Text from
the OSHA Logging PreambleSection IV: Major Issues
A. Introduction
* * *
9. Equipment protective devices. In the hearing notice OSHA
raised two issues regarding protective devices for machines: the need and cost of
retrofitting machines with rollover protective structures (ROPS) and falling object
protective structures (FOPS), and the appropriateness of incorporating various consensus
standards covering ROPS and FOPS into the logging standard by reference.
a. Retrofitting. In the hearing notice OSHA requested comment
on whether the final standard should require machines without ROPS and FOPS to be
retrofitted with those devices. The proposed standard would not have required
retrofitting. In the proposed standard, OSHA specified that certain machines placed in
service after the effective date of the final standard to be equipped with ROPS and/or
FOPS meeting Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) minimum performance criteria.
There was no opposition from commenters on the general requirement that certain
machines used in logging operations be equipped with ROPS and/or FOPS. NIOSH stated that
80 deaths occurred due to logging machine rollovers from 1980-85 (Ex. 5-42). This is
approximately 13 deaths each year due to rollover accidents. Another commenter cited a
study where 12 loggers were killed in rollover accidents in the State of Washington from
1977-83 (Tr. W1 27).
Several commenters said that machines without ROPS and FOPS should be retrofitted (Ex.
5-42, 5-54, 9-3, 9-13; Tr. W1 22). The West Virginia Forestry Association safety committee
said that retrofitting was necessary because operators were exposed to "extreme
danger" if machines were used in the woods without such protective devices (Ex.
5-54). In addition to the safety necessity of retrofitting, the committee said that
retrofitting was economically feasible for the industry as whole.
Many commenters, on the other hand, while supporting ROPS and FOPS requirements for new
machines, opposed retrofitting older machinery (Ex. 5-19, 5-22, 5-25, 5-27, 5-33, 5-53,
5-57, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-5, 9-17; Tr. W1 203, OR 170). Their opposition was based on
several reasons.
First, commenters said that machines should not be required to be retrofitted to meet
current standards when the installed ROPS and/or FOPS met industry standards in effect at
the time of manufacture (Ex. 5-22; Tr. W1 203, OR 170). One commenter said that older
machines in the logging industry were equipped with rollover protection, but those machine
structures still in service do not meet the revised industry standards (Ex. 5-22).
Second, some commenters said that retrofitting machines would be very burdensome and
costly, especially given the limited useful life of such machines (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92,
9-5). They said retrofitting would be expensive because it would require complete
rebuilding and testing of the frame structure. These commenters also said that employers
would have to hire outside contractors to test the retrofitted equipment since most
employers did not have the personnel, expertise or equipment to install and test
protective structures (Ex. 5-35). In addition, other commenters said that the retrofitting
requirement would be too burdensome for small employers, both in terms of absorbing the
cost in small operations and in finding persons who could do the retrofitting (Tr. OR 119,
263, 307).
Third, commenters indicated that the retrofitting requirement was not essential since
most of the machines specified in the proposed standard already are manufactured with ROPS
and FOPS as standard equipment (Tr. W1 184, 203, OR 170). For example, most log-skidders
manufactured after 1974 have ROPS and FOPS meeting the performance criteria specified by
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). Most mobile equipment used in the Southeastern
United States already has ROPS or FOPS (Ex. 5-19). Other commenters said that skidders now
come with fully enclosed cabs (Tr. W1 184).
After consideration of all the comments and information received in the rulemaking
record, OSHA has decided for several reasons not to require machines placed into service
before the effective date of this standard to be retrofit with ROPS and FOPS, provided
that ROPS and FOPS have not been removed from machines so equipped at the time of
manufacture. First, OSHA has determined that many of the machines currently in use already
have protective structures meeting various performance criteria. The final standard
requires that these protective structures continue to be maintained throughout the useful
life of the machine, and that they be replaced where they have been removed (e.g., removed
after machine accident).
Second, many machines currently in use and virtually all machines recently manufactured
meet the performance criteria specified in the proposed standard (Ex. 9-2; Tr. OR 185-87).
OSHA believes that older machines, that either do not have protective structures or have
ROPS and FOPS meeting earlier standards, are few in number and are rapidly nearing the end
of their useful life. As such, OSHA believes that most employers are substantially in
compliance with the requirement for machine protective structures and will reach full
compliance in short period of time. Therefore, OSHA determines that compliance with the
protective structure requirement can be achieved without requiring retrofitting.
b. Incorporation of standards by reference. In the hearing
notice, OSHA requested comment on the appropriateness of incorporating by reference
updated consensus standards governing machine protective devices. In the proposed standard
OSHA required ROPS and FOPS to be installed, tested and maintained in accordance with the
following SAE national consensus standards: SAE 1040c June 1979 "Performance Criteria
or Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS) for Construction, Earthmoving, Forestry, and
Mining Machines" and J231 Jan 1981 "Minimum Performance Criteria for Falling
Object Protective Structures (FOPS)." The SAE ROPS standard was updated in 1988 as
was the SAE standard on "Deflection Limiting Volume-ROPS/FOPS Laboratory
Evaluation."
Several commenters discussed incorporation of updated standards (Ex. 5-10, 5-22, 5-57,
9-3, 9-13; Tr. W1 203). Most emphasized the need to reference the most up-to-date
standards in the final rule. In addition, two commenters said OSHA should allow the use of
standards from other standards producing bodies, such as the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) (Ex. 5-22, 5-57). Two commenters also recommended that OSHA
harmonize its regulatory language with ISO and Mine Safety and Health Administration
protective structure standards (Ex. 5-10, 5-22). However, two commenters opposed
incorporation by reference because they contend that other standards may not have followed
the same notice and public comment rules as do OSHA standards (Ex. 9-3, 9-13).
OSHA has considered the comments and in the final standard the Agency has decided to
incorporate by reference the current SAE standards on ROPS and FOPS. While there was some
comment about whether technical publications should be referenced in standards, OSHA
believes it is better in this case to reference technical documents rather than spell out
all of the many specifications the documents contain. Since the final standard is not
requiring employers to retrofit machines, it is more important for employers to know that
new machines they purchase meet the SAE standards. It is the manufacturer and not the
employer who will have the expertise, personnel and equipment to do the necessary
installation and testing of the protective structures as part of the manufacturing
process, and it is the label of conformance placed on the equipment by the manufacturer
that will be the method that the employer will usually use to demonstrate compliance with
the protective structures requirement of the final standard.
* * *
Back