[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 174 (Friday, September 8, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47022-47037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22386]




[[Page 47021]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VII





Department of Labor





_______________________________________________________________________



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



29 CFR 1910



Logging Operations; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / 
Rules and Regulations   

[[Page 47022]]


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. S-048]


Logging Operations

ACTION: Final rule; corrections and technical amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice corrects and amends the final rule on Logging 
Operations which was published by OSHA on October 12, 1994 (59 FR 
51672). In response to questions raised about certain provisions in the 
rule, OSHA is clarifying language in the regulatory text so it most 
accurately expresses the Agency's intent with respect to the provisions 
in question and to provide additional information with regard to some 
of the provisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 1995.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 12, 1994, OSHA published a revised standard providing 
protection for workers performing logging operations (59 FR 51672). The 
final rule (29 C.F.R. 1910.266) had an effective date of February 9, 
1995.
    After the final rule was published, the Equipment Manufacturers 
Institute (EMI), the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association 
(PPEMA), and Homelite, a manufacturer of chain saws, filed timely 
petitions with the court seeking judicial review of the standard. The 
deadline for filing a petition for judicial review was December 12, 
1994. After the deadline had passed, the Associated California Loggers, 
the Associated Oregon Loggers, Inc., the Montana Logging Association, 
and the Washington Contract Loggers Association also filed objections 
to the final rule.
    These parties and organizations raised questions about certain 
provisions of the final rule. After consideration of their questions, 
OSHA published a Federal Register notice (60 FR 6447, February 8, 1995) 
staying enforcement of 12 provisions of the standard for six-months, 
until August 9, 1995. The other provisions of the final rule were not 
affected by the partial stay and became effective on February 9, 1995.
    In the February 8 notice, OSHA explained that the partial stay 
would give the Agency time to clarify language in the regulatory text 
and preamble so it most accurately expressed the Agency's intent with 
respect to the provisions in question and to provide additional 
information with regard to some of the provisions. The provisions OSHA 
stayed were: (d)(1)(v)--insofar as it requires foot protection to 
protect the employee against chain-saw penetration; (d)(1)(vii)--
insofar as it requires face protection; (d)(2)(iii)--annual review and 
approval of first-aid kits by a health care provider; (f)(2)(iv)--
machine operation on slopes; (f)(2)(xi)--machine shutdown procedures; 
(f)(3)(ii)--ROPS specifications; (f)(3)(vii) and (viii)--machine cab 
enclosures; (f)(7)(ii)--machine parking brakes; (g) (1) and (2)--
maintenance and inspection of employee-owned vehicles; (h)(2)(vii)--
location of the backcut in Humboldt cutting.
    PPEMA and Homelite also requested OSHA to stay enforcement of the 
requirement that chain saws be equipped with chain brakes. OSHA denied 
their request. Thereafter, PPEMA withdrew its petition for judicial 
review. Homelite filed a motion for a stay pending review of the chain-
brake requirement with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 
Circuit. OSHA opposed Homelite's motion and American Pulpwood 
Association (APA) filed an amicus opposing the stay. OSHA also filed a 
motion to dismiss Homelite's petition for lack of standing. The court 
denied both Homelite's and OSHA's motions. Homelite continues to 
challenge the chain brake provision of the final rule in the Fourth 
Circuit. EMI withdrew its petition for review pursuant to a settlement.
    During the six-month stay of enforcement, OSHA received other 
inquiries about the final rule. In addition, OSHA met with 
representatives of various logging associations such as APA and the 
Western Logging Council (WLC), equipment manufacturers such as EMI and 
PPEMA, and other individuals in order to discuss the stayed provisions 
as well as other questions they had regarding the final rule.
    On August 9, 1995, OSHA published a Federal Register notice 
extending the partial stay for 30 days, until September 8, 1995, in 
order to complete its reconsideration of the issues, to complete 
corrections and clarifications in the regulatory text and preamble, and 
to revise its compliance directive to reflect those changes (60 FR 
40457). This notice corrects and amends the final rule, and provides 
information and clarification regarding the stayed provisions and other 
issues.

Stayed Provisions

Paragraph (d)(1)(v)--Cut-Resistant Foot Protection

    The final rule requires that the employer assure that each employee 
wears foot protection, covering and supporting the foot and ankle, 
which is waterproof or water repellant. OSHA stayed one aspect of the 
foot protection provision which required that logging boots provide 
protection from penetration by chain saws. Some parties requested OSHA 
to drop the chain-saw penetration requirement, contending that rubber 
and calk-soled logging boots providing employees protection from 
penetration by chain saws were neither necessary nor available.
    The rulemaking record strongly supports the need for logging 
footwear which protects chain-saw operators against penetration by 
chain saws. As OSHA discussed in the preamble to the final rule, 10 
percent of injuries reported in the WIR survey were to the foot and 
ankle (Ex. 2-1). In addition, APA submitted to the record an injury 
report where a chain-saw operator who was not wearing protective 
footwear cut off his foot when the bar went through the soft spot of a 
tree trunk and into his foot (Ex. 26A).
    Reports of foot injuries resulting from chain saws led several 
commenters to recommend that OSHA require foot protection be cut-
resistant (Tr. W1 148, 195; Tr. W2 139). For example, Mr. Joseph 
William, owner of Jayfor Logging, said he provides and requires 
employees to wear cut-resistant logging boots (Tr. W1 195). In 
addition, Mr. Williams said all employers that are members of the 
Nortim program, a logging workers' compensation insurance group, must 
assure that employees wear cut-resistant foot protection (Tr. W1 158, 
195).
    Based on its reconsideration of the record, OSHA maintains that an 
employee operating a chain saw needs to wear logging boots which will 
provide protection against penetration by the saw. However, based on 
discussions during the stay, OSHA is correcting the language of this 
requirement to express more clearly the Agency's intent regarding the 
type of chain-saw protection that is required for the foot. In the 
final rule, OSHA intended by the language ``protect the employee from 
penetration by chain saws'' to mean that foot protection worn by 
employees be equipped with material that is cut-resistant to chain 
saws. That 

[[Page 47023]]
is, OSHA intended that foot protection prevent the chain saw from 
cutting the employee before the employee is able to react, or before 
the protective material jams the chain saw. The language in the final 
rule was not intended to require that the protective material itself 
must be totally impervious to penetration by a chain saw. Rather, the 
available protective clothing and footwear is equipped with multiple 
layers of protective material, such as but not limited to ballistic 
nylon, Kevlar, or the layered-material in heavy-duty logging boots; 
which provide cut resistance as follows: the protective material must 
either provide enough resistance to the saw chain to give the operator 
time to react and pull the saw away from the foot before the saw chain 
penetrates through all the layers, or jam the flywheel and chain, 
thereby stopping the saw. OSHA is revising the regulatory text to 
indicate that leg protection must be made of material that is cut-
resistant, as OSHA has defined it above. OSHA stresses that this change 
is merely adoption of terminology which is used in the industry, but 
the use of this term does not change the meaning or intention of the 
final rule.1

    \1\ OSHA notes that the most important aspect of the protective 
material is not that it be made specifically of ballistic nylon, but 
that it is comparably cut-resistant. OSHA intended its use of the 
term ``ballistic nylon'' in the final rule to be consistent with the 
industry's generic use of the term as shorthand for cut-resistant 
materials in general. Indeed, in the preamble to the final rule, 
OSHA discussed several types of materials which are currently 
available to provide protection against chain-saw cuts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some parties also said that rubber and calk-soled boots which are 
needed in working in the steep terrain of the northwest were not 
manufactured with chain-saw cut-resistant material. However, the 
rulemaking record shows that such boots are available and have been 
available for a considerable period of time (Ex. 4-103, 5-30). 
Specifically, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, the manufacturer of 
Kevlar, told OSHA in 1989 that rubber logging boots were available that 
contain Kevlar, and which du Pont ``feel[s] offers adequate protection 
against chain saw injuries, based on European test standards'' (Ex. 5-
30). In addition, an article from the June 1987 The Logger and 
Lumberman said that a cut-resistant rubber boot, which had been 
successfully tested by the U.S. Forest Service, was available (Ex. 4-
103). Moreover, in discussions with other manufacturers and 
distributors of personal protective equipment during the six-month 
stay, OSHA has confirmed its original conclusion that a variety of 
companies currently manufacture logging boots, including rubber and 
calk-soled boots, which are equipped with material to protect against 
chain saw cuts. Therefore, OSHA is lifting the stay of this 
requirement. Effective September 8, 1995, employers shall assure that 
foot protection worn by each employee who operates a chain saw, 
including rubber, calk-soled and other slip-resistant boots, is chain-
saw cut-resistant.
    OSHA has also clarified the final rule to indicate that the cut-
resistant foot protection requirement applies only to employees who 
operate a chain saw. OSHA notes and is specifying in the revised 
compliance directive that this applies to any operation of a chain saw, 
whether as a regular part of the employee's job or incidental to the 
job. There is nothing in the records that indicates chain-saw accidents 
involve only those who operate chain saws on a regular basis. OSHA 
believes that those who operate chain saws only infrequently may be at 
particular risk because they may be less familiar with the chain saw 
and less experienced in managing the hazards associated with its 
operation. Based upon the hazards to employees when they use a chain 
saw and the ready availability of the protective equipment to minimize 
such hazards, OSHA believes that all employees who use a chain saw must 
be protected against foot injury regardless of the frequency of the 
chain saw usage. Logging employees who do not operate chain saws at all 
need not have foot protection that is chain-saw cut-resistant.
    OSHA also stresses that the foot protection requirement in the 
final rule is expressed in performance terms. For example, nothing in 
the final rule requires that employees wear steel-toed logging boots in 
order to meet the cut-resistance requirement. Steel-toed boots meeting 
the ANSI foot protection requirements do provide adequate protection 
against chain-saw cuts for the toe. However, if such boots do not have 
material to protect the rest of the foot from chain-saw cuts they do 
not comply with the final rule. The final rule requires that logging 
boots for chain-saw operators must provide cut-resistant protection for 
the foot, not just the toe. The record indicates that there is 
available supplemental cut-resistant foot protection which can be 
attached to logging boots to provide the needed protection (Ex. 5-14).
    After publication of the final rule, OSHA was requested by some 
parties to clarify the rule to indicate from what type of material 
logging boots must be constructed. They recommended that OSHA specify 
that logging boots be made of industrial grade or top grain leather or 
other material. Instead of specifying the type of material which must 
be used, OSHA has expressed the requirement in performance terms. For 
example, OSHA has specified that foot protection cover and provide 
support to the ankle. The purpose of this requirement is to help reduce 
the significant number of ankle and foot injuries (sprains and 
fractures) (Ex. 2-1). OSHA is confident that employers and employees 
will be able to select logging boots that provide adequate ankle 
support because various logging associations already recognize that 
hiking and other light duty boots do not provide sufficient 
protection.2

    \2\ OSHA notes that the final rule does not require the employer 
to provide logging boots for employees. The cost of providing 
logging boots may be borne by employees. The employer, however, must 
assure that logging boots which are worn by an employee are in 
serviceable condition and meet the requirements of paragraph 
(d)(1)(vi) of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (d)(1)(vii)--Face Protection

    In the final rule, OSHA required that employers provide and pay for 
protection for the eyes and face for any employee where there is a 
potential for injury due to falling or flying objects. After 
publication of the final rule, OSHA was requested by some parties to 
stay the face protection requirement in order to clarify the following 
concerns.
    First, these parties requested OSHA to clarify in what logging 
operations face protection is required. The rulemaking record shows 
that some employees do need protection for the face as well as the eyes 
(e.g., chipper operators) (Ex. 2-1). In the WIR survey 42 face injuries 
were reported during the three-month survey period which involved other 
than the eye (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes that chipper operators, employees 
cutting limbs, branches or spring poles, and employees moving through 
dense underbrush are among those for whom the risk of facial 
lacerations from wood, wood chips, needles or splinters is most likely. 
OSHA is revising the final rule to indicate that where employees are at 
risk of facial injury they must wear protection meeting the 
requirements of subpart I of Part 1910 (29 CFR 1910.133).
    For other employees, however, eye protection alone may be adequate 
to protect them from the hazards present. For example, an employee 
performing machine maintenance may only require eye protection. For 
these employees, the most likely hazards are dirt, particles or other 
substances flying or splashing into the eyes. For example, maintenance 
employees need eye protection where they are using metal cut-off or 
grinding 

[[Page 47024]]
tools. Subpart I requires employers to assess the hazards in the 
workplace to what personal protective equipment is necessary. OSHA is 
revising the final rule to emphasize that where the assessment 
indicates a risk of facial injury exists, face protection must also be 
provided and worn.
    Second, these parties requested that OSHA clarify whether the final 
rule requires employees to wear both eye and face protection 
simultaneously. It was OSHA's intention that of face protection would 
adequate protection for both the eyes and the face. Therefore, OSHA is 
adding a note to the final rule to clarify that where the employer 
determines that protection against eye and face injury is necessary and 
provides the employee with a device that protects both the eyes as well 
as the face, the final rule does not also require the employee to wear 
separate eye protection.
    Finally, these parties said that face protection should not be 
required because it may interfere with the logger's vision, thereby 
creating additional hazards. They said optical characteristics of face 
shields made of solid transparent material, as required by subpart I, 
could distort peripheral vision. However, they did not provide evidence 
to this effect during the rulemaking and they have not identified any 
data in the rulemaking record that would support this contention. There 
is nothing in the record that would lead the Agency to believe that 
potential distortion of peripheral vision by face shields creates a 
greater hazard than lack of face protection. Of the injuries reported 
in the WIR survey, obstructed vision was not identified as the cause of 
any injury (Ex. 2-1).
    They also said that the logger's vision could be reduced in wet 
weather because of wood chips or sawdust sticking to the face shield or 
the transparent material fogging up. Once again, the record does not 
indicate that this is a significant problem. In any event, the final 
rule allows flexibility in selecting face protection for employees 
working in different conditions. Specifically, with the exception of 
chipping operations, the final rule expressly permits logger-type mesh 
screens to be used for face protection. Such screens provide protection 
from penetration by branches, limbs and saplings, yet do not restrict 
vision in wet weather or fog up. Information in the record indicates 
that face protection comprised of mesh screens is readily available in 
the industry. In fact, many types of safety headgear manufactured for 
the logging industry are equipped with mesh screen face protection.
    OSHA notes, however, that most logger-type mesh face screens do not 
meet the literal requirements of Subpart I because they do not comply 
with the referenced ANSI standards, ANSI Z87.1-1989 or ANSI Z87.1-1968. 
Mesh face screens are not constructed with impervious transparent 
material and do not necessarily meet the impact resistance requirements 
of the ANSI standards. For this reason, they may not be used in 
chipping operations where impact resistance is needed to prevent injury 
from wood, wood chips, needles, or splinters being propelled from 
chipping machines at great speed. For chipping operations, therefore, 
eye and face protection must meet the requirements of subpart I.
    However, for other logging operations such as chain-saw operation, 
OSHA believes that logger-type mesh screens will provide adequate 
protection. In these operations there is not the same hazard of objects 
hitting the face screen at a high speed or penetrating through the mesh 
openings. Mesh screens provide adequate protection to keep small limbs, 
branches, and saplings from poking the employee's eye or cutting the 
employee's face when the employee is moving through the woods. 
Therefore, OSHA is revising the final rule and compliance directive to 
indicate that an employer who provides and requires chain saw operators 
performing felling, limbing and bucking activities to use a logger-type 
mesh face screen would be deemed to be in compliance with this 
paragraph. Additionally, logger-type mesh face screens may also be used 
by those employees performing yarding operations. For all other logging 
tasks (e.g., machine and vehicle maintenance, cutting winch cables, 
drilling, grinding, and welding during equipment repair) for which the 
hazard assessment indicates eye and face protection are necessary, the 
employer must provide protection which meets the requirements of 
subpart I.

Paragraph (d)(2)(iii)--First-Aid Kits

    Paragraph (d)(2) of the final rule requires that employers provide 
and maintain first-aid kits. In addition, this paragraph specifies the 
minimum content requirements for first-aid kits (Appendix A). These 
provisions became effective February 9, 1995.
    OSHA stayed the requirement that the number and contents of first-
aid kits be reviewed and approved annually by a health care provider. 
Some parties told OSHA that annual approval of first-aid kits by health 
care providers would be burdensome for employers. Because the final 
rule already contains a list of minimum contents for the first-aid kit, 
OSHA is persuaded that eliminating the requirement of annual health 
care provider review will not reduce protection for logging employees.
    The minimum first-aid kit and first-aid training requirements 
provided in the final rule were developed in consultation with the OSHA 
offices of occupational medicine and occupational health nursing. This 
careful review of the minimum contents of the required first-aid kits 
makes it unnecessary for OSHA to require employers to have the kits 
reviewed annually by a health care provider. Therefore, OSHA is 
correcting the final rule accordingly.
    At the same time, however, OSHA encourages logging employers to 
conduct an annual review of the contents of first-aid kits, including 
engaging in consultation with a health care provider regarding approval 
of those contents. Such review can help to ensure that the contents are 
adequate for the number of employees and conditions of the particular 
logging worksite, and that first-aid kits contain the latest first-aid 
innovations and technologies which would be useful to the logging work 
environment. Because of the remoteness of logging worksites from 
professional medical services, OSHA believes that for some logging 
sites, additional attention should be given to the contents of first-
aid kits. Annual health care provider review is clearly permitted in 
these circumstances, and the final rule provides for such review as a 
``best practice'' recommendation for employers.3

    \3\ OSHA notes that the employer does not need to take the 
actual first-aid kits themselves to the health care provider for 
review and approval. Rather, the health care provider may review the 
list of the items contained in the first-aid kits, along with a 
description of the conditions of the particular worksite.
Paragraph (f)(2)(iv)--Machine Operation on Slopes

    OSHA stayed the provision requiring that logging machines not be 
operated on any slope greater than the maximum slope recommended by the 
manufacturer after learning that logging machine manufacturers do not 
specify a maximum slope on which particular logging machines can be 
safely operated. The intent of this requirement was to ensure that 
machines used on sloping terrain are operated in a manner that will 
prevent the machine from tipping or rolling over. As OSHA explained in 
the preamble to the final rule, injuries and fatalities resulting from 
tipping and rollover accidents are 

[[Page 47025]]
prevalent in the logging industry because of the rough terrain on which 
logging machines operate (Ex. 2-1).
    The maximum slope of operation varies depending on the conditions 
under which the machine is being operated. These conditions include the 
terrain (e.g., wet, muddy, dry, compacted, rocky), the direction of the 
machine operation (e.g., cross-slope, uphill, downhill, diagonally 
across the slope), and the operation being performed. OSHA is revising 
the final rule to require that employers assure that machine operators 
follow the instructions, directions and limitations described by the 
manufacturer in the operating and maintenance manuals.
    There are many ways in which an employer can accomplish this 
obligation. Manufacturers' operating instructions can be incorporated 
into operator training programs. Compliance with these operating 
instructions can be reinforced during regular safety and health 
meetings, and through spot checks on employees' operating performance.

Paragraph (f)(2)(xi)--Machine Shutdown Procedures

    The final rule specifies procedures which must be followed when a 
machine is shut down. These include applying brakes and grounding or 
securing moving elements (paragraph (f)(2)(x)), and discharging 
pressure and stored energy (paragraph (f)(2)(xi)). With regard to the 
discharge requirements, this provision is intended to prevent moving 
elements, such as blades, buckets, saws and shears from being 
unexpectedly or inadvertently activated or engaged after the machine 
has been shut down. Such activation has resulted in severe injury or 
death to logging operators, maintenance personnel or others in the 
vicinity of the machine (Ex. 2-1, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 26A).
    OSHA stayed the discharge provision (paragraph (f)(2)(xi)) in order 
to reconsider whether the provision could be misinterpreted to require 
unnecessary discharging of pressure and stored energy. For example, 
OSHA was concerned whether employers might misinterpret the provision 
as requiring the discharge of pressure and stored energy not related to 
moving elements of the machine, such as bleeding machine brakes, a 
result which OSHA had not intended.
    OSHA is therefore correcting this provision so it more accurately 
identifies and addresses the hazards OSHA intended to control in the 
final rule. Revised paragraph (f)(2)(xi) requires that the hydraulic 
and pneumatic storage devices which can move the moving elements of a 
logging machine after machine shut down and expose employees to serious 
hazards must be discharged as specified by the manufacturer.
    OSHA is also correcting paragraph (f)(2)(x) to require that any 
time the operator leaves the machine cab, the parking brakes must be 
applied, the moving elements must be grounded or secured, and the 
transmission must be placed in park. A further review of the record 
indicates that such a correction is necessary since the hazard of 
unexpected or inadvertent activation of logging machines is present any 
time an operator leaves the machine cab, whether to perform another 
logging operation or to stop work for the day. The record includes 
several reports of machine operators and others who died or were 
severely injured when they failed to engage the parking brakes and 
lower moving elements to the ground before dismounting from the machine 
(Ex. 4-61, 4-64, 26A).
    OSHA has addressed the hazard of inadvertent machine engagement in 
other rules as well (e.g., 29 CFR 1910.147, 29 CFR 1910.178). OSHA 
believes the same hazard addressed by those rules is present in logging 
operations. Therefore, OSHA is correcting the final rule and compliance 
directive to indicate that braking, grounding and parking procedures 
must be followed any time the operator leaves the machine cab.

Paragraph (f)(3)(ii)--ROPS Specifications

    The final rule requires that logging machines be equipped with 
rollover protective structures (ROPS) that are tested, installed and 
maintained in accordance with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 
J1040, April 1988, performance criteria for ROPS. OSHA stayed this 
requirement for six months and is now amending the ROPS requirement to 
state that only machines manufactured after August 1, 1996 must have 
ROPS which meet the 1988 SAE standard.
    OSHA is making this change because, while many machines currently 
manufactured do meet the 1988 SAE ROPS standard, other machines 
currently manufactured or in use do not. These machines do have ROPS 
for the most part. However, the ROPS on these machines meet the 1979 
SAE standard instead. While machines that meet the 1988 standard have 
additional protection (e.g., protection for longitudinal rollover), 
machines meeting the 1979 standard do provide protection for the most 
frequently occurring hazard: horizontal rollover. As such, OSHA 
believes that permitting an exception for machines already in service 
should not reduce significantly the level of protection provided to 
machine operators. Therefore, OSHA is revising the compliance directive 
to indicate that machines manufactured on or before August 1, 1996, 
which comply with the 1979 SAE ROPS standard are appropriate for use, 
provided the ROPS is maintained at its designed level of effectiveness 
(See paragraph (f)(1)(i)--machine general maintenance 
requirement).4

    \4\ The final rule also provides that ROPS and FOPS required on 
logging machines placed into initial service after the effective 
date must also meet the requirements of SAE J397, April 1988, 
``Deflection Limiting Volume--ROPS/FOPS Laboratory Evaluation.'' The 
1988 standard updated a 1979 SAE standard on deflection limiting 
volume. OSHA notes that there is no functional difference between 
the criteria of the 1988 and 1979 SAE standards. Therefore, ROPS and 
FOPS certified to meet the requirements of either the 1988 or 1979 
SAE standards shall be deemed to be in compliance with the final 
logging standard. OSHA is revising the compliance directive to 
reflect this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EMI has agreed to use its best efforts to provide OSHA 
with a list of the model numbers of the last logging machines 
manufactured on August 1, 1996. OSHA will use this list to update its 
logging compliance directive as to which logging machines must meet the 
1988 SAE ROPS standard.

Paragraph (f)(3) (vii) and (viii)--Machine Cab Enclosures

    OSHA stayed two provisions in the final rule dealing with cab 
enclosures.5 Paragraph (f)(3)(vii) required that the lower portion 
of machine cabs, up to the top of the instrument panel or 24 inches, be 
enclosed with solid material, except at entrances. Paragraph 
(f)(3)(viii) required that the upper portion of cabs be enclosed with 
mesh material (no greater than 2 inches at its least dimension) or with 
other material(s) that provide equivalent protection and visibility. 
The intention of these provisions was to ensure that the cab enclosure 
provided the machine operator with protection from objects penetrating 
the cab, without impeding the operator's vision.

    \5\ OSHA intends the term ``cab'' to include any machine 
operator station, even if it is not a total enclosure providing 
weather and other protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA stayed these provisions because it was concerned that this 
language could be misconstrued in ways that would reduce protection for 
machine operators. OSHA is revising the final rule to require that 
logging machines manufactured after August 1, 1996, have cabs which are 
completely enclosed, including at entrances (paragraph (f)(3)(vii)). 
The revised provision also clarifies that the 

[[Page 47026]]
enclosure must be constructed with mesh material (with openings no 
greater than 2 inches at its least dimension), or with other 
material(s) which the employer demonstrates will provide equivalent 
visibility and protection from penetrating objects.6

    \6\ OSHA is noting in the revised compliance directive that 
material(s) that satisfy the performance criteria of the Society of 
Automotive Engineers SAE J1084, April 1980, ``Operator Protective 
Structure Performance Criteria for Certain Forestry Equipment'' are 
deemed to comply with the revised provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While some logging machines currently manufactured do meet this 
requirement, others do not. For those logging machines manufactured on 
or before August 1, 1996, OSHA is clarifying in paragraph (f)(3)(viii) 
that such machines may either comply with revised paragraph (f)(3)(vii) 
or continue to meet the protective canopy requirements specified in the 
1971 pulpwood logging standard.7

    \7\ OSHA notes and is clarifying the compliance directive to 
indicate that extended compliance time and exceptions to compliance 
apply only where specifically indicated. With regard to all other 
provisions, the extensions and exceptions do not apply for machinery 
already in use. The employer must assure that any machine used for 
logging operations is in compliance with the other provisions of 
paragraph (f)(3). For example, all machines used in logging 
operations, whether initially placed in service before or after the 
effective date, must have two means of egress. To the extent that 
any machine in service does not have a second means of egress, the 
machine must be retrofitted (e.g., replacing the stationary 
windowshield with a hinged window to allow egress) or removed from 
service.
Paragraph (f)(7)(ii)--Machine Brakes

    In the final rule, OSHA required that logging machines be equipped 
with service brakes (primary brakes) (paragraph (f)(7)(i)), and a 
secondary braking system, such as emergency brakes or parking brakes 
(paragraph (f)(7)(ii)). The final rule specified that the secondary 
braking system be sufficient to stop the machine, in the event that the 
service brakes fail, and to maintain parking performance.
    OSHA stayed paragraph (f)(7)(ii) insofar as it implied that parking 
brakes were adequate secondary brakes for stopping a moving logging 
machine if the service brakes failed. Primary brakes (service brakes), 
secondary stopping brakes (backup brakes), and parking brakes are all 
necessary devices for logging machines. OSHA is correcting paragraph 
(f)(7)(ii) to clarify that logging machines placed into initial service 
after September 8, 1995, must be equipped with three braking systems--
service brakes, secondary brakes and parking brakes.
    Some older machines were manufactured with primary brakes, but 
without secondary or backup brakes, and OSHA has learned that 
retrofitting these machines may not be feasible. OSHA is permitting 
these older machines to remain in use, provided that the employer 
assures the service brakes are inspected and maintained at their 
designed level of effectiveness. Therefore, OSHA is correcting 
paragraph (f)(7)(ii) to specify that only machines placed into initial 
service on or after September 8, 1995 must be equipped with secondary 
and parking brakes.8

    \8\ OSHA is noting in the revised compliance directive that 
logging machines with braking systems meeting the Society of 
Automotive Engineers standards for forestry (SAE J1178, June 1987, 
``Braking Performance--Rubber Tired Skidders'') or earthmoving (SAE 
J1026, April 1990, ``Brake Performance--Crawler Tractors and Crawler 
Loaders'') equipment are deemed to be in compliance with the final 
rule, provided that the employer assures that such braking systems 
are maintained in a serviceable condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (g) (1) and (2)--Maintenance and Inspection of Employee-Owned 
Vehicles

    The revised logging rule required employers to assure that any 
vehicle used off public roads to perform any logging operation, 
including transporting employees, be maintained in a serviceable 
condition and be inspected before it is used during a work shift. OSHA 
agreed to reconsider the maintenance and inspection requirements as 
they pertained to employee-owned vehicles and stayed the requirements 
for six months.
    OSHA explained in the preamble to the final rule that it was aware 
that logging employees operate vehicles on private roads or on private 
property where there may be no roads or only rugged trails. The WIR 
survey shows that vehicle operators and employees riding in such 
vehicles are being injured in vehicle accidents where employees are 
being asked to drive vehicles over terrain that may be quite hazardous 
(e.g., extremely muddy, steep, and unlevel). For example, according to 
the WIR survey, there were 33 mobile equipment accidents resulting in 
employee injury during the three-month survey period (Ex. 2-1). Of 
these, 24 (72 percent) occurred during other than skidding or yarding 
operations (Ex. 2-1). In addition, the WIR survey reported 34 injuries 
on employer-built roads during the same period (Ex. 2-1).
    Based on the record evidence, OSHA determined that it was important 
that logging employees on and between logging sites only drive vehicles 
that are in proper condition and of the appropriate type for the 
terrain in question. Because many employers require or permit employees 
to drive their own vehicles over this terrain to reach the logging work 
site, OSHA applied the inspection and maintenance requirements to these 
vehicles as well. However, OSHA is also aware, and others have pointed 
out, that most States do have periodic vehicle inspection requirements. 
These inspections are more detailed and comprehensive than the 
inspection contemplated by the logging rule. As such, OSHA believes 
that such inspections are adequate, at least with regard to employee-
owned vehicles, and that imposing additional vehicle inspection 
requirements on logging employers is unnecessary. Therefore, OSHA is 
revising the final rule to apply the vehicle inspection and maintenance 
requirements only to vehicles which the employer owns, rents or leases. 
OSHA has done this by revising the definition of ``vehicle'' covered by 
the final rule. OSHA also notes that the employer has the duty to 
provide safe access to the worksite.9

    \9\ OSHA is deleting from revised paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) 
specific reference to application of vehicle maintenance and 
inspection requirements to vehicles used to transport employees. 
Since transportation of employees to, from and between logging sites 
off public roads is included in the definition of logging 
operations, OSHA believes it is not necessary to repeat the 
reference in these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to inspections of vehicles, as well as other equipment 
covered by the final rule such as personal protective equipment, tools, 
and machines; OSHA never intended that the employer must conduct the 
actual inspection of such equipment. The compliance directive clarifies 
that employers may delegate to others, including employees using the 
items, the performance of inspection and maintenance tasks; but 
ultimately the employer remains responsible for safe equipment at the 
workplace. There are different ways in which the employer can assure 
that equipment is properly maintained and inspected. Employers can 
inform employees of maintenance and inspection procedures during 
training, reinforce the requirements during regular safety and health 
meetings, and conduct spot checks of equipment.
    Finally, OSHA notes in the compliance directive that equipment 
inspection requirements in the final rule apply only if the equipment 
is used during the work shift. If it is not to be used, it does not 
need to be inspected.

Paragraph (h)(2)(vii)--Backcuts
    The final rule requires that backcuts be placed above the 
horizontal face cut 

[[Page 47027]]
in all felling except tree pulling operations. OSHA was requested to 
clarify whether the requirement in paragraph (h)(2)(vii) applies to 
Humboldt cutting and open face felling. OSHA stayed for six months the 
backcut requirement in paragraph (h)(2)(vii) as it applied to felling 
trees using the Humboldt cutting method. OSHA also explained that it 
would use the six months to further clarify the backcut requirement as 
it applies to both cutting methods.
    Open face felling. After OSHA published the final rule, the Agency 
was requested to clarify whether the backcut requirement applied to 
open face felling. In brief, the backcut requirement does not apply to 
open face felling, and OSHA is clarifying the final rule and compliance 
directive accordingly.
    In open face felling, two facecuts are made diagonally into the 
stem so there is no horizontal face cut. The backcut requirement 
applies only where a horizontal face cut has been made. Where a 
horizontal face cut is used, there is a greater potential that the 
notch (or wedge) is not as open or that very little or no hinge wood 
will be left if the backcut is made at the same level. This may result 
in the tree kicking back or falling in the wrong direction.
    In open face felling, the notch is much more open than in 
conventional felling. As such, there is little or no danger that 
placing the backcut at the level of the notch will result in the notch 
closing (i.e., the falling tree hitting the stump) too soon and the 
tree kicking back off the stump. This is because the openness of the 
notch permits the tree to fall in the intended direction for a greater 
interval before the notch closes and the hinge breaks. Either the tree 
is on the ground or almost parallel to the ground, and thus committed 
to falling in the intended direction, before the hinge breaks. In 
addition, there is little danger that no hinge wood will be left to 
help direct the falling of the tree.
    Humboldt cutting. In the Humboldt cutting method a horizontal cut 
is made into the face of the tree and a notch is cut below the 
horizontal cut at an angle. By contrast, in conventional felling, the 
notch is cut at a diagonal above the horizontal face cut.
    In several regions the Humboldt cutting method has replaced the 
conventional method. The Humboldt cutting method is heavily used in the 
western States and is also used on high quality trees, such as veneer 
logs and redwoods. Loggers have switched from the conventional to the 
Humboldt method primarily for productivity reasons. In Humboldt 
cutting, the notch is made into the stump rather than the log (Ex. 9-
15). Thus, if properly done, the cutting of the notch does not result 
in the loss of useable wood. OSHA is aware that some fellers who use 
the Humboldt cutting method prefer to make the backcut at the level of 
the horizontal face cut, but the record indicates their preference is 
due to these production rather than safety reasons (Ex. 9-15). Some 
contractors and mills want log butts to be smooth. By placing the 
backcut at the same level as the face cut, these loggers do not have to 
make an additional cut after the tree is felled in order to smooth out 
the log butt. In some cases, to make the additional cut might require 
walking down a hill where the felled tree has rolled or the additional 
cut might have to be made by the employee bucking the tree.
    In logging operations where the Humboldt method is most heavily 
used, fellers most often only cut a notch that is no greater than 45 
degrees, making the openness of the notch similar to that of 
conventional felling. Fellers do this in order to keep the stump as 
short as possible and thereby reduce the lost of useable wood. At 45 
degrees, the face notch alone does not fully address both the hazards 
of misdirected falling and kickback.
    Proper backcuts that provide sufficient hinge wood are critical. 
Sufficient hinge wood helps to hold the tree to the stump during most 
of its fall and thereby allows the hinge to steer the falling tree in 
the right direction. If the hinge is inadequate or if pressure is 
placed on the hinge, it will break too soon and the tree will be left 
without a steering mechanism. Without the hinge wood, the tree may 
twist and bend, and fall in the wrong direction. (OSHA is revising 
paragraph (h)(2)(vi) to expressly state that this requirement is 
intended to address the hazard of misdirected falling.)
    Placing the backcut above the horizontal face cut is also necessary 
to provide a platform to block the tree from kicking back once the 
hinge does break. Where there is a potential that the face notch will 
close before the tree hits the ground, which is the case with most 
cutting using the conventional and Humboldt methods, this platform is 
necessary to prevent kickback. Where the backcut is at the same level 
as the horizontal cut, there is no platform to block the backward 
movement of the tree should kickback start to occur. (OSHA is revising 
paragraph (h)(2)(vii) to expressly state that this requirement is 
intended to address the hazard of tree kickback.)
    In both, misdirected falling and kickback, the feller or other team 
member could be hit by the tree. The risks of such injury are further 
increased if other conditions are present, such as wind, sloping 
terrain, or tree lean.
    To address these risks, most State logging safety rules require 
that backcuts be above the face cut in all felling, including Humboldt 
cutting. For example, in Oregon, a State-plan State, the backcut 
requirement applies to any tree with an 8-inch or larger diameter base 
height. Only the State of Montana, which has advisory criteria, permits 
the backcut to be level with the face cut in Humboldt cutting.
    After reviewing the record in this rulemaking, OSHA reaffirms that 
the record supports the necessity of applying the backcut requirement 
specified in paragraph (h)(2)(vii) to Humboldt cutting (Ex. 2-1, 4-61, 
4-64, 26A; 59 FR 51675). The record clearly shows that manual felling 
is the single most dangerous occupation in logging. The BLS Census of 
Fatal Occupational Injuries indicates that more than one-half of all 
logging employees killed in 1992 were felling trees at the time of 
their accident (59 FR 51675). In addition, the WIR survey indicated 
that almost one quarter of all employees reporting injuries were 
felling trees at the time they were injured, and that the most 
frequently reported cause of their injuries was being hit by a tree 
(Ex. 2-1). The record also shows that tree kickback and misdirected 
falling are two of the major reasons why employees are hit by falling 
trees. For example, the record contains many reports of employee 
injuries and deaths due to misdirected falling and tree kickback (Ex. 
4-61, 4-64, 26A).10

    \10\ It has been argued by some parties that placing the backcut 
above the horizontal face cut is only necessary in selective cutting 
operations, and not in clear cut operations. The reason they give is 
that in clear cut felling trees are felled into the downhill side of 
the slope and there is no danger the tree will kick back or fall 
against gravity in the wrong direction. However, the injury data in 
the rulemaking record do not support this position. According to the 
WIR survey, 62 percent of all injuries reported occurred in clear 
cut operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proper backcuts where adequate hinge wood and a platform are left 
will reduce the potential for such injuries (Ex. 4-5, 21D, 22, 38I). In 
fact, manual felling training materials entered into the record 
instruct fellers, for safety reasons, to place the backcut above the 
horizontal face cut (Ex. 4-5, 4-6, 4-10, 4-19, 4-169, 4-173, 5-1, 5-29, 
8-18, 21, 29). Moreover, the record demonstrates that the primary 
reason that fellers prefer to place backcuts at the same level as the 
face cut is not because of safety, but rather because they do not want 
to have to make an additional cut to trim the log butt. However, there 
is no evidence in the record which 

[[Page 47028]]
indicates that making an additional cut would have any significant 
impact on productivity.
    The purposes of this standard are best realized by requiring that 
the backcut provide sufficient hinge wood to direct the fall of the 
tree, and that the backcut be above the horizontal face cut so a 
platform is formed. These safe manual felling practices will help to 
ensure the tree falls in the intended direction and does not kick back 
off the stump when the notch closes. OSHA is revising the final rule 
and compliance directive to more clearly reflect OSHA's intent that 
these work practices be followed.11

    \11\ OSHA notes that one safe technique for making the backcut 
is to start the backcut with a plunge cut/bore cut to establish the 
hinge. The backcut should then be moved toward the back of the tree. 
This backcut method provides for two holding points until the tree 
is finally released. This backcutting method will prevent the tree 
from releasing too soon or moving before the feller has moved to a 
point of safety. The record shows that this backcutting method is a 
safe technique for felling (Ex. 9-20), and OSHA suggests this 
technique when conditions such as, but not limited to, tree lean, 
slope, and large tree size indicate that felling the particular tree 
may present additional hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA has not specified in the final rule how far above the face cut 
the backcut must be placed. By contrast, the Washington and Michigan 
logging standards require that the backcut be approximately 2 inches 
above the face cut to provide adequate hinge wood. On the other hand, 
the Oregon logging rule does not specify a minimum vertical distance. 
OSHA believes that a backcut placed at least one inch above the face 
cut should provide an adequate platform to prevent kickback and to 
allow the hinge to help steer the falling of the tree in the intended 
direction. OSHA believes that a one-inch platform would provide an 
adequate margin of safety for the feller while still providing the 
contractor with a fairly square-end log.12

    \12\ OSHA's decision to require that backcuts in Humboldt 
cutting be above the horizontal face is based in part on the fact 
that most loggers currently using this method are making the notch 
the same size as in conventional felling--45 degrees. A 45-degree 
notch is generally not open enough to control for both misdirected 
falling and kickback hazards. However, where a notch of 70 degrees 
or greater is cut, the notch in Humboldt cutting acts as it does in 
open face felling. As discussed above, in open face felling, because 
of the 70- to 90-degree notch, it is unlikely that the tree will 
fall in the wrong direction or kick back. OSHA stresses that this is 
due to the openness of the notch rather than the type of cutting 
method being employed. As such, OSHA is clarifying the compliance 
directive to indicate that where the notch is at least 70 degrees, 
it is not as critical that the backcut be above the horizontal face 
cut or the notch of the face cut, regardless of whether the open 
face or Humboldt method is being used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Corrections and Clarifications

Paragraph (c)--Definitions

    Logging operations. The definition of ``logging operations'' in the 
final rule includes ``marking'' operations. OSHA is revising this 
definition to clarify the type of marking operations covered by the 
logging standard. OSHA intended that marking include operations that 
are done attendant to and at the same time as felling, cutting and 
moving trees in a particular logging work site. Such marking operations 
include marking danger trees, and sizing and marking felled trees to be 
cut to length. These particular marking operations inform loggers 
working in the area or on that tract whether and how to cut trees.
    OSHA did not intend marking operations to include those operations 
that are done independently of or in advance of cutting trees in a 
particular logging site. These preparatory operations include marking 
of tracts of land to determine the order in which tracts will be 
logged, and marking and designating boundaries of tracts of land that 
will be bid upon for harvesting. Harvesting of trees does not take 
place on the tracts while these marking operations are being done. 
These preparatory operations do not involve the hazards of logging 
operations, and the record indicates that the high injury and fatality 
rates in the logging industry are not associated with these activities 
(e.g., Ex. 2-1). Therefore, OSHA is revising the compliance directive 
to indicate that marking activities which take place in advance of and 
separate from tree harvesting are not covered by the final logging 
rule.
    For the same reasons, OSHA is also revising the compliance 
directive to specify that incidental marking of danger trees or 
wildlife trees at the same time tracts of land are being marked also is 
not covered by the final rule if no tree harvesting is undertaken in 
the area at this time.
    OSHA is also revising the definition of logging operation to more 
accurately express its intention about what transportation activities 
the Agency considers to be logging operations covered by the final 
rule. The final rule had stated that logging operations include 
transport of machines, equipment and personnel from one logging site to 
another. The Agency had intended the definition to include 
transportation of machines, equipment and personnel to and from as well 
as between logging sites. As discussed above, with regard to 
transportation of employees, the revised rule includes only their 
transportation in vehicles owned, rented or leased by the employer.
    OSHA has been requested to clarify what loading and unloading 
operations are covered by the final rule. OSHA is revising the 
compliance directive to indicate more clearly that loading of trees at 
the logging work site and loading/unloading of trees at trans-shipment 
points such as satellite wood yards are covered by the final rule. With 
regard to unloading logs at pulp, paper and paperboard mills (hereafter 
pulp mills) and sawmills, OSHA has other standards which address some 
of the hazards associated with such unloading (See, Pulp, Paper and 
Paperboard Mills, 29 CFR 1910.261, and Sawmills, 29 CFR 1910.265). To 
the extent that hazards associated with unloading trees at these 
worksites are addressed by these other standards, they apply instead of 
the final logging rule. For example, both the pulp mill and sawmill 
standards include provisions specifying how binders and stakes are to 
be released from the load of logs. As such, the similar provision 
contained in the logging final rule does not apply. However, to the 
extent that the final logging rule addresses hazards not covered by the 
pulp and saw mill standards, the logging rule applies if it is a 
logging operation. For example, neither the pulp mill or sawmill 
standards address the hazards faced by log truck operators who remain 
in their cabs during unloading. Thus, paragraph (h)(6)(iii) applies to 
loading and unloading of trees at pulp mills and sawmills as well as at 
logging sites and satellite log yards.
    Machine. In the final rule OSHA included a definition of the 
machines covered by the logging rule. The definition included material 
handling equipment that is operated off-road. OSHA was asked to clarify 
whether the definition of logging machine includes aircraft, such as 
helicopters. OSHA never intended that logging machines include 
airplanes or helicopters and is clarifying its intention by expressly 
excluding airplanes and helicopters from the definition of machines 
covered by the final rule.

Paragraph (d)(1)(iii)--Gloves

    The final rule specified that all loggers who handle wire rope must 
wear cotton gloves or other hand protection that the employer 
demonstrates provides equivalent protection. The proposed rule would 
have required employees to wear heavy-duty puncture resistant gloves 
such as leather. Many commenters said that such gloves would pose 
additional hazards and urged OSHA to permit employees to wear 

[[Page 47029]]
cotton gloves (Ex. 5-17, 5-29, 5-54, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. OR 104). 
They said that during winching leather gloves would not tear away when 
caught on a ``jagger'' (i.e., broken wires of a wire rope) and would 
forcibly pull the logger's hand. This could result in a more severe 
laceration of the hand, or could cause the employee to be dragged into 
the machinery or to fall. Thus, they said the leather glove could turn 
a minor injury into a more serious injury. Based on this, in the final 
rule OSHA specified that cotton gloves must be worn.
    OSHA is correcting the final rule to indicate that it was not the 
Agency's intention, in specifying cotton gloves, that employees be 
permitted to have their hands on wire rope when winching is started or 
underway. OSHA emphasizes that employees are not permitted to be 
handling the winching line when the yarding machine is in operation. 
The final rule requires that they must be clear of the choked log 
before the yarding machine operator begins to winch the choked trees. 
Paragraph (h)(5)(i) of the final rule clearly requires that before any 
log is moved that employees must be in the clear. In addition, 
paragraph (h)(5)(v) requires that employees who assist with yarding 
(i.e., choking logs) must signal the machine operator that they are in 
the clear and the machine operator must not begin winching the load 
until he has clearly understood the received signal that other 
employees are in the clear (paragraph (h)(5)(v)). OSHA included these 
requirements because employees have been injured where logs being 
winched hit obstacles, causing them to swing suddenly and strike an 
employee (Ex. 2-1, 4-63, 4-64).
    OSHA is making clear in the revised provision what hazards hand 
protection are intended to address--puncture wounds, cuts and 
lacerations that could occur from handling wire rope, especially rope 
with broken wires. Employers are free to use cotton gloves, provided 
they adequately address the hazards of handling wire rope. Employers 
are also free to use rubber gloves with cotton liners or leather gloves 
that protect employees from the hazards associated with handling wire 
rope as well as from extreme environmental conditions.

Paragraph (d)(1)(iv)--Leg Protection

    Some parties requested OSHA to exempt from the leg protection 
requirement the incidental use of chain saws. However, OSHA has not 
made such an exemption because the record clearly does not support it.
    As OSHA explained in the preamble of the final rule, the risk of 
injury from chain saw is present whenever a chain saw is being used (59 
FR 51702). The WIR survey showed that 20 percent of injuries reported 
were chain-saw injuries (Ex. 2-1). Chain-saw kickback and sudden cut-
through, which are major causes of chain-saw injuries, are not 
dependent on whether the chain saw is used frequently or regularly by 
the operator. There is no evidence in the record that employees who 
only occasionally operate chain saws are not subject to these risks. 
OSHA believes that a feller, who operates a chain saw as a regular part 
of the job, and a logging truck operator, who may operate a chain saw 
occasionally or incidentally to operating a vehicle, both face a 
significant risk of injury when using a chain saw. As such, OSHA 
believes that leg and foot protection are needed whenever an employee 
is operating a chain saw. The revised compliance directive notes that 
the leg protection requirement applies to any employee who operates a 
chain saw for any amount of time.
    OSHA realizes that protective material may be damaged or destroyed 
in the process of stopping a chain saw. Because of this, OSHA is 
revising the compliance directive to indicate that when the outer 
covers of the protective equipment have been penetrated it does not 
necessarily mean that the equipment is no longer serviceable. However, 
where there are also cuts or tears in the protective material of the 
leg protection or logging boot, such equipment is no longer in 
serviceable condition. OSHA agrees with manufacturer warning labels 
that such cuts and tears in the protective material compromise the 
ability of the PPE to provide the level of protection which is 
necessary. OSHA is revising the compliance directive to specify that in 
such situations footwear and leg protection cannot be repaired and must 
be replaced with serviceable PPE.
Paragraph (d)(2)(i)--Location of First-Aid Kits

    In the final rule, OSHA required that employers provide first-aid 
kits at each landing, on each employee transport vehicle, and at each 
worksite where felling is being conducted. After the final rule was 
published, OSHA was requested to clarify whether first-aid kits must be 
provided at both active and inactive landings. It was not OSHA's 
intention to require employers to provide first-aid kits at landings 
which are not currently in use. OSHA is correcting the final rule to 
clarify that the provision of first-aid kits at landings refers to only 
``active'' landings.
    OSHA was also requested to clarify at what point a felling work 
site is considered separate or remote from another work site, thus 
triggering the requirement for an additional first-aid kit. In the 
revised compliance directive, OSHA has indicated that where employees 
are cutting trees more than one-half mile from an active landing or an 
employee transport vehicle, a first-aid kit also must be provided at 
that work site. In these situations, the first-aid kits which are at 
the landing or on the vehicle are too distant to be considered 
immediately accessible.
    The compliance directive also indicates that where conditions are 
not optimal, such as steep or mountainous terrain, very muddy terrain, 
heavy brush, or snowy and icy conditions, first-aid kits cannot be as 
far as one-half mile from a cutting area and still be considered 
immediately accessible. Traveling under such conditions is likely to 
take far longer than under optimal conditions, thus rendering the 
first-aid kit too isolated to be of any prompt use. Where such 
conditions exist or are reasonably anticipated, the employer will have 
to evaluate their severity in determining whether cutting operations 
need first-aid kits to be located closer to the worksite.
    Finally, OSHA is also correcting the final rule to clarify which 
felling work sites need first-aid kits. In the final rule, OSHA stated 
that first-aid kits must be provided ``at each work site where felling 
is being conducted.'' It was OSHA's intention that felling work sites 
include any work site where trees are being cut; that includes limbing, 
bucking, and trimming as well as felling. The rulemaking record clearly 
shows there are a significant number of injuries wherever trees are 
being cut. For example, the WIR survey indicated that 23 percent of 
employees reporting injuries were felling trees and 27 percent were 
limbing and bucking felled trees (Ex. 2-1). Injuries to these employees 
are primarily due to chain saws or being hit by a falling or rolling 
tree. Because of the significant risk of injury, employees performing 
all of these logging operations need to have immediate access to a 
first-aid kit.
    A further review of the record indicates that in many situations 
limbing and bucking are not done at the landing, but rather, at the 
place where the tree is felled (e.g., Ex. 4-63, 4-64, 26A). In 
addition, in-forest limbing and bucking is not always done near felling 
operations. For example, felling operations may be far from limbing and 
bucking crews. To the extent that a limbing or bucking work site is 
more than one-half mile from the nearest first-

[[Page 47030]]
aid kit (i.e., felling area, active landing, or employee transport 
vehicle), OSHA is clarifying that a first-aid kit must also be provided 
for that limbing or bucking work site.

Paragraph (d)(5)--Environmental Conditions

    The final rule requires that employees terminate work and move to a 
safe location where environmental conditions may endanger them in that 
work or at a given location. While OSHA cannot specify every 
environmental condition that might necessitate employees moving to a 
place of safety, OSHA did provide a list of certain types of conditions 
that would create hazards for employees working in the area.
    After publication of the final rule, OSHA was told that the 
provision was too broad and did not provide adequate instruction for 
compliance officers because it included conditions which did not pose a 
real possibility of danger for logging employees. However, OSHA 
believes that the final rule included clear examples of environmental 
conditions which would be considered dangerous for an exposed employee. 
Paragraph (d)(5) specifies that work stop and employees move to a place 
of safety in electrical storms (as opposed to rainy weather), dense fog 
(as opposed to pocket fog), heavy rain and snow (as opposed to wet 
weather), extreme cold (as opposed to cold weather), and mudslides (as 
opposed to muddy conditions). OSHA believes this list of extreme 
environmental conditions does identify hazardous conditions and 
provides adequate guidance for compliance officers.
    It was also requested that OSHA revise these provisions to require 
that employees be moved to a place of safety only if winds were ``gale 
force.'' Gale force winds are defined as those which are at least 40 
miles per hour. OSHA is aware, however, that even winds of less than 
gale force can significantly affect the fall of a tree, particularly if 
other adverse conditions are present (e.g., leaning tree, steep 
terrain, large tree, lodged tree, tree under pressure). As such, OSHA 
does not believe one specific wind speed is an appropriate indicator of 
whether an environmental hazard is present. However, OSHA is revising 
the final rule to more fully express the type of wind conditions it 
believes create a hazard for an employee working in the area. The final 
rule and compliance directive are being revised to indicate that all 
work must terminate and each employee shall move to a place of safety 
when strong winds which may adversely affect the fall of a tree are 
present.
    OSHA also included fires among hazardous environmental conditions. 
Some parties have interpreted this example as requiring employees to 
leave the area any time a fire starts rather than putting out the fire. 
However, the final rule, viewed in its entirety, does not support that 
interpretation. For example, paragraph (d)(4), directly preceding the 
environmental conditions provision, requires employers to provide fire 
extinguishers on each machine and vehicle. This requirement 
contemplates that an employee may be called upon to put out a small 
fire which has started. However, if a fire were to start in an area 
where there is no fire extinguisher or other equipment or supplies 
which would allow the employee to safely suppress it, the employer 
would be responsible for assuring that the employee is moved out of the 
area of danger. Likewise, where a fire, because of its size, intensity 
or the conditions of the area, creates a hazard for an employee who 
remains in the area, either to work or attempt to suppress the fire, 
the employer must also assure that employee is moved from the area of 
danger. OSHA notes that the standards on fire protection in subpart L 
of Part 1910, and not the revised logging standard, govern the fighting 
and suppression of fires at logging worksites.

Paragraph (d)(6)(iii)--Working Within Visual or Audible Contact

    In the final rule, OSHA requires that each employee work within 
visual or audible contact of another employee. OSHA was requested to 
clarify whether this requirement applies only to employees working at a 
logging site or also to employees working away from logging work sites 
(e.g., logging vehicle operators transporting a load of logs off the 
logging site on public roads).
    OSHA intended that this provision of the final rule apply to each 
employee working at a logging work site, including watchmen and other 
employees performing logging operations at remote logging work sites. 
OSHA did not intend the requirement to apply to vehicle operators who 
are not at the logging site, but rather driving vehicles miles away. 
However, this provision does apply to vehicle operators while they are 
at a logging work site. OSHA is revising the final rule to clarify its 
intention and to provide the exception for vehicle operators working 
away from the logging work site.

Paragraph (d)(6)(iv)--End of Workshift Accounting of Employees
    The final rule requires that the employer account for each employee 
at the end of each workshift. OSHA was requested to provide additional 
clarification of this requirement in the revised compliance directive.
    First, the employer need not personally conduct the actual end of 
shift accounting of each employee. The employer may delegate this task, 
but the employer remains ultimately responsible under the standard for 
assuring that employees are not inadvertently left in the woods, 
especially an employee who may be injured.
    Second, this provision does not require employers to prohibit 
employees from remaining at the work site after the end of the work 
shift to engage in personal activities, such as hunting, camping, or 
cutting fire wood for personal use. Rather, OSHA's intent was to assure 
that no employee, particularly an injured employee, be inadvertently 
left in the woods without assistance. The rulemaking record includes 
several reports of accidents in which employees were not discovered in 
a timely fashion and died (Ex. 4-64, 26A). The revised compliance 
directive also makes clear that after the workshift has ended and the 
employer has ascertained that the employee is done with work, including 
overtime work, and is safely accounted for, the final rule does not 
prohibit the employer from allowing the employee to remain in the area 
for personal reasons. OSHA is revising the compliance directive to 
reflect this.

Paragraph (d)(9)(i)--Storage and Handling of Flammable and Combustible 
Liquids

    The final rule requires that flammable and combustible materials be 
stored, handled and transported (hereafter stored) in accordance with 
the requirements of subpart H of Part 1910. OSHA was requested to 
provide an exception from subpart H to allow logging machine operators 
to carry plastic cans of chain-saw fuel for refueling away from fueling 
stations, when necessary. Some parties have interpreted paragraph 
(d)(9) as prohibiting machine operators from storing and transporting 
logging machine fuel in 5-gallon plastic containers which are approved 
by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or meet U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT) requirements. For the reasons discussed below, 
OSHA does not believe that an exception to subpart H 

[[Page 47031]]
is necessary to allow the practice that these parties seek to 
authorize.
    First, Subpart H permits Class IB liquids, which OSHA interprets as 
including chain-saw fuels, to be carried in 5-gallon plastic safety 
cans approved by UL or Factory Mutual (FM). Subpart H permits Class IB 
fuels to be carried in ``safety cans'' that have a maximum allowable 
size of 5 gallons (29 CFR 1910.106(d)). Safety cans are defined as 
containers approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory 
(NRTL) and otherwise meeting the requirements of the definition. This 
requirement is broad enough to encompass plastic safety cans, provided 
that such containers are approved by a NRTL as meeting all the 
requirements of the definition. In response to concerns raised, OSHA 
also notes that UL and FM are recognized by the Agency as NRTLs for 
testing and listing equipment meeting the requirements of subpart H.
    Second, subpart H also permits flammable and combustible liquids to 
be stored in containers meeting the requirements of regulations issued 
by the Hazardous Materials Regulations Board, Department of 
Transportation (See, 49 CFR 171-178). These regulations permit 
flammable liquids such as chain-saw fuel to be stored in plastic 
jerricans holding up to 5 gallons which meet DOT specifications for 
non-bulk packaging (See, 49 CFR 193.202(c) and 178.502).
    Therefore, read in its entirety, the logging standard does not 
prohibit plastic safety containers under the conditions described 
above, and an exception is not necessary. OSHA is including this 
discussion in the revised compliance directive.

Paragraph (d)(9)(iii)--Machine Fueling

    The final rule requires that tools, machines and vehicles be shut 
off during fueling. The purpose of this provision is to eliminate 
potential sources of ignition when handling flammable and combustible 
liquids in order to prevent a fire from erupting.
    OSHA is revising the rule to permit diesel-powered machines and 
vehicles to be fueled while at idle, provided that continued operation 
is intended and that the employer follows safe fueling and operating 
procedures. OSHA believes this exception is warranted because the 
hazard which this provision seeks to address, sudden flash fires, is 
typically not present during fueling of diesel-powered engines. This is 
because diesel fuel has a higher flash point than that of gasoline, and 
unlike gasoline its vapors do not evolve as suddenly. In fact, in many 
cases diesel fuel must be heated before it will give off sufficient 
vapors to ignite. As such, there is little potential for fire if a 
diesel-powered engine is running during fueling.
    At the same time, however, OSHA is requiring that other safe 
fueling and operating procedures be followed during fueling of diesel-
powered machines and vehicles. OSHA is revising the compliance 
directive to indicate that employers must train employees in safe 
practices during fueling. These include vapor containment, spill 
prevention, and other procedures the operator must follow when leaving 
the machine cab to fuel the engine.

Paragraph (d)(9)(iv)--Starting Fires

    The final rule required that flammable and combustible liquids not 
be used to start fires. The purpose of this provision was to prevent 
fires being started by employees from erupting and burning them and 
others.
    After publication of the rule, OSHA was requested to allow fires to 
be started with chain-saw fuel, which is a flammable liquid, provided 
that the fuel was not used in an unsafe manner or in a situation which 
might create a hazard for any employee. OSHA agrees that the rulemaking 
record does not identify the use of chain-saw fuel to start fires as a 
major cause of accidents and injuries in the logging industry (e.g., 
Ex. 2-1). However, the record does indicate that using chain-saw fuel 
can create a hazard in certain situations. For example, a Forest 
Products Accident Prevention Association (FPAPA) Industry Alert 
reported that employees suffered third-degree burns when a fire in a 
warming hut was reignited with chain-saw fuel and caused an explosion 
(Ex. 4-64). In that case, an employee had added wood and chain-saw fuel 
to a woodstove which had been started earlier in the day. The coals 
left over from the earlier fire vaporized the fuel and then ignited it. 
The action that the employer could have taken to prevent the accident 
included prohibiting the use of chain-saw fuel to start a fire in an 
enclosure. In addition, according to FPAPA, the accident could have 
been prevented if the employer had trained the workers about the 
hazards of improper fuel handling.
    OSHA is revising the final rule to allow flammable and combustible 
liquids, such as chain-saw and diesel fuel, to be used to start a fire. 
OSHA believes that this flexibility will allow piles of wood or slash 
to be burned when permitted by forestry officials. However, the revised 
provision does not permit flammable and combustible liquids to be used 
whenever a fire is needed. The revised provision only permits such 
liquids to be used where the employer assures that their use does not 
create a hazard for an employee. OSHA agrees with FPAPA that employers 
must train employees to know under what conditions it is safe to start 
a fire with chain-saw fuel and those situations in which using fuel may 
create a hazard for an employee. In the compliance directive OSHA is 
indicating particular situations in which starting a fire with chain-
saw fuel would not be safe. For example, using chain-saw fuel to start 
a fire in an enclosure is not safe. There is a greater chance that fuel 
vapors may collect in the enclosed area and ignite or cause an 
explosion. The record shows there are other ways to start fires where 
chain-saw fuel may create a hazard. For example, light-weight fire 
starters made of sawdust and wax are available.

Paragraph (e)(2)(iv)--Refueling Chain Saws

    The final rule required that chain saws be fueled at least 20 feet 
from any open flame or other source of ignition and started at least 10 
feet from the fueling area. The purpose of these provisions is to 
assure that chain-saw fuel was kept a minimum safe distance from any 
potential source of ignition.
    After publication of the final rule, some parties pointed out that 
OSHA had established two different minimum safe distances between fuel 
and ignition sources--20 feet between fueling areas and ignition 
sources, and 10 feet between fueling areas and chain saw startup, which 
is another potential source of ignition. They urged OSHA to establish a 
uniform safe distance and recommended that OSHA adopt a 10-foot minimum 
safe distance. While OSHA believes that an open fire is a much more 
likely source of ignition than a chain saw being started, nonetheless 
OSHA believes that a 10-foot distance is adequate in both situations. 
This is because in the out-of-doors, where constant air movement 
dissipates vapors, it would be unlikely there could be a concentration 
of flammable vapors sufficient to cause an increased potential for fire 
at a distance greater than 10 feet. Therefore OSHA is revising the 
final rule and compliance directive to establish a 10-foot minimum safe 
distance between fueling areas and potential sources of ignition.

Paragraph (e)(2)(vi)--Starting Chain Saws

    The final rule requires that chain saws be started on the ground or 
where otherwise firmly supported. OSHA was requested to clarify 
expressly in the regulatory text whether ``drop starting'' 

[[Page 47032]]
a chain saw is prohibited under the final rule, and whether operators 
are allowed to start the chain saw while standing in an upright stance.
    In the preamble to the final rule, OSHA explained that the purpose 
of this requirement was to assure that employees did not attempt to 
drop start chain saws. As noted in that discussion, an employee could 
lose his grip when drop starting a chain saw and the saw could fly 
upward and cut the employee. Nonetheless, OSHA is amending the final 
rule to emphasize the Agency's intention that drop starting of chain 
saws is prohibited.
    With regard to employee position during chain-saw start up, nothing 
in the final rule prohibits an employee from standing in upright when 
starting a chain saw, provided that the employee has firmly supported 
or secured the chain saw. For example, a chain saw operator would be in 
compliance with the final rule if he rested the chain saw firmly on a 
log or other stationary item and started the chain saw while standing 
upright. OSHA notes that such a starting position is a safe technique 
because it provides protection both from chain saw kickback and from 
overexertion of the back.

Paragraph (e)(2)(xii)--Carrying Chain Saws

    The final rule requires that chain saws be carried in a manner that 
will prevent operator contact with the cutting chain and muffler. 
OSHA's intention is to assure that chain-saw operators are not cut by 
the saw or burned by the hot muffler when carrying the chain saw 
between felling points.
    The record indicates there are certain devices currently available 
and used in the logging industry to prevent cuts and burns (Ex. 5-21, 
5-36, 5-63), including leather and felt shoulder pads. By citing these 
examples, OSHA did not intend to imply that these particular devices 
are required by the final rule. In fact, OSHA expressly stated in the 
preamble that ``any other method of carrying the chain saw that 
prevents these hazards would also meet this requirement'' (59 FR 
51713). OSHA is including this clarification in the revised compliance 
directive.

Paragraph (e)(2)(xiii)--Retreating With Chain Saws

    The final rule required that after cutting a tree the feller must 
shut off or idle the chain saw before beginning his retreat. OSHA's 
intention was to help assure that employees are not cut by a running 
chain saw when they are moving quickly to a safe distance from the 
falling tree. As discussed in the preamble, a significant number of 
chain-saw injuries result from falling on the saw or losing the grip on 
a running saw (Ex. 2-1). As a result, any time a feller moves with a 
chain saw, precautions must be taken to prevent contact with the moving 
chain. These precautions include shutting off the saw, engaging the 
chain brake, or idling the engine by releasing pressure on the throttle 
and grasping the front handle.
    It has been pointed out to OSHA that it takes a moment's delay for 
a saw to idle down once the throttle is released. As was noted in the 
rulemaking record ``[t]he cutter may lose precious seconds worrying 
about compliance with the * * * standard, meanwhile a life could be in 
danger'' (Ex. 5-50). It is not OSHA's intention that the feller be 
required to remain next to the tree waiting for the chain saw to idle 
down before retreating a safe distance from the falling tree. Rather, 
OSHA's intention is that as soon as the feller releases the throttle, 
placing the machine into idle, he should immediately move on the 
retreat path a safe distance from the falling tree. Once the throttle 
is released, it should only take a brief moment a properly maintained 
chain saw to stop. OSHA is revising the final rule and compliance 
directive to more accurately express OSHA's intention.
Paragraph (f)(3)(i)--Protective Structures for Logging Machines

    The final rule requires that the following logging machines placed 
into initial service after February 9, 1995, have FOPS and/or ROPS: 
tractors, skidders, swing yarders, log stackers and mechanical felling 
devices. OSHA intended that the term ``log stackers'' be viewed as a 
general term covering any logging machine that stacks logs during 
loading and unloading. However, the more common term used in the 
industry to refer to machines that load and unload logs is ``log 
loader.'' OSHA is therefore revising the final rule to clarify that 
paragraph (f)(3)(i) covers log loaders.

Paragraph (h)(1)(ii)--Unfamiliar or Unusually Hazardous Conditions

    This section requires that the immediate supervisor be consulted 
for approval when unfamiliar or unusually hazardous conditions are 
encountered before cutting is commenced. OSHA included this provision 
in the final rule because the record indicates that many injuries occur 
when inexperienced employees encounter unfamiliar situations, and even 
when experienced loggers believe they can handle particularly hazardous 
situations on their own (Ex. 2-1, 4-63, 4-64, 26A).
    OSHA was requested to clarify the situations which are intended to 
be covered by this provision. While OSHA cannot provide an exhaustive 
list of the situations which may necessitate the employee consulting 
with a supervisor, there are certain situations which are clearly 
covered by this paragraph. These situations include worsening weather 
conditions (e.g., weather changes which begin to impair the logger's 
vision); deepening snow or mud which begins to affect a logger's 
mobility; felling very large or very tall trees; cutting trees whose 
lean, structure, or location make it difficult to fell in the desired 
or safest direction; and using a driver tree to fell a danger tree. 
These are situations in which loggers have been killed or severely 
injured because the conditions caused unexpected results during felling 
(Ex. 2-1, 4-63, 4-64, 26A). When these conditions arise, adding the 
supervisor's knowledge, training, and experience to the decisionmaking 
process should help minimize the hazards to which the logger may be 
exposed.
    In addition to such consultation, it is also important in training 
for employers to train their new employees that when they encounter 
situations with which they have not dealt before, they need to work 
with the supervisor to safely handle the situation. This concept should 
also be reinforced in regular safety and health meetings.

Paragraph (h)(1)(iii)--Felling Distances

    The final rule requires that while manual felling is in progress, 
yarding machines must not be operated within two tree lengths of the 
trees being manually felled. OSHA's intention was to assure that 
neither the yarding machine operator nor the manual feller is injured 
because of the independent actions of the other. For example, the 
feller may not be conscious of the fact that the yarding machine 
operator has entered the area to remove the tree which the feller has 
just cut. This work practice requirement helps to assure that yarding 
machine operators are not hit by other trees the feller or felling team 
has begun to cut.
    After the final rule was published, OSHA was requested to clarify 
whether this provision prohibits tree pulling by teams of employees. 
Tree pulling was not intended to be prohibited under paragraph 
(h)(1)(iii). Indeed, paragraph (h)(1)(iv) addresses tree harvesting by 
employee teams, and sets forth procedures which must be followed where 
a team is necessary to fell a tree. In any event, OSHA is correcting 
the final rule to provide an explicit exception to paragraph 
(h)(1)(iii) for tree pulling operations. OSHA is also 

[[Page 47033]]
revising the compliance directive to indicate that the procedures 
governing team felling also apply in tree pulling operations.

Paragraph (h)(1)(ix)--Domino Felling

    The final rule prohibits domino felling. OSHA defined domino 
felling in the final rule as ``[t]he partial cutting of multiple trees 
which are left standing and then pushed over with a pusher tree.'' In 
the preamble OSHA explained that domino felling was a method of 
attempting to fell a line or row of trees by partially cutting the 
trees and then pushing the end tree into the others, thereby creating a 
domino falling effect. (59 FR 51699, 51724). There was considerable 
evidence in the rulemaking record that such a method of felling a group 
of trees is extremely dangerous because there is greater likelihood the 
line of trees will not fall in the intended direction or may not fall 
completely, thereby creating even greater hazards (Ex. 5-42, 5-46; Tr. 
W2 231, OR 659). The hazards associated with domino felling are further 
increased where a danger tree is among the line or row of trees to be 
felled using this chain reaction method. Therefore, OSHA emphasized 
that danger trees also could not be felled using domino felling.
    After publication, OSHA was requested to further clarify whether 
the felling of a single danger tree by felling another single tree into 
it is prohibited under the final rule. The final rule does not prohibit 
this practice in all cases, since the definition of domino felling in 
the final rule does not include the felling of a single tree with 
another tree. The domino felling that is prohibited in the final rule 
is the felling of multiple trees with a pusher tree. OSHA is revising 
the final rule to identify practices which are not considered to be 
domino felling, and therefore, are not prohibited by the standard.
    However, the practice of felling a danger tree by felling another 
one into it, while it is not prohibited, is not automatically permitted 
to be used whenever a danger tree is felled. Paragraph (h)(1)(vii) of 
the final rule also requires that where a danger tree is felled or 
removed, the feller must use a technique that minimizes employee 
exposure to the hazard. In some cases, felling a danger tree by felling 
another tree into it will not minimize employee exposure to the 
hazards, and may even increase the risk the feller faces in removing 
the danger tree. As OSHA pointed out in the preamble, commenters told 
OSHA that felling a danger tree by felling another one into it is a 
safe technique when used by an experienced feller, but only ``in 
certain situations'' (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92). Other commenters told 
OSHA that this technique is generally not considered safe practice (Ex. 
5-42, 5-46). In clarifying that this technique is not prohibited under 
the final rule, OSHA is permitting that a danger tree be felled in this 
manner only where a careful examination of mechanical techniques is 
first made and where it is also determined that the hazards felling the 
danger tree in this manner can be sufficiently minimized. The revised 
compliance directive notes that felling a danger tree by this method 
does not always minimize employee exposure to the hazard under 
paragraph (h)(1)(vii), and emphasizes that a safer method to remove a 
danger tree is to pull the tree down with a skidder or mechanical 
feller (Ex. 5-43).

Paragraph (h)(2)(i)--Retreat Paths

    The final rule requires that a feller must plan and clear a retreat 
path before he begins cutting a tree. This provision assures that the 
feller has an accessible path for moving away from the falling tree, 
especially if the tree falls in an unintended direction. The rulemaking 
record indicates that a significant number of injuries have resulted 
from not having a clear retreat path. For example, the WIR survey 
indicates that almost 15 percent of logging injuries reported resulted 
from loggers misjudging the time and distance required to move to a 
safe place (Ex. 2-1).
    It has been pointed out to OSHA that while this provision requires 
employees to plan and clear a retreat path, it does not expressly state 
that the feller must take that retreat path a safe distance from the 
falling tree once the tree is cut. While OSHA is confident that the 
vast majority of employers and fellers understand the purpose of the 
retreat path, OSHA is correcting the final rule to make the retreat 
requirement explicit.

Paragraph (h)(3)(i)--Limbing and Bucking

    The final rule requires that whenever rolling or sliding of the 
tree is reasonably foreseeable, limbing and bucking must be done on the 
uphill side of the tree. While it is possible to limb and buck from the 
uphill side in almost all situations, the Agency provided an exception 
for those cases where the employer demonstrated that it was not 
feasible to limb or buck from the uphill side. In those limited cases, 
the provision required that the tree be secured with chocks to prevent 
rolling, sliding or swinging.
    After publication of the final rule, OSHA was told by various 
parties that they knew of no cases where manual bucking and limbing 
from the uphill side would be infeasible. They also said that the 
procedure of setting chocks itself would put the employee in a 
dangerous position. Therefore, they told OSHA that the exception 
allowing work on the downhill side should be deleted from the final 
rule.
    A review of the rulemaking record supports these comments. There 
were no comments or hearing testimony identifying any situations in 
which it would be infeasible to buck or limb a tree from the uphill 
side. Moreover, the Agency is aware that machines can move trees to a 
stable position so there is no potential for rolling of the tree during 
limbing and bucking. Therefore, OSHA agrees that the exception to allow 
limbing and bucking from the downhill side is unnecessary, and is 
correcting the final rule to remove it.

Paragraph (h)(5)(v)--Yarding

    The final rule requires that yarding lines not be moved unless the 
yarder operator has clearly received and understood the signal. This 
provision also specifies that when in doubt, the machine operator must 
repeat the signal and wait for a confirming signal before moving the 
line. OSHA intended the term ``yarder operator'' to be a generic 
reference to any employee operating a machine used for yarding, 
including a yarder or skidder. However, since a yarder is also a 
specific kind of yarding machine, the provision could be read as 
applying only to the operator of that particular type of machine. 
Because of the potential for misinterpretation, OSHA is correcting the 
final rule to more clearly express the Agency's intention that the 
provision apply to all machines used for yarding felled trees.

Paragraph (h)(5)(viii)--Hazardous Obstructions in Yarding

    The final rule requires that yarding machines or vehicles and their 
loads must be operated with safe clearance from all obstructions. This 
provision was included in the proposed rule and there were no comments 
opposing it. However, after publication of the final rule, OSHA 
received requests for clarification of the language and scope of this 
provision.
    OSHA is revising the final rule and compliance directive to more 
clearly define the hazards being addressed by this provision. OSHA 
intended that yarding machines and their loads be operated in a manner 
that prevents contact with hazardous obstructions. The types of 
obstructions which the record shows to be hazardous include, but are 
not limited to, boulders, danger 

[[Page 47034]]
trees, stumps, log piles, power lines, and cable rigging (Ex. 2-1, 4-
61, 4-64, 26A). OSHA is also revising the compliance directive to 
include examples of hazardous obstacles that have resulted in employee 
death and injury.

Paragraph (h)(6)(ii)--Loading

    The final rule requires that only the machine operator and other 
essential personnel be allowed in the work area during loading and 
unloading. The work area covered by this provision is the immediate 
loading work area as opposed to the entire logging site (e.g., 
landing). OSHA is correcting the final rule and compliance directive to 
express more clearly the Agency's intention.

Paragraph (i)(7)(i)--First-Aid Training

    The final logging rule requires the employer to assure that each 
employee receives or has received first-aid training, including CPR, 
which meets the minimum requirements set forth in mandatory Appendix B. 
OSHA was requested by some parties to clarify whether the provision 
requires employers to provide new employees with first-aid training 
before they are allowed to begin work, and if so, to permit employers 
to have a 90-day training phase-in period for new employees.
    The final rule does not require employers to provide the first-aid 
training to their employees. Employers are only required to assure that 
every employee performing logging operations has a first-aid training 
certificate which is current. Employers are free to require, as a 
condition of employment, that new employees have or obtain a first-aid 
training certificate. As the rulemaking record indicates, there are 
many organizations, schools, extension services, and others throughout 
the country which provide first-aid training on a continuous basis.
    At the same time, OSHA is aware that some employers do provide 
first-aid certificate training for new employees who do not have a 
current first-aid training certificate. Where employers elect to 
provide such training, the general training requirements of paragraph 
(i) require that it be provided prior to the employee's initial 
assignment. It is vital that new and untrained employees not be allowed 
to begin work until they have been trained.
    Remote and isolated locations are typical of logging operations. If 
employees working in these locations do not have the necessary first-
aid training, they would not be able to help themselves or others if an 
accident were to occur. For example, one fatality report submitted by 
APA involved a feller being sent to work alone in an isolated area (Ex. 
26A). The feller suffered a cut to the upper leg and did not perform 
any first-aid on himself. Instead, he attempted to walk out of the 
woods but bled to death before he was found. Teaming an untrained 
employee with a trained logger would not solve the problem. In case of 
emergency, the untrained employee would not be able to provide first-
aid assistance if it were his trained partner that was injured. Many 
crews work in pairs in remote areas and each crew member needs to be 
trained to help his partner.
    Therefore, OSHA is not allowing a phase-in period for first-aid 
training. The employer is responsible for assuring that untrained 
employees have had first-aid training prior to initial assignment or, 
in the case of current employees, by the effective date of the final 
rule. OSHA believes that the logging rule can best reduce the number 
and severity of logging injuries if employees have a current first-aid 
training certificate before they begin logging operations.

Paragraph (i)(7) (ii) and (iii)--Frequency of First-Aid Training

    The final rule requires employers to assure that each logging 
employee receives first-aid training at least every three years and CPR 
training at least annually. The final rule also requires the employer 
to assure that each employee's first-aid and CPR training certificate 
remain current. It has been suggested to OSHA that CPR training is only 
necessary every three years. For the following reasons, OSHA believes 
that the record does not support such a change.
    As OSHA explained in the preamble to the final rule, the American 
Red Cross first-aid training program, which is the most widely used 
program in the country, requires first-aid training every three years 
and annual CPR training in order to maintain a current certificate (Ex. 
5-42). The American Heart Association follows the same requirements for 
maintaining current certification. The American Medical Association 
also recommends following the training procedures established by the 
American Red Cross and the American Heart Association. In addition, 
States have established minimum requirements for first-aid training 
certification.
    While OSHA is aware that some States only require CPR training 
every two years to maintain a current certificate (e.g., Idaho), there 
are no States which permit CPR certificates to remain current for three 
years. OSHA is correcting the final rule to conform its retraining 
requirements to the requirements established by State regulations and 
organizations that provide first-aid and CPR certificate training 
programs. Therefore, as long as the employer assures that each employee 
has a current first-aid and CPR training certificate which meet State 
requirements or the requirements of certifying organizations, the 
employer is in compliance with the final rule. To reflect this 
clarification, OSHA is deleting paragraph (i)(7)(ii) and redesignating 
paragraph (i)(7)(iii) as paragraph (i)(7)(ii).

Appendix A to Section 1910.266--First-Aid Kits (Mandatory)
    The final rule specifies the minimum contents of first-aid kits 
that employers must provide. The minimum content list was developed in 
conjunction with OSHA's offices of occupational medicine and 
occupational health nursing.
    After publication of the final rule, OSHA was requested by some 
parties to drop tourniquets from the required list of items in first-
aid kits. They told OSHA that current first-aid training courses teach 
people to use direct pressure to stop bleeding and to avoid the use of 
tourniquets in all but the most severe cases or when no other method 
will work. They were concerned that if tourniquets were included in 
logging first-aid kits, their use would be encouraged rather than 
discouraged. While OSHA is confident that employees trained and 
certified in proper first-aid techniques will use tourniquets properly, 
OSHA is also aware that other items commonly present at logging sites 
could be used as tourniquets (e.g., belts, ropes) if the need arose. 
Therefore, OSHA is correcting the final rule to delete tourniquets from 
the mandatory appendix specifying required first-aid contents.
    OSHA is also deleting recordkeeping forms from the list of 
mandatory first-aid kit contents. The recordkeeping forms referred to 
here were not OSHA 200 accident logs; rather, they were forms that 
would provide information for the health care provider about the 
employee's injury and condition if medical attention is necessary and 
the employee is unable to communicate. Nonetheless, OSHA is removing 
this requirement to avoid confusion with recordkeeping that is required 
in accidents and injuries in general. At the same time, OSHA emphasizes 
that employers should establish a method for communicating to health 
care providers information concerning injured employees. 

[[Page 47035]]

    OSHA is also deleting the requirement that first-aid kits contain 
diphenhydramine hydrochloride elixir or capsules (i.e., Benadryl). Even 
though this over-the-counter medicinal product is frequently used in 
the logging industry to reduce the effects of insect bites and bee 
stings, prescribing its use is beyond the scope of first-aid training 
in this standard.
    The requirement that each first-aid kit contain blankets is being 
revised to indicate that each kit must, at a minimum, contain at least 
one blanket. OSHA intended the term blankets to be used generically and 
not to set forth a required number of blankets which must be present.
    Finally, OSHA is correcting the splint requirement in Appendix A. 
In the final rule OSHA had specified that first-aid kits be equipped 
with wire splints. However, the rulemaking record indicates that other 
types of splints would be as effective as wire splints and OSHA did not 
intend to preclude their use. These include, for example, inflatable or 
air splints. This correction will provide more flexibility for 
employers in providing first-aid kits that incorporate the latest 
medical technology and innovations.

Need for Correction

    As discussed above, the final rule on Logging Operations published 
on Oct. 12, 1994 (59 FR 51672) contains errors which may prove to be 
misleading and are in need of clarification.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553, OSHA finds that there is good cause for making 
these amendments and corrections to the final logging standard 
effective upon publication in the Federal Register. These amendments 
represent minor changes and clarifications to the final rule and they 
do not increase regulatory burdens over those imposed by the final 
logging standard.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

    Chain saw, Forestry, Harvesting, Incorporation by reference, 
Logging, Occupational safety and health, Pulpwood timber, Safety, 
Training.
    Accordingly, 29 CFR Part 1910 is revised by making the following 
corrections and technical amendments:

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for subpart R of part 1910 continues to 
read:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or 1-90 (55 FR 
9033), as applicable.
    Sections 1910.261, 1910.262, 1910.265, 1910.266, 1910.267, 
1910.268, 1910.269, 1910.272, 1910.274 and 1910.275 also issued 
under 29 CFR Part 1911.

    2. In paragraph (c) of 1910.266, the definitions of ``logging 
operations,'' ``machine,'' and ``vehicle'' are revised to read:


Sec. 1910.266  Logging Operations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    Logging operations. Operations associated with felling and moving 
trees and logs from the stump to the point of delivery, such as, but 
not limited to, marking danger trees and trees/logs to be cut to 
length, felling, limbing, bucking, debarking, chipping, yarding, 
loading, unloading, storing, and transporting machines, equipment and 
personnel to, from and between logging sites.
* * * * *
    Machine. A piece of stationary or mobile equipment having a self-
contained powerplant, that is operated off-road and used for the 
movement of material. Machines include, but are not limited to, 
tractors, skidders, front-end loaders, scrapers, graders, bulldozers, 
swing yarders, log stackers, log loaders, and mechanical felling 
devices, such as tree shears and feller-bunchers. Machines do not 
include airplanes or aircraft (e.g., helicopters).
* * * * *
    Vehicle. A car, bus, truck, trailer or semi-trailer owned, leased 
or rented by the employer that is used for transportation of employees 
or movement of material.
* * * * *


Sec. 1910.266  [Amended]

    3. Section 1910.266 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(iii); 
the first sentence of paragraph (d)(1)(iv); the first sentence of 
paragraph (d)(1)(v); paragraph (d)(1)(vii); the first sentence of 
paragraph (d)(2)(i); and paragraphs (d)(2)(iii), (d)(5), (d)(6)(iii), 
(d)(9)(iii), and (d)(9)(iv) to read:
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and 
assure that each employee handling wire rope wears, hand protection 
which provides adequate protection from puncture wounds, cuts and 
lacerations.
    (iv) The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and 
assure that each employee who operates a chain saw wears leg protection 
constructed with cut-resistant material, such as ballistic nylon. * * *
    (v) The employer shall assure that each employee wears foot 
protection, such as heavy-duty logging boots that are waterproof or 
water repellant, cover and provide support to the ankle. The employer 
shall assure that each employee who operates a chain saw wears foot 
protection that is constructed with cut-resistant material which will 
protect the employee against contact with a running chain saw. * * *
* * * * *
    (vii) The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and 
assure that each employee wears the following:
    (A) Eye protection meeting the requirements of subpart I of Part 
1910 where there is potential for eye injury due to falling or flying 
objects; and
    (B) Face protection meeting the requirements of subpart I of Part 
1910 where there is potential for facial injury such as, but not 
limited to, operating a chipper. Logger-type mesh screens may be worn 
by employees performing chain-saw operations and yarding.

    Note to paragraph (d)(1)(vii): The employee does not have to 
wear a separate eye protection device where face protection covering 
both the eyes and face is worn.

    (2) * * *
    (i) The employer shall provide first-aid kits at each work site 
where trees are being cut (e.g., felling, bucking, limbing), at each 
active landing, and on each employee transport vehicle. * * *
* * * * *
    (iii) The employer also may have the number and content of first-
aid kits reviewed and approved annually by a health care provider.
* * * * *
    (5) Environmental conditions. All work shall terminate and each 
employee shall move to a place of safety when environmental conditions, 
such as but not limited to, electrical storms, strong winds which may 
affect the fall of a tree, heavy rain or snow, extreme cold, dense fog, 
fires, mudslides, and darkness, create a hazard for the employee in the 
performance of the job.
    (6) * * *
    (iii) Each employee performing a logging operation at a logging 
work site shall work in a position or location that is within visual or 
audible contact with another employee.
* * * * *
    (9) * * *
    (iii) Each machine, vehicle, and portable powered tool shall be 
shut off during fueling. Diesel-powered machines and vehicles may be 
fueled while they are at idle, provided that continued operation is 
intended and that the employer follows safe fueling and operating 
procedures.
    (iv) Flammable and combustible liquids, including chain-saw and 
diesel 

[[Page 47036]]
fuel, may be used to start a fire, provided the employer assures that 
in the particular situation its use does not create a hazard for an 
employee.
* * * * *
    4. Section 1910.266 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(2)(iv), 
(e)(2)(vi) and (e)(2)(xiii) to read:
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) The chain saw shall be fueled at least 10 feet (3 m) from any 
open flame or other source of ignition.
* * * * *
    (vi) The chain saw shall be started on the ground or where 
otherwise firmly supported. Drop starting a chain saw is prohibited.
* * * * *
    (xiii) The chain saw shall be shut off or the throttle released 
before the feller starts his retreat.
* * * * *
    5. Section 1910.266 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(2)(iv), 
(f)(2)(x) and (f)(2)(xi); the first sentence of (f)(3)(i); by removing 
the first sentence of (f)(3)(ii); redesignating the remaining text as 
paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(C) and adding paragraphs (f)(3)(ii) (A) and (B); 
and by revising paragraphs (f)(3)(vii), (f)(3)(viii) and (f)(7) (i) and 
(ii) to read:
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) To maintain stability, the machine must be operated within the 
limitations imposed by the manufacturer as described in the operating 
and maintenance instructions for that machine.
* * * * *
    (x) Before the operator leaves the operator's station of a machine, 
it shall be secured as follows:
    (A) The parking brake or brake locks shall be applied;
    (B) The transmission shall be placed in the manufacturer's 
specified park position; and
    (C) Each moving element such as, but not limited to blades, 
buckets, saws and shears, shall be lowered to the ground or otherwise 
secured.
    (xi) If a hydraulic or pneumatic storage device can move the moving 
elements such as, but not limited to, blades, buckets, saws and shears, 
after the machine is shut down, the pressure or stored energy from the 
element shall be discharged as specified by the manufacturer.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Each tractor, skidder, swing yarder, log stacker, log loader 
and mechanical felling device, such as tree shears or feller-buncher, 
placed into initial service after February 9, 1995, shall be equipped 
with falling object protective structure (FOPS) and/or rollover 
protective structure (ROPS). * * *
    (ii) (A) ROPS shall be tested, installed, and maintained in 
serviceable condition.
     (B) Each machine manufactured after August 1, 1996, shall have 
ROPS tested, installed, and maintained in accordance with the Society 
of Automotive Engineers SAE J1040, April 1988, ``Performance Criteria 
for Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS) for Construction, 
Earthmoving, Forestry, and Mining Machines.'' * * *
* * * * *
    (vii) Each machine manufactured after August 1, 1996, shall have a 
cab that is fully enclosed with mesh material with openings no greater 
than 2 inches (5.08 cm) at its least dimension. The cab may be enclosed 
with other material(s) where the employer demonstrates such material(s) 
provides equivalent protection and visibility. Exception: Equivalent 
visibility is not required for the lower portion of the cab where there 
are control panels or similar obstructions in the cab, or where 
visibility is not necessary for safe operation of the machine.
    (viii) Each machine manufactured on or before August 1, 1996 shall 
have a cab which meets the requirements specified in paragraph 
(f)(3)(vii) or a protective canopy for the operator which meets the 
following requirements:
    (A) The protective canopy shall be constructed to protect the 
operator from injury due to falling trees, limbs, saplings or branches 
which might enter the compartment side areas and from snapping winch 
lines or other objects;
    (B) The lower portion of the cab shall be fully enclosed with solid 
material, except at entrances, to prevent the operator from being 
injured from obstacles entering the cab;
    (C) The upper rear portion of the cab shall be fully enclosed with 
open mesh material with openings of such size as to reject the entrance 
of an object larger than 2 inches in diameter. It shall provide maximum 
rearward visibility; and
    (D) Open mesh shall be extended forward as far as possible from the 
rear corners of the cab sides so as to give the maximum protection 
against obstacles, branches, etc., entering the cab area.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) Service brakes shall be sufficient to stop and hold each 
machine and its rated load capacity on the slopes over which it is 
being operated.
    (ii) Each machine placed into initial service on or after September 
8, 1995 shall also be equipped with: back-up or secondary brakes that 
are capable of stopping the machine regardless of the direction of 
travel or whether the engine is running; and parking brakes that are 
capable of continuously holding a stopped machine stationary.
    6. Section 1910.266 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1) and 
(g)(2) to read:
    (g) * * *
    (1) The employer shall assure that each vehicle used to perform any 
logging operation is maintained in serviceable condition.
    (2) The employer shall assure that each vehicle used to perform any 
logging operation is inspected before initial use during each 
workshift. Defects or damage shall be repaired or the unserviceable 
vehicle shall be replaced before work is commenced.
* * * * *
    7. Section 1910.266 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(1)(iii), 
(h)(1)(ix), (h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(vi), and (h)(2)(vii); the heading of 
paragraph (h)(3); and paragraphs (h)(3)(i), (h)(5)(v), (h)(5)(viii), 
and (h)(6)(ii) to read:
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) While manual felling is in progress, no yarding machine shall 
be operated within two tree lengths of trees being manually felled. 
Exception: This provision does not apply to yarding machines performing 
tree pulling operations.
* * * * *
    (ix) Domino felling of trees is prohibited.

    Note to paragraph (h)(1)(ix): The definition of domino felling 
does not include the felling of a single danger tree by felling 
another single tree into it.

    (2) * * *
    (i) Before felling is started, the feller shall plan and clear a 
retreat path. The retreat path shall extend diagonally away from the 
expected felling line unless the employer demonstrates that such a 
retreat path poses a greater hazard than an alternate path. Once the 
backcut has been made the feller shall immediately move a safe distance 
away from the tree on the retreat path.
* * * * *
    (vi) A backcut shall be made in each tree being felled. The backcut 
shall leave sufficient hinge wood to hold the tree to the stump during 
most of its fall so that the hinge is able to guide the tree's fall in 
the intended direction.
    (vii) The backcut shall be above the level of the horizontal 
facecut in order to provide an adequate platform to 

[[Page 47037]]
prevent kickback. Exception: The backcut may be at or below the 
horizontal facecut in tree pulling operations.

    Note to paragraph (h)(2)(vii): This requirement does not apply 
to open face felling where two angled facecuts rather than a 
horizontal facecut are used.

    (3) Limbing and bucking. (i) Limbing and bucking on any slope where 
rolling or sliding of trees or logs is reasonably foreseeable shall be 
done on the uphill side of each tree or log.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (v) No yarding line shall be moved unless the yarding machine 
operator has clearly received and understood the signal to do so. When 
in doubt, the yarding machine operator shall repeat the signal and wait 
for a confirming signal before moving any line.
* * * * *
    (viii) The yarding machine or vehicle, including its load, shall be 
operated with safe clearance from all obstructions that may create a 
hazard for an employee.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) Only the loading or unloading machine operator and other 
personnel the employer demonstrates are essential shall be in the 
loading or unloading work area during this operation.
* * * * *
    8. Section 1910.266 is amended by removing paragraph (i)(7)(ii) and 
redesignating paragraph (i)(7)(iii) as paragraph (i)(7)(ii).
    9. Section 1910.266 is amended by revising Appendix A to read:

Appendix A to 1910.266--First-Aid Kits (Mandatory)

    The following list sets forth the minimally acceptable number 
and type of first-aid supplies for first-aid kits required under 
paragraph (d)(2) of the logging standard. The contents of the first-
aid kit listed should be adequate for small work sites, consisting 
of approximately two to three employees. When larger operations or 
multiple operations are being conducted at the same location, 
additional first-aid kits should be provided at the work site or 
additional quantities of supplies should be included in the first-
aid kits:
    1. Gauze pads (at least 4 x 4 inches).
    2. Two large gauze pads (at least 8 x 10 inches).
    3. Box adhesive bandages (band-aids).
    4. One package gauze roller bandage at least 2 inches wide.
    5. Two triangular bandages.
    6. Wound cleaning agent such as sealed moistened towelettes.
    7. Scissors.
    8. At least one blanket.
    9. Tweezers.
    10. Adhesive tape.
    11. Latex gloves.
    12. Resuscitation equipment such as resuscitation bag, airway, 
or pocket mask.
    13. Two elastic wraps.
    14. Splint.
    15. Directions for requesting emergency assistance.

    This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear, 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of September, 1995.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 95-22386 Filed 9-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P