Home
Standards
Glossary
User Guide
Logging Advisor
Text from the OSHA Logging Preamble Text from the OSHA Logging Preamble

Section 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 Back

tracking image