|
Text from
the OSHA Logging Preamble
Section IV: Major Issues
A. Introduction
* * *
2. Personal protective equipment. In the hearing notice OSHA
raised the issue about who should pay for personal protective equipment (PPE) that
employees are required to use or wear. The Agency proposed that employers provide PPE and
assure it is used by employees when required. OSHA's intent in the proposed rule was that
the employer provide personal equipment at no cost to the employee. PPE items included in
the proposed rule were gloves, leg protection, logging boots, safety helmets (hard hats),
eye or face protection, and respiratory protection.
Many commenters agreed that the personal protective equipment specified in the proposed
rule should be used. (Ex. 5-32, 5-42, 5-64, 9-2, 9-15, 9-16, 9-20). Some commenters urged
OSHA to require that the employer be responsible for providing all PPE (Ex. 9-3, 9-13).
They said that only if the employer provided the PPE could he assure its quality, design
and maintenance. However, many other commenters opposed requiring logging employers to
provide certain types of PPE, and their opposition focused primarily on logging boots (Ex.
5-11, 5-21, 5-32, 5-39, 5-45, 5-51, 5-55, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-2, 9-5, 9-15, 9-17, 9-18;
Tr. W1 74-75, 110, 177, OR 22, 79, 205, 262, 441, 533, 632, 701). Many commenters did not
give any reason why the employer should not be required to pay for PPE. Other commenters
contended primarily that employers would be financially burdened if they had to pay for
certain high cost PPE, such as individually-fitted and non-reusable logging boots, in an
industry that has such a high turnover rate. Other reasons for not requiring the employer
to provide certain types of PPE were the use of certain PPE by employees outside the
workplace, and industry custom.
Commenters noted that employee turnover in the logging industry is very high (Ex. 5-11,
5-21, 5-39, 5-49, 5-51, 5-55, 5-56, 5-63, 5-65, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. W1 74-75, 110, 177,
OR 22, 79, 205, 262, 441, 533, 632, 701). Some commenters also indicated that employees
sometimes work only one or two weeks before leaving, often taking jobs at another logging
establishment (Ex. 5-55, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. OR 78). These commenters argued that it
would be unfair to require employers to pay for expensive logging boots given the high
turnover rate of the logging industry. One commenter said:
[I]t frightens us to think that we might be providing a $300 pair of boots for a man
that's there a week (Tr. W1 74).
These commenters also contend that for some PPE, particularly logging boots, employers
might have to buy new PPE every time they hire a new employee. First, this would be
necessary because terminated employees do not return PPE they are issued (Ex. 5-45).
Second, these commenters argue that, unlike PPE such as ear muffs and head and leg
protection, logging boots are an item of PPE that cannot be reused by other employees
because of size and hygienic concerns (Ex. 5-29, 5-43, 5-44, 5-62, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-1,
9-15, 9-21; Tr. OR 78). Because logging boots cannot be worn by other employees, these
commenters said employers view logging boots as "personal clothing." In
addition, these commenters said that even if employees did return their logging boots, new
employees would be unwilling to wear used logging boots. One commenter said:
Suppose a new employee comes to work in the spring and finds he can't or doesn't want
to be a logger so he hands in his $200 boots with two weeks wear and tear and leaves. Is
the next guy going to accept "used" boots someone else wore? (Ex. 5-78)
The commenters said that requiring employers to pay for new PPE, primarily logging
boots, for each new employee would place a considerable financial burden on employers (Ex.
5-32, 5-39, 5-45, 9-15; Tr. W1 74, OR 78, 350). They said the cost would be particularly
burdensome for small establishments that comprise the vast majority of the logging
industry. Their basis for this conclusion is that logging boots are very costly, ranging
from $60 to $400 a pair (Ex. 5-45, 9-15; Tr. W1 74, OR 78, 350). In addition, they said
employees need two to three pairs of logging boots a year. The commenters, however, did
not present any financial or economic evidence as to the burden (e.g., effect on profits,
sales, etc.) on the industry as a whole, and particularly small employers as a group, of
providing logging boots.
One commenter said employers should not be required to pay for logging boots that are
used by employees away from workplace (Ex. 5-39). This commenter said employees take their
logging boots with them when they seek new employment (Ex. 5-39). He also said employees
use their logging boots for hunting and cutting their own wood (Ex. 5-39). In contrast,
the record shows that other types of PPE (e.g., leg protection, safety glasses and hearing
protection) remain with the employer, therefore, they are not used away from the workplace
(e.g., Ex. 5-32). In addition, one commenter said that these types of PPE are already
being provided by many establishments as standard industry practice (Ex. 5-32).
Finally, several commenters said that employers should not be required to pay for
certain PPE because the custom in the logging industry is that employees, especially
piece-rate workers, provide their own PPE, particularly logging boots (Ex. 5-11, 5-24,
5-45, 5-67, 5-74 through 5-92). These commenters said that piece-rate workers provide all
"tools of the trade," that includes some types of PPE. However, the record also
shows that some logging establishments do provide logging boots (Ex. 5-32; Tr. W1 177).
For example, one commenter said:
[T]he way we set it up is that when you're with us for one year we will buy you three
pair of boots and we will supply all safety equipment.
After you are with us for one month, we will supply safety chaps, the helmet, the whole
works. The first day you come on the job we will supply the helmet, a helmet with the eye
protection and the ear protection (Tr. W1 177).
Another commenter said:
In most instances items such as ear plugs, safety glasses, bucking chaps or any other
safety item required to work in a safe environment are provided (Ex. 5-32).
OSHA has carefully reviewed the evidence in the record and, for several reasons, has
decided in the final rule to delete the general requirement that the employer be required
to provide logging boots. However, the final rule does require that such boots be worn by
logging employees, and holds the employer responsible for assuring that the employee has
logging boots and wears them. As to the other PPE requirements specified in paragraph (d),
OSHA has retained the language of the pulpwood logging and proposed standards that the
employer provide such PPE at no cost to the employee.
The OSH Act imposes on employers the responsibility for compliance with standards and
for providing safe working conditions for employees. This responsibility has been
recognized in OSHA's personal protective equipment standards at 29 CFR 1910.132 through 29
CFR 1910.138. Section 1910.132(a) establishes the employer's obligation to provide and
maintain personal protective equipment whenever such equipment is necessary by reason of
the hazards in the workplace.
Section 1910.132(b) does recognize that in some limited circumstances that employees
may provide their own PPE. However, OSHA emphasizes that this practice is not the norm,
but rather an exception based on unusual or specific circumstances. In addition, section
1910.132(b) underscores the employer's continuing obligation to assure the adequacy and
maintenance of the PPE.
The record shows that special circumstances exist in the logging industry which may
make it appropriate for employees to provide their own logging boots. First, the record
shows that the logging industry is highly transient, and that logging boots, unlike other
PPE required by the final rule, are not the kind of PPE that can be reused. Logging boots
purchased to fit one employee may not fit the next employee. It is important that logging
boots fit properly or the boot may not provide the necessary protection. Therefore, based
on current turnover rates in the industry, employers would have to purchase non-reusable
logging boots costing $200 to $400 many times a year for newly-hired employees, even
though there is a significant likelihood that these employees will remain in the job for
only a short time.
Second, the record shows that logging employees tend to move from one logging
establishment to another, taking their "tools of the trade" with them,
particularly their logging boots. OSHA believes it may be appropriate in this situation to
allow employees to take their logging boots to the next place of employment, rather than
requiring the new employer to provide logging boots. Logging boots are both portable
(i.e., not limited in use to or maintained at a particular workplace, like respirators for
instance) and in most cases they fit only that particular employee therefore they cannot
be reused by other employees. The other items of PPE required by the final rule, such as
leg and head protection, tend to be both less personal to the employee and more connected
to the workplace itself, and can be readily used by other employees.
Third, there is evidence in the record that employees do use their logging boots away
from work. Employees come to and leave work wearing their logging boots, suggesting that
the boots are used away from the workplace. In addition, commenters cited specific
activities where logging boots are used away from the logging work site. The commenters
did not provide any comparable evidence that other items of PPE required by the final rule
are also used by employees away from the workplace.
Based on the above, OSHA has decided in the final rule not to require the employer to
provide logging boots. The Agency emphasizes that it is the totality of the special
circumstances in the logging industry that justify this determination. Of the reasons
discussed above, none of them standing alone would provide sufficient justification for
departing from the general requirement that employers provide PPE. Rather, it is the
combination of these reasons and special circumstances in the logging industry that make
it appropriate to allow employees to provide their own logging boots.
OSHA also emphasizes that regardless of who provides the logging boots, the final rule
makes the employer responsible for assuring that logging boots are used by the employee
and are maintained in a serviceable condition. In addition, in the final rule the employer
is responsible for assuring that logging boots are inspected before initial use during a
workshift. Attendant to this requirement, the employer is also responsible for assuring
that damaged and defective equipment is either repaired or replaced before work is
commenced.
With regard to the other items of PPE required by the final rule, OSHA does not believe
there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify a departure from OSHA's
long-established policy. Neither industry practice nor turnover rates compel the Agency to
relieve employers of the obligation to pay for the other items of PPE for loggers. Indeed,
evidence in the record shows that many employers are currently providing these other items
of PPE (Ex. 5-32, 9-15; Tr. W1 177). The record shows that, unlike logging boots, these
items of PPE tend to remain at the workplace and are amenable for use by other employees.
Further, there is no evidence in the record of an established practice of employees using
such PPE away from the workplace. Also, there is no evidence of established and uniform
industry practice of transporting such PPE from job to job. Therefore, in the final rule,
OSHA is requiring, except for logging boots, that the employer provide PPE at no cost to
the employee.
3. Leg protection. In the hearing notice OSHA raised three
issues concerning leg protection for chain-saw operators: specifications for leg
protection, the area to be protected, and potential disadvantages of leg protection.
a. Specifications. The proposed rule would have required that
chain-saw operators wear leg protection made of ballistic nylon or other material that
provides at least equivalent protection. Many commenters supported the leg protection
requirement for chain-saw operators (Ex. 5-5, 5-7, 5-17, 5-30, 5-33, 5-42, 5-45, 5-51,
5-60, 5-68, 5-73, 9-9-11; Tr. W2 126-28). Several commenters and hearing participants also
supported OSHA's position that leg protection meet certain criteria (Ex. 5-30, 5-60, 5-68,
5-73; Tr. W2 126-28). Two commenters suggested that OSHA require leg protection made with
KEVLAR because they believe KEVLAR provides more protection than ballistic nylon (Ex. 5-5,
5-30). One of these commenters said KEVLAR leg protection provides 50 percent more
protection than ballistic nylon with a fraction of the weight and bulk, thus allowing
easier movement and reducing fatigue (Ex. 5-30). This commenter also said that the U.S.
Forest Service specifications call for KEVLAR leg protection. Other commenters stated that
a testing protocol for leg protection should be adopted rather than specifying that leg
protection be comprised of any certain type of material (Ex. 5-60, 5-68, 5-72). One
commenter said OSHA should adopt the ISO or Canadian testing standards for leg protection
(Ex. 9-16). However, other commenters said there was no consensus in this country
regarding an appropriate testing standard (Ex. 5-60, 5-68, 5-72). One commenter proposed
that the following testing standard be adopted:
[T]he protective garment must have a minimum "Threshold Chain Speed" of 2500
feet per minute for operators using chain saws with an engine displacement of under 65 cc
and 3000 feet per minute for operators using chain saws with an engine displacement of
over 65 cc. Further the test procedure developed and currently used by the US Forest
Service [should] be adopted and defined as the test method used to measure the
"Threshold Chain Speed" of safety material (Ex. 5-68).
Another commenter proposed that a different testing standard be adopted in OSHA's final
rule:
I propose to replace "ballistic nylon or equivalent protection covering each leg
from the upper thigh to boot top or shoe top" by "leg protective device in
conformity with the standard NQ 1923-450" Protective pad for chain saw operators'
trousers and leggings.(6)
__________
Footnote(6) NQ 1923-450 is a test standard developed in Quebec Province, Canada.
This performance standard covers all the requirements for safety leggings such as the
minimum coverage and a minimum performance level. This performance level is measured in
conformity with the standard NQ 1923-450 "Protective pads for chain saw operators'
trousers and leggings -- Determination of stopping speed and cut-through time." These
two standards have been adopted by a consensus of employers, workers, manufacturers of
fabrics and PPE, government and workers' compensation boards.
Other participants opposed specific criteria for leg protection performance for several
reasons (Tr. W2 206-07, OR 472-75, 496-98, 513-14). First, some argued that there were no
national consensus or State standard to provide guidance on specification standards.
Second, others commented that a specification standard limited to "ballistic
nylon" was too restrictive (Ex. 5-30; Tr. W2 189-90). Third, others stated that there
are no standards establishing specific performance criteria of the material for leg
protection. For example, APA testified:
APA does not know of any state leg protection apparel standard in existence or under
development. I can report to you that our association has a special committee working on
the development of a safety apparel standard, and this committee has generally accepted
the Quebec Research Institute testing method, and now it's kind of rewriting this testing
method to meet the American Society of Testing Materials guidelines. So the committee is
close to completing its work on endorsing an approved test procedure.
The next step in the committee's charge is to develop a voluntary performance testing
standard that would apply for leg protection, safety boots and other apparel. That's going
to be a little way down the road. It's own opinion that the work of this committee is not
yet mature and that OSHA should probably not attempt to include any specific performance
testing standard for leg protection or other safety items at this time. They're
recommending that you defer the inclusion of a specific leg protection performance testing
standard until the next revision of the OSHA logging regulations, whenever that might be.
It may be ten years from now or fifteen years from now. At this point in time, we feel
it's much more important to get any safety equipment worn, rather than to worry about
whether or not it meets specific performance standard (Tr. OR 472-75).
APA also testified that regional differences in chain-saw operations also precludes a
specification standard for leg protection:
I would also say in general our feeling is that logging is so different obviously in
every part of the country that often we've got to have lead-way for the types of leg
protection that might be appropriate for a person working in the swamps of Louisiana as
opposed to the mountains of Montana. Not that we know what those differences might be, but
that in general we feel like the loggers in those areas should be able to have the
opportunity to design or approve a leg protection that would be appropriate for their
situation (Tr. OR 207-08).
The record shows that leg protection for chain-saw operators is essential to prevent
injuries. According to the WIR survey, 64 percent of injuries to chain-saw operators were
due to kickback, an accident that usually results in injury to the leg (Ex. 2-1). The WIR
survey also indicates that 22 percent of all injuries reported were to the leg.
OSHA believes that leg protection made of ballistic nylon or equivalent material is
effective in preventing injuries to the leg. A study by the French Farmers' Mutuality
indicates that ballistic leg protection was effective in preventing 12 leg injuries in 91
loggers studies over an eight-month period (Ex. 37). Testimony and comments show, however,
that there is no accepted testing measurements standard in this country on leg protection
performance. In addition, the foreign standards that do exist have not been generally
accepted or used in this country. Nonetheless, OSHA believes that a performance-based
requirement for leg protection to provide protection against contact with a moving saw
chain will provide flexibility for employers while encouraging technological innovation,
such as the work by APA.
For these reasons, in the final rule OSHA has adopted the proposed provision requiring
that leg protection be worn on each leg by all chain-saw operators. However, OSHA has
revised the final rule to require that where the employer provides leg protection made of
material other than ballistic nylon, the employer is responsible for demonstrating that it
provides protection which is at least equivalent to ballistic nylon, such as KEVLAR. This
requirement ensures that employees are protected against moving saw chains, while at the
same time providing flexibility for the employer.
b. "Area to be protected and disadvantages of leg protection." The other
issues raised regarding leg protection concerned the parts of the chain-saw operator's
body that should be covered and its effect on mobility and other potential safety
disadvantages of wearing leg protection.
The proposed rule specified that leg protection extend from the upper thigh to the boot
or shoe top. Many commenters supported the proposed rule (Ex. 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, 9-11,
9-13, 9-15, 9-16, 9-20). One commenter said that the proposed rule followed the
requirements of the European draft standard (Ex. 9-11B). Some commenters said the proposed
rule was not protective enough and said the equipment for protecting chain-saw operators
should be expanded (Ex. 5-14, 5-68). One of these commenters said:
[W]e would recommend that a standard be developed defining the minimum coverage these
garments should have, for example from crotch to ankle bone with a minimum width measured
at the knee of 9.5 (Ex. 5-68).
The other commenter recommended leg protection be extended to also provide foot
protection that is cut resistance to a chain saw (Ex. 5-14). This commenter said that the
additional foot covering protection would also assure that the entire leg and ankle were
covered if the chaps were not long enough to cover the boot top.
Several commenters, however, said leg protection should be limited in the final rule
(Ex. 5-17, 5-45, 5-56, 5-65, 9-1; Tr. OR 227, 633-34). Most of these commenters said that
OSHA should not require leg protection to extend from the upper thigh to the boot or shoe
top. First, these commenters said that extending leg protection from the thigh to the boot
or shoe top was not necessary because most of the injuries occur to the area around the
knee. For example, one commenter stated:
A person using a chain saw would have to do some pretty spectacular gymnastics to
receive a chain saw cut more than 4" below the knee. Once again, we have no
recordable injuries for the last 7 years involving chain saw cuts more than 4" below
the knee (Ex. 5-45).
Another commenter stated that leg protection was not necessary for climbers and bucket
truck operators:
The major hazards for these individuals are cuts to the upper body from saw kick-backs
and falling material. Leg protection should not be required, however the use of some of
the new lighter and more pliable pads sewn into pants should be encouraged whenever
feasible (Ex. 5-19).
Second, commenters stated that the small risk of injury to the lower leg was outweighed
by the risks due to lack of mobility caused by full-length leg protection. For example,
one said:
We have received numerous comments from our membership throughout the country who use
leg protection (or chaps) suggesting that chaps only extend to just below the knee. Chaps
that extend to the boot top, or shoe top, as required in proposed Section (e)(1)(ii),
impede mobility and cause a greater safety hazard than the standard works to protect
against. Our members believe that the highest risk for chain saw cuts occurs from the knee
to the thigh. Thus, chaps that cover the leg from the upper thigh to just below the knee
are sufficient (Ex. 5-56).
Third, one commenter testified that leg protection to the boot or shoe top would pose
an unreasonable financial burden on employers (Tr. OR 633-34). According to the
participant, different loggers use the employer-provided leg protection each day. Because
all loggers are not the same height, the leg protection provided may not reach to the boot
or shoe top or may be too long for other loggers to wear safely. This participant
suggested that the only way an employer could guarantee compliance with the required fit
of the leg protection would be to provide fitted leg protection to each individual logger.
The participant recommended the following:
We suggest [leg protection extend] to below the knee because these come in various
lengths. And certainly in those times you can't always stretch a pair of chaps that
somebody maybe having to put on to operate a chain saw all of a sudden to get it down to
the boot top (Tr. OR 633-34).
Fourth, some commenters stated that leg protection that extends to the boot or shoe top
might cause mobility problems, and would therefore be hazardous for chain-saw operators
(Ex. 5-19, 5-20, 5-55). For example, one commenter stated:
Rigging crews will occasionally use a power saw. If they are required to wear leggings,
it could be more dangerous than not having anything. This is one of the reasons rigging
crews prefer suspenders rather than a belt because you don't get "hung up" so
often. Anything that is going to hinder mobility is a problem (Ex. 5-20).
Another commenter recommended that OSHA limit leg protection to just one leg for
cutters (i.e., the leg in front that is used to maintain balance during cutting) (Ex.
5-65). However, this commenter also admitted that any chain-saw operator who is clearing
brush needs to wear protection on both legs because the saw is continuously and perilously
close to either leg at all times.
Other commenters said leg protection should be limited because heat and humidity could
increase worker fatigue or cause problems that might exceed the benefits of leg protection
(Ex. 5-25, 5-26, 5-59, Tr. W2 206-07). For example, one commenter stated:
OSHA proposes that employees are assigned duties that require an operator of a chain
saw to wear ballistic nylon or equivalent protection that must cover each leg from the
upper thigh to the boot top. This does not take into consideration the various temperature
factors which could increase fatigue. Fatigue is a major cause of injuries. As stated, on
Page 11802 [of the preamble to the proposed standard], Alabama and Georgia are states that
are among the leaders in logging activities. Due to the high heat and humidity of these
states, the requirement to wear ballistic nylon chaps could possibly increase injuries as
a result of the fatigue caused by hot, humid summer weather (Tr. W2 206-07).
Another comment added:
Clause (e)(1)(ii) should allow exceptions to the wearing of leg protectors for all
circumstances (not just climbers) in which there is a greater hazard than working without
them (for instance, fatigue from heat and humidity or loss of mobility in heavy
undergrowth etc.). It would be even more appropriate if the wearing of "leg
protectors" were made optional, depending on the individual work circumstances. One
study, (The Role of Personal Protection in the Prevention of Accidental Injuries in
Logging Work, T. Klen and S. Vayrynen, Journal of Occupational Accidents, 1984) concluded
that personal protectors have not been very effective and that this was a result of a
phenomena known as "risk compensation", the tendency of workers to be more
careless when they believe that personal protectors will prevent injury (Ex. 5-59).
OSHA has carefully reviewed the record on this issue and, for several reasons, has
decided in the final rule to retain the requirement that leg protection cover the upper
thigh to the boot top. The record clearly shows that chain-saw operators face a
significant risk of injury due to kickback. The WIR survey indicates that 64 percent of
all chain-saw injuries reported were the result of kickback (Ex. 2-1). Further, the WIR
survey shows that almost 30 percent of all injured employees were not wearing leg
protection at the time. Also, almost one-fourth of all injuries reported were to the leg.
According to the Maine BLS survey, chain-saw accidents accounted for 26 percent of all
reported injuries and more than half of those accidents involved chain-saw kickback.
OSHA does not believe the record supports the commenters' claims that chain-saw
injuries only occur to the area around the knee. Injuries to the lower leg as well as the
knee are significant. The WIR survey indicated that nine percent of all employees
reporting injuries were hurt in the lower leg or ankle, while 11 percent were injured in
the knee.
The available accident and injury data also do not support the commenters' argument
that lack of mobility is a greater hazard to chain-saw operators than lack of leg
protection. To the contrary, the data clearly show that the risk of chain-saw kickback is
far more serious than any of the potential dangers that have been suggested with regard to
leg protection (Ex. 2-1). For example, according to the WIR survey, none of the chain-saw
operators said they had been injured because they did not have enough time to retreat from
the falling tree. On the other hand, almost two-thirds of the chain-saw operators were
injured because the chain saw kicked back. In any event, OSHA believes that other
provisions in the proposed and final rule will adequately address concerns about mobility.
For example, the requirement to plan and clear retreat paths before commencing cutting
will protect employees who would be at risk from decreased mobility.
Finally, OSHA believes the new innovations in leg protection technology address the
commenters' concerns about costs, mobility, fatigue and heat stress. First, the record
shows that full-leg protection now being manufactured is light-weight and relatively cool
(Ex. 5-68, 9-4). The record also shows that light-weight leg protection that is inserted
or sewn into logging pants is now available. According to one commenter, these new
innovations make leg protection tolerable even in the hot and humid southern logging
regions. OSHA believes these innovations will reduce fatigue and heat stress and will
prevent mobility from being impeded. Second, the record shows that foot coverings are
available that can supplement protection in those instances where leg protection may not
fully cover the logger's lower leg. These devices will provide adequate protection in
those isolated instances where leg protection may not be long enough without requiring the
employer to purchase leg protection in many different sizes.
* * *
Section V: Summary and Explanation of the Final Standard
Paragraph (d) General Requirements
* * *
Leg protection. At paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of the final rule,
OSHA is requiring that the employer provide, at no cost to the employee, and assure that
each employee who operates a chain saw wears leg protection. This paragraph requires that
the leg protection be comprised of ballistic nylon or other material that the employer
demonstrates provides equivalent protection. In addition, this paragraph requires that the
leg protection cover the full length of the thigh to the top of the boot on each leg.
The pulpwood logging standard did not have a requirement for the use of chaps or other
leg protection. The proposed rule would have required that chain-saw operators wear
ballistic nylon or equivalent protection covering each leg from upper thigh to boot top or
shoe top. Both the State of Washington and the State of Oregon logging standards require
the use of leg protection by chain-saw operators (Ex. 2-22, 38K).
The need for and the use of leg protection was one of the issues raised in the hearing
notice and has been discussed above in the Major Issues section. The evidence in the
record, as discussed above, strongly supports the need for a requirement for leg
protection for each chain saw operator in order to protect that operator against being
injured by contact with a moving saw chain. OSHA points out that the requirement for using
leg protection applies to each employee who operates any chain saw at any time on the job.
This requirement includes the employee who is a regular chain saw operator as well as the
employee who occasionally uses a chain saw. Some commenters emphasized the need for any
employee who uses a chain saw, even occasionally, to wear leg protection (Tr. W1 193, W2
61, 115). Other commenters said OSHA should provide an exception for employees who operate
chains saws only occasionally (Ex. 5-20, 5-59). The Agency believes that an employee who
operates a chain saw for any duration needs leg protection. OSHA also notes that there
were no comments received saying leg protection was too burdensome for infrequent
operators or for short duration use.
In this paragraph, OSHA also has included an exception to the leg protection
requirement for employees working from bucket trucks and, in some instances, for climbers.
OSHA has allowed the exception for those working in bucket trucks, because the bucket work
platform provides the necessary protection for these chain saw operators.
With regard to climbers, OSHA has retained an exception in the final rule for certain
situations. Climbers are not required to wear leg protection when the employer
demonstrates that a greater hazard is posed by wearing leg protection in the particular
situation. As the final rule makes clear, this is not a blanket exception for climbers.
The employer must evaluate the particular situation to determine whether there is a
greater risk to the climber by wearing leg protection. OSHA points out that the employer
will bear the burden of demonstrating that leg protection poses a greater hazard for the
climber. OSHA received one comment that said leg protection should not be required because
it was a hindrance during tree climbing (Ex. 5-7). The fact that leg protection may be a
"hindrance" is not in itself a showing that leg protection poses a greater
danger. When the hindrance is just that climbing goes more slowly when leg protection is
worn, the employer has not made the requisite showing that leg protection poses greater
safety hazards. However, when the employer shows that in wet conditions leg protection
would substantially increase the likelihood of falling, it may be appropriate in that case
for the climber to refrain from using leg protection. In such cases, OSHA believes that
alternative methods for protecting the legs, such as light and pliable pads sewn into work
pants, should be used whenever feasible.
* * *
|
Back to Top 
www.osha.gov
