Text from the OSHA Logging PreambleSection
V: Summary and Explanation of the Final Standard
Paragraph (h) Tree Harvesting
At paragraph (h) of the final rule, OSHA establishes various general and specific work
practice requirements regarding tree harvesting. OSHA believes these work practice
requirements are necessary, especially given the high injury rate in the logging industry.
According to the WIR survey, in more than two-thirds of all reported injuries unsafe
working practices contributed to the accident (Ex. 2-1). The work practices specified in
this paragraph address those work practices that when not used contributed to accidents
such as those reported in the WIR survey (e.g., co-worker activity, working too fast,
misjudging time or distance to avoid injury, using wrong cutting method).
OSHA notes that those provisions in the proposed rule that specified requirements other
than work practices (e.g., equipment specifications) have been moved to the applicable
equipment specification paragraphs of the final rule.
General Requirements
Paragraph (h)(1)(i) requires that trees not be felled in a manner that may create a
hazard for an employee, such as, but not limited to, falling on an employee, or striking a
rope, cable, power line or machine. The proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard
contained similar provisions. The proposed rule required that trees not be felled in a
manner that could endanger an employee.
Three commenters said that the proposed provision was too broad to be useful since they
believed all felling activities are dangerous (Ex. 5-21, 5-36, 5-63). While OSHA agrees
that it may not be possible to eliminate all hazards in a workplace, the employer does
have the responsibility to prevent or minimize hazards the employer can reasonably
anticipate. To comply with this provision, it is incumbent on the employer to train
employees in proper felling work practices and to point out when employee actions or
workplace conditions could create hazards for employees.
Paragraph (h)(1)(ii) requires that the immediate supervisor be consulted before felling
is commenced, whenever unfamiliar or unusually hazardous conditions necessitate the
supervisor's approval. The final rule adopts the provision contained in the proposed rule.
One commenter supported the proposed requirement (Tr. W1 85). He said that consulting
supervisors when heavy accumulations of snow are present would prevent injuries. OSHA
believes that unusual, hazardous situations may arise during felling operations and the
supervisor should be involved in making decisions about the safest way to fell a tree.
These situations may include, but are not limited to, felling very large or tall trees;
cutting trees whose lean, location or structure make it difficult to fell in the desired
or a safe direction. Adding the supervisor's knowledge, training and experience to the
decision-making process should help to minimize the hazards to loggers. In addition, this
consultation process is especially important when logging crews are relatively new and may
not have dealt with such situations before.
Paragraph (h)(1)(iii) of the final rule requires that no yarding machine be operated
within two tree lengths of any tree being manually felled. This provision has been adopted
from the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained a similar
requirement.
Several commenters raised questions about or discussed this provision (Ex. 5-12, 5-43,
5-67; Tr. W1 104, W2 197). None of the commenters denied that yarding machine operators
may be endangered when they operate too close to manual felling activities. However, two
commenters stated that the provision should be revised because, in some circumstances, the
assistance of a yarding machine is necessary to assure that the tree is felled in the
desired direction or to keep the area clear (Ex. 5-12, 5-67). For example, one commenter
said that failure of yarders to clear an area of a build up of felled trees or logs can
result in timber breakage or can pose problems for fellers working on slopes (Ex. 5-67).
In general, OSHA believes that allowing yarding machines within two tree lengths of
trees being manually felled would pose a risk of harm to both the machine operator and the
feller. First, a manual feller who is cutting a tree is concentrating on that work
activity and not on other logging activities in the area. If that tree were to fall on a
yarding machine that is too close to a manual felling operation, the machine operator
could be injured by the tree. Second, it also is important for their own safety that
manual fellers work at a safe distance from yarding activities. Yarder operators and
chasers and choker setters concentrating on slinging and moving logs could cause injury to
the feller if a tree or log were to shift, roll or slide suddenly.
Third, yarding machine operators are often working downhill from manual fellers. It may
be dangerous for the operator to approach the feller because the falling tree could roll
or slide into the machine. Fourth, the requirements of this paragraph can still be met
even where the feller and yarder work as a team. After the feller has cut a tree and is
moving on to size up another tree for cutting, the yarder can remove the felled tree
before the feller begins cutting the next tree. The feller should check to make sure the
yarder has removed the tree out of the work area before he starts cutting. Therefore, OSHA
believes that its general rule that each work area be separated by at least two tree
lengths should also apply to yarding and manual felling operations.
One commenter, who said that "cat skidding crews" in the northwest work in
close proximity of tree fellers, suggested that this provision should allow skidding
directly away from a timber feller as long as the feller is not actively trying to fell a
tree (Ex. 5-43). OSHA notes that the final rule does not prohibit what the commenter
suggests. The final rule only says that yarding machines shall not be within a two-tree
length distance while manual felling is in progress. The final rule does not prohibit the
yarding operator from clearing logs when the feller is not engaged in cutting trees. While
the feller is moving onto the next tree and assessing its condition, this provision allows
yarder operators to remove the trees that have been felled, provided that the other
requirements or this paragraph have been met (e.g., the feller acknowledging that it is
safe for the yarder to enter the work area).
Paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of the final standard requires that no employee approach a felling
operation closer than two tree lengths of the tree being felled until the feller
acknowledges it is safe to do so. This provision includes an exception to the two-tree
length requirement when the employer demonstrates that a team of employees is necessary to
manually fell a particular tree. The proposed rule and the 1978 ANSI logging standard also
contained provisions specifying that employees remain two tree lengths from the feller.
The proposed rule did not contain the felling team exception.
Several commenters urged OSHA to permit exceptions to the two tree-length requirement
(Tr. W1 152, 183-86, W2 163, OR 126). These commenters discussed, for example, the need
for shovelers to work in conjunction with fellers.
OSHA believes the two tree-length distance requirement is necessary for several
reasons. First, a feller may not be aware of approaching employees due to noise or the
feller's concentration on the work. It is therefore possible that employees may
inadvertently enter an area where a tree is falling. This could result in injury to the
approaching employee, and even to the feller if he attempts to take corrective action.
According to the WIR survey, six percent of employees injured reported that co-worker
activity had contributed to the accident (Ex. 2-1). The State of Washington study
indicated that eight percent of employees who were killed were hit by a tree being felled
by another employee (Ex. 4-129). According to the OSHA FCI report, nine logging employees
were killed when they were struck by a tree that was being cut by another logger (Ex.
4-61). Second, an approaching employee could be injured if he is unaware of or misjudges
the falling direction of a tree. The feller is the best judge of the direction that a tree
is likely to fall and, therefore, should be the one to signal when a work area is safe.
Third, approaching employees could be injured if a tree were to inadvertently fall in the
wrong direction. The best way for employees to prevent such injury is to remain clear of
the work area while the felling operation is being conducted. Once the felling of the tree
is completed, the feller can signal that it is safe for other employees to approach.
Therefore, OSHA believes the safer approach for both the feller and other employees is to
wait until the feller has acknowledged it is safe to enter the felling area.
OSHA has included an exception to this rule for particular situations when more than
one employee is needed to manually fell a particular tree. However, OSHA notes that this
exception covers only manual fellers and those whom the employer demonstrates are needed
to assist in manually felling a tree (e.g., shovelers). It does not include mechanical
felling operations and it does permit machines to enter the manual felling area. In those
situations, paragraphs (h)(1)(iii) and (h)(1)(v) apply. If a machine is necessary to push
or pull over a tree, the manual feller must move at least two tree lengths away and must
not enter the area until the machine operator acknowledges that it is safe. OSHA notes
that this is not a blanket exception for all team felling activities. The general rule is
that no person is to approach a feller until the feller has indicated it is safe to do so.
The exception is meant to be applied on a case-by-case basis. That is, the employer bears
the burden of demonstrating that a particular tree or a particular felling situation
requires a team. Only then is more than one person allowed within the immediate work area.
In addition, the employer bears the burden of showing that a team is necessary to manually
fell the tree in that particular situation.
Paragraph (h)(1)(v) of the final rule requires that no employee approach a mechanical
felling operation closer than two tree lengths of the tree being felled until the machine
operator has acknowledged that it is safe to do so. The proposed rule required that
employees remain clear of any mechanical felling operation.
OSHA received many comments recommending that OSHA apply the two tree-length minimum
work distance to mechanical felling operations as well (Ex. 5-18, 5-21, 5-34, 5-36, 5-39,
5-63, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. W2 163, 197). These commenters said that such distance was
needed, for example, to protect other employees from flying metal fragments from broken
mechanical disc saw blades. In addition, the reasoning and explanation supporting the
distance requirement for approaching fellers also applies to this provision. For example,
a feller-buncher operator who is not expecting an employee to enter the work area may move
in reverse and not see the employee in time to prevent an accident. OSHA has therefore
added the two tree-length distance requirement to this provision of the final rule.
Paragraph (h)(1)(vi) of the final rule requires that each danger tree, including lodged
trees and snags, be felled, removed or avoided. When the danger tree is felled or removed,
it must be felled or removed using mechanical or other techniques that minimize employee
exposure before felling is commenced in the area of the danger tree. When the danger tree
is avoided, it must be marked and no work be conducted within two tree lengths of the
danger tree, unless the employer demonstrates that a shorter distance will not create a
hazard for an employee. As defined in the final rule, a danger tree includes any standing
tree that presents a hazard to employees due to conditions such as, but not limited to,
deterioration or damage to the tree, and direction or lean of the tree.
The proposed rule required that lodged trees be marked and lowered to the ground using
mechanical or other safe techniques before any work is continued within two tree lengths
of the lodged tree. The proposed rule did not allow any exceptions to the two tree-length
distance. Many State logging standards include requirements to fell danger trees or not to
commence work within a two tree-length distance of the danger tree (Ex. 2-19, 2-20, 2-22,
38J, 38K).
The record shows that danger trees pose many hazards for employees. According to the
WIR survey, 15 percent of those injured said that the dangerous conditions of the tree had
contributed to their accident (Ex. 2-1). The OSHA FCI report indicated that 23 logging
employees were killed by danger trees (Ex. 4-61).
OSHA received several comments on this proposed provision (Ex. 5-7, 5-21, 5-34, 5-39,
5-43, 5-74 through 5-92, 17; Tr. W1 187, W2 6-7). Some commenters supported the provision
(Ex. 5-39, 5-34). Some commenters suggested that this provision conflicts with other
federal regulations requiring retention of some "snags" to preserve wildlife
habitats in the area (Ex. 5-7, 5-27, 5-39, Tr. W2 6) and Rep. Jolene Unsoeld commented
that OSHA should attempt to harmonize the final rule with various environmental
regulations (Ex. 17, 31). Other commenters said that OSHA's provision was excessive in
those situations when a tree is securely lodged a few feet above the ground (Ex. 5-21,
5-74 through 5-92; Tr. W1 187, W2 6-7). Another commenter said that prohibiting any
felling within two tree-lengths of a danger tree would take a large volume of timber out
of production, especially strips of trees on steep slopes (Ex. 5-43).
OSHA has addressed the commenters' concerns in the final rule. First, OSHA is more
explicitly stating in the final rule that dangers trees may be avoided, when necessary,
rather than being felled or removed. OSHA believes that this requirement harmonizes with
and does not conflict with the rules and regulations of other Federal agencies. The U.S.
Department of the Interior participated in this rulemaking and did not indicate that this
provision was in conflict with their regulations (Ex. 5-50). The change to the final rule
further clarifies OSHA's proposed intent that danger trees do not have to be felled or
removed. This provision of the final rule only requires two actions of the employer. One,
when the employer wishes to fell a danger tree, it must be removed or felled before other
trees in the area are felled. Two, when the employer elects not to fell or remove a danger
tree, the employer must not conduct any other felling in that area. Therefore, when other
regulations require the preservation of a particular snag, this final standard requires
only that fellers be protected from potential injury from the snag. This is accomplished
by keeping all other felling activity out of the immediate area of that snag.
Second, in the final rule OSHA has addressed the concerns of other commenters by
allowing work to commence within two tree lengths of a marked danger tree, provided that
the employer demonstrates that a shorter distance will not create a hazard for an
employee. This change will assure the safety of logging employees without removing
significant timber from production. OSHA notes that the employer bears the burden of
demonstrating that a distance of less than two tree lengths will not create a hazard for
an employee. Supervisors should actively participate in identifying and training employees
about providing safe distances. Whether a shorter distance does create a hazard is a
case-by-case determination. What constitutes a safe distance for other work to be
conducted will require an evaluation of various factors such as, but not limited to, the
size of the danger tree, how secure it is, its condition, the slope of the work area, and
the presence of other employees in the area. For example, excessive root deterioration or
damage might indicate that the danger tree is unstable and that there is a possibility it
could fall. In such case, a two tree-length distance would be required.
Some commenters recommended that OSHA designate dislodging a tree by felling another
one into it as a safe technique "in certain situations" (Ex. 5-74 through 5-92).
However, these commenters did not identify any situations in which it would be safe to
dislodge a tree in this manner. There is no information in the record that identifies any
situation in which it is safe to use domino felling to fell a danger tree. In fact, other
commenters have indicated they know of no situation when felling another tree into a
danger tree is considered safe practice (Ex. 5-42, 5-46). OSHA also believes that it is
not safe to dislodge a tree in this manner. First, there are already hazards associated
with domino felling trees that are not danger trees. Trying to domino fell danger trees
such as lodged trees can only increase the seriousness of the hazard. One of the factors
that makes a tree a danger tree is that the physical damage to the tree may cause it to
fall in an unintended direction. Felling another tree into the danger tree increases the
potential for a misdirected fall. Second, the possibility exists that danger trees being
domino felled also will become lodged, thereby increasing the number of trees to be
avoided or removed and, consequently, increasing the risk to employees when those lodged
trees are removed. The safest way to remove a lodged tree, first is remove all unnecessary
employees from the area and then to hook the tree to a skidder, and pull the tree down
(Ex. 5-43). Therefore, OSHA is not permitting removal of any tree, including a danger
tree, by domino felling (See discussion of paragraph (h)(1)(ix).
Paragraph (h)(1)(vii) of the final rule requires that each danger tree be carefully
checked for signs of loose bark, broken branches and limbs or other damage before it is
felled or removed. This provision also requires that loose bark and other damage that may
create a hazard be removed before felling or removing the tree. This requirement has been
adopted from the proposed rule. In the proposed rule, OSHA specified that snags be
carefully checked for dangerous bark before they are felled and that accessible loose bark
be removed before felling.
One commenter opposed this provision (Ex. 5-65). This commenter said that removing
loose bark increases dangers from above since upper bark will slough off if lower bark is
no longer supporting it. As such, this commenter recommended that OSHA require loose bark
to be pinned to the tree. OSHA has changed the final rule to include removing loose bark
or holding it in place.
Paragraph (h)(1)(viii) of the final rule requires that felling activity on any slope
when rolling or sliding of trees or logs is reasonably foreseeable be kept uphill from, or
on the same level as, previously felled trees. This provision has been adopted from the
proposed standard and the pulpwood logging rules. Various State standards contain similar
requirements (Ex. 2-19, 2-22, 38K).
OSHA received various comments on this provision (Ex. 5-7, 5-12, 5-16, 5-17, 5-53, 5-74
through 5-92). Several commenters said that OSHA should more clearly define what
constitutes sloping terrain (Ex. 5-16, 5-21, 5-53, 5-74 through 5-92). These commenters
suggested that the provision be limited to slopes exceeding 25 or 35 percent. They also
indicated that mechanical felling in southern states should be excluded because slopes are
gentler and shorter than in other regions.
The record shows that this provision is necessary to protect employees from being
injured by rolling or sliding trees. The WIR survey supports the need for this work
practice requirement. According to the WIR survey, nearly three-fifths of the workers who
reported injuries said that their accidents occurred on moderately or steeply sloped
terrain, and 10 percent of all injured workers blamed the steep terrain for their accident
(Ex. 2-1). The OSHA FCI report indicated that 20 employees were killed when they were
struck by rolling trees or logs (Ex. 4-61).
OSHA has not adopted a precise minimum slope that would trigger this requirement or
excempt any region from the requirement, however, the final rule does address the
commenters' concerns by limiting this provision to those sloping terrains where rolling or
sliding of felled trees is reasonably foreseeable. OSHA is aware that logging work sites
are often not completely level, and that many logging sites could be considered to be
sloping terrain. Elements other than the mere slope of the terrain also must be considered
in determining whether there is a reasonable possibility that the trees could roll or
slide. When a given slope does not present the reasonable possibility that felled trees
will slide or roll, OSHA agrees that this requirement should not apply. However, when the
terrain slopes to the degree that a reasonable employer would believe that sliding or
rolling is foreseeable, then this work practice requirement is necessary to protect
loggers from being injured.
Whether a particular terrain slope poses a possibility that trees or logs may slide or
roll requires an assessment of the condition of the terrain. All conditions that might
contribute to a hazard must be considered (e.g., tree size, weather conditions). For
example, when the terrain is either wet or covered with snow or ice, the possibility of
trees sliding and rolling is greater and these conditions must be considered in
determining whether uphill felling is required. As long as the hazard of sliding or
rolling trees exists, felling must be done on the uphill side even if industry practice
has been downhill felling, or even if roads have generally been located on the tops of
ridges.
One commenter said that this provision of the final rule may be counter to some
environmental considerations in timber harvest plans which require opposite felling
schemes (Ex. 5-7). However, the commenter has not provided substantive information to
support his assertion. OSHA has previously discussed the danger of manual felling
operations being conducted in adjacent work areas due to the potential for a felled tree
falling into another work area. In light of that the fact that most trees fall down hill
when felled, the hazard to employees working below another felling activity exposes those
employees to an unacceptable risk of injury or death.
Finally, one commenter said downhill felling should be permitted because it can reduce
the feller's fatigue (Ex. 5-12). While NIOSH suggests that worker fatigue may be a factor
in logging accidents, NIOSH did not recommend downhill felling as being a method to reduce
worker fatigue (Ex. 5-42). Rather, NIOSH said that the employer should reduce worker
fatigue and the potential for accidents that results from such fatigue by planning
appropriate work schedules. NIOSH suggested that the employer's planning of work schedules
should include an evaluation of the amount of heat stress, physical exertion and other
factors contributing to fatigue in planning those work schedules. OSHA agrees with NIOSH
that planning appropriate work schedules rather than downhill felling would be the
appropriate way to reduce worker fatigue without exposing the employee to further hazards
and to assure that jobs fit the capabilities of the person. (OSHA is addressing these
factors in its rulemaking on ergonomic safety and health management.)
Paragraph (h)(1)(ix) of the final rule prohibits the practice of domino felling. As
previously discussed, domino felling involves cutting wedges and making partial backcuts
in a series of trees that form a continuous line. The last tree is then felled into the
line thus pushing the line of trees to the ground in a chain reaction fashion.
This requirement was not included in the proposed rule, however, several commenters
urged OSHA to prohibit domino felling in the final rule (Ex. 5-42, 5-46; Tr. W2 231, OR
659). NIOSH said that domino felling was a hazardous practice because there was a loss of
stability in the standing tree when it had been backcut (Ex. 5-42). Therefore, NIOSH
recommended that OSHA include a requirement in the final rule allowing only one tree to be
felled at a time. There are also other hazards associated with domino felling. First, when
trees are used to knock down other trees, the likelihood that the trees will not fall in
the expected direction is greatly increased. A small miscalculation in the falling
direction can be significantly magnified down the line and result in serious injury to the
feller or other employees in the area. In addition, a falling tree could hit another
object and either fall in another direction or become lodged. This would require an
employee to fell the lodged tree, which is a hazardous operation.
Second, the hazards can be magnified when domino felling is not successful in knocking
down the entire line of trees. The feller may be placed in an extremely hazardous
situation if he must try to fell any of the line of trees that may remain standing. For
example, part of the line of trees may have fallen over and lodged against the standing
tree. A feller who attempts to fell the final standing tree(s) could be injured when the
lodged line of trees and the final tree finally do fall. The risk of injury is greater
because it is more likely that the lodged trees may fall in an unexpected direction, and
the combined weight of the lodged trees further increases the risk. In this sense, the
prohibition against domino felling is similar to the requirement in the final rule that
trees be felled in a manner that prevents them from striking things such as ropes, cables,
or power lines. For these reasons, OSHA is requiring that trees be felled one at a time
rather than allowing trees to be used to knock down other trees.
* * *
Back