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