Text
from the OSHA Logging PreambleSection IV: Major Issues
A. Introduction
* * *
5. Visual and audible contact. In the hearing notice OSHA
requested comment on the maximum time and/or distance separation between employees. In the
proposed rule, OSHA included a requirement that employees work within visual or audible
contact of another employee, so that someone would be able to respond quickly in case of
an accident or other emergency. The proposed rule prohibited the use of engine noise, such
as from chain saws, as a means of contact. Various State logging standards also prohibit
the use of chain-saw noise as a means of signaling (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-21, 2-22, 38J,
38K).
OSHA received many comments on the contact and signaling provisions. Many commenters
testified that the proposed contact requirement is necessary (Ex. 5-14, 5-17, 5-27, 5-74
through 5-92, 9-2, 9-3, 9-5, 9-13; Tr. W2 197-98). One commenter said:
We think that visual or audible contact is important and will save lives. There are
also electronic devices, some sophisticated and some like citizen band radios, that can be
used by forest workers to maintain audible contact by electronic means. We recommend that
the existing proposed language be retained but modified perhaps to allow audible contact
by electronic means (Tr. W2 197-98).
Certain commenters urged OSHA to make the contact requirement stricter than that
proposed. One commenter said employees in solitary jobs also need to remain in contact
and, therefore, should be provided with two-way radios (Ex. 9-15). Another commenter said
OSHA should require employees to remain within visual contact of another crew members (Ex.
9-20). Finally, two commenters recommended that OSHA require employees to work within
normal hearing or calling distance of another employee (Ex. 9-19; Tr. OR 679-81).
However, several commenters expressed various concerns about the contact provision, and
particularly the prohibition against chain-saw noise as a means of contact. First, some
participants said the requirements would have an adverse impact on small employers,
especially employers with work crews consisting of three or fewer loggers (Ex. 5-21, 5-28,
5-35, 5-49, 5-53, 5-54, 5-70). For example, one commenter said:
This requirement may adversely affect the livelihood of many small-scale loggers in the
South who may work alone in the woods, or operate a single mobile ground skidder or
felling machine and are frequently out of contact with other phases of the logging
operation (Ex. 5-28).
Another commenter stated:
This requirement would not be practical for several reasons:
- there are a number of logging contractors that work alone,
- log crews with two or three members are often out of contact because the great distance
between the faller and log header,
- even at close range, visual and audible signals are attenuated by thick brush and loud
machinery.
My experience has been loggers will keep track of their fellow workers the best they
can but, due to the nature of the job, individuals will be separated for certain lengths
of time. To require loggers to be within signaling distance of one another will preclude
the existence of one and two man log crews, working in thick brush, working in hilly
topography, skidding long distances, the use of ear plugs or working with loud machines
(Ex. 5-70).
Second, some commenters believed the contact requirement conflicted with the proposed
requirement to maintain a distance of two tree lengths between work areas (Ex. 5-12, 5-29,
5-4, 5-67, 5-70). These commenters said that a separation of two tree lengths between work
areas might make it impossible to maintain contact due to saw noise and obstructions such
as hills or vegetation. One commenter explained:
If this code goes through and is enacted, it would change the timber falling industry
in Alaska. Southeast Alaska is a relatively new geological area. We work on steep ground
that is broken up by draws, gullies, cliffs. We have our timber fallers work together as
partners. One works in one strip or one area of the hillside and the other one works in
another area of the hillside. For safety reasons, our company requires that they work at
least three tree lengths apart. And often with the broken up terrain, that precludes
visual contact (Tr. OR 353).
Third, comments were received on the prohibition of chain-saw noise as a signaling
device. Some participants supported the prohibition (Ex. 5-27, 5-34, 5-42). Other
commenters argued that chain-saw noise is currently being used as a means of contact in
the logging industry and should be allowed in the final rule (Tr. W1 65; OR 86, 353-55,
356-58, 384-85, 694-96). For example, one commenter said the sound of chain saws is an
indicator that someone is working at a specific location (Tr. W1 65). Another commenter
stated:
[W]e have been counting on chain saw noise for years. Chain saw noise is possible, and
by the way, that's my most dangerous part of my job is to do a safety inspection or to go
up and check on cutters in a strip, to approach cutters. And I listen to the saw. And I
can tell when they are putting a cut into a standing tree or bucking a log with the chain
saw noise. If we are not allowed to use chain saw noise as audible contact, that means we
may have to go back to double jacking which is a faller and a bucker working in tandem
(Tr. OR 353-55).
This participant also said that chain-saw noise should also be permitted because
103-decibel chain-saw engines render 92-decibel personal alarm systems inadequate as means
of audible contact (Tr. OR 355).
Fourth, several commenters urged OSHA to adopt various alternatives and modifications
to the proposed contact requirement (Ex. 5-54, 5-55; Tr. OR 670-81). For example,
commenters suggested that OSHA replace the contact provision with a "check-in"
requirement:
In West Virginia, a cutting crew often consists of a worker who fells and limbs the
trees and a worker who operates a skidder. Consequently, it is often necessary that the
feller be left alone in the woods, without audible or visual contact with another worker,
for short periods of time while the skidder operator is making the trip to the log
landing. Also, it is common practice for workers to be constantly checking on one another.
Upon his return from the landing, the skidder operator immediately checks on the feller;
and, the feller, if the skidder operator does not return in the normal time span, will
check on the skidder operator.
Considering the common small cutting crew size, the practice of constantly checking on
one another, and the difficulties involved in using an audible signal capable of being
heard over distances, over machine noise, and through hearing protection devices, it is
our recommendation that this aspect of the Standard be changed to allow a worker to be out
of "visual or audible signal contact with another person" for short periods of
time. Due to the normal time involved for transporting a skidder load to the landing,
unhooking, and returning, we recommend that this short time period be established at 20
minutes (Ex. 5-54).
Other commenters also suggested that OSHA allow employees to be out of contact from
other employees for short periods of time (e.g., 15 to 20 minutes, the time to take a load
to the landing and return) (Ex. 5-54; Tr. OR 670-81).
OSHA has decided in the final rule to retain the requirement that employees work within
visual or audible contact of another employee. As discussed above, most commenters
indicated that remaining in contact is important to the safety of loggers. Several
commenters said that supervisors use chain-saw noise to identify where and whether an
employee is working. However, they did not provide evidence that chain-saw noise provides
an effective means of communicating information from the employee or from the supervisor.
For example, data and information available to OSHA indicates that even though chain-saw
noise is currently used as a means of maintaining contact, there are still reports from
OSHA case file investigations of loggers being injured and not being discovered until
after the shift has ended (Ex. 1). In addition, chain-saw noise does not provide the
cutter with an adequate means of communicating with others in the event they have become
injured or are in other trouble. Since all chain-saw noise indicates is whether an
employee is working, the cutter must wait until another employee recognizes that the lack
of noise means the cutter needs assistance. This may delay rendering that assistance. OSHA
believes the cutter, not just the supervisor, needs to have a method for communicating
when necessary. Radios and telephones are modern communication methods that are
increasingly used in this logging industry. These methods, unlike chain-saw noise, provide
immediate two-way communication.
Although OSHA has decided to retain in the final rule the prohibition against use of
chain-saw noise alone as a means of contact, the final rule does provide employers with a
great deal of flexibility in maintaining contact with employees. First, permitting radio
communication to be used as a means of contact allows contact to be maintained while at
the same time maintaining a two tree-length distance between adjacent occupied work areas.
Second, permitting contact to be maintained by radio or whistles allows employees to work
alone rather than limiting employees to working in teams that are within visual distance
of each other. Allowing radio contact will also provide flexibility for small radio crew
operations when visual or voice contact may not be possible. Third, OSHA also believes
that permitting radio contact will not be unduly burdensome for the industry since many
companies already are utilizing electronic communications (Ex. 5-27; Tr. W2 227).
With regard to the issue of equipment noise preventing radio communication, OSHA notes
that radios are available with ear phones that fit inside hearing protection muffs. Where
such ear phones and hearing protectors are provided, equipment noise will neither
interfere with communication nor should result in occupational hearing loss.
Because contact may be maintained by radio, OSHA has removed the exception to the
contact requirement for "single employee assignments." OSHA believes that radio
communication already is necessary in order for many of those single employee jobs to be
performed (e.g., watchman). As such, OSHA does not believe that extending the radio
contact requirement to all logging operations will unduly burden employers, while at the
same time it will provide important protection for all loggers.
* * *
Back