Text from
the OSHA Logging Standard Amendment issued September 8, 1995 in the Federal RegisterParagraph
(d)(1)(v) -- Cut-Resistant Foot Protection
The final rule requires that the employer assure that each employee wears foot
protection, covering and supporting the foot and ankle, which is waterproof or water
repellent. OSHA stayed one aspect of the foot protection provision which required that
logging boots provide protection from penetration by chain saws. Some parties requested
OSHA to drop the chain-saw penetration requirement, contending that rubber and calk-soled
logging boots providing employees protection from penetration by chain saws were neither
necessary nor available.
The rulemaking record strongly supports the need for logging footwear which protects
chain-saw operators against penetration by chain saws. As OSHA discussed in the preamble
to the final rule, 10 percent of injuries reported in the WIR survey were to the foot and
ankle (Ex. 2-1). In addition, APA submitted to the record an injury report where a
chain-saw operator who was not wearing protective footwear cut off his foot when the bar
went through the soft spot of a tree trunk and into his foot (Ex. 26A).
Reports of foot injuries resulting from chain saws led several commenters to recommend
that OSHA require foot protection be cut-resistant (Tr. W1 148, 195; Tr. W2 139). For
example, Mr. Joseph William, owner of Jayfor Logging, said he provides and requires
employees to wear cut-resistant logging boots (Tr. W1 195). In addition, Mr. Williams said
all employers that are members of the Nortim program, a logging workers' compensation
insurance group, must assure that employees wear cut-resistant foot protection (Tr. W1
158, 195).
Based on its reconsideration of the record, OSHA maintains that an employee operating a
chain saw needs to wear logging boots which will provide protection against penetration by
the saw. However, based on discussions during the stay, OSHA is correcting the language of
this requirement to express more clearly the Agency's intent regarding the type of
chain-saw protection that is required for the foot. In the final rule, OSHA intended by
the language "protect the employee from penetration by chain saws" to mean that
foot protection worn by employees be equipped with material that is cut-resistant to chain
saws. That is, OSHA intended that foot protection prevent the chain saw from cutting the
employee before the employee is able to react, or before the protective material jams the
chain saw. The language in the final rule was not intended to require that the protective
material itself must be totally impervious to penetration by a chain saw. Rather, the
available protective clothing and footwear is equipped with multiple layers of protective
material, such as but not limited to ballistic nylon, Kevlar, or the layered-material in
heavy-duty logging boots; which provide cut resistance as follows: the protective material
must either provide enough resistance to the saw chain to give the operator time to react
and pull the saw away from the foot before the saw chain penetrates through all the
layers, or jam the flywheel and chain, thereby stopping the saw. OSHA is revising the
regulatory text to indicate that leg protection must be made of material that is
cut-resistant, as OSHA has defined it above. OSHA stresses that this change is merely
adoption of terminology which is used in the industry, but the use of this term does not
change the meaning or intention of the final rule.(1)
__________
Footnote(1) OSHA notes that the most important aspect of the protective material is not
that it be made specifically of ballistic nylon, but that it is comparably cut-resistant.
OSHA intended its use of the term "ballistic nylon" in the final rule to be
consistent with the industry's generic use of the term as shorthand for cut-resistant
materials in general. Indeed, in the preamble to the final rule, OSHA discussed several
types of materials which are currently available to provide protection against chain-saw
cuts.
Some parties also said that rubber and calk-soled boots which are needed in working in
the steep terrain of the northwest were not manufactured with chain-saw cut-resistant
material. However, the rulemaking record shows that such boots are available and have been
available for a considerable period of time (Ex. 4-103, 5-30). Specifically, E. I. du Pont
de Nemours & Company, the manufacturer of Kevlar, told OSHA in 1989 that rubber
logging boots were available that contain Kevlar, and which du Pont "feel[s] offers
adequate protection against chain saw injuries, based on European test standards"
(Ex. 5-30). In addition, an article from the June 1987 The Logger and Lumberman said that
a cut-resistant rubber boot, which had been successfully tested by the U.S. Forest
Service, was available (Ex. 4-103). Moreover, in discussions with other manufacturers and
distributors of personal protective equipment during the six-month stay, OSHA has
confirmed its original conclusion that a variety of companies currently manufacture
logging boots, including rubber and calk-soled boots, which are equipped with material to
protect against chain saw cuts. Therefore, OSHA is lifting the stay of this requirement.
Effective September 8, 1995, employers shall assure that foot protection worn by each
employee who operates a chain saw, including rubber, calk-soled and other slip-resistant
boots, is chain-saw cut-resistant.
OSHA has also clarified the final rule to indicate that the cut-resistant foot
protection requirement applies only to employees who operate a chain saw. OSHA notes and
is specifying in the revised compliance directive that this applies to any operation of a
chain saw, whether as a regular part of the employee's job or incidental to the job. There
is nothing in the records that indicates chain-saw accidents involve only those who
operate chain saws on a regular basis. OSHA believes that those who operate chain saws
only infrequently may be at particular risk because they may be less familiar with the
chain saw and less experienced in managing the hazards associated with its operation.
Based upon the hazards to employees when they use a chain saw and the ready availability
of the protective equipment to minimize such hazards, OSHA believes that all employees who
use a chain saw must be protected against foot injury regardless of the frequency of the
chain saw usage. Logging employees who do not operate chain saws at all need not have foot
protection that is chain-saw cut-resistant.
OSHA also stresses that the foot protection requirement in the final rule is expressed
in performance terms. For example, nothing in the final rule requires that employees wear
steel-toed logging boots in order to meet the cut-resistance requirement. Steel-toed boots
meeting the ANSI foot protection requirements do provide adequate protection against
chain-saw cuts for the toe. However, if such boots do not have material to protect the
rest of the foot from chain-saw cuts they do not comply with the final rule. The final
rule requires that logging boots for chain-saw operators must provide cut-resistant
protection for the foot, not just the toe. The record indicates that there is available
supplemental cut-resistant foot protection which can be attached to logging boots to
provide the needed protection (Ex. 5-14).
After publication of the final rule, OSHA was requested by some parties to clarify the
rule to indicate from what type of material logging boots must be constructed. They
recommended that OSHA specify that logging boots be made of industrial grade or top grain
leather or other material. Instead of specifying the type of material which must be used,
OSHA has expressed the requirement in performance terms. For example, OSHA has specified
that foot protection cover and provide support to the ankle. The purpose of this
requirement is to help reduce the significant number of ankle and foot injuries (sprains
and fractures) (Ex. 2-1). OSHA is confident that employers and employees will be able to
select logging boots that provide adequate ankle support because various logging
associations already recognize that hiking and other light duty boots do not provide
sufficient protection.(2)
__________
Footnote(2) OSHA notes that the final rule does not require the employer to provide
logging boots for employees. The cost of providing logging boots may be borne by
employees. The employer, however, must assure that logging boots which are worn by an
employee are in serviceable condition and meet the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of
the final rule.
* * *
Back