Text from
the OSHA Logging PreambleSection IV: Major Issues
A. Introduction
* * *
8. Riders. In the hearing notice OSHA requested comment on
whether trainers should be permitted to ride on machines to observe operator performance.
The pulpwood logging standard prohibited riders or observers from riding on machines
unless seating and other protection were provided. The proposed standard continued that
prohibition.
Many commenters supported the current and proposed prohibition of riders on machines
(Ex. 5-7, 5-22, 5-42, 9-3, 9-13, 9-18; Tr. W1 202, 205, 235, W2 227, OR 155, 169). These
commenters said riders should be prohibited, unless protection is provided since they are
exposed to the same hazards as machine operators, for whom seating, seat belts and other
protection is required. NIOSH, for example, supported the prohibition for the following
reasons:
Many logging operations occur on rough terrain which would expose any rider to a high
risk of injury or death. Serious errors made by a trainer or trainee under these
conditions endangers both people; it must be recognized that logging equipment is not
designed for training purposes (i.e., the trainer cannot take control of the equipment
from the trainee in a safe, orderly fashion) (Ex. 5-42).
NIOSH therefore recommended that training be conducted and completed in pre-worksite
training where the environment can be "controlled" instead of the employer
conducting "on-the-job" training with machines that are not designed to carry
passengers safely. Another commenter agreed that the necessary operator training should be
given, and the operator should be afforded the opportunity to practice on level ground,
before the operator moves into work areas. This training and practice would allow
operators to become proficient without requiring trainers to ride on the machines (Tr. OR
155).
Two commenters, including one who supported the exemption for trainers, stated that it
was not absolutely necessary to have the trainer riding on the machine in order to
maintain communication with the machine operator (Ex. 5-27; Tr. W2 227). They said
communication could be accomplished through radio contact (one-way or two-way radios),
thus allowing the trainer to remain in a safe location on the ground. One of the
commenters pointed out that this method is currently used in logging operations in
Scandinavian countries (Tr. W2 227).
Many commenters supported an exception permitting trainers to ride on machines (Ex.
5-12, 5-22, 5-28, 5-36, 5-45, 5-49, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 5-63, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-2, 9-5,
9-10, 9-13, 9-19; Tr. OR 32, 201, 206, 337). These commenters said that an exemption be
allowed because trainers were not as great since they ride for only short periods and,
therefore, they are not exposed to hazards to the same extent as machine operators.
However, several commenters said that if instructors were permitted to ride on machines
that at least seat belts should be required and training should be conducted on level
terrain (Ex. 5-27, 9-3, 9-13; Tr. OR 169). Another commenter said that trainers should not
be permitted to ride on machines during actual production because "such conditions
may not be conducive to rider safety" (Ex. 5-54).
Other commenters said the exemption should include other employees in addition to
training (Ex. 5-27, 9-2; Tr. OR 206). One commenter supported expanding the exception to
allow mechanics to ride on machines (Tr. OR 206). Another commenter said that the
exception should be permitted for large multi-purpose logging equipment where there is
sufficient room in the enclosed operator cab to permit another person to ride safely, even
though there is not a second seat (Ex. 5-27). One commenter said fellers should be
permitted to ride back to the landing at the end of the workshift (Ex. 9-2). However, none
of these commenters provided any evidence that these riders were not exposed to the same
hazards as the machine operator.
OSHA has carefully considered all comments and data in the record. OSHA agrees with the
commenters that riders face the same hazards as machine operators on moving equipment and
that they need protection equivalent to that of the operator. According to logging
fatalities reported to OSHA between 1985-90, there were reports of riders killed when
machines roll over (Ex. 4-65). The OSHA FCI report also indicated that loggers have been
killed riding on unauthorized parts of machines (Ex. 4-61). Even those who opposed the
prohibition on riders recognized that such an activity is hazardous due to conditions of
the work environment, such as unlevel terrain. In addition, the record indicates that an
exemption for trainers is unnecessary because other methods of communication between the
trainee and trainer are available and in use in the logging industry. As such, OSHA has
retained the requirement in the final standard that machines must have passenger
protection equivalent to operator protection if the employer allows riders on machines.
* * *
Back