Text from
the OSHA Logging PreambleSection V: Summary and
Explanation of the Final Standard
Paragraph (d) General Requiremenets
* * *
Work Areas
At paragraph (d)(6) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that work areas be so
organized and spaced that the actions of one employee will not create a hazard for any
other employee. This paragraph also requires that each employee work in a position or
location that is within visual or audible contact with another employee. These provisions
were adopted from the proposed standard. The pulpwood logging and 1978 ANSI logging
standards also recommended a two tree-length distance between work areas. Requirements
similar to the final rule exist in various State logging standards (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19,
2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 38J, 38K).
At paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that work areas be
assigned so that trees cannot fall into adjacent occupied work areas. This provision also
requires that the distance between adjacent occupied work areas be at least two tree
lengths of the trees being felled. The proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard
contained similar requirements.
OSHA received comments supporting this provision (Ex. 5-29, 5-41, 5-67, 5-70; Tr. W2
163). These commenters said that two tree lengths is already used in the industry to
ensure safe spacing of work areas. Some commenters, however, said that the provision
should be limited (Ex. 5-28, 5-36, 5-39, 5-44, 5-49, 5-53, 5-54, 5-63, 5-74 through 5-92).
One commenter said OSHA should require minimum spacing requirements only when physical
control of the timber was unpredictable, such as felling and skidding (Ex. 5-28). Other
commenters recommended that the requirement be limited to slopes that are greater than 25
or 35 percent (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-39, 5-63).
The purpose of these requirements is to protect employees in adjacent occupied work
areas from being hit by misdirected trees. One of the major causes of injury in the
logging industry is being hit by a tree. According to the WIR survey, almost one-quarter
of all those injured were hit by a tree (Ex. 2-1). The State of Washington study showed
that more than 65 percent of all employees were killed when they were hit by a tree or log
(Ex. 4-129). In addition, the study showed that almost nine percent of that reported
fatalities resulted from an employee being hit by a tree being felled by another employee
(Ex. 4-129).
Employees can be hit by a tree that falls in the wrong direction or by one that rolls
or slides down sloping terrain. There is no dispute that there is increased difficulty in
directional felling on unlevel terrain. OSHA believes that these work spacing requirements
in the final rule will help to prevent these types of accidents. Moreover, adopting any of
the limitations that the commenters proposed would still leave employees exposed to other
foreseeable hazards. Since the two tree-length distance has become accepted practice in
the industry, it appears that industry itself recognizes the need for a minimum work
spacing requirement and that the provision should not prove overly burdensome for any
establishments in the industry.
In paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of the final rule OSHA is also requiring that employers assess
conditions to determine whether additional spacing between adjacent occupied work areas is
necessary. Some of the conditions that employers must examine include the degree of slope,
the density of the growth, the height of trees, the soil structure, and other hazards
reasonably anticipated at that work site. This paragraph also requires that additional
distance be maintained between adjacent occupied work areas on any slope where rolling or
sliding of logs is reasonably foreseeable. These provisions were also contained in the
proposed rule and in various State logging standards (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22,
38J, 38K). The 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained a similar requirement.
Some commenters said greater distance should only be required when the slope is greater
than 25 or 35 percent (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-39, 5-63). These commenters, however, did not
provide any information on why such a limitation would provide adequate protection for
employees. OSHA does not agree that greater distance may only be necessary on such steep
slopes. OSHA believes there is a potential for trees and logs to roll and slide on lesser
slopes when conditions such as snow and ice accumulation or wet soil are present.
Therefore, OSHA does not believe that adequate protection would be provided if the
commenters' recommendation were adopted.
Other commenters said that a greater distance on slopes should not be required when
employees are working to the side of each other, pointing out that the Alaska logging
standard allows this (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92). OSHA believes that the final standard is
consistent with the Alaska logging standard. The final rule only requires that a greater
distance is required on any slope where rolling or sliding of trees or logs is reasonably
foreseeable. Nothing in the final rule requires a greater distance on slopes when there is
no danger that an employee could be hit by a rolling or sliding log. For example, when
employees work side by side on a slope, rather than uphill and downhill from each other,
there is no danger that the employee will be injured by a rolling log.
At paragraph (d)(6)(iii), OSHA is requiring that each employee, without exception, be
located within visual or audible contact of another worker. This provision must be read in
conjunction with the requirements in paragraph (d)(7) specifying what methods of audible
contact may be used (i.e., not chain-saw engine noise). This requirement parallels the
proposed standard, however the proposed rule did not apply this requirement to motor
vehicle operators, watchmen and other single employee assignment jobs. The pulpwood
logging standard required that employees work within the vocal range of other loggers but
also allowed employers to use an alternative procedure that provided for periodic checks
of employee welfare.
Much of the comment on this requirement has already been discussed in the Major Issues
section above. Some commenters opposed various aspects of this provision (Ex. 5-29, 5-36,
5-39, 5-49, 5-53, 5-54, 5-67, 5-70, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. W1 65). One commenter
recommended allowing manual fellers to be out of contact with other employees, such as
skidder operators, for up to 20 minutes (Ex. 5-54). This commenter said that was the
amount of time necessary to transport a load to the landing and return to the cutting
area. However, the commenter has not provided any information or data to support why such
an exception would still allow for adequate protection for fellers. OSHA does not believe
that permitting periods of time in which contact is not maintained will provide adequate
protection for employees. A chain-saw operator who severely cuts himself could bleed to
death within 20 minutes.
Other commenters opposed this provision because it would be difficult to comply with
this requirement and maintain the required two tree-length separation between adjacent
work areas (Ex. 5-29, Tr. W1 pg 65). For several reasons, OSHA believes employers will be
able to comply with both requirements. First, this paragraph requires each employee to be
within visual or audible contact with "another" employee. It does not require
that the person with whom contact is maintained be in an adjacent work area. Second, the
provision requiring at least two tree-length spacing between adjacent occupied work areas
is intended to prevent trees from falling from one work area into another. The purposes of
a visual or audible contact is to provide a method for employees to remain in contact in
case of an emergency (e.g., a chain-saw operator requesting first aid after being cut by
the saw, an employee alerting others of severe weather approaching). Therefore, if
employees are provided with radio communication, it would be possible for employees whose
work areas are spaced far apart to maintain contact with each other.
Third, as discussed above in the issues section, the final rule does not require that
visual contact be maintained. Instead, audible contact may be maintained by the use of
horns, whistles or radio communication. As such, employees can be great distances from
each other and still remain in contact satisfying the requirements of this provision.
Fourth, OSHA is also aware that many logging establishments are currently using radio
communication to maintain contact, that is the best evidence of its effectiveness.
As stated above, in this paragraph OSHA has eliminated all proposed exceptions to the
requirement of maintaining contact with another employee. As discussed above in the Major
Issues section, OSHA has eliminated the proposed exceptions for several reasons. First,
various State standards do not include an exception to the contact requirement (Ex. 2-17,
2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 38J, 38K). Second, several commenters supported the proposal
that all employees remain in contact and indicated that they do maintain contact with all
employees, including employees in single employee assignments, via radio and telephone
(Ex. 5-74 through 5-92). As a result, these commenters suggested the exceptions may no
longer be necessary (See also, Ex. 5-33). These commenters also reasoned that all
employees, including mobile machine operators performing single employee assignments, need
a method of summoning help in an emergency. OSHA agrees with these commenters. The Agency
believes that the contact requirement will help to provide prompt assistance to all
employees who are injured or are otherwise in emergency situations. As discussed above in
the Major Issues section, with the advent of radio communication, it is feasible to
maintain contact with workers performing single employee assignments.
OSHA notes that it is implied in this provision that not only will means for contact be
provided, but also that contact will be maintained with each employee. All but one State
logging standard require check-in systems to assure that contact is maintained (Ex. 2-17,
2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 38J, 38K). In addition, several commenters say they have initiated
check-in systems to assure that employees working in remote locations are all right.
At paragraph (d)(6)(iv) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring the employer to account
for each employee at the end of the workshift. OSHA has adopted this provision from the
pulpwood logging and the proposed standards. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained
a similar requirement. Several State logging standards also require check-in systems at
the end of the workshift to ensure no employees are left in the woods (Ex. 2-17, 2-18,
2-19, 2-20, 38K). Several commenters said that it was not necessary for small felling and
bucking crews to be accounted for by anyone other than the crew members (Ex. 5-21, 5-36,
5-39, 5-53, 5-63). In response, OSHA points out that nothing in the final rule would
prevent the employer from allowing a crew supervisor, for example, to account for the rest
of the crew at the end of the workshift. In such cases, the employer is responsible for
establishing and enforcing a regular system whereby there is a check on each employee at
the end of the workshift. The most important thing is that no employee is unaccounted for
at the close of the shift. As with the contact requirement, OSHA believes that this
provision will help to assure timely assistance to employees in emergencies.
In addition, end of shift accounting offers several other benefits to the employer and
employee. First, the employer can remain appraised of the progress made on the job during
the last workshift. Second, any hazardous conditions that were not contemplated during
pre-shift meetings with employees can be relayed to the employer for dissemination to
other employees. Third, unserviceable tools and machines can be reported to the employer
so that replacements can be obtained or repairs can made before the next workshift.
Therefore, OSHA has retained this provision in the final standard.
Several commenters said this provision would interfere with contracting situations when
the logger is an independent contractor (Ex. 5-21, 5-23, 5-36, 5-53, 5-55, 5-63). However,
they did not provide any evidence as to how this provision might conflict with contracting
agreements.
* * *
Back