employer, therefore, they are not used away from the workplace (e.g., 
Ex. 5-32). In addition, one commenter said that these types of PPE are 
already being provided by many establishments as standard industry 
practice (Ex. 5-32).
    Finally, several commenters said that employers should not be 
required to pay for certain PPE because the custom in the logging 
industry is that employees, especially piece-rate workers, provide 
their own PPE, particularly logging boots (Ex. 5-11, 5-24, 5-45, 5-67, 
5-74 through 5-92). These commenters said that piece-rate workers 
provide all ``tools of the trade,'' that includes some types of PPE. 
However, the record also shows that some logging establishments do 
provide logging boots (Ex. 5-32; Tr. W1 177). For example, one 
commenter said:

    [T]he way we set it up is that when you're with us for one year 
we will buy you three pair of boots and we will supply all safety 
equipment.
    After you are with us for one month, we will supply safety 
chaps, the helmet, the whole works. The first day you come on the 
job we will supply the helmet, a helmet with the eye protection and 
the ear protection (Tr. W1 177).
    Another commenter said:
    In most instances items such as ear plugs, safety glasses, 
bucking chaps or any other safety item required to work in a safe 
environment are provided (Ex. 5-32).

    OSHA has carefully reviewed the evidence in the record and, for 
several reasons, has decided in the final rule to delete the general 
requirement that the employer be required to provide logging boots. 
However, the final rule does require that such boots be worn by logging 
employees, and holds the employer responsible for assuring that the 
employee has logging boots and wears them. As to the other PPE 
requirements specified in paragraph (d), OSHA has retained the language 
of the pulpwood logging and proposed standards that the employer 
provide such PPE at no cost to the employee.
    The OSH Act imposes on employers the responsibility for compliance 
with standards and for providing safe working conditions for employees. 
This responsibility has been recognized in OSHA's personal protective 
equipment standards at 29 CFR 1910.132 through 29 CFR 1910.138. Section 
1910.132(a) establishes the employer's obligation to provide and 
maintain personal protective equipment whenever such equipment is 
necessary by reason of the hazards in the workplace.
    Section 1910.132(b) does recognize that in some limited 
circumstances that employees may provide their own PPE. However, OSHA 
emphasizes that this practice is not the norm, but rather an exception 
based on unusual or specific circumstances. In addition, section 
1910.132(b) underscores the employer's continuing obligation to assure 
the adequacy and maintenance of the PPE.
    The record shows that special circumstances exist in the logging 
industry which may make it appropriate for employees to provide their 
own logging boots. First, the record shows that the logging industry is 
highly transient, and that logging boots, unlike other PPE required by 
the final rule, are not the kind of PPE that can be reused. Logging 
boots purchased to fit one employee may not fit the next employee. It 
is important that logging boots fit properly or the boot may not 
provide the necessary protection. Therefore, based on current turnover 
rates in the industry, employers would have to purchase non-reusable 
logging boots costing $200 to $400 many times a year for newly-hired 
employees, even though there is a significant likelihood that these 
employees will remain in the job for only a short time.
    Second, the record shows that logging employees tend to move from 
one logging establishment to another, taking their ``tools of the 
trade'' with them, particularly their logging boots. OSHA believes it 
may be appropriate in this situation to allow employees to take their 
logging boots to the next place of employment, rather than requiring 
the new employer to provide logging boots. Logging boots are both 
portable (i.e., not limited in use to or maintained at a particular 
workplace, like respirators for instance) and in most cases they fit 
only that particular employee therefore they cannot be reused by other 
employees. The other items of PPE required by the final rule, such as 
leg and head protection, tend to be both less personal to the employee 
and more connected to the workplace itself, and can be readily used by 
other employees.
    Third, there is evidence in the record that employees do use their 
logging boots away from work. Employees come to and leave work wearing 
their logging boots, suggesting that the boots are used away from the 
workplace. In addition, commenters cited specific activities where 
logging boots are used away from the logging work site. The commenters 
did not provide any comparable evidence that other items of PPE 
required by the final rule are also used by employees away from the 
workplace.
    Based on the above, OSHA has decided in the final rule not to 
require the employer to provide logging boots. The Agency emphasizes 
that it is the totality of the special circumstances in the logging 
industry that justify this determination. Of the reasons discussed 
above, none of them standing alone would provide sufficient 
justification for departing from the general requirement that employers 
provide PPE. Rather, it is the combination of these reasons and special 
circumstances in the logging industry that make it appropriate to allow 
employees to provide their own logging boots.
    OSHA also emphasizes that regardless of who provides the logging 
boots, the final rule makes the employer responsible for assuring that 
logging boots are used by the employee and are maintained in a 
serviceable condition. In addition, in the final rule the employer is 
responsible for assuring that logging boots are inspected before 
initial use during a workshift. Attendant to this requirement, the 
employer is also responsible for assuring that damaged and defective 
equipment is either repaired or replaced before work is commenced.
    With regard to the other items of PPE required by the final rule, 
OSHA does not believe there is sufficient evidence in the record to 
justify a departure from OSHA's long-established policy. Neither 
industry practice nor turnover rates compel the Agency to relieve 
employers of the obligation to pay for the other items of PPE for 
loggers. Indeed, evidence in the record shows that many employers are 
currently providing these other items of PPE (Ex. 5-32, 9-15; Tr. W1 
177). The record shows that, unlike logging boots, these items of PPE 
tend to remain at the workplace and are amenable for use by other 
employees. Further, there is no evidence in the record of an 
established practice of employees using such PPE away from the 
workplace. Also, there is no evidence of established and uniform 
industry practice of transporting such PPE from job to job. Therefore, 
in the final rule, OSHA is requiring, except for logging boots, that 
the employer provide PPE at no cost to the employee.
    3. Leg protection. In the hearing notice OSHA raised three issues 
concerning leg protection for chain-saw operators: specifications for 
leg protection, the area to be protected, and potential disadvantages 
of leg protection.
    a. Specifications. The proposed rule would have required that 
chain-saw operators wear leg protection made of ballistic nylon or 
other material that provides at least equivalent protection. Many 
commenters supported the leg protection requirement for chain-saw 
operators (Ex. 5-5, 5-7, 5-17, 5-30, 5-33, 5-42, 5-45, 5-51, 5-60, 5-
68, 5-73, 9-9-11; Tr. W2 126-28). Several commenters and hearing 
participants also supported OSHA's position that leg protection meet 
certain criteria (Ex. 5-30, 5-60, 5-68, 5-73; Tr. W2 126-28). Two 
commenters suggested that OSHA require leg protection made with KEVLAR 
because they believe KEVLAR provides more protection than ballistic 
nylon (Ex. 5-5, 5-30). One of these commenters said KEVLAR leg 
protection provides 50 percent more protection than ballistic nylon 
with a fraction of the weight and bulk, thus allowing easier movement 
and reducing fatigue (Ex. 5-30). This commenter also said that the U.S. 
Forest Service specifications call for KEVLAR leg protection. Other 
commenters stated that a testing protocol for leg protection should be 
adopted rather than specifying that leg protection be comprised of any 
certain type of material (Ex. 5-60, 5-68, 5-72). One commenter said 
OSHA should adopt the ISO or Canadian testing standards for leg 
protection (Ex. 9-16). However, other commenters said there was no 
consensus in this country regarding an appropriate testing standard 
(Ex. 5-60, 5-68, 5-72). One commenter proposed that the following 
testing standard be adopted:

    [T]he protective garment must have a minimum ``Threshold Chain 
Speed'' of 2500 feet per minute for operators using chain saws with 
an engine displacement of under 65 cc and 3000 feet per minute for 
operators using chain saws with an engine displacement of over 65 
cc. Further the test procedure developed and currently used by the 
US Forest Service [should] be adopted and defined as the test method 
used to measure the ``Threshold Chain Speed'' of safety material 
(Ex. 5-68).

    Another commenter proposed that a different testing standard be 
adopted in OSHA's final rule:

    I propose to replace ``ballistic nylon or equivalent protection 
covering each leg from the upper thigh to boot top or shoe top'' by 
``leg protective device in conformity with the standard NQ 1923-450 
``Protective pad for chain saw operators' trousers and leggings.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\NQ 1923-450 is a test standard developed in Quebec Province, 
Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This performance standard covers all the requirements for safety 
leggings such as the minimum coverage and a minimum performance 
level. This performance level is measured in conformity with the 
standard NQ 1923-450 ``Protective pads for chain saw operators' 
trousers and leggings--Determination of stopping speed and cut-
through time.'' These two standards have been adopted by a consensus 
of employers, workers, manufacturers of fabrics and PPE, government 
and workers' compensation boards.

    Other participants opposed specific criteria for leg protection 
performance for several reasons (Tr. W2 206-07, OR 472-75, 496-98, 513-
14). First, some argued that there were no national consensus or State 
standard to provide guidance on specification standards. Second, others 
commented that a specification standard limited to ``ballistic nylon'' 
was too restrictive (Ex. 5-30; Tr. W2 189-90). Third, others stated 
that there are no standards establishing specific performance criteria 
of the material for leg protection. For example, APA testified:

    APA does not know of any state leg protection apparel standard 
in existence or under development. I can report to you that our 
association has a special committee working on the development of a 
safety apparel standard, and this committee has generally accepted 
the Quebec Research Institute testing method, and now it's kind of 
rewriting this testing method to meet the American Society of 
Testing Materials guidelines. So the committee is close to 
completing its work on endorsing an approved test procedure.
    The next step in the committee's charge is to develop a 
voluntary performance testing standard that would apply for leg 
protection, safety boots and other apparel. That's going to be a 
little way down the road. It's own opinion that the work of this 
committee is not yet mature and that OSHA should probably not 
attempt to include any specific performance testing standard for leg 
protection or other safety items at this time. They're recommending 
that you defer the inclusion of a specific leg protection 
performance testing standard until the next revision of the OSHA 
logging regulations, whenever that might be. It may be ten years 
from now or fifteen years from now. At this point in time, we feel 
it's much more important to get any safety equipment worn, rather 
than to worry about whether or not it meets specific performance 
standard (Tr. OR 472-75).

    APA also testified that regional differences in chain-saw 
operations also precludes a specification standard for leg protection:

    I would also say in general our feeling is that logging is so 
different obviously in every part of the country that often we've 
got to have lead-way for the types of leg protection that might be 
appropriate for a person working in the swamps of Louisiana as 
opposed to the mountains of Montana. Not that we know what those 
differences might be, but that in general we feel like the loggers 
in those areas should be able to have the opportunity to design or 
approve a leg protection that would be appropriate for their 
situation (Tr. OR 207-08).

    The record shows that leg protection for chain-saw operators is 
essential to prevent injuries. According to the WIR survey, 64 percent 
of injuries to chain-saw operators were due to kickback, an accident 
that usually results in injury to the leg (Ex. 2-1). The WIR survey 
also indicates that 22 percent of all injuries reported were to the 
leg.
    OSHA believes that leg protection made of ballistic nylon or 
equivalent material is effective in preventing injuries to the leg. A 
study by the French Farmers' Mutuality indicates that ballistic leg 
protection was effective in preventing 12 leg injuries in 91 loggers 
studies over an eight-month period (Ex. 37). Testimony and comments 
show, however, that there is no accepted testing measurements standard 
in this country on leg protection performance. In addition, the foreign 
standards that do exist have not been generally accepted or used in 
this country. Nonetheless, OSHA believes that a performance-based 
requirement for leg protection to provide protection against contact 
with a moving saw chain will provide flexibility for employers while 
encouraging technological innovation, such as the work by APA.
    For these reasons, in the final rule OSHA has adopted the proposed 
provision requiring that leg protection be worn on each leg by all 
chain-saw operators. However, OSHA has revised the final rule to 
require that where the employer provides leg protection made of 
material other than ballistic nylon, the employer is responsible for 
demonstrating that it provides protection which is at least equivalent 
to ballistic nylon, such as KEVLAR. This requirement ensures that 
employees are protected against moving saw chains, while at the same 
time providing flexibility for the employer.
    b. Area to be protected and disadvantages of leg protection. The 
other issues raised regarding leg protection concerned the parts of the 
chain-saw operator's body that should be covered and its effect on 
mobility and other potential safety disadvantages of wearing leg 
protection.
    The proposed rule specified that leg protection extend from the 
upper thigh to the boot or shoe top. Many commenters supported the 
proposed rule (Ex. 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, 9-11, 9-13, 9-15, 9-16, 9-20). 
One commenter said that the proposed rule followed the requirements of 
the European draft standard (Ex. 9-11B). Some commenters said the 
proposed rule was not protective enough and said the equipment for 
protecting chain-saw operators should be expanded (Ex. 5-14, 5-68). One 
of these commenters said:

    [W]e would recommend that a standard be developed defining the 
minimum coverage these garments should have, for example from crotch 
to ankle bone with a minimum width measured at the knee of 9.5 (Ex. 
5-68).

    The other commenter recommended leg protection be extended to also 
provide foot protection that is cut resistance to a chain saw (Ex. 5-
14). This commenter said that the additional foot covering protection 
would also assure that the entire leg and ankle were covered if the 
chaps were not long enough to cover the boot top.
    Several commenters, however, said leg protection should be limited 
in the final rule (Ex. 5-17, 5-45, 5-56, 5-65, 9-1; Tr. OR 227, 633-
34). Most of these commenters said that OSHA should not require leg 
protection to extend from the upper thigh to the boot or shoe top. 
First, these commenters said that extending leg protection from the 
thigh to the boot or shoe top was not necessary because most of the 
injuries occur to the area around the knee. For example, one commenter 
stated:

    A person using a chain saw would have to do some pretty 
spectacular gymnastics to receive a chain saw cut more than 4'' 
below the knee. Once again, we have no recordable injuries for the 
last 7 years involving chain saw cuts more than 4'' below the knee 
(Ex. 5-45).

    Another commenter stated that leg protection was not necessary for 
climbers and bucket truck operators:

    The major hazards for these individuals are cuts to the upper 
body from saw kick-backs and falling material. Leg protection should 
not be required, however the use of some of the new lighter and more 
pliable pads sewn into pants should be encouraged whenever feasible 
(Ex. 5-19).

    Second, commenters stated that the small risk of injury to the 
lower leg was outweighed by the risks due to lack of mobility caused by 
full-length leg protection. For example, one said:

    We have received numerous comments from our membership 
throughout the country who use leg protection (or chaps) suggesting 
that chaps only extend to just below the knee. Chaps that extend to 
the boot top, or shoe top, as required in proposed Section 
(e)(1)(ii), impede mobility and cause a greater safety hazard than 
the standard works to protect against. Our members believe that the 
highest risk for chain saw cuts occurs from the knee to the thigh. 
Thus, chaps that cover the leg from the upper thigh to just below 
the knee are sufficient (Ex. 5-56).

    Third, one commenter testified that leg protection to the boot or 
shoe top would pose an unreasonable financial burden on employers (Tr. 
OR 633-34). According to the participant, different loggers use the 
employer-provided leg protection each day. Because all loggers are not 
the same height, the leg protection provided may not reach to the boot 
or shoe top or may be too long for other loggers to wear safely. This 
participant suggested that the only way an employer could guarantee 
compliance with the required fit of the leg protection would be to 
provide fitted leg protection to each individual logger. The 
participant recommended the following:

    We suggest [leg protection extend] to below the knee because 
these come in various lengths. And certainly in those times you 
can't always stretch a pair of chaps that somebody maybe having to 
put on to operate a chain saw all of a sudden to get it down to the 
boot top (Tr. OR 633-34).

    Fourth, some commenters stated that leg protection that extends to 
the boot or shoe top might cause mobility problems, and would therefore 
be hazardous for chain-saw operators (Ex. 5-19, 5-20, 5-55). For 
example, one commenter stated:

    Rigging crews will occasionally use a power saw. If they are 
required to wear leggings, it could be more dangerous than not 
having anything. This is one of the reasons rigging crews prefer 
suspenders rather than a belt because you don't get ``hung up'' so 
often. Anything that is going to hinder mobility is a problem (Ex. 
5-20).

    Another commenter recommended that OSHA limit leg protection to 
just one leg for cutters (i.e., the leg in front that is used to 
maintain balance during cutting) (Ex. 5-65). However, this commenter 
also admitted that any chain-saw operator who is clearing brush needs 
to wear protection on both legs because the saw is continuously and 
perilously close to either leg at all times.
    Other commenters said leg protection should be limited because heat 
and humidity could increase worker fatigue or cause problems that might 
exceed the benefits of leg protection (Ex. 5-25, 5-26, 5-59, Tr. W2 
206-07). For example, one commenter stated:

    OSHA proposes that employees are assigned duties that require an 
operator of a chain saw to wear ballistic nylon or equivalent 
protection that must cover each leg from the upper thigh to the boot 
top. This does not take into consideration the various temperature 
factors which could increase fatigue. Fatigue is a major cause of 
injuries. As stated, on Page 11802 [of the preamble to the proposed 
standard], Alabama and Georgia are states that are among the leaders 
in logging activities. Due to the high heat and humidity of these 
states, the requirement to wear ballistic nylon chaps could possibly 
increase injuries as a result of the fatigue caused by hot, humid 
summer weather (Tr. W2 206-07).

    Another comment added:

    Clause (e)(1)(ii) should allow exceptions to the wearing of leg 
protectors for all circumstances (not just climbers) in which there 
is a greater hazard than working without them (for instance, fatigue 
from heat and humidity or loss of mobility in heavy undergrowth 
etc.). It would be even more appropriate if the wearing of ``leg 
protectors'' were made optional, depending on the individual work 
circumstances. One study, (The Role of Personal Protection in the 
Prevention of Accidental Injuries in Logging Work, T. Klen and S. 
Vayrynen, Journal of Occupational Accidents, 1984) concluded that 
personal protectors have not been very effective and that this was a 
result of a phenomena known as ``risk compensation'', the tendency 
of workers to be more careless when they believe that personal 
protectors will prevent injury (Ex. 5-59).

    OSHA has carefully reviewed the record on this issue and, for 
several reasons, has decided in the final rule to retain the 
requirement that leg protection cover the upper thigh to the boot top. 
The record clearly shows that chain-saw operators face a significant 
risk of injury due to kickback. The WIR survey indicates that 64 
percent of all chain-saw injuries reported were the result of kickback 
(Ex. 2-1). Further, the WIR survey shows that almost 30 percent of all 
injured employees were not wearing leg protection at the time. Also, 
almost one-fourth of all injuries reported were to the leg.
    According to the Maine BLS survey, chain-saw accidents accounted 
for 26 percent of all reported injuries and more than half of those 
accidents involved chain-saw kickback.
    OSHA does not believe the record supports the commenters' claims 
that chain-saw injuries only occur to the area around the knee. 
Injuries to the lower leg as well as the knee are significant. The WIR 
survey indicated that nine percent of all employees reporting injuries 
were hurt in the lower leg or ankle, while 11 percent were injured in 
the knee.
    The available accident and injury data also do not support the 
commenters' argument that lack of mobility is a greater hazard to 
chain-saw operators than lack of leg protection. To the contrary, the 
data clearly show that the risk of chain-saw kickback is far more 
serious than any of the potential dangers that have been suggested with 
regard to leg protection (Ex. 2-1). For example, according to the WIR 
survey, none of the chain-saw operators said they had been injured 
because they did not have enough time to retreat from the falling tree. 
On the other hand, almost two-thirds of the chain-saw operators were 
injured because the chain saw kicked back. In any event, OSHA believes 
that other provisions in the proposed and final rule will adequately 
address concerns about mobility. For example, the requirement to plan 
and clear retreat paths before commencing cutting will protect 
employees who would be at risk from decreased mobility.
    Finally, OSHA believes the new innovations in leg protection 
technology address the commenters' concerns about costs, mobility, 
fatigue and heat stress. First, the record shows that full-leg 
protection now being manufactured is light-weight and relatively cool 
(Ex. 5-68, 9-4). The record also shows that light-weight leg protection 
that is inserted or sewn into logging pants is now available. According 
to one commenter, these new innovations make leg protection tolerable 
even in the hot and humid southern logging regions. OSHA believes these 
innovations will reduce fatigue and heat stress and will prevent 
mobility from being impeded. Second, the record shows that foot 
coverings are available that can supplement protection in those 
instances where leg protection may not fully cover the logger's lower 
leg. These devices will provide adequate protection in those isolated 
instances where leg protection may not be long enough without requiring 
the employer to purchase leg protection in many different sizes.
    4. First aid. The hearing notice raised two issues about first aid: 
the number of employees who must have first-aid training, and the 
elements required as part of that training, such as cardiopulmonary 
resuscitation (CPR).
    a. Number of employees trained. The proposed standard specified 
that all supervisors and all fellers be adequately trained in first aid 
methods as prescribed by the American Red Cross, the Mine Safety and 
Health Administration or an equivalent training program. In addition, 
the proposed rule included a provision that at least one person in the 
``operating area'' have first-aid training.
    OSHA received many comments regarding the number of employees who 
should be trained in first aid in order to provide adequate protection. 
There was no consensus among those commenters on the appropriate number 
of employees who must be trained. Their recommendations about the 
number of employees who should be required to receive first-aid 
training covered a wide range of options, including the following:
    1. All employees (Ex. 5-7, 5-17, 9-15, 9-20; Tr. W1 175, W2 209, OR 
100, 375, 393, 681);
    2. All supervisors and fellers (Ex. 9-3, 9-13);
    3. All supervisors and enough additional personnel so each work 
site would have a trained employee (Tr. OR 21);
    4. All supervisors and fellers, plus two additional employees on a 
logging job (Ex. 5-54; Tr. OR 647);
    5. All supervisors, fellers, and one-fifth of remaining crew 
members (Ex. 9-19, Tr. OR 282);
    6. All supervisors, fellers and one-fourth of remaining crew 
members (Tr. OR 206); and
    7. All supervisors and some fellers (Ex. 5-36, 5-53, 5-55, 5-63).
    Commenters who recommended first aid training for a limited number 
of employees, said that training all fellers or all other employees was 
excessive since the proposed rule would also require employees to work 
within visual or audible contact of another employee (Ex. 5-36, 5-55). 
Another commenter said that requiring all fellers to be trained would 
be duplicative since more than one feller may work at a work site (Ex. 
5-63).
    Other commenters said they already provide first-aid training for 
each employee:

    Everyone--all the people on our crew are trained [in first aid] 
on a rotating basis. Now, the fellow that's been with us six months, 
he has not been to the first-aid class yet. Also, one of the--I 
believe it's in with the Nortim Corporation, the Nortim self 
insured, it is one of the regulations that we do have people on the 
job that are versed in first aid (Tr. OR 174).
    Another hearing participant stated:
    Along with overall safety training, I feel that required first 
aid training for all employees is simply common sense (Tr. OR 393).

    Other commenters indicated that they are providing first aid 
training to a substantial portion of employees, in part because the 
company's logging operations are in isolated locations in Alaska:

    Mr. Lesser: Does your training program include first aid 
training?
    Mr. Bell: We provide first aid training to just about whoever 
wants it.
    Mr. Lesser: Who do you require to have first aid training?
    Mr. Bell: We require all supervisors, leadmen, hook tenders, 
leaders of crews.
    Mr. Lesser: Using the voluntary nature offering the first aid, 
do you get a lot of volunteers? What percentage of the work force is 
trained in first aid?
    Mr. Bell: I'd say 35 percent (Tr. OR 375).

    As discussed above, there is no dispute that logging is a hazardous 
industry. All data sources in the record show that a significant number 
of accidents occur in the logging industry and that the severity of 
injuries sustained by loggers is greater than that suffered by 
employees in other industries. Loggers often work in isolated locations 
that are far from hospitals or health care providers that sometimes are 
accessible only by helicopters or vehicles designed to operate on the 
most rugged terrain (Ex. 9-20; Tr. OR 21). Accordingly, loggers need to 
be trained and equipped to handle the significant number of severe 
injuries that might arise. In many instances these trained employees 
will be the only persons available to render assistance at a critical 
time.
    OSHA believes that first aid training for only a select few 
individuals, such as supervisors and fellers, is not adequate to ensure 
that injured loggers receive first aid that is timely and appropriate. 
First, when only a few selected employees are trained, they may not be 
close enough to the site of the accident to render assistance in time. 
The WIR survey indicates that more than one-half of all injuries 
reported occurred at cutting sites, that in most cases are remote from 
landings and from medical facilities (Ex. 2-1). The WIR survey is 
consistent with the OSHA FCI study, that indicated that more than 70 
percent of logging employees killed were working at cutting sites (Ex. 
4-61). One hearing participant reinforced this problem:

    The rigging crew is often 1,000 feet and sometimes 5,000 feet 
from the landing. The work site is usually on rough, steep ground, 
and these workers often use hazardous cutting implements such as 
axes and chain saws. If the first aid trained person and the first 
aid kit are in the yarder, that can be 15 minutes or more from where 
the worst exposure is (Tr. OR 21).

In addition, since the final rule allows employees to maintain contact 
with another employee by visual or audible contact, an employee may be 
miles from the contact person when radio communication is used. In such 
cases, the contact person may not be able to provide immediate first 
aid assistance.
    Second, limiting first aid training to all supervisors and some 
additional personnel may not be adequate when supervisors are not at 
the work site when an accident occurs. According to the State of 
Washington, logging supervisors usually have two or more logging crews 
working directly for them (Ex. 5-34). These logging crews are often 
dispersed over five square miles or more. In addition, in larger 
operations, foremen usually see each crew only once a day and rarely 
for more than one hour of the workshift. Another commenters said in his 
experience it was not uncommon to find a group of employees working in 
a location without a supervisor and no other employee in the group has 
a current first aid certificate (Ex. 91-5).
    Third, a logger's injuries may be of such severity that several 
persons trained in first aid may be needed to stabilize the injured 
employee and treat the injury. If only one employee is trained, the 
first aid assistance may not be sufficient.
    Fourth, when only one employee in a work site is trained, as the 
proposed rule contemplates, first aid will obviously be inadequate if 
the trained person is the one who is injured. (Although first-aid 
training does include instruction in self-aid, the injuries may be 
severe enough to incapacitate the trained employee.) For example, in a 
small working crew that has no supervisor, the feller may be the only 
employee who is trained in first-aid. If the feller is injured, there 
may be no other logger in that work crew who is trained to provide 
first aid. The WIR survey indicates that one-half of all loggers who 
were injured were performing felling tasks (i.e., felling, limbing, 
bucking) at the time.
    Fifth, when only a few employees receive first-aid training, there 
is a greater likelihood that there could be crucial gaps in coverage 
due to sickness, vacations, other leave, or employee turnover of those 
few who have received training. In addition, an employer may not know 
from day to day if an employee will be present that is holding a 
current first aid certificate (Ex. 5-7).
    OSHA notes that some commenters opposed requiring every employee to 
have first-aid training because of the transient nature of the logging 
industry. OSHA finds that the commenters' argument does not support the 
position that fewer employees should be trained. If there is high 
employee turnover, it may be the trained employee who is not employed 
any longer. If work continues without a fully-trained person while a 
first-aid replacement is being trained, employees may be at great risk. 
By contrast, if work has to be stopped until a replacement can be 
trained, the employer could incur costs which could be prevented by 
having adequate first aid coverage in advance. If all employees working 
in the logging industry are required to have first-aid training, a pool 
of trained employees will always be available to employers for hiring.
    Fifth, requiring that each employee be trained eliminates confusion 
and may be less administratively burdensome than making a daily check 
and rescheduling of work assignments to assure that supervisors, 
fellers and some additional number of employees in each operating area 
hold current first aid training certificates.
    To ease the training burden for employers, the final rule does not 
require that the first-aid training be provided by the employer. 
Rather, the final rule requires that the employer assure that each 
employee performing logging operations receives or has received first-
aid training and that the first-aid training/certificate is current. 
For example, as one means of complying with the final rule, the 
employer could make first-aid training a condition of hiring or 
continued employment. The employer would be free to hire only those 
persons who had previously obtained first-aid training and kept their 
certificate current. In addition, when there is employee turnover, 
trained employees will be able to bring their first-aid skills from one 
workplace to another and thus relieve the training burden for the new 
employer.
    OSHA is aware that some employers currently provide first-aid 
training and most likely will continue to provide such training. OSHA 
is also aware that a number of organizations and schools provide first-
aid training that would meet the requirements of Appendix B. For 
example, the American Red Cross, the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration, State extension services, community colleges, and adult 
education programs all provide first-aid training that includes CPR. As 
such, OSHA does not believe that the requirement of assuring that all 
employees have received first-aid training that remains current will 
pose an unreasonable burden on any employer or employee.
    b. Elements of first-aid training. In the hearing notice, OSHA 
requested comment on the specific elements, such as CPR, that should be 
included in first-aid training. In the proposed rule OSHA did not 
specify the basic elements in which supervisors and fellers must be 
trained. Rather, OSHA proposed that first-aid training meet the 
requirements of courses provided by the American Red Cross, MSHA or an 
equivalent training program.
    Several commenters recommended that OSHA require CPR training as 
part of required first-aid training (Ex. 5-42, 5-49, 5-50, 9-2, 9-19). 
Both NIOSH and the U.S. Dept. of Interior supported the CPR training 
requirement. Because loggers, especially those deep in the woods are 
not close to medical facilities during the ``golden hour'' where 
resuscitation may save a person's life, OSHA agrees with the commenters 
that it is essential that all loggers be able to perform CPR. 
Therefore, in the final rule OSHA has included a requirement for annual 
CPR training.
    In addition, OSHA has specified other basic skills and knowledge in 
Appendix B (mandatory) that are important for providing aid to injured 
loggers in isolated settings. OSHA is aware that there are many well-
recognized first-aid programs that have broad-based curricula which 
already satisfy OSHA requirements.
    5. Visual and audible contact. In the hearing notice OSHA requested 
comment on the maximum time and/or distance separation between 
employees. In the proposed rule, OSHA included a requirement that 
employees work within visual or audible contact of another employee, so 
that someone would be able to respond quickly in case of an accident or 
other emergency. The proposed rule prohibited the use of engine noise, 
such as from chain saws, as a means of contact. Various State logging 
standards also prohibit the use of chain-saw noise as a means of 
signaling (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-21, 2-22, 38J, 38K).
    OSHA received many comments on the contact and signaling 
provisions. Many commenters testified that the proposed contact 
requirement is necessary (Ex. 5-14, 5-17, 5-27, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-2, 
9-3, 9-5, 9-13; Tr. W2 197-98). One commenter said:

    We think that visual or audible contact is important and will 
save lives. There are also electronic devices, some sophisticated 
and some like citizen band radios, that can be used by forest 
workers to maintain audible contact by electronic means. We 
recommend that the existing proposed language be retained but 
modified perhaps to allow audible contact by electronic means (Tr. 
W2 197-98).

    Certain commenters urged OSHA to make the contact requirement 
stricter than that proposed. One commenter said employees in solitary 
jobs also need to remain in contact and, therefore, should be provided 
with two-way radios (Ex. 9-15). Another commenter said OSHA should 
require employees to remain within visual contact of another crew 
members (Ex. 9-20). Finally, two commenters recommended that OSHA 
require employees to work within normal hearing or calling distance of 
another employee (Ex. 9-19; Tr. OR 679-81).
    However, several commenters expressed various concerns about the 
contact provision, and particularly the prohibition against chain-saw 
noise as a means of contact. First, some participants said the 
requirements would have an adverse impact on small employers, 
especially employers with work crews consisting of three or fewer 
loggers (Ex. 5-21, 5-28, 5-35, 5-49, 5-53, 5-54, 5-70). For example, 
one commenter said:

    This requirement may adversely affect the livelihood of many 
small-scale loggers in the South who may work alone in the woods, or 
operate a single mobile ground skidder or felling machine and are 
frequently out of contact with other phases of the logging operation 
(Ex. 5-28).
    Another commenter stated:
    This requirement would not be practical for several reasons:
    (1) there are a number of logging contractors that work alone,
    (2) log crews with two or three members are often out of contact 
because the great distance between the faller and log header,
    (3) even at close range, visual and audible signals are 
attenuated by thick brush and loud machinery.
    My experience has been loggers will keep track of their fellow 
workers the best they can but, due to the nature of the job, 
individuals will be separated for certain lengths of time. To 
require loggers to be within signaling distance of one another will 
preclude the existence of one and two man log crews, working in 
thick brush, working in hilly topography, skidding long distances, 
the use of ear plugs or working with loud machines (Ex. 5-70).

    Second, some commenters believed the contact requirement conflicted 
with the proposed requirement to maintain a distance of two tree 
lengths between work areas (Ex. 5-12, 5-29, 5-4, 5-67, 5-70). These 
commenters said that a separation of two tree lengths between work 
areas might make it impossible to maintain contact due to saw noise and 
obstructions such as hills or vegetation. One commenter explained:

    If this code goes through and is enacted, it would change the 
timber falling industry in Alaska. Southeast Alaska is a relatively 
new geological area. We work on steep ground that is broken up by 
draws, gullies, cliffs. We have our timber fallers work together as 
partners. One works in one strip or one area of the hillside and the 
other one works in another area of the hillside. For safety reasons, 
our company requires that they work at least three tree lengths 
apart. And often with the broken up terrain, that precludes visual 
contact (Tr. OR 353).

    Third, comments were received on the prohibition of chain-saw noise 
as a signaling device. Some participants supported the prohibition (Ex. 
5-27, 5-34, 5-42). Other commenters argued that chain-saw noise is 
currently being used as a means of contact in the logging industry and 
should be allowed in the final rule (Tr. W1 65; OR 86, 353-55, 356-58, 
384-85, 694-96). For example, one commenter said the sound of chain 
saws is an indicator that someone is working at a specific location 
(Tr. W1 65). Another commenter stated:

    [W]e have been counting on chain saw noise for years. Chain saw 
noise is possible, and by the way, that's my most dangerous part of 
my job is to do a safety inspection or to go up and check on cutters 
in a strip, to approach cutters. And I listen to the saw. And I can 
tell when they are putting a cut into a standing tree or bucking a 
log with the chain saw noise. If we are not allowed to use chain saw 
noise as audible contact, that means we may have to go back to 
double jacking which is a faller and a bucker working in tandem (Tr. 
OR 353-55).

    This participant also said that chain-saw noise should also be 
permitted because 103-decibel chain-saw engines render 92-decibel 
personal alarm systems inadequate as means of audible contact (Tr. OR 
355).
    Fourth, several commenters urged OSHA to adopt various alternatives 
and modifications to the proposed contact requirement (Ex. 5-54, 5-55; 
Tr. OR 670-81). For example, commenters suggested that OSHA replace the 
contact provision with a ``check-in'' requirement:

    In West Virginia, a cutting crew often consists of a worker who 
fells and limbs the trees and a worker who operates a skidder. 
Consequently, it is often necessary that the feller be left alone in 
the woods, without audible or visual contact with another worker, 
for short periods of time while the skidder operator is making the 
trip to the log landing. Also, it is common practice for workers to 
be constantly checking on one another. Upon his return from the 
landing, the skidder operator immediately checks on the feller; and, 
the feller, if the skidder operator does not return in the normal 
time span, will check on the skidder operator.
    Considering the common small cutting crew size, the practice of 
constantly checking on one another, and the difficulties involved in 
using an audible signal capable of being heard over distances, over 
machine noise, and through hearing protection devices, it is our 
recommendation that this aspect of the Standard be changed to allow 
a worker to be out of ``visual or audible signal contact with 
another person'' for short periods of time. Due to the normal time 
involved for transporting a skidder load to the landing, unhooking, 
and returning, we recommend that this short time period be 
established at 20 minutes (Ex. 5-54).

    Other commenters also suggested that OSHA allow employees to be out 
of contact from other employees for short periods of time (e.g., 15 to 
20 minutes, the time to take a load to the landing and return) (Ex. 5-
54; Tr. OR 670-81).
    OSHA has decided in the final rule to retain the requirement that 
employees work within visual or audible contact of another employee. As 
discussed above, most commenters indicated that remaining in contact is 
important to the safety of loggers. Several commenters said that 
supervisors use chain-saw noise to identify where and whether an 
employee is working. However, they did not provide evidence that chain-
saw noise provides an effective means of communicating information from 
the employee or from the supervisor. For example, data and information 
available to OSHA indicates that even though chain-saw noise is 
currently used as a means of maintaining contact, there are still 
reports from OSHA case file investigations of loggers being injured and 
not being discovered until after the shift has ended (Ex. 1). In 
addition, chain-saw noise does not provide the cutter with an adequate 
means of communicating with others in the event they have become 
injured or are in other trouble. Since all chain-saw noise indicates is 
whether an employee is working, the cutter must wait until another 
employee recognizes that the lack of noise means the cutter needs 
assistance. This may delay rendering that assistance. OSHA believes the 
cutter, not just the supervisor, needs to have a method for 
communicating when necessary. Radios and telephones are modern 
communication methods that are increasingly used in this logging 
industry. These methods, unlike chain-saw noise, provide immediate two-
way communication.
    Although OSHA has decided to retain in the final rule the 
prohibition against use of chain-saw noise alone as a means of contact, 
the final rule does provide employers with a great deal of flexibility 
in maintaining contact with employees. First, permitting radio 
communication to be used as a means of contact allows contact to be 
maintained while at the same time maintaining a two tree-length 
distance between adjacent occupied work areas. Second, permitting 
contact to be maintained by radio or whistles allows employees to work 
alone rather than limiting employees to working in teams that are 
within visual distance of each other. Allowing radio contact will also 
provide flexibility for small radio crew operations when visual or 
voice contact may not be possible. Third, OSHA also believes that 
permitting radio contact will not be unduly burdensome for the industry 
since many companies already are utilizing electronic communications 
(Ex. 5-27; Tr. W2 227).
    With regard to the issue of equipment noise preventing radio 
communication, OSHA notes that radios are available with ear phones 
that fit inside hearing protection muffs. Where such ear phones and 
hearing protectors are provided, equipment noise will neither interfere 
with communication nor should result in occupational hearing loss.
    Because contact may be maintained by radio, OSHA has removed the 
exception to the contact requirement for ``single employee 
assignments.'' OSHA believes that radio communication already is 
necessary in order for many of those single employee jobs to be 
performed (e.g., watchman). As such, OSHA does not believe that 
extending the radio contact requirement to all logging operations will 
unduly burden employers, while at the same time it will provide 
important protection for all loggers.
    6. Chain-saw protective devices. In the proposed standard, OSHA did 
not include a provision requiring chain saws to be equipped with chain 
brakes or other devices that prevent kickback. The proposed standard 
also did not require chain saws to meet any performance criteria of any 
standards-setting organizations. Rather, OSHA proposed only to require 
employers to inspect and maintain chain-saw safety devices when chain 
saws were so equipped. The hearing notice requested further comment on 
the adequacy of various chain-saw safety devices and what regulatory 
action OSHA should take in the final standard regarding chain saws.
    There was no dispute among commenters that chain-saw protective 
devices are necessary to prevent operators from being injured. The 
record shows that the chain-saw bar can kick back in less than 0.3 
seconds (Ex. 4-172). The record also shows that average human reaction 
time, however, is only 0.75 seconds (Ex. 4-172). That means in many 
cases the operator cannot take action quickly enough to avoid being 
struck by the chain saw. The record also shows that many injuries in 
the logging industry are the result of chain-saw kickback. According to 
the WIR survey, 20 percent of all logging injuries reported involved 
chain saws and almost two-thirds of those injuries were the result of 
chain-saw kickback (Ex. 2-1). The Maine BLS survey also shows that 
chain-saw injuries account for a significant number of logging injuries 
(26%) in that State (Ex. 4-175). Similar to the WIR survey, the Maine 
BLS survey indicated that over half of all chain-saw accidents resulted 
from kickback.
    a. Devices to prevent chain-saw kickback. Information submitted to 
the docket indicates that there are four devices that exist to reduce 
or minimize the risk of injury due to chain-saw kickback. These devices 
are chain brakes, bar tip guards, reduced-kickback guide bars, and low- 
or reduced-kickback saw chains. Information about these devices was 
taken from a 1983 report prepared for the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (CPSC) (Ex. 5-13) as well as comments to the proposed rule. 
The discussion that follows explains the different devices and their 
advantages and disadvantages.
    The chain brake is a device for stopping the saw chain when 
kickback occurs before the chain can contact the operator. The most 
common type of chain brake is actuated when the operator's hand or arm 
hits the brake lever that is located immediately ahead of the front 
handle. When kickback occurs, the chain brake may either be actuated by 
the operator's hand pivoting forward on the handle, or by the hand 
being dislodged from the handle, striking the brake lever. According to 
the CPSC report, chain brakes, unlike new technology chains and safety 
guide bars, do not have any adverse effect on the cutting effectiveness 
of chain saws. The record also indicates that one of the advantages of 
chain brakes is that, unlike other protective devices that can be 
removed, the chain brake is an integral part of the saw and is 
difficult to remove (Ex. 4-174). As such, chain brakes deter the 
disabling of the kickback prevention system by the operator (Ex. 5-19).
    The bar tip guard (or nose tip guard) is a device that is bolted or 
screwed onto the tip of the bar. Its primary function is to prevent 
contact with the tip of the bar from which kickback is generated. 
Commenters identified three problems with bar tip guards. First, one 
commenter said bar tip guards are not usable in felling and bucking of 
some trees (Ex. 9-16). This commenter said forward leaning trees 
usually require the bar tip to fell the tree safely.
    Second, two commenters said the hazards associated with bar tip 
guards outweigh their protective value (Ex. 5-42, 9-20). According to 
NIOSH bar tip guards reduce kickback danger only under certain 
conditions, that is, when the log or limb is elevated and does not have 
any off-angle to cause pinching of the bar (Ex. 5-42). NIOSH concluded 
that the bar tip guard may pose greater hazards than saws without tips 
because they require the bucker to maintain working stances that are 
less stable. The other commenter said that the bar tip can get caught 
on limbs. Third, the major problem with bar tip guards is that they are 
removable (Ex. 5-13, 5-13H). According to the CPSC report, the bar tip 
guard is removed by operators because it reduces the utility of the saw 
by preventing boring and the cutting of any logs that are wider than 
the guide bar. Evidence in the record indicates that bar tip guards are 
being removed by a significant number of operators:

    Only about half of the operators of saws so equipped always use 
such guards. About 36 percent never use them, and about 12 percent 
sometimes take them off the guide bar. Thus, while nose tip guards 
are effective anti-kickback devices, many operators remove them from 
their saws (Ex. 5-13).

    The Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association (PPEMA) 
submitted testimony from CPSC's own proceedings, which also 
acknowledged the extent to which bar tip guards are removed from chain 
saws:

    [T]he Commission received the benefit of a survey that was done 
on the part of the NESDA, National Equipment Servicing Dealers 
Association. They on their own surveyed hundreds of their dealers. * 
* * [T]heir survey corroborated my own personal observations, 
namely, that in real life practice users of chain saws in the droves 
are simply not using that nose tip, and while if it were used or if 
it were permanently established on the saw, it would be a complete 
barrier to kickback, the fact of the matter is because it's 
temporary and because it is removed, because in my view it affects 
in the case of the dealers, as you'll see from their comments, it 
affects the efficacy of the saw, it is taken off, and as a result 
provides no protection, zero.
    Just to cite from the survey, 73.5 percent of the responding 
dealers to the NESDA survey reported that only zero to five percent 
of the chain saws brought into their shops for repair, of the ones 
that were originally equipped with the nose guards, that 73.5 
percent of the dealers responded that only zero to five percent had 
nose guards in place. Another 9.3 percent reported that six to ten 
percent of such saws had nose guards in place, leaving only 17.1 
percent of the dealers who put the figure of nose guards in place at 
something more than ten percent.
    The unmistakable conclusion is that the overwhelming majority of 
consumers are removing the nose guards from their saws and not 
putting them on in the first place.
    The survey also revealed that almost no consumers are interested 
in replacing nose guards that are not in place. Eighty-eight percent 
of the dealers, 88 percent, stated that zero percent of their 
customers wanted replacements, and an additional 8.9 percent put the 
replacement request at a mere one to five percent (Ex. 5-13H).

    There are two different types of reduced-kickback guide bars. One 
is designed and manufactured with a taper from the back of the bar and 
has a correspondingly small radius of curvature at the tip of the bar. 
This type of bar is commonly referred to as a narrow nose bar. The 
other type of reduced kickback guide bar has a reduced radius nose but 
achieves its taper from the fact that the top and bottom edges of the 
bar a asymmetrical (the top and bottom edges are curved and have a 
different radius of curvature). This type bar is commonly called a 
banana bar because of its peculiar shape. According to the CPSC report, 
both the narrow nose bar and the banana bar have significant drawbacks, 
primarily in the useful life of the bar and chain and the efficiency of 
the chain saw. The narrow nose bar, because of its reduced radius of 
curvature at the tip, receives more stress at the tip, thereby 
requiring more frequent replacement. Because of its asymmetrical 
design, the banana bar cannot be merely turned over when the bottom 
edge of the bar becomes worn, but must be replaced. This type of bar 
also reduces the ability of the operator to use the saw for boring. 
This disadvantage is compounded if the saw also is equipped with a low- 
or reduced-kickback chain.

    [T]he use of low-kickback guide bars results in a tradeoff of 
some reduction in utility for an improvement in safety. Industry 
sources have suggested that this may be an acceptable tradeoff for 
the less powerful saws which are probably purchased by consumers. 
Since the tradeoff involves a marginal improvement in safety, 
however, manufacturers are probably less willing to equip the more 
powerful, more performance oriented saws with the low-kickback guide 
bars (Ex. 5-13).

    Finally, the potential for kickback can be reduced by the low- or 
reduced-kickback chain. This chain is commonly referred to as new 
generation chain. Low kickback chain can be identified by an idler or 
spacer link between each of the cutting links. In other words, the 
chain has a left hand cutter link on the right side of the chain, 
followed by a spacer link, followed by a right hand cutter link on the 
left side of the chain followed by another spacer link before the 
sequence begins again.
    Although the low-kickback chain can reduce kickback energy by 40 to 
90 percent, there are drawbacks to its use, according to the CPSC 
report. These drawbacks include: (1) New technology chains generally 
exhibit some loss in cutting efficiency (speed and ease of cutting), 
(2) these chains make cutting more tiring for the operator thereby 
causing more operator fatigue, and (3) the loss of cutting efficiency 
may adversely affect the life of the chain. The loss of cutting 
efficiency has been estimated to be anywhere from a 10 to 25 percent. 
OSHA has no estimates of the increase in operator fatigue and the 
degradation in the service life of the chain.
    Of the four protective devices, most commenters said OSHA should 
require chain saws to be equipped with a chain brake because it is the 
most used and most effective for professional logging operations (Ex. 
4-175, 5-17, 5-19, 5-21, 5-27, 5-34, 5-42, 5-46, 9-3, 9-4, 9-13, 9-15, 
9-18, 9-20; Tr. OR 536-37). Several of these commenters said that all 
chain saws used at their establishments are equipped with chain brakes. 
These commenters also said that almost all manufacturers now produce 
chain saws with some kind of chain brake and that almost all chain saws 
manufactured for commercial logging operations now have chain brakes 
(Ex. 5-19; Tr. OR 185-87, 536). In addition, one commenter said that 
manufacturers have improved earlier mechanical problems with chain 
brakes so that they are reliable in preventing kickback (Ex. 9-4). With 
regard to the effectiveness of chain brakes, one commenter said:

    The chain brake is, I'd say, one of the most important chain saw 
protective devices developed in modern history. In Montana all of 
our current professional saws are equipped with chain brakes. Most 
of our saws are in the four to six cubic inch range, primarily, 
Stihl and Husqvarna with a few other minor brands and seldom on job 
visitations do I find anyone who has disconnected the chain brake. 
It's so uncommon that it's startling when I find that any more.
    The other protective device that I see that's had substantial 
improvement is the throttle lock mechanism where it has to be held 
down with your palm in order for the trigger to operate. For years 
it was common that the first thing a logger did was he got a roll of 
black tape and he would tape that down so you didn't have to operate 
that. Through our progressive Montana Sawyer Safety Program and 
other efforts I brag to people that we now have developed a 
genetically superior timber faller in Montana that can now squeeze 
with his palm and pull with his trigger finger at the same time.
    These two chain saw protective devices combined with leg 
protection have had a significant impact on the reduction of 
accidents in Montana relative to timber falling. In fact, it's been 
so significant that I don't even consider the other options of even 
any application to logging when we talk about the low kickback bar, 
the low kick-back chains and even the bar tipped guards. They may 
have individual special application but I'm thoroughly convinced 
with the chain brake, the throttle lock and the leg protection we've 
so significantly reduced chain saw injuries that any further 
attention is maybe some wasted effort and just further develops 
additional conflict (Tr. OR 536).

    Mr. David Kludt, Logging Safety Program Supervisor for the State of 
Idaho, testified that 10 percent of all logging accidents each month 
are the result of chain-saw kickback and that these accidents could be 
drastically reduced by the use of chain brakes (Ex. 9-4).
    In addition, Maine BLS says that chain brakes have played a 
significant role in lessening the effects of chain-saw injuries in that 
State (Ex. 5-174). They reported that only 13 percent of chain-saw 
accidents where chain brakes were present resulted in hospitalization, 
while nearly half of all other accidents required hospitalization.
    Some commenters, however, disputed the effectiveness of chain 
brakes for preventing kickback (Ex. 5-39, 5-59, 5-66). One of these 
commenters said chain brakes were not reliable and required frequent 
maintenance, however, no evidence or data were presented to support the 
contention (ex. 5-59). Another commenter said that a study showed that 
while chain brakes reduced kickback by 80 percent, non-kickback 
accidents showed a 400 percent increase (Ex. 5-66). However, the 
commenter also admitted that the study was from 1972 and that chain 
brakes had undergone significant improvement since that time. Another 
commenter said chain brakes, depending on their design, could become 
entangled in the brush the saw is clearing and create a safety hazard 
(Ex. 5-39). The WIR survey, however, does not support the commenter's 
argument. None of the chain-saw operators reporting injuries said their 
chain brake had become caught (Ex. 2-1).
    b. OSHA regulatory action. Many commenters said that the final rule 
should include requirements for chain-saw protective devices (Ex. 5-17, 
5-19, 5-21, 5-27, 5-34, 5-42, 5-46, 9-3, 9-4, 9-13, 9-15, 9-18, 9-20; 
Tr. OR 536-37). However, some commenters, including chain-saw and 
chain-saw accessory manufacturers, said OSHA should include performance 
requirements for chain saws in the final standard rather than 
specification requirements (Ex. 5-4, 5-8, 5-13, 5-15, 5-26, 5-37, 5-
59). Many of these commenters supported incorporating by reference the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B175.1-1985 standard on 
``Safety Requirements for Gasoline Powered Chain Saws'' (Ex. 5-4, 5-8, 
5-13, 5-15, 5-26, 5-37, 5-59). The ANSI standard specifies a 
performance criteria for manufacture and testing of chain saw safety 
features, such as protection from chain-saw kickback. One commenter 
summed up their rationale:

    [T]he Status Report on Chain Saw Related Hazards since the 1985 
Revision to The Voluntary Standard ANSI B175.1, which was prepared 
for the Consumer Product Safety Commission in March of this year, is 
a testimonial to the fact that the reduction in chain saw injuries 
is the result of adherence by manufacturers to the voluntary 
standard. There truly is little to be said in defense of OSHA when 
it chooses to knowingly ignore the demonstrated success of the chain 
saw voluntary standard, which equates compliance with the use of a 
combination of devices, in favor of an arbitrary and inexpert agency 
decision to the effect that one specific device, in and of itself, 
is superior to any other device or combination of devices permitted 
by the standard (Ex. 5-4).

    These commenters stated that OSHA would create ``confusion in the 
marketplace'' if OSHA adopted requirements that were significantly 
different from the ANSI chain-saw standard that all manufacturers have 
been voluntarily following (Ex. 5-4).
    Other commenters, however, opposed incorporating the ANSI standard 
in the final rule (Ex. 5-27, 5-48; Tr. OR 118). These commenters said 
the ANSI standard was developed to protect consumer chain-saw users, 
not professional loggers:

    The ANSI B175.1 Standard was developed from an injury data base 
that was consumer based and therefore its direct application to pro-
logging may not be justified (Ex. 5-27).

    Two commenters said that ANSI standards were not known to most 
loggers, were not readily available, and were not written in language 
that the average logger would comprehend (Ex. 5-27; Tr. OR 118). One of 
these commenters said OSHA, therefore, should put its requirements in 
the standard rather than requiring logging employers to obtain and read 
another document (Tr. OR 118). He added that placing the requirements 
in the regulatory text would increase compliance.
    As discussed above, many commenters supported a requirement that 
all chain saws be equipped with chain brakes rather than just 
referencing the ANSI standard. In general, these commenters said chain 
brakes were the most effective device to protect operators from 
kickback and to provide extra protection when the saws are carried 
between cutting jobs. In addition, one commenter supported a chain 
brake requirement for the following reason:

    The U.S. should follow the lead of other countries (European) 
and require that all saws have an operating chain brake if purchased 
after the adoption of these regulations. The cost would be minimal 
since the majority of saws now come equipped with these devices. 
This would also help deter the disabling of the brake system by 
operating personnel (Ex. 5-19).

    OSHA agrees with commenters that the final standard should include 
requirements on chain-saw protective devices. The final rule does 
incorporate by reference the ANSI B175.1 consensus standard, but the 
Agency believes that the ANSI standard alone does not provide the 
necessary degree of safety for logging employees. Accordingly, for 
several reasons, the final rule also requires that chain saws placed 
into initial service after the effective date of the standard be 
equipped with chain brakes. First, there is considerable evidence in 
the record that chain brakes are effective and the most used device to 
prevent kickback. Second, they have strong acceptance by logging 
professionals, and as a result, already are standard equipment on 
almost all chain saws currently manufactured. Third, chain brakes do 
not have the disadvantages of the other protective devices. For 
example, unlike bar tip guards, chain brakes are not removed by 
operators. Unlike reduced-kickback guide bars and low- or reduced-
kickback chains, chain brakes do not affect production efficiency. 
Fourth, other countries also have adopted provisions requiring chain 
saws to be equipped with chain brakes (Ex. 5-19).
    Fifth, OSHA agrees with commenters who are concerned that, in order 
to maximize compliance, the standard be comprehensible to the average 
loggers. This is especially important for chain-saw safety, since many 
employees provide their own chain saws. These employees and their 
employers need plain and simple direction about what protection must be 
provided for each chain-saw operator. OSHA does not believe that the 
ANSI standard contains the type of information needed by those 
operating the chain saw. It requires the use of sophisticated equipment 
and exacting procedures that are beyond the expertise of the average 
logging employer. Much of the ANSI standard deals with a computer 
program for simulating chain-saw kickbacks and tests to determine the 
accuracy of the computer program. As such, the ANSI standard is 
primarily directed to manufacturers of chain saws, rather than 
employers and employees in the logging industry. For example, the 
standard states:

    The purpose of this standard is to establish minimum safety 
requirements with respect to the manufacture of portable, hand-held, 
gasoline-powered chain saws (Ex. 4-66).

    The requirements of the ANSI standard are primarily within the 
unique purview of manufacturers, such as requirements for the throttle 
control system, handles, pull-type starters, fuel tanks and oil tanks, 
exhaust systems, sound levels, and vibration. Only the following 
requirements are directed at the employer:

    It shall be the responsibility of the owner to maintain the 
chain saw in accordance with the instructions in the owner's manual.
    Chain saws shall be used in accordance with the operating 
instructions and safety precautions listed in the owner's manual. It 
shall be the responsibility of the owner to see that such 
instructions and precautions are given to every operator who uses 
the saw (Ex. 4-66).

    In addition, the ANSI standard does not require the employer to 
ensure that each chain saw used in their workplace is equipped with 
kickback protection. That is, the ANSI standard does not require the 
employer to ensure that kickback prevention devices are not removed or 
disabled by operators. By specifying that chain saws used by logging 
employees be equipped with chain brakes, OSHA emphasizes that 
responsibility for compliance with OSHA standards rests with the 
employer, not the manufacturer or the employee.
    In order to retain flexibility in the final rule, OSHA is requiring 
chain saws placed in service after the effective date of this standard 
to be equipped with chain brakes or other protective device that 
prevents or minimizes kickback. OSHA notes that whatever kickback 
device is present, the final rule requires that it not be removed or 
otherwise disabled.
    7. Operator manuals or instructions. In the hearing notice OSHA 
raised two issues regarding operator manuals or instructions (referred 
to collectively as instructions) for machines: the location of 
instructions, and the experience of employers in obtaining manuals from 
manufacturers.
    a. Location of operator manuals or instructions. Both the existing 
pulpwood standard and the proposed standard contained provisions 
requiring either an operator's manual or set of instructions be kept 
with each machine. In addition, both stated that the instructions, at a 
minimum, must describe the operation, maintenance and safe practices 
for the machine. The proposed standard added a provision requiring each 
operator and maintenance employee to comply with the manual.
    All commenters generally agreed with the need to have instructions 
available to operators and maintenance personnel. Several hearing 
participants supported OSHA's proposal to require instructions to be 
kept with machines (Tr. W1 201, OR 168, 194). For example, one 
participant stated:

    We urge OSHA to require that operator manuals be kept on the 
machine. Operator manuals contain important personal safety and 
machine operational information which must be utilized during 
training and must be available for reference to assure safety for 
all different operating conditions.
    Efficient and productive logging operations go hand in hand with 
safe work practices and proper machine maintenance and operation. 
Ready and immediate access to safety and operational information is 
essential to minimize downtime caused by accidents (Tr. OR 168).

    Another commenter added that once instructions are placed back at 
the office, they are not used:

    Ms. Schuster: I just have one question. Do you have any idea of 
the percentage of equipment out there in the woods that does not 
currently have operator's manuals available?
    Mr. Carr: I'm afraid I'd have to agree, most of them probably do 
not. This is our concern as manufacturers that most of them do not. 
Most of the time they have taken them and put them in the office and 
that's the last they see of them.
    Mr. Schuster: You say most of them would have put them in the 
office. Would you say that many of them do have them available 
though somewhere, if not on the equipment?
    Mr. Carr: If somebody can find it (Tr. OR 194).

    Many commenters, however, stated that for several reasons 
instructions should not be kept with machines or instead should be 
distributed as part of the training program (Ex. 5-12, 5-34, 5-35, 5-
67, 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, 9-19, 9-22; Tr. W1 66, 134, 185, 235, W2 225, 
OR 31, 59, 263, 378, 629). First, these commenters said instructions 
kept with machines would be damaged or destroyed. They stated that 
instructions would be subject to vandalism or would disappear if kept 
with machines or vehicles. They also said instructions would become 
dirty or be destroyed due to adverse weather in which machines and 
vehicles are operated. As a result, these commenters stated that they 
store operator instructions at the company office, in the crew 
transport vehicles or at the work site.
    Second, several commenters said that it was not necessary to keep 
instructions with machines because they have limited utility (Ex. 9-4; 
Tr. W1 134, 186, OR 80, 117, 378, 430, 629). Some of these commenters 
said instructions pertain primarily to maintenance of machines and 
scheduling of maintenance and, therefore, should be kept where the 
maintenance will be conducted. Other commenters said that instructions 
contain such general information about machine operation that their 
only utility is for someone who is unfamiliar with the operation of the 
machine. Instead, these and other participants said the manuals should 
be used in operator training sessions.
    Third, some participants said that instructions are currently given 
to new employees to read as part of their orientation sessions (Tr. W1 
66; OR 31, 263, 629). These participants also said that if operators 
need to refer routinely to instructions at the work site, they should 
not be allowed to operate the machine and should receive additional 
training rather than being allowed to rely on the instructions.
    After reviewing the comments and testimony received, OSHA has 
decided in the final rule to require that operating and maintenance 
instructions be available on the machine or in the area where the 
machine is being operated, such as at the landing or in a crew 
transport vehicle located in the area where the machine is being 
operated. OSHA believes ready access to instructions is important for 
several reasons. As OSHA explained in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, instructions are necessary not only for maintenance personnel but 
also for operators who are unsure or unaware of safe operating 
procedures pose hazards to themselves and co-workers. Maintaining these 
materials in the immediate work area of the machine assures their 
availability and increases the likelihood of their use when needed by 
the operator.
    OSHA also believes that instructions have utility for operators in 
specific circumstances. Instructions give the operator a ready 
reference source when a new or unique situation is encountered (e.g., 
operations on terrain where a combination of hazards are present, such 
as swampy, rocky or loose ground). If unusual problems or emergencies 
requiring prompt correction arise during operation, the instructions 
provide the operator with correct information to resolve the problem 
rather than guessing about a solution. In addition, some machine 
operators perform their own maintenance. By keeping instructions on the 
machine or in the immediate work area, these operators can quickly deal 
with maintenance issues as they arise. Therefore, OSHA believes that 
instructions are useful for the operator only when they can be 
immediately accessed rather than being housed at an office that may be 
miles from the work area or maintenance area.
    OSHA also agrees with commenters who said that if instructions are 
not kept in the work area of the machine they will not be used. OSHA is 
concerned that if instructions are not in the area where the machine is 
being operated, operators will be discouraged from stopping production 
to go get the instructions. Instead, employees will decide to ``take 
their chances'' in dealing with unusual problems or emergencies, which 
could result in serious injury.
    With regard to the issue of weather damage to instructions which 
are kept on the machine or in the machine work area, OSHA notes that a 
hearing participant pointed out that in recent years, manufacturers 
have been providing weather-resistant instructions which may be kept 
with machines (Tr. OR 205). Moreover, it should not be overly difficult 
for an employer to place the instructions in a weather-proof bag to 
keep them with the machine.
    OSHA does agree with commenters' position that if an operator must 
routinely refer to instructions in order to operate a machine or 
vehicle, additional training or supervision is necessary. The final 
rule does provide such additional training for that operator. However, 
there may well be instances in which the employee may need to consult 
the manual in order to deal with a problem that arises during the use 
of the equipment. For that reason, the instructions should be 
immediately available to employees. Therefore, OSHA is requiring in 
this final rule that instructions be maintained in the immediate work 
area of the machine so they will be available both to the machine 
operator and to maintenance personnel.
    b. Obtaining operator manuals or instructions. In the hearing 
notice OSHA also requested employers to discuss their experience with 
trying to obtain operating instructions or replacement instructions 
from dealers and manufacturers. OSHA wanted to gather information on 
the number of machines that come with instructions and on the degree of 
ease in obtaining replacement instructions. Very few participants 
commented in this issue.
    One hearing participant said that manufacturers do provide 
instructions with new equipment, but used machines that are sold may 
have no instructions (Tr. OR 31). However, two hearing participants 
said that replacement instructions are available either from the 
manufacturer or the dealer, and therefore, they have had no more 
difficulty in obtaining instructions than in acquiring any machine 
replacement part (Tr. W1 201, OR 197).
    OSHA therefore believes that the requirement that instructions for 
machine be maintained will not be burdensome for employers, even where 
employers must obtain replacement copies from the manufacturer.
    8. Riders. In the hearing notice OSHA requested comment on whether 
trainers should be permitted to ride on machines to observe operator 
performance. The pulpwood logging standard prohibited riders or 
observers from riding on machines unless seating and other protection 
were provided. The proposed standard continued that prohibition.
    Many commenters supported the current and proposed prohibition of 
riders on machines (Ex. 5-7, 5-22, 5-42, 9-3, 9-13, 9-18; Tr. W1 202, 
205, 235, W2 227, OR 155, 169). These commenters said riders should be 
prohibited, unless protection is provided since they are exposed to the 
same hazards as machine operators, for whom seating, seat belts and 
other protection is required. NIOSH, for example, supported the 
prohibition for the following reasons:

    Many logging operations occur on rough terrain which would 
expose any rider to a high risk of injury or death. Serious errors 
made by a trainer or trainee under these conditions endangers both 
people; it must be recognized that logging equipment is not designed 
for training purposes (i.e., the trainer cannot take control of the 
equipment from the trainee in a safe, orderly fashion) (Ex. 5-42).

    NIOSH therefore recommended that training be conducted and 
completed in pre-worksite training where the environment can be 
``controlled'' instead of the employer conducting ``on- the-job'' 
training with machines that are not designed to carry passengers 
safely. Another commenter agreed that the necessary operator training 
should be given, and the operator should be afforded the opportunity to 
practice on level ground, before the operator moves into work areas. 
This training and practice would allow operators to become proficient 
without requiring trainers to ride on the machines (Tr. OR 155).
    Two commenters, including one who supported the exemption for 
trainers, stated that it was not absolutely necessary to have the 
trainer riding on the machine in order to maintain communication with 
the machine operator (Ex. 5-27; Tr. W2 227). They said communication 
could be accomplished through radio contact (one-way or two-way 
radios), thus allowing the trainer to remain in a safe location on the 
ground. One of the commenters pointed out that this method is currently 
used in logging operations in Scandinavian countries (Tr. W2 227).
    Many commenters supported an exception permitting trainers to ride 
on machines (Ex. 5-12, 5-22, 5-28, 5-36, 5-45, 5-49, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 
5-63, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-2, 9-5, 9-10, 9-13, 9-19; Tr. OR 32, 201, 
206, 337). These commenters said that an exemption be allowed because 
trainers were not as great since they ride for only short periods and, 
therefore, they are not exposed to hazards to the same extent as 
machine operators. However, several commenters said that if instructors 
were permitted to ride on machines that at least seat belts should be 
required and training should be conducted on level terrain (Ex. 5-27, 
9-3, 9-13; Tr. OR 169). Another commenter said that trainers should not 
be permitted to ride on machines during actual production because 
``such conditions may not be conducive to rider safety'' (Ex. 5-54).
    Other commenters said the exemption should include other employees 
in addition to training (Ex. 5-27, 9-2; Tr. OR 206). One commenter 
supported expanding the exception to allow mechanics to ride on 
machines (Tr. OR 206). Another commenter said that the exception should 
be permitted for large multi-purpose logging equipment where there is 
sufficient room in the enclosed operator cab to permit another person 
to ride safely, even though there is not a second seat (Ex. 5-27). One 
commenter said fellers should be permitted to ride back to the landing 
at the end of the workshift (Ex. 9-2). However, none of these 
commenters provided any evidence that these riders were not exposed to 
the same hazards as the machine operator.
    OSHA has carefully considered all comments and data in the record. 
OSHA agrees with the commenters that riders face the same hazards as 
machine operators on moving equipment and that they need protection 
equivalent to that of the operator. According to logging fatalities 
reported to OSHA between 1985-90, there were reports of riders killed 
when machines roll over (Ex. 4-65). The OSHA FCI report also indicated 
that loggers have been killed riding on unauthorized parts of machines 
(Ex. 4-61). Even those who opposed the prohibition on riders recognized 
that such an activity is hazardous due to conditions of the work 
environment, such as unlevel terrain. In addition, the record indicates 
that an exemption for trainers is unnecessary because other methods of 
communication between the trainee and trainer are available and in use 
in the logging industry. As such, OSHA has retained the requirement in 
the final standard that machines must have passenger protection 
equivalent to operator protection if the employer allows riders on 
machines.
    9. Equipment protective devices. In the hearing notice OSHA raised 
two issues regarding protective devices for machines: the need and cost 
of retrofitting machines with rollover protective structures (ROPS) and 
falling object protective structures (FOPS), and the appropriateness of 
incorporating various consensus standards covering ROPS and FOPS into 
the logging standard by reference.
    a. Retrofitting. In the hearing notice OSHA requested comment on 
whether the final standard should require machines without ROPS and 
FOPS to be retrofitted with those devices. The proposed standard would 
not have required retrofitting. In the proposed standard, OSHA 
specified that certain machines placed in service after the effective 
date of the final standard to be equipped with ROPS and/or FOPS meeting 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) minimum performance criteria.
    There was no opposition from commenters on the general requirement 
that certain machines used in logging operations be equipped with ROPS
and/or FOPS. NIOSH stated that 80 deaths occurred due to logging 
machine rollovers from 1980-85 (Ex. 5-42). This is approximately 13 
deaths each year due to rollover accidents. Another commenter cited a 
study where 12 loggers were killed in rollover accidents in the State 
of Washington from 1977-83 (Tr. W1 27).
    Several commenters said that machines without ROPS and FOPS should 
be retrofitted (Ex. 5-42, 5-54, 9-3, 9-13; Tr. W1 22). The West 
Virginia Forestry Association safety committee said that retrofitting 
was necessary because operators were exposed to ``extreme danger'' if 
machines were used in the woods without such protective devices (Ex. 5-
54). In addition to the safety necessity of retrofitting, the committee 
said that retrofitting was economically feasible for the industry as 
whole.
    Many commenters, on the other hand, while supporting ROPS and FOPS 
requirements for new machines, opposed retrofitting older machinery 
(Ex. 5-19, 5-22, 5-25, 5-27, 5-33, 5-53, 5-57, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-5, 
9-17; Tr. W1 203, OR 170). Their opposition was based on several 
reasons.
    First, commenters said that machines should not be required to be 
retrofitted to meet current standards when the installed ROPS and/or 
FOPS met industry standards in effect at the time of manufacture (Ex. 
5-22; Tr. W1 203, OR 170). One commenter said that older machines in 
the logging industry were equipped with rollover protection, but those 
machine structures still in service do not meet the revised industry 
standards (Ex. 5-22).
    Second, some commenters said that retrofitting machines would be 
very burdensome and costly, especially given the limited useful life of 
such machines (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92, 9-5). They said retrofitting 
would be expensive because it would require complete rebuilding and 
testing of the frame structure. These commenters also said that 
employers would have to hire outside contractors to test the 
retrofitted equipment since most employers did not have the personnel, 
expertise or equipment to install and test protective structures (Ex. 
5-35). In addition, other commenters said that the retrofitting 
requirement would be too burdensome for small employers, both in terms 
of absorbing the cost in small operations and in finding persons who 
could do the retrofitting (Tr. OR 119, 263, 307).
    Third, commenters indicated that the retrofitting requirement was 
not essential since most of the machines specified in the proposed 
standard already are manufactured with ROPS and FOPS as standard 
equipment (Tr. W1 184, 203, OR 170). For example, most log-skidders 
manufactured after 1974 have ROPS and FOPS meeting the performance 
criteria specified by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). Most 
mobile equipment used in the Southeastern United States already has 
ROPS or FOPS (Ex. 5-19). Other commenters said that skidders now come 
with fully enclosed cabs (Tr. W1 184).
    After consideration of all the comments and information received in 
the rulemaking record, OSHA has decided for several reasons not to 
require machines placed into service before the effective date of this 
standard to be retrofit with ROPS and FOPS, provided that ROPS and FOPS 
have not been removed from machines so equipped at the time of 
manufacture. First, OSHA has determined that many of the machines 
currently in use already have protective structures meeting various 
performance criteria. The final standard requires that these protective 
structures continue to be maintained throughout the useful life of the 
machine, and that they be replaced where they have been removed (e.g., 
removed after machine accident).
    Second, many machines currently in use and virtually all machines 
recently manufactured meet the performance criteria specified in the 
proposed standard (Ex. 9-2; Tr. OR 185-87). OSHA believes that older 
machines, that either do not have protective structures or have ROPS 
and FOPS meeting earlier standards, are few in number and are rapidly 
nearing the end of their useful life. As such, OSHA believes that most 
employers are substantially in compliance with the requirement for 
machine protective structures and will reach full compliance in short 
period of time. Therefore, OSHA determines that compliance with the 
protective structure requirement can be achieved without requiring 
retrofitting.
    b. Incorporation of standards by reference. In the hearing notice, 
OSHA requested comment on the appropriateness of incorporating by 
reference updated consensus standards governing machine protective 
devices. In the proposed standard OSHA required ROPS and FOPS to be 
installed, tested and maintained in accordance with the following SAE 
national consensus standards: SAE 1040c June 1979 ``Performance 
Criteria or Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS) for Construction, 
Earthmoving, Forestry, and Mining Machines'' and J231 Jan 1981 
``Minimum Performance Criteria for Falling Object Protective Structures 
(FOPS).'' The SAE ROPS standard was updated in 1988 as was the SAE 
standard on ``Deflection Limiting Volume-ROPS/FOPS Laboratory 
Evaluation.''
    Several commenters discussed incorporation of updated standards 
(Ex. 5-10, 5-22, 5-57, 9-3, 9-13; Tr. W1 203). Most emphasized the need 
to reference the most up-to-date standards in the final rule. In 
addition, two commenters said OSHA should allow the use of standards 
from other standards producing bodies, such as the International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO) (Ex. 5-22, 5-57). Two commenters 
also recommended that OSHA harmonize its regulatory language with ISO 
and Mine Safety and Health Administration protective structure 
standards (Ex. 5-10, 5-22). However, two commenters opposed 
incorporation by reference because they contend that other standards 
may not have followed the same notice and public comment rules as do 
OSHA standards (Ex. 9-3, 9-13).
    OSHA has considered the comments and in the final standard the 
Agency has decided to incorporate by reference the current SAE 
standards on ROPS and FOPS. While there was some comment about whether 
technical publications should be referenced in standards, OSHA believes 
it is better in this case to reference technical documents rather than 
spell out all of the many specifications the documents contain. Since 
the final standard is not requiring employers to retrofit machines, it 
is more important for employers to know that new machines they purchase 
meet the SAE standards. It is the manufacturer and not the employer who 
will have the expertise, personnel and equipment to do the necessary 
installation and testing of the protective structures as part of the 
manufacturing process, and it is the label of conformance placed on the 
equipment by the manufacturer that will be the method that the employer 
will usually use to demonstrate compliance with the protective 
structures requirement of the final standard.
    10. Manual felling. The hearing notice raised two issues regarding 
manual felling: should exceptions to the undercut requirement be 
allowed, and where should the backcut be required to be made?
    a. Undercut requirement. The proposed standard included a provision 
requiring each manually felled tree to be undercut. This provision also 
required that undercuts be of a size to guide the tree fall in the 
intended direction and to minimize the possibility of splitting. The 
purpose of this provision was to prevent trees from splitting, kicking 
back, or falling in an unintended direction, thereby injuring an 
employee.
    Some commenters supported the proposed requirement (Ex. 5-42, 9-15; 
Tr. OR 485-88). One commenter said:

    [Undercutting] helps protect the feller from the butt of the 
tree riding back up the sawn notch and springing backwards over the 
stump towards him if the tree is felled uphill, or strikes something 
during its fall that pushes [the tree] backwards (Ex. 9-15)

    However, other commenters said OSHA should revise the undercut 
requirement in the final rule (Ex. 5-21, 5-39, 5-46, 5-52, 5-63, 5-74 
through 5-92, 9-1, 9-5; Tr. OR 265, 284-88, 324-26). One commenter said 
OSHA should make undercutting a recommended practice in the final rule 
to allow for innovations in cutting techniques and to allow for 
consideration of various production requirements for cutting certain 
types of wood (e.g., veneer).
    Other commenters stated that OSHA should permit an exception to the 
undercut requirement for manual felling of saplings or unmerchantable 
trees, that is, of trees with a small diameter at breast height (DBH) 
(Ex. 5-21, 5-39, 5-46, 5-63, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-1, 9-5; Tr. OR 265, 
284-88, 324-26). These commenters said that the hazards OSHA was 
attempting to protect against do not exist for saplings, therefore, 
undercuts are not necessary. For example, Mr. Alex Hanson, of AOL, 
stated:

    On the smaller, nonmerchantable timber that's two, three, four, 
five, six inches, generally not very tall, 20 foot or less or maybe 
taller, and when you slash it, you push it over. It doesn't need a 
face to control the direction of fall.
* * * * *
    [W]hen trees start getting to be merchantable size, then you 
have safety problems. You get a seven inch or over tree, you want to 
know where it's going. You don't want to have it just fall anywhere.
* * * * *
    [Y]ou have to buck those merchantable trees. You have to cut the 
top out so you just don't want them going everywhere. You want 
things in line. And if they're everywhere, then it increases the 
risk for the buckers. Generally it's the same guy who is falling it, 
but you want to have things in an orderly fashion so that he's not 
having to go everywhere to buck the top. If they're just slashing 
it, it doesn't really matter where it goes because you're not having 
to go out there and limb and cut the tops out and create another 
hazard for yourself (Tr. OR 265, 284-88).

    However, other commenters disagreed with AOL about what size tree 
requires an undercut. One commenter said that undercuts are necessary 
for any tree that has more than a three-inch base (Ex. 9-16), while 
another commenter said undercuts were not necessary for trees with a 
seven-inch DBH (Tr. OR 421-22).
    The APA, however, said that even trees with a small DBH should be 
undercut:

    You heard from one of the associations who is recommending that 
with regard to what I call undercuts, they're also called face cuts, 
that they not be required on very small trees, and there was a 
discussion and possibly a recommendation of an 8-inch or 7-inch size 
limit. Unfortunately, I don't have any data. But we do know and I 
will watch to see if I can find any and submit it post hearing. I 
went through our files and could not find anything. But it is our 
perception, after studying these operations, that a tree that's 8 
inches in diameter at breast height is probably about 12 inches in 
diameter at the stump, and whether it's an oak tree or a Douglas fir 
tree that's 60 feet tall and 8 inches and 12, it's a significant 
mass of wood that is difficult to control to get on the ground and 
could cause and probably has caused injuries and maybe even deaths. 
There's enough mass there with a 60-foot tree ripping down, 
uncontrolled in its fall, to cause a death. And you heard from the 
Montana folks, that they have a little bit of a problem with that 
too (Tr. OR 485-88).

    Moreover, some commenters opposing the undercut requirement also 
admitted that undercuts were necessary for any merchantable tree, 
regardless of its size. They said that whenever a tree has a 
merchantable stem for a sawlog product, it must be undercut to protect 
the fiber recovery (Tr. OR 422, 487-88). They said undercutting was 
essential both for production reasons and safety considerations for 
employees bucking the felled tree.
    After considering the evidence in the record, OSHA believes a 
provision requiring that each tree manually felled be undercut is 
necessary to protect employees from injury. According to the WIR 
survey, four percent of employees injured said they had been using the 
wrong cutting method at the time of their accident (Ex. 2-1). The OSHA 
FCI report indicated that 10 fellers were injured because of 
misjudgments in cutting the tree (Ex. 4-61).
    As discussed above, undercutting helps protect the feller from 
injury by reducing the potential for the tree splitting and falling in 
an unintended direction or kicking back towards the feller. In the 
final rule, OSHA is also allowing an exception to the undercutting 
requirement when the employer demonstrates that felling the particular 
tree without an undercut will not create a hazard for an employee. OSHA 
believes that when the hazards of splitting trees, tree kickback and 
misdirected falls are not present, it may be appropriate to manually 
fell a tree without undercutting. OSHA notes that the employer bears 
the burden of demonstrating that the hazards discussed in this section 
are not present. OSHA also notes that the employers cannot make a 
blanket determination that trees of a particular size never pose the 
hazards discussed above if manually felled without an undercut. The 
condition of the tree and the surrounding area may make manually 
felling even a small a tree hazardous if it is not first undercut. The 
tree and those conditions must be assessed on a case by case basis to 
determine whether felling the tree without making an undercut would 
create a hazard for an employee.
    For two reasons, however, OSHA has decided against specifying an 
undercut exception for trees of a certain size. First, there is no 
agreement among the commenters on what size tree could be safely 
exempted from the undercutting requirement. There is evidence in the 
record, that manually felling trees of the size that some commenters 
say should be exempted from the requirement can pose a serious hazard 
to fellers (Tr. OR 265-69, 485-88). Also, while commenters agreed that 
unmerchantable trees did not require undercutting, none agreed on what 
size tree constituted an unmerchantable tree. The estimates of what 
sizes were considered to be merchantable trees varied greatly, from 3 
to 10 inches DBH, depending on the type of wood being harvested (Ex. 5-
46; Tr. OR 265, 485-88). And, as some commenters have pointed out, 
trees included in this range of sizes can pose hazards to fellers.
    Second, some commenters said that any tree that is considered 
merchantable is undercut, even if it is within the range of sizes that 
commenters say should be exempted. According to commenters the undercut 
is also made in merchantable trees to prevent splitting of the product 
(Tr. OR 284-88). As such, undercutting may be done on small trees in 
any event.
    OSHA does note that in many cases when trees are determined to be 
unmerchantable they are not manually felled but rather slashed by 
mechanical means (Tr. OR 265, 268-69, 285-87, 421-22). This provision 
on undercutting does not apply to trees felled by mechanical means.
    b. Backcut requirement. The second issue regarding manual felling 
on which OSHA requested comment was where backcuts should be required 
to be made. In the proposed standard, OSHA required that backcuts be 
made above the horizontal cut of the undercut. The 1978 ANSI logging 
and various State logging standards contain similar requirements (e.g., 
Ex. 38K).
    Several commenters supported the proposed requirement (Ex. 5-42, 9-
15). These commenters said a backcut above the horizontal cut is 
necessary to assure that the tree does not fall in an unintended 
direction.
    However, other commenters said OSHA should permit backcuts to be at 
the same level or below the level of the undercut (Ex. 5-28, 5-29, 5-
42, 5-52, 9-1; Tr. W2 229-31, OR 395-96, 421-24, 499-500). Some said 
that a same level backcut was more effective:

    Backcuts should be made on the same level as the point of the 
notch of the undercut. The hinge is what keeps the tree from kicking 
back, not the fact that the backcut is higher than the undercut. 
High backcuts run the risk of cutting off the hinge, actually 
increasing the danger of kickback (Ex. 5-52).

    Other commenters said that backcuts above the horizontal cut were 
not as critical when using the Humboldt undercutting method (Ex. 5-42, 
9-15). They said that when the slanting cut of the undercut is angled 
downward, the tree is more likely to fall in the intended direction 
without kicking back. However, one of these commenters admitted that 
placing the backcut at the same level as the horizontal cut when using 
the Humboldt undercut method sacrificed safety for quality control:

    Quality control concerns with several companies dictate that 
only Humboldt undercuts are permissible with sawlog grade timber, so 
that wood loss is minimized by taking the notch wood out of the 
stump. Quality control often dictates that there must be a flush 
surface on the end of the log. To avoid having to make another cut 
to square up a log butt, fallers will attempt to make their backcuts 
meet the horizontal face cut as closely as possible. By doing this, 
they sacrifice the safety of the step that would have been left on 
the stump to catch a possible backwards-moving tree butt, and depend 
only on the downward-slanting face on the stump to hold the tree 
(Ex. 9-15).

    Two commenters said the backcut requirement should be limited to 
those situations when tree kickback is a problem, which they contended 
was only on steep terrain, when felling uphill or through trees (Ex. 9-
1, 9-4). Other commenters said that believed that the standard should 
provide more flexibility because variations frequently found on logging 
sites, such as lean of the tree and type of terrain, would make strict 
adherence to the regulation difficult (Ex. 5-19, 9-9, 9-22; Tr. OR 206-
7, 395-96). These commenters said that the cutting decisions should be 
left to the judgment of the experienced feller.
    After reviewing the evidence in the record, OSHA has decided that 
the proposed backcut provisions are necessary to protect fellers from 
being hit or crushed by the tree they are felling. As discussed above, 
the record shows that injuries and fatalities have occurred because of 
improper cutting methods. The purpose of undercutting and backcutting 
trees is to prevent the tree from splitting, felling an unintended 
direction or kicking back into the feller. OSHA agrees with ANSI and 
the various State plan States that the proposed backcut provisions are 
necessary to protect employees against these hazards.
    OSHA does not agree that backcutting should be limited only to 
those situations when tree kickback can occur. The record shows that 
hazards other than tree kickback necessitate the backcut requirement. 
Without appropriately-placed backcuts, trees are more likely to split 
and/or fall in an unintended direction. While OSHA agrees that it is 
more likely that this could happen when trees are felled uphill, OSHA 
also believes the record shows that the possibility exists regardless 
of the terrain. According to the WIR survey, the single largest cause 
of injuries reported was being hit by a falling tree (Ex. 2-1). Almost 
one-half of all injuries reported were due to employees being hit or 
crushed by a falling tree.
    In the final rule OSHA has provided an exception to the backcut 
requirement. The final rule allows the backcut to be placed at or below 
the horizontal cut in tree pulling operations. Various State logging 
standards also provide this exception to the backcut requirement (e.g., 
Ex. 38K). OSHA believes this exception covers those situations in which 
a special cutting technique may be required, such as by Federal 
agencies.

V. Summary and Explanation of the Final Standard

    The revision of the pulpwood logging standard was undertaken in 
response to the concern on the part of OSHA to the number of fatalities 
and injuries that occur each year in the logging industry. The industry 
itself admits that logging is a high hazard industry. As discussed 
above, the injury and fatality incidence rates in the logging industry 
are among the highest industry incidence rates in the country.
    The OSHA pulpwood logging standard, 1910.266, addressed only the 
hazards that exist in the pulpwood logging industry. However, 
examination of the descriptions of accidents and other information 
available to the Agency indicates that the same hazards exist for 
employees performing logging operations regardless of the end use of 
the harvested trees.
    Many commenters supported the need for a comprehensive logging 
standard (Ex. 5-6, 5-10, 5-17, 5-18, 5-21, 5-22, 5-36, 5-41, 5-42, 5-
46, 5-49, 5-59, 5-61, 5-65, 5-69; Tr. W1 pg 21, 73, 202). For example, 
one commenter said that in Maine it has generally been acknowledged 
that both products (pulpwood logs and logs used for other purposes) 
come off the same job (Ex. 5-46).
    This final rule provides protection for all loggers involved in 
timber harvesting, including loggers employed as part of a mill 
operation, regardless of the end use of the forest products (saw logs, 
veneer bolts, pulpwood, chips, etc.). This standard fills the current 
gap in coverage by providing a basic level of protection for all 
loggers. OSHA has changed the title of 1910.266 from ``Pulpwood 
Logging'' to ``Logging Operations'' in order to reflect the wider 
coverage of this revised standard. In addition, OSHA has added and/or 
modified various provisions of the pulpwood logging standard to address 
more adequately the hazards faced in different aspects of logging 
operations. OSHA also has updated equipment specification requirements 
in the revised standard.
    Throughout the development of the revised standard, the Agency 
strove to promulgate a final rule that is effective, and that is 
simple, concise, enforceable, and sustainable.

Paragraph (a) Table of Contents

    OSHA has added a table of contents to aid employers and other 
persons in using the revised standard. The table of contents identifies 
the provisions that are included in the final standard and where 
specific requirements can be found. The table of contents also is 
included because the final standard represents a significant 
reorganization of the elements of the pulpwood logging standard.
    The identification of the major paragraphs will, hopefully, aid 
persons in reading and understanding the requirements of this final 
rule. In order to add the table of contents, each of the subsequent 
paragraphs had to be renumbered. The paragraph references in the 
following discussion of the individual provisions of the standard are 
to the paragraphs of the final rule, unless otherwise noted.

Paragraph (b) Scope and Application

    This paragraph defines the scope and application of this standard. 
The existing standard applied only to pulpwood logging operations. That 
standard adopted, pursuant to section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act, the American National Standards Institute, ANSI 03.1-
1971 Safety Standard for Pulpwood Logging (hereafter 1971 ANSI 
standard) (Ex 2-13). Included in the 1971 ANSI standard were 
requirements for important safety practices along with provisions 
pertaining to personal protective equipment, first aid and stationary 
and mobile equipment.
    When ANSI revised the 1971 consensus standard in 1978, they 
expanded the scope of the standard to include all logging operations. 
The revised ANSI standard adopted, virtually unchanged, many of the 
requirements of the 1971 pulpwood logging standard, and applied those 
provisions to all logging operations throughout the nation. OSHA has 
taken a similar approach in this rulemaking. In paragraph (b)(1), the 
Agency has expanded the scope of the pulpwood logging standard, 
1910.266, and to cover all logging operations regardless of the end use 
of the timber products.
    In paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the final rule, OSHA makes clear 
that the standard applies to all types of logging operations, 
regardless of the end use of the wood. Logging operations, as defined 
in paragraph (c) of the final rule, include, but are not limited to, 
marking, felling, bucking, limbing, debarking, chipping, yarding, 
loading, unloading, storing, transporting machines and equipment from 
one site to another, and other operations associated with felling and 
moving trees and logs from the stump to the point of delivery. Many 
commenters supported the application of the standard to all types of 
logging and all logging operations (Ex. 5-6, 5-10, 5-17, 5-18, 5-21, 5-
36, 5-42, 5-46, 5-48, 5-49, 5-54, 5-61, 5-65).
    One commenter said OSHA should exclude felling operations from the 
logging standard and cover only the movement of felled trees from the 
stump to the mill (Ex. 17). This commenter said that felling activity 
is not the most hazardous part of logging operations. OSHA believes the 
record does not support the commenters' recommendation. The record 
clearly shows that felling activities are the most hazardous activities 
of the logging operation. According to the WIR survey, more than one-
half of all reported injuries involved various felling activities (Ex. 
2-1). OSHA believes that if the standard did not include hazards 
associated with felling the trees, that the majority of employees in 
the logging industry would still be exposed to significant risk of 
injury and death. Therefore, in the final OSHA has retained coverage of 
tree felling operations.
    Another commenter raised the issue about whether establishments 
that hire independent contractors to perform various logging activities 
are considered employers covered by this standard (Ex. 5-23). The 
courts have held in various OSHA cases that when the contractor 
exercises control over the means and methods by which the independent 
contractor performs the work, that the contractor is regarded as an 
employer for purposes of this rule. Loomis Cabinet Co. v. Martin, 15 
F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 1994). See also Castillo v. Gibbons, 704 F.2d 181, 
188-93 (5th Cir. 1993). For example, establishments that provide 
independent contractors with machines, such as yarders or forklift 
trucks, to perform the job are exercising control over the means by 
which the job is performed.
    At paragraph (b)(1) of the final rule, the Agency has excluded from 
coverage the construction or use of cable yarding systems. Cable 
yarding, as defined in the final standard, is the movement of felled 
trees or logs from the area where they are felled to the landing on a 
system composed of a cable suspended from spars and/or towers. The 
definition further states that the trees or logs may be either dragged 
across the ground by the cable or carried while suspended from the 
cable. One of the end towers is located in the area where the trees or 
logs are attached to the cable yarding system and the other end is at 
the landing. Cable yarding systems are used primarily when the terrain 
is extremely rugged and the felled trees and logs are otherwise 
inaccessible. Important elements of the safe use of a cable yarding 
system include the selection and use of climbing devices to install the 
system, preparation of head and tail spars and intermediate trees or 
towers, component sizing, system rigging and system usage. There are 
generally three types of cable yarding systems, namely, high lead, 
skyline and slackline. In a high lead system, the mainline is threaded 
through the mainline block (pulley) that is attached near the top of 
the spar to obtain a lift of the logs being yarded. A skyline system is 
one in which the line (cable) is hung between two or more supports on 
which a carriage or block travels. A slackline system is a form of 
skyline system where the skyline is spooled on a drum so that the line 
can be raised or lowered. In all three systems, the spars are usually 
held in part and restrained against movement by the use of guylines 
that are anchored to the ground or another tree. Trees and logs may be 
moved by a cable yarding system by dragging them along the ground or 
while they are suspended from the system.
    In the preamble of the proposed rule, OSHA explained that this 
exemption was included due to the regional nature of the use of cable 
logging systems. State plan States in the far west that have the most 
significant cable logging activity have developed very detailed cable 
logging standards. Many commenters testified that the hazards of cable 
yarding in those states have been adequately covered by the specific 
state standards (Ex. 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-23, 5-17, 5-27, 5-39, 5-
45, 5-74 through 5-92, 38J, 38K). However, some commenters discussed 
the need for increased regulation of cable yarding operations on the 
national level because they assert there is increasing use of cable 
yarding in non-western regions of the country where no State standards 
exist (Ex 5-19, 5-20, 5-36).
    After careful consideration of the comments, OSHA has decided to 
retain the exclusion for cable yarding operations in this final rule 
for several reasons. First, the State logging standards that address 
cable yarding are detailed specification standards that adequately 
address the unique hazards associated with the construction and use of 
cable yarding in those particular States, that are all western States. 
For example, those standards deal with construction of cable yarding 
systems on steep slopes that are predominently in those western States. 
Those State cable yarding standards will not be affected by the Federal 
logging standard. Second, there is no evidence in this rulemaking 
record that those standards are not addressing particular hazards 
associated with cable yarding in those States. Third, OSHA agrees with 
the APA that the prevalent use of cable yarding is in those States that 
have their own standards that include requirements for cable yarding. 
None of the commenters representing non-western logging establishments 
indicated that cable yarding is being performed in their area or by 
their member companies. Fourth, OSHA believes there is not sufficient 
information and data in the record regarding cable yarding activities 
in non-western States to determine at this point whether the various 
cable yarding regulations of the western States would be appropriate to 
apply nationwide. For example, logging in western States is usually 
clear cut logging while selective cutting is more prominent in non-
western states (Ex. 2-1). Other logging conditions vary across regions, 
such as tree size and type, weather, and terrain. For example, logging 
operations in western States are three times more likely to be on steep 
slopes, where skidding may be impossible (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes that 
these differences might affect what would constitute appropriate cable 
yarding rules for non-western States. Therefore, OSHA believes this 
issue requires further study before the Agency promulgates a national 
cable yarding standard.
    However, OSHA emphasizes that the exclusion of cable yarding is 
only for the construction and use of the cable yarding system itself. 
Other parts of the logging operation taking place where cable yarding 
systems are present will be covered by this standard. Just as this 
standard extends the pulpwood logging standard to cover the same 
hazards experienced elsewhere in the logging industry, OSHA believes 
that these same hazards need to be covered by this standard when cable 
yarding operations are being performed. For example, the hazards for 
loggers felling trees exist regardless of how the trees or logs are 
moved about the work site. To this end, the Agency has included in the 
final standard the felling of the trees and the other operations that 
are conducted in conjunction with the use of a cable yarding system.
    It should also be noted that the use of yarding machines with 
winches for playing out and retrieving cable is not considered cable 
yarding for the purposes of this standard. Therefore, this operation is 
covered by this final logging standard. In this type of log retrieval, 
a yarding machine plays out cable, to which is attached a choker sling 
that is secured to a tree or log. Once the sling is attached to the 
log, the cable is wound onto the drum and the tree or log is then 
yarded by skidding while attached to and supported by the cable on the 
winch. This system of yarding is oftentimes used when logging is being 
conducted along a roadway or other area where access to the area where 
the tree is felled is not practical and the area where the yarder 
(skidder) is operating is on the roadway or in an accessible area.
    At paragraph (b)(3) of the final rule OSHA emphasizes that this 
standard is not a totally ``vertical'' standard for logging operations. 
That is, the requirements of this final rule are to be supplemented by 
other applicable requirements found elsewhere in part 1910. When there 
is a corresponding provision elsewhere in part 1910 that addresses the 
same hazard or condition of work as a provision of the logging 
standard, the more specific logging provision takes precedence for 
logging operations. By contrast, when hazardous working conditions are 
not addressed or covered by the logging standard, the other 
requirements of part 1910 apply. For example, employers in the logging 
industry must provide employees protection against occupational noise 
exposure by meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95. Employers in 
this industry must also comply with the permissible exposure limit for 
wood dust specified in 29 CFR 1910.1000 and meet the field sanitation 
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.28.
    Several commenters raised the issue about what standards apply to 
the construction of roads and trails (Ex. 5-16, 5-44, and 5-63). These 
commenters said there was confusion about whether the entire part 1926 
would be applied to logging operations. Construction activities such as 
the building of roads and trails are not logging operations, therefore 
they are covered by applicable construction standards and not the 
logging standard. As such, the use and maintenance of the equipment to 
perform the construction of those roads and trails, such as graders, 
scrapers, front-end loaders, and bulldozers, are covered by the 
construction standards. In addition, the building of roads and trails 
to reach logging sites is not a logging operation, but is a 
construction activity that is carried out preparatory to the logging 
activity. Therefore, in this final standard OSHA has removed references 
to road building construction activities. Road building in conjunction 
with the establishment of a logging activity is no different than road 
building to gain access to any other operation and is covered in the 
general construction standards.
    However, the felling of trees in preparation for the construction 
activities, such as the building of roads, is considered to be a 
logging operation. To the extent that any employee is performing a 
logging operation in preparation for construction activities, the 
employee is performing general industry work, and the requirements of 
this standard as well as other applicable sections of part 1910, apply 
in order to safely fell those trees. For example, if trees are felled 
to prepare for road construction, the requirements in this final rule 
and other sections of part 1910 apply. This reasoning also applies to 
felling of trees in preparation for agricultural activities (e.g., 
felling trees to prepare land for crops). Felling of those trees is 
general industry work and the requirements of this standard as well as 
other applicable sections of part 1910 apply. To this end, OSHA has 
specifically referenced the applicability of the final logging standard 
in 29 CFR Part 1928 to felling of trees in preparation of agricultural 
activities.

Paragraph (c) Definitions

    In paragraph (c), OSHA is adopting a number of definitions to 
clarify the meaning, intent and purpose of certain terms contained in 
this standard. Several definitions contained in the pulpwood logging 
rule were deleted from the proposed rule because the terms were no 
longer used in the regulatory text. In addition, 17 new definitions 
were added to the proposal. In the final rule OSHA has added and 
changed several definitions to better reflect the intent of the Agency 
and to aid interested persons in understanding the requirements of this 
standard. In addition, in the final rule OSHA has deleted several 
proposed definitions. Many of these terms involved cable yarding and 
road construction activities, that are not covered by this final rule.
    ``Cable yarding'' is defined in this final rule as the movement of 
felled trees or logs from the area where they are felled to a landing 
by attaching them to a suspended cable system. The supports for the 
cable that carries or supports the trees or logs are called head and 
tail spars. Spars may be fashioned from standing trees or from metal 
towers (commonly called metal spars). There may be additional 
intermediate spars if the cable run is of sufficient length to require 
intermediate support. OSHA has specifically defined ``cable yarding'' 
in the final rule to aid persons in understanding the scope of the 
exclusion from the standard for this particular type of logging 
operation.
    ``Danger tree'' is defined in the final rule as any standing tree 
that presents a hazard to an employee due to conditions such as, but 
not limited to, deterioration or physical damage to the root system, 
trunk, stem or limbs, and the direction and lean of the tree. The tree 
may be dead or alive. This term was not contained in the proposed 
standard. Instead, the related term ``snag'' was included and defined 
as any dead tree or portion thereof remaining standing. Also, the term 
``widow maker'' was included in the proposed rule and defined as an 
overhanging limb or section of tree that could become dislodged and 
drop to the ground. Several commenters said this term should replace 
the use of ``snag'' in the proposed rule because the definition of snag 
implies that all dead trees are dangerous (Ex. 5-17, 5-50, 5-64, 17). 
Rep. Jolene Unsoeld, from the State of Washington, said that not all 
snags were dangerous to employees and many were essential to the health 
of the wildlife community (Ex. 17). In this final rule, OSHA has 
decided to use the term ``danger tree,'' a term that is used in the 
State of Washington logging standard that is more inclusive of the 
various conditions that could cause a tree to be dangerous (Ex. 2-22).
    ``Designated person'' is defined in the final rule as an employee 
who has the requisite knowledge, training and experience to perform 
specific duties. This definition is a close parallel to the definition 
of the term used in consensus standards dealing with material handling 
equipment, such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME 
B30.5-1989 with Addenda, ``Safety Standard for Mobile Cranes'' (Ex. 
38DD and EE). In the ASME standard, a designated person is defined as 
an employee who is selected or assigned by the employer as being 
competent to perform specific duties. In this final rule, the Agency 
has amended that definition to indicate that the employee needs to have 
the knowledge, training and experience to perform that job or duty for 
which he/she is designated. The possession of those attributes is not a 
discretionary decision on the part of the employer but a mandatory 
prerequisite that the employee must possess. Knowledge and competency 
are normally achieved through training or experience or a combination 
of those activities.
    In this final rule a signal person, an explosive handler and user, 
a machine operator, a trainer, and a supervisor of new and newly-
trained employees must be designated persons. In these cases, the 
Agency recognizes that each of those individuals must have knowledge, 
experience, and training to competently perform those tasks. For 
example, a signal person needs to know the various signals to use when 
indicating that a particular operation or movement is to be made. The 
signal person also must know and understand how the task is to be 
performed and the role of his signals in completing the task safely.
    ``Domino felling'' is defined in the final rule as the partial 
cutting of several trees that are left standing and then pushed over 
with a pusher tree. Domino felling is a dangerous practice that is 
prohibited by the final standard. When one tree falls into or against 
another tree, the direction of fall of each tree may be altered to the 
point that either tree may fall in an unexpected, and oftentimes, 
dangerous location. Whenever one tree is being felled and it strikes 
another tree, the base of the tree being felled can kick back, striking 
the feller who has not moved away sufficiently from the tree being 
felled. Additionally, one tree falling into another tree can result in 
the initial tree becoming lodged in the second tree, thereby making it 
necessary for an employee to remove the lodged tree.
    ``Health care provider'' is defined in this final rule as a health 
care practitioner operating within the scope of his/her license, 
certificate, registration or legally authorized practice. As used in 
this standard, health care providers are practitioners whose 
authorization qualifies them to approve first-aid kits that are to be 
used in the logging industry.
    ``Log'' has been defined in the final rule as a segment sawed or 
split from a felled tree. This term replaces the terms section, log, 
bolt and tree length, that were all used in the pulpwood logging 
standard and the proposed standard. The usual practice in the 
harvesting of large and/or tall trees is to cut them into shorter, more 
manageable lengths before they are yarded so that they may be more 
easily handled and transported. In some cases, extremely large diameter 
trees may be split lengthwise so that they can be handled and 
transported to the mill for further processing. Although the practice 
of splitting a very large tree is not as common, the Agency has 
included a log as any section of tree, whether that section has been 
cut or split from a tree.
    ``Logging operations'' is defined in the final standard as 
operations associated with felling and moving trees and logs from the 
stump to the point of delivery, such as, but not limited to, marking, 
felling, bucking, limbing, debarking, chipping, yarding, loading, 
unloading, storing, and transporting machines, equipment and personnel 
from one site to another. The proposed rule did not define logging 
operations. OSHA has included this definition in the final rule to 
emphasize that this standard covers those operations involving the 
felling and moving of felled trees, as opposed to other operations, 
such as road building that are preparatory to rather than part of 
logging operations.
    ``Machine'' is defined in the final standard as a piece of 
equipment having a self contained powerplant that is operated off-road 
and is used for the movement of materials. Machines include tractors, 
skidders, front-end loaders, scrapers, graders, bulldozers, swing 
yarders, log stackers and mechanical felling devices, such as tree 
shears and feller-bunchers. In the pulpwood logging and proposed 
standards, terms such as ``machine'' and ``equipment'' were used 
interchangeably to describe a piece of equipment that is intended to be 
operated off-road and is used primarily for the movement of material. 
Some commenters said they were confused about whether ``vehicles'' were 
included within the term ``mobile equipment,'' that had been broadly 
defined as the kind of equipment which includes mobility as part of its 
work function. Because of the potential for confusion regarding the 
intention of the Agency in proposing requirements for off-road versus 
on-road equipment, the Agency has defined both the terms ``machine'' 
and ``vehicle.'' The intent of the Agency in including these terms is 
to distinguish between machines, whose primary area of operation is 
off-road and are primarily material movers, and vehicles that include 
personnel and material conveyances operated on highways as well as off-
road.
    The operators of many vehicles (primarily trucks, tractor/trailers 
and buses) require special licenses or endorsements to qualify as an 
operator of that type vehicle. In contrast, machine operators usually 
do not have to possess a special license. Therefore, OSHA is defining 
and imposing different logging-related requirements for the operation 
of machines and vehicles. The use of the term ``machine'' as used in 
this standard should not be confused with the use of that term 
elsewhere in these general industry standards.
    ``Rated capacity'' is defined in the final rule as the maximum load 
that a piece of material handling equipment can safely lift and move. 
This is a term that is commonly used when describing the capability of 
a piece of material handling equipment. The rated capacity of a piece 
of material handling equipment is initially determined by the 
manufacturer and documented in the operators manual and on the 
equipment.
    ``Serviceable condition'' is defined in this final rule as that 
quality of a tool, machine, vehicle, or other device to operate as it 
was intended by the manufacturer to operate. OSHA believes that there 
are many conditions that can exist with a piece of equipment that would 
make it unserviceable, as well as other conditions that would not 
similarly qualify. For example, seat covering material on a tractor 
that has become cracked, although uncomfortable, would not normally 
qualify as a condition that would make the machine unserviceable. On 
the other hand, worn brakes or a leak in the brake system would 
definitely make a machine or vehicle unserviceable. Additionally, 
cracked or broken gauges and defective or leaking fuel systems are 
other conditions that would render a machine or vehicle unserviceable.
    In the case of personal protective equipment, head protection that 
has a crack that would compromise the ability of the hard hat to absorb 
further impact without injuring the employee is an example of an 
unserviceable condition. On the other hand, a small dent in a hard hat 
would not necessarily render the head protection unserviceable.
    ``Tie down'' is defined in the final rule as an assemblage of 
binder and strapping (either chain, cable, steel strips or fiber 
webbing) that is used to secure a load to the bed of a transport 
vehicle. In the proposed rule, OSHA used the term ``binder'' to 
indicate the assembly that is used to secure a load to a vehicle during 
transport of that load. As pointed out by two commenters (Ex. 5-7; Tr. 
OR 20), a binder is a component of a tie down and is the ratchet 
assembly that is used to secure and tighten the strapping of the tie 
down. In this final rule, the Agency has corrected the definition.
    ``Vehicle'' is defined as a personnel conveyance and/or material 
handling equipment. Included are cars, buses, trucks, trailers and 
semi-trailers. Although vehicles normally operate on public roads, 
their use is not limited to that environment. Any of these pieces of 
equipment may operate not only on public roads, but may also be used to 
transport personnel or materials off-road. For example, when a logging 
truck or tractor/trailer is moving a load of trees or logs, the vehicle 
may have to traverse not only the logging trails or roads, but may have 
to operate on the public thoroughfares to deliver its load to the mill 
or other off-loading point. This final rule covers the logging 
operation from the site of the felling of the trees to the point of 
delivery of the trees or logs.

Paragraph (d) General Requirements

    Included in the general requirements paragraph of the final rule 
are requirements for personal protective equipment, seat belts, first 
aid, fire extinguishers, environmental conditions, work areas, 
signaling and signal equipment, overhead electric lines, flammable and 
combustible liquids and explosives and blasting agents.
Personal Protective Equipment
    Paragraph (d)(1) contain requirements for personal protective 
equipment (PPE), including its use and maintenance, and the inspection 
of PPE before its use during a workshift. Paragraph (d)(1) also 
specifies when employees must use gloves, leg protection, logging 
boots, head protection, and eye and face protection. This final rule, 
however, does not contain requirements for other types of personal 
protective equipment that are covered by other general industry 
requirements contained elsewhere in part 1910 (i.e., hearing protection 
and respiratory protection). Paragraph (b)(3) already makes clear that 
other requirements contained in part 1910 automatically apply when the 
logging standard has not addressed a particular hazard or working 
condition. Therefore, since part 1910 already require the use and 
maintenance of PPE, OSHA has included in paragraph (d)(1) only those 
items of personal protective equipment that are not contained elsewhere 
in that part or that are in some way different from the requirements 
contained in elsewhere in part 1910. As such, references to respiratory 
protection in subpart I of part 1910 and hearing protection at 
Sec. 1910.95 have been deleted from this final rule.
    Paragraph (d)(1)(i) of the final rule requires that the employer 
assure that all PPE is maintained in a serviceable condition. This 
employer responsibility applies whether the PPE is provided by the 
employer or provided by the employee. One commenter recommended that 
OSHA include this provision in the final rule (Tr. W2 195). This 
provision parallels the maintenance requirements of the general 
industry PPE standards. Specifically, 1910.132(b) also requires that 
when employees are allowed to provide their own PPE, the employer is 
still responsible for assuring its proper maintenance. OSHA has 
recognized that whether or not the employer pays for particular types 
of PPE that must be worn in the workplace, the employer is responsible 
for assuring that required PPE is adequately protecting employees from 
workplace hazards. The only way for the employer to assure that PPE 
adequately protects employees from workplace hazards is to inspect the 
PPE and maintain it in the condition that it was intended by the 
manufacturer. The final rule, in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) (PPE maintenance) 
and (ii) (PPE inspection), imposes such responsibilities directly on 
the employer.
    In order to assure that all PPE is maintained in a serviceable 
condition, paragraph (d)(1)(ii) requires that the employer assure that 
all PPE be inspected before initial use during each workshift. This 
inspection will assist employers in identifying whether any PPE is not 
functioning properly so that unserviceable equipment can be repaired or 
replaced. This paragraph also requires that before work is commenced, 
the employer must repair defects or damage, or replace the PPE. The 
Agency considers defects and damage to be conditions that detract from 
the ability of the product to perform its intended function. For 
example, worn cuffs on leg protection that do not compromise the 
ability of the leg protection to resist chain-saw cuts, is not a defect 
or damage within the meaning of this standard. However, a cut of the 
leg protection and loss of the fibrous material that is used to resist 
the chain saw would definitely be a defect or damage. When there is a 
defect or damage, the PPE must be repaired so that the condition no 
longer affects the serviceability of the item or the item must be 
replaced before work commences.
    Discussed below are the specific PPE requirements of the final 
rule. OSHA notes that each of the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) 
through (vii) require that the employer assures that the employee wears 
PPE meeting the requirement of the final rule. It is the responsibility 
of the employer to assure that serviceable PPE is available and worn by 
employees when required by the final rule. As discussed above in the 
Major Issues section, with the exception of logging boots, these 
specific PPE requirements impose on the employer the obligation to 
provide such PPE at no cost to the employee.
Gloves
    Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this final rule requires that the employer 
provide, at no cost to the employee, and assure that each employee 
handling wire rope wears cotton gloves or other equivalent hand 
protection. In the proposed rule, OSHA specified that the employer 
provide hand protection consisting of suitable heavy-duty puncture-
resistant gloves when employees were working with wire rope. Several 
State logging standards also require the use of gloves for employees 
working with wire rope (Ex. 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 38K).
    OSHA received many comments regarding the proposed requirement (Ex. 
5-7, 5-17, 5-20, 5-27, 5-29, 5-30, 5-32, 5-35, 5-39, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 
5-51, 5-54, 5-55, 5-62, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. OR 104). Many commenters 
objected to the requiring the use of puncture resistant gloves, such as 
leather gloves, for logging operations. First, commenters argued that 
there are no gloves that are puncture resistant in all circumstances 
(Ex. 5-54; Tr. OR 104). They argued that wire rope can puncture even 
leather gloves. Second, several commenters indicated that cotton gloves 
have become the industry standard and that their experience had shown 
that medium weight cotton gloves are considered safer than leather 
gloves in logging operations when punctures can occur. According to 
these commenters, cotton gloves give the logger a better feel of 
jaggers (broken wires in a wire rope) when they penetrate so the logger 
is able to quickly let go of the wire rope (Ex. 5-17, 5-74 through 5-
92). They added that break-away gloves are imperative when the wire 
rope travels at high speed and reaction time is critical (Ex. 5-74 
through 5-92). They said that cotton gloves, but not leather gloves, 
will tear away from the hand when caught by a jagger rather than 
forcibly pulling the hand along with the jagger, causing the employee 
to fall and possibly into the path of the log (Ex. 5-7, 5-74 through 5-
92). These commenters argued that pulling of the hand and glove could 
make a minor hand injury more serious such as making a small puncture 
wound a tear or laceration of the skin (Ex. 5-29). Third, one commenter 
indicated that cotton gloves provide adequate protection because a 
review of their recordable accidents since 1982 indicated that no 
employee wearing cotton gloves while handling wire rope had suffered an 
injury requiring medical attention (Ex. 5-45). Fourth, these commenters 
said leather gloves are generally considered hazardous for logging 
operations because they do not have good gripping ability on cable when 
wet (Ex. 5-7, 5-20, 5-43, 5-46). These commenters asserted that cotton 
gloves provided better gripping ability in the same circumstances.
    Fifth, commenters argued that the required gloves must be 
applicable and efficient for a wide range of logging activities. One 
commenter pointed out that employees who use saws also work with wire 
rope, and very few will take the time to change gloves between each 
operation (Ex. 5-35). For these reasons, OSHA has, in this final rule, 
changed the requirement for the use of hand protection to specify that 
cotton gloves or other equivalent hand protection must be worn when 
handling wire rope.
    Leg protection. At paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of the final rule, OSHA is 
requiring that the employer provide, at no cost to the employee, and 
assure that each employee who operates a chain saw wears leg 
protection. This paragraph requires that the leg protection be 
comprised of ballistic nylon or other material that the employer 
demonstrates provides equivalent protection. In addition, this 
paragraph requires that the leg protection cover the full length of the 
thigh to the top of the boot on each leg.
    The pulpwood logging standard did not have a requirement for the 
use of chaps or other leg protection. The proposed rule would have 
required that chain-saw operators wear ballistic nylon or equivalent 
protection covering each leg from upper thigh to boot top or shoe top. 
Both the State of Washington and the State of Oregon logging standards 
require the use of leg protection by chain-saw operators (Ex. 2-22, 
38K).
    The need for and the use of leg protection was one of the issues 
raised in the hearing notice and has been discussed above in the Major 
Issues section. The evidence in the record, as discussed above, 
strongly supports the need for a requirement for leg protection for 
each chain saw operator in order to protect that operator against being 
injured by contact with a moving saw chain. OSHA points out that the 
requirement for using leg protection applies to each employee who 
operates any chain saw at any time on the job. This requirement 
includes the employee who is a regular chain saw operator as well as 
the employee who occasionally uses a chain saw. Some commenters 
emphasized the need for any employee who uses a chain saw, even 
occasionally, to wear leg protection (Tr. W1 193, W2 61, 115). Other 
commenters said OSHA should provide an exception for employees who 
operate chains saws only occasionally (Ex. 5-20, 5-59). The Agency 
believes that an employee who operates a chain saw for any duration 
needs leg protection. OSHA also notes that there were no comments 
received saying leg protection was too burdensome for infrequent 
operators or for short duration use.
    In this paragraph, OSHA also has included an exception to the leg 
protection requirement for employees working from bucket trucks and, in 
some instances, for climbers. OSHA has allowed the exception for those 
working in bucket trucks, because the bucket work platform provides the 
necessary protection for these chain saw operators.
    With regard to climbers, OSHA has retained an exception in the 
final rule for certain situations. Climbers are not required to wear 
leg protection when the employer demonstrates that a greater hazard is 
posed by wearing leg protection in the particular situation. As the 
final rule makes clear, this is not a blanket exception for climbers. 
The employer must evaluate the particular situation to determine 
whether there is a greater risk to the climber by wearing leg 
protection. OSHA points out that the employer will bear the burden of 
demonstrating that leg protection poses a greater hazard for the 
climber. OSHA received one comment that said leg protection should not 
be required because it was a hindrance during tree climbing (Ex. 5-7). 
The fact that leg protection may be a ``hindrance'' is not in itself a 
showing that leg protection poses a greater danger. When the hindrance 
is just that climbing goes more slowly when leg protection is worn, the 
employer has not made the requisite showing that leg protection poses 
greater safety hazards. However, when the employer shows that in wet 
conditions leg protection would substantially increase the likelihood 
of falling, it may be appropriate in that case for the climber to 
refrain from using leg protection. In such cases, OSHA believes that 
alternative methods for protecting the legs, such as light and pliable 
pads sewn into work pants, should be used whenever feasible.
    Foot protection. At paragraph (d)(1)(v) of the final rule, OSHA is 
requiring that the employer assure that each employee wear foot 
protection, such as heavy duty logging boots. This provision requires 
that the foot protection be waterproof or water repellant, cover and 
provide support for the ankle, and protect the employee against chain-
saw penetration. This paragraph allows employees to wear sharp, calk-
soled boots, or other slip-resistant boots, when the employer 
demonstrates that they are necessary for the job, terrain, timber type, 
or weather conditions. However, this alternative foot protection must 
otherwise meet the requirements of this paragraph.
    OSHA notes that when the logging boot itself does not provide 
protection from penetration by a chain saw, the employee must use some 
additional foot protection, such as a foot cover, to provide that 
necessary protection. Information in the record indicates such devices 
are commercially available in the logging industry, therefore, this 
provision should not prove burdensome (Ex. 5-14).
    Both the proposed and pulpwood logging standards contained 
provisions requiring that safety boots or shoes (excluding low cut 
shoes) meet ANSI Safety Standards for Men's Safety-Toe Footwear. The 
proposal also would have allowed heavy duty logging style boots with 
lug or calk soles to be worn when they are appropriate for the job, the 
terrain, the timber type and weather conditions. Several State logging 
standards also require that employees wear logging boots (Ex. 2-17, 2-
19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 38K).
    While there was considerable comment on the proposed safety boot 
requirement, commenters generally supported the need for a safety boot 
provision (Ex. 5-11, 5-17, 5-19, 5-24, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-33, 5-43, 5-
50, 5-51, 5-54, 5-55, 5-63, 5-67, Tr. W1 63, 110, W2 115, 139). OSHA 
received the most comment on the issue of who must provide and pay for 
the safety boots. That issue has been discussed at length above in the 
Major Issues section.
    OSHA also received considerable comment opposing the incorporation 
of the ANSI Z41.1 standard on safety shoes (Tr. W1 147-148). Commenters 
from cold climate areas, such as Alaska, northern Washington, Idaho and 
Montana, opposed the proposed requirement because they contended that 
the steel toes transmit the warmth produced by their feet, thereby 
encouraging the onset of frostbite.
    For several reasons, OSHA has used performance criteria rather than 
incorporating by reference any foot protection standard. First, the 
ANSI standard permits low-cut shoes that do not cover the ankle or 
provide ankle support. Second, the ANSI foot protection standard is a 
testing rule for steel toes of safety shoes. While falling objects may 
pose a hazard for logging employees, the greater hazard is penetration 
of the boot by a chain saw. The ANSI standard does not address this 
hazard and it does not provide adequate protection to the entire foot, 
which is necessary. In addition, as discussed above, steel-toed boots 
may cause problems for loggers working in extreme cold. OSHA received 
comment about efforts to develop, manufacture and market protective 
footwear with fiberglass rather than steel toes, but there is no 
accepted standard yet. Third, the ANSI standard does not address 
hazards that are unique to the logging industry, such as wet conditions 
and penetration of the boot by a chain saw. Fourth, there is no 
evidence in the record of any other consensus standard regarding 
logging boots. OSHA is aware of efforts by various organizations and 
associations, in conjunction with the American Society of Testing and 
Materials (ASTM), to develop test standards for personal protective 
equipment that is intended to apply directly to loggers and the logging 
industry. These standards would be similar to the various Canadian PPE 
standards developed by the Safety and Engineering Program Laboratory 
Services (IRRST) (Ex. 5-72).
    Instead, the Agency has specified that logging boots that meet 
certain performance criteria must be worn by each employee. OSHA has 
reviewed the rulemaking record and determined some of the most 
important performance characteristics that are needed in order to deal 
with particular hazards that are present in logging operations (e.g., 
steep and uneven terrain, wet and cold weather, chain-saw kickback). 
For example, two hearing participants testified that logging boots must 
provide ankle support for the employee (Tr. W1 147, OR 222). Coverage 
and support of the ankle is necessary to protect against lacerations 
and to prevent ankle injury when navigating the rugged terrain that 
characterizes much of the logging environment. One commenter also said 
that logging boots must be waterproof or water repellent so that the 
logger would not be exposed to getting trench foot or immersion foot 
(Tr. W1 147). Finally, commenters said logging boots must provide 
protection against penetration by a chain saw if contact is made with 
the boot (Tr. W1 148, 195, W2 139).
    Several commenters also supported the proposed provision allowing 
lug or calk-soled boots to be used (Ex. 5-19, 5-28, 5-29). These 
commenters said that working conditions varied too greatly to require 
the use of one type of boot sole for all logging regions. For example, 
one commenter said that calk boots are considered essential for safe 
and secure walking on steep western forest terrain (Ex. 5-28). Another 
commenter stated that there are situations in the south where smooth 
soled boots are adequate (Ex. 5-29). In addition, this commenter said 
that there are conditions when calk boots might pose a greater danger, 
such as a machine operator who is continuously mounting and dismounting 
a machine via steel platform steps where the calk boots could result in 
slipping or falling. As a result, this commenter said that calk and 
sharp-soled boots should be limited to those situations when the type 
of logging operation, terrain, timber size or weather conditions make 
their use appropriate. The U.S. Department of the Interior also 
commented that calk-soled boots may contribute to certain types of 
logging injuries, such as knee injuries (Ex. 5-50). Based on these 
comments, OSHA specifically allows sharp, calk-soled boots or other 
slip-resistant type boots to be worn, provided the employer can 
demonstrate such boots are needed for the employee's job, the terrain, 
the timber type or the weather conditions.
    In order for the employer to demonstrate that such footwear is 
necessary, the employer must prove that three conditions are met: (1) 
that the footwear is appropriate for use in the work environment; (2) 
the employee's duties require him/her to work where the footwear is 
needed; and (3) that the use of the alternative footwear does not make 
the work less safe. For example, if the area where the logging is being 
done is moist to wet and has a dense leaf cover, the use of calk-soled 
boots (boots with spiked soles) would provide the logger with 
additional traction when walking and working on that ground cover. On 
the other hand, such footwear is not appropriate when a machine 
operator spends little time working on the ground (even if the same 
conditions as described above prevail) since spikes make frequent 
mounting and demounting of the machine more hazardous. OSHA recognizes 
that slips, trips and falls are a major source of injury in the logging 
industry, accounting for one third of the injuries to loggers (Ex. 2-
1).
    OSHA is also requiring that when an employee wears calk-soled 
logging boots, the other foot protection requirements of this paragraph 
must also be met. OSHA is aware that most calk-soled boots do not have 
steel-toes or other devices that prevent penetration by a chain saw. 
However, OSHA is also aware that calk-soled boots are worn primarily by 
fellers and buckers operating chain saws on steep terrain. Evidence in 
the record indicates that a vast majority of loggers in western States, 
where the terrain is steep, wear calk-soled boots (Ex. 2-1). However, 
even in those States, almost 20 percent of all injuries reported in the 
WIR survey involved chain saws. The vast majority of these injuries 
happened when the logger was struck by the chain saw. Therefore, OSHA 
believes that it is necessary that even when an employee wears calk-
soled boots, he must also have foot protection providing protection 
against chain-saw penetration. As stated above, when the boot itself 
does not provide that protection, the employee must wear some other 
device that will provide the needed protection. The record shows there 
are such devices currently available on the market, therefore, OSHA 
does not believe this additional requirement will be unduly burdensome 
(Ex. 5-14).
    Head protection. At paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of the final rule, OSHA is 
requiring each employee who is at risk of injury from falling or flying 
objects to wear head protection. The head protection must meet the 
requirements of newly-revised subpart I of part 1910. Both the pulpwood 
logging standard and the proposed standard contained head protection 
requirements. The pulpwood logging standard had identified the 
performance criteria that head protection was required to meet, but did 
not specifically require employees to wear it. The proposed standard 
added that requirement and updated the performance criteria for the 
required head protection. Several State logging standards also require 
that employees wear head protection (Ex. 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 
38K).
    OSHA did not receive any comments opposing the required use of head 
protection and has retained the proposed provision in the final 
standard. OSHA believes it is important to stress that in the logging 
industry head protection is necessary to protect employees not only 
from falling objects, but also from flying objects. According to the 
WIR survey, 14 percent of all injuries reported were to the head (Ex. 
2-1). OSHA believes this hazard is present especially for fellers, 
chain saw operators and persons performing chipping operations, 
however, there are other logging operations where the potential for 
head injury also exists.
    Eye and face protection. Paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of the final rule 
requires that each employee who works in an area where there is a 
potential for injury due to falling or flying object shall wear eye and 
face protection meeting the requirements of subpart I of part 1910. 
This provision permits logger-type mesh screen to be worn when the 
employer demonstrates it provides equivalent protection. The proposed 
rule also contained these provisions. The 1978 ANSI standard contained 
a similar requirement. Eye and face protection is also required by 
several State logging standards (Ex. 2-18, 2-19, 2-22, 2-23, 38K).
    Two commenters said OSHA should require eye protection to be worn 
only in certain situations (Ex. 5-43 and 5-64). One commenter stated:

    This is a good rule for some logging activities, such as 
felling, bucking, splicing, etc.; however, we do not feel that this 
is necessary for choker setting and many machine operators, such as 
yarder, loader, feller-bunchers (Ex. 5-64).

    After reviewing the evidence in the record, OSHA believes that a 
requirement mandating eye and face protection is necessary. According 
to the WIR survey, 13 percent of all injuries reported involved the 
eyes and face (Ex. 2-1). In the final rule, OSHA is requiring only that 
such protection be worn whenever there is the potential for head injury 
due to falling or flying objects. OSHA agrees with the commenters that 
the potential for eye and face injury is present especially for 
fellers, buckers and chippers, however, there are other logging 
operations in which the potential for this type of injury also exists. 
In any logging operations when there is no danger of being struck by 
falling or flying objects, eye protection is not required.
    Employers, under the PPE standard, will have to conduct a hazard 
assessment to determine when and where those hazards may exist in the 
logging workplace. In some cases, the presence of the hazard will be 
obvious (e.g., fellers and buckers). In other cases, working conditions 
may be such that there is no potential for injury (e.g., yarder 
operator working inside an enclosed cab).
    As with the head protection provision, OSHA has retained the eye 
and face protection provision to alert the industry that falling 
objects, in addition to flying objects, are a hazard for employees in 
the logging industry.

First-Aid Kits

    At paragraph (d)(2) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
employers provide first-aid kits. The proposed standard contained this 
provision. First aid kits are also required by every State Plan State 
logging standard. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this 
requirement in general.
    Paragraph (d)(2)(i) of the final rule requires that first-aid kits 
be at each work site when felling is being conducted, at each landing 
and on each employee transport vehicle. The proposed rule stated that 
first-aid kits be provided ``at the work site.'' Several commenters 
said that OSHA should define the term ``work site'' (Ex. 5-39, 5-53, 5-
55, 5-63) in the final rule. They also said that having kits available 
at the landing should provide adequate protection. However, another 
commenter said chain-saw operators working away from the landing need 
first-aid kits and should each be required to carry a small first-aid 
kit that contains supplies to stop bleeding (Ex. 5-28).
    In the final rule, OSHA has clarified its intention regarding 
having first-aid kits at each work site. First, the records shows that 
first-aid kits are necessary at each work site when felling is being 
conducted and not just at landings. According to the WIR survey, more 
than one-half of all injuries occurred at the cutting site, while only 
one-fifth of the injuries were at landings (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes 
that immediate assistance must be provided for injured cutters. As 
discussed above in the Major Issues section, many logging 
establishments have central offices, but their crews are performing 
operations miles from that central location. OSHA has received 
testimony that cutting crews are often spread out and in remote 
locations (Ex. 5-34; Tr. OR 21). These commenters said crews are often 
located more than one-half hour away from a central office or spread 
across five square miles. First-aid kits that require that much time to 
access are of limited value to an injured employee. When an injury is 
severe, the lack of immediately accessible first-aid materials and 
trained personnel could result in permanent disability or death. 
Therefore, OSHA is requiring that first-aid kits be provided at each 
work site where trees are being felled.
    Second, OSHA is also requiring first-aid kits to be provided at 
each landing. As discussed above, one-fifth of all injuries reported in 
the WIR survey occurred at landings (Ex. 2-1). First-aid kits at 
landings are also necessary to provide assistance to other injured 
employees, such as those on skid trails. According to the WIR survey, 
nearly one-fifth of employees injured were on skid trails.
    Third, OSHA is retaining the requirement from the proposed rule 
that first-aid kits be provided on each crew vehicle. The WIR survey 
indicates that employees are injured on employer-built roads while 
enroute to and from work sites (Ex. 2-1). One commenter stated that 
requiring first-aid kits on each employee transport vehicle could 
result in several kits being at each work site (Ex. 5-35). Nothing in 
the standard prohibits an employer from using the employee transport 
vehicle kits by a felling crew during the workshift, provided they are 
returned to the crew vehicle when it is moved at the end of the 
workshift.
    Paragraph (d)(2)(i) of the final rule also requires that the 
employer, in determining the appropriate number and contents of first-
aid kits, to consider the degree of isolation of the work site, the 
number of employees at the work site and the hazards reasonably 
anticipated at that work site. The further a crew is from a central 
landing, the more crucial a first-aid kit is for that remote crew. For 
example, large and well-supplied first-aid kits are needed where crews 
are so remotely located that rescue units (either vehicles or 
helicopters) cannot get to the injured person or not get there quickly. 
When crews are very small and located close to central landings smaller 
kits may be adequate, when supplemented by kits at central landing 
areas that contain a more comprehensive supply of first-aid materials.
    Paragraphs (d)(2) (ii), (iii) and (iv) all deal with the adequacy 
of the contents of first-aid kits. At paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of the final 
rule, OSHA has specified that each first-aid kit must meet certain 
minimum content requirements. Those minimum content requirements are 
delineated in mandatory Appendix A. OSHA received comments urging OSHA 
to specify the contents needed for an ``adequately supplied'' first-aid 
kit (Ex. 5-21, 5-28, 5-50, 30). These commenters also pointed out that 
several State logging standards specify minimum first-aid content 
requirements (Ex. 2-18, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 38J, 38K). In addition, one 
commenter also provided a list of minimum contents needed for logging 
first-aid kits. Based on these comments and OSHA's expert judgment, the 
items listed in Appendix A are the type necessary for dealing with 
injured persons in remote areas of varying climatic conditions. OSHA 
points out that the specified contents are minimally adequate for a 
small logging crew of two to three employees. Where crews are larger, 
additional kits or kits with more supplies may be needed. In 
formulating this final rule, OSHA included Appendix A (First-aid 
supplies) and Appendix B (First-aid training) to provide the employer 
with a definitive means of determining the adequacy of the first-aid 
kits and the training that employees must receive.
    OSHA has deleted from the final paragraph the proposed requirement 
that first-aid kits include snake bite kits. OSHA received several 
comments about this provision (Ex. 5-7, 5-17, 5-29, 5-35, 5-42, 5-50, 
5-51, 5-55, 5-67). One commenter said this requirement should be 
deleted since there were no poisonous snakes in his area (Ex. 5-7). 
Other commenters said that some snake bite kits were not effective in 
treating bites or that they are outmoded and can do more damage than 
good (Ex. 5-17, 5-29, 5-35, 5-42, 5-50, 5-51, 5-55, 5-67). For example, 
NIOSH said that it is possible more serious injury will occur to a 
person by improper use of a snake bite kit (Ex. 5-42). According to the 
Regional Snake Bite Control Center at the University Medical Center in 
Cincinnati, OH, snake bite kits should not be used when medical 
treatment is available within one hour of the bite (Ex. 5-42). OSHA has 
determined that, given the regional differences in the logging 
industry, employers should be allowed to work with their health care 
provider to determine whether a snake bite kit is necessary and what 
kind of kit would be of most assistance for loggers working in that 
area. One of the factors the health care provider should consider is 
how far particular loggers are from medical facilities and trained 
medical personnel.
    Paragraph (d)(2)(iii) requires a health care provider to review and 
approve annually the first-aid kits the employer provides, both as to 
the adequacy of the kit's contents and the number of kits provided. 
OSHA has added this requirement in the final rule for several reasons. 
First, 1910.151(b) already requires that first-aid kits be approved by 
consulting physicians. OSHA is aware that health care providers in 
addition to physicians are qualified to approve first-aid kits and OSHA 
wants to provide flexibility for employers in meeting this requirement. 
Second, 1910.151(b) only requires initial approval of first-aid kits 
rather than periodic approval. However, OSHA believes that a periodic 
review of first-aid kits is necessary and appropriate in the logging 
industry. This industry is one in which the workplace is often not near 
medical personnel, infirmaries, clinics, or hospitals that are best 
able to treat logging injuries. Therefore, it is important for a health 
care provider to assess the contents of first-aid kits to see that they 
contain those supplies that will provide effective assistance for an 
injured worker.
    Once the kits are reviewed and approved, paragraph (d)(2)(iv) 
requires the employer to maintain the first-aid kits in accordance with 
the approval conditions. Employers have the duty to ensure that first-
aid kits are adequately supplied and replenished as necessary. In 
addition, the employer is responsible for assuring that kit contents 
are usable, that is, there is no spoilage or damage due to weather 
conditions. For example, employers need to periodically check first-aid 
supplies to ensure that materials are still in clean and sterile 
condition.

Seat Belts

    At paragraph (d)(3) of the final standard, OSHA is requiring the 
provision of seat belts for the operator of any vehicle or any machine 
equipped with ROPS or FOPS and the use of seat belts by the vehicle and 
machine operator and passengers. The pulpwood logging standard required 
the provision of seat belts on mobile equipment, but did not require 
the use of seat belts by operators and passengers. The proposed rule 
required both the provision and use of seat belts by tractor, equipment 
and personnel transport operators. In addition, the proposed rule 
allowed an exception to using seat belts when the employer had 
``reasonable cause to believe that safety of the operator is 
jeopardized by wearing a seat belt.'' The 1978 ANSI logging standard 
required logging machines to be equipped with seat belts. All State 
logging standards also require the use of seat belts by operators and 
passengers of machines and vehicles.
    OSHA received many comments on the use of seat belts (Ex. 5-17, 5-
19, 5-22, 5-35, 5-39, 5-45, 5-51, 5-54, Tr. W1 79, 113, 183, 213). The 
West Virginia Forestry Association recommended expanding the seat belt 
requirement to require seat belts be installed and used in all 
personnel transport vehicles because West Virginia did not have a state 
seat belt law (Ex. 5-4). Other commenters also recommended that OSHA 
not permit any exceptions to the use of seat belts (Ex. 5-17, 5-22, 5-
27, Tr. W1 183, 213). One commenter reasoned that any exception would 
invite widespread abuse and seriously weaken OSHA's field enforcement 
capability (Ex. 5-22). However, other commenters said that seat belts 
should not be required because they would unduly restrict operators, 
would result in greater injury if an object entered the operator area 
(i.e., ``jillpoke''), and would be hazardous for employees operating 
machines on steep terrain (Ex. 5-35, 5-45; Tr. W1 79, 113, OR 31-2, 83, 
120, 181).
    After reviewing the comments in the record and the available 
accident data, OSHA has decided in the final rule to eliminate the seat 
belt exception for several reasons. First, the record shows that use of 
seat belts would save lives in the logging industry (Ex. 4-129). A 
State of Washington study also reported 12 loggers killed in rollover 
accidents from 1977-83 (Ex. 4-129). All 12 of those employees were 
crushed by the machine when they were thrown from the cab. This study 
concluded that all of those deaths might have been prevented if the 
employees involved had been wearing seat belts because the ROPS and 
FOPS were still intact when the machine came to a rest. This study also 
concluded that eliminating exemptions on seat belt use would save lives 
in the logging industry.
    Second, the record does not support the view that the operator's 
risk of being injured by a jillpoke entering the cab is greater than 
the risk of injury from not wearing seat belts. Of the 105 logging 
fatalities reported to OSHA between 1985 and 1990, only one was caused 
by a jillpoke (Ex. 4-65). On the other hand, 7 fatalities occurred 
during machine rollover accidents when either the machine operator or a 
rider was thrown from the machine and crushed because he was not 
wearing a seat belt. NIOSH said that 80 deaths occurred due to logging 
machine rollovers from 1980-85 (Ex. 5-42). The State of Washington 
study indicated that 12 loggers were killed in machine rollover 
accidents and no machine operators were killed during that period 
because of jillpokes (Ex. 4-129). California OSHA also testified that 
their experience has been that the jillpoke hazard is far outweighed by 
the hazard of rollovers (Ex. 9-12). They provided examples of logging 
accidents in which the employee would not have died or been injured if 
he had been wearing a seat belt.
    Third, OSHA has dealt directly with the hazard of jillpokes in the 
final rule. The final rule requires that all operator cabs be equipped 
with screening or other material that will prevent objects from 
penetrating the cab. This requirement is expected to prevent jillpoke 
injuries, therefore the seat belt exception is not necessary.
    Fourth, OSHA agrees with commenters that there should be no 
exception to the seat belt requirement for mobile machine operators, 
especially those who operate on steep terrain. Mobile logging machines 
are operated on unlevel ground and steep terrain where it is well-
recognized that machine rollover and tipover is a primary danger. Seat 
belts will restrain the operator in the cab and its protective 
structure rather than allowing the operator to try to jump free. In 
most instances, when the operator tries to jump free he is pinned, 
crushed or hit by the machine, ROPS/FOPS or overhead guard. Finally, 
OSHA notes that seat belts have been designed that keep operators 
restrained within the cab in the event of a rollover or tipover, while 
at the same time providing them with maximum movement within the cab. 
One commenter said these seat belts, which resemble carnival harnesses, 
have been designed by the Forest Engineering Research Institute of 
Canada (Ex. 32). These seat belts would meet the requirements of this 
section while addressing the concerns raised by the commenters.
    Paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of the final rule requires that each employee 
fasten the seat belt securely and tightly so that the employee is 
restrained in the vehicle or machine cab in the event of an accident. 
Evidence in this record (Ex. 5-35; Tr. W2 190) indicates that employees 
frequently keep their seat belts loose in order to move in the cab more 
easily. However, if the machine rolls over, the loose seat belt may not 
be effective in keeping the operator in the cab. In such cases, the 
operator may be thrown from the cab and pinned or crushed by the 
machine because the seat belt was too loose to keep the operator fully 
contained in the cab.
    Paragraph (d)(3)(iv) of the final rule requires that machine seat 
belts meet the requirements of the Society of Automotive Engineers 
standard (SAE J386 June 1985) for seat belts for construction machines. 
This incorporation by reference of SAE J386 June 1985, has been 
approved by the Office of the Federal Register, in accordance with the 
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. The final rule has 
been revised to reflect this approval and provides the requisite 
information regarding access to the text of SAE J386, June 1985. This 
provision updates the proposed standard to incorporate the latest SAE 
seat belt standard. There were no comments opposing this provision.
    Paragraph (d)(3)(v) of the final rule requires employers to assure 
that seat belts are not removed from any vehicle or machine. This 
paragraph also requires the employer to replace the missing seat belts 
if seat belts were installed in the vehicle or machine at the time of 
manufacture and have subsequently been removed. OSHA is aware that seat 
belts are removed from machines because operators do not like to wear 
them. OSHA is requiring the replacement of seat belts because the 
Agency believes they are essential in protecting machine and vehicle 
operators from being killed or seriously injured in accidents.
    Paragraph (d)(3)(vi) of the final standard requires employers to 
assure that seat belts are maintained in a serviceable condition. 
Employers have the duty to ensure that seat belts are functioning 
properly and are not damaged. The standard also requires inspection of 
seat belts as part of the general machine and vehicle inspection 
required at the start of each workshift. (See discussion of maintenance 
in paragraphs (f) and (g)).

Fire Extinguishers

    At paragraph (d)(4) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring employers 
to provide and maintain a portable fire extinguisher on each machine 
and vehicle. The extinguisher must meet the requirements of subpart L 
of part 1910. The pulpwood logging and proposed standards required a 
fire extinguisher at locations where machines and vehicles are being 
operated.
    Several commenters urged OSHA to limit this requirement (Ex. 5-21, 
5-36, 5-39). Two of these commenters said that fire extinguishers 
should only be required on heavy equipment and at refueling stations 
(Ex. 5-21, 5-36). The other commenter said fire extinguishers should 
only be required during forest fire seasons.
    OSHA has decided in the final rule to require extinguishers on each 
machine and vehicle for several reasons. First, repeatedly in this 
rulemaking commenters have requested that OSHA more clearly define what 
constitutes a ``work site,'' an ``operating area,'' or a ``work area.'' 
OSHA's intention in the proposed rule was that a fire extinguisher be 
located where each machine and vehicle is operated, including areas 
where they are refueled. OSHA believes that requiring the fire 
extinguisher be located on each machine most clearly conveys the 
Agency's intention that the fire extinguisher move with the machine or 
vehicle as it is operated and refueled.
    Second, the potential for fire is a major concern in this industry 
(Ex. 5-20). It is important that extinguishers be immediately available 
so that a fire can be extinguished before it goes out of control and 
endangers employees and the forest. A fire extinguisher that is located 
at a landing where the machine begins its operation, may be of no use 
when the machine is miles away from the landing picking up a load.
    Third, one of the areas where the potential for fire is great is 
during refueling of the machine. However, the proposed standard only 
required the extinguisher to be located where machines and vehicles 
were being operated and did not address refueling directly. If the 
extinguisher remains with the machine or vehicle, it will be there to 
protect against fire hazards during refueling.
    Fourth, OSHA is aware that in many industrial settings, the 
extinguisher is already mounted on the machine or vehicle so that it is 
immediately accessible when a fire occurs. Therefore, OSHA does not 
believe complying with this requirement will pose a significant burden 
on the employer.

Environmental Conditions

    At paragraph (d)(5) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that all 
work be stopped and that each employee move to a place of safety when 
environmental conditions may endanger an employee in the performance of 
their job. This provision also specifies that hazardous environmental 
conditions include, but are not limited to, electrical storms, high 
winds, heavy rain or snow, extreme cold, dense fog, fires, mudslides, 
and darkness. The pulpwood logging and proposed rules contained a 
similar provision, however, it only specifically identified electrical 
storms and high winds. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained a 
similar requirement and, in addition, required logging operations to 
cease when visibility is inadequate, unless artificial lighting is 
provided. All State logging standards, except the State of Alaska, have 
provisions requiring work to cease when environmental conditions are 
hazardous to employees.
    OSHA received several comments on this provision (Ex. 5-50, 5-51, 
5-55, 5-66; Tr. W1 139). Some of these commenters recommended expanding 
the conditions listed in this provision. These commenters also said 
logging should be stopped when darkness impairs visual ability, unless 
artificial light is provided. One commenter said they do not allow 
their employees to work in blowing snow, extreme cold or winds (Ex. 5-
51). Another commenter said OSHA should specify that the work stoppage 
requirement should be limited to only that work that is affected by the 
environmental conditions (Ex. 5-55; Tr. W1 139).
    OSHA does not believe it is possible to delineate each and every 
environmental condition that would necessitate termination of work and 
moving employees to a place of safety. OSHA is aware that the 
employer's judgment will be essential in carrying out this provision in 
the various environmental conditions that affect different regions of 
this industry. However, the criteria that must form the basis of the 
employer's assessment is uniform--when a reasonable employer would 
believe that environmental conditions may endanger employees performing 
a specific job or operating a specific piece of equipment, work must 
stop and the employees must move to a place of safety. For example, 
darkness may prevent a feller from accurately assessing the distance 
between occupied work areas or the condition of the tree to be cut 
(e.g., loose bark, damaged trunk or limbs). If the feller is not able 
to properly assess these conditions, he may endanger himself and others 
in the area. Therefore, work would have to stop unless artificial light 
were available to alleviate the danger.
    Another element of the determination as to whether an environmental 
condition may endanger an employee is the particular job being 
performed and the tools of that job. For example, dense fog may 
endanger a feller because they may not be able to see the top of the 
tree and accurately judge its lean. If such conditions exist, felling 
must be stopped. However, fog may not necessarily endanger employees 
who are loading transport vehicles at a landing. In that case, the 
employees might still be able to perform their job under such 
conditions.

Work Areas

    At paragraph (d)(6) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that work 
areas be so organized and spaced that the actions of one employee will 
not create a hazard for any other employee. This paragraph also 
requires that each employee work in a position or location that is 
within visual or audible contact with another employee. These 
provisions were adopted from the proposed standard. The pulpwood 
logging and 1978 ANSI logging standards also recommended a two tree-
length distance between work areas. Requirements similar to the final 
rule exist in various State logging standards (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-
20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 38J, 38K).
    At paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
work areas be assigned so that trees cannot fall into adjacent occupied 
work areas. This provision also requires that the distance between 
adjacent occupied work areas be at least two tree lengths of the trees 
being felled. The proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard 
contained similar requirements.
    OSHA received comments supporting this provision (Ex. 5-29, 5-41, 
5-67, 5-70; Tr. W2 163). These commenters said that two tree lengths is 
already used in the industry to ensure safe spacing of work areas. Some 
commenters, however, said that the provision should be limited (Ex. 5-
28, 5-36, 5-39, 5-44, 5-49, 5-53, 5-54, 5-63, 5-74 through 5-92). One 
commenter said OSHA should require minimum spacing requirements only 
when physical control of the timber was unpredictable, such as felling 
and skidding (Ex. 5-28). Other commenters recommended that the 
requirement be limited to slopes that are greater than 25 or 35 percent 
(Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-39, 5-63).
    The purpose of these requirements is to protect employees in 
adjacent occupied work areas from being hit by misdirected trees. One 
of the major causes of injury in the logging industry is being hit by a 
tree. According to the WIR survey, almost one-quarter of all those 
injured were hit by a tree (Ex. 2-1). The State of Washington study 
showed that more than 65 percent of all employees were killed when they 
were hit by a tree or log (Ex. 4-129). In addition, the study showed 
that almost nine percent of that reported fatalities resulted from an 
employee being hit by a tree being felled by another employee (Ex. 4-
129).
    Employees can be hit by a tree that falls in the wrong direction or 
by one that rolls or slides down sloping terrain. There is no dispute 
that there is increased difficulty in directional felling on unlevel 
terrain. OSHA believes that these work spacing requirements in the 
final rule will help to prevent these types of accidents. Moreover, 
adopting any of the limitations that the commenters proposed would 
still leave employees exposed to other foreseeable hazards. Since the 
two tree-length distance has become accepted practice in the industry, 
it appears that industry itself recognizes the need for a minimum work 
spacing requirement and that the provision should not prove overly 
burdensome for any establishments in the industry.
    In paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of the final rule OSHA is also requiring 
that employers assess conditions to determine whether additional 
spacing between adjacent occupied work areas is necessary. Some of the 
conditions that employers must examine include the degree of slope, the 
density of the growth, the height of trees, the soil structure, and 
other hazards reasonably anticipated at that work site. This paragraph 
also requires that additional distance be maintained between adjacent 
occupied work areas on any slope where rolling or sliding of logs is 
reasonably foreseeable. These provisions were also contained in the 
proposed rule and in various State logging standards (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 
2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 38J, 38K). The 1978 ANSI logging standard also 
contained a similar requirement.
    Some commenters said greater distance should only be required when 
the slope is greater than 25 or 35 percent (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-39, 5-
63). These commenters, however, did not provide any information on why 
such a limitation would provide adequate protection for employees. OSHA 
does not agree that greater distance may only be necessary on such 
steep slopes. OSHA believes there is a potential for trees and logs to 
roll and slide on lesser slopes when conditions such as snow and ice 
accumulation or wet soil are present. Therefore, OSHA does not believe 
that adequate protection would be provided if the commenters' 
recommendation were adopted.
    Other commenters said that a greater distance on slopes should not 
be required when employees are working to the side of each other, 
pointing out that the Alaska logging standard allows this (Ex. 5-74 
through 5-92). OSHA believes that the final standard is consistent with 
the Alaska logging standard. The final rule only requires that a 
greater distance is required on any slope where rolling or sliding of 
trees or logs is reasonably foreseeable. Nothing in the final rule 
requires a greater distance on slopes when there is no danger that an 
employee could be hit by a rolling or sliding log. For example, when 
employees work side by side on a slope, rather than uphill and downhill 
from each other, there is no danger that the employee will be injured 
by a rolling log.
    At paragraph (d)(6)(iii), OSHA is requiring that each employee, 
without exception, be located within visual or audible contact of 
another worker. This provision must be read in conjunction with the 
requirements in paragraph (d)(7) specifying what methods of audible 
contact may be used (i.e., not chain-saw engine noise). This 
requirement parallels the proposed standard, however the proposed rule 
did not apply this requirement to motor vehicle operators, watchmen and 
other single employee assignment jobs. The pulpwood logging standard 
required that employees work within the vocal range of other loggers 
but also allowed employers to use an alternative procedure that 
provided for periodic checks of employee welfare.
    Much of the comment on this requirement has already been discussed 
in the Major Issues section above. Some commenters opposed various 
aspects of this provision (Ex. 5-29, 5-36, 5-39, 5-49, 5-53, 5-54, 5-
67, 5-70, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. W1 65). One commenter recommended 
allowing manual fellers to be out of contact with other employees, such 
as skidder operators, for up to 20 minutes (Ex. 5-54). This commenter 
said that was the amount of time necessary to transport a load to the 
landing and return to the cutting area. However, the commenter has not 
provided any information or data to support why such an exception would 
still allow for adequate protection for fellers. OSHA does not believe 
that permitting periods of time in which contact is not maintained will 
provide adequate protection for employees. A chain-saw operator who 
severely cuts himself could bleed to death within 20 minutes.
    Other commenters opposed this provision because it would be 
difficult to comply with this requirement and maintain the required two 
tree-length separation between adjacent work areas (Ex. 5-29, Tr. W1 pg 
65). For several reasons, OSHA believes employers will be able to 
comply with both requirements. First, this paragraph requires each 
employee to be within visual or audible contact with ``another'' 
employee. It does not require that the person with whom contact is 
maintained be in an adjacent work area. Second, the provision requiring 
at least two tree-length spacing between adjacent occupied work areas 
is intended to prevent trees from falling from one work area into 
another. The purposes of a visual or audible contact is to provide a 
method for employees to remain in contact in case of an emergency 
(e.g., a chain-saw operator requesting first aid after being cut by the 
saw, an employee alerting others of severe weather approaching). 
Therefore, if employees are provided with radio communication, it would 
be possible for employees whose work areas are spaced far apart to 
maintain contact with each other.
    Third, as discussed above in the issues section, the final rule 
does not require that visual contact be maintained. Instead, audible 
contact may be maintained by the use of horns, whistles or radio 
communication. As such, employees can be great distances from each 
other and still remain in contact satisfying the requirements of this 
provision. Fourth, OSHA is also aware that many logging establishments 
are currently using radio communication to maintain contact, that is 
the best evidence of its effectiveness.
    As stated above, in this paragraph OSHA has eliminated all proposed 
exceptions to the requirement of maintaining contact with another 
employee. As discussed above in the Major Issues section, OSHA has 
eliminated the proposed exceptions for several reasons. First, various 
State standards do not include an exception to the contact requirement 
(Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 38J, 38K). Second, several 
commenters supported the proposal that all employees remain in contact 
and indicated that they do maintain contact with all employees, 
including employees in single employee assignments, via radio and 
telephone (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92). As a result, these commenters 
suggested the exceptions may no longer be necessary (See also, Ex. 5-
33). These commenters also reasoned that all employees, including 
mobile machine operators performing single employee assignments, need a 
method of summoning help in an emergency. OSHA agrees with these 
commenters. The Agency believes that the contact requirement will help 
to provide prompt assistance to all employees who are injured or are 
otherwise in emergency situations. As discussed above in the Major 
Issues section, with the advent of radio communication, it is feasible 
to maintain contact with workers performing single employee 
assignments.
    OSHA notes that it is implied in this provision that not only will 
means for contact be provided, but also that contact will be maintained 
with each employee. All but one State logging standard require check-in 
systems to assure that contact is maintained (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-
20, 2-21, 38J, 38K). In addition, several commenters say they have 
initiated check-in systems to assure that employees working in remote 
locations are all right.
    At paragraph (d)(6)(iv) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring the 
employer to account for each employee at the end of the workshift. OSHA 
has adopted this provision from the pulpwood logging and the proposed 
standards. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained a similar 
requirement. Several State logging standards also require check-in 
systems at the end of the workshift to ensure no employees are left in 
the woods (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 38K). Several commenters said 
that it was not necessary for small felling and bucking crews to be 
accounted for by anyone other than the crew members (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-
39, 5-53, 5-63). In response, OSHA points out that nothing in the final 
rule would prevent the employer from allowing a crew supervisor, for 
example, to account for the rest of the crew at the end of the 
workshift. In such cases, the employer is responsible for establishing 
and enforcing a regular system whereby there is a check on each 
employee at the end of the workshift. The most important thing is that 
no employee is unaccounted for at the close of the shift. As with the 
contact requirement, OSHA believes that this provision will help to 
assure timely assistance to employees in emergencies.
    In addition, end of shift accounting offers several other benefits 
to the employer and employee. First, the employer can remain appraised 
of the progress made on the job during the last workshift. Second, any 
hazardous conditions that were not contemplated during pre-shift 
meetings with employees can be relayed to the employer for 
dissemination to other employees. Third, unserviceable tools and 
machines can be reported to the employer so that replacements can be 
obtained or repairs can made before the next workshift. Therefore, OSHA 
has retained this provision in the final standard.
    Several commenters said this provision would interfere with 
contracting situations when the logger is an independent contractor 
(Ex. 5-21, 5-23, 5-36, 5-53, 5-55, 5-63). However, they did not provide 
any evidence as to how this provision might conflict with contracting 
agreements.

Signaling and Signal Equipment

    At paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
hand or audible signals such as whistles, horns, or radios, be utilized 
whenever noise, distance or other factors prevent clear understanding 
of normal voice communications between employees. Paragraph (d)(7)(ii) 
prohibits the use of engine noise, such as from chains saws, as a means 
of maintaining contact. These provisions supplement and support the 
requirement for the maintenance of audible or visual contact contained 
in paragraph (d)(6)(iii). The proposed rule also contained a contact 
requirement. However, it would not have prohibited the use of chain-saw 
noise as a means of signaling. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also 
contained a requirement similar to the proposed rule. Several State 
logging standards also prohibit the use of chain-saw noise as a 
signaling device (Ex. 2-22, 2-23, 38K). The Washington State logging 
standard requires fellers to carry whistles, which are to be used for 
no other purpose than to summon help (Ex. 2-22, 5-7).
    OSHA received many comments on this provision opposing the 
prohibition of chain-saw noise as a signaling device, that have been 
discussed above in the Major Issues section. Other commenters supported 
the provision, focusing their comments on allowing communication 
devices such as telephones and radios in the final rule (Ex. 5-54, 5-
70, 7-74; Tr. W2 197). One of these commenters supported the provision 
because the use of electronic communication, such as citizen band 
radios, makes controlling trainees easier (Tr. W2 197). Another 
commenter supported the use of whistles for signalling because they 
produce a very unusual sound in the woods that can be heard for a great 
distance (Ex. 5-7).
    In general, there are two principal safety-related needs for a 
signalling system in logging operations. The first is for the 
maintenance of communication between employees working in adjacent 
occupied work areas, both to warn other employees of potential 
hazardous situations and to summon help in an emergency. The second 
need for a signaling system is to provide guidance to the operators of 
machines and vehicles, such as cranes and other material handling 
machines, when work site conditions prevent operators from seeing and 
controlling the operation. For example, if a crane is used to move a 
load from below an overhang such as a cliff, a signal person might be 
needed to observe the load and to signal the crane operator when and 
how to move the load.
    As discussed above in the Major Issues section, paragraph 
(d)(7)(ii) of the final rule prohibits the use of engine noise as a 
signaling device. This paragraph does permit other locally and 
regionally recognized signals to be used. This provision has been 
adopted from the proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard. OSHA 
did not receive any comments opposing the use of locally or regionally 
recognized signals, therefore, the Agency has retained this provision 
in the final rule.
    At paragraph (d)(7)(iii) of the final rule, OSHA has added a 
provision requiring that only designated persons give signals except in 
an emergency. The proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard also 
contained this requirement. Several State standards also require that 
only designated persons give signals (Ex. 2-18, 2-21, 2-22, 38K). As 
defined in this standard, a designated person is one who has the 
necessary knowledge, training and experience to perform specific job 
tasks. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this provision.
    OSHA has included this provision in the final rule for several 
reasons. First, OSHA believes that the signaling system should be 
included in the employer's training-program so that employees who are 
called upon to act as signal persons will know how to signal 
appropriately. This is especially important when an employee performs 
signaling to assist with the safe operation or movement of a machine or 
load. It is also important that employees know the appropriate signals 
in the event that help must be summoned. The employee requiring help 
needs to know what means are to be used to communicate the necessary 
information and how to use those means of communication properly. In 
addition, other employees must be trained in what they should listen 
for so they can avoid potential hazards or provide assistance. Second, 
OSHA believes that employees without the necessary training should not 
be permitted to act as a signal person for assisting with the operation 
and movement of machines and loads. When the signal person has not been 
adequately trained, the risk of harm to the signal person, the machine 
operator and other employees in the vicinity is great. Third, the use 
of trained signal persons should reduce the potential for conflicting 
signals that could create a hazard.

Overhead Electric Lines

    At paragraph (d)(8)(i) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
logging operations near overhead electric lines be done in accordance 
with the requirements of 1910.333(c)(3). The proposed rule repeated 
some of the requirements of 1910.333(c)(3). The pulpwood logging 
standard did not contain any provision regarding overhead electric 
wires. All State logging standards contain restrictions regarding 
felling near power lines.
    One comment was received addressing minimum clearance from overhead 
lines (Ex. 5-34). This commenter suggested that when the line voltage 
is unknown and other information indicates that the line is obviously 
high voltage, a minimum clearance of 20 feet must be maintained from 
the line until the line voltage is established by the electrical system 
operator. The separation distance recommended by the commenter would 
provide clearance that would only be warranted by a 350 KV line. OSHA 
believes that maintenance of that great a separation distance is 
unnecessary in this rule. High voltage lines of this order of magnitude 
are usually on tall transmission towers, therefore it is highly 
unlikely any employee would come in contact with the line or have any 
means of getting near the line.
    OSHA believes that 1910.333(c)(3) adequately spells out the 
precautions and clearances that must be taken when working near 
overhead lines. OSHA finds nothing indicating that logging is different 
from the rest of general industry, therefore, the Agency does not 
believe a special provision is necessary to address the logging 
industry.
    At paragraph (d)(8)(ii) OSHA is requiring the employer to 
immediately notify the power company when any felled tree comes into 
contact with a power line. This provision also requires each employee 
to remain clear of the area until the power company advises there are 
no electrical hazards. OSHA has adopted this provision from the 
proposed standard. OSHA did not receive any comments on this provision.

Flammable and Combustible Liquids

    At paragraph (d)(9) of the final rule, OSHA is including 
requirements for the safe handling and use of flammable and combustible 
liquids. As was proposed, the final rule requires such liquids to be 
stored, handled, transported and used in accordance with subpart H of 
Part 1910.
    Two commenters opposed this provision (Ex. 5-7, 5-34). One 
commenter stated:

    After carrying a 40 pound saw, lunch, water, wedges and 
wrenches, the last thing the timber faller wants to add is more 
weight. So when he goes to carry fuel and oil it's normally carried 
in labeled plastic containers, generally in sizes not exceeding two 
quarts. To carry fuel in approved containers would do nothing more 
than add back injuries to the statistics (Ex. 5-7).

    In response, OSHA points out that there are approved plastic 
storage containers available in small sizes, such as two quart 
containers. Nothing in the final rule or subpart H of part 1910 
prohibits employers from using small plastic storage containers, 
provided they meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.106. Further under 
29 CFR 1910.106, the maximum allowable size of approved plastic fuel 
container is one gallon. OSHA does not believe that carrying one gallon 
or less of fuel in a plastic container will substantially increase back 
injuries.
    At paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
flammable and combustible liquids not be transported in the driver's 
compartment or in any passenger-occupied area of a machine or vehicle. 
OSHA is aware that pick-up trucks are often used to transport employees 
to a logging work site. Transportation of flammable and combustible 
liquids in the passenger compartment of these vehicles exposes the 
driver and passenger to fire and explosion hazards and is not a safe 
practice.
    At paragraph (d)(9)(iii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
each machine, vehicle and portable powered tool, such as chain saw, be 
shut off during refueling. OSHA has added this requirement because it 
believes that when handling flammable and combustible liquids, it is 
essential to eliminate sources of ignition. The requirement to shut off 
the engines of motor vehicles when they are refueled is mandatory in 
most states and is clearly posted in service stations. Because OSHA 
believes that it is essential to minimize the sources of ignition when 
refueling vehicles, the Agency has retained the requirement as 
proposed.
    At paragraph (d)(9)(iv) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
flammable or combustible liquids not be used to start fires. The 
proposed rule contained a requirement that chain saw fuel not be used 
to start fires. While several commenters supported this requirement 
(Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-74 through 5-92), other commenters, including the 
State of Washington, opposed the provision (Ex. 5-34, 5-66). They said 
that loggers would use whatever material they have to start a fire 
rather than losing production time to return to a vehicle to obtain 
materials. In addition, the State of Washington said they were not 
aware of any injuries occurring as a result of this practice.
    OSHA has carefully considered these comments. OSHA understands that 
in cold weather employees must be able to warm their hands and feet to 
prevent frostbite and to maintain proper grip of tools. However, OSHA 
believes that the use of a flammable liquid, such as gasoline, to start 
a fire can quickly result in an uncontrolled fire that endangers the 
loggers and others in the vicinity. Other commenters have told OSHA 
about the dangers of fires, especially during the dry season (Ex. 5-7, 
5-21, 5-39). In particular, when an area is cold and wet, gasoline will 
not volatilize or burn rapidly. However, as the fire gains intensity, 
the gasoline will evaporate more rapidly, causing the fire to suddenly 
flame up and can rapidly get out of control. Instead of using gasoline 
or a gasoline mixture, there are products available that are not 
combustible to start fires, such as fire starters comprised of sawdust 
and wax. These products are small, light weight and will not suddenly 
accelerate their combustion.
    OSHA has deleted from the final rule the proposed requirement that 
chain-saw fuel not be used as a solvent. Two commenters said that 
chain-saw fuel is recommended by manufacturer's as a cleaning solvent 
for chain-saws (Ex. 5-7, 5-34). For example, manufacturers' 
specifications indicate that chain-saw fuel is the most effective 
solvent for cleaning chain-saw air filters. OSHA agrees with the 
commenters and has eliminated the prohibition from the final rule.

Explosives and Blasting Agents

    At paragraph (d)(10) of the final standard, OSHA is including 
requirements on the safe use of explosives and blasting agents. 
Paragraph (d)(10)(i) of the final requires that explosives and blasting 
agents be stored, handled, transported and used in accordance with the 
requirements of subpart H of this part. This provision has been adopted 
from the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI logging standard contained a 
similar requirement. All State logging standards contain requirements 
on the use of explosives and blasting agents. There were no comments 
opposing this provision.
    Paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of the final rule requires that only 
designated persons handle or use such materials. As discussed above, a 
designated person is one who possesses the requisite training, 
knowledge and experience to perform the specific duties. The proposed 
rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard also required that explosives 
only be handled by trained and experienced personnel. All State logging 
standards also require that only trained employees handle explosives. 
OSHA did not receive any comments on these provisions.
    At paragraph (d)(10)(iii) of the final standard, OSHA is requiring 
that explosives and blasting agents not be transported in the driver 
compartment or any passenger-occupied area of a machine or vehicle. The 
proposed rule did not contain a similar requirement. OSHA has added 
this provision in the final rule for the same reason that it included a 
similar provision regarding flammable and combustible liquids. OSHA 
believes that employees may be gravely endangered by riding over rough 
terrain and trails in close proximity to explosives.

Paragraph (e) Hand and Portable Powered Tools

    Paragraph (e) of this final rule contains requirements for the safe 
use of hand and portable powered tools, including chain saws. For the 
most part, these requirements were derived from corresponding 
provisions in the pulpwood logging standard.
    In the final rule OSHA has combined provisions regarding both hand 
tools and chain saws. This was done to provide uniformity in how tools 
are addressed in the logging standard. In addition, OSHA has combined 
these provisions to reduce duplicative provisions, such as those 
dealing with maintenance and inspection of tools.

General Requirements

    Paragraph (e)(1) deals with general requirements for all hand and 
portable powered tools. At paragraph (e)(1)(i) of the final rule, OSHA 
is requiring employers to assure that each hand and portable powered 
tool is maintained in serviceable condition. This employer 
responsibility applies whether the tool is provided by the employer or 
employee. This paragraph adopts the proposed provision. All State 
logging standards contain similar requirements about the maintenance of 
logging tools.
    OSHA received several comments on this provision (Ex. 5-35, 5-39, 
5-53, 5-54, 5-62, 5-63, 5-66). These commenters supported the need for 
tools to be properly maintained. One commenter said that lack of proper 
maintenance of chain saws contributes to a number of accidents (Ex. 5-
35). However, most of the commenters stated that the maintenance of 
tools that are supplied by employees should be the employees' 
responsibility (Ex. 5-35, 5-53, 5-54, 5-62, 5-63, 5-66).
    One commenter stated:

    We feel that it is not reasonable and it is burdensome to 
logging companies to have to be responsible for the condition and 
safety of an employee's own tools. We feel very strongly that there 
should be a recognition of one's individual responsibility in this 
area. A more general statement might be appropriate in this item 
simply stating that ``tools shall be properly maintained so as to 
assure safe operation and shall be used only for their intended 
purpose and design'' (Ex. 5-39).

    OSHA does not agree with these commenters. OSHA believes that the 
Agency's reasoning in including a maintenance provision in the PPE 
section applies here as well (See summary and explanation of paragraph 
(d)(1)(i)). The requirement for employers to assure that tools are 
maintained in a serviceable condition does not prohibit the employer 
from allowing an employee to inspect, maintain and repair tools he 
provides. The employer's responsibilities for compliance with standards 
and for safe working conditions that the OSH Act imposes, applies even 
if the employee provides the tools.
    This paragraph is meant to be viewed in conjunction with paragraph 
(e)(1)(ii), that requires inspection of tools before they are used in 
each workshift. As discussed above, ``serviceable condition'' is the 
state or ability of a tool to operate as it was intended by the 
manufacturer.
    At paragraph (e)(1)(ii), OSHA is requiring that the employer assure 
that each tool is inspected before initial use during each work shift. 
This paragraph also specifies the minimum elements to be inspected, 
such as chain brakes, handles, guards, and controls, to assure that the 
tools are functioning properly. In the proposed standard, OSHA 
specified that hand tools be checked during use to ensure continued 
serviceability. The proposed rule also required chain saws to be 
``frequently'' inspected. The proposed rule also contained elements 
that must be included in hand tool inspections. The 1978 ANSI logging 
standard also required periodic inspection of tools.
    OSHA received comments on these provisions. Some commenters 
recommended that OSHA establish the frequency that tools, such as chain 
saws, should be inspected (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-39, 5-53). One commenter 
objected to inspection of chain saws:

    The need for chain saws to be ``frequently inspected'' should be 
clarified further. How often is frequently and who would be 
responsible for the inspections? (Ex. 5-39).

    OSHA believes that the final rule adequately addresses the 
commenter's concerns. First, OSHA explicitly identifies the required 
frequency for inspection of tools. Second, nothing in the final rule 
prohibits the employer from allowing the tool user or operator to 
conduct the workshift inspection, provided that such inspection and the 
required content of the inspection are accomplished in the manner and 
time frame specified by OSHA. Finally, the standard specifies the 
minimum elements that must be covered by the inspection.
    At paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
the employer assure that each tool is used only for purposes for which 
it has been designed. OSHA has adopted the provision from the proposed 
rule. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained this requirement. 
OSHA received only one comment on this provision that supported its 
inclusion (Ex. 5-39).
    At paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
when the head of any shock, impact-driven or driving tool begins to 
chip, it shall be repaired or removed from service. The proposed rule 
would have required that tools be repaired when ``any mushrooming'' 
occurs. A similar requirement was contained in the 1978 ANSI logging 
standard.
    The State of Washington opposed the proposed provision, stating 
that the language was too restrictive (Ex. 5-34, 9-10). The State said 
that as soon as a plastic wedge if firmly struck there will be some 
small amount of mushrooming. In the final rule, OSHA has clarified this 
provision by requiring that the tool be repaired or removed from 
service when it begins to chip. OSHA believes that this language more 
accurately describes the hazard that arises over time with these tools. 
Over time there is a tendency for the steel in these tools to become 
brittle and chip. When a tool has reached that point, continued use of 
the tool can cause metal fragments to chip off the tool and fly into 
the air, thereby endangering employees. The metal fragments could be 
small enough to strike the eye or large enough to cause a sizeable 
laceration.
    At paragraph (e)(1)(v) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
the cutting edges of each tool be sharpened in accordance with 
manufacturer's specifications whenever they become dull during a 
workshift. OSHA received little comment on this provision. One 
commenter stated:

    With regard to the sharpness of cutting tools, we have had some 
interpretive problem in California where fire suppression agencies 
who have been requiring various tools to be razor sharp rather than 
sharp enough to do the task for which they are intended. The result 
has been unnecessary cuts to employees who have inadvertently had 
incidental contact with such tools. We would suggest that the word 
``adequately'' be inserted between the words ``kept'' and ``sharp'' 
to provide a more ``moderate'' meaning to this requirement. (Ex. 5-
55).

    The need for tools to be inspected and sharpened as necessary is 
well-recognized and has been a part of OSHA's and ANSI's logging 
standards from the start. OSHA believes that the final rule adequately 
addresses the commenter's concerns. OSHA has added to the final rule 
the requirement that tools be sharpened according to the manufacturer's 
specifications. This addition has also been supported by other 
commenters (Ex. 5-51, 5-53, 5-55).
    At paragraphs (e)(1) (vi) and (vii) OSHA is requiring that each 
tool be stored and transported so it is not damaged and will not create 
a hazard for an employee. These provisions require that racks, boxes, 
holsters or other means shall be provided and used for transporting 
tools. These provisions parallel requirements contained in the proposed 
and pulpwood logging standards. The proposed rule specified that tools 
be secured during transport but did not require that storage containers 
be provided. In addition, these provisions as proposed were included in 
the 1978 ANSI logging standard. OSHA received only limited comments on 
these provisions. Two commenters stated that the storage provision was 
unnecessary and, at most, should be limited to cutting tools (Ex. 3-53 
and 5-55). The other commenter said that the proposed transportation 
provision was not protective enough (Ex. 5-7). This commenter stated 
that outside boxes or storage units should be utilized especially for 
crew vehicles, because tools can bounce around when transported in such 
a vehicle, particularly when the vehicle is operated on off highway 
roads or trails, and could injure employees who are riding with the 
tools.
    OSHA believes that provisions for proper tool storage and 
transportation are necessary to protect employees from injuries. Such 
provisions have been in OSHA and ANSI standards for many years. In this 
regard, however, OSHA also believes that it is not necessary to require 
that tools be stored outside of passenger areas during transport if 
there are appropriate containers or other means to adequately secure 
the tools. Therefore, in the final rule OSHA has clarified that 
employers must provide and use some means, such as racks, boxes or 
holsters, of securing tools during transport.

Chain Saws

    At paragraph (e)(2) of this final rule, OSHA specifies various 
requirements for the proper use of chain saws in the logging industry. 
OSHA believes these requirements are necessary to protect loggers from 
injury when using chain saws. Several commenters also supported the 
proposed chain saw requirements as reasonable practices (Ex. 5-21, 5-
36, 5-74 through 5-92). As discussed earlier, the WIR survey indicates 
that chain saw accidents accounted for 20 percent of the reported 
accidents (Ex. 2-1). According to a Maine BLS, from 1980-87 there were 
an average of 362 disabling chain-saw injuries each year (Ex. 4-176).
    In recent years there have been many improvements in chain saw 
safety due to the introduction of devices such as chain brakes, bar tip 
guards, and reduced kickback bars and chains. Also, the availability of 
protective chaps and pads of ballistic nylon or other lightweight 
protective materials have provided further protection for chain-saw 
operators. OSHA believes that proper use of improved chain saws and 
personal protective equipment, and compliance with the work practices 
will greatly improve the safety record of chain saw operations. OSHA 
also believes that proper training in these requirements will result in 
better understanding of how these safety devices and work practices can 
work to reduce chain-saw related injuries.
    At paragraph (e)(2)(i), OSHA is requiring each chain saw placed 
into initial service after the effective date of this section be 
equipped with a chain brake. In addition, this paragraph requires that 
chain saws meet all other requirements of the ANSI standard B175.1-1991 
``Safety Requirements on Gasoline-Powered Chain Saws.'' This 
incorporation by reference of ANSI B175.1-1991, has been approved by 
the Office of the Federal Register, in accordance with the requirements 
of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The final rule has been revised 
to reflect this approval and provides the requisite information 
regarding access to the text of ANSI B175.1-1991.
    Paragraph (e)(2)(i) also requires that each chain saw placed into 
service before the effective date of this section be equipped with a 
protective device that minimizes chain-saw kickback. Finally, this 
provision also requires that chain-saw kickback devices not be removed 
or otherwise disabled.
    The proposed rule did not require installation of chain brakes or 
other devices. The proposed rule did, however, require that when such 
devices were present they should be inspected frequently and 
maintained. The need for devices to prevent kickback was specifically 
raised as an issue in the notice of hearing.
    OSHA received many comments on whether chain-saw protective devices 
should be required in the final rule. These comments have been 
discussed above in the Major Issues section. One commenter suggested 
that loggers be allowed to remove chain brakes when, in the judgment of 
the operator the presence of the chain brake creates a hazard greater 
than the hazard the brake was designed to avoid (Ex. 5-55). This 
commenter suggested that it is more hazardous to have a chain brake 
when the saw is operated on its side and at other unspecified times. 
However, the commenter did not provide any data or other evidence to 
support his contention. There is no other data or evidence in the 
record that chain brakes may create additional hazards at any time 
during the cutting process. Additionally, OSHA believes that once the 
chain brake is removed it is likely the operator will leave it off and 
remain exposed to injury from chain saw kickback. As noted in the 
earlier discussion, commenters stated that removal of devices is 
occurring, thereby exposing the operator to the risk of injury due to 
kickback. Therefore, OSHA is requiring that chain-saw kickback devices 
not be removed or otherwise disabled.
    At paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
each gasoline-powered chain saw be equipped with a continuous throttle 
system which stops the running chain when pressure on the throttle is 
released. This provision has been adopted from the proposed rule. OSHA 
received one comment that stated that if the safety equipment that came 
with the chain saw were in place, the accidents listed in the preamble 
would not have occurred (Tr. W1 66). Therefore, this requirement has 
been retained in the final rule.
    NIOSH recommended that OSHA require chain saws be equipped or 
retrofitted with mufflers meeting the chain-saw manufacturer's 
specifications (Ex. 5-42). NIOSH said mufflers would be effective for 
noise reduction. OSHA has not adopted NIOSH's recommendation. First, 
retrofit mufflers may cause operational difficulties. Second, retrofit 
mufflers may also contribute to an increase in back pressure for the 
operator.
    Paragraphs (e)(2)(iii) through (e)(2)(xiv) specify various 
requirements for safe operation of chain saws. OSHA believes these work 
practices are essential in reducing the number of injuries that occur 
to chain-saw operators. According to the WIR survey, the vast majority 
of chain-saw injuries reported indicates that unsafe work practices 
were involved (Ex. 2-1). In contrast, only four percent of chain-saw 
injuries were the result of equipment failure.
    At paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
the chain saw be operated and adjusted in accordance with the 
manufacturer's instructions. This provision adopts the requirement 
contained in the proposed rule. OSHA did not receive any comments 
opposing this requirement.
    At paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
the chain saw be refueled at least 20 feet from any open flame or other 
source of ignition. This provision adopts the requirements contained in 
the proposed rule. This requirement was also contained in the 1978 ANSI 
logging standard. The OSHA pulpwood logging standard required only that 
chain saw operators be instructed to refuel the saw only in safe areas 
and not in areas conducive to fire.
    OSHA believes that a separation between a fueling area and any 
source of ignition, such as a cigarette, is necessary to prevent 
ignition of vapors from spills or from overfilled chain-saw tanks. The 
final rule clarifies what constitutes at least a minimal safe fueling 
area. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this requirement.
    At paragraph (e)(2)(v) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
the chain saw be started at least 10 feet from any fueling area. This 
provision also adopts the requirement contained in the proposed rule.
    Only one commenter opposed this provision, saying that in some 
instances it would be impossible to move 10 feet from a fueling area to 
start the chain saw (Ex. 5-7). However, no substantive evidence was 
presented.
    OSHA believes that when a chain saw is started, there is a 
potential that spilled fuel in the area could also become ignited. For 
example, a faulty spark plug wire can cause an arc between the wire and 
metal casing, resulting in the igniting of spilled fuel. In addition, 
the record shows that the danger of fire is a major concern in the 
logging industry (Ex. 5-20). OSHA believes that this provision will 
help to reduce the potential for fires.
    At paragraph (e)(2)(vi) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
the chain saw be started on the ground or where otherwise firmly 
supported. The provision is the same as the requirement contained in 
the proposal and the pulpwood logging standard. Two commenters opposed 
the requirement (Ex. 5-34, 5-35). One commenter stated:

    In many instances, there is not any way to comply, i.e., when a 
cutter is felling while standing on springboard jacks, it would be a 
greater hazard for him to climb up carrying a running saw. This 
means that the chain saw must be started on the springboard with no 
place left to rest the saw. The same situation occurs when limbing 
and bucking large trees after they are on the ground. The cutter/
bucker would have to climb up on the trunk while carrying a running 
saw. The proposed standard should be amended to read ``whenever 
possible'' chain saws should be started [on the ground] (Ex. 5-34).

    The other commenter said starting the chain saw on the ground was 
not necessarily the safest way to start it, and, in any event, saws 
equipped with chain brakes could be drop started when the chain brake 
is engaged (5-35). Another commenter said that they had had no injuries 
resulting from starting chains saws when standing in an upright 
position (Ex. 5-45).
    For several reasons, OSHA believes that this provision is necessary 
to protect chain saw operators. First, the record supports the need for 
chain saws to be firmly supported when they are started. The WIR survey 
indicates that a significant portion of chain saw injuries were related 
to the operator not having firm control or grip of the saw (e.g., 
didn't have tight grip on saw, hand slipped into chain, operator fell 
on saw). While the survey does not indicate whether these injuries 
occurred while the operator was starting the saw, the presence of these 
injuries does reinforce the need for appropriate work practices that 
require proper support for equipment so the operator is able to 
maintain a firm grip and control of the saw.
    Second, OSHA believes that there is a potential for injury when 
operators attempt to drop-start chain saws. There is a potential for 
the operator to lose his grip when starting the saw. In addition, 
especially when the saw is not properly adjusted, the engine can flood. 
This can cause the saw to fly upward and hit the operator. When the 
chain saw starts there is potential for sudden movement of the chain 
because of the increase in rpm. Third, while OSHA believes that 
starting the chain saw on the ground will provide the best control and 
support, OSHA is aware that there may be some circumstances in which a 
chain saw cannot be started in this manner. Nonetheless, even in those 
circumstances, OSHA believes that it is necessary for operator safety 
that the saw be firmly supported. Fourth, even when the chain brake is 
on, the saw needs to be firmly supported when it is started. When the 
chain saw is started, the chain will move until the engine returns to 
idle. If the chain saw is not firmly supported when the operator starts 
the engine, he could lose control of the saw and the moving chain could 
strike and injure him.
    At paragraph (e)(2)(vii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
chain brakes be engaged when the saw is started. Although this 
requirement was not contained in the proposed rule, OSHA believes it is 
necessary for chain brakes to be engaged when the engine is started. As 
discussed above, when chain saws are started, the chain will run 
momentarily. When a chain brake is present, it will hold the chain when 
the engine returns to idle. However, when the chain brake is not 
engaged, the chain may continue to run at idle, further exposing the 
operator to the hazard. OSHA believes that the many comments 
recommending that the final rule require chain saws to be equipped with 
chain brakes, also imply that the chain brakes should be properly 
engaged during use of the chain saw. In addition, none of those 
commenters supporting a chain brake provision indicated that there were 
situations in which it would be safe to allow the chain brake not to be 
engaged during operation of the saw.
    At paragraph (e)(2)(viii) of the final standard, OSHA is requiring 
that the operator hold the chain saw with both hands during operation. 
This requirement does not apply when the employer can demonstrate that 
a greater hazard is posed by keeping both hands on the saw in that 
particular situation. This provision is the same as the provision 
contained in the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also 
recognized the occasional need for momentary release of one hand from 
the saw in some situations.
    Some commenters urged OSHA to require that a chain saw must never 
be operated with only one hand (Ex. 5-34, 5-50, 5-66). One commenter 
said:

    Regardless of what organization recognizes and sanctions 
momentary one-handed chain saw use, it is extremely dangerous. I do 
not agree it is necessary to operate a saw with one hand and place a 
wedge with the other. By so doing, the right hand is on the pistol 
grip controlling the throttle, the left handling the wedge. If, 
during this one-handed process a kick back should occur, the left 
hand which has the primary responsibility for maintaining a distance 
between the operator and the saw chain is absent. Sufficient time 
exists between the initiation of the backcut and its completion for 
the cutter to momentarily halt his sawing to insert a wedge (Ex. 5-
66).

    The U.S. Dept. of Interior also said that chains saws should be 
held with both hands unless the motor is at idle (Ex. 5-50). It is not 
difficult for chain-saw operators to put the saw in idle before 
removing one hand from the saw. Before placing a wedge the feller can 
stop the chain by simply removing his finger from the throttle, that 
will idle the chain saw, thereby reducing the possibility of injury 
resulting from operating the saw with only one hand. OSHA agrees that 
in this situation as well as most other operating situations, the 
greater hazard is posed by removing the hand from the chain saw. 
According to the WIR survey, 13 percent of chain-saw operators injured 
reported that their hand slipped into the chain or they did not have a 
tight grip on the saw. However, OSHA believes there are other 
situations in which the hazard may be greater if the operator attempts 
to hold the saw with two hands. For example, when an operator has 
climbed a tree to top the tree, the operator may not be able to keep 
his balance if he tries to operate the saw with both hands. In that 
case, the safest method may be to use one hand to control the saw and 
the other hand to steady himself.
    OSHA notes that the employer bears the burden of demonstrating that 
a greater hazard exists by keeping both hands on the saw in a 
particular situation. OSHA also notes that the limited exception 
involves a case-by-case determination by the employer.
    At paragraph (e)(2)(ix) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
the chain saw operator be certain of his footing before starting to 
cut. This provision also requires that the chain saw not be operated in 
a position or at a distance that could cause the operator to become 
off-balance, to have insecure footing, or to relinquish a firm grip on 
the saw. This provision adopts requirements contained in the proposed 
rule. Commenters supported this provision (Ex. 5-7, 5-21, 5-34, 5-36, 
5-55), and there were no comments opposing this requirement.
    OSHA believes this work practice will help to reduce the number of 
slip and fall injuries occurring in the logging industry. According to 
the WIR survey, slips and falls account for 24 percent of all injuries 
and 13 percent of all chain saw injuries reported resulting from 
operators falling on the saw.
    At paragraph (e)(2)(x) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
prior to felling a tree the chain saw operator clear away brush or 
other potential obstacles that might interfere with cutting or using 
the retreat path. This provision adopts the requirement contained in 
the proposed rule. There were no comments opposing this requirement. 
OSHA believes this provision will help to reduce the number of injuries 
that result from loggers being hit by trees. According to the WIR 
survey, 24 percent of all injured loggers were hit by trees (Ex. 2-1). 
In addition, of employees reporting injuries, over one-fourth said that 
heavy brush, ground cover and hidden wood on the ground had contributed 
to their accident.
    At paragraph (e)(2)(xi) of the final rule, OSHA is prohibiting 
cutting directly overhead with a chain saw. This provision was 
contained in the proposed rule. Several commenters supported the 
proposed provision (Ex. 5-34, 5-42, 9-10) and no comments were received 
opposing it.
    At paragraph (e)(2)(xii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
the chain saw be carried in a manner that will prevent operator contact 
with the chain and muffler. The proposed rule contained the same 
requirement. Evidence in the record suggests that this work practice 
already is being used extensively in the logging industry (Ex. 5-66). 
Some commenters said that for many years chain saw operators have 
carried the saw on their shoulder and used a felt and/or leather pad to 
protect their neck and shoulder from being cut by the chain or burned 
by the hot engine (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-63). OSHA notes that any other 
method of carrying the chain saw that prevents these hazards would also 
meet this requirement.
    In paragraphs (e)(2)(xiii) and (xiv) of the final rule, OSHA is 
specifying requirements for carrying a chain saw. In paragraph 
(e)(2)(xiii), OSHA is requiring that the chain saw be shut off or at 
idle before the operator starts a retreat after cutting a tree. This 
provision also clarifies OSHA's intent that these work practices apply 
not only to carrying the saw between cuts but also to retreating after 
a cut has been made. This provision has been adopted from the proposed 
rule.
    NIOSH supported this provision, and further recommended that OSHA 
should require the chain brake to be engaged when an operator is moving 
from one location to another, except while working on the same tree or 
log, regardless of distance traveled (Ex. 5-42). Another commenter also 
supported the NIOSH recommendation (Ex. 5-52). However, three other 
commenters opposed requiring saws to be at idle or shut off before 
starting a retreat (Ex. 5-7, 5-50, 5-66). One commenter said:

    The cutter may lose precious seconds worrying about compliance 
with the proposed standard, meanwhile a life could be in danger. 
Better to immediately remove the cutter from the base of the tree 
than worry about the saw (Ex. 5-50).

    OSHA believes that the requirement that chain saws be shut off or 
at idle before starting a retreat is necessary and can be accomplished 
without creating additional hazards for the operator. First, OSHA 
believes that carrying a chain saw with the chain moving may present a 
great hazard for the operator. The WIR survey indicates that a 
significant portion of chain saw injuries result from the operator 
falling on the saw, the saw chain contacting the employee, or the 
operator's hand slipping into the chain (Ex. 2-1).
    Second, as OSHA explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the 
saw can be at idle rather than shut off, provided that the chain brake 
is engaged. OSHA is allowing operators to comply by either method 
because it recognizes that idling the saw with the chain brake engaged 
is as effective as shutting off the engine in terms of preventing 
serious lacerations due to coming into contact with the moving chain.
    Third, OSHA does not think that idling the saw will add a 
significant amount of time to the operator's retreat. All the operator 
must do to idle the chain saw and safely carry it is to release 
pressure on the throttle and grasp the front handle. Fourth, in any 
event, chain saws are designed to be carried by the front handle rather 
than by the rear throttle. Carrying the saw by the front handle is 
easier and there is no risk of the bar tip contacting the operator's 
leg or toe. Carrying the saw by the rear throttle guard can cause the 
bar tip to swing downward and possibly strike the operator. Therefore, 
OSHA believes that the operator should grasp the front handle thereby 
idling the saw. That way the operator will both protect himself from a 
falling tree and from saw lacerations without undue difficulty.
    Paragraph (e)(2)(xiv) of the final rule requires that when the 
operator must carry the chain saw further than 50 feet that the chain 
brake be engaged or, if there is no chain brake, that the saw be shut 
off. This provision also requires that the chain brake be engaged or 
the saw shut off when carrying a saw for a lesser distance if 
conditions, such as but not limited to, the terrain, underbrush and 
slippery surfaces, may create a hazard for an employee.
    The proposed rule also contained these provisions. The 1978 ANSI 
logging standard required that chain saws be shut off when carried for 
a distance greater than from tree to tree. In addition the ANSI 
standard also required that when the terrain and other physical 
factors, such as underbrush and slippery surfaces, make the carrying of 
a running saw for such short distances, the saw shall be shut off for 
carrying. Some State logging standards also require the chain saw to be 
shut off or at idle when moving from tree to tree (Ex. 2-18, 2-22). For 
example, the State of Washington logging standard requires that after 
the chain-saw operator has felled the tree, the saw must be shut off or 
at idle while moving to another tree (Ex. 2-22). This standard also 
requires the chain saw to be shut off when moving to the next tree when 
hazardous conditions are present.
    Some commenters supported this provision (Ex. 5-27, 5-42, 5-66). 
One of these commenter said that their experience had been that a 
chain-saw operator could carry a chain saw any distance without being 
injured, provided the chain brake was engaged (Ex. 5-27). Another 
commenter supported the provision because carrying a running chain saw 
any distance promotes additional fatigue that can also contribute to 
accidents and errors (Ex. 5-66). The reasoning and explanation for 
shutting off chain saws before beginning retreat also applies to 
carrying chain saws for longer distances. According to the WIR survey, 
13 percent of all chain-saw operators were injured when they fell on 
their saws (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes this provision is necessary to 
reduce exposure to the hazard of a running chain-saw chain.

Paragraph (f) Machines

    At paragraph (f) of this final rule, OSHA is promulgating 
requirements for stationary and mobile machines. These provisions 
include requirements for machine operation, protective structures, 
overhead guards, machine access, stability and reliability, exhaust 
systems and brakes. As previously defined, a machine is a piece of 
equipment having a self-contained powerplant that is operated off-road 
and used for the movement of material.
    OSHA believes these machine requirements are necessary to protect 
operators and other employees who are in the area where machines are 
being operated. According to the FRSI, 20 percent of all serious 
logging injuries involved machines (Ex. 4-65). Of all serious injuries 
reported, almost eight percent of employees injured were struck by a 
logging machine or vehicle.
    The record also shows that a significant number of logging 
employees are killed in machine accidents. The OSHA FCI report 
indicates that 17 percent of all employees were killed in machine 
accidents. The State of Washington fatality study in consistent with 
the FCI report. According to that study, almost 20 percent of the 
employee deaths resulted from machine rollover or being struck by a 
machine (Ex. 4-129).

General Requirements

    At paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of the final rule, OSHA is 
requiring the employer to assure that each machine used by an employee 
is maintained and inspected so that the machine remains in serviceable 
condition. The employer must assure that any machine is inspected 
before initial use during a workshift, and that defects or damage be 
repaired or the unserviceable machine be replaced before work is 
commenced. Maintenance and inspection requirements were also contained 
in the proposed standard.
    Some commenters supported the general maintenance and inspection 
requirement for each machine (Ex. 5-10, 5-16). For example, one 
commenter said that daily cleaning and inspection of machines was a 
necessary element of fire prevention as well as other workplace 
protection (Ex. 5-10).
    OSHA believes that the reasoning and explanation for the 
maintenance and inspection requirements for PPE and hand and portable 
powered tools also applies to machines. (See discussion above of 
paragraphs (d)(1)(i), d(1)(ii), (e)(1)(i), and (e)(1)(ii).) As with 
tools and PPE, OSHA is imposing on the employer the obligation of 
assuring that machines are in serviceable condition. This obligation 
applies regardless of whether the employer or employee provides the 
machine.
    OSHA notes that because a general machine maintenance and 
inspection requirement has been included in the final rule, the Agency 
has deleted from the final rule proposed maintenance and/or inspection 
requirements for any particular machine safety feature.
    At paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
the employer assure that operating and maintenance instructions are 
available on the machine or in the area where the machine is being 
operated. This paragraph also requires that each machine operator and 
maintenance employee comply with the instructions. The pulpwood logging 
standard and the proposal both specified that instructions be kept with 
each machine. The proposed rule also contained a provision requiring 
operators and maintenance personnel to comply with the instructions.
    Some commenters supported the proposed provision, however, other 
commenters opposed requiring that instructions be kept on machines. 
These comments have been discussed above in the Major Issues section.

Machine Operation

    At (f)(2)(i) of this final rule, OSHA is requiring that machines be 
operated only by designated persons. As explained above, a designated 
person is an employee who has the requisite knowledge, training and 
experience to perform specific duties.
    OSHA has included this provision in the final rule for two reasons. 
First, this provision must be read in conjunction with the training 
requirements in the final rule. The training provisions require that 
each machine operator be trained and demonstrate the ability to safely 
operate a machine before he/she is allowed to work independently. This 
provision reinforces the requirement that the employer not allow 
untrained personnel to operate machines. Second, training and skill are 
particularly necessary in an industry when machines are being operated 
in adverse weather conditions and on steep or unlevel terrain. 
Employees who have not been trained to safely operate a logging machine 
under such conditions could injure themselves or others. As noted 
earlier, over one-third of all employees reporting injuries in the WIR 
survey had never received any kind of training (Ex. 2-1).
    In paragraphs (f)(2)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the final rule, OSHA is 
specifying various requirements regarding stability limitations for 
machines. Stability limitations of machines used in logging are 
determined by three factors: (1) load size; (2) what is done with the 
load when it is being handled; and (3) the physical environment in 
which the machine is being operated. These requirements address each of 
those factors.
    In paragraph (f)(2)(ii), OSHA is requiring that stationary logging 
machines and their components be anchored or otherwise stabilized to 
prevent movement during operation. The proposed standard contained a 
provision requiring that stability limitations of machines not be 
exceeded. The proposed standard also contained a provision specifying 
that truck and crawler mounted rigid boom cranes and other yarders meet 
the stability requirements of the ANSI B30.2-1983 ``Safety Code for 
Cranes, Derricks and Hoists--Overhead and Gantry Cranes'' or the ANSI 
B30.5-1982 ``Safety Code for Cranes, Derricks and Hoists--Crawler, 
Locomotive and Truck Cranes.'' The pulpwood logging standard required 
only that the operator be advised as to the stability limitations of 
the machine. Several commenters pointed out that machines referenced in 
those standards were not used for logging operations (Ex. 5-17, 5-25, 
5-29, 5-34, 5-51, 5-67).
    In the final rule OSHA has deleted reference to the ANSI standards 
because those machines are covered elsewhere in part 1910. Overhead 
cranes are covered in 29 CFR 1910.179 and mobile cranes are covered in 
29 CFR 1910.180. OSHA believes that these standards adequately spell 
out the requirements for safe operation when operating cranes. OSHA 
finds nothing indicating that the use of cranes is different from the 
rest of general industry, therefore, the Agency does not believe a 
special provision is necessary to address the logging industry. In 
addition, most of the machines referenced in the ANSI standards, 
overhead and gantry cranes, crawlers locomotive cranes and truck 
cranes; either are not used or are infrequently used in logging 
operations covered by this standard. OSHA also has deleted the proposed 
provisions on reliability and stability of cranes for the same reasons.
    At paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
the rated capacity of any machine not be exceeded. As discussed above, 
OSHA has defined rated capacity as the maximum load a system, vehicle, 
machine or piece of equipment was designed to handle. This provision 
was not explicitly contained in the proposed standard. Rather, it was 
implied as part of the requirement that machine operators comply with 
the operating manuals or instructions. The pulpwood logging standard, 
however, did require that operators at least be advised about the load 
capacity of machines.
    OSHA believes that it is necessary to explicitly state this 
requirement in the final standard. When the rated capacity of the 
machine is exceeded, rollover and tipover accidents occur. As discussed 
above, many logging injuries and deaths are the result of machine 
rollover accidents. The State of Washington study showed that nine 
percent of the reported logging fatalities resulted from machine 
rollover accidents (Ex. 4-129). The OSHA FCI report also showed that 10 
percent of fatalities were due to machine rollover accidents (Ex. 4-
61). The Agency believes that it is not sufficient to merely inform 
operators of the machine's capacity, rather operators must be 
instructed that load capacities shall not be exceeded. As part of the 
training of machine operators, the operator also needs to be instructed 
on how to keep the load within the rated capacity and what foreseeable 
conditions or actions can affect the machine's rated capacity.
    At paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
no machine be operated on any slope that is greater than the maximum 
slope recommended by the manufacturer. In the proposed standard, this 
requirement was implied in the provision that operators comply with 
operating manuals or instructions. The pulpwood logging standard had 
specified that operators be advised of the stability limitations of the 
machine. As with the requirement on rated capacity, OSHA believes this 
provision is necessary to reduce the potential for machine rollover and 
tipover accidents. Therefore, the Agency has explicitly stated this 
requirement in the final standard.
    At paragraph (f)(2)(v) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring the 
operator to determine that no employee is in the path of the machine 
before starting or moving the machine. This provision parallels the 
proposed rule. In the pulpwood logging standard, the operator was 
required to walk completely around the machine before start up to 
ensure no employee was in the area. There were no comments on the 
proposed requirement. OSHA believes this provision is necessary to 
reduce the number of accidents when employees are struck by machines. 
According to the State of Washington study, 10 percent of all logging 
fatalities occurred when employees were struck by machines (Ex. 4-129). 
The OSHA FCI report indicated similar results. Eight percent of the 
employees killed were struck by a logging machine (Ex. 4-61). 
Therefore, this requirement has been retained in the final rule.
    At paragraph (f)(2)(vi) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
the machine be started and operated only from the operator's station or 
as otherwise recommended by the manufacturer. This requirement adopts 
the provision contained in the proposed rule. Again, there were no 
comments opposing this provision. Under normal conditions, the only 
safe place for an operator to be during the use of a machine is at the 
operator's station. However, some types of material handling equipment 
have more than one operator's station. In those situations, the 
operator may choose which available operator's station to use when 
operating the machine.
    At paragraph (f)(2)(vii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
the machine be operated at such a distance from other employees and 
machines that a hazard is not created for any employee. This 
requirement parallels provisions contained in both the proposed 
standard and the pulpwood logging standard. OSHA did not receive any 
comment on the proposed requirement. The reasoning and explanation for 
checking the area before starting or moving a machine applies to this 
provision as well. The record shows that many employees are injured and 
killed when they are hit by logging machines (Ex. 2-1, 4-61, 4-129). 
Therefore, OSHA has adopted the provision as proposed.
    At paragraphs (f)(2)(viii) and (ix) of the final rule, OSHA is 
prohibiting riders on machines and loads. At paragraph (f)(2)(viii), 
OSHA is specifying that no employee, other than the operator, be 
allowed to ride on the machine unless seating, seat belts and other 
protection equivalent to that provided for the operator is available 
for the rider. There were no comments opposing this provision. In 
paragraph (f)(2)(ix), OSHA is prohibiting riding on any load. These 
requirements parallel the provisions contained in the proposed rule. 
Several comments were received on these provisions and have been 
discussed above in the Major Issues section.
    Paragraph (f)(2)(x) of the final rule requires that before any 
machine is shut down, the machine brake locks or parking brakes shall 
be applied. This provision also requires that each moving element, such 
as but not limited to, blades, buckets and shears, shall be grounded. 
As defined in the final rule, grounded means the placement of a 
component of a machine on the ground or on a device where it is firmly 
supported. This requirement was also contained in the pulpwood logging 
and the 1978 ANSI logging standards. The proposed rule would have 
required that the moving elements of any machine be lowered to the 
ground.
    Several commenters said employers should be viewed in compliance 
with this provision if the moving element is placed in on a device on 
the equipment designed to hold moving elements in a stationary, secure 
position (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92). This is the method used to ground 
moving elements on certain machines, such as knuckleboom loaders. OSHA 
agrees with these commenters that it may be appropriate for the moving 
elements of a machine to be grounded if the moving elements can be 
placed on a device that can hold it in a stationary and secure 
position. However, in those situations when the machine does not have a 
device to place the moving element, the moving element must be lowered 
to the ground. OSHA believes this provision is necessary because the 
record shows that logging employees are injured and killed when they 
are crushed between equipment and equipment parts or struck by falling 
and swinging equipment components (Ex. 4-61).
    Paragraph (f)(2)(xi) of the final rule requires that after each 
machine is shut down, pressure or stored energy from hydraulic and 
pneumatic storage devices shall be discharged. This provision has been 
adopted from the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also 
contained a similar requirement. OSHA believes this provision is 
necessary because if pressure or stored energy is not discharged water 
will accumulate in the storage device thereby decreasing the amount of 
fluid to carry out the function of the system. For example, many 
machines use air brake systems. If the compressed air reservoir fills 
up with water and displaces the air, there may not be enough air to 
stop the machine.
    At paragraphs (f)(2)(xii) and (xiii) of this final rule, OSHA is 
adopting provisions for transporting machines. Paragraph (f)(2)(xii) 
requires that the rated capacity of any vehicle transporting a machine 
not be exceeded. Paragraph (f)(2)(xiii) requires that the machine be 
loaded, secured and unloaded so that it will not create a hazard for 
any employee. These provisions parallel requirements contained in the 
proposed rule. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing these 
requirements.
    OSHA believes that the reasoning and explanation on machine rated 
capacity (paragraph (f)(2)(iii)) applies as well to transporting 
machines on trailers. Machines, as defined in this standard, are 
material handling equipment that are not operated on the public 
highways. Therefore, they must be transported on trailers across public 
roads from work site to work site. The loading and unloading of a 
machine on a trailer can be a hazardous event. The principal hazards 
occur due to rollover of the machine as it is driven up or down the 
trailer ramp or the ramp failing under the weight of the machine. 
Rollover can occur when a machine is not properly aligned when being 
driven onto or off a trailer or when the machine operator 
unsuccessfully attempts to make minor corrections in the direction of 
travel of the machine on the ramp. The latter case is particularly 
likely when the machine runs on tracks rather than wheels, and 
directional corrections are much more difficult to achieve. OSHA 
believes these machine transport provisions are necessary to prevent 
injury to machine operators and other employees in the area.

Protective Structures

    At paragraph (f)(3) of this final rule, OSHA is adopting various 
requirements for protective structures on machines.
    At paragraph (f)(3)(i) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
the specified logging machines that are placed into initial service 
after the effective date of the final standard be equipped with falling 
object protective structures (FOPS) and/or rollover protective 
structures (ROPS). This provision applies to each tractor, skidder, 
swing yarder, log stacker, and mechanical felling device, such as a 
tree shear or feller-buncher. This provision combines the FOPS and ROPS 
requirements contained in the proposed standard. ROPS requirements are 
also contained in several State logging standards (Ex. 2-18, 2-19, 2-
20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 38J, 38K). In addition, FOPS and ROPS 
requirements are contained in OSHA Construction Safety Standards, 29 
CFR Part 1926, and Agriculture Safety Standards, 29 CFR Part 1928.
    OSHA received many comments supporting the FOPS and ROPS 
requirement (Ex. 5-6, 5-7, 5-10, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-35, 5-36, 5-54, 5-
74 through 5-92) and did not receive any comments opposing this 
provision in general. Many of the commenters addressed the issues of 
retrofitting machines with ROPS and FOPS and incorporation by reference 
of SAE standards have been discussed above in the Major Issues section.
    One commenter said that the ROPS requirement should also apply to 
loaders on self-loading logging trucks (Ex. 5-7). However, three other 
commenters said this machine should be excluded from the requirement 
because the machine would not meet most state highway height 
restrictions if FOPS and/or ROPS were added to the operator station 
(Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-49). OSHA agrees with these three commenters and has 
not expanded the FOPS and ROPS requirements to cover loaders on self-
loading logging trucks.
    The necessity of ROPS and FOPS on logging machines is not disputed. 
Steep terrain, slippery or uneven ground, large loads, top-heavy 
equipment with loads, and other environmental conditions and unsafe 
work practices increase the potential for logging machine rollover. 
ROPS reduce the likelihood that operators will be crushed in the event 
their machine rolls over. FOPS prevent falling objects such as trees, 
limbs and winch lines from penetrating the cab and injuring the 
operator. As OSHA noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, ROPS and 
FOPS are standard features on all currently manufactured logging 
machines.
    Based on other comments in the record, OSHA has made the following 
changes to the ROPS and FOPS provision in the final rule:
    1. The ROPS and FOPS requirements have been incorporated in one 
provision because the SAE FOPS standard (J231, January 1981) specifies 
that only machines equipped with ROPS can also be equipped with FOPS. 
The ROPS-FOPS requirement of the SAE standard was pointed out by three 
commenters (Ex. 5-16, 5-22, 5-57).
    2. Machines only used in construction activities, such as road 
building, rather than logging operations have been deleted from this 
provision (e.g., graders, scrapers, bulldozers, front-end loaders). 
Construction machines and activities continue to be covered under 29 
CFR Part 1926.
    3. Forklift trucks have been deleted from this provision and 
included in a separate provision in the final standard (see paragraph 
(f)(4)). One commenter pointed out that forklift trucks were 
manufactured with overhead guards rather than ROPS and FOPS and, 
therefore, were not included in the SAE standards (Ex. 5-16, 5-47; Tr. 
W1 224)).
    4. An exception to the ROPS and FOPS requirement has been added for 
machines capable of 360-degree rotation. Two commenters pointed out 
that the mast assembly of these machines, usually converted excavators, 
protects against machine rollover (Ex. 5-16, 5-22, 5-27, 5-39, 5-40, 5-
49, 5-53, 5-63). In addition, the boom structure provides crush 
protection during rollover or tipover (Ex. 5-16).
    At paragraphs (f)(3) (ii) and (iii) of the final rule, OSHA is 
requiring that ROPS and FOPS be tested, installed and maintained in 
accordance with the following Society of Automotive Engineers 
standards: ``Performance Criteria for Rollover Protective Structures 
(ROPS) for Construction, Earthmoving, Forestry, and Mining Machines'' 
SAE J1040, April 1988; ``Minimum Performance Criteria for Falling 
Object Protective Structures (FOPS)'' SAE J231, Jan 1981; and 
``Deflection Limiting Volume-ROPS/FOPS Laboratory Evaluation'' SAE 
J397, April 1988. This incorporation by reference of SAE J1040; April 
1988, SAE J231, Jan 1981, and SAE J397; April 1988, have been approved 
by the Office of the Federal Register, in accordance with the 
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. The final rule has 
been revised to reflect this approval and provides the requisite 
information regarding access to the text of SAE J1040, April 1988, SAE 
J231, 1981, and SAE J397, April 1988.
    These provisions update the requirements contained in the proposed 
rule. OSHA received various comments on incorporating consensus 
standards by reference, and this issue has been discussed above in the 
Major Issues section.
    In paragraph (f)(3)(v) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
the protective structure on each machine be of a size that does not 
impede the operator's normal movements in the cab. This provision 
parallels the provision contained in the proposed rule and the 1978 
ANSI logging standard. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this 
provision.
    In paragraphs (f)(3)(vi) through (xii) specify requirements for 
enclosing the operator's cab. OSHA did not receive any comments 
opposing these provisions in general. One commenter did recommend that 
OSHA replace these provisions with a reference to the Society of 
Automotive Engineers J1084, April 1980, standard on force requirements 
for tractors and skidders (Ex. 5-16). However, since the SAE standard 
does not cover all of the machines referenced in paragraph (f)(3), OSHA 
has specified in the final rule the cab force requirements which are 
applicable to machines used in logging operations.
    Paragraph (f)(3)(vi) of the final rule requires that the overhead 
covering of each cab be of solid material extending over the entire 
canopy. This provision parallels the requirement contained in the 
proposed rule.
    Paragraph (f)(3)(vii) requires that the lower portion of the cab 
(up to the top of the instrument panel or 24 inches (60.9 cm) if there 
is no instrument panel) be completely enclosed, except at entrances, 
with solid material to prevent objects from entering the cab. The 
proposed rule stated generally that the lower portion of the cab be 
fully enclosed. One commenter said that what constitutes the ``lower 
portion'' of the cab should be specifically defined (Ex. 5-16). OSHA 
has incorporated the commenter's recommendation that the lower portion 
be defined as below the top of the instrument panel or at 24 inches.
    Paragraph (f)(3)(viii) of the final rule requires that the upper 
portion of the cab be fully enclosed. The enclosure must be made of 
mesh material with openings no greater than 2 inches (5.08 cm) at its 
least dimension or other material that the employer demonstrates 
provides equivalent protection and visibility. This provision combines 
two requirements contained in the proposed rule: full enclosure of the 
upper rear portion of the cab and enclosure extending forward as far as 
possible from the rear corners of the cab sides. The proposed rule also 
required that the mesh material openings be no greater than 1\3/4\ 
inches. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also required metal mesh when 
glass alone is not sufficient to provide operator protection. In the 
final rule, OSHA has combined these provisions because one commenter 
said that ``upper rear portion'' and ``as far as possible'' were not 
adequately defined (Ex. 5-16). In addition, OSHA has changed the final 
rule to allow mesh material with openings no greater than two inches, 
that one commenter pointed out is the accepted standard in the western 
States (See Ex. 2-22, 5-71, 38K).
    Some commenters said that OSHA should limit the types of vehicles 
requiring mesh material (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92). They said mesh should 
not be required on front-end loaders, log stackers, forklifts, scrapers 
and graders. They contend some of these machines are used in log 
stacking areas where there is no danger of branches entering the cab. 
In the final rule, OSHA has deleted front-end loaders, trucks, graders, 
and scrapers from paragraph (f)(3) because they are used in performing 
construction activities rather than logging operations. With regard to 
log-stackers, OSHA believes it is necessary for these machines to be 
equipped with mesh material or equivalent protection. Log-stackers are 
used to raise and move trees as well as logs. In some cases trees are 
not topped until they are taken to the landing. When trees still 
contain branches, they could enter the cab and injure the operator if 
no cab protection is provided.
    Paragraph (f)(3)(viii) of the final rule also specifies that the 
cab may be enclosed with a material other than mesh, provided the 
employer demonstrate that it provides equivalent protection and 
visibility. The proposed rule implied that transparent material could 
be used but did not specify what level of protection it must provide. 
The 1978 ANSI logging standard specified that when glass enclosures 
were used, they must be safety glass or its equivalent.
    OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this provision. One 
commenter stated that many machines are already enclosed with other 
material, such as safety glass, that offers equivalent protection and 
visibility (Ex. 5-16). In addition, the Society of Automotive Engineers 
SAE J1084, April 1980, ``Operator Protective Structure Performance 
Criteria for Certain Forestry Equipment, Recommended Practice'' allows 
cabs to be enclosed with safety glass.
    OSHA notes that the employer bears the burden of demonstrating that 
when transparent material, other than safety glass is used, that it 
provides both equivalent protection and visibility. Paragraph 
(f)(3)(ix) of the final rule requires that the upper cab enclosure 
allow maximum visibility. The proposed rule required that the upper cab 
enclosure allow maximum visibility to the rear. OSHA believes that it 
is necessary that the enclosure allow maximum visibility in all 
directions so that the operator and other employees in the area are not 
injured.
    Paragraph (f)(3)(x) of the final rule requires that if transparent 
material, rather than mesh, is used to enclose the upper cab, it shall 
be of safety glass or other material that the employer demonstrates 
provides equivalent protection and visibility. This provision parallels 
the provision contained in the proposed rule. The proposed standard 
also specified that a metal screen must also be used where transparent 
material alone does not provide adequate protection. In the final rule, 
OSHA specifies the preferred transparent material (i.e. safety glass). 
OSHA agrees with various commenters that when safety glass is used, 
additional metal mesh screens are not necessary. The final rule does 
allow alternative material to be used, and makes clear OSHA's intent 
that it is the employer who bears the burden of proving that the 
alternative material provides protection and visibility that is 
equivalent to safety glass.
    Paragraphs (f)(3) (xi) and (xii) of the final rule require that 
transparent material be kept clean and be replaced when it is cracked, 
broken, scratched or damaged in any other way that may create a hazard 
for the operator. These requirements parallel the provisions contained 
in the proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard.
    Paragraph (f)(3)(xiii) of the final rule requires that deflectors 
be installed in front of each cab to deflect whipping saplings and 
branches. This provision also requires that deflectors be located so 
they do not impede visibility or access to the cab. This provision 
adopts the requirement contained in the proposed rule. OSHA did not 
receive any comments opposing the provision.
    Paragraph (f)(3)(xiv) of the final rule requires that the height of 
each cab entrance be at least 52 inches, or 1.3 meters, from the floor 
of the cab. This provision has been adopted from the proposed rule. No 
commenters opposed this requirement.
    Paragraph (f)(3)(xv) of the final rule requires that each machine 
operated near yarding systems (high lead and skyline) shall be equipped 
with sheds or roofs of sufficient strength to provide protection from 
breaking lines. This provision has been adopted from the proposed rule. 
There were no comments opposing this provision.

Overhead Guards

    At paragraph (f)(4) of the final rule, OSHA is specifying that each 
forklift truck used in logging operations be equipped with an overhead 
guard. The overhead guard must meet the requirements of the American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B56.6-1987 (with addenda), 
``Safety Standard for Rough Terrain Forklift Trucks.'' This 
incorporation by reference of ASME B56.6-1987, has been approved by the 
Office of the Federal Register, in accordance with the requirements of 
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. The final rule has been revised to 
reflect this approval and provides the requisite information regarding 
access to the text of ASME B56.6-1987.
    In the proposed rule, OSHA had included forklift trucks in the 
provisions requiring installation of ROPS and FOPS. However, commenters 
informed OSHA that the manufacture of forklift trucks used in rough 
terrain conditions such as the logging industry are covered by the ASME 
standard (Ex. 5-22, 5-47, Tr. W1 224), and that forklift trucks are 
manufactured with overhead protection, rather than ROPS and FOPS (Ex. 
5-47).
    OSHA believes that this overhead protection requirement is 
necessary and will adequately protect logging forklift operators from 
falling objects. Since the mast assembly of the forklift truck prevents 
it from rolling onto its top, ROPS protection is not necessary. When 
accidents do occur, forklift trucks are more likely to tip over on 
their sides. OSHA believes that, in the event of a tipover, the seat 
belt requirement contained in this standard will prevent operators from 
being pinned or crushed by the truck or overhead guard by safely 
restraining them within the cab.
    In paragraph (f)(4) OSHA has not included a provision excepting 
fork lift trucks placed into service before the final rule from being 
equipped with overhead guards. The manufacturing requirements for rough 
terrain forklift trucks have been in place since 1978. Since the useful 
life of these machines is approximately 10 years, OSHA is confident 
that almost all forklift trucks currently used in the logging industry 
do contain overhead guards meeting the ASME standard.

Machine Access

    Paragraph (f)(5) of the final rule specifies various requirements 
regarding machine access. Paragraph (f)(5)(i) of the final rule 
requires that machine access be provided for each machine when the 
operator or another employee must climb onto the machine to enter the 
cab or an operating element to perform maintenance. This provision also 
requires that the machine access system meet the requirement of the SAE 
J185 June 1988, standard on ``Recommended Practice for Access systems 
for Off-Road Machines.'' This incorporation by reference of SAE J185, 
June 1988, has been approved by the Office of the Federal Register, in 
accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. 
The final rule has been revised to reflect this approval and provides 
the requisite information regarding access to the text of SAE J185, 
June 1988.
    The proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained 
machine access provisions. The proposed rule specified that steps, 
ladders, handhold, catwalks, or railings installed after the effective 
date of this standard comply with the SAE J185, June 1981, or be in 
accordance with a design by a professional engineer which offers 
equivalent employee protection. There were no comments opposing the 
proposed provision.
    OSHA believes this provision is necessary to prevent logging 
injuries due to slips and falls. The WIR survey indicated that these 
types of injuries accounted for almost one-fourth of all logging 
injuries reported, and that 28 percent of all injuries resulting from 
falls involved machines and vehicles (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes that 
compliance with the SAE standard, in conjunction with work practices 
and training, will prevent these types of accidents. OSHA notes that in 
the final rule, the reference to the SAE standard has been updated from 
the 1981 to the 1988 edition.
    Paragraph (f)(5)(ii) of the final rule requires that each machine 
cab have a second means of egress. This provision has been adopted from 
the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained this 
requirement. According to one commenter, nearly all logging machines 
currently in use have a second means of egress (Ex. 5-29). Therefore, 
OSHA does not believe compliance with this provision will be 
burdensome.
    Paragraphs (f)(5) (iii) and (iv) of the final rule require that 
walking and working surfaces of each machine have slip resistant 
surfaces and be kept free of waste, debris and other material which 
might result in slipping, falling or fire. These requirements parallel 
provisions contained in the proposed rule.
    OSHA received three comments opposing these provisions (Ex. 5-7, 5-
22, 5-55). These commenters stated that the debris must be hazardous 
(Ex. 5-7) and that the requirement should be changed to indicate that 
the walkways of machines should be ``substantially free'' of debris 
(Ex. 5-55). As discussed above, slips, trips and falls account for a 
significant number of injuries in the logging industry. The Agency's 
primary intent in this provision is to minimize the potential for 
employees to slip, trip or fall when mounting or dismounting a machine. 
OSHA believes these provisions will reduce the hazards that result in 
those types of injuries. OSHA does not agree with the characterization 
implied by the commenters that this provision requires employers to 
keep every machine walking and working surface ``spotless'' at all 
times. OSHA is aware that in outdoors environments material may 
accumulate on machine surfaces. OSHA is only requiring that when such 
accumulated material might result in a fire or in an employee slipping 
or falling that it must be removed.

Exhaust Systems

    Paragraph (f)(6) of the final rule contains various requirements 
regarding exhaust pipes and mufflers. Paragraphs (f)(6) (i) and (ii) of 
the final rule require that exhaust pipes on each machine be so located 
that exhaust is directed away from the operator, and be mounted or 
guarded to protect the employee from accidental contact. These 
provisions have been adopted from the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI 
logging standard also contained a similar requirement. OSHA did not 
receive any comments opposing these provisions.
    Paragraph (f)(6) (iii) of the final rule requires that exhaust 
pipes be equipped with spark arresters. This provision also provides 
that when an engine is equipped with a turbocharger, spark arresters 
are not required. The proposed rule also required a spark arrester for 
each machine, but did not make an exception for machines equipped with 
turbochargers.
    Several commenters said that spark arresters were not needed when 
engines are turbocharged (Ex. 5-10, 5-16, 5-17, 5-22, 5-25, 5-27, 5-55, 
5-74 through 5-92). These commenters said that the flow of exhaust 
gases through the turbocharger requires sufficient time for any sparks 
to be extinguished and unburned fuel and particulate matter to be 
burned. One commenter said that functional turbocharged engines do not 
produce exhaust sparks like normally aspirated engines (Ex. 5-27). For 
this reason, these commenters said turbochargers were an acceptable 
substitute for spark arresters (Ex. 5-16). In addition, the U.S. Forest 
Service allows turbochargers in lieu of spark arresters (Ex. 5-16). 
Based on this evidence, OSHA has incorporated an exception to the use 
of spark arresters when the machine engine is turbocharged.
    Paragraph (f)(6)(iv) of the final rule requires that the muffler 
provided by the manufacturer, or the equivalent, be in place at all 
times the machine is in operation. This provision is the same as the 
corresponding provisions of the proposal and the pulpwood logging 
standard. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this requirement.

Brakes

    Paragraph (f)(7) of the final rule specifies provisions regarding 
machine brakes. Paragraph (f)(7)(i) of the final rule requires that the 
brakes must be sufficient to hold each machine and its maximum load on 
the slopes on which the machine is being operated. As discussed above, 
rated capacity is the maximum load a machine was designed by the 
manufacturer to handle. This provision was adopted from the proposed 
rule. Machine brake provisions are also included in various State 
logging standards (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-22, 38J, 38K), and in the 
1978 ANSI logging standard.
    Several commenters supported this provision (Ex. 5-10, 5-16, 5-22). 
These commenters also said that OSHA should include provisions 
requiring brakes to meet certain criteria in respective SAE and ANSI 
standards.
    The variety of terrain encountered in logging operations makes the 
adequacy of brakes a critical safety issue. For example, information 
presented in the preamble to the proposed rule indicated that an 
operator was unable to stop the machine he was operating on a slope and 
the machine rolled over (54 FR 18799-80). The injured operator was 
trapped in a cab for 45 minutes until he could be rescued. This 
provision requires that the braking system, that consists of the 
service and emergency brakes, must be adequate to hold the machine and 
its maximum allowable load on the slope. For certain machines (tractors 
and rubber tired skidders), employers can look to national consensus 
standards for guidance on brake system performance (See SAE J1041, 
October 1991, ``Breaking System Test Procedure and Braking Performance 
Criteria for Agricultural Tractors'' and SAE J1178, June 1987, 
``Braking Performance--Rubber Tired Skidders''). However, these 
standards do not cover all machines used in logging operations. 
Therefore, OSHA is specifying certain minimum brake system requirements 
for all machines used in logging operations.
    Paragraph (f)(7)(ii) requires that each machine be equipped with a 
secondary braking system, such as an emergency brake or parking brake. 
This provision also requires that the secondary system be effective in 
stopping the machine and maintaining parking performance, regardless of 
the direction of travel or of whether the engine is running. These 
requirements parallel the provisions contained in the proposed rule. 
These provisions are also contained in the 1978 ANSI logging standard. 
There were no comments opposing these provisions.

Guarding

    Paragraphs (f)(8) (i) and (ii) of the final standard requires that 
each machine be equipped with guarding to protect employees from 
exposed moving elements and flying objects. These provisions also 
require that guarding must meet the requirements specified in subpart O 
of part 1910. These provisions clarify that guarding requirement also 
applies to each machine used in debarking, limbing and chipping. The 
proposed standard also contained a provision requiring machine 
guarding. The 1978 ANSI logging standard contained a similar 
requirement.
    Three commenters stated that the provision should be applied only 
to stationary equipment to prevent misapplication to mobile equipment 
(Ex. 5-10, 5-22, 5-57). OSHA believes the record does not support the 
commenters' recommendation. The Agency believes that both mobile and 
stationary machines pose a risk of injury due to exposure to moving 
parts. According to the WIR survey, a significant number of employee 
injuries involved mobile equipment (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes that 
employees working with or near both types of machine need to be 
protected. Additionally, requiring all machines to be guarded 
eliminates the ambiguity as to whether a machine is stationary or 
mobile (e.g. mobile machines that are used in place, such as a trailer 
mounted chipper).
    OSHA notes that guarding satisfies the requirements of subpart O 
when it is in the form of a specially constructed and installed barrier 
or when the structure of the machine itself prevents employee contact 
with the moving element of the machine. Each machine shall be equipped 
with guarding to protect employees from exposure to moving elements, 
such as but not limited to, shafts, pulleys, belts on conveyors, and 
gears, in accordance with the requirements of subpart O of part 1910.
    Paragraph (f)(8)(iii) of the final rule requires that the guarding 
on each machine be in place at all times the machine is in operation. 
This provision was contained in the 1978 ANSI logging standard. This 
provision makes explicit OSHA's intent in the proposed rule that 
machines be equipped with guarding and that such guarding not be 
removed or otherwise disabled while the machine is in operation. If 
machine guarding is removed or disabled, employees still remain exposed 
to the danger of moving elements and flying objects when they are near 
or using the machine. OSHA believes the reasoning and explanation for 
requiring that chain-saw chain brakes be engaged when starting the 
machine and not be removed is also applicable to this provision.

Paragraph (g)  Vehicles

    At paragraph (g) of the final rule, OSHA has included various 
requirements regarding vehicles when used off public roads in logging 
operations. OSHA has decided to include a separate paragraph on 
vehicles in this final rule because of the confusion commenters said 
existed in the definition and requirements regarding ``mobile 
equipment'' verses ``motor vehicles'' in the proposed rule (Ex. 5-16, 
5-18, 5-19, 5-22). Certain of the proposed provisions on vehicles were 
limited to personnel transport vehicles. In the final rule, OSHA has 
defined vehicles to include trucks and trailers used to transport logs 
and machines, as well as personnel transport vehicles. Therefore, the 
provisions covering vehicles apply to all vehicles used in any logging 
operation. OSHA believes that the reasoning and explanation supporting 
the need for protection for those in personnel transport vehicles also 
apply to operators and passengers of other vehicles.
    OSHA received some comment that employee-provided vehicles should 
be excepted from the standard's vehicle requirements (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 
5-39). OSHA has not distinguished between employer-provided and 
employee-provided equipment anywhere in this standard. OSHA believes 
that when any equipment is used in logging operations, the employer is 
responsible for assuring that it is in proper working condition. 
However, this final standard does not address the personal vehicle an 
employee drives on public roads. By contrast, when the employer allows 
employees to use their own vehicles to transport themselves and other 
employees off public roads to and from logging work sites rather than 
providing such transportation, those vehicles are exposed to the unique 
hazards of logging operations. Such vehicles must be adequately 
equipped and properly running, just as employer provided vehicles must 
be, in order to cross what may be difficult terrain and other hazardous 
conditions encountered enroute to and from the logging site. The OSH 
Act imposes on the employer the responsibility for compliance with 
standards and for assuring safe conditions in the workplace, even if 
the employee provides the vehicle for the logging operation.
    OSHA believes it is necessary in the final rule to specify 
requirements for vehicles used to transport employees off public roads 
and vehicles used to perform logging operations. The record shows that 
a number of injuries and fatalities have occurred in the logging 
industry that involve vehicles (Ex. 2-1, 4-61, 4-129).
    At paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2), OSHA is requiring the employer to 
assure that each vehicle used to transport employees off public roads 
or to perform any logging operation, including vehicles provided by 
employees, is maintained, and is inspected before initial use during a 
workshift. These provisions also require that defects or damage be 
repaired or the vehicle be replaced before work is started. These are 
the same general maintenance and inspection as required for machine and 
tools. OSHA believes that the explanation and reasoning for including 
these provisions in the paragraphs covering PPE, tools and machine 
apply here as well. (See discussion above of paragraphs (d)(1)(i), 
(d)(1)(ii), (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), (f)(1)(i), and (f)(1)(ii).)
    OSHA has included paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) in the final rule in 
an effort to clarify its proposed intention. As stated above, 
commenters said it was not clear in the proposed rule whether the 
definition of ``mobile equipment'' included both machines and vehicles, 
and therefore, whether the general maintenance and inspection 
requirements applied to both types of equipment. ``Mobile equipment'' 
was defined in the proposal as that kind of equipment that includes 
mobility as a part of its work function. In the final rule, OSHA is 
defining machines and vehicles separately, and placing the requirements 
governing each in different paragraphs. In making these clarifications, 
however, the Agency emphasizes that all mobile equipment used in 
logging operations, whether vehicles or machines, must operate 
properly, and that maintenance and inspections are needed to assure 
that only properly functioning mobile equipment is used.
    Paragraph (g)(3) of the final rule requires that the employer 
assure that operating and maintenance instructions are available in 
each vehicle. This provision also requires that each vehicle operator 
and maintenance employee comply with the instructions. These are the 
same provisions as required for machines. OSHA believes that the 
explanation and reasoning for including these provisions in the 
paragraph covering machines applies to vehicles as well. (See 
discussion above of paragraph (f)(1)(iii).)
    Paragraph (g)(4) of the final rule requires that the employer 
assure that each vehicle operator has a valid operator's license for 
the class of vehicle being operated. This provision applies to all 
vehicle operators, not just employees who operate personnel transport 
vehicles. The proposal applied the licensing requirement only to 
personnel transport vehicle operators and no comments opposing the 
requirement were received.
    OSHA believes that it is also essential that an employee operating 
any type of vehicle possess a current license for that vehicle. Any 
employee operating a vehicle for logging operations needs to have met 
the necessary qualifications and shown that they have operated the 
vehicle in a manner responsible enough to maintain a current license. 
This provision ensures that the employee has the proper kind of license 
for the type of vehicle being operated and the load being carried.
    Paragraph (g)(5) of the final rule requires that mounting steps and 
handholds be provided on each vehicle whenever it is necessary to 
prevent an employee from being injured while entering or leaving the 
vehicle. The proposed rule specified that mounting steps and handholds 
be provided for every personnel transport vehicle. The 1978 ANSI 
logging standard also contained a similar provision.
    One commenter opposed applying this provision to pickup trucks (Ex. 
5-51). This commenter said steps would rip off of high center pickup 
trucks during the ride. In addition this commenter said that steps 
would prevent access of fire fighting vehicles to roads that have water 
barriers or speed bumps. OSHA does not believe the record supports the 
exceptions recommended by the commenter. First, according to the WIR 
survey, 13 percent of all injuries resulted from falls from vehicles 
(Ex. 2-1). Second, there are mounting steps for vehicles used in 
logging operations that can be retractable or high enough to prevent 
contact with the ground while the vehicle is moving. In addition, the 
record does not indicate that there are many speed bumps on logging 
roads. OSHA is aware that mounting steps and handholds may not be 
necessary for every vehicle. OSHA is only requiring mounting steps when 
there is a danger that an employee could be injured while entering or 
leaving the vehicle without being provided with such assistance.
    Paragraph (g)(6) of the final rule requires that each seat be 
securely fastened to the vehicle. The final rule adopts the proposed 
requirement and applies it to all vehicles used in logging operations. 
The 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained this requirement. OSHA 
did not receive any comments opposing this provision.
    Paragraph (g)(7) of the final rule requires applies the 
requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(v), (f)(2)(vii), 
(f)(2)(x), (f)(2)(xiii) and paragraph (f)(7) to each vehicle used to 
transport any employee off public roads or to perform any logging 
operation, including any vehicle provided by an employee. OSHA believes 
these general work practices and brake requirements are necessary to 
prevent accidents involving vehicles as well as machines. OSHA believes 
the reasoning and explanation for including these general provisions in 
the paragraph covering machines applies here as well.

Paragraph (h)  Tree Harvesting

    At paragraph (h) of the final rule, OSHA establishes various 
general and specific work practice requirements regarding tree 
harvesting. OSHA believes these work practice requirements are 
necessary, especially given the high injury rate in the logging 
industry. According to the WIR survey, in more than two-thirds of all 
reported injuries unsafe working practices contributed to the accident 
(Ex. 2-1). The work practices specified in this paragraph address those 
work practices that when not used contributed to accidents such as 
those reported in the WIR survey (e.g., co-worker activity, working too 
fast, misjudging time or distance to avoid injury, using wrong cutting 
method).
    OSHA notes that those provisions in the proposed rule that 
specified requirements other than work practices (e.g., equipment 
specifications) have been moved to the applicable equipment 
specification paragraphs of the final rule.

General Requirements

    Paragraph (h)(1)(i) requires that trees not be felled in a manner 
that may create a hazard for an employee, such as, but not limited to, 
falling on an employee, or striking a rope, cable, power line or 
machine. The proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard contained 
similar provisions. The proposed rule required that trees not be felled 
in a manner that could endanger an employee.
    Three commenters said that the proposed provision was too broad to 
be useful since they believed all felling activities are dangerous (Ex. 
5-21, 5-36, 5-63). While OSHA agrees that it may not be possible to 
eliminate all hazards in a workplace, the employer does have the 
responsibility to prevent or minimize hazards the employer can 
reasonably anticipate. To comply with this provision, it is incumbent 
on the employer to train employees in proper felling work practices and 
to point out when employee actions or workplace conditions could create 
hazards for employees.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(ii) requires that the immediate supervisor be 
consulted before felling is commenced, whenever unfamiliar or unusually 
hazardous conditions necessitate the supervisor's approval. The final 
rule adopts the provision contained in the proposed rule. One commenter 
supported the proposed requirement (Tr. W1 85). He said that consulting 
supervisors when heavy accumulations of snow are present would prevent 
injuries. OSHA believes that unusual, hazardous situations may arise 
during felling operations and the supervisor should be involved in 
making decisions about the safest way to fell a tree. These situations 
may include, but are not limited to, felling very large or tall trees; 
cutting trees whose lean, location or structure make it difficult to 
fell in the desired or a safe direction. Adding the supervisor's 
knowledge, training and experience to the decision-making process 
should help to minimize the hazards to loggers. In addition, this 
consultation process is especially important when logging crews are 
relatively new and may not have dealt with such situations before.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(iii) of the final rule requires that no yarding 
machine be operated within two tree lengths of any tree being manually 
felled. This provision has been adopted from the proposed rule. The 
1978 ANSI logging standard also contained a similar requirement.
    Several commenters raised questions about or discussed this 
provision (Ex. 5-12, 5-43, 5-67; Tr. W1 104, W2 197). None of the 
commenters denied that yarding machine operators may be endangered when 
they operate too close to manual felling activities. However, two 
commenters stated that the provision should be revised because, in some 
circumstances, the assistance of a yarding machine is necessary to 
assure that the tree is felled in the desired direction or to keep the 
area clear (Ex. 5-12, 5-67). For example, one commenter said that 
failure of yarders to clear an area of a build up of felled trees or 
logs can result in timber breakage or can pose problems for fellers 
working on slopes (Ex. 5-67).
    In general, OSHA believes that allowing yarding machines within two 
tree lengths of trees being manually felled would pose a risk of harm 
to both the machine operator and the feller. First, a manual feller who 
is cutting a tree is concentrating on that work activity and not on 
other logging activities in the area. If that tree were to fall on a 
yarding machine that is too close to a manual felling operation, the 
machine operator could be injured by the tree. Second, it also is 
important for their own safety that manual fellers work at a safe 
distance from yarding activities. Yarder operators and chasers and 
choker setters concentrating on slinging and moving logs could cause 
injury to the feller if a tree or log were to shift, roll or slide 
suddenly.
    Third, yarding machine operators are often working downhill from 
manual fellers. It may be dangerous for the operator to approach the 
feller because the falling tree could roll or slide into the machine. 
Fourth, the requirements of this paragraph can still be met even where 
the feller and yarder work as a team. After the feller has cut a tree 
and is moving on to size up another tree for cutting, the yarder can 
remove the felled tree before the feller begins cutting the next tree. 
The feller should check to make sure the yarder has removed the tree 
out of the work area before he starts cutting. Therefore, OSHA believes 
that its general rule that each work area be separated by at least two 
tree lengths should also apply to yarding and manual felling 
operations.
    One commenter, who said that ``cat skidding crews'' in the 
northwest work in close proximity of tree fellers, suggested that this 
provision should allow skidding directly away from a timber feller as 
long as the feller is not actively trying to fell a tree (Ex. 5-43). 
OSHA notes that the final rule does not prohibit what the commenter 
suggests. The final rule only says that yarding machines shall not be 
within a two-tree length distance while manual felling is in progress. 
The final rule does not prohibit the yarding operator from clearing 
logs when the feller is not engaged in cutting trees. While the feller 
is moving onto the next tree and assessing its condition, this 
provision allows yarder operators to remove the trees that have been 
felled, provided that the other requirements or this paragraph have 
been met (e.g., the feller acknowledging that it is safe for the yarder 
to enter the work area).
    Paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of the final standard requires that no 
employee approach a felling operation closer than two tree lengths of 
the tree being felled until the feller acknowledges it is safe to do 
so. This provision includes an exception to the two-tree length 
requirement when the employer demonstrates that a team of employees is 
necessary to manually fell a particular tree. The proposed rule and the 
1978 ANSI logging standard also contained provisions specifying that 
employees remain two tree lengths from the feller. The proposed rule 
did not contain the felling team exception.
    Several commenters urged OSHA to permit exceptions to the two tree-
length requirement (Tr. W1 152, 183-86, W2 163, OR 126). These 
commenters discussed, for example, the need for shovelers to work in 
conjunction with fellers.
    OSHA believes the two tree-length distance requirement is necessary 
for several reasons. First, a feller may not be aware of approaching 
employees due to noise or the feller's concentration on the work. It is 
therefore possible that employees may inadvertently enter an area where 
a tree is falling. This could result in injury to the approaching 
employee, and even to the feller if he attempts to take corrective 
action. According to the WIR survey, six percent of employees injured 
reported that co-worker activity had contributed to the accident (Ex. 
2-1). The State of Washington study indicated that eight percent of 
employees who were killed were hit by a tree being felled by another 
employee (Ex. 4-129). According to the OSHA FCI report, nine logging 
employees were killed when they were struck by a tree that was being 
cut by another logger (Ex. 4-61). Second, an approaching employee could 
be injured if he is unaware of or misjudges the falling direction of a 
tree. The feller is the best judge of the direction that a tree is 
likely to fall and, therefore, should be the one to signal when a work 
area is safe. Third, approaching employees could be injured if a tree 
were to inadvertently fall in the wrong direction. The best way for 
employees to prevent such injury is to remain clear of the work area 
while the felling operation is being conducted. Once the felling of the 
tree is completed, the feller can signal that it is safe for other 
employees to approach. Therefore, OSHA believes the safer approach for 
both the feller and other employees is to wait until the feller has 
acknowledged it is safe to enter the felling area.
    OSHA has included an exception to this rule for particular 
situations when more than one employee is needed to manually fell a 
particular tree. However, OSHA notes that this exception covers only 
manual fellers and those whom the employer demonstrates are needed to 
assist in manually felling a tree (e.g., shovelers). It does not 
include mechanical felling operations and it does permit machines to 
enter the manual felling area. In those situations, paragraphs 
(h)(1)(iii) and (h)(1)(v) apply. If a machine is necessary to push or 
pull over a tree, the manual feller must move at least two tree lengths 
away and must not enter the area until the machine operator 
acknowledges that it is safe. OSHA notes that this is not a blanket 
exception for all team felling activities. The general rule is that no 
person is to approach a feller until the feller has indicated it is 
safe to do so. The exception is meant to be applied on a case-by-case 
basis. That is, the employer bears the burden of demonstrating that a 
particular tree or a particular felling situation requires a team. Only 
then is more than one person allowed within the immediate work area. In 
addition, the employer bears the burden of showing that a team is 
necessary to manually fell the tree in that particular situation.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(v) of the final rule requires that no employee 
approach a mechanical felling operation closer than two tree lengths of 
the tree being felled until the machine operator has acknowledged that 
it is safe to do so. The proposed rule required that employees remain 
clear of any mechanical felling operation.
    OSHA received many comments recommending that OSHA apply the two 
tree-length minimum work distance to mechanical felling operations as 
well (Ex. 5-18, 5-21, 5-34, 5-36, 5-39, 5-63, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. W2 
163, 197). These commenters said that such distance was needed, for 
example, to protect other employees from flying metal fragments from 
broken mechanical disc saw blades. In addition, the reasoning and 
explanation supporting the distance requirement for approaching fellers 
also applies to this provision. For example, a feller-buncher operator 
who is not expecting an employee to enter the work area may move in 
reverse and not see the employee in time to prevent an accident. OSHA 
has therefore added the two tree-length distance requirement to this 
provision of the final rule.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(vi) of the final rule requires that each danger 
tree, including lodged trees and snags, be felled, removed or avoided. 
When the danger tree is felled or removed, it must be felled or removed 
using mechanical or other techniques that minimize employee exposure 
before felling is commenced in the area of the danger tree. When the 
danger tree is avoided, it must be marked and no work be conducted 
within two tree lengths of the danger tree, unless the employer 
demonstrates that a shorter distance will not create a hazard for an 
employee. As defined in the final rule, a danger tree includes any 
standing tree that presents a hazard to employees due to conditions 
such as, but not limited to, deterioration or damage to the tree, and 
direction or lean of the tree.
    The proposed rule required that lodged trees be marked and lowered 
to the ground using mechanical or other safe techniques before any work 
is continued within two tree lengths of the lodged tree. The proposed 
rule did not allow any exceptions to the two tree-length distance. Many 
State logging standards include requirements to fell danger trees or 
not to commence work within a two tree-length distance of the danger 
tree (Ex. 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 38J, 38K).
    The record shows that danger trees pose many hazards for employees. 
According to the WIR survey, 15 percent of those injured said that the 
dangerous conditions of the tree had contributed to their accident (Ex. 
2-1). The OSHA FCI report indicated that 23 logging employees were 
killed by danger trees (Ex. 4-61).
    OSHA received several comments on this proposed provision (Ex. 5-7, 
5-21, 5-34, 5-39, 5-43, 5-74 through 5-92, 17; Tr. W1 187, W2 6-7). 
Some commenters supported the provision (Ex. 5-39, 5-34). Some 
commenters suggested that this provision conflicts with other federal 
regulations requiring retention of some ``snags'' to preserve wildlife 
habitats in the area (Ex. 5-7, 5-27, 5-39, Tr. W2 6) and Rep. Jolene 
Unsoeld commented that OSHA should attempt to harmonize the final rule 
with various environmental regulations (Ex. 17, 31). Other commenters 
said that OSHA's provision was excessive in those situations when a 
tree is securely lodged a few feet above the ground (Ex. 5-21, 5-74 
through 5-92; Tr. W1 187, W2 6-7). Another commenter said that 
prohibiting any felling within two tree-lengths of a danger tree would 
take a large volume of timber out of production, especially strips of 
trees on steep slopes (Ex. 5-43).
    OSHA has addressed the commenters' concerns in the final rule. 
First, OSHA is more explicitly stating in the final rule that dangers 
trees may be avoided, when necessary, rather than being felled or 
removed. OSHA believes that this requirement harmonizes with and does 
not conflict with the rules and regulations of other Federal agencies. 
The U.S. Department of the Interior participated in this rulemaking and 
did not indicate that this provision was in conflict with their 
regulations (Ex. 5-50). The change to the final rule further clarifies 
OSHA's proposed intent that danger trees do not have to be felled or 
removed. This provision of the final rule only requires two actions of 
the employer. One, when the employer wishes to fell a danger tree, it 
must be removed or felled before other trees in the area are felled. 
Two, when the employer elects not to fell or remove a danger tree, the 
employer must not conduct any other felling in that area. Therefore, 
when other regulations require the preservation of a particular snag, 
this final standard requires only that fellers be protected from 
potential injury from the snag. This is accomplished by keeping all 
other felling activity out of the immediate area of that snag.
    Second, in the final rule OSHA has addressed the concerns of other 
commenters by allowing work to commence within two tree lengths of a 
marked danger tree, provided that the employer demonstrates that a 
shorter distance will not create a hazard for an employee. This change 
will assure the safety of logging employees without removing 
significant timber from production. OSHA notes that the employer bears 
the burden of demonstrating that a distance of less than two tree 
lengths will not create a hazard for an employee. Supervisors should 
actively participate in identifying and training employees about 
providing safe distances. Whether a shorter distance does create a 
hazard is a case-by-case determination. What constitutes a safe 
distance for other work to be conducted will require an evaluation of 
various factors such as, but not limited to, the size of the danger 
tree, how secure it is, its condition, the slope of the work area, and 
the presence of other employees in the area. For example, excessive 
root deterioration or damage might indicate that the danger tree is 
unstable and that there is a possibility it could fall. In such case, a 
two tree-length distance would be required.
    Some commenters recommended that OSHA designate dislodging a tree 
by felling another one into it as a safe technique ``in certain 
situations'' (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92). However, these commenters did not 
identify any situations in which it would be safe to dislodge a tree in 
this manner. There is no information in the record that identifies any 
situation in which it is safe to use domino felling to fell a danger 
tree. In fact, other commenters have indicated they know of no 
situation when felling another tree into a danger tree is considered 
safe practice (Ex. 5-42, 5-46). OSHA also believes that it is not safe 
to dislodge a tree in this manner. First, there are already hazards 
associated with domino felling trees that are not danger trees. Trying 
to domino fell danger trees such as lodged trees can only increase the 
seriousness of the hazard. One of the factors that makes a tree a 
danger tree is that the physical damage to the tree may cause it to 
fall in an unintended direction. Felling another tree into the danger 
tree increases the potential for a misdirected fall. Second, the 
possibility exists that danger trees being domino felled also will 
become lodged, thereby increasing the number of trees to be avoided or 
removed and, consequently, increasing the risk to employees when those 
lodged trees are removed. The safest way to remove a lodged tree, first 
is remove all unnecessary employees from the area and then to hook the 
tree to a skidder, and pull the tree down (Ex. 5-43). Therefore, OSHA 
is not permitting removal of any tree, including a danger tree, by 
domino felling (See discussion of paragraph (h)(1)(ix).
    Paragraph (h)(1)(vii) of the final rule requires that each danger 
tree be carefully checked for signs of loose bark, broken branches and 
limbs or other damage before it is felled or removed. This provision 
also requires that loose bark and other damage that may create a hazard 
be removed before felling or removing the tree. This requirement has 
been adopted from the proposed rule. In the proposed rule, OSHA 
specified that snags be carefully checked for dangerous bark before 
they are felled and that accessible loose bark be removed before 
felling.
    One commenter opposed this provision (Ex. 5-65). This commenter 
said that removing loose bark increases dangers from above since upper 
bark will slough off if lower bark is no longer supporting it. As such, 
this commenter recommended that OSHA require loose bark to be pinned to 
the tree. OSHA has changed the final rule to include removing loose 
bark or holding it in place.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(viii) of the final rule requires that felling 
activity on any slope when rolling or sliding of trees or logs is 
reasonably foreseeable be kept uphill from, or on the same level as, 
previously felled trees. This provision has been adopted from the 
proposed standard and the pulpwood logging rules. Various State 
standards contain similar requirements (Ex. 2-19, 2-22, 38K).
    OSHA received various comments on this provision (Ex. 5-7, 5-12, 5-
16, 5-17, 5-53, 5-74 through 5-92). Several commenters said that OSHA 
should more clearly define what constitutes sloping terrain (Ex. 5-16, 
5-21, 5-53, 5-74 through 5-92). These commenters suggested that the 
provision be limited to slopes exceeding 25 or 35 percent. They also 
indicated that mechanical felling in southern states should be excluded 
because slopes are gentler and shorter than in other regions.
    The record shows that this provision is necessary to protect 
employees from being injured by rolling or sliding trees. The WIR 
survey supports the need for this work practice requirement. According 
to the WIR survey, nearly three-fifths of the workers who reported 
injuries said that their accidents occurred on moderately or steeply 
sloped terrain, and 10 percent of all injured workers blamed the steep 
terrain for their accident (Ex. 2-1). The OSHA FCI report indicated 
that 20 employees were killed when they were struck by rolling trees or 
logs (Ex. 4-61).
    OSHA has not adopted a precise minimum slope that would trigger 
this requirement or excempt any region from the requirement, however, 
the final rule does address the commenters' concerns by limiting this 
provision to those sloping terrains where rolling or sliding of felled 
trees is reasonably foreseeable. OSHA is aware that logging work sites 
are often not completely level, and that many logging sites could be 
considered to be sloping terrain. Elements other than the mere slope of 
the terrain also must be considered in determining whether there is a 
reasonable possibility that the trees could roll or slide. When a given 
slope does not present the reasonable possibility that felled trees 
will slide or roll, OSHA agrees that this requirement should not apply. 
However, when the terrain slopes to the degree that a reasonable 
employer would believe that sliding or rolling is foreseeable, then 
this work practice requirement is necessary to protect loggers from 
being injured.
    Whether a particular terrain slope poses a possibility that trees 
or logs may slide or roll requires an assessment of the condition of 
the terrain. All conditions that might contribute to a hazard must be 
considered (e.g., tree size, weather conditions). For example, when the 
terrain is either wet or covered with snow or ice, the possibility of 
trees sliding and rolling is greater and these conditions must be 
considered in determining whether uphill felling is required. As long 
as the hazard of sliding or rolling trees exists, felling must be done 
on the uphill side even if industry practice has been downhill felling, 
or even if roads have generally been located on the tops of ridges.
    One commenter said that this provision of the final rule may be 
counter to some environmental considerations in timber harvest plans 
which require opposite felling schemes (Ex. 5-7). However, the 
commenter has not provided substantive information to support his 
assertion. OSHA has previously discussed the danger of manual felling 
operations being conducted in adjacent work areas due to the potential 
for a felled tree falling into another work area. In light of that the 
fact that most trees fall down hill when felled, the hazard to 
employees working below another felling activity exposes those 
employees to an unacceptable risk of injury or death.
    Finally, one commenter said downhill felling should be permitted 
because it can reduce the feller's fatigue (Ex. 5-12). While NIOSH 
suggests that worker fatigue may be a factor in logging accidents, 
NIOSH did not recommend downhill felling as being a method to reduce 
worker fatigue (Ex. 5-42). Rather, NIOSH said that the employer should 
reduce worker fatigue and the potential for accidents that results from 
such fatigue by planning appropriate work schedules. NIOSH suggested 
that the employer's planning of work schedules should include an 
evaluation of the amount of heat stress, physical exertion and other 
factors contributing to fatigue in planning those work schedules. OSHA 
agrees with NIOSH that planning appropriate work schedules rather than 
downhill felling would be the appropriate way to reduce worker fatigue 
without exposing the employee to further hazards and to assure that 
jobs fit the capabilities of the person. (OSHA is addressing these 
factors in its rulemaking on ergonomic safety and health management.)
    Paragraph (h)(1)(ix) of the final rule prohibits the practice of 
domino felling. As previously discussed, domino felling involves 
cutting wedges and making partial backcuts in a series of trees that 
form a continuous line. The last tree is then felled into the line thus 
pushing the line of trees to the ground in a chain reaction fashion.
    This requirement was not included in the proposed rule, however, 
several commenters urged OSHA to prohibit domino felling in the final 
rule (Ex. 5-42, 5-46; Tr. W2 231, OR 659). NIOSH said that domino 
felling was a hazardous practice because there was a loss of stability 
in the standing tree when it had been backcut (Ex. 5-42). Therefore, 
NIOSH recommended that OSHA include a requirement in the final rule 
allowing only one tree to be felled at a time. There are also other 
hazards associated with domino felling. First, when trees are used to 
knock down other trees, the likelihood that the trees will not fall in 
the expected direction is greatly increased. A small miscalculation in 
the falling direction can be significantly magnified down the line and 
result in serious injury to the feller or other employees in the area. 
In addition, a falling tree could hit another object and either fall in 
another direction or become lodged. This would require an employee to 
fell the lodged tree, which is a hazardous operation.
    Second, the hazards can be magnified when domino felling is not 
successful in knocking down the entire line of trees. The feller may be 
placed in an extremely hazardous situation if he must try to fell any 
of the line of trees that may remain standing. For example, part of the 
line of trees may have fallen over and lodged against the standing 
tree. A feller who attempts to fell the final standing tree(s) could be 
injured when the lodged line of trees and the final tree finally do 
fall. The risk of injury is greater because it is more likely that the 
lodged trees may fall in an unexpected direction, and the combined 
weight of the lodged trees further increases the risk. In this sense, 
the prohibition against domino felling is similar to the requirement in 
the final rule that trees be felled in a manner that prevents them from 
striking things such as ropes, cables, or power lines. For these 
reasons, OSHA is requiring that trees be felled one at a time rather 
than allowing trees to be used to knock down other trees.

Manual Felling

    Paragraph (h)(2) of the final rule specifies various work practices 
for manual felling. OSHA believes these provisions are essential to 
reduce the number of injuries that occur during felling activities. 
According to the WIR survey, tree felling is the most dangerous 
activity in the logging industry. Of those who reported injuries in the 
WIR survey, 23 percent were engaged in felling trees at the time.
    OSHA's FCI report also indicates that felling operations are the 
most hazardous operation in the logging industry (Ex. 4-61). The report 
indicated that 43 percent of all employees who died did so when they 
were felling trees.
    The State of Washington study indicated that more than 40 percent 
of employees killed from 1977-83 were performing felling operations 
(Ex. 4-129). This study concluded that many of the deaths would have 
been prevented had logging employees been following safe work practices 
and had remained out of hazardous areas (e.g., adjacent occupied work 
areas).
    One commenter said that certain of the work practices proposed by 
OSHA should not be required of each feller (Ex. 5-54). This commenter 
said the work practices did not take into account the variation in 
feller experience, production requirements, and the trees themselves. 
This commenter also said the work practice requirements did not allow 
for innovations in felling technology and for recognition of other safe 
ways to perform felling tasks. OSHA points out that these work practice 
requirements have been widely recognized and accepted in the logging 
industry. Most of the State logging standards contain most of these 
work practices (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-23, 38J, 38K). These 
requirements were included in OSHA's pulpwood logging standard, that 
adopted the 1971 ANSI logging standard. In addition, these requirements 
were contained in the 1978 ANSI logging standard. The ANSI standards 
are national consensus standards which were developed, approved and 
followed by the logging industry itself. Presumably, they represent 
what the industry has viewed to be necessary and reasonable to prevent 
injuries and deaths in this high hazard industry.
    In paragraph (h)(2)(i) of the final rule, OSHA requires that before 
a feller even begins felling a tree, a retreat path must be planned and 
cleared. This provision also requires that the retreat path extend 
diagonally away from the expected felling line. This provision also 
includes an exception to the diagonal retreat path when the employer 
demonstrates that in the particular situation such a retreat path is 
not feasible or poses a greater hazard than an alternative retreat 
path. The proposed rule contained a requirement for planning and 
clearing a retreat path before commencing cutting. However, the 
proposed rule required that the retreat path ``extend back and 
diagonally to the rear'' of the expected felling line. This language 
also was contained in the 1978 ANSI logging standard.
    One commenter contended that a diagonal retreat path may not lead 
to the safest location in the felling area, therefore, it would be 
inappropriate for OSHA to designate a required retreat direction in the 
standard (Ex. 5-35). The record shows that the clearance of a retreat 
path so the feller is able to move rapidly and safely away from a 
falling tree is essential to prevent injuries. According to the WIR 
survey, 24 percent of all reported injuries resulted from being hit by 
a tree and half of these injuries involved falling trees. OSHA believes 
there are many kinds of hazards that necessitate a quick and clear 
retreat path. For example, the tree being felled can split and part of 
the tree may then fall in an unexpected direction. In heavily wooded 
areas, the tree being felled can strike another tree that can cause the 
first tree or parts of either tree to fall or fly in an unexpected 
direction. In addition, planning and clearing a path prior to cutting a 
tree is especially important when the terrain is covered with 
obstructions such as snow, water or heavy undergrowth. These 
obstructions could cause the feller to be injured if they impede the 
feller's ability to rapidly retreat or cause him to trip or fall. For 
these reasons, OSHA has retained the requirement to plan and clear a 
retreat path before felling the tree.
    OSHA has addressed in the final rule the concerns raised by the 
commenter. As a general rule, OSHA believes that a diagonal retreat 
path is the safest location in the felling area. The ANSI standard, 
developed by persons experienced in the logging industry, recognized 
that same general safe work practice. OSHA recognizes that when the 
retreat path is planned prior to cutting, the employer may find that a 
diagonal retreat path poses greater hazards than an alternative path. 
For example, excessive slopes, rocks or other trees in the path of a 
diagonal retreat may create hazards that are not present in an 
alternative retreat path. In such cases, the final rule permits the 
employee to use an alternate retreat path.
    OSHA notes that the employer bears the burden of demonstrating that 
the diagonal retreat path poses a greater hazard. OSHA also notes that 
the exception is a case-by-case determination. That is, the general 
rule requiring a diagonal retreat path is to be applied in all manual 
felling activities. The exception only applies when the feller, in 
planning a particular retreat path, determines that a diagonal retreat 
poses a greater hazard.
    Paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of the final rule requires that before each 
tree is felled, conditions shall be evaluated in the work area and 
precautions taken so a hazard is not created for an employee. 
Conditions that must be evaluated include, but are not limited to, snow 
and ice accumulation, wind, lean of the tree, dead limbs and location 
of other trees. This provision parallels the requirement contained in 
the proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard.
    OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this provision. Many 
commenters discussed the hazardous nature of working conditions in the 
logging industry, and noted that these conditions are constantly 
changing (Ex. 5-12, Tr. W1 76, 88). Because conditions can change with 
each tree that is being felled, it is important that the feller assess 
in advance the conditions and hazards that may be present. In order for 
fellers to understand what conditions and hazards may be present and 
must be appraised, it is important that the employer should include 
this discussion in training sessions and monthly safety and health 
meetings.
    Paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of the final rule requires that each tree be 
checked for accumulations of snow or ice. This provision also requires 
that accumulations of snow and ice that may create a hazard for an 
employee must be removed before felling is started in the area or the 
area must be avoided. This provision parallels the requirement 
contained in the proposed rule.
    One commenter said that this provision would require logging 
establishments to cease felling operations during winter months (Ex. 5-
51). OSHA does not agree with the characterization that the commenters 
draw about the proposed rule. OSHA is aware that logging operations are 
carried out in many types of weather conditions. OSHA does not believe 
that this provision requires logging operations to close down during 
the winter. However, when accumulations of snow and ice may create a 
hazard for an employee, that hazard must be removed or avoided. The 
record shows that removing or avoiding hazardous accumulations of snow 
and ice is necessary to protect logging employees from injury. 
According to the WIR survey, six percent of employees injured said that 
weather conditions such as snow and ice had contributed to their 
accident (Ex. 2-1).
    Paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of the final rule requires that when a spring 
pole or other tree is under stress, no employee other than the feller 
may be closer than two tree lengths when the stress is released. This 
provision was included in the proposed rule, however, the proposed rule 
did not require that employees be at least two tree lengths away. 
Rather, it required that employees be in the clear when the stress is 
released.
    Various commenters recommended that OSHA establish a uniform 
minimum safe distance for all work areas (Ex. 5-18, 5-21, 5-34, 5-36, 
5-39, 5-63, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. W2 163, 197). OSHA agrees with these 
commenters and has included a minimum two tree-length distance in this 
provision. The record shows that this distance is necessary to protect 
employees from being injured or killed by trees under stress. According 
to the WIR survey, 11 percent of employees who reported injuries said 
that wood being under tension had contributed to their accident (Ex. 2-
1). The OSHA FCI report indicated that four employees were killed when 
they were struck by propelled or whiplashing tree limbs (Ex. 4-61).
    Paragraphs (h)(2) (v), (vi) and (vii) require undercutting and 
backcutting of each tree being felled.
    In paragraph (h)(2)(v) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
each tree being felled be undercut unless the employer demonstrates 
that felling the particular tree without an undercut will not create a 
hazard for an employee. This paragraph also requires that the undercut 
be of a size so the tree will not split and will fall in the intended 
direction. The proposed rule contained a provision requiring 
undercutting of each tree being felled, however, the proposed provision 
did not provide for any exceptions. OSHA received many comments on this 
provision, which have been discussed above in the Major Issues section.
    At paragraphs (h)(2) (vi) and (vii) of the final rule, OSHA is 
requiring that each tree be backcut. OSHA is also requiring that the 
backcut allow for sufficient hinge wood to guide the tree and prevent 
it from prematurely slipping or twisting off the trunk. OSHA is 
requiring that the backcut be above the horizontal cut of the undercut. 
In the final rule, OSHA is allowing one exception to the backcut 
requirements. In tree pulling operations, the backcut may be at or 
below the horizontal cut of the undercut. The proposed rule also 
contained provision requiring backcutting of each tree being felled. 
The proposed rule did not allow any exceptions to the backcut 
requirement. OSHA received many comments on these provisions, which 
have been discussed above in the Major Issues section.

Bucking and Limbing

    Paragraph (h)(3) of the final rule establishes various necessary 
work practices for bucking and limbing activities. According to the WIR 
survey, 12 percent of the reported logging injuries occurred when the 
employee was bucking or limbing (Ex. 2-1). The OSHA FCI report showed 
that 16 employees were killed during bucking and limbing operations 
(Ex. 4-61). The work practice requirements contained in this paragraph 
address the hazards presented by log movement on slopes, by wind-thrown 
timber and by trees that are yarded for bucking.
    Paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the final rule requires that bucking and 
limbing that are done on any slope where rolling or sliding of trees or 
logs is reasonably foreseeable must be done on the uphill side of the 
tree, unless the employer demonstrates that it is not feasible for 
bucking or limbing to be done on the uphill side. This paragraph also 
requires that whenever bucking or limbing is done on the downhill side, 
the tree must be secured against movement to prevent rolling or 
sliding. The proposed rule also contained a provision requiring bucking 
and limbing to be done from the uphill side.
    This provision was supported by one commenter (Ex. 5-17). The 
record shows that bucking and limbing from the uphill side is necessary 
to protect employees from being hit or crushed by rolling or sliding 
trees or logs. As discussed above, according to the WIR survey, nearly 
three-fifths of workers who reported injuries were working on moderate 
to steep terrain at the time of their accident, and 10 percent of all 
injured workers said steep terrain had been a factor in their accident 
(Ex. 2-1). Bucking or limbing can cause loss of support for the tree 
and cause it to shift, roll or slide unexpectedly. Blocking or chocking 
a tree on a slope can never provide as much protection as avoiding the 
hazard in the first place. The record shows that the only work method 
in which it can be assured that an employee will not be hurt by a 
rolling or sliding tree is by performing bucking and limbing on the 
uphill side. As such, bucking and limbing from the downhill side is 
permitted only in those cases when the employer is able to demonstrate 
that it is not feasible to work from the uphill side. In those 
particular cases, the tree must be restrained to reduce as much as 
possible the possibility of the tree rolling or sliding. OSHA notes 
that the burden of demonstrating infeasibility is on the employer. In 
addition, the issue of the infeasibility of bucking and limbing from 
the uphill side must be determined on a case-by-case basis when the 
tree and the conditions in the area are carefully assessed.
    Paragraph (h)(3)(ii) requires that when bucking or limbing wind-
thrown trees, precautions must be taken to prevent the root wad, tree 
butt, or logs from striking an employee. These precautions include, but 
are not limited to, chocking or moving the tree to a stable position 
before bucking or limbing. The proposed rule also contained a 
requirement for bucking or limbing wind-thrown trees. However, the 
proposed rule did not specify what precautions should be taken.
    Several commenters said that the proposed provision was too general 
to be useful (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-74 through 5-92). These commenters said 
that this was one of a series of proposed work practice requirements 
which should be deleted from the final rule and included in topics that 
must be covered in training sessions. OSHA believes that this work 
practice requirement is necessary to address the significant risk of 
injury during these activities. According to the WIR survey, 12 percent 
of reported injuries occurred during bucking and limbing. OSHA does 
agree with the commenters that these work practice requirements should 
also be addressed in training sessions.

Chipping

    At paragraph (h)(4) of the final rule, OSHA has specified various 
work practices regarding chipping that is performed at in-woods 
locations. Paragraph (h)(4)(i) of the final rule requires that access 
covers or doors not be opened until the drum and disc is at a complete 
stop. The access covers and doors are the means by which employees are 
safeguarded from the risk of contacting these parts while they are 
moving. This provision is adopted from the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI 
logging standard also contains a similar provision. OSHA did not 
receive any comment opposing this provision.
    OSHA believes that this requirement is necessary to keep employees 
away from the dangerous moving drums, discs, knives and blower blades 
of a chipper. OSHA's FCI reported indicated that two employees have 
been killed while operating a chipper or trying to free jammed logs 
(Ex. 4-61). The moving chipper mechanism presents significant hazards, 
and employees need protection from contact with those mechanisms when 
they are moving.
    Paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of the final rule requires that infeed and 
discharge ports be guarded to prevent contact with the disc, knives, or 
blower blades. This provision has been adopted from the proposed rule. 
There were no comments opposing this provision.
    Paragraph (h)(4)(iii) of the final rule requires that the chipper 
be shut down and locked out in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.147 when an 
employee performs any servicing of maintenance on the chipper. The 
proposed rule required that the chipper be shut down and locked out 
before an employee works in the infeed.
    OSHA did not receive any comments opposing lockout of the chipper 
while working on the infeed. OSHA received one comment stating that 
lockout should be expanded to apply when an employee is working on the 
drive mechanism or chipping disc (Ex. 5-28). The lockout/tagout 
standard, 29 CFR 1910.147, applies to servicing and maintenance of all 
machines and equipment in which the unexpected energization or start up 
of the machine or equipment, or release of stored energy could cause 
injury to employees. This includes machines and equipment used in 
logging operations.
    The lockout-tagout standard permits employers to either place a 
lock or tag on any machine before beginning servicing. However, OSHA 
believes that the environmental conditions involved in logging 
operations necessitates the use of locks rather than tags when 
servicing chippers. As OSHA stated in the preamble of the lockout/
tagout standard, it is intended to interact with any new or revised 
standard to address the use of specific control measures on an 
individual basis (54 FR 36644, 36665, Sept. 1, 1989). Selection of the 
specific method of control, at that time, will reflect a thorough 
evaluation of the extent of exposure to the hazard, the risk of injury 
involving the particular machine or industry, and the feasibility of 
applying a particular method of control. OSHA also pointed in the 
preamble of the lockout/tagout standard that damage to or loss of 
tagout devices is a serious drawback to the use of tagout. Logging 
operations are carried out in all kinds of weather, including rain, 
snow, ice and wind, and there is a significant possibility that tags 
could be damaged or lost. In such circumstances, OSHA believes only 
locking machinery will provide adequate protection for employees who 
are servicing it. Therefore, OSHA is requiring chippers to be shut down 
and lockout out before an employee performs any servicing or 
maintenance activities.
    Paragraph (h)(4)(iv) of the final rule requires that detached 
chippers be chocked during usage on any slope when movement of the 
chipper is reasonably foreseeable. As with other mobile equipment that 
is intended to be operated from a stationary position, the unexpected 
movement of the equipment can endanger employees who are either 
operating the equipment or in the path of the equipment when it moves. 
The vibration caused by the operation of the equipment can enhance the 
potential for unintended equipment movement. Chocking of mobile 
equipment to prevent movement is recognized throughout industry as a 
necessary and appropriate means to prevent unintended movement. For 
example, OSHA requires in 29 CFR 1910.178(k)(1) that trailers be 
chocked before being boarded by powered industrial trucks.

Yarding

    Paragraph (h)(5) specifies various work practice requirements 
covering yarding activities. Paragraph (h)(5)(i) of the final rule 
requires that logs not be moved until each employee is in the clear. 
This provision has been adopted from the proposed rule. Movement of 
logs when employees are in the immediate area can result in an injury 
to those employees.
    According to the WIR survey, almost 20 percent of employees injured 
were involved in yarding operations at the time of their accident (Ex. 
2-1). When a log is moved on uneven, unimproved terrain, the exact path 
that the log will follow is impossible to predict. When they are being 
moved, logs may roll over, or the loose end of a log may flip back and 
forth (fishtail). Movement in an unanticipated direction can cause the 
log to strike an employee, causing serious injury. OSHA has included 
this requirement in the final rule to ensure that when logs are moved, 
all personnel must be safely positioned and not exposed to a hazard. 
OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this provision.
    Paragraph (h)(5)(ii) of the final rule requires that each choker be 
hooked and unhooked from the uphill side or end of the tree or log when 
rolling or sliding is reasonably foreseeable, unless the employer 
demonstrates that it is not feasible in the particular situation to 
hook or unhook the choker from the uphill side. This provision also 
requires that when the choker is hooked or unhooked from the downhill 
side, the log shall be securely blocked or chocked to prevent rolling 
or swinging. The proposed rule also specified that chokers be hooked 
and unhooked from the uphill side when feasible unless the log is 
securely blocked to prevent rolling or swinging. The 1978 ANSI logging 
standard also contained a similar requirement. There were no comments 
opposing this provision.
    Employees who hook and unhook chokers on sloping terrains face the 
same hazard of rolling or sliding logs as do fellers, buckers, limbers 
and other employees. According to the WIR survey, 19 percent of the 
injuries reported occurred during choker setting, hooking and unhooking 
(Ex. 2-1). In addition, the WIR survey indicates that nearly three-
fifths of all workers injured were working on moderate to steep terrain 
at the time of their accidents. The final rule makes clear OSHA's 
intention that all hooking and unhooking of chokers must be from the 
uphill side or end when rolling or sliding is reasonably foreseeable. 
This is the only work location in which it can be assured that an 
employee will not be hurt by a rolling or sliding tree. For this 
reason, hooking or unhooking chokers from the downhill side is not 
permitted simply because the tree has been secured with a chock. 
Rather, the employer must evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether it 
is possible to hook or unhook from the uphill side. Only when the 
employer has demonstrated that hooking or unhooking the choker from the 
uphill side or end is not feasible in the particular situation is 
hooking or unhooking the choker from the down hill side permitted.
    Paragraph (h)(5)(iii) of the final rule requires that each choker 
be positioned near the end of the log or tree length. This provision 
was adopted from the proposed rule. There were no comments opposing 
this provision.
    Positioning a choker at the end of the log ensures that the log is 
moved along its longitudinal axis. Hooking up and skidding a tree or 
log requires much less energy than trying to move the tree or log 
sideways. If an employee were to try to move a tree or log by dragging 
it sideways (perpendicular to its longitudinal axis) the tree or log 
could become wedged behind another tree, a rock, or a stump, causing 
the premature failure of the haulage equipment and the possibility of 
employee injury if the restraint were to suddenly break or release the 
tree or log. Because of these hazards, the usual practice in non-cable 
yarding is to skid or drag a tree or log when moving it. When trees or 
logs are skidded, the choker is hooked to the end of the tree or log 
and it is pulled along the ground.
    Paragraph (h)(5)(iv) of the final rule requires that each machine 
be positioned during winching so the machine and winch are operated 
within their design limits. The proposed rule required that the machine 
be positioned so that the winch line is as near in alignment as 
possible with the long axis of the machine, unless the machine is 
designed to be used under different conditions of alignment.
    One commenter opposed the proposed provision for several reasons 
(Ex. 5-34). First, the commenter said that some machines, such as cats 
and skidders, are designed to sustain winching strain from a much 
broader angle than straight behind the machine, therefore, the proposed 
provision was needlessly restrictive if the machine is being operated 
within its rated capacity. Second, the commenter said it was not 
possible to comply with the provision in many situations. For example, 
the commenter said arches are normally equipped with fairleads and 
grapples that swing sideways out of alignment with the long axis of the 
machine. Third, the commenter said the provision would create a greater 
hazard when winching is conducted on very steep terrain. In such cases, 
the commenter said, it is more important that the machine be positioned 
to assure maximum stability rather than positioning the machine 
relative to the log being winched.
    OSHA recognizes that exact alignment is not always possible in the 
woods. OSHA also recognizes that a machine may have a winch mounted on 
it that may work off the side or front of the machine, and that 
aligning the winch line with the long axis of the machine may not be 
the safest manner to operate the winch.
    OSHA agrees with this commenter that what is most important is that 
the design limits of the machine and winch not be exceeded. Therefore, 
OSHA has revised the wording of this provision to ensure that winching 
operations conducted with machines are performed within the design 
limitations of the machines.
    Paragraph (h)(5)(v) of the final rule requires that no line be 
moved unless the yarder operator has clearly received and understood 
the signal to do so. This provision also requires that when the yarder 
operator is in doubt, the operator must repeat the signal and wait for 
a confirming signal before moving any line. This provision has been 
adopted from the proposed rule. A similar provision also was contained 
in the 1978 ANSI logging standard and in various State logging 
standards (Ex. 2-14, 2-18, 2-20, 38J). OSHA did not receive any 
comments opposing this provision.
    OSHA believes that adequate communication is necessary for the safe 
movement of trees and logs. If the yarder operator begins moving the 
tree or log before the choker setter or chaser has moved to a safe 
location, the choker setter or chaser could be injured if struck or 
caught by a yarding line, carriage, or choker, or by the tree or log.
    Paragraph (h)(5)(vi) of the final rule requires that the load shall 
not exceed the rated capacity of the pallet or other carrier. This 
provision has been adopted from the proposed rule. OSHA did not receive 
any comments opposing this provision. This provision is an outgrowth of 
the requirement that the rated capacity of machines shall not be 
exceeded. In order to prevent machines from rollovers and tipovers, it 
is also essential that loads on trailers not exceed the maximum 
capacity the trailer was designed to carry and the machine was designed 
to transport. If loads exceed the maximum capacity, the machine 
operator will be at greater risk of rollover or tipover. As discussed 
above, a significant number of fatalities have occurred in the logging 
industry due to rollover accidents. NIOSH reported that 80 logging 
employees were killed in machine rollover accidents from 1980-85 (Ex. 
5-42). The State of Washington reported that 12 logging employees were 
killed in rollover accidents from 1977-83 (Ex. 4-129).
    Paragraph (h)(5)(vii) of the final rule requires that towed 
equipment must be attached to the machine or vehicle in such a manner 
as to allow a 90 degree turn, to prevent overrunning of the towing 
machine or vehicle and to assure that the operator is always in control 
of the towed equipment. Towed equipment includes but is not limited to 
skid pans, pallets, arches and trailers. This provision parallels the 
proposed requirement. There were no comments opposing this provision.
    OSHA's intention in this provision is two-fold. First, OSHA 
believes this provision is necessary to help reduce the potential for 
rollover of vehicles or machines that are moving equipment to various 
work sites. For example, a trailer carrying a maximum load could tip 
over or roll over and cause the towing machine or vehicle to roll over 
if the loaded trailer cannot make a full 90 degree turn. Second, this 
provision is necessary to help assure that material handling equipment 
is not overloaded. This provision must be viewed in conjunction with 
the requirement that loads must not exceed the rated capacity of the 
trailer or other carrier on which it is being towed. For example, when 
towed equipment exceeds the rated capacity of the towing trailer, it 
may overrun the towing machine or vehicle. When the rate capacity of 
the trailer is exceeded there is an increased likelihood that the 
operator may lose control over the towed equipment and an accident 
could result.
    Paragraph (h)(5)(viii) of the final rule requires that each yarding 
machine or vehicle, including its load, must be operated with safe 
clearance from all obstructions. This provision has been adopted from 
the proposed rule. There were no comments opposing this requirement.
    Paragraph (h)(5)(ix) of the final rule requires that each yarded 
tree must be placed in a location that does not create a hazard for an 
employee and be placed in an orderly manner so that the trees are 
stable before other work, such as bucking or limbing, is commenced. The 
proposed rule required that trees yarded for bucking shall be safely 
located and stable before bucking is commenced. There were no comments 
opposing this provision.
    In the final rule, OSHA has expanded this provision to provide that 
no work is commenced until yarded trees are stabilized and safely 
located. OSHA believes it is necessary to apply this provision to all 
work done in the area of yarded trees. The WIR survey indicates that 
the single greatest cause of accidents in the logging industry is being 
injured by a tree, log or limb and a significant number of employees 
were injured performing bucking and limbing (Ex. 2-1). If operations, 
such as bucking or limbing, are located too close to other work 
operations, unsuspecting loggers could be injured by a rolling log. 
Moreover, if yarded trees or stacks of trees are not stabilized, 
loggers performing work activities involving these trees could be at 
substantial risk of injury if the unstabilized trees move, shift or 
roll.
    In the final rule, OSHA has not retained two proposed requirements 
from this paragraph. The first would have required the examination of 
spar trees for defects before they are rigged. This provision has been 
deleted because it relates to the construction of cable yarding systems 
that is not covered by the final rule.
    The second provision would have required unstable trees and spars 
to be guyed to ensure stability. Some commenters said that requiring 
employees to climb on and rig unstable trees presents a greater hazard 
than does felling an unguyed tree (Ex. 5-17, 5-21). The weight of the 
climber and his rigging gear could cause the tree to break off and fall 
over, resulting in serious injury or death to the climber. OSHA has 
addressed in other ways the hazards associated with danger trees 
through other practice requirements. For example, the final rule 
requires danger trees to be felled or removed before any work can be 
commenced in the area.

Loading and Unloading

    Paragraph (h)(6) of the final rule specifies various work practice 
requirements regarding loading and unloading trees onto transport 
machines or vehicles. These requirements were based on those in the 
1978 logging standard and various State logging standards (Ex. 2-17, 2-
18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 38J, 38K). OSHA believes these work practices are 
necessary to protect employees from being hit by machines, vehicles, 
trees and logs during loading and unloading. The WIR survey indicates 
that five percent of the injuries reported occurred during loading or 
unloading (Ex. 2-1). The State of Washington study indicated that five 
percent of all deaths occurred during loading and unloading operations 
(Ex. 4-129).
    Paragraph (h)(6)(i) of the final rule requires that the transport 
machine or vehicle be positioned to provide working clearance between 
the vehicle and deck of trees or logs. This provision parallels the 
requirement contained in the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI logging 
standard contained a similar provision.
    Several commenters supported the need for adequate room between 
transport equipment and trees or logs (Ex. 5-21, 5-74 through 5-92). 
These commenters pointed out that room needs to be provided on the 
landing for the transport machine or vehicle and its counterweights, 
especially when landings are on sloped terrain. The record supports 
these commenters' position. According to the State of Washington study, 
almost 10 percent of all deaths reported occurred when an employee was 
struck by mobile equipment and five percent of all deaths involved 
employees performing loading operations (Ex. 4-129). OSHA believes that 
the employer must consider several factors in determining an adequate 
work clearance for loading and unloading. These factors include, but 
are not limited to, the type of loading machine and transport vehicle 
being used, the physical characteristics of the load being moved, and 
the layout of the area where the operation is being conducted. For 
example, if the vehicle is a self-loading log truck, it will have to be 
positioned close to the deck of logs to allow the truck to be loaded. 
On the other hand, if a crane or other material handling machine is 
used to load and unload the transport vehicle, the machine must be 
positioned so that it can reach both the deck of logs and the vehicle 
without exceeding the rated capacity of the machine.
    Paragraph (h)(6)(ii) of the final rule requires that only the 
loading or unloading machine operator and other personnel that the 
employer demonstrates are essential shall be allowed in the work area 
during loading and unloading. This provision parallels the provision 
contained in the proposed rule and in the 1978 ANSI logging standard. 
There were no comments opposing this provision. OSHA believes this 
provision is necessary because, as discussed above, many injuries and 
fatalities in the logging industry involve loading operations. For 
example, the State of Washington study reported that three employees 
were killed when they were struck by logs falling from the transport 
vehicle during loading (Ex. 4-129).
    In the final rule, OSHA is clarifying its intention that the 
employer bears the burden of proving that personnel other than the 
machine operator who are in the loading or unloading area are essential 
to that activity. OSHA notes that this is a case-by-case determination 
that requires the employer to evaluate the needs and conditions present 
at the time.
    Paragraph (h)(6)(iii) of the final rule requires that no transport 
vehicle operator remain in the cab during loading and unloading if logs 
are carried or moved over the cab, unless the employer demonstrates 
that it is essential for the operator to be in the cab. This provision 
also requires that when the transport vehicle operator remains in the 
cab during loading or unloading operations, the employer must provide 
operator protection such as, but not limited to, reinforcement of the 
cab. The proposed rule specifies that no transport vehicle operator 
remain in the cab during loading and unloading unless the employer 
demonstrates that it was necessary for the operator to be in the cab. 
The 1978 ANSI logging standard contained a similar requirement.
    OSHA received many comments on this provision (Ex. 5-17, 5-21, 5-
33, 5-34, 5-74 through 5-92). Several commenters stated that there were 
so many situations in which it is essential for transport vehicle 
operators to be in the cab or on the vehicle during loading and 
unloading that the exceptions would overwhelm the rule (Ex. 5-21, 5-34, 
5-36, 5-74 through 5-92). For example, commenters said that self-
loading logging trucks must be operated by the driver from an elevated 
seat above the cab (Ex. 5-21, 5-36). In other loading operations the 
operator is required to move the transport vehicle back and forth in 
the loading chute to position the log on the load (Ex. 5-34).
    Several commenters said that the cab may be the safest place for 
the transport vehicle operator to be during loading and unloading (Ex. 
5-17, 5-33, 5-34). One commenter said that greater hazards were posed 
for the operator when not in the cab (Ex. 5-34). For example, the 
operator outside the cab can be struck by logs that fall off the load 
or come out of the jaws of the loading machine, or by the loading 
machine itself. This commenter pointed out that in the State of 
Washington there have been numerous fatalities and serious injuries 
reported when the operator was outside the cab, but none reported when 
the operator was in the cab (Ex. 5-34). As such, this commenter said 
that many logging establishments will only permit logs to be unloaded 
if the transport vehicle operator is in the cab (Ex. 5-34).
    OSHA believes the record shows that in some situations the safest 
place for the transport vehicle operator will be in the cab (e.g., Ex. 
4-129). The WIR survey appears to support this position, in that only 
three percent of all injuries reported involved mobile equipment (Ex. 
2-1). By contrast, almost one-fourth of all injuries reported resulted 
from being hit by a tree or falling in the work site. However, there 
are some hazards to operators who remain in cabs during loading and 
unloading. Any time logs are carried or moved over the cab, it is 
possible due to equipment failure or operator error that the log could 
fall on the cab and seriously injure the operator.
    In other standards OSHA has recognized the hazard of carrying loads 
over people. These standards include requirements that material 
handling equipment operators avoid this practice (See 29 CFR 1910.179, 
29 CFR 1910.180, 29 CFR 1910.181). In many new self-loading trucks, the 
hoist mechanism is behind the cab, a location which prevents the 
movement of logs over the cab (Ex. 5-71). In other situations, however, 
logs are still moved or carried over the cab. It is not safe for the 
operator to be in the cab in those situations. Therefore, when logs are 
carried or moved over the cab, the final rule requires that the 
operator not remain in the cab if the employer has not demonstrated 
that it is essential for the operator to do so. If it is essential for 
the operator to be in the cab when logs are carried or moved over the 
cab, the employer must provide protection for the operator. The final 
rule states that this protection includes but is not limited to 
reinforcement of the cab.
    Paragraph (h)(6)(iv) of the final rule requires that each log be 
placed on the transport vehicle in an orderly manner and tightly 
secured. This provision parallels the requirement contained in the 
proposed rule. There were no comments opposing this provision.
    OSHA believes that this provision is necessary to protect employees 
from the hazards that result from haphazard loading and inadequately 
securing the load. For example, when the load is not properly stacked 
and/or tightly secured, logs can swing in the tie downs and hit an 
employee. In addition, the load can shift and cause both the trailer 
and transport machine or vehicle to rollover. Proper stowage of vehicle 
loads has the added advantage of providing, in most cases, a more 
compact load with a lower center of gravity, one that is safer to move.
    Paragraph (h)(6)(v) of the final rule requires that the load be 
positioned to prevent slippage or loss during handling and transport. 
This requirement parallels the provision contained in the proposed 
rule. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this provision. A load 
that is improperly positioned can roll or shift at any time, thereby 
potentially endangering any employee who might be close at hand.
    Paragraph (h)(6)(vi) of the final rule requires that each stake and 
chock used to trip loads must be constructed so the tripping mechanism 
is activated on the side opposite the release of the load. OSHA has 
adopted this provision from the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI logging 
standard also contained a similar provision. There were no comments 
opposing this provision. OSHA believes this provision is necessary to 
protect employees from sudden or unexpected shifts or movements of the 
logs when a load is released. Only by keeping employees out of the 
potential paths of the shifting or moving logs can there be assurance 
that the employee will not be struck by a log.
    Paragraph (h)(6)(vii) of the final rule requires that each tie down 
be left in place over the peak log to secure the logs until the 
unloading lines or other equivalent protection have been put in place. 
This provision also specifies that a stake of sufficient strength to 
withstand forces of shifting logs shall be considered to provide 
protection equivalent to a tie down, provided that the logs are not 
loaded higher than the stake. This provision parallels the requirement 
contained in the proposed rule.
    The West Virginia Forestry Association supported this provision 
(Ex. 5-54). They said that several recent serious logging accidents had 
occurred in their state because logs loaded too high have fallen off 
the transport vehicle.
    Due to the vibration of the load during transport, the load can 
shift or move so that when the restraints are removed, the load will 
roll or otherwise fall off the truck, thereby endangering the employee 
who must remove the restraints. For this reason, OSHA has specified the 
necessary and appropriate work practices that must be followed to 
ensure the safe unloading of transport vehicles.
    Paragraph (h)(6)(viii) of the final rule requires that each tie 
down be released only from the side on which the unloading machine 
operates. This provision also permits two exceptions to this 
requirement in situations when the tie down is released by a remote 
control device and when the employee making the release is protected by 
racks, stanchions or other protection the employer demonstrates is 
capable of withstanding the force of moving and shifting logs. This 
requirement parallels the provision contained in the proposed rule and 
the 1978 ANSI logging standard.
    Several commenters suggested that the exceptions to the release 
requirement be eliminated (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-74 through 5-92). However, 
these commenters did not provide any discussion to support their 
position. OSHA believes that adequate protection is provided in the 
alternate releasing methods that are excepted from this provision to 
protect the machine or vehicle operator from being hit by moving or 
shifting trees or logs.

Transport

    Paragraph (h)(7) of the final rule requires the transport vehicle 
operator to assure that each tie down is tight before transporting the 
load. In addition, this paragraph requires that while en route, the 
operator shall check and tighten tie downs whenever there is reason to 
believe that the tie downs have loosened or the load has shifted. The 
proposed rule also contained a provision requiring the transport 
operator to assure that tie downs have been tightened and to check and 
tighten the tie downs as necessary while en route. The 1978 ANSI 
logging standard contained a provision similar to the proposed rule.
    One commenter opposed the provision, believing that the provision 
required transport vehicle operators to implement a regular schedule of 
stopping and checking on tie downs, regardless of whether there is 
reason to suspect they are loose (Ex. 5-35). OSHA has more clearly 
stated its original intention in the final that the operator must check 
tie downs whenever there is reason to believe they are loose or the 
load has shifted. For example, this would occur if an operator can feel 
the load shift, or knows that the transport vehicle has hit an object 
or pothole which jarred the load. OSHA believes this work practice is 
necessary to protect the transport vehicle operator from having an 
accident due to logs shifting or breaking the tie downs. In addition, 
this provision is necessary to protect the transport vehicle operator 
from being hit by shifting or moving trees when he unloads the vehicle.

Storage

    Paragraph (h)(8) of the final rule requires that each deck of logs 
be stacked and located so it is stable and provides each employee with 
enough room to safely move and work in the area. This provision has 
been adopted from the proposal. The 1978 ANSI logging standard 
contained a similar requirement. There were no comments opposing this 
provision.
    This provision combines two different requirements. First, this 
paragraph requires that decks and piles of logs be constructed so they 
are stable. OSHA believes that decks must be carefully stacked so logs 
do not shift, roll or fall off the deck and strike an employee who may 
be working or passing through the storage area. Second, this paragraph 
requires that the work activities in the vicinity of the storage are 
well-planned so enough room is provided for those work activities so 
that an employee is not harmed if the stacked logs shift, roll or fall. 
OSHA believes these work practices are necessary to protect employees 
working in the landing area. According to the WIR survey, 20 percent of 
injuries reported involved accidents at landing areas.

Paragraph (i) Training

    In paragraph (i) of the final rule OSHA has specified various 
training requirements. For several reasons OSHA believes training is a 
critical element in a integrated control program to reduce the number 
of accidents, and consequently, the number of fatalities and injuries 
in the logging industry. First, the logging industry is a high hazard 
industry. Employees need to be made aware of the various hazards so 
they can actively participate in making the workplace safe. According 
to the WIR survey, 10 percent of the workers who reported injuries said 
that being unaware of the hazard had contributed to their accident.
    Second, training is also essential in achieving compliance with the 
substantive requirements of the standard, including the use of personal 
protective equipment and safe work practices. Without effective 
training, employees may not be aware of how to perform their job safely 
or how the integrated controls can reduce injuries and fatalities. 
Third, training is especially important in complying with the logging 
standard because the standard relies heavily on safe work practices to 
prevent accidents from occurring. Employees who are not trained in how 
to perform their job safely can put themselves and other employees at 
risk of injury. Various studies of accidents in the logging industry 
indicate that poor work practices are a major contributing factor (Ex. 
2-1, 4-3, 4-14, 4-15, 4-61, 4-63, 4-121, 4-125, 4-129, 4-138, 4-172, 5-
20). For example, according to an accident study conducted by one 
commenter, 40 percent of accidents were due to poor planning, 40 
percent were due to poor technique, and 15 to 18 percent were due to 
carelessness (Ex. 5-20). Only 2 to 5 percent of the accidents were due 
to equipment failure. The WIR survey indicated that poor work practices 
of employees or a co-worker were a contributing factor in more than 
one-half of all accidents reported (Ex. 2-1). OSHA's FCI report 
indicated that unsafe work practices and misjudgments accounted for 42 
percent of logging employees who were killed (Ex. 4-61).
    Fourth, training is necessary to correct unsafe behavior before it 
results in injury to the employee or others. In the WIR survey, injured 
loggers reported that among the factors that contributed to the 
accident were coworker's activity, misjudging time and distance needed 
to avoid injury, using wrong cutting methods and not paying full 
attention to work. In addition, a State of Washington study of 
fatalities in the logging industry from 1977-83 concluded that over 90 
percent of the deaths had been preventable (Ex. 4-129). Therefore, when 
unsafe behavior is observed, it is important that proper work practices 
be reinforced through additional training. Fifth, according to the WIR 
survey, more than one third of all those injured had never received 
training. Moreover, more than one half of injured loggers working in 
non-western States (i.e., States without logging standards and training 
requirements) had never received training.
    Sixth, the logging industry itself supports the value of training 
in reducing accidents (Ex. 4-181, 5-6, 5-17, 5-19, 5-20, 5-22, 5-29, 5-
33, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-47, 5-59, 9-5, 9-6; Tr. W2 125, OR 566). 
Many commenters said their accident rates decreased after they 
implemented a training program (Ex. 5-33, 9-5, 9-6; Tr. W2 125, OR 
566). One company achieved a 63-percent reduction in lost workdays 
within a year of implementing training (Tr. W2 125). The Montana 
Logging Association reported that member companies had decreased 
accidents by 52 percent after implementing training (Tr. OR 566). A 
study for the International Woodworkers of America found a 71-percent 
reduction in accidents in establishments in the Pacific Northwest 
region who had implemented training programs (Ex. 4-181).
    Paragraph (i)(1) requires that training be provided for each 
employee, including supervisors, at no cost to the employee. The 
proposed rule also required each employee to be trained. This provision 
clarifies OSHA's intent that supervisors also must receive training. 
OSHA believes that it is important that supervisors be trained since 
they are responsible for making work assignments, determining work 
areas, providing consultation when hazardous situations arise, 
determining when new employees can begin to work independently, and 
identifying and correcting unsafe job performance of employees they 
supervise.
    Some commenters raised the issue of cost and availability of 
training programs, especially for small establishments (Ex. 5-19, 5-32, 
5-51). However, other commenters said there are training resources that 
are readily available for logging establishments (Ex. 5-20, 5-27, 5-52, 
5-69, 36, 9-1). These include logging associations and companies which 
currently offer logging training programs and traveling training 
seminars, and video tapes which are available to employers. For 
example, the Alaska Timber Insurance Exchange has established a video 
library for policyholders to use as training supplements (Ex. 9-15). 
The American Pulpwood Association said it was developing a logging 
training that was to be available by the end of 1989 (Ex. 5-27). The 
Associated Oregon Loggers has also developed logging training programs 
for member companies (Ex. 36). One training company indicated it was 
currently providing a variety of different logging training programs in 
six different States (Ex. 5-20). OSHA also notes that several 
commenters have expressed their willingness to work with OSHA to train 
loggers (Ex. 5-18, 5-20, 5-27, 5-47, 5-52, 5-69).
    Paragraph (i)(2) requires that training be provided as follows: as 
soon as possible but not later than the effective date of this section 
for initial training of each current employee who has not previously 
received training; prior to initial assignment for each new employee 
who has not previously received training; whenever an employee is 
assigned new work tasks, tools, equipment, machines or vehicles; and 
whenever an employee demonstrates unsafe job performance. When the 
proposed rule did not require initial training for each current 
employee, the proposed rule would have required training prior to 
initial assignment; annual retraining of each employee; and retraining 
whenever changes in job assignment would expose the employee to new or 
additional hazards. OSHA received many comments on the training 
provisions, some of which have already been discussed above in the 
Major Issues section.
    Many commenters raised the issue of whether experienced and/or 
previously trained employees would be required to be retrained (Ex. 5-
19, 5-21, 5-28, 5-29, 5-33, 5-35, 5-39, 5-43, 5-49, 5-74 through 5-92, 
9-1; Tr. W1 63, OR 85). Some commenters favored training of all 
workers, regardless of their previous employment experience (Ex. 5-19, 
5-28, 5-29, 5-35). Other commenters said that previously trained or 
experienced workers should be excepted from training requirements (Ex. 
5-21, 5-36, 5-39, 5-43, 5-49, 5-52, 5-74 through 5-92).
    As discussed above in the Major Issues section, OSHA believes that 
employees who have never received training must be trained, regardless 
of their level of experience. The need to provide training for 
experienced loggers who have not previously received such training is 
supported by the WIR survey, that indicates that over one third of 
those injured had never received training and 56 percent of those 
injured had worked in the logging industry for 5 years or more. By 
contrast, only 22 percent of those injured had worked in the logging 
industry for one year or less. In addition, the WIR survey indicates 
that the employees who were injured performed the activity in which 
they were injured on almost a daily basis. (OSHA is allowing an 
exception to initial training for previously trained employees. See 
discussion of paragraph (i)(5)).
    OSHA also received several comments on annual retraining of 
employees. Some commenters said annual retraining is necessary (Ex. 5-
34, 5-43, 9-3, 9-9, 9-13, 9-20). One commenter said that machine 
operators should be retrained at least annually (Ex. 5-34). However, 
other commenters questioned the need for annual retraining of loggers 
and suggested that retraining could be handled in regular safety and 
health meetings (Ex. 5-19, 5-29, 5-43). One commenter also said 
retraining should be limited to an ``as needed basis'' (Ex. 5-19).
    OSHA has addressed these concerns in the final rule. Instead of an 
annual retraining provision, the final rule contains provisions 
requiring employers to hold safety and health meetings at least once a 
month (paragraph (i)(11)), and to retrain any employee who demonstrates 
unsafe job performance. OSHA agrees with the commenters that these new 
provisions are more responsive to addressing new hazards and unsafe job 
performance than is an annual retraining requirement. These provisions 
also require the employer to address unsafe job performance 
immediately. These provisions require the employer to address new 
hazards as they appear in the workplace in monthly safety and health 
meetings. In addition to being more responsive to hazards as they 
appear in the workplace, OSHA believes these provisions will be less 
burdensome on employers, especially small employers with limited 
resources. OSHA anticipates that only a portion of employees will need 
to be retrained due to unsafe job performance. Also OSHA believes that 
for many employers ongoing monthly safety and health meetings will be 
incorporated into job planning meetings that are well-established in 
the logging industry. (Safety and health meetings are addressed further 
in discussion of paragraph (i)(11)).
    OSHA received comments supporting the need for training of new 
inexperienced employees and training employees assigned to new job 
tasks, tools, equipment, machines or vehicles (Ex. 5-19, 5-21, 5-28). 
There were no comments opposing these provisions, therefore, OSHA has 
retained these requirements in the final rule.
    OSHA has added the requirement of retraining of employees 
demonstrating unsafe job performance based on practice in the industry. 
OSHA received comment that some employers who are providing training do 
require retraining where unsafe job performance is identified (Ex. 29).
    The proposed rule also contained minimum training elements that 
included recognition of safety hazards associated with the employee's 
particular work tasks and the protective and preventive measures to 
deal with those hazards; recognition and prevention of general safety 
hazards in the logging industry; and safe use and maintenance of any 
machine, equipment or tool used by an employee. One commenter agreed 
that training should list the hazards of each step of an employee's job 
and describe how these particular hazards could be controlled (Ex. 5-
17). There were no comments opposing this provision.
    In the final rule, OSHA has added the requirement that employees be 
trained in the procedures, practices and requirements of the employer's 
work site in recognition of the number of comments who describe the 
logging industry as highly transient (Ex. 5-21, 5-74 through 5-92). 
While new employees may be experienced and well-trained in the 
recognition of hazards of the job and in the safe use of equipment of 
the trade, they may be unaware of the operating protocol of a 
particular establishment, such as how work activities are organized, or 
what system of signals is being used. OSHA has also added a provision 
in the final rule requiring that each employee be trained in the 
requirements of this section. OSHA believes it is important that 
employees know the various provisions of this section so they can 
actively participate in contributing to their own protection. This 
provision is included in other OSHA standards (e.g., 29 CFR 1910.132, 
29 CFR 1910.146, 29 CFR 1910.1047).
    Paragraph (i)(4) of the final rule permits the employer to limit 
training of an employee due to unsafe job performance and for any 
employee assigned to new work tasks, tools, equipment, machines or 
vehicles to those content elements in paragraph (i)(3) that are 
relevant to the circumstances giving rise to the need for training. The 
proposed rule did not contain a similar provision. OSHA has added this 
provision to reduce the burden of the training requirement by allowing 
employers to focus the additional training on the elements necessary to 
prepare the employee to safely perform the job or operate a new piece 
of equipment. For example, OSHA is aware that an employee who is 
assigned to operate a new machine, may not need retraining in 
recognition of general hazards in the logging industry or the 
requirements of the logging standard.
    In paragraph (i)(5) of the final rule OSHA establishes certain 
exceptions to the training requirement. Current and new employees who 
have received training previously do not need to be retrained in those 
elements of paragraph (i)(3) for which they have received training. 
This paragraph also reinforces that each current and new employee must 
still receive training in those elements for which they have not 
previously been trained. Even though certain limited exceptions to the 
training requirements are allowed, this paragraph reinforces that the 
employer is responsible for ensuring that each current and new employee 
can properly and safely perform the work tasks and operate the tools, 
equipment, machines and vehicles used in their job. The proposed rule 
would have required new employees to be trained, regardless of whether 
they were experienced or had been trained previously, before initial 
assignment. The proposed standard also would have required each new and 
current employee to receive annual retraining.
    Several commenters were confused about who was required to be 
trained under the proposed rule and many commenters opposed retraining 
of previously trained workers (Ex. 5-21, 5-33, 5-35, 5-39, 5-43, 5-53; 
Tr. W1 63, OR 85). According to these commenters, employees move from 
employer to employer and requiring retraining of each new employee 
would be both duplicative and costly. As discussed above in the Major 
Issues section, OSHA has addressed the commenters' concerns by allowing 
previous training to be acceptable in lieu of new initial training for 
both current and new employees. In order to determine whether the 
training exception is applicable to a particular employee, the employer 
must first ascertain whether previous training has satisfied the 
training content requirements of paragraph (i)(3). Determining whether 
previous training meets the requirements of this section should not be 
difficult with regard to current employees. Employers can examine their 
training materials to ensure that each of the training content 
requirements has already been covered in training sessions. OSHA notes 
that each current and new employee will at least have to be trained in 
the requirements of this new standard. OSHA believes that many 
employers will provide training on the new final rule in the monthly 
safety and health meetings
    It may, however, require additional effort for the employer to 
determine whether a new employee has received training that meets the 
requirements of the final rule. An employer cannot merely ask the new 
employee whether he has been trained. Rather, under the training 
certification requirements of this paragraph (see paragraph (i)(10)), 
the employer must make a determination of whether and when the past 
training was adequate to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph.
    To determine whether past training was adequate, the employer will 
have to go through two steps. First, the employer must inquire whether 
the new employee had training in each of the elements specified in 
paragraph (i)(3). When the new employee indicates that he has not 
received training in a particular element, the employer will need to 
provide training in that element. Second, when the employee indicates 
that he had received training in each of the required elements, the 
employer must then determine whether the particular training was 
adequate. Most likely, the employer will make that determination while 
the new employee is working under close supervision of a designated 
person, as required by this paragraph. When the new employee, who has 
been previously trained, can demonstrate the ability to safely perform 
the job independently, the employee can then determine and certify that 
previous training had been adequate.
    At paragraph (i)(6) of the final rule, OSHA requires that each new 
employee and each employee who is required to be trained by this 
paragraph, to work under the close supervision of a designated person 
until the employee is able to demonstrate the ability to safely perform 
the new job independently. The proposed rule contained two provisions 
specifying initial close supervision. One provision specified initial 
close supervision for all power tool and machine operators and 
associated maintenance personnel. The second provided initial close 
supervision for each new employee, and each newly trained employee. In 
addition, the State of Oregon logging standard requires initial close 
supervision for new employees and requires experienced new employees to 
demonstrate their competence before being allowed to perform the job 
independently (Ex. 38K).
    Several commenters supported this provision (Ex. 5-22, 5-42, 5-33, 
5-39, 5-53, 5-55, 5-63, 9-9; Tr. W1 91-92, 172-73, OR 151-52, 216, 373, 
377, 410). NIOSH said it was important in the logging industry to have 
an adequate balance of classroom and on-the-job training (Ex. 5-42). 
NIOSH said working with a designated person would be especially 
effective for pointing out poisonous plants to inexperienced workers 
(Ex. 5-42). Several commenters also supported limiting this provision 
to only inexperienced workers (Ex. 5-33, 5-39, 5-53, 5-62, 5-74 through 
5-92).
    OSHA has carefully considered the comments and has decided for 
several reasons that it is necessary in the final rule to retain the 
requirement that each new and each newly-trained employee work under 
the close supervision of a designated person initially. There are 
several reasons for this determination. First, this requirement acts as 
a final check on the competency of a newly-trained employee by allowing 
the employer to measure in practical terms how well the employee has 
absorbed the training. Second, this provision is also a measure of the 
general effectiveness and adequacy of the employer's training program. 
When employees are not able to demonstrate the ability to perform the 
job safely, the employer needs to review and correct the training 
program and retrain the workers.
    Third, OSHA believes this provision is essential given the 
inclusion of an initial training exception in the final rule for 
previously trained workers. As discussed earlier, more than 60 percent 
of all loggers who reported injuries in the WIR survey had been 
previously trained (Ex. 2-1). This data supports the need for 
safeguards to integrating new employees into the workplace if initial 
training of each new employee is not required. Finally, this provision 
is also a safeguard for integrating newly-trained employees and 
employees whose unsafe job performance has necessitated retraining.
    Paragraph (i)(7) of the final rule specifies various requirements 
regarding first-aid training for each employee, including supervisors. 
Paragraph (i)(7)(i) of the final rule requires that the employer assure 
that each employee receives or has received first-aid and CPR training. 
This provision also requires that first-aid training meet at least the 
requirements of Appendix B. The proposed rule would have required only 
supervisors, fellers and at least one additional person in each 
operating area to have first-aid training. The proposed rule also would 
have required that the first-aid training content meet the training 
programs of the American Red Cross, the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration (MSHA) or other equivalent program.
    As discussed above in the Major Issues section, OSHA is expanding 
the requirement on first-aid training to all employees. According to 
the WIR survey, more than one-half of all injuries occurred at cutting 
sites, that in most cases are remote from medical facilities and 
personnel (Ex. 2-1). Also as discussed above in the Major Issues 
section, OSHA is not requiring employers to provide the first-aid 
training. The employer can meet the requirements of the standard by 
assuring that employees he hires already have taken first-aid training. 
The employer can also meet this requirement by requiring any worker in 
his employ to take a first-aid training course from any organization in 
the community whose program meets the requirements of this standard. In 
addition, the standard does not require repeat first-aid training for 
workers who have received first-aid training previously, provided the 
training has met the content requirements of this standard and their 
first-aid certificate is current.
    With regard to first-aid training content, Appendix B specifies the 
minimum content of required first-aid training. This content list 
includes training in emergency situations that are most likely to arise 
in the logging industry, such as control of bleeding and shock, 
immobilization of injured persons, treatment of sprains and fractures, 
and treatment of contact with poisonous plants or animals.
    For several reasons, in the final rule, OSHA has specified the 
minimum first-aid training requirements rather than simply referring to 
programs provided by various organizations. First, the content list is 
in keeping with OSHA's goal of developing performance language 
standards. Second, the content list in Appendix B focuses on the types 
of situations that are most likely to occur in the logging industry and 
in remote work sites. General first-aid training programs may not 
thoroughly cover the kinds of situations found in the logging industry. 
Third, the content of training programs offered by various 
organizations may change and an element crucial to first aid in remote 
outdoor locations may be dropped. By specifying the minimum content, 
the standard places training organizations on notice as to what 
elements their program must include in order to meet the requirements 
of this standard.
    Fourth, by expressing the first-aid training requirements in 
performance language, OSHA is providing employers with maximum 
flexibility. Employers will not have to research the Red Cross and MSHA 
training programs to see if a training program offered locally by 
another organization meets the requirements of this standard. In 
addition, by specifying the content, the standard leaves employers free 
to develop their own first-aid training program or rely on outside 
organizations to provide first aid training. Fifth, since the final 
standard permits employers to require their employees to take first-aid 
training rather than providing the training, it is important to provide 
employees with an understandable criteria for determining whether the 
training program they select meets the requirements of this standard.
    Paragraph (i)(7)(ii) of the final rule requires that the employer 
assure that each employee receives first-aid training at least every 
three years and receives CPR training at least annually. The proposed 
rule did not contain a similar requirement. Most first-aid training 
organizations require retraining at the above frequency in order to 
maintain a current certificate (Ex. 5-42). OSHA agrees with these 
organizations that it is necessary to refresh one's first-aid skills on 
a regular basis. Since these skills are not usually used on a daily 
basis, trained persons may become less able to render these skills over 
time without periodic refresher training. In addition, what constitutes 
the best first-aid techniques and procedures changes over time. 
Employees need to be retrained so their skills include the best and 
most current practices.
    Paragraph (i)(7)(iii) of the final rule requires that the employer 
assure that each employee's first aid and CPR training and/or 
certificate of training remain current. The proposed rule did not 
contain a similar requirement. OSHA believes this provision is 
essential given the inclusion of the exception in the final rule for 
previously trained workers. In addition, it is essential because 
employers can comply with the first-aid training provisions without 
actually providing the training themselves. In essence, this provision 
is similar to the provision in paragraph (i)(5) reinforcing that the 
employer is responsible for assuring that the employee can safely 
perform the job, even if the employer has not been required to actually 
provide the training. Regardless of whether the employer provides 
training or allows employees to take a first-aid program offered by 
another organization, the employer is still responsible for assuring 
that employees can render first aid properly if called upon.
    At paragraph (i)(8) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that 
training be conducted by a designated person. As discussed above, a 
designated person is an employee who has the requisite knowledge, 
training and experience to perform the specific duties. The proposed 
rule did not contain a similar requirement.
    Some commenters said that it was important that training be 
conducted by a qualified or certified person (Ex. 9-3, 9-13, 9-16). 
OSHA has included this provision in the final rule because the Agency 
wants to assure that regardless of whether employers rely on their own 
personnel to conduct training or utilize outside experts, the person 
providing training must have the necessary qualifications and 
background in the subject matter being taught.
    Paragraph (i)(9) of the final rule requires that training required 
by this section be presented in a manner that the employee is able to 
understand. This provision also requires that the employer assure that 
training materials are appropriate in content and vocabulary to the 
educational level, literacy and language skills of the employees being 
trained. A similar provision was not contained in the proposed rule. 
OSHA has added this provision in the final rule as a way of ensuring 
that all employees, regardless of their cultural or educational 
background, will receive adequate training on how to perform their job 
safely. OSHA notes that this requirement applies to both logging and 
first-aid training.
    Paragraph (i)(10) requires the certification of training. While 
this provision was not contained in the proposed rule, several 
commenters stressed the need to document training (Ex. 9-16, 9-18; Tr. 
OR 137, 558-59, 643-44). OSHA agrees with these commenters that 
documenting training is necessary. First, in the final rule OSHA has 
allowed prior training to be acceptable in lieu of initial training. In 
the proposed rule, OSHA had required that each new employee, regardless 
of experience and prior training, receive training prior to initial 
assignment. In order to accept prior training in lieu of new training, 
OSHA believes employers must establish a process for determining 
whether the prior training was adequate. The certification procedure 
provides that process without imposing a significant burden. Second, 
several commenters said that many establishments do not currently 
document training (Tr. W1 95, OR 92). As such, employers do not have 
any records to indicate whether appropriate training has been provided.
    Third, some commenters testified that all training programs should 
be written programs (Ex. 5-17, 5-42). While many large logging 
establishments already have implemented impressive written training 
programs, OSHA is also aware that a written training and recordkeeping 
requirement would impose a paperwork burden and significant burden on 
small employers in this industry (Ex. 5-44). OSHA believes that 
training certification is a less burdensome way of documenting whether 
employees have been adequately trained. OSHA notes that the time and 
costs of training certification have been included in the final 
regulatory impact analysis.
    Paragraph (i)(10)(i) of the final rule requires that the employer 
verify compliance with paragraph (i) of this section by preparing a 
written certification record. This provision also requires that the 
written certification record contain the name or other identity of the 
employee trained, the date(s) of the training, and the signature of the 
person who conducted the training or the signature of the employer. In 
addition, this provision requires that if the employer relies on 
training conducted prior to the employee being hired or prior to the 
effective date of this section, the certification record shall indicate 
the date the employer determined the prior training was adequate rather 
than the date of actual training. The proposed rule did not contain a 
certification requirement.
    The Agency is adding this new provision to the final rule in large 
part because it is allowing prior training to be accepted in place of a 
new round of training. OSHA recognizes, given the transient nature of 
the workforce in this industry, that in many cases an employer will be 
unable to identify the date on which previous training was provided by 
another employer. In those cases, OSHA believes that knowing the date 
of the prior training is not as important as the employer's 
determination as to whether the prior training is adequate. As such, 
OSHA is requiring employers to certify on what date they determine the 
prior training to be adequate. In the final rule OSHA has included a 
measurable way to determine when and whether prior training had been 
adequate. The final rule requires that each new employee work under 
close supervision of a designated person until the employee 
demonstrates the ability to safely perform the job independently. In 
most cases, therefore, this demonstration date will constitute the 
certification date.
    Paragraph (i)(10)(ii) of the final rule requires that the most 
recent training certification be maintained. This provision has been 
included to limit the number of records that the employer is required 
to maintain on training.
    Paragraph (i)(11) of the final rule requires that the employer hold 
safety and health meetings as necessary and at least each month for 
each employee. This provision allows safety and health meetings to be 
conducted individually, in crew meetings, in larger groups, or as part 
of other staff meetings. The proposed rule did not contain a safety and 
health meeting requirement. Many State logging standards also require 
regular safety and health meetings in the logging industry (Ex. 2-17, 
2-22, 2-23, 36, 38K). For example, the State of Washington logging 
standard requires safety meetings to be held monthly and whenever work 
is started at a new work site.
    Many commenters supported the need for regular and ongoing safety 
and health meetings for both inexperienced and experienced workers (Ex. 
5-7, 5-19, 5-28; Tr. W1 93-95, 163, OR 92, 110, 137, 197, 204, 276, 
335, 374, 643-44, 691-92). Several of these commenters indicated that 
many establishments in the industry already hold safety and health 
meetings on a regular basis. Several commenters said safety and health 
meetings were an effective way of informing employees about hazards and 
keeping their safety awareness high (Ex. 5-19, 5-28; Tr. W1 93-95, 163, 
189-90, OR 92, 110, 137, 204, 276, 374, 643-44). One commenter said 
that documented monthly safety and health meetings were necessary on 
all logging operations ``to instill the necessary safe work attitude in 
all logging employees'' (Ex. 5-28). Commenters also said safety and 
health meetings were good for providing targeted information (Tr. W1 
94, 164, 189, OR 110, 204-05, 373, 643). For example, they said safety 
and health meetings were a way of informing employees about recent 
accidents and about lapses in safe work practices, and to alert 
employees about conditions and hazards peculiar to the job to be 
performed or the site to be logged that day.
    Commenters also said that safety and health meetings were necessary 
for both inexperienced and experienced loggers (Ex. 5-19, 5-28, 5-45; 
Tr. OR 335). One of these commenters said:

    We don't feel that just new employees or green men ought to be 
sitting in safety and health meetings. Repetition increases 
retention, and everyone can benefit if they've heard it a hundred 
times. Maybe they forgot it 99 [times] and it might save their life 
or their buddy's life the next day (Tr. OR 335).

    OSHA agrees with these commenters that safety and health meetings 
are necessary to reinforce proper work practices and to alert employees 
to particular hazards which are present in the workplace. OSHA believes 
that regular safety and health meetings will provide adequate 
retraining for employees in the logging industry, and that these 
meetings are necessary in lieu of requiring annual retraining of 
experienced workers.

Paragraph (j) Effective Date

    As stated in paragraph (j), this final rule becomes effective 120 
days after publication of the revised rule and preamble in the Federal 
Register. Employers must be in compliance with all requirements of this 
section by the effective date. One commenter recommended a three-year 
delay in the effective date of this final rule to allow for 
manufacturers' design and lead time and retrofitting of old equipment 
(Ex. 5-22). OSHA believes that 120 days is a reasonable compliance time 
for this standard for several reasons. First, the Agency is not 
requiring retrofitting ROPS and FOPS on old machines or chain brakes on 
chain saws. Those equipment requirements apply only to machines and 
chain saws placed into initial service after the effective date. OSHA 
believes that replacement of safety devices that have been removed, 
such as seat belts, should not require additional compliance time. 
Second, in the final rule OSHA has not adopted any equipment 
requirements that are not already standard safety features of equipment 
currently manufactured and readily available. Therefore, additional 
compliance time is not warranted.
    Finally, OSHA believes that allowing 120 days for employers to come 
into compliance will provide employers with adequate time to 
familiarize themselves with the final rule, to purchase needed 
equipment, and to develop and conduct required training.
    OSHA notes that the requirements of the existing pulpwood logging 
standard remain in effect until the effective date.

Paragraph (k) Appendices

    In paragraph (k) of the final rule, OSHA is specifying that 
Appendix A on contents of first-aid kits and Appendix B on content of 
first-aid training are mandatory. First-aid kits must contain at least 
the items listed in Appendix A to meet the requirements of paragraph 
(d)(2). First-aid training programs must cover the topics listed in 
Appendix B to meet the requirements of paragraph (i)(7). Appendix C 
contains a listing of comparable ISO standards to those Society of 
Automotive Engineer standards referenced in the final rule. These SAE 
standards cover ROPS, FOPS, seat belts and machine access. The 
information contained in Appendix C (Corresponding ISO Agreements) is 
purely informational and is not intended to create any additional 
obligations not otherwise imposed or to detract from existing 
obligations.

2. Summary and Explanation of Technical Amendments to 29 CFR 
1910.269(r) and 29 CFR 1928.21(a)(3)

    In this Federal Register document OSHA is also issuing technical 
amendments to the Electric Power Generation standard (29 CFR 1910.269) 
and to the standards for the agriculture industry (29 CFR 
1928.21(a)(3)). Both standards have included a reference to the 
existing logging standard. OSHA intends that both standards now 
reference the revised logging standard in place of the pulpwood logging 
standard.

VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and 
Environmental Assessment

A. Introduction

    The purpose of the revision of the existing pulpwood logging 
standard, 29 CFR 1910.266, is to protect all loggers from the hazards 
encountered during timber harvesting regardless of the end use of the 
wood. Hazards are present, for example, due to falling, rolling or 
sliding trees and logs, the use of hazardous equipment such as chain 
saws, and improper work practices. According to BLS, these hazards 
resulted in an accident incidence rate of 15.6 injuries per 100 full-
time workers in 1991, which is nearly twice the incidence rate of 7.9 
injuries per 100 full-time workers for overall private sector. The 
number of lost workdays in logging in 1991 was 274.8 per 100 full-time 
workers, which is about three times that of manufacturing and four 
times that of the overall private sector.
    The existing logging standard applies only to the logging of wood 
that is used to make pulp for paper and paperboard. Other logging 
operations are not covered by the existing standard. However, other 
general industry safety and health standards in Part 1910, such as but 
not limited to, Occupational Noise Exposure (29 CFR 1910.95), Lockout/
Tagout (29 CFR 1910.147), and Personal Protective Equipment (29 CFR 
Subpart I), apply to non-pulpwood logging operations, as well as the 
General Duty clause of the OSH Act (Section 5(a)(1)).
    The final rule expands the coverage of the pulpwood logging 
standard to include all logging operations, regardless of the end use 
of the wood. Many of the provisions in the pulpwood logging standard 
have been retained in this standard. Some provisions have been 
modified, such as those requiring safety and first-aid training for all 
employees, and personal protective equipment. In certain cases, work 
practices have been made more specific.
    It should be noted that six State Plan States (Alaska, California, 
Hawaii, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington) have developed logging 
standards that cover all logging operations and are not limited to just 
pulpwood logging.
    This Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) has been prepared by OSHA 
in compliance with Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The analysis was developed based on 
information and comments in the OSHA logging docket and informal public 
hearings.

B. Affected Industries and Workers

    For purposes of analysis, logging operations in the United States 
were divided in four relevant geographical regions--the North, the 
South, the Rocky Mountains, and the Pacific Coast. The leading States 
in logging employment in 1987 were Oregon, Washington, Alabama and 
Georgia, which accounted for 40 percent of logging employment. The 
final rule will affect approximately 72,100 employees engaged in 
logging operations covered by the final rule and 11,936 logging 
establishments. Almost 94 percent of all logging establishments employ 
fewer than 20 employees and 60 percent of all logging employees work in 
small establishments. These estimates do not include independent 
contractors.
    Affected workers include, but are not limited to, fellers and 
buckers, who cut the trees; skidder and yarder operators, choker 
setters, and chasers, who are responsible for delivering a felled tree 
to the landing; and loader operators and truck drivers, who load the 
trees onto trucks for transport to a mill. Although all stages of 
logging present hazards to workers, the loggers most at risk are manual 
felling crews rather than those who operate mechanical harvesting 
equipment and are protected by enclosed cabs.

C. Technological Feasibility Determination

    The work practice and training provisions as well as the 
requirements regarding personal protective equipment and equipment 
protective devices in the final rule are technologically feasible. The 
fact that the requirements of the standard already are being achieved 
in the logging industry is the best evidence of feasibility. The record 
shows that many logging establishments are currently providing the 
training, equipment protection devices and personal protective 
equipment that would meet the requirements of the new standard. In 
addition, the record also shows they are operating under the same work 
practices as those required by the standard. Based on the record, OSHA 
has determined that numerous logging establishments of all sizes are 
already in compliance with most of the provisions of the final 
standard. In addition, equipment protective devices and personal 
protective equipment which are required by the final rule are all 
commercially available. Therefore, OSHA has determined that the final 
rule is technologically feasible.

D. Costs of Compliance

    OSHA estimated compliance costs using data in the record on current 
practices and exposed population, including a report prepared by 
Centaur Associates, Inc. (Ex. 3). Based on all the data and evidence in 
the record, OSHA estimates that first-year costs associated with 
compliance will be $14.3 million. Total annualized cost of compliance 
with the standard is estimated to be $12.5 million. Table 22 shows the 
summary of costs of compliance with the final rule.

                        Table 22.--Summary of Costs to Comply With the Logging Standard                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                First year                                   Annualized         
              Provision                ----------------------------- Recurring cost ----------------------------
                                             Cost          (\1\)                          Cost          (\1\)   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training provisions:                                                                                            
  Safety training.....................      $1,481,635         10.3        $120,695        $120,695          1.0
  Safety meetings.....................         469,251          3.3         469,251         469,251          3.7
  First aid training..................       3,410,935         23.8       3,410,935       3,410,935        27.2 
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             5,361,820         37.4       4,000,881       4,000,881         31.9
Operators manuals.....................         189,293          1.3         189,293         189,293          1.5
Inspection and maintenance............       5,396,789         37.6       5,396,789       5,396,789         43.0
Safety belt replacement...............         493,282          3.4  ..............          80,279          0.6
First aid kits........................         267,593          1.9         232,028         232,028          1.8
Personal protective equipment.........       2,637,597         18.4       2,637,597       2,637,597        20.6 
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.............................      14,346,375  ...........      12,456,588      12,809,333  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: (\1\) The number in these columns represent the percentage of the total cost that each provision          
  represents and that are incurred in the first year and in each year thereafter.                               
Source: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.                                                                    

    Of the total annualized cost, 43 percent is attributable to 
inspection and maintenance of logging equipment. Training costs, which 
include safety and first-aid training as well as monthly safety and 
health meetings, account for 32 percent. Personal protective equipment 
accounts for about 21 percent of total annual costs. First-aid kits for 
1.9 percent. Replacement of operator manuals or instructions accounts 
for 1.5 percent and replacement of seat belts removed from machines and 
vehicles accounts for about 0.6 percent of total costs.

D. Benefits of the Revised Standard

    The record shows that injury rates in the logging industry are 
high. In 1991, there were 15.6 injuries per 100 workers in the logging 
industry as compared to an injury incidence rate of 7.9 and 11.2 per 
100 workers in the private industry and manufacturing sectors, 
respectively. Lost workday rates are especially high in the logging 
industry, indicating that most logging accidents are serious. Based on 
the data in the record, OSHA estimates that there are approximately 158 
fatalities, 6,798 lost workday injuries, and 3,770 nonlost workday 
injuries annually in the logging industry.
    The revised standard mandates a variety of methods of control to 
reduce hazards in the logging industry. Included in the standard are 
provisions for personal protective equipment, machine protective 
devices, equipment inspection and maintenance, work practices, and 
training. The revised standard is expected to significantly reduce the 
number of accidents, and, consequently, fatalities and injuries that 
occur in the logging industry. The ability of the revised standard to 
reduce accidents, injuries and fatalities depends largely on this 
integrated program of controls to deal with the range of hazards that 
exist in logging operations. For this reason, the effects of the 
overall standard on workplace safety is expected to be greater than the 
effects of the elements of the standard when considered individually. 
OSHA estimates that compliance with the final standard will prevent 111 
fatalities, 4,759 lost workday cases, and 2,639 nonlost workday cases 
annually (Table 23). These estimates were developed based on the 
comprehensiveness of the standard in dealing with the range of 
workplace hazards in logging. 

Table 23.--Reduction in Fatalities and Injuries From Compliance With the
                            Logging Standard                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Lost    Non-lost
                                Fatalities    Total    workday   workday
                                            injuries  injuries  injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline cases................        158     10,568     6,798     3,770
Cases avoided by compliance                                             
 with standard................        111      7,398     4,759     2,639
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis,  
  1994.                                                                 

F. Economic Feasibility Determination

    The projected economic impact of the final standard on the logging 
industry is small. The cost of full compliance with the standard 
represents only 0.1 percent of the value of shipments for this industry 
as a whole. Although these annual costs of compliance represent a 
relatively insignificant amount of total shipments, some firms will 
bear more costs than others depending on their existing compliance with 
the various provisions of the standard.
    The annual cost of compliance per logging establishment ranges from 
about $38 in California where firms are at a high level of compliance 
with their own State logging standard, to an average of $1,300 per 
establishment in the South where no comprehensive logging standards 
exists. These annual costs per establishment are insignificant when 
viewed in terms of other costs incurred by logging employers. It is 
expected that the costs of compliance with the final rule are too small 
to have a significant effect on price, employment, production, or 
profit rates.
    The impact of compliance with the final rule is expected to fall 
primarily on small businesses, because the vast majority of logging 
establishments employ fewer than 20 workers. The record shows that most 
large logging establishments are already in compliance with many of the 
provisions of the final rule. However, many small firms are also 
located in States that have comprehensive logging standards. These 
firms are currently in compliance with these standards and are able to 
operate while incurring these costs. Even if it is assumed that small 
firms will bear all the costs of compliance with the final rule, the 
economic impact is still small. OSHA estimates that the average cost 
per small firm is substantially less than 0.5 percent of the average 
annual value of shipments per firm and will be more than offset by the 
probable decrease in workers' compensation costs resulting from fewer 
injuries. Even small establishments that operate on less than a full-
time basis could incur the costs of compliance without experiencing an 
economic disruption that would threaten the competitive structure of 
the industry or cause any dislocation.
    Based on these estimates developed from data and evidence in the 
record, OSHA has concluded that the economic impact of the standard 
would not threaten the stability or profitability of the logging 
industry. In addition, neither the Gross National Product (GNP), the 
level of international trade, the price of consumer goods, nor the 
level of employment would be significantly affected.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Assistant 
Secretary has made a preliminary assessment of the impact of the rule 
on small entities. As discussed above, the estimated compliance costs 
for small firms (i.e, those employing fewer than 20 workers) are 
estimated to be less than 0.5 percent of the average annual value of 
shipments per firm and will be more than offset by the probable 
decrease in workers' compensation costs resulting from reduction in 
logging accidents. As is the case for compliance costs for all firms 
covered under the standard, the costs of compliance for small firms 
would be very small compared with net income. Therefore, OSHA does not 
anticipate the final rule will have a significant impact on small 
firms.

H. Environmental Impact Assessment

    The revisions to the standard have been reviewed in accordance with 
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the regulations of the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1500), and the Department of Labor 
(DOL) NEPA Procedures (29 CFR 11). As a result of this review, OSHA has 
determined that the rule will have no significant environmental impact.
    The provisions focus on training, work practices, personal 
protective equipment, and protective devices on equipment in order to 
reduce worker fatalities and injuries. In general, these provisions do 
not impact on air, water, or soil quality, plant or animal life, the 
use of land, or other aspects of the environment. The revisions are 
considered excluded actions under Subpart B, Section 11.10 of the DOL 
NEPA regulations.

VII. References

    In this preamble to the revised logging standard, OSHA has referred 
to the following public documents in addition to the materials 
contained in the docket for this rulemaking:

    1. Bureau of the Census, 1987 Census of Manufacturers, Industry 
Series, Logging Camps, Sawmills and Planing Mills, U.S. Department 
of Commerce, February 1987.
    2. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, U.S. 
Department of Labor, June 18, 1993.
    3. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation--March 1993, U.S. Department of Labor, June 18, 1993.
    4. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1992: 
A Collection of Data and Analysis, U.S. Department of Labor, April 
1994.
    5. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Injuries and 
Illnesses in the United States by Industry, 1990, Bulletin 2399, 
U.S. Department of Labor, April 1992.
    6. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Injuries and 
Illnesses in the United States by Industry, 1991, Bulletin 2424, 
U.S. Department of Labor, May 1993.
    7. Burgess, Joe, et al., Timber Harvesting Equipment Costs 1994.
    8. Eastern Research Group, Inc. An Economic Analysis for an OSHA 
Standard for Occupational Motor Vehicle Safety. October 1989.
    9. Forestry Suppliers, Inc., Forestry, Engineering and 
Environmental Equipment Catalog, Jackson, Mississippi, 1994.
    10. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Industrial Outlook 1993, 
January 1993.
    11. U.S. Forest Service, An Analysis of the Timber Situation in 
the United States: 1989-2040, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
December 1990.

VIII. Statutory Considerations

A. Introduction

    OSHA has described the hazards confronted by employees who work in 
the logging industry and the measures required to protect affected 
employees from those hazards in Section I, Background, and Section III, 
Summary and Explanation of the Standard, respectively, earlier in this 
preamble. The Agency is providing the following discussion of the 
statutory mandate for OSHA rulemaking activity to explain the legal 
basis for its determination that the logging operations standard, as 
promulgated, is reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from 
significant risks of injury and death.
    Section 2(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
authorizes ``the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational 
safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting 
interstate commerce'', and section 5(a)(2) provides that ``[e]ach 
employer shall comply with occupational safety and health standards 
promulgated under this Act'' (emphasis added). Section 3(8) of the OSH 
Act (29 U.S.C. 652(8)) provides that ``the term `occupational safety 
and health standard' means a standard which requires conditions, or the 
adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, 
or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or 
healthful employment and places of employment.''
    In two recent cases, reviewing courts have expressed concern that 
OSHA's interpretation of these provisions of the OSH Act, particularly 
of section 3(8) as it pertains to safety rulemaking, could lead to 
overly costly or under-protective safety standards. In International 
Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the District of 
Columbia Circuit rejected substantive challenges to OSHA's lockout/
tagout standard and denied a request that enforcement of that standard 
be stayed, but it also expressed concern that OSHA's interpretation of 
the OSH Act could lead to safety standards that are very costly and 
only minimally protective. In National Grain & Feed Ass'n v. OSHA, 866 
F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1989), the Fifth Circuit concluded that Congress 
gave OSHA considerable discretion in structuring the costs and benefits 
of safety standards but, concerned that the grain dust standard might 
be under-protective, directed OSHA to consider adding a provision that 
might further reduce significant risk of fire and explosion.
    OSHA rulemakings involve a significant degree of agency expertise 
and policy-making discretion to which reviewing courts must defer. (See 
for example, Building & Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 
F.2d 1258, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. 
American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 655 n. 62 (1980).) At the same 
time, the agency's technical expertise and policy-making authority must 
be exercised within discernable parameters. The lockout/tagout and 
grain handling standard decisions sought from OSHA more clarification 
on the agency's view of the scope of those parameters. In light of 
those decisions, OSHA believes it would be useful to include in the 
preamble to this safety standard a statement of its view of the limits 
of its safety rulemaking authority and to explain why it is confident 
that its interpretive views have in the past avoided regulatory 
extremes and continue to do so in this rule.
    Stated briefly, the OSH Act requires that, before promulgating any 
occupational safety standard, OSHA demonstrate based on substantial 
evidence in the record as a whole that: (1) The proposed standard will 
substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm; (2) 
compliance is technologically feasible in the sense that the protective 
measures being required already exist, can be brought into existence 
with available technology, or can be created with technology that can 
reasonably be developed; (3) compliance is economically feasible in the 
sense that industry can absorb or pass on the costs without major 
dislocation or threat of instability; and (4) the standard is cost 
effective in that it employs the least expensive protective measures 
capable of reducing or eliminating significant risk. Additionally, 
proposed safety standards must be compatible with prior agency action, 
must be responsive to significant comment in the record, and, to the 
extent allowed by statute, must be consistent with applicable Executive 
Orders. These elements limit OSHA's regulatory discretion for safety 
rulemaking and provide a decision-making framework for developing a 
rule within their parameters.

B. Congress Concluded That OSHA Regulations Are Necessary To Protect 
Workers From Occupational Hazards and That Employers Should Be Required 
To Reduce or Eliminate Significant Workplace Health and Safety Threats

    At section 2(a) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651(a)), Congress 
announced its determination that occupational injury and illness should 
be eliminated as much as possible: ``The Congress finds that 
occupational injury and illness arising out of work situations impose a 
substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in 
terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disability 
compensation payments.'' Congress therefore declared ``it to be its 
purpose and policy * * * to assure so far as possible every working man 
and woman in the Nation safe * * * working conditions [29 U.S.C. 
651(b)].''
    To that end, Congress instructed the Secretary of Labor to adopt 
existing federal and consensus standards during the first two years 
after the OSH Act became effective and, in the event of conflict among 
any such standards, to ``promulgate the standard which assures the 
greatest protection of the safety or health of the affected employees 
[29 U.S.C. 655(a)].'' Congress also directed the Secretary to set 
mandatory occupational safety standards [29 U.S.C. 651(b)(3)], based on 
a rulemaking record and substantial evidence [29 U.S.C. 655(b)(2)], 
that are ``reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe * * * 
employment and places of employment.'' When promulgating permanent 
safety or health standards that differ from existing national consensus 
standards, the Secretary must explain ``why the rule as adopted will 
better effectuate the purposes of this Act than the national consensus 
standard [29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)].'' Correspondingly, every employer must 
comply with OSHA standards and, in addition, ``furnish to each of his 
employees employment and a place of employment which are free from 
recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or 
serious physical harm to his employees [29 U.S.C. 654(a)].''
    ``Congress understood that the Act would create substantial costs 
for employers, yet intended to impose such costs when necessary to 
create a safe and healthful working environment. Congress viewed the 
costs of health and safety as a cost of doing business. * * * Indeed, 
Congress thought that the financial costs of health and safety problems 
in the workplace were as large as or larger than the financial costs of 
eliminating these problems [American Textile Mfrs. Inst. Inc. v. 
Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 519-522 (1981) (ATMI); emphasis was supplied in 
original].'' ``[T]he fundamental objective of the Act [is] to prevent 
occupational deaths and serious injuries [Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 
445 U.S. 1, 11 (1980)].'' ``We know the costs would be put into 
consumer goods but that is the price we should pay for the 80 million 
workers in America [S. Rep. No. 91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970); 
H.R. Rep. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), reprinted in Senate 
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Legislative History of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, (Committee Print 1971) 
(``Leg. Hist.'') at 444 (Senator Yarborough)].'' ``Of course, it will 
cost a little more per item to produce a washing machine. Those of us 
who use washing machines will pay for the increased cost, but it is 
worth it, to stop the terrible death and injury rate in this country 
[Id. at 324; see also 510-511, 517].''

    [T]he vitality of the Nation's economy will be enhanced by the 
greater productivity realized through saved lives and useful years 
of labor.
    When one man is injured or disabled by an industrial accident or 
disease, it is he and his family who suffer the most immediate and 
personal loss. However, that tragic loss also affects each of us. As 
a result of occupational accidents and disease, over $1.5 billion in 
wages is lost each year [1970 dollars], and the annual loss to the 
gross national product is estimated to be over $8 billion. Vast 
resources that could be available for productive use are siphoned 
off to pay workmen's compensation and medical expenses. * * *
    Only through a comprehensive approach can we hope to effect a 
significant reduction in these job death and casualty figures. [Id. 
at 518-19 (Senator Cranston)]

    Congress considered uniform enforcement crucial because it would 
reduce or eliminate the disadvantage that a conscientious employer 
might experience when inter-industry or intra-industry competition is 
present. Moreover, ``many employers--particularly smaller ones--simply 
cannot make the necessary investment in health and safety, and survive 
competitively, unless all are compelled to do so [Leg. Hist. at 144, 
854, 1188, 1201].''
    Thus, the statutory text and legislative history make clear that 
Congress conclusively determined that OSHA regulation is necessary to 
protect workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be 
required to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety 
threats.

C. As Construed by the Courts and by OSHA, the OSH Act Sets a Threshold 
and a Ceiling for Safety Rulemaking That Provide Clear and Reasonable 
Parameters for Agency Action

    OSHA has long followed the teaching that section 3(8) of the OSH 
Act requires that, before it promulgates ``any permanent health or 
safety standard, [it must] make a threshold finding that a place of 
employment is unsafe--in the sense that significant risks are present 
and can be eliminated or lessened by a change in practices [Industrial 
Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 642 
(1980) (plurality) (Benzene); emphasis was supplied in original].'' 
When, as frequently happens in safety rulemaking, OSHA promulgates 
standards that differ from existing national consensus standards, it 
must explain ``why the rule as adopted will better effectuate the 
purposes of this Act than the national consensus standard [29 U.S.C. 
655(b)(8)].'' Thus, national consensus and existing federal standards 
that Congress instructed OSHA to adopt summarily within two years of 
the OSH Act's inception provide reference points concerning the least 
an OSHA standard should achieve (29 U.S.C. 655(a)). As a result, OSHA 
is precluded from regulating insignificant safety risks or from issuing 
safety standards that do not at least lessen risk in a significant way.
    The OSH Act also limits OSHA's discretion to issue overly 
burdensome rules, as the agency also has long recognized that ``any 
standard that was not economically or technologically feasible would a 
fortiori not be `reasonably necessary or appropriate' under the Act. 
See Industrial Union Dep't v. Hodgson [499 F.2d 467, 478 (D.C. Cir. 
1974)] (`Congress does not appear to have intended to protect employees 
by putting their employers out of business.') [American Textile Mfrs. 
Inst. Inc., 452 U.S. at 513 n. 31 (a standard is economically feasible 
even if it portends `disaster for some marginal firms,' but it is 
economically infeasible if it `threaten[s] massive dislocation to, or 
imperil[s] the existence of,' the industry)].''
    By stating the test in terms of ``threat'' and ``peril,'' the 
Supreme Court made clear in ATMI that economic infeasibility begins 
short of industry-wide bankruptcy. OSHA itself has placed the line 
considerably below this level. (See for example, ATMI, 452 U.S. at 527 
n. 50; 43 FR 27,360 (June 23, 1978). Proposed 200 g/m\3\ PEL 
for cotton dust did not raise serious possibility of industry-wide 
bankruptcy, but impact on weaving sector would be severe, possibly 
requiring reconstruction of 90 percent of all weave rooms. OSHA 
concluded that the 200 g/m\3\ level was not feasible for 
weaving and that 750 g/m\3\ was all that could reasonably be 
required). See also 54 FR 29,245-246 (July 11, 1989); American Iron & 
Steel Institute, 939 F.2d at 1003. OSHA raised the engineering control 
level for lead in small nonferrous foundries to avoid the possibility 
of bankruptcy for about half of small foundries even though the 
industry as a whole could have survived the loss of small firms. 
Although the cotton dust and lead rulemakings involved health 
standards, the economic feasibility ceiling established therein applies 
equally to safety standards. Indeed, because feasibility is a necessary 
element of a ``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' standard, this 
ceiling boundary is the same for health and safety rulemaking since it 
comes from section 3(8), which governs all permanent OSHA standards.
    All OSHA standards must also be cost-effective in the sense that 
the protective measures being required must be the least expensive 
measures capable of achieving the desired end (ATMI, at 514 n. 32; 
Building and Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 
1269 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). OSHA gives additional consideration to 
financial impact in setting the period of time that should be allowed 
for compliance, allowing as much as ten years for compliance phase-in. 
(See United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1278 (D.C. 
Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981).) Additionally, OSHA's 
enforcement policy takes account of financial hardship on an 
individualized basis. OSHA's Field Operations Manual provides that, 
based on an employer's economic situation, OSHA may extend the period 
within which a violation must be corrected after issuance of a citation 
(CPL. 2.45B, Chapter III, paragraph E6d(3)(a), Dec. 31, 1990).
    To reach the necessary findings and conclusions that a safety 
standard substantially reduces a significant risk of harm, is both 
technologically and economically feasible, and is cost effective, OSHA 
must conduct rulemaking in accord with the requirements of section 6 of 
the OSH Act. The regulatory proceeding allows it to determine the 
qualitative and, if possible, the quantitative nature of the risk with 
and without regulation, the technological feasibility of compliance, 
the availability of capital to the industry and the extent to which 
that capital is required for other purposes, the industry's profit 
history, the industry's ability to absorb costs or pass them on to the 
consumer, the impact of higher costs on demand, and the impact on 
competition with substitutes and imports. (See ATMI at 2501-2503; 
American Iron & Steel Institute generally.) Section 6(f) of the OSH Act 
further provides that, if the validity of a standard is challenged, 
OSHA must support its conclusions with ``substantial evidence in the 
record considered as a whole,'' a standard that courts have determined 
requires fairly close scrutiny of agency action and the explanation of 
that action. (See Steelworkers, 647 F.2d at 1206-1207.)
    OSHA's powers are further circumscribed by the independent 
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which provides a 
neutral forum for employer contests of citations issued by OSHA for 
noncompliance with health and safety standards (29 U.S.C. 659-661; 
noted as an additional constraint in Benzene at 652 n. 59). OSHA must 
also respond rationally to similarities and differences among 
industries or industry sectors. (See Building and Constr. Trades Dep't, 
AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1272-73 (D.C. Cir. 1988).)
    OSHA safety rulemaking is thus constrained first by the need to 
demonstrate that the standard will substantially reduce a significant 
risk of material harm, and then by the requirement that compliance is 
technologically capable of being done and not so expensive as to 
threaten economic instability or dislocation for the industry. Within 
these parameters, further constraints such as the need to find cost-
effective measures and to respond rationally to all meaningful comment 
militate against regulatory extremes.

D. The Logging Operations Standard Complies With the Statutory Criteria 
Described Above and Is Not Subject to the Additional Constraints 
Applicable to Section 6(b)(5) Standards

    Standards which regulate hazards that are frequently undetectable 
because they are subtle or develop slowly or after long latency 
periods, are frequently referred to as ``health'' standards. Standards 
that regulate hazards, like explosions or electrocution, that cause 
immediately noticeable physical harm, are called ``safety'' standards. 
(See National Grain & Feed Ass'n v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d 717, 731, 
733 (5th Cir. 1989). As noted above, section 3(8) provides that all 
OSHA standards must be ``reasonably necessary or appropriate.'' In 
addition, section 6(b)(5) requires that OSHA set health standards which 
limit significant risk ``to the extent feasible.'' OSHA has determined 
that the revised PPE standard is a safety standard, because the revised 
PPE standard addresses hazards, such as molten metal, falling objects 
and electricity, that are immediately dangerous to life or health, not 
the longer term, less obvious hazards subject to section 6(b)(5).
    The OSH Act and its legislative history clearly indicate that 
Congress intended for OSHA to distinguish between safety standards and 
health standards. For example in section 2(b)(6) of the OSH Act, 
Congress declared that the goal of assuring safe and healthful working 
conditions and preserving human resources would be achieved, in part:

* * * by exploring ways to discover latent diseases, establishing 
causal connections between diseases and work in environmental 
conditions, and conducting other research relating to health 
problems, in recognition of the fact that occupational health 
standards present problems often different from those involved in 
occupational safety.

    The legislative history makes this distinction even clearer:

    [The Secretary] should take into account that anyone working in 
toxic agents and physical agents which might be harmful may be 
subjected to such conditions for the rest of his working life, so 
that we can get at something which might not be toxic now, if he 
works in it a short time, but if he works in it the rest of his life 
might be very dangerous; and we want to make sure that such things 
are taken into consideration in establishing standards. [Leg. Hist. 
at 502-503 (Sen. Dominick), quoted in Benzene at 648-49]

    Additionally, Representative Daniels distinguished between 
``insidious `silent killers' such as toxic fumes, bases, acids, and 
chemicals'' and ``violent physical injury causing immediate visible 
physical harm'' (Leg. Hist. at 1003), and Representative Udall 
contrasted insidious hazards like carcinogens with ``the more visible 
and well-known question of industrial accidents and on-the-job injury'' 
(Leg. Hist. at 1004). (See also, for example, S. Rep. No. 1282, 91st 
Cong., 2d Sess 2-3 (1970), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1970, pp. 
5177, 5179, reprinted in Leg. Hist. at 142-43, discussing 1967 Surgeon 
General study that found that 65 percent of employees in industrial 
plants ``were potentially exposed to harmful physical agents, such as 
severe noise or vibration, or to toxic materials''; Leg. Hist. at 412; 
id. at 446; id. at 516; id. at 845; International Union, UAW at 1315.)
    In reviewing OSHA rulemaking activity, the Supreme Court has held 
that section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA to set ``the most protective 
standard consistent with feasibility'' (Benzene at 643 n. 48). As 
Justice Stevens observed:

    The reason that Congress drafted a special section for these 
substances * * * was because Congress recognized that there were 
special problems in regulating health risks as opposed to safety 
risks. In the latter case, the risks are generally immediate and 
obvious, while in the former, the risks may not be evident until a 
worker has been exposed for long periods of time to particular 
substances. [Benzene, at 649 n. 54.]

    Challenges to the grain dust and lockout/tagout standards included 
assertions that grain dust in explosive quantities and uncontrolled 
energy releases that could expose employees to crushing, cutting, 
burning or explosion hazards were harmful physical agents so that OSHA 
was required to apply the criteria of section 6(b)(5) when determining 
how to protect employees from those hazards. Reviewing courts have 
uniformly rejected such assertions. For example, the Court in 
International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 
rejected the view that section 6(b)(5) provided the statutory criteria 
for regulation of uncontrolled energy, holding that such a ``reading 
would obliterate a distinction that Congress drew between `health' and 
`safety' risks.'' The Court also noted that the language of the OSH Act 
and the legislative history supported the OSHA position (International 
Union, UAW at 1314). Additionally, the Court stated: ``We accord 
considerable weight to an agency's construction of a statutory scheme 
it is entrusted to administer, rejecting it only if unreasonable'' 
(International Union, UAW at 1313, citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 
467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)).
    The Court reviewing the grain dust standard also deferred to OSHA's 
reasonable view that the Agency was not subject to the feasibility 
mandate of section 6(b)(5) in regulating explosive quantities of grain 
dust (National Grain & Feed Association v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d 
717, 733 (5th Cir. 1989)). It therefore applied the criteria of section 
3(8), requiring the Agency to establish that the standard is 
``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' to protect employee safety.
    As explained in Section III, Basis for Agency Action, and Section 
V, Summary and Explanation of the Standard, and Section VI, Summary of 
the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, of this preamble, OSHA has determined that logging operations 
pose significant risks to employees (158 fatalities, 6,798 lost workday 
injuries, and 3,770 nonlost workday injuries each year). The Agency 
estimates that compliance with the logging operations standard will 
cost $12.8 million annually and will reduce the risk of the hazards 
encountered during logging operations (i.e., 111 fatalities, 4,759 lost 
workday injuries, and 2,639 nonlost workday injuries). This constitutes 
a substantial reduction of significant risk of material harm to the 
72,100 logging industry employees affected. The Agency believes that 
compliance is technologically feasible because the rulemaking record 
indicates that the hazard control measures required by the standard 
have already been implemented, to some extent, for all the logging 
operations covered by the standard. Additionally, OSHA believes that 
compliance is economically feasible, because, as documented by the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis, all regulated sectors can readily absorb or 
pass on compliance costs and economic benefits will exceed compliance 
costs.
    As detailed in Section V, Summary and Explanation of the Standard, 
and in Section VI, Summary of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, the standard's costs, benefits, and 
compliance requirements are reasonable and consistent with those of 
other OSHA safety standards, such as PPE ($52.4 million annual cost of 
compliance and will prevent 4 fatalities and 102,000 injuries annually) 
and Grain Handling ($5.9 to 33.4 million annual cost of compliance and 
will prevent 18 fatalities and 394 injuries annually) (Cf., 59 FR 
16359, April 6, 1994).
    OSHA assessed employee risk by evaluating exposure to hazards in 
the logging industry. The Regulatory Flexibility Assessment, Section VI 
above, presents OSHA's estimate of the costs and benefits of the 
revised logging standard.
    OSHA has considered and responded to all substantive comments 
regarding the proposed logging standard on their merits in Section IV, 
Major Issues, and Section V, Summary and Explanation of the Standard, 
earlier in this preamble. In particular, OSHA evaluated all suggested 
changes to the proposed rule in terms of their impact on worker safety, 
their feasibility, their cost effectiveness, and their consonance with 
the OSH Act.

IX. Recordkeeping

    This final rule does not contain any recordkeeping requirements.

X. Federalism

    This standard has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 
12612, 52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987), regarding Federalism. This Order 
requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting 
State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any actions 
that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions only 
when there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a 
problem of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of State 
law only if there is a clear Congressional intent for the agency to do 
so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
    Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), 
expresses Congress' clear intent to preempt State laws relating to 
issues with respect to which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational 
safety or health standards. Under the OSH Act a State can avoid 
preemption only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan 
for the development of such standards and their enforcement. 
Occupational safety and health standards developed by such Plan-States 
must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing safe 
and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal 
standards.
    The logging standard is drafted so that loggers in every State 
would be protected by general, performance-oriented standards. To the 
extent that there are State or regional peculiarities caused by the 
types of timber to be logged, the terrain, the climate or other 
factors, States with occupational safety and health plans approved 
under Section 18 of the OSH Act would be able to develop their own 
State standards to deal with any special problems. Moreover, the 
performance nature of this proposed standard, of and by itself, allows 
for flexibility by States and loggers to provide as much safety as 
possible using varying methods consonant with conditions in each State.
    In short, there is a clear national problem related to occupational 
safety and health in the logging industry. While the individual States, 
if all acted, might be able collectively to deal with the safety 
problems involved, most have not elected to do so in the twenty-four 
years since the enactment of the OSH Act. Those States which have 
elected to participate under Section 18 of the OSH Act would not be 
preempted by this standard and would be able to deal with special, 
local conditions within the framework provided by this performance-
oriented standard while ensuring that their standards are at least as 
effective as the Federal standard. State comments are invited on this 
proposal and will be fully considered prior to promulgation of a final 
rule.

XI. State Plan Standards

    The 25 States with their own OSHA approved occupational safety and 
health plans must adopt a comparable standard within six months of the 
publication date of the final standard. These States are: Alaska, 
Arizona, California, Connecticut (for State and local government 
employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York (for State and local government 
employees only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and 
Wyoming. Until such time as a State standard is promulgated, Federal 
OSHA will provide interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in 
these States.

List of Subjects

29 CFR Part 1910

    Chain saw, Forestry, Harvesting, Incorporation by reference, 
Logging, Occupational safety and health, Pulpwood timber, Safety, 
Training.

29 CFR Part 1928

    Agriculture, Migrant labor, Occupational safety and health.

XII. Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear, 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
    Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of 
Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033), and 29 CFR part 1911, 29 CFR parts 
1910 and 1928 are amended as set forth below.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of October 1994.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

Subpart R--Special Industries

    1. The authority citation for subpart R of part 1910 is revised to 
read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 12-
71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or 1-90 (55 
FR 9033), as applicable.
    Sections 1910.261, 1910.262, 1910.265, 1910.266, 1910.267, 
1910.268, 1910.272, 1910.274, and 1910.275 also issued under 29 CFR 
part 1911.
    Section 1910.272 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.

    2. Section 1910.266 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.266  Logging operations.

    (a) Table of contents.
    This paragraph contains the list of paragraphs and appendices 
contained in this section.

a. Table of contents
b. Scope and application
c. Definitions
d. General requirements
    1. Personal protective equipment
    2. First-aid kits
    3. Seat belts
    4. Fire extinguishers
    5. Environmental conditions
    6. Work areas
    7. Signaling and signal equipment
    8. Overhead electric lines
    9. Flammable and combustible liquids
    10. Explosives and blasting agents
e. Hand and portable powered tools
    1. General requirements
    2. Chain saws
f. Machines
    1. General requirements
    2. Machine operation
    3. Protective structures
    4. Overhead guards
    5. Machine access
    6. Exhaust systems
    7. Brakes
    8. Guarding
g. Vehicles
h. Tree harvesting
    1. General requirements
    2. Manual felling
    3. Bucking and limbing
    4. Chipping
    5. Yarding
    6. Loading and unloading
    7. Transport
    8. Storage
i. Training
j. Effective date
k. Appendices

Appendix A--Minimum First-aid Supplies

Appendix B--Minimum First-aid Training

Appendix C--Corresponding ISO Agreements

    (b) Scope and application.
    (1) This standard establishes safety practices, means, methods and 
operations for all types of logging, regardless of the end use of the 
wood. These types of logging include, but are not limited to, pulpwood 
and timber harvesting and the logging of sawlogs, veneer bolts, poles, 
pilings and other forest products. This standard does not cover the 
construction or use of cable yarding systems.
    (2) This standard applies to all logging operations as defined by 
this section.
    (3) Hazards and working conditions not specifically addressed by 
this section are covered by other applicable sections of Part 1910.
    (c) Definitions applicable to this section.
    Arch. An open-framed trailer or built-up framework used to suspend 
the leading ends of trees or logs when they are skidded.
    Backcut (felling cut). The final cut in a felling operation.
    Ballistic nylon. A nylon fabric of high tensile properties designed 
to provide protection from lacerations.
    Buck. To cut a felled tree into logs.
    Butt. The bottom of the felled part of a tree.
    Cable yarding. The movement of felled trees or logs from the area 
where they are felled to the landing on a system composed of a cable 
suspended from spars and/or towers. The trees or logs may be either 
dragged across the ground on the cable or carried while suspended from 
the cable.
    Chock. A block, often wedge shaped, which is used to prevent 
movement; e.g., a log from rolling, a wheel from turning.
    Choker. A sling used to encircle the end of a log for yarding. One 
end is passed around the load, then through a loop eye, end fitting or 
other device at the other end of the sling. The end that passed through 
the end fitting or other device is then hooked to the lifting or 
pulling machine.
    Danger tree. A standing tree that presents a hazard to employees 
due to conditions such as, but not limited to, deterioration or 
physical damage to the root system, trunk, stem or limbs, and the 
direction and lean of the tree.
    Debark. To remove bark from trees or logs.
    Deck. A stack of trees or logs.
    Designated person. An employee who has the requisite knowledge, 
training and experience to perform specific duties.
    Domino felling. The partial cutting of multiple trees which are 
left standing and then pushed over with a pusher tree.
    Fell (fall). To cut down trees.
    Feller (faller). An employee who fells trees.
    Grounded. The placement of a component of a machine on the ground 
or on a device where it is firmly supported.
    Guarded. Covered, shielded, fenced, enclosed, or otherwise 
protected by means of suitable enclosures, covers, casings, shields, 
troughs, railings, screens, mats, or platforms, or by location, to 
prevent injury.
    Health care provider. A health care practitioner operating with the 
scope of his/her license, certificate, registration or legally 
authorized practice.
    Landing. Any place where logs are laid after being yarded, and 
before transport from the work site.
    Limbing. To cut branches off felled trees.
    Lodged tree (hung tree). A tree leaning against another tree or 
object which prevents it from falling to the ground.
    Log. A segment sawed or split from a felled tree, such as, but not 
limited to, a section, bolt, or tree length.
    Logging operations. Operations associated with felling and moving 
trees and logs from the stump to the point of delivery, such as, but 
not limited to, marking, felling, bucking, limbing, debarking, 
chipping, yarding, loading, unloading, storing, and transporting 
machines, equipment and personnel from one site to another.
    Machine. A piece of stationary or mobile equipment having a self-
contained powerplant, that is operated off-road and used for the 
movement of material. Machines include but are not limited to tractors, 
skidders, front-end loaders, scrapers, graders, bulldozers, swing 
yarders, log stackers and mechanical felling devices, such as tree 
shears and feller-bunchers.
    Rated capacity. The maximum load a system, vehicle, machine or 
piece of equipment was designed by the manufacturer to handle.
    Root wad. The ball of a tree root and dirt that is pulled from the 
ground when a tree is uprooted.
    Serviceable condition. A state or ability of a tool, machine, 
vehicle or other device to operate as it was intended by the 
manufacturer to operate.
    Skidding. The yarding of trees or logs by pulling or towing them 
across the ground.
    Slope (grade). The increase or decrease in altitude over a 
horizontal distance expressed as a percentage. For example, a change of 
altitude of 20 feet (6 m) over a horizontal distance of 100 feet (30 m) 
is expressed as a 20 percent slope.
    Snag. Any standing dead tree or portion thereof.
    Spring pole. A tree, segment of a tree, limb, or sapling which is 
under stress or tension due to the pressure or weight of another 
object.
    Tie down. Chain, cable, steel strips or fiber webbing and binders 
attached to a truck, trailer or other conveyance as a means to secure 
loads and to prevent them from shifting or moving when they are being 
transported.
    Undercut. A notch cut in a tree to guide the direction of the tree 
fall and to prevent splitting or kickback.
    Vehicle. A car, bus, truck, trailer or semi-trailer that is used 
for transportation of employees or movement of material.
    Winching. The winding of cable or rope onto a spool or drum.
    Yarding. The movement of logs from the place they are felled to a 
landing.
    (d) General requirements. (1) Personal protective equipment. (i) 
The employer shall assure that personal protective equipment, including 
any personal protective equipment provided by an employee, is 
maintained in a serviceable condition.
    (ii) The employer shall assure that personal protective equipment, 
including any personal protective equipment provided by an employee, is 
inspected before initial use during each workshift. Defects or damage 
shall be repaired or the unserviceable personal protective equipment 
shall be replaced before work is commenced.
    (iii) The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and 
assure that each employee handling wire rope wears cotton gloves or 
other hand protection which the employer demonstrates provides 
equivalent protection.
    (iv) The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and 
assure that each employee who operates a chain saw wears ballistic 
nylon leg protection or other leg protection the employer demonstrates 
provides equivalent protection. The leg protection shall cover the full 
length of the thigh to the top of the boot on each leg to protect 
against contact with a moving chain saw. Exception: This requirement 
does not apply when an employee is working as a climber if the employer 
demonstrates that a greater hazard is posed by wearing leg protection 
in the particular situation, or when an employee is working from a 
vehicular mounted elevating and rotating work platform meeting the 
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.68.
    (v) The employer shall assure that each employee shall wears foot 
protection, such as heavy-duty logging boots, that are waterproof or 
water repellant, cover and provide support to the ankle, and protect 
the employee from penetration by chain saws. Sharp, calk-soled boots or 
other slip-resistant type boots may be worn where the employer 
demonstrates that they are necessary for the employee's job, the 
terrain, the timber type, and the weather conditions, provided that 
foot protection otherwise required by this paragraph is met.
    (vi) The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and 
assure that each employee who works in an area where there is potential 
for head injury from falling or flying objects wears head protection 
meeting the requirements of subpart I of Part 1910.
    (vii) The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and 
assure that each employee who works in an area there is a potential for 
injury due to falling or flying objects wears eye and face protection 
meeting the requirements of subpart I of Part 1910. Logger-type mesh 
screens may be worn where the employer demonstrates that they provide 
equivalent protection.
    (2) First-aid kits. (i) The employer shall provide first-aid kits 
at each work site where felling is being conducted, at each landing, 
and on each employee transport vehicle. The number of first-aid kits 
and the content of each kit shall reflect the degree of isolation, the 
number of employees, and the hazards reasonably anticipated at the work 
site.
    (ii) At a minimum, each first-aid kit shall contain the items 
listed in Appendix A at all times.
    (iii) The number and content of first-aid kits shall be reviewed 
and approved at least annually by a health care provider.
    (iv) The employer shall maintain the contents of each first-aid kit 
in a serviceable condition.
    (3) Seat belts. For each vehicle or machine (equipped with ROPS/
FOPS or overhead guards), including any vehicle or machine provided by 
an employee, the employer shall assure:
    (i) That a seat belt is provided for each vehicle or machine 
operator;
    (ii) That each employee uses the available seat belt while the 
vehicle or machine is being operated;
    (iii) That each employee securely and tightly fastens the seat belt 
to restrain the employee within the vehicle or machine cab;
    (iv) That each machine seat belt meets the requirements of the 
Society of Automotive Engineers Standard SAE J386, June 1985, 
``Operator Restraint Systems for Off-Road Work Machines.'' This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
may be obtained from the Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 
Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. Copies may be inspected at 
the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., room N2625, 
Washington, DC 20210, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 
North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (v) That seat belts are not removed from any vehicle or machine. 
The employer shall replace each seat belt which has been removed from 
any vehicle or machine that was equipped with seat belts at the time of 
manufacture; and
    (vi) That each seat belt is maintained in a serviceable condition.
    (4) Fire extinguishers. The employer shall provide and maintain 
portable fire extinguishers on each machine and vehicle in accordance 
with the requirements of subpart L of Part 1910.
    (5) Environmental conditions. All work shall terminate and each 
employee shall move to a place of safety when environmental conditions, 
such as but not limited to, electrical storms, high winds, heavy rain 
or snow, extreme cold, dense fog, fires, mudslides, and darkness, may 
endanger an employee in the performance of their job.
    (6) Work areas. (i) Employees shall be spaced and the duties of 
each employee shall be organized so the actions of one employee will 
not create a hazard for any other employee.
    (ii) Work areas shall be assigned so that trees cannot fall into an 
adjacent occupied work area. The distance between adjacent occupied 
work areas shall be at least two tree lengths of the trees being 
felled. The distance between adjacent occupied work areas shall reflect 
the degree of slope, the density of the growth, the height of the 
trees, the soil structure and other hazards reasonably anticipated at 
that work site. A distance of greater than two tree lengths shall be 
maintained between adjacent occupied work areas on any slope where 
rolling or sliding of trees or logs is reasonably foreseeable.
    (iii) Each employee shall work in a position or location that is 
within visual or audible contact with another employee.
    (iv) The employer shall account for each employee at the end of 
each workshift.
    (7) Signaling and signal equipment. (i) Hand signals or audible 
contact, such as but not limited to, whistles, horns, or radios, shall 
be utilized whenever noise, distance, restricted visibility, or other 
factors prevent clear understanding of normal voice communications 
between employees.
    (ii) Engine noise, such as from a chain saw, is not an acceptable 
means of signaling. Other locally and regionally recognized signals may 
be used.
    (iii) Only a designated person shall give signals, except in an 
emergency.
    (8) Overhead electric lines. (i) Logging operations near overhead 
electric lines shall be done in accordance with the requirements of 29 
CFR 1910.333(c)(3).
    (ii) The employer shall notify the power company immediately if a 
felled tree makes contact with any power line. Each employee shall 
remain clear of the area until the power company advises that there are 
no electrical hazards.
    (9) Flammable and combustible liquids. (i) Flammable and 
combustible liquids shall be stored, handled, transported, and used in 
accordance with the requirements of subpart H of Part 1910.
    (ii) Flammable and combustible liquids shall not be transported in 
the driver compartment or in any passenger-occupied area of a machine 
or vehicle.
    (iii) Each machine, vehicle and portable powered tool shall be shut 
off during fueling.
    (iv) Flammable or combustible liquids shall not be used to start 
fires.
    (10) Explosives and blasting agents. (i) Explosives and blasting 
agents shall be stored, handled, transported, and used in accordance 
with the requirements of subpart H of part 1910.
    (ii) Only a designated person shall handle or use explosives and 
blasting agents.
    (iii) Explosives and blasting agents shall not be transported in 
the driver compartment or in any passenger-occupied area of a machine 
or vehicle.
    (e) Hand and portable powered tools. (1) General requirements. (i) 
The employer shall assure that each hand and portable powered tool, 
including any tool provided by an employee, is maintained in 
serviceable condition.
    (ii) The employer shall assure that each tool, including any tool 
provided by an employee, is inspected before initial use during each 
workshift. At a minimum, the inspection shall include the following:
    (A) Handles and guards, to assure that they are sound, tight-
fitting, properly shaped, free of splinters and sharp edges, and in 
place;
    (B) Controls, to assure proper function;
    (C) Chain-saw chains, to assure proper adjustment;
    (D) Chain-saw mufflers, to assure that they are operational and in 
place;
    (E) Chain brakes and nose shielding devices, to assure that they 
are in place and function properly;
    (F) Heads of shock, impact-driven and driving tools, to assure that 
there is no mushrooming;
    (G) Cutting edges, to assure that they are sharp and properly 
shaped; and
    (H) All other safety devices, to assure that they are in place and 
function properly.
    (iii) The employer shall assure that each tool is used only for 
purposes for which it has been designed.
    (iv) When the head of any shock, impact-driven or driving tool 
begins to chip, it shall be repaired or removed from service.
    (v) The cutting edge of each tool shall be sharpened in accordance 
with manufacturer's specifications whenever it becomes dull during the 
workshift.
    (vi) Each tool shall be stored in the provided location when not 
being used at a work site.
    (vii) Racks, boxes, holsters or other means shall be provided, 
arranged and used for the transportation of tools so that a hazard is 
not created for any vehicle operator or passenger.
    (2) Chain saws. (i) Each chain saw placed into initial service 
after the effective date of this section shall be equipped with a chain 
brake and shall otherwise meet the requirements of the ANSI B175.1-1991 
``Safety Requirements for Gasoline-Powered Chain Saws.'' Each chain saw 
placed into service before the effective date of this section shall be 
equipped with a protective device that minimizes chain-saw kickback. No 
chain-saw kickback device shall be removed or otherwise disabled. This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
may be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 11 West 
42nd Street, New York, NY 10036. Copies may be inspected at the Docket 
Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department 
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., room N2625, Washington, DC 
20210, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (ii) Each gasoline-powered chain saw shall be equipped with a 
continuous pressure throttle control system which will stop the chain 
when pressure on the throttle is released.
    (iii) The chain saw shall be operated and adjusted in accordance 
with the manufacturer's instructions.
    (iv) The chain saw shall be fueled at least 20 feet (6 m) from any 
open flame or other source of ignition.
    (v) The chain saw shall be started at least 10 feet (3 m) from the 
fueling area.
    (vi) The chain saw shall be started on the ground or where 
otherwise firmly supported.
    (vii) The chain saw shall be started with the chain brake engaged.
    (viii) The chain saw shall be held with the thumbs and fingers of 
both hands encircling the handles during operation unless the employer 
demonstrates that a greater hazard is posed by keeping both hands on 
the chain saw in that particular situation.
    (ix) The chain-saw operator shall be certain of footing before 
starting to cut. The chain saw shall not be used in a position or at a 
distance that could cause the operator to become off-balance, to have 
insecure footing, or to relinquish a firm grip on the saw.
    (x) Prior to felling any tree, the chain-saw operator shall clear 
away brush or other potential obstacles which might interfere with 
cutting the tree or using the retreat path.
    (xi) The chain saw shall not be used to cut directly overhead.
    (xii) The chain saw shall be carried in a manner that will prevent 
operator contact with the cutting chain and muffler.
    (xiii) The chain saw shall be shut off or at idle before the feller 
starts his retreat.
    (xiv) The chain saw shall be shut down or the chain brake shall be 
engaged whenever a saw is carried further than 50 feet (15.2 m). The 
chain saw shall be shut down or the chain brake shall be engaged when a 
saw is carried less than 50 feet if conditions such as, but not limited 
to, the terrain, underbrush and slippery surfaces, may create a hazard 
for an employee.
    (f) Machines. (1) General requirements. (i) The employer shall 
assure that each machine, including any machine provided by an 
employee, is maintained in serviceable condition.
    (ii) The employer shall assure that each machine, including any 
machine provided by an employee, is inspected before initial use during 
each workshift. Defects or damage shall be repaired or the 
unserviceable machine shall be replaced before work is commenced.
    (iii) The employer shall assure that operating and maintenance 
instructions are available on the machine or in the area where the 
machine is being operated. Each machine operator and maintenance 
employee shall comply with the operating and maintenance instructions.
    (2) Machine operation. (i) The machine shall be started and 
operated only by a designated person.
    (ii) Stationary logging machines and their components shall be 
anchored or otherwise stabilized to prevent movement during operation.
    (iii) The rated capacity of any machine shall not be exceeded.
    (iv) The machine shall not be operated on any slope which is 
greater than the maximum slope recommended by the manufacturer.
    (v) Before starting or moving any machine, the operator shall 
determine that no employee is in the path of the machine.
    (vi) The machine shall be operated only from the operator's station 
or as otherwise recommended by the manufacturer.
    (vii) The machine shall be operated at such a distance from 
employees and other machines such that operation will not create a 
hazard for an employee.
    (viii) No employee other than the operator shall ride on any mobile 
machine unless seating, seat belts and other protection equivalent to 
that provided for the operator are provided.
    (ix) No employee shall ride on any load.
    (x) Before any machine is shut down, the machine brake locks or 
parking brakes shall be applied. Each moving element, such as but not 
limited to, such as blades, buckets and shears, shall be grounded.
    (xi) After the machine engine is shut down, pressure or stored 
energy from hydraulic and pneumatic storage devices shall be 
discharged.
    (xii) The rated capacity of any vehicle transporting a machine 
shall not be exceeded.
    (xiii) The machine shall be loaded, secured and unloaded so that it 
will not create a hazard for any employee.
    (3) Protective structures. (i) Each tractor, skidder, swing yarder, 
log stacker and mechanical felling device, such as tree shears or 
feller-buncher, placed into initial service after February 9, 1995 
shall be equipped with falling object protective structure (FOPS) and/
or rollover protective structure (ROPS). The employer shall replace 
FOPS or ROPS which have been removed from any machine. Exception: This 
requirement does not apply to machines which are capable of 360 degree 
rotation.
    (ii) ROPS shall be installed, tested, and maintained in accordance 
with the Society of Automotive Engineers SAE J1040, April 1988, 
``Performance Criteria for Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS) for 
Construction, Earthmoving, Forestry, and Mining Machines.'' This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
may be obtained from the Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 
Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. Copies may be inspected at 
the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., room N2625, 
Washington, DC 20210, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 
North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (iii) FOPS shall be installed, tested and maintained in accordance 
with the Society of Automotive Engineers SAE J231, January 1981, 
``Minimum Performance Criteria for Falling Object Protective Structures 
(FOPS).'' This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director 
of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 
part 51. Copies may be obtained from the Society of Automotive 
Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096. Copies may be 
inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW. 
Room N2625, Washington, DC 20210, or at the Office of the Federal 
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (iv) ROPS and FOPS shall meet the requirements of the Society of 
Automotive Engineers SAE J397, April 1988, ``Deflection Limiting 
Volume-ROPS/FOPS Laboratory Evaluation.'' This incorporation by 
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be 
obtained from the Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth 
Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. Copies may be inspected at the Docket 
Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department 
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW. Room N2625, Washington, DC 
20210, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (v) Each protective structure shall be of a size that does not 
impede the operator's normal movements.
    (vi) The overhead covering of each cab shall be of solid material 
and shall extend over the entire canopy.
    (vii) The lower portion of each cab, up to the top of the 
instrument panel, or extending 24 (60.9 cm) inches up from the cab 
floor if the machine does not have an instrument panel, shall be 
completely enclosed, except at entrances, with solid material to 
prevent objects from entering the cab.
    (viii) The upper portion of each cab shall be fully enclosed with 
mesh material with openings no greater than 2 inches (5.08 cm) at its 
least dimension, or with other materials which the employer 
demonstrates provides equivalent protection and visibility.
    (ix) The enclosure of the upper portion of each cab shall allow 
maximum visibility.
    (x) When transparent material is used to enclose the upper portion 
of the cab, it shall be made of safety glass or other material that the 
employer demonstrates provides equivalent protection and visibility.
    (xi) Transparent material shall be kept clean to assure operator 
visibility.
    (xii) Transparent material that may create a hazard for the 
operator, such as but not limited to, cracked, broken or scratched 
safety glass, shall be replaced.
    (xiii) Deflectors shall be installed in front of each cab to 
deflect whipping saplings and branches. Deflectors shall be located so 
as not to impede visibility and access to the cab.
    (xiv) The height of each cab entrance shall be at least 52 inches 
(1.3 meters) from the floor of the cab.
    (xv) Each machine operated near cable yarding operations shall be 
equipped with sheds or roofs of sufficient strength to provide 
protection from breaking lines.
    (4) Overhead guards. Each forklift shall be equipped with an 
overhead guard meeting the requirements of the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers, ASME B56.6-1992 (with addenda), ``Safety Standard 
for Rough Terrain Forklift Trucks.'' This incorporation by reference 
was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, United Engineering Center, 
345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017-2392. Copies may be inspected 
at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW. Room N2625, 
Washington, DC 20210, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 
North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (5) Machine access. (i) Machine access systems, meeting the 
specifications of the Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE J185, June 
1988, ``Recommended Practice for Access Systems for Off-Road 
Machines,'' shall be provided for each machine where the operator or 
any other employee must climb onto the machine to enter the cab or to 
perform maintenance. This incorporation by reference was approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the Society of 
Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. 
Copies may be inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW. Room N2625, Washington, DC 20210, or at the Office of the 
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, 
DC.
    (ii) Each machine cab shall have a second means of egress.
    (iii) Walking and working surfaces of each machine and machine work 
station shall have a slip resistant surface to assure safe footing.
    (iv) The walking and working surface of each machine shall be kept 
free of waste, debris and any other material which might result in 
fire, slipping, or falling.
    (6) Exhaust systems. (i) The exhaust pipes on each machine shall be 
located so exhaust gases are directed away from the operator.
    (ii) The exhaust pipes on each machine shall be mounted or guarded 
to protect each employee from accidental contact.
    (iii) The exhaust pipes shall be equipped with spark arresters. 
Engines equipped with turbochargers do not require spark arresters.
    (iv) Each machine muffler provided by the manufacturer, or their 
equivalent, shall be in place at all times the machine is in operation.
    (7) Brakes. (i) Brakes shall be sufficient to hold each machine and 
its rated load capacity on the slopes over which it is being operated.
    (ii) Each machine shall be equipped with a secondary braking 
system, such as an emergency brake or a parking brake, which shall be 
effective in stopping the machine and maintaining parking performance, 
regardless of the direction of travel or whether the engine is running.
    (8) Guarding. (i) Each machine shall be equipped with guarding to 
protect employees from exposed moving elements, such as but not limited 
to, shafts, pulleys, belts on conveyors, and gears, in accordance with 
the requirements of subpart O of part 1910.
    (ii) Each machine used for debarking, limbing and chipping shall be 
equipped with guarding to protect employees from flying wood chunks, 
logs, chips, bark, limbs and other material in accordance with the 
requirements of subpart O of part 1910.
    (iii) The guarding on each machine shall be in place at all times 
the machine is in operation.
    (g) Vehicles. (1) The employer shall assure that each vehicle used 
to transport any employee off public roads or to perform any logging 
operation, including any vehicle provided by an employee, is maintained 
in serviceable condition.
    (2) The employer shall assure each vehicle used to transport any 
employee off public roads or to perform any logging operation, 
including any vehicle provided by an employee, is inspected before 
initial use during each workshift. Defects or damage shall be repaired 
or the unserviceable vehicle shall be replaced before work is 
commenced.
    (3) The employer shall assure that operating and maintenance 
instructions are available in each vehicle. Each vehicle operator and 
maintenance employee shall comply with the operating and maintenance 
instructions.
    (4) The employer shall assure that each vehicle operator has a 
valid operator's license for the class of vehicle being operated.
    (5) Mounting steps and handholds shall be provided for each vehicle 
wherever it is necessary to prevent an employee from being injured when 
entering or leaving the vehicle.
    (6) The seats of each vehicle shall be securely fastened.
    (7) The requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(v), 
(f)(2)(vii), (f)(2)(x), (f)(2)(xiii), and (f)(7) of this section shall 
also apply to each vehicle used to transport any employee off public 
roads or to perform any logging operation, including any vehicle 
provided by an employee.
    (h) Tree harvesting. (1) General requirements. (i) Trees shall not 
be felled in a manner that may create a hazard for an employee, such as 
but not limited to, striking a rope, cable, power line, or machine.
    (ii) The immediate supervisor shall be consulted when unfamiliar or 
unusually hazardous conditions necessitate the supervisor's approval 
before cutting is commenced.
    (iii) While manual felling is in progress, no yarding machine shall 
be operated within two tree lengths of trees being manually felled.
    (iv) No employee shall approach a feller closer than two tree 
lengths of trees being felled until the feller has acknowledged that it 
is safe to do so, unless the employer demonstrates that a team of 
employees is necessary to manually fell a particular tree.
    (v) No employee shall approach a mechanical felling operation 
closer than two tree lengths of the trees being felled until the 
machine operator has acknowledged that it is safe to do so.
    (vi) Each danger tree shall be felled, removed or avoided. Each 
danger tree, including lodged trees and snags, shall be felled or 
removed using mechanical or other techniques that minimize employee 
exposure before work is commenced in the area of the danger tree. If 
the danger tree is not felled or removed, it shall be marked and no 
work shall be conducted within two tree lengths of the danger tree 
unless the employer demonstrates that a shorter distance will not 
create a hazard for an employee.
    (vii) Each danger tree shall be carefully checked for signs of 
loose bark, broken branches and limbs or other damage before they are 
felled or removed. Accessible loose bark and other damage that may 
create a hazard for an employee shall be removed or held in place 
before felling or removing the tree.
    (viii) Felling on any slope where rolling or sliding of trees or 
logs is reasonably foreseeable shall be done uphill from, or on the 
same level as, previously felled trees.
    (ix) Domino felling of trees, including danger trees, is 
prohibited.
    (2) Manual felling. (i) Before felling is started, the feller shall 
plan and clear a retreat path. The retreat path shall extend diagonally 
away from the expected felling line unless the employer demonstrates 
that such a retreat path poses a greater hazard than an alternate 
retreat path.
    (ii) Before each tree is felled, conditions such as, but not 
limited to, snow and ice accumulation, the wind, the lean of tree, dead 
limbs, and the location of other trees, shall be evaluated by the 
feller and precautions taken so a hazard is not created for an 
employee.
    (iii) Each tree shall be checked for accumulations of snow and ice. 
Accumulations of snow and ice that may create a hazard for an employee 
shall be removed before felling is commenced in the area or the area 
shall be avoided.
    (iv) When a spring pole or other tree under stress is cut, no 
employee other than the feller shall be closer than two trees lengths 
when the stress is released.
    (v) An undercut shall be made in each tree being felled unless the 
employer demonstrates that felling the particular tree without an 
undercut will not create a hazard for an employee. The undercut shall 
be of a size so the tree will not split and will fall in the intended 
direction.
    (vi) A backcut shall be made in each tree being felled. The backcut 
shall allow for sufficient hinge wood to guide the tree and prevent it 
from prematurely slipping or twisting off the stump.
    (vii) The backcut shall be above the level of the horizontal cut of 
the undercut. Exception: The backcut may be at or below the horizontal 
cut in tree pulling operations.
    (3) Bucking and limbing. (i) Bucking and limbing on any slope where 
rolling or sliding of trees or logs is reasonably foreseeable shall be 
done on the uphill side of each tree, unless the employer demonstrates 
that it is not feasible to buck or limb on the uphill side. Whenever 
bucking or limbing is done from the downhill side, the tree shall be 
secured with chocks to prevent it from rolling, sliding or swinging.
    (ii) Before bucking or limbing wind-thrown trees, precautions shall 
be taken to prevent the root wad, butt or logs from striking an 
employee. These precautions include, but are not limited to, chocking 
or moving the tree to a stable position.
    (4) Chipping (in-woods locations). (i) Chipper access covers or 
doors shall not be opened until the drum or disc is at a complete stop.
    (ii) Infeed and discharge ports shall be guarded to prevent contact 
with the disc, knives, or blower blades.
    (iii) The chipper shall be shut down and locked out in accordance 
with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.147 when an employee performs any 
servicing or maintenance.
    (iv) Detached trailer chippers shall be chocked during usage on any 
slope where rolling or sliding of the chipper is reasonably 
foreseeable.
    (5) Yarding. (i) No log shall be moved until each employee is in 
the clear.
    (ii) Each choker shall be hooked and unhooked from the uphill side 
or end of the log, unless the employer demonstrates that is it not 
feasible in the particular situation to hook or unhook the choker from 
the uphill side. Where the choker is hooked or unhooked from the 
downhill side or end of the log, the log shall be securely chocked to 
prevent rolling, sliding or swinging.
    (iii) Each choker shall be positioned near the end of the log or 
tree length.
    (iv) Each machine shall be positioned during winching so the 
machine and winch are operated within their design limits.
    (v) No yarding line shall not be moved unless the yarder operator 
has clearly received and understood the signal to do so. When in doubt, 
the yarder operator shall repeat the signal as it is understood and 
wait for a confirming signal before moving any line.
    (vi) No load shall exceed the rated capacity of the pallet, 
trailer, or other carrier.
    (vii) Towed equipment, such as but not limited to, skid pans, 
pallets, arches, and trailers, shall be attached to each machine or 
vehicle in such a manner as to allow a full 90 degree turn; to prevent 
overrunning of the towing machine or vehicle; and to assure that the 
operator is always in control of the towed equipment.
    (viii) The yarding machine or vehicle, including its load, shall be 
operated with safe clearance from all obstructions.
    (ix) Each yarded tree shall be placed in a location that does not 
create a hazard for an employee and an orderly manner so that the trees 
are stable before bucking or limbing is commenced.
    (6) Loading and unloading. (i) The transport vehicle shall be 
positioned to provide working clearance between the vehicle and the 
deck.
    (ii) Only the loading or unloading machine operator and other 
personnel the employer demonstrates are essential shall be in the work 
area during loading and unloading.
    (iii) No transport vehicle operator shall remain in the cab during 
loading and unloading if the logs are carried or moved over the truck 
cab, unless the employer demonstrates that it is necessary for the 
operator to do so. Where the transport vehicle operator remains in the 
cab, the employer shall provide operator protection, such as but not 
limited to, reinforcement of the cab.
    (iv) Each log shall be placed on a transport vehicle in an orderly 
manner and tightly secured.
    (v) The load shall be positioned to prevent slippage or loss during 
handling and transport.
    (vi) Each stake and chock which is used to trip loads shall be so 
constructed that the tripping mechanism is activated on the side 
opposite the release of the load.
    (vii) Each tie down shall be left in place over the peak log to 
secure all logs until the unloading lines or other protection the 
employer demonstrates is equivalent has been put in place. A stake of 
sufficient strength to withstand the forces of shifting or moving logs, 
shall be considered equivalent protection provided that the logs are 
not loaded higher than the stake.
    (viii) Each tie down shall be released only from the side on which 
the unloading machine operates, except as follows:
    (A) When the tie down is released by a remote control device; and
    (B) When the employee making the release is protected by racks, 
stanchions or other protection the employer demonstrates is capable of 
withstanding the force of the logs.
    (7) Transport. The transport vehicle operator shall assure that 
each tie down is tight before transporting the load. While enroute, the 
operator shall check and tighten the tie downs whenever there is reason 
to believe that the tie downs have loosened or the load has shifted.
    (8) Storage. Each deck shall be constructed and located so it is 
stable and provides each employee with enough room to safely move and 
work in the area.
    (i) Training. (1) The employer shall provide training for each 
employee, including supervisors, at no cost to the employee.
    (2) Frequency. Training shall be provided as follows:
    (i) As soon as possible but not later than the effective date of 
this section for initial training for each current and new employee;
    (ii) Prior to initial assignment for each new employee;
    (iii) Whenever the employee is assigned new work tasks, tools, 
equipment, machines or vehicles; and
    (iv) Whenever an employee demonstrates unsafe job performance.
    (3) Content. At a minimum, training shall consist of the following 
elements:
    (i) Safe performance of assigned work tasks;
    (ii) Safe use, operation and maintenance of tools, machines and 
vehicles the employee uses or operates, including emphasis on 
understanding and following the manufacturer's operating and 
maintenance instructions, warnings and precautions;
    (iii) Recognition of safety and health hazards associated with the 
employee's specific work tasks, including the use of measures and work 
practices to prevent or control those hazards;
    (iv) Recognition, prevention and control of other safety and health 
hazards in the logging industry;
    (v) Procedures, practices and requirements of the employer's work 
site; and
    (vi) The requirements of this standard.
    (4) Training of an employee due to unsafe job performance, or 
assignment of new work tasks, tools, equipment, machines, or vehicles; 
may be limited to those elements in paragraph (i)(3) of this section 
which are relevant to the circumstances giving rise to the need for 
training.
    (5) Portability of training. (i) Each current employee who has 
received training in the particular elements specified in paragraph 
(i)(3) of this section shall not be required to be retrained in those 
elements.
    (ii) Each new employee who has received training in the particular 
elements specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this section shall not be 
required to be retrained in those elements prior to initial assignment.
    (iii) The employer shall train each current and new employee in 
those elements for which the employee has not received training.
    (iv) The employer is responsible for ensuring that each current and 
new employee can properly and safely perform the work tasks and operate 
the tools, equipment, machines, and vehicles used in their job.
    (6) Each new employee and each employee who is required to be 
trained as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, shall work 
under the close supervision of a designated person until the employee 
demonstrates to the employer the ability to safely perform their new 
duties independently.
    (7) First-aid training. (i) The employer shall assure that each 
employee, including supervisors, receives or has received first-aid and 
CPR training meeting at least the requirements specified in Appendix B.
    (ii) The employer shall assure that each employee receives first-
aid training at least every three years and receives CPR training at 
least annually.
    (iii) The employer shall assure that each employee's first-aid and 
CPR training and/or certificate of training remain current.
    (8) All training shall be conducted by a designated person.
    (9) The employer shall assure that all training required by this 
section is presented in a manner that the employee is able to 
understand. The employer shall assure that all training materials used 
are appropriate in content and vocabulary to the educational level, 
literacy, and language skills of the employees being trained.
    (10) Certification of training. (i) The employer shall verify 
compliance with paragraph (i) of this section by preparing a written 
certification record. The written certification record shall contain 
the name or other identity of the employee trained, the date(s) of the 
training, and the signature of the person who conducted the training or 
the signature of the employer. If the employer relies on training 
conducted prior to the employee's hiring or completed prior to the 
effective date of this section, the certification record shall indicate 
the date the employer determined the prior training was adequate.
    (ii) The most recent training certification shall be maintained.
    (11) Safety and health meetings. The employer shall hold safety and 
health meetings as necessary and at least each month for each employee. 
Safety and health meetings may be conducted individually, in crew 
meetings, in larger groups, or as part of other staff meetings.
    (j) Effective date. This section is effective February 9, 1995. All 
requirements under this section commence on the effective date.
    (k) Appendices. Appendices A and B of this section are mandatory. 
The information contained in Appendix C of this section is 
informational and is not intended to create any additional obligations 
not otherwise imposed or to detract from existing regulations.

Appendix A to Sec. 1910.266--First-aid Kits (Mandatory)

    The following is deemed to be the minimally acceptable number 
and type of first-aid supplies for first-aid kits required for 
logging work sites under paragraph (d)(2). The contents of the 
first-aid kit listed should be adequate for small work sites, 
consisting of approximately two or three employees. When larger 
operations or multiple operations being conducted at the same 
location, additional first-aid kits should be provided at the work 
site or additional quantities of supplies should be included in the 
first-aid kits.
    1. Gauze pads (at least 4'' x 4'').
    2. Two large gauze pads (at least 8'' x 10'').
    3. Box adhesive bandages (band-aids).
    4. One package gauze roller bandage at least 2'' wide.
    5. Two triangular bandages.
    6. Wound cleaning agent such as sealed, moistened towelettes.
    7. Scissors.
    8. Blankets.
    9. Tweezers.
    10. Adhesive tape.
    11. Latex gloves.
    12. Resuscitation equipment, such as a resuscitation bag, 
airway, or pocket mask.
    13. Indelible marking pen.
    14. Two elastic wraps.
    15. Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride elixir or capsules.
    16. Tourniquet.
    17. Wire splint.
    18. Directions for requesting emergency assistance.
    19. Recordkeeping forms.

Appendix B to Sec. 1910.266--First-aid and CPR Training (Mandatory)

    The following is deemed to be the minimal acceptable first-aid 
and CPR training program for employees engaged in logging 
activities.
    First-aid and CPR training shall be conducted using the 
conventional methods of training such as lecture, demonstration, 
practical exercise and examination (both written and practical). The 
length of training must be sufficient to assure that trainees 
understand the concepts of first aid and can demonstrate their 
ability to perform the various procedures contained in the outline 
below.
    At a minimum, first-aid and CPR training shall consist of the 
following:
    1. The definition of first aid.
    2. Legal issues of applying first aid (Good Samaritan Laws).
    3. Basic anatomy.
    4. Patient assessment and first aid for the following:
    a. Respiratory arrest.
    b. Cardiac arrest.
    c. Hemorrhage.
    d. Lacerations/abrasions.
    e. Amputations.
    f. Musculoskeletal injuries.
    g. Shock.
    h. Eye injuries.
    i. Burns.
    j. Loss of consciousness.
    k. Extreme temperature exposure (hypothermia/hyperthermia)
    l. Paralysis
    m. Poisoning.
    n. Loss of mental functioning (psychosis/hallucinations, etc.). 
Artificial ventilation.
    o. Drug overdose.
    5. CPR.
    6. Application of dressings and slings.
    7. Treatment of strains, sprains, and fractures.
    8. Immobilization of injured persons.
    9. Handling and transporting injured persons.
    10. Treatment of bites, stings, or contact with poisonous plants 
or animals.

Appendix C to Sec. 1910.266--Comparable ISO Standards (Non-mandatory)

    The following International Labor Organization (ISO) standards 
are comparable to the corresponding Society of Automotive Engineers 
(Standards that are referenced in this standard.)
    Utilization of the ISO standards in lieu of the corresponding 
SAE standards should result in a machine that meets the OSHA 
standard. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  SAE standard      ISO standard                  Subject               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAE J1040         ISO 3471-1        Performance Criteria for Rollover   
                                     Protective Structures (ROPS) for   
                                     Construction, Earthmoving, Forestry
                                     and Mining Machines.               
SAE J397          ISO 3164          Deflection Limiting Volume--ROPS/   
                                     FOPS Laboratory Evaluation.        
SAE J231          ISO 3449          Minimum Performance Criteria for    
                                     Falling Object Protective          
                                     Structures (FOPS).                 
SAE J386          ISO 6683          Operator Restraint Systems for Off- 
                                     Road Work Machines.                
SAE J185          ISO 2897          Access Systems for Off-Road         
                                     Machines.                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The introductory text of paragraph (r)(5) of Sec. 1910.269 is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.269  Electrical protective equipment.

* * * * *
    (r) * * *
    (5) Gasoline-engine power saws. Gasoline-engine power saw 
operations shall meet the requirements of Sec. 1910.266(e) and the 
following:
* * * * *

PART 1928--[AMENDED]

Subpart B--Applicability of Standards

    4. The authority citation for part 1928 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or 1-90 (55 FR 
9033), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Section 1928.21 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.

    5. Paragraph (a)(3) of Sec. 1928.21 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 1928.21  Applicable Standards in 29 CFR Part 1910.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Logging Operations--Sec. 1910.266;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-24898 Filed 10-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P