Emergency Response Standard, 7774-8023 [2023-28203]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7774-8023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28203]



[[Page 7773]]

Vol. 89

Monday,

No. 24

February 5, 2024

Part II





 Department of Labor





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Occupational Safety and Health Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





29 CFR Part 1910





Emergency Response Standard; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 7774]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0073]
RIN 1218-AC91


Emergency Response Standard

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing through this notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) to issue a new safety and health standard, titled Emergency 
Response, to replace the existing Fire Brigades Standard. The new 
standard would address a broader scope of emergency responders and 
would include programmatic elements to protect emergency responders 
from a variety of occupational hazards. The agency requests comments on 
all aspects of the proposed rule.

DATES: Comments on this NPRM (including requests for a hearing) and 
other information must be submitted by May 6, 2024.
    Informal public hearing: OSHA will schedule an informal public 
hearing on the proposed rule if requested during the comment period. If 
a hearing is requested, the location and date of the hearing, 
procedures for interested parties to notify the agency of their 
intention to participate, and procedures for participants to submit 
their testimony and documentary evidence will be announced in the 
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: 
    Written comments: You may submit comments and attachments, 
identified by Docket No. OSHA-2007-0073, electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow 
the instructions online for making electronic submissions. After 
accessing ``all documents and comments'' in the docket (Docket No. 
OSHA-2007-0073), check the ``proposed rule'' box in the column headed 
``Document Type,'' find the document posted on the date of publication 
of this document, and click the ``Comment Now'' link. When uploading 
multiple attachments to regulations.gov, please number all of your 
attachments because regulations.gov will not automatically number the 
attachments. This will be very useful in identifying all attachments in 
the preamble. For example, Attachment 1--title of your document, 
Attachment 2--title of your document, Attachment 3--title of your 
document. For assistance with commenting and uploading documents, 
please see the Frequently Asked Questions on regulations.gov.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and 
the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0073). All 
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in 
the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about 
submitting information they do not want made available to the public, 
or submitting materials that contain personal information (either about 
themselves or others), such as Social Security Numbers and birthdates.
    Docket citations: This Federal Register document references 
materials in Docket ID OSHA-2007-0073, which is the docket for this 
rulemaking. OSHA also references documents in the following dockets 
which the agency adopts by reference into this rulemaking:
     2016, National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety 
and Health (NACOSH)--Docket ID OSHA-2016-0001; and
     2015, NACOSH Emergency Responder Preparedness 
Subcommittee--Docket ID OSHA-2015-0019.
    All of these dockets are available for viewing at https://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
    Citations to documents: The docket referenced most frequently in 
this document is the docket for this rulemaking, docket number OSHA-
2007-0073, cited as Docket ID OSHA-2007-0073. Documents in the docket 
get an individual document identification number, for example ``OSHA-
2007-0073-0044.'' Because this is the most frequently cited docket, the 
citation is shortened to indicate only the document number. The example 
is cited in the NPRM as ``Document ID 0044.''
    Citations to documents in other dockets include the full document 
identification number, cited as, for example ``Document ID OSHA-2015-
0019-0014.'' The citation may also include page numbers. The NACOSH 
subcommittee meetings were transcribed. Citations to the transcripts, 
and the referenced page(s), are cited as, for example, ``Document ID 
OSHA-2015-0019-0015, Tr. 53.''
    Documents cited in this NPRM are available in the rulemaking docket 
(Docket ID OSHA-2015-0073) or in the dockets OSHA is adopting in this 
rulemaking. They are available to read and download by searching the 
docket number or document ID number at https://www.regulations.gov. 
Each docket index lists all documents in that docket, including public 
comments, supporting materials, meeting transcripts, and other 
documents. However, some documents (e.g., copyrighted material) in the 
dockets are not available to read or download from that website. All 
documents in the dockets are available for inspection at the OSHA 
Docket Office. This information can be used to search for a supporting 
document in the docket at www.regulations.gov. Contact the OSHA Docket 
Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY number: 877-889-5627) for assistance in 
locating docket submissions.
    Consensus standards: Throughout this NPRM, OSHA makes numerous 
references to the consensus standards published by the National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA). The NFPA standards are available to be 
viewed without cost at https://www.nfpa.org/for-professionals/codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/free-access.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For press inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, Office of 
Communications, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. 
Department of Labor; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: 
[email protected].
    For general information and technical inquiries: Contact Mark 
Hagemann, Director, Office of Safety Systems, Directorate of Standards 
and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. 
Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222 or fax (202) 693-1678; 
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. Need for the Standard
    B. Events Leading to the Proposed Rule
    C. National Consensus Standards
III. Pertinent Legal Authority
    A. Introduction
    B. Coverage
    C. General Requirements for Occupational Safety and Health 
Standards
    D. Special Considerations for Health Standards
    E. Significant Risk
    F. Best Available Evidence
    G. Feasibility
IV. Issues and Questions
    A. Scope
    B. State Plans
    C. Questions in the Summary and Explanation

[[Page 7775]]

    D. Additional Issues
V. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule
    A. Section 1910.120 Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency 
Response
    B. Section 1910.134 Respiratory Protection
    C. Section 1910.155 Scope, Application, and Definitions 
Applicable to This Subpart
    D. Section 1910.156 Emergency Response
    E. Section 1910.157 Portable Fire Extinguishers
    F. Section 1910.158 Standpipe Hose Systems
    G. Section 1910.159 Automatic Sprinkler Systems
VI. Technological Feasibility
VII. Preliminary Economic Analysis
    A. Market Failure and Need for Regulation
    B. Profile of Affected Industries
    C. Costs of Compliance
    D. Benefits
    E. Economic Feasibility Analysis
    F. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
VIII. Additional Requirements
    A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    B. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments/
Executive Order 13175
    C. Environmental Impacts/National Environmental Policy Act
    D. Consensus Standards
    E. Executive Order 13045 (Protecting Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks)
    F. Federalism
    G. Requirements for States With OSHA Approved State Plans
    H. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

I. Executive Summary

    A ``100-word summary'' is available on https://www.regulations.gov. 
Elements of emergency responder (firefighters, emergency medical 
service providers, and technical search and rescuers) health and safety 
are currently regulated by OSHA primarily under a patchwork of hazard-
specific standards, and by state regulations in states with OSHA-
approved State plan programs. (While OSHA standards do not apply to 
volunteers, some volunteers are covered in states with OSHA-approved 
State plan programs.) All of the OSHA standards referred to above were 
promulgated decades ago, and none was designed as a comprehensive 
emergency response standard. Consequently, they do not address the full 
range of hazards currently facing emergency responders, nor do they 
reflect major changes in performance specifications for protective 
clothing and equipment or major improvements in safety and health 
practices that have already been accepted by the emergency response 
community and incorporated into industry consensus standards. Notably, 
the OSHA standards do not align with the Department of Homeland 
Security's National Incident Management System (NIMS), which guides all 
levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private 
sector to work together to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond 
to, and recover from emergency incidents.
    In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, 
all government agencies, including OSHA, were directed to strengthen 
their preparedness to respond to terrorist attacks, major disasters, 
and other emergencies. In response to this direction, the agency 
reviewed its standards applicable to the safe conduct of emergency 
response and disaster recovery activities and identified gaps in the 
protections for emergency responders and disaster recovery workers. The 
agency subsequently published a Request for Information (RFI), using 
the Fire Brigades standard (29 CFR 1910.156) as a baseline for 
emergency response activities, to determine if it should proceed with 
updating and expanding the standard.
    Responses to the RFI generally supported the need for continued 
rulemaking; therefore, the agency worked with the National Advisory 
Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) to assemble a 
subcommittee of emergency response community representatives to develop 
draft regulatory language through a process akin to negotiated 
rulemaking. To ensure a draft standard would incorporate best practices 
and the latest advances in technology, OSHA invited emergency response 
stakeholder organizations to provide subject matter experts to consult 
with and participate on the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee comprised a 
balanced group of subject matter experts representing labor and 
management, career and volunteer emergency service management 
associations, other Federal agencies and State plans, a national 
consensus standard organization, and general industry skilled support 
workers. NACOSH unanimously recommended that OSHA proceed with the 
rulemaking to update its emergency response standard and endorsed the 
draft regulatory language developed by the Subcommittee.
    In accordance with the requirements of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), OSHA convened a Small 
Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel in the fall of 2021. The panel, 
comprising members from the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 
Office of Advocacy, OSHA, and OMB's Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, listened to and reported on what Small Entity 
Representatives (SERs) from entities that would potentially be affected 
by the proposed rule had to say. OSHA provided SERs with the draft 
regulatory language developed by the NACOSH subcommittee for their 
review and comment. The Panel received advice and recommendations from 
the SERs and reported its findings and recommendations to OSHA. OSHA 
has taken the SERs' comments and the Panel's findings and 
recommendations into consideration in the development of the proposed 
rule.
    The proposed rule updates by replacing the existing Fire Brigades 
standard and would expand the scope of OSHA's standard to include a 
broad range of hazards emergency responders encounter during emergency 
response activities and would bring the standard in line with the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Response 
Framework and modernize the standard to align with the current industry 
consensus standards issued by the National Fire Protection Association 
(NFPA) on the safe conduct of emergency response activities.
    As noted in the first paragraph above, and discussed in detail 
below, OSHA standards do not apply to volunteer emergency responders. 
However, in States with OSHA-approved State Plans, volunteers may be 
treated as employees under state law. OSHA has no authority over how 
individual states regulate volunteers. See section III.B, Pertinent 
Legal Authority, and section VIII.G, Requirements for States with OSHA-
Approved State Plans, for further discussion. Throughout this document, 
the agency seeks input on alternatives and potential exclusions for 
economically at-risk small and volunteer organizations that will be 
shared with State Plans as they determine how to proceed with their 
subsequent individual state-level rulemaking efforts.
    Organizations that provide emergency services vary significantly in 
size and the type(s) of service(s) they provide. They are often not 
well suited for ``one-size-fits-all'' prescriptive standards. 
Accordingly, the proposed rule is a ``performance-based'' standard, 
which provides flexibility for affected employers to establish the 
specific criteria that best suits their organization. The proposed rule 
focuses on the achievement of desired results--improving emergency 
responder health and safety and reducing injuries and fatalities--while 
providing flexibility as to the precise methods used to achieve those 
results. The performance-based nature of the proposed rule is 
particularly beneficial to small and

[[Page 7776]]

volunteer organizations with limited resources.
    Additionally, in accordance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), OSHA has prepared a Preliminary Economic 
Analysis (PEA), including an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 
for the replacement of the existing Fire Brigades standard. Supporting 
materials prepared by OSHA are available in the public docket for this 
rulemaking, Docket ID OSHA-2007-0073, through www.regulations.gov.

II. Background

A. Need for the Standard

I. Fatality and Injury Analysis
    On April 17, 2013, while engaged in fire suppression activities at 
a fertilizer plant in West, Texas, ten firefighters died after 
approximately 40 to 60 tons of ammonium nitrate unexpectedly detonated. 
Five civilians, two of whom were providing support for firefighting 
activities, were also killed, and five firefighters were injured. 
Victims of the blast included both volunteer and career firefighters, 
ranging in age from 26 to 52 years, each with 1 to 31 years of 
firefighting experience. A subsequent investigation into the incident 
performed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH) revealed numerous contributing factors in the incidents that 
led to the fatalities, including limited responder knowledge and 
recognition of the hazards created by ammonium nitrate, inadequate pre-
incident emergency response planning for the fertilizer plant, and the 
fact that response personnel performed fire suppression activities from 
a location that was within the blast radius of the explosion (NIOSH 
2014, Document ID 0331). As part of its investigation report, NIOSH 
made several recommendations for how fire departments could prevent 
fatalities and injuries, including the development of a written risk 
management plan, the conducting of pre-incident planning inspections 
for the buildings located within a fire department's jurisdiction, the 
development and implementation of a written incident management system 
for all emergency incident operations, the mandated use of turnout 
clothing and other personal protective equipment (PPE) that has been 
determined to be appropriate for each task, and a minimum standard of 
training for every firefighter.
    Every day, the duties of an emergency responder may require making 
life and death decisions. The typical workday of an emergency responder 
could include tasks that range from responding to a minor medical 
emergency to addressing a more severe incident such as a multi-building 
fire or assisting in the rescue and helicopter medical evacuation of an 
injured rock climber trapped on the side of a cliff. In performing 
their assigned tasks associated with the protection of the public, 
personal and real property, and the environment, emergency responders 
face numerous safety and health hazards which may lead to injury, 
illness, and death. After conducting a review of the fatalities and 
injuries sustained during regular work activities by emergency response 
personnel operating within the current regulatory framework, OSHA has 
determined that existing safety and health standards do not adequately 
protect the emergency response workforce from these hazards.
    As explained in the Preliminary Economic Analysis, OSHA estimates 
that approximately 1,054,611 individuals are exposed on an annual basis 
to the workplace hazards associated with the emergency response 
activities falling within the scope of the proposed rule, including 
public-sector employees in States with OSHA-approved State Plans.\1\ 
Workers performing emergency response activities can be assigned to a 
wide variety of tasks, including firefighting, medical assistance, and 
search and rescue. The hazards associated with emergency response 
activities are not limited to emergency situations; OSHA has also 
identified safety and health risks present during training exercises 
and other routine tasks. While some individuals are employed full-time 
as emergency response workers, a substantial number of personnel are 
categorized as volunteers. OSHA estimates that, of the 1,054,611 
emergency responders anticipated to fall within the scope of the 
proposed rule, 331,472 will be self-identified as volunteers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The proposed rule defines two types of emergency response 
workers: responders and team members. For purposes of the discussion 
in this section and the Health Effects of Emergency Response 
Activities section that follows, both types of workers are referred 
to as ``emergency responders'' or ``emergency response personnel.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Fatalities
    To determine the frequency and nature of workplace fatalities for 
emergency responders, OSHA reviewed the datasets of published summary 
reports available from a variety of sources, including reports 
published by the United States Fire Administration (USFA), FEMA, the 
NFPA, NIOSH, the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), the OSHA 
Information System (OIS), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
    Review of the overall rate of reported workplace-related deaths for 
emergency response personnel contained within these reports revealed 
substantial variation among reporting agencies (Table VII-A-1). Some 
organizations reported higher rates of fatal injuries as compared to 
other, non-emergency response professions, while other organizations 
reported lower rates of fatal injuries. OSHA also determined that each 
reporting agency varied significantly in the number of deaths reported 
annually, the number and date of the years examined, the inclusion or 
exclusion of certain victims (volunteer, non-firefighter job 
categories), and their definition of an `on-duty' fatality. 
Additionally, although each study provided summary numbers for the 
causes of death, the extent of the investigations performed to identify 
the root cause of each fatality varied among reports. Table VII-A-1, 
below, shows a summary of the reports reviewed by OSHA in consideration 
of the annual fatality rates for emergency response personnel.

[[Page 7777]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.000

    From the information in Table VII-A-1, OSHA concluded that a 
conservative estimate of workplace deaths for emergency response 
personnel falling within the scope of the proposed rule would include 
those firefighter deaths reported by NFPA (an average of 72.4 deaths 
annually, including career and volunteer firefighters), combined with 
BLS information on the number of non-firefighter emergency responder 
deaths (an average of 11.3 deaths, annually), which produces an 
estimate of 83.7 emergency responder deaths annually, on average. The 
agency believes that the majority of technical search and rescue job 
activities are performed by firefighters, EMS providers, and law 
enforcement officers (such as park rangers, conservation officers, and 
natural resource police), who are cross trained to perform technical 
search and rescue. As such, OSHA believes that most injuries and 
fatalities that occur during technical search and rescue activities are 
attributed to firefighters, EMS personnel, and law enforcement officers 
in data sources. This assumption is supported by the information 
available in the OSHA Information System (OIS) database; of the 273 
emergency response-related fatalities in the OIS database, 19 occurred 
while the victim was engaged in non-fire-related technical search and 
rescue activities. Among these victims, each was identified by the OSHA 
investigator as employed within one of the job categories of 
firefighter, EMS provider, or law enforcement, and not as a technical 
search and rescuer.
    Listed below are examples of fatalities from the OIS database that 
occurred while the rescuer (victim) was engaged in activities that were 
determined to be technical search and rescue related.
    Inspection #343188371--At 8:15 p.m. on May 28, 2018, an employee 
was working as a firefighter and diver for a big city fire department. 
A man fell into the South Branch of the Chicago River. The firefighter 
and a coworker, his diving partner, had been deployed from a helicopter 
into the river to conduct dive rescue operations. During the attempt, 
the firefighter surfaced with his partner. Then he subsequently sank to 
the bottom of the river. At that time, he lost communication with the 
fire department. Divers from the department's marine unit searched for 
firefighter. After several minutes, they located the firefighter and 
pulled him out of the water with his diving equipment intact. Despite 
resuscitation attempts by paramedics on the scene and at the hospital, 
he was pronounced dead at 10:02 p.m. that same day.
    Inspection #334815610--At approximately 5:00 p.m. on June 21, 2012, 
during a mountain rescue, an employee was preparing to place rescue 
victim in a stokes litter to be hoisted on to a helicopter at 
approximately 13,800 foot level of Emmons Glacier on Mt. Rainier. The 
helicopter was lowering a litter to the employee. The employee reached 
up and unhooked the litter when he apparently lost his footing and slid 
approximately 3,7000 feet down the face of the glacier. The employee 
was killed.
    Inspection #315597187--At approximately 9:45 p.m. on May 23, 2011, 
Employee #1 and a firefighter crew were standing in the driveway of the 
fire hall. They had completed a rope rescue-training course using a 
rope and pulley system, which was hooked to the bucket of a ladder 
truck. The bucket was 20 ft above the pavement. Employee #1 placed his 
foot in the loop of the rope and pulled himself up by pulling down on 
the other end of the rope. When his feet were approximately 4.5 ft 
above the ground, the two ends of the rope spread apart, so his feet 
went in one direction and his hands went in the other. This caused his 
body to be positioned horizontally. He fell backwards to the ground and 
struck his back and head on the pavement below. Employee #1 sustained 
head trauma that killed him.
    The information in the OIS dataset, while limited, supports OSHA's 
inclusion of technical search and rescue-related job activities within 
the scope of the proposed rule. However, as fully discussed in section 
VII.D. Benefits, the number of fatalities in the OIS dataset is likely 
a significant underestimation of the total emergency responder 
fatalities occurring annually in the United States. Moreover, in 
contrast to firefighters, publicly available injury and fatality data 
specific to technical search and rescue is difficult to obtain, in part 
because it may be included with non-technical rescue data, as in this 
article titled ``Injuries to Search and Rescue Volunteers; A 30-year 
Study,'' in which there is no differentiation between technical and 
non-technical rescuers. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20566794_Injuries_to_search_and_rescue_volunteers_A_30-year_experience. 
Similarly, as noted above, OSHA believes that many

[[Page 7778]]

injuries arising from technical search and rescue activities are 
categorized generally as firefighting or EMS injuries, making them 
difficult to disaggregate from other firefighter and EMS data.
    In addition to the lack of peer-reviewed publications focusing 
exclusively on technical search and rescue, a review of publicly 
available information from the professional associations devoted to 
providing support for technical search and rescue employees on a 
national level identified no readily available summary reports of 
technical search and rescue-related accidents, injuries, or fatalities 
for victims falling within the scope of OSHA's proposed rule. Further 
examination of available BLS data is infeasible because BLS does not 
have an occupational code for Technical Search/Rescue.
    Despite the limited availability of data specific to technical 
search and rescue, the hazards posed by these activities are recognized 
in the industry. The NACOSH subcommittee, comprised of subject matter 
experts representing labor and management, career and volunteer 
emergency service management associations, other Federal agencies and 
State plans, a national consensus standard organization, and general 
industry skilled support workers, recommended coverage for technical 
search and rescue activities by including it in its proposed draft 
standard (Docket ID OSHA-2015-0019-0002, Ex. 5). Similarly, NFPA has 
standards specific to technical search and rescue; NFPA 1670, 
Operations and Training for Technical Search and Rescue Activities; and 
NFPA 1006, Rescue Technician Professional Qualifications.
    Based on the available data and industry recognition, OSHA 
preliminarily concludes that technical search and rescue emergency 
response activities involve risks to employee safety and health 
comparable to those in other types of emergency response such as 
firefighting and EMS. OSHA requests comment on this conclusion and 
specifically invites additional data and information on the risks posed 
by technical search and rescue activities.
    OSHA believes that the fatalities present in the OSHA OIS dataset 
are likely a significant underestimation of the fatalities occurring 
annually within the emergency response community. This is likely 
because the OIS database contains information about fatality 
investigations performed by OSHA field investigators, but does not 
contain information about deaths not reported to OSHA, which includes 
many volunteer firefighter deaths. The total number of fatalities may 
also be underestimated as there is no blanket mandatory reporting 
requirement for emergency responder deaths. This is also likely due in 
part to varying methodology among reporting organizations for 
categorizing a heart attack as work-related. The differences observed 
between the OIS dataset and the NFPA dataset in these two categories of 
fatalities are summarized in Table VII-A-2. Although the NFPA dataset 
contained more victims in each of these fatality characteristics, when 
OSHA compared the manner and cause of deaths in the OIS dataset with 
those in the NFPA summary reports, observable similarities were present 
(Table VII-A-2).

[[Page 7779]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.001

    For example, both datasets show that a majority of emergency 
responder deaths occurred while the responder was responding to 
emergencies or fighting fires (58% for NFPA, 62% for OIS). A 
substantial number of fatalities also occurred while engaged in 
training activities (12% and 14% for the NFPA and OIS datasets, 
respectively). The leading cause of death for both the NFPA (19%) and 
the OIS (26%) datasets was being struck by an object, and a similar 
percentage of deaths fell into the striking/crushing/collision category 
(32% in the NFPA dataset, 26% in the OIS dataset). Important 
distinctions between the NFPA and OIS datasets include both scope and 
level of detail. Specifically, NFPA reports are limited to deaths 
occurring among firefighters. The OIS dataset includes deaths of all 
emergency response personnel determined to fall within the scope of the 
proposed rule, including other, non-firefighter individuals. 
Additionally, the NFPA dataset contains little to no information 
regarding identified workplace hazards associated with the reported 
deaths, while the OIS dataset includes summary information for 
contributory hazards, as identified by the standards cited by the OSHA 
investigator and the information contained in each accident's summary 
abstract. For these reasons, while OSHA determined that the overall 
number of firefighter deaths annually is more accurately reflected by 
the NFPA annual summary reports, OSHA determined that the descriptive 
information available in the OIS dataset regarding task at time of 
death, cause of death, and workplace hazards identified by the OSHA 
inspector while investigating an individual's death is a representative 
sample of the characteristics of emergency response fatalities across 
the larger dataset. OSHA reviewed all 273 fatalities in the OIS dataset 
to identify the causes of death and any contributory safety or health 
hazards. Table VII-A-3 shows a summary of the reported cause of death 
and the assigned task at the time of death for each of the fatalities 
in the OIS dataset.
    A review of the available literature identifying common causes of 
death for emergency responders supports OSHA's analysis of the 
fatalities available in the OIS dataset. From this review, OSHA 
determined that some of the most common safety and health hazards 
encountered by emergency responders include vehicle collisions; falls 
from heights to lower levels due to structural or building collapses; 
being struck by, caught in between, or crushed by vehicles; falling 
objects or debris; burns; and entrapments (FEMA, 2022, Document ID 
0341; NWCG, 2017,

[[Page 7780]]

Document ID 0265; NFPA, 2022, Document ID 0122).
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.002

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
    Among these 273 fatalities, hazards identified by OSHA 
investigators as present on-site at the time of death included hazards 
involving the incorrect use of PPE and other equipment, inadequate 
vehicle preparedness and operation, lack of effective implementation of 
standard operating procedures in various emergency scenarios, failure 
to adhere to practices for Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health 
(IDLH) situations, failure to meet medical evaluation requirements, 
failure to meet minimum training requirements, lack of or ineffective 
implementation of an Emergency Response Plan (ERP), and the lack of an 
effective Risk Management Plan (RMP). These hazards were identified by 
reviews of the citations issued at the time of the inspection and of 
the summary abstracts for each investigation. A summary of the number 
of hazards found at each of the OIS fatalities can be found in Table 
VII-A-4, below.

[[Page 7781]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.003

    From these 273 fatalities, OSHA identified 212 (77.7%) in which at 
least one of the safety hazards addressed by the proposed rule was 
determined to be present at the time of the emergency responder's 
death.
    Heart attacks were identified in both the NFPA (43%) and OIS (20%) 
datasets as one of the most commonly occurring means by which an 
emergency responder will die while at work. Among the 212 fatalities in 
the OIS dataset determined to have at least one of the safety hazards 
addressed by the proposed rule present in the workplace at the time of 
death, eight were classified as heart attack fatalities, approximately 
15% of the total number of heart attacks observed in the dataset. 
Cardiovascular health and the reduction of heart attacks is further 
discussed in the Health Effects of Emergency Response Activities 
section, below.
B. Nonfatal Injuries
    OSHA reviewed the available literature to examine the extent and 
nature of workplace injuries occurring among emergency response 
personnel. From this review, OSHA determined that, overall, emergency 
responders are at higher risk of injury than the general population. 
Workplace hazards identified in the literature as leading to injury 
among emergency response personnel include exposure to toxic chemicals, 
falls, environmental hypoxia, exposure to excessive noise, over-
exertion due to lifting heavy objects, wearing heavy protective 
equipment, repetitive motion, and other similar activities (Gentzler, 
2010, Document ID 0337; Neitzel et. al, 2013, Document ID 0333; Neitzel 
et. al, 2016, Document ID 0338; Campbell, 2017, Document ID 0342). 
Estimations of the increased risk as compared to all private industries 
varied by the type of emergency service provided, ranging from 1.7 
times for private ambulance service workers to 4 times for EMS 
responders (Reichard, 2017, Document ID 0339; Reichard et al, 2018, 
Document ID 0335). For the purposes of this analysis, OSHA focused on 
lost-time injuries; expected lost-time injuries for the hazards 
identified above include fractures, sprains, internal bodily trauma, 
dislocations, chemical burns, and chemical pneumonia.
    OSHA determined that the most common cause of injury among 
emergency medical services providers was overexertion or strain. 
Multiple studies identified overexertion or strain as the leading 
causes of injury, with reported proportions of injury ranging from 23% 
to 60% and body motion injuries (e.g., lifting, carrying, or 
transferring a patient and/or equipment) commonly serving as the 
leading event (Campbell, 2017, Document ID 0342; Campbell and Hall, 
2022, Document ID 0336; Campbell and Molis, 2020, Document ID 0343; 
Butry et al., 2019, Document ID 0334; Reichard et al., 2018, Document 
ID 0335; Dworsky et al., 2021, Document ID 0332). In addition to 
reviewing the available literature, OSHA conducted an analysis of the 
injury statistics available from the BLS for the EMT and Paramedic 
categories of emergency response professions, from the years 2007 
through 2020. In total, 107,720 non-fatal incidents requiring days away 
from work were reported, an average of 7,694 injuries annually. In 
addition to the common sources of injury as identified by the 
literature review, the BLS injury statistics revealed further causes of 
frequent injury among emergency response professionals, summarized in 
Table VII-A-5, below.
BILLING CODE 4310-26-P

[[Page 7782]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.004

    To determine the number of injuries occurring annually among 
firefighters, OSHA reviewed the annual NFPA injury summary reports from 
2007 to 2020 (Docket Nos. 0362-0376). These reports show that, on 
average, 67,964 injuries occurred among firefighters annually, with an 
average of 14,172 of those classified as a lost time injury, 21% of 
total injuries (see Table VII-A-6).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.005


[[Page 7783]]


    Review of the reported tasks that injured firefighters were engaged 
in at the time of injury revealed persistent trends, both among the 
injury task categories, and when compared to the task categories of the 
fatality victims (Table VII-A-7). Specifically, each year, the work 
associated with firefighting activities results in an average of 42.4% 
of all injuries, while non-fire emergency tasks result in 20.4% of all 
injuries. The activities associated with responding to or returning 
from an emergency result in an average of 6.6% of annual injuries. 
Training activities result in 11.6% of all firefighter injuries, and 
duties not associated with emergencies, emergency response, or training 
result in, on average, 19% of injuries. Examples of injuries in this 
last category could include things like a responder slipping on an icy 
walkway at the fire station, dropping an old tire on their foot while 
doing a changeout at the fire station, having their foot run over while 
directing a fire truck back into the station after a fire, and sliding 
down the fire pole and landing poorly, spraining an ankle. The 
proportion of total injuries for each assigned job category was similar 
to the proportions observed in each of the fatality categories (see 
Table VII-A-2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.006

    The most common source of injury among firefighters was 
overexertion or strain (27.0% of injuries, on average). While 
overexertion was also the leading source of injury among emergency 
response personnel not classified as firefighters, the proportion of 
these injuries varied significantly among the professional categories, 
27.0% of firefighter injuries compared to 53.6% of injuries for non-
firefighter personnel. Other significant causes of injury among 
firefighters included fall, jump, slip injuries (22.8% of injuries, on 
average) exposure to fire products (11.5% of injuries, on average), 
contact with objects (10.8%), and being struck by a moving object 
(6.0%). (see Table VII-A-8).

[[Page 7784]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.007

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
II. Health Effects of Emergency Response Activities
    In addition to the traumatic injuries discussed above, emergency 
response activities are associated with exposure to hazards that can 
cause both chronic physical health and adverse psychological health 
effects for responders, including but not limited to adverse 
cardiovascular and respiratory effects, cancers, post-traumatic stress 
disorder (PTSD), and suicide. Exposure to combustion products is a 
major factor behind physical illnesses associated with emergency 
response activities; however, factors such as exposure to infectious 
diseases, heat, physical exertion, physical stress reactions to alarms 
and sirens, shift work, and other exposures also play a role. 
Psychological health effects have been attributed to exposure to 
trauma, stressful situations, and threats to life and health, including 
due to workplace violence.
    This section presents a summary of OSHA's review of the health 
effects literature for emergency response activities, including the 
workplace exposures that contribute to these health effects, and the 
agency's preliminary conclusions based on that review. OSHA's full 
analysis is contained in the background document entitled ``Emergency 
Response Health Effects Literature Review,'' which has been placed in 
the rulemaking docket (Document ID 0361).
    OSHA conducted a literature search to collect relevant information, 
studies, reports, and materials related to the occupational safety and 
health of emergency responders such as firefighters, search and rescue 
personnel, and emergency medical service providers. OSHA sought 
literature that evaluated workplace exposures and health effects for 
emergency responders including:

     Exposures to combustion products, other contaminants and 
substances, and infectious diseases
     Acute and chronic health conditions (e.g., cancer, 
cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease)
     Behavioral health issues (e.g., mental health, substance 
use disorders, suicide)
     Workplace violence

    OSHA searched the National Library of Medicine (NLM) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) and (https://www2a.cdc.gov/nioshtic-2/advsearch2.asp) in 2020 and again in 2022. The search was date limited 
to 2010 and included several occupational and risk key words to target 
relevant search results. OSHA obtained and reviewed the full text of 
relevant articles. OSHA also searched several key organizations' 
websites for relevant reports and information. This section summarizes 
the results of this search.
A. Exposures
    Emergency responders are exposed to a variety of health hazards in 
the workplace. OSHA focused its literature review on three areas: 
combustion products, other contaminants and substances, and infectious 
diseases. The combustion products review covers substances released 
during fires. The other contaminants and substances review examines 
specific situations where emergency responders were exposed to harmful 
chemicals (e.g., vinyl chloride, phosphine, opioids) while responding 
to emergency situations in the field or when participating in training 
exercises that involved simulated smoke. It also includes studies that 
assessed contaminants inside firehouses and substances off-gassing from 
emergency

[[Page 7785]]

response gear. The infectious diseases review summarizes research on a 
variety of diseases, including hepatitis B, Clostridiodes difficile, 
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and COVID-19.
    Many of the studies identified under these three topics focused 
solely on examining the likelihood or the extent of exposures among 
emergency responder populations. In some cases, the studies also 
provided information about the health effects observed among exposed 
groups. More detailed information about health effects is presented in 
section 2, Acute and Chronic Health Conditions and section 3, 
Behavioral Health.
(i) Combustion Products
    Combustion products, many of which are considered respiratory 
hazards, are released when materials burn. The combustion product 
studies identified during OSHA's literature review addressed 
firefighters, including both structural and wildland firefighters. 
Firefighters may be exposed to a wide variety of combustion products, 
even when wearing protective gear, and exposures can occur during a 
broad range of activities. Emergency responders can be exposed to 
combustion products during live training exercises as well as when 
responding to actual events; while performing exterior operations and 
during interior fire attack operations; during the early phase of 
operations as they delay donning self-contained breathing apparatus to 
conserve vital air supply, through leaks while wearing respiratory 
protection, or during post-fire clean-up activities. Emergency 
responders can also be exposed to combustion products through off-
gassing from contaminated protective clothing and equipment or while 
cleaning such items after fire operations. (Geer Wallace et al., 2019a, 
Document ID 0204; Poutasse et al., 2020, Document ID 0259; Fent et al., 
2010, Document ID 0213; Fent et al., 2022, Document ID 0207; Levasseur 
et al., 2022, Document ID 0253).
    The literature provides evidence of firefighters being exposed to a 
variety of different combustion products, including carbon monoxide 
(McCleery et al., 2011, Document ID 0281; Semmens et al., 2021, 
Document ID 0291; Navarro et al., 2021a, Document ID 0252; Reinhardt 
and Broyles, 2019, Document ID 0278); particulate matter (Baxter et 
al., 2010, Document ID 0179; Horn et al., 2017, Document ID 0243); 
dioxins (Shaw et al., 2013, Document ID 0218); radionuclides (Carvalho 
et al., 2014, Document ID 0180); and a variety of volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), including 
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Hwang et al., 2021, Document 
ID 0155; Hwang et al., 2022, Document ID 0156; Pleil et al., 2014, 
Document ID 0158; Rossbach et al., 2020, Document ID 0289; Fent et al. 
2013, Document ID 0206; Fent et al., 2022, Document ID 0207; Alharbi et 
al., 2021, Document ID 0171; Kirk et al., 2021, Document ID 0240; 
Cherry et al., 2019, Document ID 0188; Poutasse et al., 2020, Document 
ID 0259; Adetona et al., 2015, Document ID 0167). A 2022 report by the 
National Academies, ``The Chemistry of Fires at the Wildland-Urban 
Interface'', provides additional detailed information on fire emissions 
from a variety of household components, vehicles, and biomass (NASEM 
2022, Document ID 0395). These studies show that firefighters can be 
exposed to combustion products through inhalation and dermal routes 
during both live fires and training exercises. It is difficult to 
provide estimates of how many firefighters are exposed and at what 
level because of the variables involved in firefighting. For example, 
the number of firefighters exposed varies depending on the size of the 
fire, with fewer firefighters exposed in response to a car fire than at 
a large industrial fire. The quantity and type of combustion products 
that firefighters are exposed to also varies depending on what is 
burning. Since fires are generally not planned events, the 
instrumentation that would be required to quantify firefighter 
exposures is not present at most fires. The frequency of firefighter 
exposures can also vary greatly, from very few exposures annually in 
rural areas to many exposures annually in metropolitan areas. 
Nonetheless, the literature is clear that firefighters are exposed to 
combustion products at harmful levels.
    The specific types and concentration of combustion products 
released during a fire vary depending on which types of materials are 
burning and whether the fire is a wildfire, residential fire, 
industrial fire, or vehicle fire. It is not uncommon for residential 
fires to involve hazardous materials stored in paint cabinets, 
workshops, or garages; or buildings that still contain lead paint or 
asbestos. As a result, emergency responders' exposures to combustion 
products vary broadly (Alharbi et al., 2021, Document ID 0171; Kirk et 
al., 2021, Document ID 0240; Fent et al., 2010, Document ID 0213). For 
example, one study reported that residential fires release more VOCs 
than industrial fires but lower levels of inorganic gases (Alharbi et 
al., 2021, Document ID 0171). Another study, which involved controlled 
fires in a simulated house structure, showed that hydrogen cyanide was 
detected at concentrations exceeding occupational exposure limits, and 
at times, at levels regarded as immediately dangerous to life and 
health (Horn et al., 2017, Document ID 0243). A training exercise 
focused on vehicle fires suggested that firefighters might encounter 
acute overexposures to formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, and isocyanates 
(Fent et al., 2010, Document ID 0213).
    Multiple studies found that firefighters are exposed to VOCs, 
especially PAH compounds, through the dermal and inhalation routes; the 
studies conducted personal air sampling on the exterior of firefighter 
gear and compared urinary metabolites from before and after firefighter 
trainings. For firefighters wearing self-contained breathing apparatus 
(SCBA), the dermal route appears to be the main route of exposure 
(Hwang et al., 2021, Document ID 0155; Hwang et al. 2022, Document ID 
0156; Pleil et al., 2014, Document ID 0158; Rossbach et al., 2020, 
Document ID 0289; Fent et al., 2022, Document ID 0207). Firefighter PAH 
levels were correlated with estimated exposures (based on combustion 
products identified in environmental samples), length of exposure, and 
number of fire suppressions (Cherry et al., 2019, Document ID 0188; 
Cherry et al., 2021, Document ID 0192; Poutasse et al., 2020, Document 
ID 0259). Also, elevated VOC and PAH levels were associated with 
certain job positions, including overhaul, attack, search, and outside 
ventilation positions (Baxter et al., 2014, Document ID 0157; Geer 
Wallace et al., 2019b, Document ID 0202). Some studies examined ways to 
reduce VOC and PAH exposures, including enhanced skin hygiene. One 
study found that the transitional attack method (which involves 
applying water to the fire from outside of a structure through windows 
or openings) could lower firefighters' exposures to PAHs compared to 
the interior attack method (which involves entering the structure for 
water application) (Fent et al., 2020, Document ID 0205).
    Many of the articles identified in the combustion product 
literature review focused on wildland firefighters, who have much 
longer fire suppression shifts (8 to 13 hours) compared to structural 
firefighters (typically 30 minutes) and are more likely to be exposed 
to combustion products through inhalation since they often wear no 
respiratory protection or sometimes only a bandana or an N95 respirator 
rather than an

[[Page 7786]]

SCBA like structural firefighters do (Hwang et al., 2022, Document ID 
0156; Navarro, 2021, Document ID 0257). It is important to note that an 
N95 respirator or bandana can only filter out particulate matter and 
cannot reduce or prevent exposure to toxic gasses and vapors from 
combustion products. Among wildland firefighters, certain job tasks 
were associated with higher exposures to different combustion products: 
for particulate matter, mop-up, direct suppression, and holding tasks 
had the highest exposures; for carbon monoxide, direct suppression, 
fireline construction, and holding job tasks had the highest exposures 
(Navarro, 2021, Document ID 0257; Reinhardt and Broyles, 2019, Document 
ID 0278). Prescribed burns were found to produce higher exposures of 
particulate matter and carbon monoxide than wildfires. Time spent on 
the fireline increased carbon monoxide exposure, and VOC levels were 
highest for Type 1 crews, which typically have the most experienced 
firefighters performing the most complex tasks (Navarro et al., 2021a, 
Document ID 0252). Simultaneous carbon monoxide and noise exposure from 
chain saws and woodchippers have been found to result in greater 
hearing loss than if carbon monoxide was not a co-exposure in wildland 
fire fighters (Ramsey et al. 2019, Document ID 0256). Additionally, 
wildland firefighters are at risk of radionuclide exposure due to 
incineration of vegetation that contains naturally occurring 
radionuclides (Carvalho et al., 2014, Document ID 0180). Studies about 
wildland firefighters identified multiple negative health effects due 
to exposures to combustion products, including decline in lung 
function, oxidative and inflammatory stress response, and increased 
cardiovascular health effects and mortality (Navarro, 2021, Document ID 
0257; Ferguson et al., 2016, Document ID 0197; Main et al., 2019, 
Document ID 0258; Adetona et al., 2013, Document ID 0165; Wu et al., 
2019, Document ID 0318; Navarro et al., 2019, Document ID 0247).
    Based on the evidence described above, OSHA has preliminarily 
determined that emergency responders, specifically both structural and 
wildland firefighters performing firefighting activities, are exposed 
to combustion products. These combustion products contain components 
that are known to cause cardiovascular and pulmonary illness and to be 
carcinogenic to humans. OSHA therefore preliminarily finds 
justification to promulgate a standard which requires protective 
equipment and practices to limit exposure to combustion products. In 
addition, since exposure cannot be completely eliminated due to the 
nature of firefighting activities, OSHA has preliminarily determined 
that medical surveillance is necessary for these responders to detect 
and respond to health conditions as soon as possible in order to 
mitigate the long-term health impact of such exposures on emergency 
responders.
(ii) Other Contaminants and Substances
    In addition to the combustion products reviewed in section A.(i), 
emergency responders may be exposed to varied, unpredictable, and often 
unknown contaminants and substances while performing their duties. 
(Hall et al., 2018, Document ID 0220; Melnikova et al., 2018, Document 
ID 0246). Overall, OSHA's literature review found evidence of adverse 
health effects among emergency responders who encountered contaminants 
and other potentially harmful substances on the job, with the most 
injuries seen among firefighters. As an example of the sources of these 
contaminants, in 2022 the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline 
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration recorded 23,178 highway 
incidents involving hazardous materials (hazmat) and 355 railway spill 
hazmat incidents. Additionally, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board reported 
102 reportable chemical release events in 2022. Studies also show that 
emergency responders can be exposed to hazardous substances through 
equipment contamination and inside their workplaces even when they are 
not responding to emergencies.
    Studies show that emergency responders are exposed to a variety of 
chemicals in the field, including vinyl chloride, phosphine, ammonia, 
and hydrochloric acid (Hall et al., 2018, Document ID 0220; Melnikova 
et al., 2018, Document ID 0246; Brinker et al., 2013, Document ID 0177; 
Brinker et al., 2015, Document ID 0175). Examples of emergency response 
activities that can involve such exposures include attending to drug 
overdose victims (Chiu et al., 2018a, Document ID 0191; Chiu et al., 
2018b, Document ID 0182; Chiu et al., 2018c, Document ID 0186), putting 
out a fire at a chemical manufacturing facility (Eisenberg et al., 
2019, Document ID 0203), working with chainsaws that released carbon 
monoxide and generate wood dust (Ramsey et al., 2019, Document ID 
0256), and participating in training that exposed them to a variety of 
chemicals and potential irritants in simulated smoke such as mineral 
oil, diethylene glycol, aldehydes, PAHs, VOCs, and carbonaceous 
particles (Fent et al., 2013, Document ID 0206). The literature review 
also captured studies that examined diesel exhaust particulate matter 
and PAH concentrations inside firehouses (Sparer et al., 2018, Document 
ID 0292; Baxter et al., 2014, Document ID 0157), as well as 
contaminants associated with firefighting gear, including residual 
combustion products that adhere to the gear, and substances used to 
make the gear, such as organophosphorus flame retardants, per-and 
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals, and plasticizers 
(Alexander and Baxter, 2014, Document ID 0164; Banks et al., 2021b, 
Document ID 0168; Fent et al., 2018, Document ID 0210; Kirk and Logan, 
2015, Document ID 0232; and Muensterman et al., 2022, Document ID 
0282).
    Respiratory effects (e.g., cough, asthma-like symptoms) were the 
most frequently reported symptoms among the emergency responders who 
were assessed (Melnikova et al., 2018, Document ID 0246; Chiu et al., 
2018a, Document ID 0191, Chiu et al., 2018c, Document ID 0186; Fent et 
al., 2013, Document ID 0206; Eisenberg et al., 2019, Document ID 0203; 
Brinker et al., 2013, Document ID 0177; Brinker et al., 2015, Document 
ID 0175). Melnikova et al. (2018, Document ID 0246) examined 566 acute 
chemical exposures among 1,460 emergency responders and found that 
respiratory system problems were the most common adverse health effect, 
constituting 56.3 percent of all adverse effects. Other adverse health 
effects included trauma (11.3 percent), eye irritation (10.5 percent), 
headache (9.9 percent), and dizziness/other non-head-related central 
nervous system symptoms (9.9 percent). The chemicals most likely to 
cause adverse health effects were respiratory irritants, including 
ammonia (12.4 percent); unspecified, illegal methamphetamine-related 
chemicals (7.4 percent); carbon monoxide (6.2 percent); propane (6.0 
percent); and hydrochloric acid (4.8 percent). Given the prominence of 
respiratory symptoms in responders exposed to these chemicals, several 
articles emphasized the importance of wearing respiratory PPE to 
protect emergency responders from negative health effects (Hall et al., 
2018, Document ID 0220; Chiu et al., 2018a, Document ID 0191; Chiu et 
al., 2018c, Document ID 0186).
    A few NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations (HHEs) investigated health 
impacts among emergency responders who assisted drug overdose victims. 
In

[[Page 7787]]

a 2018 opioid-related exposure, eight of nine emergency responders 
reported adverse health effects that were consistent with drug 
exposure: weakness, confusion, palpitations, lightheadedness, headache, 
nausea, numbness, double vision, chest discomfort, and stomach 
discomfort (Chiu et al., 2018a, Document ID 0191; Chiu et al., 2018c, 
Document ID 0186). Overall, wearing appropriate PPE during responses to 
drug overdoses was deemed important, especially for preventing eye and 
mouth exposure.
    Multiple studies identified contaminants inside fire stations and 
on firefighting gear and equipment that firefighters may be exposed to. 
In studies that examined separate rooms within fire stations, truck 
bays had the highest contaminant concentrations (Sparer et al., 2018, 
Document ID 0292; Baxter et al., 2014, Document ID 0157). Banks et al. 
(2021b, Document ID 0168) found that off-gassing of SVOCs from uniforms 
stored in private vehicles could be a source of dermal or inhalation 
exposure for firefighters. Therefore, laundering of firefighters' 
protective gear (Kirk and Logan, 2015, Document ID 0232), field 
decontamination, and dermal wipes (Fent et al., 2018, Document ID 0210) 
were recommended methods to prevent exposures. PFAS (Muensterman et 
al., 2022, Document ID 0282) and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (Alexander 
and Baxter, 2014, Document ID 0164) were highlighted as contaminants 
that need further research due to their presence in and/or persistence 
on firefighter gear.
    Based on the evidence described above, OSHA has preliminarily 
determined that in the course of their duties, firefighters, emergency 
medical service providers and technical rescuers are exposed to 
hazardous substances in the workplace. OSHA therefore preliminarily 
finds justification to promulgate a standard which requires protective 
equipment and practices to limit exposure to hazardous substances. In 
addition, since exposure cannot be completely eliminated due to the 
nature of emergency response activities, OSHA has preliminarily 
determined that medical surveillance is also necessary for these 
responders to detect and respond to health conditions as soon as 
possible in order to mitigate long-term health impacts.
(iii) Infectious Diseases
    When responding to community needs, emergency responders come in 
direct contact with people who have infectious diseases. OSHA's 
literature review identified multiple infectious diseases that 
firefighters, technical rescue responders, and emergency medical 
service providers are exposed to, including hepatitis B, Clostridiodes 
difficile, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and 
COVID-19. The studies covered a range of topics, such as the incidence 
rate or prevalence of infectious disease among emergency responders, 
the likelihood of emergency equipment being contaminated, and the 
impact of other variables (e.g., wildfire smoke, social vulnerability 
index) on emergency responders' occupational risks.
    Generally, bloodborne diseases (e.g., hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and 
human immunodeficiency virus) pose low risk to emergency responders, 
whereas infectious diseases spread through airborne pathways (e.g., 
meningococcal meningitis, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), 
influenza, and tuberculosis) and direct contact transmission (e.g., 
MRSA) pose higher risk (Thomas et al., 2017, Document ID 0307). 
However, EMS providers' exposure to infectious diseases declined 
between 1993 and 2011 and remains generally low except during pandemics 
(Thomas et al., 2017, Document ID 0307).
    MRSA and Staphylococcus aureus prevalence was generally high among 
emergency responders. Miramonti et al. (2012, Document ID 0274) found 
that EMTs and paramedics have a significantly higher nasal colonization 
rate of MRSA compared to the general population (4.5% vs. 0.084%). 
Elie-Turenne et al., (2010, Document ID 0195) found that paramedics had 
the highest rate of Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization (57.7%), 
but the lowest rate of MRSA compared to other health care professionals 
(i.e., nurses, clerical workers, and physicians). The authors suggested 
that the lower relative rate of MRSA may be due to paramedics spending 
more time in the field compared to other health care professionals. 
However, two studies examining the contamination of environmental 
surfaces that emergency responders contact found MRSA in fire stations 
(Sexton and Reynolds, 2010, Document ID 0284) and Clostridiodes 
difficile on EMS monitoring equipment (Gibson et al., 2021, Document ID 
0199).
    COVID-19 can serve as a proxy for both epidemic and pandemic 
exposures for emergency responders. Inconsistent results were found for 
COVID-19 prevalence among emergency responders. Two studies that 
examined seroprevalence rates found that first responders had a higher 
risk of contracting COVID-19 than other health care professionals (Sami 
et al., 2021, Document ID 0290; Zhang et al., 2022, Document ID 0319). 
In contrast, other studies found that the prevalence of COVID-19 was 
not elevated in first responders compared to the general public (Shukla 
et al., 2020, Document ID 0285; Vieira et al., 2021, Document ID 0302) 
or to other medical professionals (Akinbami et al., 2020, Document ID 
0170; MacDonald et al., 2021, Document ID 0251). Some of these studies 
suggested that increased PPE usage and the strict infection control 
measures that emergency responders instituted during the COVID-19 
pandemic helped prevent elevated rates among this population (Akinbami 
et al., 2020, Document ID 0170; Zhang et al., 2022, Document ID 0319; 
Newberry et al., 2021, Document ID 0261; Vieira et al., 2021, Document 
ID 0302). Additionally, two studies showed that vaccination may 
mitigate occupational risks (Grunau et al., 2022, Document ID 0211; 
Caban-Martinez et al., 2022, Document ID 0178). Other variables also 
affected first responders' occupational risk of contracting COVID-19 or 
developing severe COVID-19. Sami et al. (2021, Document ID 0290) and 
Akinbami et al. (2020, Document ID 0170) both found that community 
levels of COVID-19 correlated with seroprevalence rates of SARS-CoV-2 
in first responders. Moreover, emergency responders who resided in more 
socially vulnerable response areas (gauged using the CDC's Social 
Vulnerability Index) were found to have increased exposure to COVID-19 
(Haas et al., 2021, Document ID 0230). Additionally, increased levels 
of wildfire smoke inhalation may increase occupational risk for 
developing severe COVID-19 among wildland firefighters (Navarro et al., 
2021b, Document ID 0279).
    Based on the above, OSHA has preliminarily determined that 
emergency responders are exposed to infectious diseases in the course 
of their work. Exposures occur due to contact with victims of 
emergencies (e.g., traumatic injuries) and the treatment and transport 
of emergency medical patients suffering from either traumatic injuries 
or illness (e.g., viral meningitis). Infectious agents can contaminate 
emergency response vehicles and response equipment; protective clothing 
and equipment; or station uniforms and be brought back to communal 
quarters such as a fire stations or wildfire basecamps. OSHA therefore 
preliminarily finds justification to promulgate a standard which 
requires protective equipment and practices to address exposures to 
infectious disease.
B. Acute and Chronic Health Conditions
    OSHA has identified evidence suggesting that the hazardous 
exposures

[[Page 7788]]

that emergency responders encounter, as described above, put them at 
elevated risk for certain acute and chronic health conditions. OSHA's 
literature review on acute and chronic health conditions among 
emergency responders covered cancer, cardiovascular disease, and 
respiratory disease.
(i) Cancer
    Emergency responders, particularly firefighters, are exposed to 
known and suspected carcinogens when performing their work (see 
Sections A.(i) and A.(ii) above), which places them at a 12-19% greater 
risk of dying from cancer (Muegge et al., 2018, Document ID 0269; 
Daniels et al., 2014, Document ID 0187; Pinkerton et al., 2020, 
Document ID 0245) and a 9% greater risk of developing cancer (Daniels 
et al., 2014, Document ID 0187) than the general population. Studies 
show that firefighters are at higher risk for multiple cancers compared 
to the general U.S. population. In fact, the International Association 
for Research on Cancer (IARC) has concluded that occupational exposure 
as a firefighter is itself carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) (Demers et 
al. 2022, Document ID 0194; IARC 2023, Document ID 0236; NASEM 2022, 
Document ID 0395).
    Researchers found that, compared to the general population, male 
firefighters are at increased risk for melanoma and prostate cancer 
(Lee et al., 2020, Document ID 0250; Tsai et al., 2015, Document ID 
0311); testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, late-stage colon cancer (Lee 
et al., 2020, Document ID 0250); multiple myeloma, acute myeloid 
leukemia, esophageal cancer, kidney cancer, and brain cancer (Tsai et 
al., 2015, Document ID 0311). Researchers found that female 
firefighters are at increased risk compared to the general population 
for brain cancer and thyroid cancer (Lee et al., 2020, Document ID 
0250) and increased risk of death from bladder cancer (Daniels et al., 
2014, Document ID 0187; Pinkerton et al., 2020, Document ID 0245).
    For males and females combined, researchers found that firefighters 
are at increased risk compared to the general population for all-cancer 
mortality (Muegge et al., 2018, Document ID 0269; Daniels et al., 2014, 
Document ID 0187; Pinkerton et al., 2020, Document ID 0245); all-cancer 
incidence (Daniels et al., 2014, Document ID 0187); buccal cavity and 
pharynx cancer mortality (Muegge et al., 2018, Document ID 0269; 
Pinkerton et al., 2020, Document ID 0245); other parts of the buccal 
cavity cancer mortality, pancreatic cancer mortality, kidney cancer 
mortality, connective tissues cancer mortality, brain and other parts 
of the nervous system cancer mortality (Muegge et al., 2018, Document 
ID 0269); digestive cancer incidence and mortality (Daniels et al., 
2014, Document ID 0187); respiratory cancer incidence and mortality 
(Daniels et al., 2014, Document ID 0187); malignant mesothelioma 
incidence and mortality (Daniels et al., 2014, Document ID 0187; 
Pinkerton et al., 2020, Document ID 0245); non-Hodgkins lymphoma 
mortality; esophageal cancer mortality; intestine cancer mortality; 
rectal cancer mortality; lung cancer mortality; biliary, liver, and 
gall bladder cancer; and other digestive cancer mortality (Pinkerton et 
al., 2020, Document ID 0245). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses 
corroborate many of these results (IARC, 2023, Document ID 0236; 
Jalilian et al., 2019, Document ID 0233; Sritharan et al., 2017, 
Document ID 0299; LeMasters et al., 2006, Document ID 0268; Demers et 
al., 2022, Document ID 0194). Additionally, researchers have studied 
whether dose-response relationships exist between firefighting 
exposures and developing cancer. In these dose-response studies, 
researchers found associations between increased firefighting exposures 
and increased lung cancer incidence and mortality (Daniels et al., 
2015, Document ID 0184; Pinkerton et al., 2020, Document ID 0245) and 
leukemia mortality (Daniels et al., 2015, Document ID 0184). In a risk 
assessment, Navarro et al. (2019, Document ID 0247) found that wildland 
firefighters were at an 8 to 43 percent increased risk of lung cancer 
mortality.
    All 50 states have adopted some form of firefighter cancer 
legislation that provides benefits to firefighters who develop or die 
from cancer. In 80% of those, the cancers are presumed to have been the 
result of firefighting duties. It is also noteworthy that Congress 
recently passed the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act 
(https://www.dol.gov/agencies/owcp/FECA/NDAA2023). Section 5305 of this 
Act, titled ``Fairness for Federal Firefighters,'' determined that 
certain conditions, including various cancers, will be presumed to be 
work-related for Federal employees who perform fire protection 
activities and modified the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) 
accordingly.
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that the exposures discussed in 
sections A.(i) and A.(ii) lead emergency responders who perform 
firefighting duties to have an increased risk of developing cancer. 
OSHA therefore preliminarily finds justification to promulgate a 
standard which requires protective equipment and practices to limit 
exposure to known and suspected carcinogens. In addition, since 
exposure cannot be completely eliminated due to the nature of emergency 
response activities, OSHA has preliminarily determined that medical 
surveillance is necessary for these responders to detect and respond to 
health conditions as soon as possible in order to mitigate long-term 
health impacts.
(ii) Cardiovascular Disease
    Emergency responders, especially firefighters, may be called on to 
engage in physically strenuous activities while wearing heavy, 
insulated, and restrictive PPE ensembles that pose physiological 
burden, exacerbate heat stress hazards, and raise core temperatures to 
dangerous levels (Horn et al., 2013, Document ID 0219; West et al., 
2020, Document ID 0314). In combination, these factors strain the 
body's cardiovascular system and increase the risk of sudden cardiac 
events (Soteriades et al., 2011, Document ID 0121).
    Many studies assessed cardiovascular disease prevalence among 
firefighters. They revealed that cardiac events are the leading cause 
of on-duty death among U.S. structural and wildland firefighters, with 
cardiovascular disease causing 45 to 50 percent of on-duty firefighter 
deaths each year (Smith et al., 2016, Document ID 0120; Soteriades et 
al., 2011, Document ID 0121; NWCG, 2017, Document ID 0265; NASEM 2022, 
Document ID 0396). Navarro et al. (2019, Document ID 0247) estimated 
that wildland firefighters had an increased cardiovascular disease 
mortality of 16 to 30 percent compared to the general population. 
Soteriades et al. (2011, Document ID 0121) reported that firefighting 
causes considerable cardiovascular strain, which may trigger a sudden 
cardiac event. However, Muegge et al. (2018, Document ID 0269), in a 
study that reviewed death certificates in Indiana, found that the odds 
of dying from cardiovascular disease overall were no different between 
current and retired firefighters and non-firefighters, possibly due to 
the healthy worker effect. OSHA does not view this study as 
determinative of the cardiovascular risks facing firefighters; rather 
it must be viewed in the larger context of the weight of evidence 
discussed here on the association between emergency response work and 
cardiovascular events. Several studies identified factors and 
activities in firefighter populations that are associated with 
increased risks for cardiovascular disease and mortality. Factors that 
resulted in increased risks of cardiac fatalities included volunteer

[[Page 7789]]

status and stress or overexertion (Sen et al., 2016, Document ID 0300); 
participation in fire suppression activities (Smith et al., 2019, 
Document ID 0303); and hypertension, a history of cardiovascular 
disease, and smoking (Yang et al., 2013, Document ID 0309). Martin et 
al. (2019, Document ID 0271) found that 68 percent of the firefighters 
in one study population had two or more cardiovascular risk factors. 
Obesity (Smith et al., 2022, Document ID 0294; Khaya et al., 2021, 
Document ID 0242), reduced cardiorespiratory fitness (Smith et al., 
2022, Document ID 0294), metabolic syndrome or abnormal metabolic 
syndrome components (Li et al., 2017, Document ID 0260), and elevated 
blood pressures and/or hypertension (Lan et al., 2021, Document ID 
0226; Bond et al., 2022, Document ID 0176; Khaja et al., 2021, Document 
ID 0242) were highly prevalent among firefighters and could serve as 
markers for cardiac dysfunction. Observed elevated blood pressures and/
or hypertension among firefighters was attributed to increased 
psychological stress (Lan et al., 2021, Document ID 0226; Bond et al., 
2022, Document ID 0176; Khaja et al., 2021, Document ID 0242) and 
increased frequency of work shifts (Choi et al., 2016, Document ID 
0181).
    A few studies examined methods that improved cardiovascular health. 
Horn et al. (2013, Document ID 0219) and Mani et al. (2013, Document ID 
0270) measured cardiovascular responses during specific workplace tasks 
and activities and found that systolic blood pressures were 
significantly lower during rest periods. Cash et al. (2021, Document ID 
0190) found that firefighters who slept for recommended durations 
(seven to nine hours) nearly doubled their likelihood of having ideal 
cardiovascular health. OSHA has preliminarily determined that emergency 
response activities can produce physiological and psychological strain 
that is sufficient to trigger a cardiovascular event up to and 
including sudden cardiac death. In addition, elevated core body 
temperature, disrupted sleep patterns, noise from alarms and sirens, 
circadian rhythm disruptions, overexertion, and stress associated with 
emergency response occupations can contribute to the development of 
cardiovascular disease. OSHA therefore preliminarily finds 
justification to promulgate a standard which requires medical screening 
and prevention programming for these responders. OSHA seeks additional 
information and data on how emergency response activities contribute to 
cardiovascular disease.
(iii) Respiratory Diseases and Other Respiratory Effects
    Emergency responders, especially firefighters, can encounter a wide 
variety of airborne respiratory hazards on the job, including gases, 
fumes, and particulates. In addition, many emergency responders are 
regularly exposed to diesel exhaust particulates in the course of their 
jobs, both responding to emergency incidents and while in ESO 
facilities where vehicle engines are started and run, such as in fire 
stations (Sparer et al., 2018, Document ID 0292; Couch et al. 2016, 
Document ID 0324). Emergency response equipment is commonly powered by 
diesel fuel, a known respiratory irritant and carcinogen. Unless 
adequate protective measures are taken, these exposures can impair 
pulmonary function and may cause respiratory diseases such as chronic 
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), bronchitis, and asthma (Barbosa 
et al., 2022, Document ID 0173). OSHA reviewed several studies on 
pulmonary function in firefighter populations. The studies identified 
respiratory protection as crucial for preventing lung function decline 
in responders.
    First, as explained above, several evaluations, reports, and 
studies that looked at emergency responder exposures to a variety of 
hazardous chemicals indicated that respiratory effects (e.g., cough, 
asthma-like symptoms) were the most frequently reported symptoms among 
the emergency responders who were assessed (Melnikova et al., 2018, 
Document ID 0246; Chiu et al., 2018a, Document ID 0191; Chiu et al., 
2018c, Document ID 0186; Fent et al., 2013, Document ID 0206; Eisenberg 
et al., 2019, Document ID 0203; Brinker et al., 2013, Document ID 0177; 
Brinker et al., 2015, Document ID 0175). Melnikova et al. (2018, 
Document ID 0246) examined 566 acute chemical exposures among 1,460 
emergency responders and found that respiratory system problems were 
the most common adverse health effect, constituting 56.3 percent of all 
adverse effects.
    Studies also show that firefighters experience declines in lung 
function after acute exposure events such as the World Trade Center 
disaster response and wildland firefighting activities. Two studies, 
both of which were reviews, reported accelerated pulmonary function 
declines after the World Trade Center disaster (Slattery et al., 2018, 
Document ID 0301; Rajnoveanu et al., 2022, Document ID 0273). A meta-
analysis of 32 articles identified small but statistically significant 
short-term declines in lung function in response to occupational 
exposure to wildland fires (Groot et al., 2019, Document ID 0212). 
Rajnoveanu et al. (2022, Document ID 0273) included studies reporting 
cross-season declines in wildland firefighter lung function. Similarly, 
biomarker levels for oxidative stress were marginally higher following 
exposure to wildland fire smoke in Wu et al. (2019, Document ID 0318), 
suggesting that wildland fire smoke exposure can cause mild pulmonary 
responses. Another study found that forced expiratory volume in one 
second (FEV1) levels decreased (but non-significantly) after 
wildland firefighting shifts and that cross-shift FEV1 
declines were more pronounced in firefighters who were exposed to 
higher levels of wood smoke (Gaughan et al., 2014, Document ID 0198). 
The more general relationship between emergency responder exposure to 
smoke and other harmful substances and lung function decline is less 
clear. For example, COPD diagnosis among firefighters was not 
significantly increased as compared to the general population in the 
majority of the 43 studies assessed in the Rajnoveanu et al. (2022, 
Document ID 0273) meta-analysis. Similarly, lung function was not 
significantly different among firefighters in a meta-analysis of 24 
studies (Barbosa et al., 2022, Document ID 0173). Researchers have 
suggested that this could be explained by a number of factors, 
including the ``healthy worker effect'' and the fact that many 
emergency responders wear respiratory protection on the job (Rajnoveanu 
et al., 2022, Document ID 0273; McCluskey et al., 2014, Document ID 
0262). OSHA welcomes comments and evidence about emergency responders' 
relative risk for COPD and other respiratory diseases.
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that emergency responders are 
exposed to combustion products and diesel exhaust that have been shown 
to acutely affect lung function and may lead to chronic lung 
conditions. OSHA therefore preliminarily finds justification to 
promulgate a standard which requires protective equipment and practices 
to limit exposure to these substances. In addition, since exposure 
cannot be completely eliminated due to the nature of emergency response 
activities, OSHA has preliminarily determined that a baseline 
spirometry measurement and repeated measurement as deemed medically 
appropriate is necessary for these responders to detect and respond to

[[Page 7790]]

lung-related health conditions as soon as possible in order to mitigate 
long-term health impacts.
C. Behavioral Health
    The intense and stressful (both physically and mentally) situations 
that emergency responders encounter on the job place them at risk for a 
range of behavioral health impacts. OSHA's review of the literature on 
behavioral health among emergency responders covered general mental 
health issues, substance use disorders, and suicide.
(i) General Mental Health
    Emergency responders are exposed to traumatic, emotionally charged 
events, and they may work long shifts, hold multiple jobs, and get 
inadequate rest (Alexander and Klein, 2001, Document ID 0166; Patterson 
et al., 2012, Document ID 0266; Weaver et al., 2015, Document ID 0298). 
Lack of sleep, long working hours, working in isolated locations, and 
repeated exposure to stressful scenarios are all risk factors for 
developing mental health problems (Carey et al., 2011, Document ID 
0183; Kshtriya et al., 2020, Document ID 0231; Donnelly, 2012, Document 
ID 0201; Cash et al., 2020, Document ID 0193). OSHA's literature review 
on mental health focused on depression, anxiety, stress, post-traumatic 
stress symptoms, PTSD, and burnout.
    Compared with the general population, emergency responders have 
elevated rates of depression (Petrie et al., 2018, Document ID 0275; 
SAMHSA, 2018, Document ID 0286; Jahnke et al., 2012, Document ID 0235), 
stress (SAMHSA, 2018, Document ID 0286), PTSD (Jones et al., 2018, 
Document ID 0229; Petrie et al., 2018, Document ID 0275; SAMHSA, 2018, 
Document ID 0286), anxiety (Petrie et al., 2018, Document ID 0275), and 
poor sleep (Cash et al., 2020, Document ID 0193). Some articles found 
significant relationships between emergency response activities and 
PTSD, emotion regulation difficulties, and thwarted belongingness 
(Leonard and Vujanovic, 2021, Document ID 0255); alcohol use disorder, 
PTSD, trauma load, depression, and anxiety (Lebeaut et al., 2021, 
Document ID 0244; Lebeaut et al., 2020, Document ID 0276; Zegel et al., 
2021, Document ID 0320); tinnitus and occupational stress (Odes et al., 
2023, Document ID 0267); and stress and burnout on diminished safety 
behaviors (Smith et al., 2020, Document ID 0306).
    Multiple articles described healthy coping strategies and 
techniques that improve mental health outcomes. These included: 
exercise, having a strong interpersonal network, leadership support 
(DeMoulin et al., 2022, Document ID 0196), and finding mental 
fulfillment and enjoyment from the day's challenges and recovery 
activities (Hruska and Barduhn, 2021, Document ID 0223). Obstacles to 
improving mental health included: lack of resources (DeMoulin et al., 
2022, Document ID 0196), an absence of medical professionals who 
understand situations unique to emergency responder occupations 
(DeMoulin et al., 2022, Document ID 0196), occupational stressors 
(Hruska and Barduhn, 2021, Document ID 0223), social conflict (Hruska 
and Barduhn, 2021, Document ID 0223), and stigmatization (DeMoulin et 
al., 2022, Document ID 0196).
    Based on this review, OSHA has preliminarily determined that 
emergency responders are exposed to traumatic events and psychological 
stress that place them at increased risk of mental health issues such 
as PTSD, depression, anxiety, and burnout. OSHA therefore preliminarily 
finds justification to promulgate a standard which requires behavioral 
health screening and prevention programming for these responders.
(ii) Suicide
    According to the Firefighter Behavioral Health Alliance (FBHA), at 
least 1,399 suicides occurred between 2011 and 2022 among firefighters, 
emergency responders, and communication specialists (i.e., emergency 
response dispatchers). The actual number may well be higher, as many 
suicides are not reported or appropriately identified as work-related 
(FBHA, 2023). OSHA found evidence that emergency responders are at 
higher risk for suicidal ideation, plans, and attempts. One literature 
review (Stanley et al., 2016, Document ID 0310) and several studies 
(Abbott et al., 2015, Document ID 0169; Stanley et al., 2015, Document 
ID 0312; Tiesman et al., 2015, Document ID 0295; Vigil et al., 2019, 
Document ID 0296; Vigil et al., 2021, Document ID 0297) reported 
approximately three and a half times higher rates of suicide ideation 
and suicide attempts and approximately five times higher rates of 
suicide plans among emergency responders when compared to the general 
public. Stanley et al. (2017b, Document ID 0305) found that volunteer 
firefighters reported elevated levels of suicide plans and attempts 
compared to career firefighters. Hom et al. (2018, Document ID 0323) 
concluded that women firefighters exposed to suicide during their 
careers (either in professional or personal settings) are themselves at 
increased suicide risk. Stanley et al. (2017a, Document ID 0304) 
reported higher rates of suicidal ideation, suicide plans, and non-
suicidal self-injury among women firefighters compared to the general 
U.S. population. Problematic alcohol use (Gallyer et al., 2018, 
Document ID 0209), occupational stress (Stanley et al., 2018, Document 
ID 0316), PTSD (Bing-Canar et al., 2019, Document ID 0174; Boffa et 
al., 2017, Document ID 0189; Martin et al., 2017, Document ID 0254; 
Stanley et al., 2019, Document ID 0308; Pennington et al., 2021, 
Document ID 0263), depression (Martin et al., 2017, Document ID 0254), 
and past physical and sexual abuse (Hom et al., 2017, Document ID 0217) 
were contributors to suicide risk over the course of the responder's 
career.
    The issue of suicide in the emergency response community has become 
so prevalent that in 2022, Congress passed and President Biden signed 
into law, House Resolution 6943, the Public Safety Officer Support Act, 
which added death by suicide to the causes of death that are eligible 
for benefits under the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 
Assistance's Public Safety Officers Benefits Program (PSOB).
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that the traumatic events and 
psychological stress that emergency responders are exposed to places 
them at increased risk for death by suicide. OSHA therefore 
preliminarily finds justification to promulgate a standard which 
requires behavioral health resources for these responders.
(iii) Substance Use Disorders
    Studies suggest that repeated exposure to traumatic situations can 
lead to mental health strain and post-traumatic stress (Murphy et al., 
1999, Document ID 0280) coupled with substance use disorders (Hruska et 
al., 2011, Document ID 0227) and resorting to substance use as a coping 
mechanism (Vujanovic et al., 2011, Document ID 0317). During its 
literature review, OSHA sought articles that examined whether emergency 
responders have elevated rates of substance use. OSHA identified 
multiple articles that focused on alcohol consumption among emergency 
responders, two that addressed tobacco use, and one that spoke about 
substance use disorders more broadly during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Overall, there is evidence that emergency responders are at 
increased risk for problematic alcohol consumption. Several studies 
observed a high prevalence of increased alcohol use and at-risk 
drinking episodes for both male and female firefighters (Carey et al., 
2011, Document ID 0183; Gallyer

[[Page 7791]]

et al., 2018, Document ID 0209; Haddock et al., 2012, Document ID 0214, 
Haddock et al., 2015, Document ID 0215, Haddock et al., 2017, Document 
ID 0218; Meyer et al., 2012, Document ID 0272). A few studies indicated 
higher rates of alcohol consumption during the first few years of fire 
fighter/EMS service (Haddock et al., 2015, Document ID 0215; Piazza-
Gardner et al., 2014, Document ID 0248; Gulliver et al., 2019, Document 
ID 0216) compared with fire fighters/EMS personnel with more years of 
service. There is also some evidence that firefighters use alcohol as a 
coping mechanism (Haddock et al., 2017, Document ID 0218; Rogers et 
al., 2020, Document ID 0287; Tomaka et al., 2017, Document ID 0293).
    Literature on tobacco use among emergency responders was limited. 
Poston et al. (2012, Document ID 0277) indicated that smoking rates 
among firefighters have generally declined, whereas smokeless tobacco 
use has increased. Smoking regulations were cited as the primary reason 
for declining smoking rates, but other common reasons included fire 
service culture changes, impacts of smoking on job performance, and 
smoking costs. Jitnarin et al. (2019, Document ID 0224) found that age-
adjusted smoking prevalence was lower among female firefighters (1.9 
percent) than the prevalence observed for male firefighters (13.2 
percent) and for adult women in the U.S. (13.5 percent). As for 
smokeless tobacco, age-adjusted use in female firefighters (0.5 
percent) was comparable with U.S. adult women (0.3 percent), but well 
below rates observed for male firefighters (10.5 percent).
    OSHA did not identify any published research that addresses the 
prevalence of opioid use among emergency responders. An online article 
(Jahnke, 2020, Document ID 0237) confirmed the absence of published 
research, stating ``there is no available published research on the 
rates of opioid use among first responder groups, so quantifying the 
risk is not possible.'' That author did note, however, that ``it is 
important to recognize that first responders are at a high risk for 
opioid use disorder for several reasons,'' which were identified as 
high risk of injury, risky health behavior, exposure to stressors, 
behavioral health concerns, and sleep issues.
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that the traumatic events and 
psychological stress that emergency responders are exposed to places 
them at increased risk of substance abuse. OSHA therefore preliminarily 
finds justification to promulgate a standard which requires behavioral 
health resources for these responders.
D. Exposure to Violence
    At times, emergency responders encounter belligerent behaviors 
because the people they are trying to help, their family members, or 
nearby bystanders are not receptive to assistance. This can lead to 
conflict and may result in emergency responders being subjected to 
verbal aggression and/or physical violence, which can be a contributing 
factor to mental health problems or cause injuries. Additionally, 
emergency responders are sometimes called to respond to situations that 
have a law enforcement aspect that has not been fully resolved or 
contained by police (e.g., active shooter situations). Exposure to 
violence incidents can result in both observable traumatic injuries as 
well as significant mental health impacts. OSHA found multiple studies 
that document workplace violence against emergency responders. Only one 
study addressed emergency responders who were injured from violent 
interactions. Taylor et al. found that male and female paramedics were 
at increased likelihood of patient-initiated violent injury compared to 
male and female firefighters (Taylor et al., 2016, Document ID 0313). 
In the Murray et al. 2020 review (Document ID 0249), the authors found 
violence to be the leading cause of stress and that stress was the most 
frequent injury reported by EMS survey respondents. Violence exposure 
was found to be associated with increased levels of stress, fear, and 
anxiety in EMS responders. The review found that exposures to workplace 
violence, especially cumulative exposures, in concert with other job 
stressors, were associated with adverse mental health outcomes such as 
anxiety, depression, and PTSD. Most other studies did not indicate 
whether the violence actually led to adverse health effects, such as 
mental health issues or physical injuries. The studies provide insight 
on the types of violence occurring among emergency response populations 
and the prevalence between different groups (e.g., men versus women).
    Estimates of the proportion of emergency responders who reported 
experiencing at least one type of violence on the job ranged from 57 to 
93 percent (Gormley et al., 2016, Document ID 0208; Murray et al., 
2020, Document ID 0249). Survey-based results in Gormley et al. (2016, 
Document ID 0208) found that verbal aggression was the most common form 
experienced (67.0 percent), but physical violence was reported by 43.6 
percent of respondents. These findings fell in line with the review-
based results (from 104 studies) provided in Murray et al. (2020, 
Document ID 0249), which indicated that 21 to 88 percent of emergency 
responders reported experiencing verbal aggression and 23 to 90 percent 
reported experiencing physical violence. Additionally, multiple studies 
assessed risks for occupational violence among different types of 
emergency responders. Paramedics were found to be at significantly 
higher risk for occupational violence compared to both firefighters 
(Taylor et al., 2016, Document ID 0313; Murray et al., 2020, Document 
ID 0249) and emergency medical technicians (Gormley et al., 2016, 
Document ID 0208; NAEMT, 2019, Document ID 0264). In general, 
responders who provided more direct patient care were at a higher risk 
for violence (Murray et al., 2020, Document ID 0249).
    Three studies investigated differences in workplace violence risks 
between male and female emergency responders, with mixed results. NAEMT 
(2019, Document ID 0264) found that percentages of reported physical 
and verbal assaults among National Association of Emergency Medical 
Technicians members were higher for males than females. In contrast, 
Taylor et al. (2016, Document ID 0313) found that female responders had 
increased odds (though not statistically significant) of suffering 
patient-initiated violent injuries compared to male responders, and 
Gormley et al. (2016) reported increased odds of experiencing physical 
violence among female personnel compared to male personnel. The studies 
do not break down violence exposure by race or ethnicity.
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that emergency responders are 
exposed to verbal aggression and physical violence at their workplaces 
that may lead both to physical injury and to adverse behavioral health 
outcomes.

B. Events Leading to the Proposed Rule

    The existing 29 CFR 1910.156, Fire Brigades standard was 
promulgated in 1980 (45 FR 60656 (Sept. 12, 1980)). In the time since, 
there have been significant improvements in PPE and the guidance 
provided by national consensus standards. In the aftermath of the 
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, all government agencies, 
including OSHA, were directed to strengthen their preparedness to 
respond to terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. 
In response to this direction, the agency reviewed its standards 
applicable to the safe conduct of emergency response and

[[Page 7792]]

identified gaps in the protections for emergency responders. The agency 
determined that it should proceed in the process for potentially 
updating its standard for Fire Brigades and consider including other 
emergency responders.
    In 2007, OSHA published a 41-question Request for Information (RFI) 
for the public to evaluate what action, if any, the agency should take 
to further address emergency response and preparedness (72 FR 51735 
(Sept. 11, 2007)). The RFI encouraged commenters to provide input 
covering the scope of emergency response operations, personal 
protective clothing and equipment, training and qualifications, medical 
evaluation and health monitoring, safety, and economic impacts related 
to potential regulatory action. The agency received 85 responses 
largely in support of updating the existing rule.
    On July 30 and 31, 2014, OSHA hosted stakeholder meetings that 
attracted 49 participants and approximately the same number of 
observers (Document ID 0087). Participants represented a broad range of 
emergency responders as well as allied stakeholders such as State plan 
representatives, skilled support workers, and law enforcement. Broad 
support for a comprehensive standard was evident in both days of 
stakeholder meetings. Participants favored OSHA proceeding with 
comprehensive rulemaking that covered a broad scope of emergency 
preparedness and response workers rather than the agency's historical 
perspective covering industrial fire brigades.
    In September 2015, OSHA convened a NACOSH subcommittee to develop 
recommendations, including regulatory text for a proposed rule, for 
NACOSH to consider (Docket ID OSHA-2015-0019-0001). To assist the 
Subcommittee, OSHA provided draft regulatory language for the purpose 
of initiating and facilitating discussion (Docket ID OSHA-2015-0019-
0002, Ex. 5). The Subcommittee participants were subject matter experts 
from major stakeholder entities that represented a broad range of 
emergency response experts, who provided balance and a diversity of 
views. The Subcommittee was co-chaired by two NACOSH members, a labor 
representative, and a management representative.
    The Subcommittee met for 12 days in six in-person meetings and held 
numerous sub-group teleconferences from September 9, 2015, to September 
9, 2016 (Docket ID OSHA-2015-0019). The members heard and discussed 
reports from the subgroups, and deliberated on various issues, as they 
developed their recommendations and proposed regulatory text. The 
Subcommittee completed its recommendations for a proposed rule and 
transmitted the documents to the full NACOSH in October 2016 (Docket ID 
OSHA-2015-0019-0035).
    NACOSH met on December 14, 2016, and after hearing some public 
support for the project and deliberating over the draft document 
developed by the Subcommittee, voted unanimously to recommend to the 
Secretary of Labor that OSHA proceed with rulemaking using the draft 
language as the basis for developing a proposed rule.
    On October 4, 2021, OSHA convened a SBAR Panel for a potential 
Emergency Response draft proposed standard (Document ID 0094). OSHA 
convened this panel under section 609(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq., as amended by SBREFA. 5 U.S.C. 609(b).
    The panel included representatives from OSHA, the Office of 
Advocacy within the SBA, and the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget. SERs made oral and 
written comments on the draft regulatory framework and submitted them 
to the panel. The Panel received advice and recommendations from the 
SERs and reported its findings and recommendations to OSHA. OSHA has 
taken SERs' comments and the Panel's findings and recommendations into 
consideration in the development of the proposed rule.
    The SBREFA Panel issued a report on December 2, 2021, which 
included the SERs' comments. SERs expressed concerns about the impact 
of the proposed rule on small and volunteer fire departments. Their 
comments addressed potential costs associated with compliance with the 
proposed rule's medical screening, physical fitness, and training 
requirements. In addition, many SERs were concerned with OSHA's 
extensive use of NFPA consensus standards in the development of the 
draft regulation. They were concerned about the costs associated with 
compliance with the proposed rule if OSHA incorporated by reference 
certain NFPA standards (Document ID 0115).
I. Preliminary Determination of Significant Risk and Material 
Impairment
    As explained in section III, Pertinent Legal Authority, the OSH Act 
and Supreme Court precedent require OSHA to determine, prior to issuing 
a safety or health standard, that employees are being subjected to a 
significant risk of serious injury or material impairment of health or 
functional capacity by the hazards being targeted. OSHA has reviewed 
the evidence currently in the record, including the data and scientific 
studies discussed above; the comments received in response to the 2007 
Emergency Response RFI, from SERs during the SBREFA process, and from 
NACOSH; and industry consensus as evidenced in the various NFPA 
consensus standards, and preliminarily determined that emergency 
response activities place team members and responders at significant 
risk of personal injury, several acute and chronic health conditions, 
and death.
    As identified above, the documented serious injuries suffered by 
emergency responders are numerous, including fractures, sprains, 
internal bodily trauma, dislocations, chemical burns, and chemical 
pneumonia. There can also be little doubt that the morbidity and 
mortality risks posed by cancer, cardiovascular disease, and lung 
disease represent material impairments of health and functional 
capacity. In addition, the adverse mental health outcomes resulting 
from emergency response activities, including substance use disorder, 
PTSD, depression, anxiety, burnout, and suicidality, can significantly 
impair responders' quality of life and limit their ability to function 
in daily life, can cause or exacerbate other physical conditions, and, 
in the worst cases, can lead to death. Accordingly, OSHA preliminarily 
finds these behavioral health effects represent a serious impairment of 
health.

C. National Consensus Standards

    In development of the proposed rule, OSHA extensively examined 
numerous relevant consensus standards. The NFPA standards are available 
to be viewed without cost at https://www.nfpa.org/for-professionals/codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/free-access. ANSI/ISEA 
standards are available for purchase at https://webstore.ansi.org. Many 
of the provisions in the proposed rule are based on or consistent with 
provisions in these standards. Additionally, OSHA is proposing to 
incorporate by reference (IBR) several consensus standards.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In addition to revising 29 CFR 1910.6, Incorporation by 
Reference, to include the consensus standards incorporated in this 
proposal, OSHA is also taking this opportunity to make a number of 
non-substantive revisions to align Sec.  1910.6 with updated Federal 
Register requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In certain provisions of the proposed rule, OSHA would require 
compliance with the relevant portions of the NFPA and ANSI/ISEA 
standards incorporated by reference. In certain other provisions, OSHA 
is proposing to require

[[Page 7793]]

Workplace Emergency Response Employers (WEREs) and Emergency Service 
Organizations (ESOs) to provide protections at least equivalent to 
various aspects of some of the NFPA standards listed below, such as 
training job performance requirements being equivalent to those in the 
consensus standard. In the latter case, compliance with the NFPA 
standard would satisfy the requirement, but the ESOs and WEREs retain 
flexibility to utilize alternative measures, so long as those measures 
provide equivalent protection. Below is a list and description of the 
national consensus standards that OSHA is proposing to IBR in whole or 
in part.
    NFPA 1001, Standard for Structural Fire Fighter Professional 
Qualifications, 2019 ed. (Document ID 0138)--This standard contains the 
minimum job performance requirements including the requisite knowledge 
and skills to perform structural firefighting duties for career and 
volunteer fire fighters through two progressive levels of 
qualification.
    NFPA 1002, Standard for Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator Professional 
Qualifications, 2017 ed. (Document ID 0140)--This standard contains the 
minimum job performance requirements including the requisite knowledge 
and skills to drive and operate fire apparatus for career and volunteer 
fire fighters and fire brigade personnel. The standard differentiates 
requirements based on the type of apparatus driven such as pumper, 
aerial, aerial with tiller, water tender, and others.
    NFPA 1005, Standard for Professional Qualifications for Marine Fire 
Fighting for Land-Based Fire Fighters, 2019 ed. (Document ID 0136)--
This standard contains the minimum job performance requirements 
including the requisite knowledge and skills to perform marine fire 
fighting for land-based fire fighters.
    NFPA 1006, Standard for Technical Rescue Personnel Professional 
Qualifications, 2021 ed. (Document ID 0149)--This standard contains the 
minimum job performance requirements including the requisite knowledge 
and skills to perform technical rescue operations for twenty different 
rescue scenarios for fire service and other emergency responders who 
perform these operations.
    NFPA 1021, Standard for Fire Officer Professional Qualifications, 
2020 ed. (Document ID 0144)--This standard contains the minimum job 
performance requirements including the requisite knowledge and skills 
to perform fire officer duties through four progressive levels of 
qualification.
    NFPA 1081, Standard for Facility Fire Brigade Member Professional 
Qualifications, 2018 ed. (Document ID 0134)--This standard contains the 
minimum job performance requirements including the requisite knowledge 
and skills to perform fire brigade operations from incipient facility 
fire brigade member through fire brigade leader, and also fire brigade 
training coordinator, and support member.
    NFPA 1140, Standard for Wildland Fire Protection, 2022 ed. 
(Document ID 0153)--This standard contains requirements for wildland 
fire management as well as the job performance requirements including 
the requisite knowledge and skills to perform wildland fire positions. 
Included in the standard are requirements for fighting wildland/urban 
interface fires.
    NFPA 1407, Standard for Training Fire Service Rapid Intervention 
Crews, 2020 ed. (Document ID 0143)--This standard contains requirements 
for training fire service personnel to safely perform rapid 
intervention operations to rescue firefighters who become lost, 
injured, trapped, incapacitated, or disoriented at an emergency scene 
or during training operations.
    NFPA 1582, Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical Program 
for Fire Departments, 2022 ed. (Document ID 0118)--This standard 
contains provisions for an occupational medical program that is 
designed to reduce risks and provide for the health, safety, and 
effectiveness of fire fighters while performing emergency operations.
    NFPA 1910, Standard for the Inspection, Maintenance, Refurbishment, 
Testing, and Retirement of In-Service Emergency Vehicles and Marine 
Firefighting Vessels, 2024 ed. (Document ID 0151)--This standard 
contains requirements for establishing an inspection, maintenance, 
refurbishment, retirement, and testing program for emergency service 
vehicles and marine firefighting vessels and provides the minimum job 
performance requirements including the requisite knowledge and skills 
for emergency vehicle technicians.
    NFPA 1951, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Technical Rescue 
Incidents, 2020 ed. (Document ID 0347)--This standard specifies the 
minimum design, performance, testing, and certification requirements 
for utility technical rescue, rescue and recovery technical rescue, and 
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) technical rescue 
protective ensembles including garments, helmets, gloves, footwear, 
interface, and eye and face protection.
    NFPA 1952, Standard on Surface Water Operations Protective Clothing 
and Equipment, 2021 ed. (Document ID 0348)--This standard specifies the 
minimum design, performance, testing, and certification requirements 
for protective clothing and equipment items, including full body suits, 
helmets, gloves, footwear, and personal flotation devices designed to 
provide limited protection from physical, environmental, thermal, and 
certain common chemical and biological hazards for emergency services 
personnel during surface water, swift water, tidal water, surf, and ice 
operations.
    NFPA 1953, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Contaminated Water 
Diving, 2021 ed. (Document ID 0349)--This standard specifies the 
minimum design, performance, testing, and certification requirements 
for protective clothing and protective equipment used during operations 
in contaminated water dive operations.
    NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire 
Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2018 ed. (Document ID 0350)--This 
standard specifies the minimum design, performance, testing, and 
certification requirements for structural and proximity firefighting 
protective ensembles and ensemble elements.
    NFPA 1977, Standard on Protective Clothing and Equipment for 
Wildland Fire Fighting and Urban Interface Fire Fighting, 2022 ed. 
(Document ID 0351)--This standard specifies the minimum design, 
performance, testing, and certification requirements for items of 
wildland fire fighting and wildland-urban interface firefighting 
protective clothing and equipment including protective garments, 
helmets, gloves, footwear, goggles, chain saw protectors, and load-
carrying equipment.
    NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing 
Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services, 2019 ed. (Document ID 0139)--
This standard contains requirements for the design, performance, 
testing, and certification of new SCBA used by emergency service 
personnel.
    NFPA 1982, Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS), 2018 
ed. (Document ID 0352)--This standard specifies the minimum 
requirements for the design, performance, testing, and certification 
for all personal alert safety systems (PASS) for emergency services 
personnel.
    NFPA 1984, Standards on Respirators for Wildland Fire-Fighting 
Operations and Wildland Urban Interface Operations, 2022 ed. (Document 
ID

[[Page 7794]]

0353)--This standard specifies the minimum design, performance, 
testing, and certification requirements for respirators to provide 
protection from inhalation hazards for personnel conducting wildland 
firefighting operations for use in non-immediately dangerous to life or 
health (IDLH) wildland environments during wildland firefighting 
operations and/or wildland urban interface operations.
    NFPA 1986, Standard on Respiratory Protection Equipment for 
Tactical and Technical Operations, 2023 ed. (Document ID 0354)--This 
standard specifies the minimum requirements for the design, 
performance, testing, and certification of new compressed breathing air 
open-circuit SCBA and compressed breathing air combination open-circuit 
SCBA and supplied air respirators and replacement parts, components, 
and accessories for the respirators for use by emergency services 
personnel in non-firefighting operations where the atmosphere is 
categorized as IDLH.
    NFPA 1987, Standard on Combination Unit Respirator Systems for 
Tactical and Technical Operations, 2023 ed. (Document ID 0355)--This 
standard specifies the minimum requirements for the design, 
performance, testing, and certification of new combination unit 
respirator systems and for the replacement parts, components, and 
accessories for such respirators for emergency services personnel in 
non-firefighting operations and in atmospheres that are categorized as 
entry into and escape from IDLH atmospheres in open-circuit SCBA mode 
and entry into non-IDLH and escape from IDLH and non-IDLH atmospheres 
when in air-purifying respirator (APR) mode or powered air-purifying 
respirator (PAPR) mode.
    NFPA 1990, Standard for Protective Ensembles for Hazardous 
Materials and CBRN Operations, 2022 ed. (Document ID 0356)--This 
standard specifies the minimum design, performance, testing, 
documentation, and certification requirements for new ensembles and new 
ensemble elements that are used by emergency responders during 
hazardous materials emergencies and CBRN (chemical, biological, 
radiological and nuclear) terrorism incidents.
    NFPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing and Ensembles for 
Emergency Medical Operations, 2018 ed. (Document ID 0357)--This 
standard specifies the minimum design, performance, testing, 
documentation, and certification requirements for new single-use and 
new multiple-use emergency medical operations protective clothing 
including garments, helmets, gloves, footwear, and face protection 
devices used by emergency medical responders prior to arrival at 
medical care facilities and used by medical first receivers at medical 
care facilities during emergency medical operations. The standard also 
applies to health care workers providing medical and supportive care; 
however these workers are not covered by the proposed rule.
    ANSI/ISEA 207, American National Standard for High-Visibility 
Public Safety Vests, 2011 ed. (Document ID 0358)--This standard 
specifies performance requirements for high-visibility vests for use by 
public safety workers which are intended to provide conspicuity of the 
user in hazardous situations under any light conditions by day and 
under illumination by vehicle headlights in the dark. Performance 
requirements are included for color, retroreflection, and minimum 
areas, as well as the suggested configuration of highly visible 
materials used in the construction of high-visibility public safety 
vests. Test methods are provided in the standard to ensure that a 
minimum level of visibility is maintained when items are subjected to 
ongoing care procedures.
    The following NFPA standards, although not being formally 
incorporated into the proposed standard, were extensively examined and 
many of the provisions in the proposed rule are based on or are 
consistent with provisions in them:
    NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2022 ed. 
(Document ID 0345)--This standard contains requirements for the 
selection, installation, inspection, maintenance, recharging, and 
testing of portable fire extinguishers and Class D extinguishing 
agents.
    NFPA 600, Standard on Facility Fire Brigades, 2020 ed. (Document ID 
0133)--This standard contains requirements for organizing, operating, 
training, and equipping facility fire brigades for response to fires in 
industrial, commercial, institutional, and similar properties; and for 
the occupational safety and health of brigade members while performing 
their duties.
    NFPA 1201, Standard for Providing Fire and Emergency Services to 
the Public, 2020 ed. (Document ID 0141)--This standard contains 
requirements on the structure and operations of fire emergency service 
organizations that provide a wide range of services to the community. 
The standard serves as guidance for organizations that provide services 
to protect lives, property, infrastructure, and the environment from 
the effects of hazards.
    NFPA 1451, Standard for a Fire and Emergency Service Vehicle 
Operations Training Program, 2018 ed. (Document ID 0137)--This standard 
contains the requirements for a fire and emergency service vehicle 
operations training program including the knowledge and skills required 
of safety, training, maintenance, and administrative officers assigned 
to develop and implement the program.
    NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety, Health, 
and Wellness Program, 2021 ed. (Document ID 0135)--This standard 
contains requirements for occupational safety, health, and wellness 
programs for fire departments.
    NFPA 1521, Standard for Fire Department Safety Officer Professional 
Qualifications, 2020 ed. (Document ID 0147)--This standard contains job 
performance requirements for the assignment of a health and safety 
officer and an incident safety officer for a fire department to ensure 
responders holding these positions are qualified for the jobs.
    NFPA 1561, Standard on Emergency Services Incident Management 
System and Command Safety, 2020 ed. (Document ID 0145)--This standard 
contains requirements for the development and implementation of an 
incident management system that is intended to be used by emergency 
services and apply to operations conducted at the scene of all types of 
emergency incidents. The standard is intended to integrate with systems 
that apply to multiple agencies and large-scale incidents.
    NFPA 1581, Standard on Fire Department Infection Control Program, 
2022 ed. (Document ID 0148)--This standard contains requirements for a 
fire department infection control program that includes infection 
control in the fire station, in fire apparatus, at incident scenes, and 
any other routine or emergency operations.
    NFPA 1660, Standard for Emergency, Continuity, and Crisis 
Management: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, 2024 ed. (Document ID 
0359)--This standard establishes a common set of criteria for emergency 
management and business continuity programs; mass evacuations, 
sheltering, and re-entry programs; and development of pre-incident 
plans for personnel responding to emergencies.
    NFPA 1700, Guide for Structural Fire Fighting, 2021 ed. (Document 
ID 0150)--This guide addresses research in fire dynamics that have led 
to alterations in fire behavior models that

[[Page 7795]]

have been taught in the fire service for decades and that support 
changes needed in structural fire-fighting strategy, tactics, and 
tasks.
    NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire 
Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special 
Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, 2020 ed. (Document 
ID 0146)--This standard contains requirements for the organization and 
deployment of fire suppression operations, emergency medical 
operations, and special operations to the served community by career 
fire departments. The standard also contains system requirements for 
health and safety, incident management, training, communications, and 
pre-incident planning.
    NFPA 1720, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire 
Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special 
Operations to the Public by Volunteer Fire Departments, 2020 ed. 
(Document ID 0142)--This standard contains requirements for the 
organization and deployment of fire suppression operations, emergency 
medical operations, and special operations to the served community by 
volunteer and combination fire departments. The standard also contains 
system requirements for health and safety, incident management, 
training, communications, and pre-incident planning.
    NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of 
Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire 
Fighting, 2020 ed. (Document ID 0346)--This standard contains 
requirements for the selection, care, and maintenance structural and 
proximity fire fighter protective ensembles and the individual ensemble 
elements that include garments, helmets, gloves, footwear, and 
interface components.
    NFPA 2500, Standard for Operations and Training for Technical 
Search and Rescue Incidents and Life Safety Rope and Equipment for 
Emergency Services, 2022 ed. (Document ID 0152)--This standard contains 
requirements for conducting operations at a wide range of technical 
search and rescue incidents; for the design, performance, testing, and 
certification of life safety rope and other search and rescue 
equipment; and for the selection, care, and maintenance of rope and 
search and rescue equipment for emergency services.
    As noted in the SBAR Panel Report, during the teleconferences and 
in written public comments several SERs expressed concern with the 
potential expense of time and money in having to comply with the 
provisions in NFPA standards (Document ID 0115, pp. 16-17/370; 18/370; 
21/370; 33/370; 57-58/370). In Question II. C, OSHA is seeking input on 
the potential impacts of incorporating by reference of various NFPA 
standards, and how equivalency or consistency could be achieved if the 
NFPA standards were not incorporated by reference. NFPA makes their 
standards available to be viewed without cost at https://www.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards/All-Codes-and-Standards/Free-access or for purchase 
at https://catalog.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards-C3322.aspx.
    The agency is aware that the NFPA is currently in the process of 
combining many of their standards into larger consolidated standards 
(see https://www.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards/Resources/Standards-in-action/Emergency-Response-and-Responder-Safety-Project). OSHA will 
review the consolidated standards during development of a potential 
final rule. The referenced standards that will be affected by the 
consolidation project are the following:
    NFPA 1001, NFPA 1002, NFPA 1003, and NFPA 1005 will become NFPA 
1010, Standard for Firefighter, Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator, Airport 
Firefighter, and Marine Firefighting for Land-Based Firefighters 
Professional Qualifications, scheduled for 2024.
    NFPA 1021 and other standards will become NFPA 1020, Standard for 
Fire Officer and Emergency Services Instructor Professional 
Qualifications, scheduled for 2025.
    NFPA 1407, NFPA 1451 and other standards will become NFPA 1400, 
Standard on Fire Service Training, scheduled for 2026.
    NFPA 1581, NFPA 1582 and other standards will become NFPA 1580, 
Standard for Emergency Responder Occupational Health and Wellness, 
scheduled for 2025.
    NFPA 1201, NFPA 1710, NFPA 1720, and other standards will become 
NFPA 1750, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire 
Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Providing 
Fire and Emergency Services to the Public, scheduled for 2026.
    NFPA 1981, NFPA 1982 and other standards will become NFPA 1970, 
Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural and Proximity 
Firefighting, Work Apparel and Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing 
Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services, and Personal Alert Safety 
Systems (PASS), scheduled for 2024.
    NFPA 1951, NFPA 1977, and NFPA 1999 will become NFPA 1950, Standard 
on Protective Clothing, Ensembles, and Equipment for Technical Rescue 
Incidents, Emergency Medical Operations, and Wildland Firefighting, and 
Urban Interface Firefighting, scheduled for 2025.
    NFPA 1952 and NFPA 1953 will become NFPA 1955, Standard on Surface 
Water Operations Protective Clothing and Equipment and Protective 
Ensembles for Contaminated Water Diving, scheduled for 2025.
    NFPA 1984 and NFPA 1989 will become NFPA 1985, Standard on 
Breathing Air Quality for Emergency Services Respiratory Protection and 
Respirators for Wildland Firefighting and Wildland Urban Interface 
Operations, scheduled for 2026.

III. Pertinent Legal Authority

A. Introduction

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 
651 et seq. (``the Act'' or ``the OSH Act''), is ``to assure so far as 
possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful 
working conditions and to preserve our human resources'' (29 U.S.C. 
651(b)). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of 
Labor (``the Secretary'') ``to set mandatory occupational safety and 
health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate 
commerce'' (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(3); see also 29 U.S.C. 654(a) (requiring 
employers to comply with OSHA standards)). Section 6(b) of the Act 
authorizes the promulgation, modification or revocation of occupational 
safety or health standards pursuant to detailed notice and comment 
procedures (29 U.S.C. 655(b)).

B. Coverage

I. Volunteers
    The OSH Act requires ``[e]ach employer'' to ``comply with 
occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act'' 
(29 U.S.C. 654(a)(2)). The term ``employer'' is defined as ``a person 
engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees, but does 
not include the United States (not including the United States Postal 
Service) or any State or political subdivision of a State'' (29 U.S.C. 
652(5) (emphasis added)). This proposed standard would cover some 
emergency service organizations (ESOs) whose responders may be referred 
to as volunteers rather than employees. However, whether an emergency 
response worker is an employee, and

[[Page 7796]]

therefore whether the standard would apply to that worker's ESO, does 
not depend on the label assigned by the ESO. The following discussion 
lays out the relevant legal principles governing employment status 
under the OSH Act. For a more detailed discussion of how OSHA expects 
these principles to apply in the context of this proposed standard, see 
the Summary and Explanation for paragraph (a), Scope, under the heading 
Coverage for Volunteers.
    The Act defines an ``employee'' as ``an employee of an employer who 
is employed in a business of his employer which affects commerce'' (29 
U.S.C. 652(6)). Because this definition is circular, courts apply the 
test for employee status enunciated in Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. 
Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322-23 (1992) (see Quinlan v. Secretary, U.S. 
Dep't of Labor, 812 F.3d 832, 836 (11th Cir. 2016); Slingluff v. 
Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 425 F.3d 861, 867-68 
(10th Cir. 2005)). In Darden the Supreme Court set forth the following 
test for employee status: ``In determining whether a hired party is an 
employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring 
party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is 
accomplished'' (Id. at 323) (internal quotation marks omitted). The 
Court went on to list a number of factors which relate to the right to 
control (Id.).
    The Darden Court's use of the phrase ``hired party'' indicates that 
an essential prerequisite for employee status is that the worker 
receive some form of compensation for services performed (see also 
N.L.R.B. v. Town & Country Elec., Inc., 516 U.S. 85, 90 (1995) (``The 
ordinary dictionary definition of `employee' includes any `person who 
works for another in return for financial or other compensation.' 
American Heritage Dictionary 604 (3d ed. 1992).'') (emphasis added). 
Accordingly, seven Federal courts of appeals have adopted the so-called 
threshold remuneration test (Acosta v. Cathedral Buffet, Inc., 887 F.3d 
761, 766-67 (6th Cir. 2018); Juino v. Livingston Parish Fire Dist. No. 
5, 717 F.3d 431, 435-40 (5th Cir. 2013); Pietras v. Bd. of Fire Comm'rs 
of Farmingville Fire Dist., 180 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 1999) (firefighter 
regarded as employee despite being called a volunteer because of 
benefits received); McGuinness v. Univ. of N.M. Sch. of Med., 170 F.3d 
974, 979 (10th Cir. 1998); Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits Lab, Inc., 163 
F.3d 1236, 1243-44 (11th Cir. 1998); Haavistola v. Cmty. Fire Co. of 
Rising Sun, Inc., 6 F.3d 211, 220-21 (4th Cir. 1993); Graves v. Women's 
Prof'l Rodeo Ass'n, Inc., 907 F.2d 71, 73 (8th Cir. 1990)). Only one 
Federal court of appeals does not require a showing of compensation to 
find employee status (Fichman v. Media Center, 512 F.3d 1157, 110 (9th 
Cir. 2008)).
    Remuneration may be direct remuneration, i.e., salary or wages, or 
significant indirect benefits that are not incidental to the service 
performed, i.e., job-related benefits (Juino, 717 F.3d at 437; Pietras, 
180 F.3d at 473; Haavistola, 6 F.3d at 221-22). For example, 
significant indirect benefits may consist of a retirement pension, life 
insurance, death benefits, disability insurance, and some medical 
benefits (Pietras, 180 F.3d at 471). Similarly, the provision of food, 
clothing, shelter, and other in-kind benefits may be significant 
remuneration (see Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of 
Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 292, 299-303 (interpreting ``employee'' under the 
Fair Labor Standards Act); but see Fichman, 512 F.3d at 1160 (travel 
reimbursements and food at board meetings insufficient to render board 
member of nonprofit organization an employee under related test for 
determining employee status of directors)). Minor incidental benefits 
do not suffice to meet the threshold remuneration test (see Juino, 717 
F.3d at 339-440 (receipt of $78 for 39 service calls, life insurance, 
uniform, badge, and emergency/first responders training do not 
suffice)).
    In addition to these principles, volunteer emergency responders may 
be deemed employees under State law in States with occupational safety 
and health plans approved by OSHA under section 18 of the Act (29 
U.S.C. 667). See the Summary and Explanation of paragraph (a), Scope, 
for further discussion on this issue.
II. Private-Sector Coverage
    With the exception of the United States Postal Service, 
occupational safety and health standards issued under section 6 of the 
OSH Act apply only to private-sector employers.\3\ They do not apply to 
any ``State or a political subdivision of a State'' \4\ (29 U.S.C. 
652(5)). Accordingly, this proposed standard would not apply to any 
State or local government entities determined to be a political 
subdivision of a State. Note, however, that States with OSHA-approved 
State Plans pursuant to section 18 of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 667, would 
be required to treat public-sector employees the same as they do 
private-sector employees when adopting and enforcing a standard at 
least as effective as any final standard which may result from this 
rulemaking. This issue is discussed separately in section VIII.G, 
Requirements for States with OSHA Approved State Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to section 19 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 668) and 
Executive Order 12196, Federal agency occupational safety and health 
programs are established by each agency head and must be consistent 
with the standards promulgated under section 6 of the Act. 
Accordingly, Federal agencies must comply with all applicable 
section 6 standards unless an alternative standard is approved by 
the Secretary (see 29 CFR 1960.16 and 1960.17).
    \4\ Under the Act the term ``State'' includes a State of the 
United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
Islands, American Samoa, and Guam (29 U.S.C. 652(7)). The 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is also a State because 
the covenant establishing the Commonwealth provides that generally 
applicable Federal laws which apply to Guam also apply to the 
Commonwealth as they do to Guam. Article V, section 502(a), Covenant 
to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in 
Political Union with the United States of America. Public Law 94-24, 
90 Stat. 263 (Mar. 24, 1976). Thus, because Guam is a State under 
the OSH Act so is the Commonwealth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under OSHA's regulations, an entity is a ``State or political 
subdivision of a State'' if (1) it has been ``created directly by the 
State, so as to constitute a department or administrative arm of the 
government,'' or (2) it is ``administered by individuals who are 
controlled by public officials and responsible to such officials or to 
the general electorate'' (29 CFR 1975.5(b); cf. N.L.R.B. v. Natural Gas 
Util. Dist. of Hawkins County, Tenn., 402 U.S. 600 (1971)). Any such 
entity shall be deemed outside the Act's definition of employer, and, 
consequently, not subject to the Act as an employer (29 CFR 1975.5(b)).
    Paragraph (c) of 29 CFR 1975.5 lists a number of factors used to 
determine whether one or both of these tests has been met. One 
important factor under the second test is whether the individuals who 
administer the entity are appointed by a public official or elected by 
the general electorate. Other issues relate to the terms and conditions 
of the appointment, to the identity of the person who may dismiss such 
individuals, and to the procedures for dismissal. For example, in 
StarTran, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 608 
F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 2010), the court held that a nonprofit corporation 
established by a transit district to supply bus drivers and mechanics 
was a political subdivision under the second test because all the 
members of StarTran's board were appointed and subject to removal by 
the transit district. In contrast, in Brock v. Chicago Zoological 
Society, 820 F.2d 909 (7th Cir. 1987), only one member of the Society's 
thirty-five member board of trustees was a public official; the other 
board members were chosen by 240 governing members, only four of whom 
were public officials. Thus, the

[[Page 7797]]

court found that the Society was not a political subdivision within the 
meaning of the OSH Act, despite its contract with a local forest 
preserve district, a governmental entity. Similarly, in Tricil 
Resources v. Brock, 842 F.2d 141 (6th Cir. 1988), a private for-profit 
corporation which had a contract with a city and none of whose board 
members were appointed or subject to removal by the city was not a 
political subdivision within the meaning of the Act. Thus, as a general 
rule, if a majority of the board of directors of an entity are not 
subject to selection or removal by public officials or the general 
electorate, the entity for that reason fails the second test for being 
a political subdivision (see StarTran, 608 F.3d at 323). OSHA will 
consider these factors in determining whether the proposed standard 
applies to a particular entity.

C. General Requirements for Occupational Safety and Health Standards

    A safety or health standard is a standard which requires 
conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, 
methods, operations, or processes ``reasonably necessary or 
appropriate'' to provide safe or healthful employment and places of 
employment (29 U.S.C. 652(8)). A standard is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate within the meaning of section 652(8) when a significant 
risk of material harm exists in the workplace and the standard would 
substantially reduce or eliminate that workplace risk (see Indus. Union 
Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607 (1980) 
(``Benzene'')).
    The Supreme Court in Benzene clarified that ``[i]t is the agency's 
responsibility to determine, in the first instance, what it considers 
to be a `significant' risk'' (Benzene, 448 U.S. at 655). The Court 
declined to ``express any opinion on the . . . difficult question of 
what factual determinations would warrant a conclusion that significant 
risks are present which make promulgation of a new standard reasonably 
necessary or appropriate'' (Id. at 659). The Court stated, however, 
that the substantial evidence standard applicable to OSHA's significant 
risk determination (see 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(f)) does not require the 
agency ``to support its finding that a significant risk exists with 
anything approaching scientific certainty'' (Benzene, 448 U.S. at 656). 
Rather, OSHA may rely on ``a body of reputable scientific thought'' to 
which ``conservative assumptions in interpreting the data'' may be 
applied, ``risking error on the side of overprotection'' (Id.). The 
D.C. Circuit has further explained that OSHA may thus act with a 
pronounced bias towards worker safety in making its risk determinations 
(Bldg & Constr. Trades Dep't v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 
1988) (``Asbestos II'')).
    The Supreme Court further recognized that the determination of what 
constitutes ``significant risk'' is ``not a mathematical straitjacket'' 
and will be ``based largely on policy considerations'' (Benzene, 448 
U.S. at 655 & n.62). The Court gave the following example: ``If . . . 
the odds are one in a billion that a person will die from cancer by 
taking a drink of chlorinated water, the risk clearly could not be 
considered significant. On the other hand, if the odds are one in a 
thousand that regular inhalation of gasoline vapors that are 2% benzene 
will be fatal, a reasonable person might well consider the risk 
significant[.]'' (Id. at 655).
    In addition to the requirement that each standard address a 
significant risk, standards must also be technologically feasible (see 
UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). A standard is 
technologically feasible when the protective measures it requires 
already exist, when available technology can bring the protective 
measures into existence, or when that technology is reasonably likely 
to develop (see Am. Iron and Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 
(D.C. Cir. 1991)).
    Finally, a standard must be economically feasible (see Forging 
Indus. Ass'n v. Secretary of Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1453 (4th Cir. 
1985)). A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or 
pass on the costs of compliance without threatening its long-term 
profitability or competitive structure (see American Textile Mfrs. 
Inst., Inc., 452 U.S. 490, 530 n. 55 (``Cotton Dust'')). Each of these 
requirements is discussed further below.

D. Special Considerations for Health Standards

    The proposed standard deals in part with the exposure of 
firefighters, emergency medical service providers, and technical 
rescuers to toxic substances. Section 6(b)(5) of the Act provides that 
in promulgating standards dealing with ``toxic materials or harmful 
physical agents,'' the Secretary ``shall set the standard which most 
adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best 
available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of 
health or functional capacity even if such employee has regular 
exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard for the period of 
his working life'' (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5)). Thus, ``[w]hen Congress 
passed the [OSH] Act in 1970, it chose to place pre-eminent value on 
assuring employees a safe and healthful working environment, limited 
only by the feasibility of achieving such an environment'' (Cotton 
Dust, 452 U.S. at 541). ``OSHA is not required to state with scientific 
certainty or precision the exact point at which each type of [harm] 
becomes a material impairment'' (AFL-CIO v. OSHA, 965 F.2d 962, 975 
(11th Cir. 1992)). Courts have also noted that OSHA should consider all 
forms and degrees of material impairment--not just death or serious 
physical harm (AFL-CIO, 965 F.2d at 975).
    In acting to protect workers from health hazards the Secretary is 
authorized to require employers to offer medical examinations. Section 
6(b)(7) of the Act provides that ``where appropriate, any such standard 
shall prescribe the type and frequency of medical examinations or other 
tests which shall be made available, by the employer or at his cost, to 
employees exposed to such hazards in order to most effectively 
determine whether the health of such employees is adversely affected by 
such exposure'' (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)).

E. Significant Risk

    As explained above, OSHA's workplace safety and health standards 
must address a significant risk of material harm that exists in the 
workplace (see Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 
U.S. 607 (1980) (``Benzene'')). The agency's risk assessments are based 
on the best available evidence, and its final conclusions are made only 
after considering all information in the rulemaking record. Reviewing 
courts have upheld the Secretary's significant risk determinations 
where supported by substantial evidence and ``a reasoned explanation 
for his policy assumptions and conclusions'' (Asbestos II, 838 F.2d at 
1266).
    Once OSHA makes its significant risk finding, the standard it 
promulgates must be ``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' to reduce 
or eliminate that risk. In choosing among regulatory alternatives, 
however, ``[t]he determination that [one standard] is appropriate, as 
opposed to a marginally [more or less protective] standard, is a 
technical decision entrusted to the expertise of the agency'' (Nat'l 
Mining Ass'n v. Mine Safety and Health Admin., 116 F.3d 520, 528 (D.C. 
Cir. 1997) (analyzing a Mine Safety and Health Administration standard 
under the Benzene significant risk standard)). In making its choice, 
OSHA may

[[Page 7798]]

incorporate a margin of safety even if it theoretically regulates below 
the lower limit of significant risk (Nat'l Mining Ass'n, 116 F.3d at 
528 (citing American Petroleum Inst. v. Costle, 665 F.2d 1176, 1186 
(D.C. Cir. 1982))).

F. Best Available Evidence

    Section 6(b)(5) of the Act requires OSHA to set standards ``on the 
basis of the best available evidence'' and to consider the ``latest 
available scientific data in the field'' (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5)). As 
noted above, the Supreme Court has explained that OSHA must look to ``a 
body of reputable scientific thought'' in making its material harm and 
significant risk determinations, while noting that a reviewing court 
must ``give OSHA some leeway where its findings must be made on the 
frontiers of scientific knowledge'' (Benzene, 448 U.S. at 656). In 
upholding the vinyl chloride standard, the Second Circuit stated: 
``[T]he ultimate facts here in dispute are `on the frontiers of 
scientific knowledge,' and, though the factual finger points, it does 
not conclude. Under the command of OSHA, it remains the duty of the 
Secretary to act to protect the workingman, and to act even in 
circumstances where existing methodology or research is deficient'' 
(Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. v. OSHA, 509 F.2d 1301, 1308 
(2d Cir. 1975) (quoting Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Hodgson, 499 
F.2d 467, 474 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (``Asbestos I''))). Similarly, the D.C. 
Circuit has stated that when there is disputed scientific evidence in 
the record, OSHA must review the evidence on both sides and 
``reasonably resolve'' the dispute (Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. 
v. Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479, 1500 (D.C. Cir. 1986)).

G. Feasibility

    The statutory mandate to consider the feasibility of the standard 
encompasses both technological and economic feasibility; these analyses 
have been done primarily on an industry-by-industry basis (Lead I, 647 
F.2d at 1264, 1301). The agency has also used application groups, 
defined by common tasks, as the structure for its feasibility analyses 
(Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. OSHA, 557 F.3d 165, 177-79 (3d 
Cir. 2009)). The Supreme Court has broadly defined feasible as 
``capable of being done'' (Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 509-10).
I. Technological Feasibility
    A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures 
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available 
technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be 
expected to be developed (Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272; Amer. Iron & Steel 
Inst. v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (``Lead II'')). 
Courts have also interpreted technological feasibility to mean that a 
typical firm in each affected industry or application group will 
reasonably be able to implement the requirements of the standard in 
most operations most of the time (see Public Citizen v. OSHA, 557 F.3d 
165, 170-71 (3d Cir. 2009); Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272; Lead II, 939 F.2d 
at 990)). OSHA's standards may be ``technology forcing,'' i.e., where 
the agency gives an industry a reasonable amount of time to develop new 
technologies, OSHA is not bound by the ``technological status quo'' 
(Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1264).
II. Economic Feasibility
    In addition to technological feasibility, OSHA is required to 
demonstrate that its standards are economically feasible. A reviewing 
court will examine the cost of compliance with an OSHA standard ``in 
relation to the financial health and profitability of the industry and 
the likely effect of such costs on unit consumer prices'' (Lead I, 647 
F.2d at 1265 (omitting citation)). As articulated by the D.C. Circuit 
in Lead I, ``OSHA must construct a reasonable estimate of compliance 
costs and demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that these costs will not 
threaten the existence or competitive structure of an industry, even if 
it does portend disaster for some marginal firms'' (647 F.2d at 1272). 
A reasonable estimate entails assessing ``the likely range of costs and 
the likely effects of those costs on the industry'' (Lead I, 647 F.2d 
at 1266). OSHA standards satisfy the economic feasibility criterion 
even if they impose significant costs on regulated industries so long 
as they do not cause massive economic dislocations within a particular 
industry or imperil the very existence of the industry (Lead II, 939 
F.2d at 980; see also Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272; Asbestos I, 499 F.2d. 
at 478).

IV. Issues and Questions

    OSHA is providing this issues and questions section to solicit 
stakeholder input on various issues associated with the proposed rule. 
While OSHA invites stakeholders to comment on all aspects of this 
proposal, this section identifies specific areas of interest to the 
agency. OSHA is including certain issues and questions in this section 
to assist stakeholders as they review the proposal and consider the 
comments they plan to submit. However, to fully understand the 
questions, and to provide substantive input and feedback in response to 
them, the agency suggests commenters review the other sections of the 
preamble that address these issues in detail. Some issues and options 
that have cost implications are discussed more thoroughly in the 
Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (Section VII.).
    It should be noted that the proposed regulatory text provided at 
the end of this document would completely replace the existing 
regulatory text for 29 CFR 1910.156, Fire Brigades. Comments addressing 
more than one section or paragraph should include all relevant 
references. Submitting comments in an organized manner with clear 
reference to the issue(s) raised will enable the agency and all 
participants to better understand the issues the commenter addressed 
and how they addressed them. Some commenters may confine their interest 
(and comments) to the issues that specifically affect them; 
correspondingly they will benefit from being able to quickly identify 
comments on these issues in others' submissions. While the agency 
welcomes relevant comments on any aspect of this proposal, OSHA is 
interested in responses, supported by evidence and explanations, to the 
following issues and questions, and to other issues and questions 
raised in this document.

A. Scope

    OSHA recognizes that many emergency responders, particularly 
firefighters, emergency medical service providers, and technical search 
and rescuers, are referred to as ``volunteers.'' The OSH Act applies to 
employers, as defined in 29 U.S.C. 652(5), who have employees, 29 
U.S.C. 652(6), and does not cover true volunteers. However, some 
workers labeled as volunteers may actually be considered employees 
under Federal law because they receive a certain level of compensation, 
which may include the direct payment of money or other types of 
remuneration (see Pertinent Legal Authority, section III of this 
preamble). Therefore, any emergency responders who are referred to as 
volunteers but receive ``significant remuneration'' within the meaning 
of Federal law would be included within the scope of this proposed rule 
as employees. OSHA believes that volunteer emergency responders rarely 
receive compensation substantial enough to render them employees under 
this ``significant remuneration'' legal test and thus OSHA does not 
expect that many emergency responders will fall into this category. 
Additionally, OSHA notes that this rulemaking will not in any way alter 
the existing legal

[[Page 7799]]

requirements under Federal law on this issue. Accordingly, all 
volunteer emergency responders who are currently excluded from coverage 
under the OSH Act should expect that they will continue to be excluded 
from the scope of this rulemaking.

B. State Plans

    OSHA also recognizes that among the States with OSHA-approved State 
Plans there is variability as to whether volunteer emergency responders 
are classified as employees under state law. Regardless of state law, 
should there be any ``volunteers'' who receive ``significant 
remuneration'' such that they would be considered employees under 
Federal law (see Section III. Pertinent Legal Authority, B. Coverage), 
State Plans would be required to cover those employees as part of their 
obligation to promulgate a standard that is ``at least as effective'' 
as the Federal standard. 29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2). As noted above, OSHA 
believes this would be rare.
    In addition, some States with OSHA-approved State Plans regard 
volunteer firefighters and other volunteers as employees under State 
law. See, e.g., A.R.S. 23-901(6)(d) (2021) (in Arizona, firefighters, 
police, and other emergency management personnel who are volunteers are 
deemed to be employees). Regardless of whether these volunteers are 
considered employees under Federal law, such States must treat them as 
it does other emergency response workers under its analogue to any 
final standard resulting from this rulemaking. Cf. Letter from John A. 
Pendergrass, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and 
Health, to Rep. Hamilton Fish, May 4, 1988 (if a State with an OSHA-
approved State Plan regards volunteer firefighters as employees, it 
must apply its fire brigade standard to them) available at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1988-05-04.
    In States with OSHA-approved State Plans, each state determines 
what types of volunteer emergency responders it covers, and to what 
extent they are covered, based upon state definitions of who 
constitutes an employee and whether or not volunteer organizations are 
covered by state legislation. While the proposed rule does not directly 
apply to volunteers because OSHA does not have regulatory authority 
over volunteers, the agency is concerned with the potential 
``downstream'' economic impact the proposed rule may have on 
organizations with volunteer responders. OSHA encourages stakeholders 
to engage with local and state officials about reducing potential 
impacts of the proposed rule.
    Additionally, the agency seeks input on what it could do in the 
final rule to reduce undesirable impacts on volunteer organizations. 
OSHA understands that negative financial impacts on volunteer emergency 
response entities could have undesirable public safety implications. 
When drafting this NPRM, OSHA considered the possibility of excluding 
certain categories of emergency response organizations from certain 
provisions of the proposed rule based on organization size, funding 
source, and/or the number of emergencies responded to each year, but 
was unable to determine any appropriate exclusions in light of the 
agency's obligation to ameliorate significant risks to employees where 
economically feasible. OSHA welcomes public comment on these issues.

C. Questions in the Summary and Explanation

    Throughout the summary and explanation of this proposed rule, OSHA 
has requested information or asked questions similar to those in this 
section. For more information on these topics, refer to the Summary and 
Explanation discussion for each respective topic.
    (a)-1. OSHA is seeking information about how many private-sector 
emergency response organizations in States without State Plans (Federal 
OSHA States) have workers who are called volunteers but who receive 
substantial benefits, such as a retirement pension, life and/or 
disability insurance, death benefits, or medical benefits. How many 
such workers do these organizations have and of what type(s) (fire, 
EMS, technical rescue)?
    (a)-2. OSHA is seeking information about which States with OSHA-
approved State Plans expressly cover volunteer emergency responders. In 
those States, how many emergency response organizations have 
volunteers? How many volunteers do they have and of what type(s) (fire, 
EMS, technical rescue)?
    (a)-3. OSHA is seeking information from States with OSHA-approved 
State Plans that do not expressly cover volunteer emergency responders. 
In those States, how many emergency response organizations have workers 
who are called volunteers but receive substantial benefits, such as a 
retirement pension, life and/or disability insurance, death benefits, 
or medical benefits; and as such may be considered employees within the 
meaning of Federal law? How many such workers do these organizations 
have and of what type(s) (fire, EMS, technical rescue)? Additionally, 
OSHA seeks similar input regarding inmate/incarcerated workers.
    (a)-4. OSHA is seeking input regarding what types and levels of 
search and rescue services and technical search and rescue services 
should be included or excluded from the rule, and the extent to which 
those inclusions or exclusions should be specifically listed.
    (a)-5. OSHA is seeking input whether the agency should consider 
developing a separate rule for protecting workers involved in the 
clean-up of disaster sites, and associated recovery efforts? Why or why 
not?
    (a)-6. OSHA is seeking input on whether the agency should consider 
excluding other activities besides those in 29 CFR 1910.120 (Hazardous 
Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER)), 29 CFR 1910.146 
(Permit-Required Confined Spaces in General Industry.
    (b)-1. OSHA is seeking information and data from commenters on 
whether WEREs have living areas for team members, and if so, whether 
WEREs should be included in the definition for Living area.
    (e)-1. OSHA is considering adding to both paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) 
a requirement to permit employee representatives to be involved in the 
development and implementation of an ERP, and to paragraph (e)(4) a 
requirement to allow employee representatives to participate in 
walkaround inspections, along with team members and responders, and is 
seeking input from stakeholders on whether employee representative 
involvement should be added to paragraph (e).
    (f)-1. OSHA is seeking input on whether other activities or 
subjects should be specifically included in the list of minimum 
requirements for the risk management plan.
    (f)-2. OSHA is proposing to have a performance-based infection 
control program provision in the risk management plan. OSHA is seeking 
comment on this approach including whether a final standard should 
incorporate a particular consensus standard or other guidance, or 
otherwise include specific requirements regarding infection control.
    (g)-1. OSHA is seeking input and data on whether the proposed 
rule's requirements for medical evaluations are an appropriate minimum 
screening. Should the minimum screening include more or fewer elements, 
and if so, what elements? Provide supporting documentation and data 
that might establish the appropriate minimum

[[Page 7800]]

screening. OSHA is also seeking additional data and information on the 
feasibility of the proposed medical evaluation and surveillance 
requirements for WEREs and ESOs.
    (g)-2. OSHA is seeking input on whether an action level of 15 
exposures to combustion products within a year is too high, too low, or 
an appropriate threshold. OSHA is also considering action levels of 5, 
10, or 30 exposures a year as alternatives and is seeking public input 
on what action level would be appropriate. Provide supporting 
documentation and data that would help with identifying an appropriate 
action level.
    (g)-3. OSHA is seeking input on whether the additional medical 
surveillance proposed in paragraph (g)(3) should be extended to include 
WEREs and team members.
    (g)-4. OSHA is seeking input and data on whether stakeholders 
support the proposed fitness for duty requirements or whether the 
requirements pose a burden on or raise concerns for team members, 
responders, WEREs or ESOs. Commenters should provide explanation and 
supporting information for their position.
    (g)-5. OSHA is seeking input on whether the health and fitness 
program in proposed paragraph (g)(6) should be extended to include 
WEREs and team members.
    (g)-6. OSHA is seeking input on whether every three years is an 
appropriate length of time for fitness re-evaluation, and if not, what 
period of time would be appropriate. The agency is seeking any 
available data to support an alternative length of time between 
evaluations.
    (h)-1. OSHA is seeking stakeholder input and data regarding the 
appropriate methods and interval(s) for skills checks, as it relates to 
proposed paragraph (h)(3).
    (i)-1. OSHA is seeking input regarding what WEREs are currently 
doing for decontamination, disinfection, cleaning, and storage of PPE 
and equipment, and whether OSHA should include any additional 
requirements for these processes in a final standard.
    (j)-1. OSHA is seeking input on whether the agency should consider 
prohibiting the installation of fire poles in new ESO facilities.
    (j)-2. OSHA is seeking input on whether ESO facilities with 
sleeping facilities should be protected by automatic sprinkler systems, 
as proposed in paragraph (j)(2)(ii).
    (k)-1. OSHA is seeking input on whether the agency should specify 
retirement age(s) for PPE.
    (k)-2. OSHA is seeking input regarding whether and how WEREs and 
ESOs currently provide separation and distinction of PPE and non-PPE 
equipment that have not undergone gross decontamination.
    (k)-3. OSHA is seeking information on whether there is evidence of 
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in PPE causing health issues 
for team members and responders.
    (k)-4. OSHA is seeking input on whether the scheduled updates to 
NFPA 1971 will address or alleviate stakeholder's concerns about PFAS 
in PPE.
    (l)-1. OSHA is seeking information on whether there are any other 
situations or vehicles where OSHA should require, or exclude, the use 
of seat belts and vehicle harnesses. If so, please explain.
    (l)-2. OSHA is seeking input on how compliance with (l)(2)(iii) 
would be achieved in situations where PPE must be donned enroute to an 
incident. Would the team members or responders stop enroute or wait 
until arrival at the scene?
    (l)-3. OSHA is seeking input on whether it should also require that 
patients be restrained during transport to prevent an unrestrained 
patient from being thrown into a team member or responder in the event 
of a vehicle collision or an evasive driving maneuver.
    (o)-1. OSHA is seeking input about WERE and ESO current use of an 
IMS, whether the NIMS and NRF were used as guidance for the IMS, and if 
there are any concerns with being compatible with NIMS.
    (o)-2. OSHA is seeking input on which aspects of an IMS are the 
most effective and the least effective in protecting the safety and 
health of team members and responders. Commenters should explain how 
and why certain IMS components are or are not effective.
    (p)-1. OSHA is seeking stakeholder input on current practices for 
identifying and communicating the various control zone boundaries. What 
marking methods are used? How are they communicated to team members and 
responders? Do the marking methods help or hinder on-scene operations?
    (q)-1. OSHA seeks input on whether the agency should include 
requirements for Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) regarding 
protections against workplace violence for team members and responders, 
and for any data or documentation to support or refute potential 
requirements. OSHA notes that its regulatory agenda includes a separate 
rulemaking addressing workplace violence against health care workers. 
While OSHA has not published a proposed rule in that rulemaking, OSHA 
welcomes comments on whether violence against emergency responders 
should be addressed in a potential Emergency Response final rule in 
addition to that Workplace Violence rulemaking, instead of in that 
rulemaking, or primarily in that other rulemaking.
    (r)-1. OSHA is considering adding a requirement to permit team 
members, responders, and their representative to be involved in the 
review and evaluation of the relevant plans as part of the Post-
Incident Analysis and would like stakeholder input on whether to add 
this requirement.

D. Additional Issues

I. Aligned Organizations
    The scope of the proposed rule focuses on employers whose employees 
respond to emergency incidents to mitigate the incidents. OSHA believes 
that some employees of aligned employers face similar hazards to those 
who mitigate incidents. For instance, while some jurisdictions have 
their own fire investigators as part of the fire department, many more 
depend on State Fire Marshal's office employees to respond to incident 
scenes to conduct fire investigations. However, these agencies may not 
provide a firefighting service. Similarly, many jurisdictions have 
instructors and training facilities directly within the emergency 
service organization. However, many more depend on other organizations 
for training such private entities or State-run training centers that 
do not perform incident mitigation. Nonetheless, these employees face 
similar hazards while providing training such as exposure to combustion 
products, and technical rescue scenarios such as confined spaces, 
trenches, high angle rope rescue, and swift water. OSHA seeks input and 
supporting arguments on whether these types of aligned employers should 
be included within the scope of this rulemaking.
II. Portable Fire Extinguishers
    OSHA's current standard, 29 CFR 1910.157, Portable Fire 
Extinguishers, is based on the 1978 edition of NFPA 10, Standard for 
Portable Fire Extinguisher, and was last updated more than 20 years 
ago. OSHA's current standard does not include Class K extinguishers or 
wet chemical agents. Because Class K extinguishers are provided by 
employers, and the proposed rule would require employers to provide 
training for team members and responders on all portable fire 
extinguishers in the

[[Page 7801]]

workplace, OSHA is proposing to update the standard to include Class K 
portable extinguishers and wet chemical agents. OSHA is seeking 
stakeholder input and data regarding whether the agency should consider 
updating the standard to improve consistency with a version of the 
national consensus standard, NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire 
Extinguishers, that is current when the final rule is being developed.
III. Heat
    OSHA is in the preliminary stages of developing a proposed rule for 
Heat Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings (for 
additional information, see https://www.osha.gov/heat-exposure/rulemaking). OSHA recognizes that emergency response workers must 
perform their duties regardless of the outdoor environmental 
conditions. However, some activities, such as exercising for physical 
fitness and vocational training could be modified based on external 
temperatures. OSHA is seeking stakeholder input and supporting 
documentation on whether it should include requirements for operating 
in external environments with elevated temperature in situations that 
are not emergency incidents.
IV. Consensus Standards
    OSHA is seeking input on the potential impacts of incorporating by 
reference of various NFPA standards, and how equivalency or consistency 
could be achieved if the NFPA standards were not incorporated by 
reference.
    OSHA recognizes that organizations such as the National Wildfire 
Coordinating Group (NCWG) develop standards applicable to their member 
organizations, and other organizations who perform wildland 
firefighting services. OSHA seeks input on whether standards such as 
those developed by NWCG should be considered equivalent to various 
provisions in the proposed rule; particularly those related to policies 
and procedures, personal protective equipment, and medical evaluation 
and surveillance requirements. Are there standards for other 
``specialty or non-structural'' types of firefighting that OSHA should 
consider? Commenters should provide supporting data, documents, and 
side-by-side comparison.
V. Timeline for Compliance
    OSHA expects that some stakeholders may have concerns about the 
timeline for compliance when the final rule is published. Unless the 
agency delays compliance, compliance obligations begin on the effective 
date of a final rule: 60 days after publication of the final rule. 
However, OSHA often allows regulated parties additional time to come 
into compliance with certain provisions of a standard that would 
require additional resources. Many of the provisions in the proposed 
rule are based on or consistent with current NFPA standards, which are 
considered to be the industry best practices for emergency services. As 
such, OSHA believes that most WEREs and ESOs that already meet the NFPA 
standards are likely to be close to complying with, or already 
compliant with, many provisions of the proposed rule.
    OSHA recognizes that some provisions can be implemented quickly, 
while others might take more time to phase in. So, the agency is 
proposing the following timelines for compliance with the specified 
paragraphs (the time period indicates the number of months past the 
rule's effective date when compliance would be required):

--(c) and (d)--6 months
--(e)--2 months
--(f)--6 months
--(g)(1), (4)--6 months
--(g)(2), (3), (5), (6)--12 months
--(h)(1)--12 months
--(h)(2) (3)--24 months
--(i) and (j)--24 months
--(k)(1)--12 months
--(k)(2)(i), (vii) through (x), (k)(3)--6 months
--(k)(2)(ii) through (vi)--24 months
--(l) through (q), and (s)--12 months
--(r)--6 months

    OSHA is open to considering alternative compliance dates for the 
proposed standard and seeks input on what reasonable implementation 
periods would be for specific provisions and why. The agency is also 
interested if extended compliance timelines would be particularly 
helpful to small and/or volunteer organizations as a way of mitigating 
the impact of the rulemaking.

V. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule

    The following discussion, which tracks the proposed rule paragraph 
by paragraph, summarizes the proposed rule's requirements and explains 
how and why OSHA determined what those requirements would be. This 
section covers the comments received in response to the 2007 RFI, 
public input from the stakeholder meetings held in 2014, comments from 
the NACOSH subcommittee members, small entity representative comments 
as part of the 2021 SBREFA process, and research conducted by OSHA. 
References in parentheses are to exhibits in the rulemaking record, as 
noted in the Docket paragraph above in Addresses. These references are 
not meant to be exhaustive but are examples of sources that are 
relevant to the statements made in the preamble discussion.
    As noted in section II., Background, earlier in this preamble, 
section 6(b)(8) of the OSH Act requires OSHA to adopt existing 
consensus standards or explain why a rule which deviates substantially 
from a pertinent national consensus standard better effectuates the 
purposes of the Act. In most cases the proposed standard is aligned 
with the language of a national consensus standard, and the Summary and 
Explanation so indicates. While OSHA intends to incorporate by 
reference some portions of several different consensus standards, it 
has preliminarily determined that in some cases deviating from 
pertinent consensus standards will better effectuate the purposes of 
the Act.
    In the RFI, OSHA solicited input regarding the types of emergency 
response activities, emergency responders (called team members and 
responders in the proposed rule), and organizations that should be 
covered by a potential rule. Firefighting, pre-hospital emergency 
medical service, and technical rescue were offered in the RFI as 
examples of activities for discussion.
    Team members and responders deal with a wide range of emergency 
events. To them, some events are routine or commonly encountered, while 
others are rarely seen. OSHA recognizes that team members and 
responders encounter ``routine'' emergencies to the extent that they 
become commonplace occurrences. Many fewer team members and responders 
encounter rare events. The broad range of emergency events is 
overwhelming, and it would be a daunting, if not impossible, task to 
list them all. Several respondents to the RFI offered examples of 
common events, while others questioned what constitutes a rare event. 
Given the vast differences in emergency response organizations across 
the country, a rare event for a small community or small plant or 
facility might be a common occurrence in a larger one.
    There were 39 respondents to the RFI who offered an opinion on the 
range of emergency events that should be regulated by OSHA. For 
example, the Texas Industrial Emergency Services Board (Document ID 
0044) wrote that ``all types of emergency incidents (an `all hazards' 
approach) should be considered by OSHA for appropriate agency action.'' 
The International Association of Fire Fighters (Document ID 0060) 
stated that ``no incident types

[[Page 7802]]

or responding activities should be excluded. Emergency response 
agencies must not only be prepared for mitigating emergency incidents 
in their jurisdictions, but must be prepared, before and during the 
event to ensure the health and safety of their employees is 
protected.'' Overall, many of the respondents were in favor of an 
``all-hazards'' approach (Document ID 0011; 0018; 0024; 0027; 0028; 
0037; 0039; 0040; 0041; 0044; 0046; 0047; 0048; 0049; 0050; 0052; 0053; 
0059; 0060; 0063; 0065; 0069; 0071; 0072; 0073; 0074; 0078; 0080; 0082; 
0083; 0085). The agency agrees with these commenters and has 
preliminarily determined that the safety and health of emergency 
responders needs to be protected in all types of emergency events. 
Accordingly, the proposed rule takes an all-hazards approach.

A. Section 1910.120 Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response

    OSHA is proposing to update 29 CFR 1910.120(q)(3)(iii) to reflect 
the revised paragraph for PPE requirements in the proposed rule. The 
proposed rule would also revise appendix B to Sec.  1910.120 to replace 
the existing reference to three outdated consensus standards in the 
Note to Part B, section IV, with the current national consensus 
standard, NFPA 1990--Standard for Protective Ensembles for Hazardous 
Materials and CBRN Operations, 2022 ed.

B. Section 1910.134 Respiratory Protection

    The proposed rulemaking essentially moves the Respiratory 
Protection for Structural Firefighting requirements from 29 CFR 
1910.134(g)(4) to proposed Sec.  1910.156. This move will help 
stakeholders by incorporating these requirements related to 
firefighting into one standard; the proposed rule. The proposed 
revision would delete the requirement and replace it with a referral to 
the proposed rule.

C. Section 1910.155 Scope, Application and Definitions Applicable to 
This Subpart

    Definitions for terms in subpart L-Fire Protection are provided in 
29 CFR 1910.155. Terms used in the proposed rule are defined therein. 
The new terms proposed coincide with the updates to other subpart L 
standards proposed herein and are consistent with those recognized 
within the industry. OSHA is proposing to add the following 
definitions:
    Class K fire means a fire in a cooking appliance involving animal 
oils, vegetable oils, or fats.
    Clean agent means an extinguishing agent that is odorless, 
colorless, electrically non-conducive, and leaves no residue.
    Halogenated agent means a liquified gas extinguishing agent that 
chemically interrupts the combustion reaction between the fuel and 
oxygen to extinguish fires.
    Wet chemical means an aqueous solution of organic or inorganic 
salts, or a combination thereof, that forms an extinguishing agent.
    Wetting agent means a concentrate mixed with water that reduces the 
surface tension of the water which increases its ability to spread and 
penetrate, thus extending the efficiency of the watering extinguishing 
fires.
    OSHA is also proposing to delete from 29 CFR 1910.155 definitions 
needed for terms used in the current Fire Brigades standard but not 
used in the proposed rule. The definitions proposed to be removed are 
those for Afterflame, Buddy-breathing device, Enclosed structure, Fire 
brigade, Flame resistance, Helmet, Lining, Outer shell, Positive-
pressure breathing apparatus, Quick disconnect valve, and Vapor 
barrier. These terms are not used in any other subpart L standards.

D. Section 1910.156 Emergency Response

Paragraph (a) Scope
    Proposed paragraph (a) establishes the scope of general industry 
employers that would be covered by the proposed rule. The proposed rule 
would not include employers engaged in activities and operations 
regulated by OSHA's construction, maritime, and agriculture standards. 
The existing Fire Brigades standard, 29 CFR 1910.156, applies to 
employers in general industry that have or establish ``fire brigades, 
industrial fire departments, and private or contractual type fire 
departments'' (29 CFR 1910.156 (a)(2)). The scope of the proposed rule 
is larger, expanding beyond employers who provide only firefighting 
services to include employers that provide other emergency services, 
such as pre-hospital EMS and technical search and rescue services. In 
addition, the proposed rule would impact public and municipal fire 
departments and other emergency response employers in States with OSHA-
approved State Plans, as explained in section VIII.G., Requirements for 
States with OSHA Approved State Plans.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) provides that the proposed rule would 
apply to employers that have a workplace emergency response team as 
defined in paragraph (b) of this section. The employees on the team, as 
a collateral duty to their regular daily work assignments, respond to 
emergency incidents to provide services such as firefighting, emergency 
medical service, and technical search and rescue. For the purposes of 
this section, this type of employer is called a Workplace Emergency 
Response Employer (WERE), the team is called a Workplace Emergency 
Response Team (WERT), and the employees assigned to the team are called 
team members.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) provides that the proposed rule would 
also apply to employers that are emergency service organizations as 
defined in paragraph (b) of this section, namely those that provide one 
or more of the following emergency services as a primary function: 
firefighting, EMS, and technical search and rescue; or the employees 
perform emergency service(s) as a primary duty for the employer. For 
the purposes of this section, this type of employer is called an 
Emergency Service Organization (ESO), and the employees and members are 
called responders. The term ESO encompasses entities who pay their 
employees, entities with volunteers, and entities whose members are a 
combination of paid and volunteer. Similarly, OSHA uses the term 
responders to encompass both those who are paid employees of an ESO and 
those who are volunteer members of an ESO.
I. Coverage of Volunteers
    OSHA recognizes that many emergency responders, particularly 
firefighters and EMTs, are referred to as ``volunteers.'' The OSH Act 
applies to employers who have employees, 29 U.S.C. 652(5), and does not 
cover true volunteers. However, workers who are labeled as volunteers 
actually are occasionally considered employees under Federal law 
because they receive a certain amount of compensation, which may be 
money or other types of remuneration (see Section III. Pertinent Legal 
Authority). Therefore, any emergency responders who are referred to as 
volunteers but receive ``significant remuneration'' within the meaning 
of Federal law would be included within the scope of this proposed rule 
as employees. OSHA believes that volunteer emergency responders rarely 
receive compensation substantial enough to render them employees under 
this ``significant remuneration'' test and thus OSHA does not expect 
that many emergency responders will fall into this category. 
Additionally, OSHA notes that nothing in this rulemaking will in any 
way alter the existing requirements of

[[Page 7803]]

Federal law on this issue. Accordingly, all volunteer emergency 
responders who are currently excluded from coverage under the OSH Act 
should expect that they will continue to be excluded from the scope of 
this rulemaking.
    OSHA also recognizes that among the States with OSHA-approved State 
Plans there is variability as to whether volunteer emergency responders 
are classified as employees under state law. Regardless of state law, 
should there be any ``volunteers'' who receive ``significant 
remuneration'' such that they would be considered employees under 
Federal law (see Section III. Pertinent Legal Authority, B. Coverage), 
State Plans would be required to cover those employees as part of their 
obligation to promulgate a standard ``at least as effective'' as the 
Federal standard. 29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2).
    In addition, some States with OSHA-approved State Plans regard 
volunteer firefighters and other volunteers as employees under state 
law. See, e.g., A.R.S. 23-901(6)(d)(2021) (in Arizona, firefighters, 
police, and other emergency management personnel who are volunteers are 
regarded as employees). Regardless of whether these volunteers are 
considered employees under Federal law, such States must treat them as 
it does other emergency response workers under its analogue to any 
final standard resulting from this rulemaking. Cf. Letter from John A. 
Pendergrass, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and 
Health, to Rep. Hamilton Fish, May 4, 1988 (if a State with an OSHA-
approved State Plan regards volunteer firefighters as employees, it 
must apply its fire brigade standard to them).
    In Question (a)-1, OSHA seeks information about how many private-
sector emergency response organizations in States without State Plans 
(Federal OSHA States) have workers who are called volunteers but who 
receive substantial benefits, such as a retirement pension, life and/or 
disability insurance, death benefits, or medical benefits. How many 
such workers do these organizations have and of what type(s) (fire, 
EMS, technical rescue)?
    In Question (a)-2, OSHA seeks information about which States with 
OSHA-approved State Plans expressly cover volunteer emergency 
responders. In those States, how many emergency response organizations 
have volunteers? How many volunteers do they have and of what type(s) 
(fire, EMS, technical rescue)?
    In Question (a)-3, OSHA seeks information from States with OSHA-
approved State Plans that do not expressly cover volunteer emergency 
responders. In those States, how many emergency response organizations 
have workers who are called volunteers but who receive substantial 
benefits, such as a retirement pension, life and/or disability 
insurance, death benefits, or medical benefits; and as such may be 
considered employees within the meaning of Federal law? How many such 
workers do these organizations have and of what type(s) (fire, EMS, 
technical rescue)? Additionally, OSHA seeks similar input regarding 
inmate/incarcerated workers.
II. Coverage of Employees Who Perform Emergency Services as a 
Collateral Duty
    The existing Fire Brigades standard, 29 CFR 1910.156, does not 
differentiate between employers whose workers perform emergency 
services as their primary duty and employers whose primary business 
operation is not an emergency service but who have workers who perform 
emergency service as a collateral duty, and not as their primary duty. 
Likewise, the existing standard does not differentiate between primary 
duty emergency service employees and collateral duty emergency service 
employees.
    While they are an important component in the overall community of 
emergency and first responders, the proposed rule would not apply to 
employees while engaged in law enforcement/crime prevention activities. 
The proposed rule would, however, apply to employers whose employees, 
in addition to performing law enforcement duties, also provide services 
such as firefighting, emergency medical service, or technical search 
and rescue. Employees engaged in these dual roles are sometimes known 
as Public Safety Officers, and the proposed rule would apply only with 
respect to when those employees provide services that do not qualify as 
law enforcement. For example, OSHA understands that many law 
enforcement employers have employees who are trained in some aspects of 
emergency medical care to attend to the public and fellow employees. 
They are excluded from the proposed rule when they arrive at an 
emergency scene to provide law enforcement duties such as traffic 
control or securing an area, but they would be covered by the rule if 
they then transport an injured person to a medical facility via a 
dedicated medical transport vehicle such as an ambulance or helicopter. 
Additionally, some employers have employees who are trained in the use 
of ropes for law enforcement, such as a tactical response team using 
rope for tactical access to above- or below-grade locations as part of 
a hostage rescue operation. These employees would not be covered by the 
proposed rule during the hostage rescue. They would, however, be 
covered when they are designated to provide rope rescue during non-law 
enforcement activities, such as helping to secure a person who is 
trapped on a scaffold.
III. WEREs and ESOs
    During the SBREFA teleconferences, SERs commented that the 
employees of employers whose primary business is emergency response are 
exposed to more hazards more frequently than the employees of employers 
that are not in the business of providing emergency services but 
require their workers to perform emergency response activities as a 
collateral duty to their primary work assignments. There was consensus 
from the SERs that OSHA should have fewer and/or less stringent 
requirements for the latter employers because of the less frequent 
exposure of their employees to emergency response-related hazards and 
should clearly differentiate between the requirements for the two types 
of employers (Document ID 0115, p. 27). OSHA agrees and, to the extent 
appropriate, has provided separate requirements in the proposed rule.
    To clearly distinguish between the two types of employers and 
employees, OSHA proposes to use different terms to refer to each type. 
The first term is ``Workplace Emergency Response Employer (WERE).'' 
This term applies to employers engaged in industries such as 
manufacturing, processing, and warehousing that have, or establish, a 
workplace emergency response team. As noted earlier, the employees on 
the team, as a collateral duty to their regular daily work assignments, 
respond to emergency incidents to provide service(s) such as 
firefighting, EMS, and technical search and rescue at the employer's 
facility. The team is called a ``Workplace Emergency Response Team 
(WERT),'' and the employees assigned to the team are called ``team 
members.''
    The second term is ``Emergency Service Organization (ESO).'' This 
term applies to employers that provide emergency service(s) as a 
primary function of the organization, or the employees perform 
emergency service(s) as a primary duty for the employer. Examples 
include providers of emergency services such as firefighting, emergency 
medical service, and technical search and rescue. In the proposed rule, 
the employees and members of an ESO are called ``responders.''

[[Page 7804]]

IV. Search and Rescue: Technical v. Non-Technical
    The proposed rule defines technical search and rescue as a type of 
service that utilizes special knowledge and skills and specialized 
equipment to resolve unique or complex search and rescue situations, 
such as rope rescue, vehicle/machinery rescue, structural collapse, 
trenches, and technical water rescue. OSHA anticipates the proposed 
rule would apply to WEREs and ESOs that provide such service, utilizing 
team members and responders who have the technical knowledge, skills, 
and abilities and are trained to perform and direct the designated 
technical rescue.
    OSHA believes that technical level search and rescue means the WERT 
or ESO has specialized equipment and team members and responders who 
are trained to use the equipment and perform specialized tasks. OSHA 
consulted NFPA 2500, 2022 ed., Standard on Operations and Training for 
Technical Search and Rescue Incidents and Life Safety Rope and 
Equipment for Emergency Services, for guidance in using the technical 
level as the determining point for what types of search and rescue 
activities should be covered by the proposed rule. The scope of this 
proposed rule does not extend to employers that perform search and 
rescue at a lower-than-technical level. There is little evidence that 
the provisions of the proposed rule would reduce injuries and 
fatalities in organizations that only provide rescue services below the 
technical level.
    OSHA is seeking input from the regulated community about how and 
where to draw the line between technical and non-technical search and 
rescue activities. As drafted, for example, the proposed rule 
encompasses rescue services such as swift water and underwater rescue 
as technical. On the other hand, while the agency is in no way 
demeaning the valuable services provided by emergency service providers 
such as pool lifeguards, OSHA preliminarily deems this type of service 
to be non-technical rescue and therefore is not intending to cover it 
under this proposed rule. This same distinction can be drawn with 
regard to other types of search and rescue which may be technical or 
non-technical, such as, for example, mountain and wilderness search and 
rescue, which could include ski patrols at recreational snow skiing and 
snowboarding facilities. Some mountain and wilderness search and rescue 
organizations may provide services that qualify as being technical, so 
are within the scope of the proposed rule, while those who do not 
provide a technical service are not within the scope. In Question (a)-
4, OSHA is seeking input regarding what types and levels of search and 
rescue services and technical search and rescue services should be 
included or excluded from the rule, and the extent to which those 
inclusions or exclusions should be specifically listed.
V. Skilled Support Workers
    As noted above, proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) indicate 
that this section applies to WEREs and ESOs. There are no proposed 
provisions for other employers. There are, however, some provisions 
related to skilled support workers who work for other employers. 
Proposed paragraph (b) defines skilled support worker as an employee of 
an employer whose primary function is not as an emergency service 
provider and who is skilled in certain tasks or disciplines that can 
support a WERT or ESO. The proposed rule would require WEREs and ESOs 
to provide protection for skilled support workers who work for other 
employers but are performing duties in support of the WERE and ESO 
activities on the emergency incident scene. These skilled support 
workers would operate under the direction of the Incident Commander 
(IC) or the Unified Command (UC) as provided in proposed paragraph 
(p)(10) of this section.
    For example, a WERT or ESO needs a backhoe and operator to dig 
through the rubble of a collapsed structure to complete extinguishment 
of fire but does not have a backhoe or operator. The WERT or ESO could 
arrange to use a backhoe and operator belonging to another employer. 
The backhoe operator would be considered a skilled support worker under 
the direction of the WERT's or ESO's IC, and thus within the scope of 
the proposed rule. But once the IC or the UC terminates the incident or 
the WERT or ESO leaves the location of the incident, the operator's 
activities would no longer fall under the scope of the proposed rule. 
Note that other standards might apply to the operator's work during 
this period; for example, if the operator were operating a crane, the 
crane standard would apply.
    On a larger scale such as a disaster site, skilled support workers 
who operated under the direction and control of the WERE's or ESO's IC 
or the UC might remain at the location to participate in disaster site 
clean-up and recovery efforts. Once the emergency nature of the 
incident has ended, however, skilled support workers would no longer be 
working under the direction of the WERE or ESO and the proposed rule 
would no longer apply to them.
VI. Exclusions
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2) ensures that employers are aware of 
activities that are not covered by the proposed rule. Paragraph 
(a)(2)(i) of the proposed rule explains that employers performing 
disaster site clean-up or recovery duties following natural disasters 
such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, and floods and human-made 
disasters such as explosions and transportation incidents would be 
excluded from the requirements of this section after emergency response 
activities have terminated. OSHA intends it to be clear that the 
proposed rule would not apply to clean-up and recovery operations once 
the emergency nature of an incident has ended. OSHA is seeking input in 
Question (a)-5 whether or not the agency should consider developing a 
separate rule for protecting workers involved in the clean-up of 
disaster sites, and associated recovery efforts? Why or why not?
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would specifically exclude activities 
covered by 29 CFR 1910.120 (Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency 
Response (HAZWOPER)) and 29 CFR 1910.146 (Permit-Required Confined 
Spaces in General Industry). In addition, OSHA notes that there are a 
number of other general industry OSHA standards that impose 
requirements on employers concerning emergency-type or related 
services. These include 29 CFR 1910.38, Emergency action plans; 29 CFR 
1910.157, Portable fire extinguishers; 29 CFR 1910.151, Medical 
services and first aid; 29 CFR 1910.119, Process safety management of 
highly hazardous chemicals; and 29 CFR 1910.272, Grain handling 
facilities. While employees are engaged solely in activities subject to 
one or more of these other OSHA standards, OSHA intends that the 
protections of those standards apply instead of the protections of the 
proposed rule. So, if an emergency response employer limits its 
activities exclusively to activities covered by those other standards, 
it may not be subject to any provisions of this proposed rule. OSHA 
notes, however, that most employers engaged in activities covered by 
those other standards are likely to also engage in other emergency 
response activities and would therefore need to comply with the 
proposed standard in order to prepare for and respond to covered 
emergency incidents.
    OSHA's intent is to avoid additional burden or inflicting 
overlapping or conflicting requirements on an

[[Page 7805]]

employer who only performs the activities identified in this proposed 
provision. In Question (a)-6, OSHA is seeking input on whether the 
agency should consider excluding other activities besides those listed 
in paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
Paragraph (b) Definitions
    Proposed paragraph (b) defines terms that are applicable to 
proposed 29 CFR 1910.156. OSHA drew from or based these definitions on 
other OSHA standards (e.g., 29 CFR 1910.120 and 1910.134), FEMA's 
guidance ``National Incident Management System'' (NIMS), and NFPA 
national consensus standards. To facilitate compliance, OSHA is using 
terms that are familiar to the emergency response community, and thus 
relies heavily on definitions already in use in the community. However, 
some terms currently in use have multiple interpretations. OSHA is 
providing definitions in its proposed rule to clearly provide the 
agency's intended meaning of these terms. Additionally, OSHA is 
proposing to delete some definitions from existing 29 CFR 1910.155 
because the terms are only used in existing 29 CFR 1910.156, which 
would be replaced by the proposed rule. Specific changes to 29 CFR 
1910.155 are listed in the Proposed Amendments.
    OSHA based several definitions in this paragraph on the following 
NFPA standards:

 NFPA 600, Standard on Facility Fire Brigades. 2020 Ed. (NFPA 
600)
 NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety, 
Health, and Wellness Program. 2021 Ed. (NFPA 1500)
 NFPA 1561, Standard on Emergency Service Incident Management 
System and Command Safety. 2020 Ed. (NFPA 1561)
 NFPA 1660, Standard for Emergency, Continuity, and Crisis 
Management: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. 2024 Ed. (NFPA 1660)
 NFPA 2500, Standard on Operations and Training for Technical 
Search and Rescue Incidents and Life Safety Rope and Equipment for 
Emergency Services. 2022 Ed. (NFPA 2500)
 NFPA 1700, Guide for Structural Fire Fighting. 2021 Ed. (NFPA 
1700)
 NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of 
Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special 
Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. 2020 Ed. (NFPA 
1710).

    The following definitions apply to 29 CFR 1910.156:
    Combustion product. The proposed rule defines this term as the 
heat, volatized liquids and solids, particulate matter (microscopic and 
small unburned particles), ash, and toxic gases released as a result of 
combustion (fire). OSHA based the definition on the term in NFPA 1700. 
Smoke is a visible indicator of the presence of combustion products; 
however, combustion products may be present without visible smoke. OSHA 
believes exposure to combustion products is a leading cause for many 
illnesses among team members and responders. Exposure to combustion 
products is a significant factor for Workplace Emergency Response 
Employers (WEREs) and Emergency Service Organizations (ESOs) in 
developing their Risk Management Plan and when determining what medical 
evaluation and surveillance is needed for team members and responders.
    Community. The proposed rule defines this term as a state, region, 
municipality or portion thereof, such as a village, town, township, 
borough, city, county, or parish. This term and definition are used in 
conjunction with the term community vulnerability assessment. Community 
is a general term that is meant to encompass the geographic area where 
the ESO has a primary responsibility to provide emergency service(s); 
sometimes referred to as the first due area. OSHA recognizes that many 
ESOs are not limited by specific political boundaries to define their 
service community and that the community boundary between ESO 
facilities is often determined as the geographic midpoint between the 
ESO facilities, based on response times.
    Community vulnerability assessment. The proposed rule defines this 
term as the process of identifying, quantifying, and prioritizing the 
potential and known vulnerabilities of the overall community that may 
require emergency service from the ESO, including the community's 
structures, inhabitants, infrastructure, organizations, and hazardous 
conditions or processes. The definition also indicates that the 
assessment is intended to include both human-created vulnerabilities 
and natural disasters. OSHA intends the assessment to be a systematic 
evaluation of the community to determine the impact that could be 
caused by potential emergency incidents, the severity of the impact, 
and the available or needed resources for mitigation. It would include 
risks and vulnerabilities associated with the prevailing residential 
structures and principal structures such as schools, colleges, and 
universities; hospitals and medical centers; large residential 
structures and hotels; transportation, manufacturing, processing, and 
warehousing facilities; and retail. It would also include an assessment 
of the community's critical infrastructure such as available water 
supply, electric power generation and transmission, routine and 
emergency communication, and highways and railways.
    Control zone. The proposed rule defines this term as an area at an 
incident that is designated based upon safety and the degree of hazard 
to team members and responders. The definition also states that a 
control zone may be designated as cold, warm, hot, or no-entry. OSHA 
based the definitions on the terms in NFPA 1500. Control zones are used 
to establish what activities take place, what resources are available, 
and what PPE is required based on the zone. OSHA notes that control 
zones are not permanent areas for the duration of an incident. Zone 
boundaries are expected to change as the incident and environmental 
conditions dictate.
    Cold zone. The proposed rule defines this term as the area 
immediately outside the boundary of the established warm zone where 
team members and responders are not exposed to dangerous areas or 
contaminants from fire, toxic chemicals, and carcinogens. The 
definition indicates that the cold zone typically contains the command 
post and such other support functions as are deemed necessary to 
control the incident and that it may also be known as the support zone.
    Warm zone. The proposed rule defines this term as the area 
immediately outside the boundary of the hot zone that serves to 
transition to the cold zone. The definition indicates that the warm 
zone typically is where team member and responder and equipment 
decontamination and hot zone support take place and that it may also be 
known as the contamination reduction zone.
    Hot zone. The proposed rule defines this term as the area including 
and immediately surrounding the physical location of a fire or other 
hazardous area, having a boundary that extends far enough away to 
protect team members and responders outside the hot zone from being 
directly exposed to the hazards present in the hot zone.
    No-entry zone. The proposed rule defines this term as an area 
designated to keep out team members and responders, due to the presence 
of dangers such as imminent hazard(s), potential collapse, or the need 
to preserve the scene. This zone may contain hazards where PPE cannot 
provide protection; for example, the

[[Page 7806]]

presence of a downed energized electrical line or the potential 
collapse of a wall or roof. An area could be designated as a no-entry 
zone for team members and responders for other reasons, such as the 
need to preserve evidence for determining the cause and origin of a 
fire, to preserve evidence of a possible crime, or for accident/
incident investigation.
    Emergency Medical Service (EMS). The proposed rule defines this 
term as the provision of patient treatment, such as basic life support, 
advanced life support, and other pre-hospital procedures, and may 
include transportation to a medical facility. The definition also 
indicates that the term does not include the provision of first aid 
within the scope of 29 CFR 1910.151, Medical services and first aid. 
The definition is based on NFPA 1500. EMS covers a broad range of pre-
hospital care that WEREs and ESOs may provide. Examples of EMS include 
Basic Life Support, First Responder, Emergency Medical Technician 
(EMT)-Basic, EMT-Intermediate, EMT-Advanced, Paramedic, and Flight/
Transport Nurse. As part of the Emergency Response Program (ERP), WEREs 
and ESOs would identify the type(s) and level(s) of service they intend 
to provide. By excluding from the definition first aid within the scope 
of 29 CFR 1910.151, Medical services and first aid, the proposed rule 
would not apply to situations in which an employer utilizes employees 
or medical personnel to treat sick or injured workers strictly for 
compliance with Sec.  1910.151.
    Emergency Response Program (ERP). The proposed rule defines this 
term as a written program, developed by the WERE or ESO, to ensure that 
the WERE or ESO is prepared to safely respond to and operate at 
emergency incidents and non-emergency situations, and to provide for 
the occupational safety and health of team members and responders. The 
definition further states that the ERP shall be composed of at least 
the information and documents proposed to be required by this section. 
Additional specific requirements for the ERP are identified in 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of the proposed standard. The WERE and ESO would 
determine and include in the ERP what specifically would be best for 
their organization and for the health and safety of their team members 
and responders.
    Emergency Service Organization (ESO). The proposed rule defines 
this term as an organization that provides one or more of the following 
emergency response services as a primary function: firefighting, 
emergency medical service, and technical search and rescue; or the 
employees perform emergency service(s) as a primary duty for the 
employer. Personnel (called responders in the proposed rule), as part 
of their regularly assigned duties, respond to emergency incidents to 
provide service such as firefighting, emergency medical service, and 
technical search and rescue. Additionally, the term ESO encompasses 
employers whose primary function is not as an emergency service 
provider but have employees whose primary duty for the employer is to 
perform emergency service(s); for example, refineries and manufacturing 
facilities with full-time fire departments and hospital-based emergency 
medical service and transport.
    OSHA recognizes that ESOs may also be called upon to perform non-
emergency services, defined below. The proposed definition goes on to 
clarify that the term would not include organizations solely engaged in 
law enforcement, crime prevention, facility security, or similar 
activities. As such, those organizations are excluded from the scope of 
the rule. However, organizations whose employees are cross-trained to 
provide fire, EMS, or technical search and rescue services covered by 
the scope of this proposed rule are included in the scope, but only for 
those activities covered by this proposed rule. In states with OSHA-
approved State Plans, public sector employers, and volunteer 
organizations whose members the State deems to be employees, would be 
covered as ESOs under this proposed rule.
    Facility. The proposed rule defines this term as a structure, 
including industrial, commercial, mercantile, warehouse, power plant 
(utility), assembly occupancy, institutional or similar occupancy, 
public, and private as well as for-profit, not-for-profit, and 
governmental location, structure, campus, compound, base, or similar 
establishment. This definition is consistent with the same term as 
defined in NFPA 600. For the proposed rule, OSHA is focused on those 
facilities that have a Workplace Emergency Response Team (WERT) or a 
dedicated ESO for the facility. This term and definition are used in 
conjunction with the term facility vulnerability assessment, discussed 
below. As defined, the term Facility may cover an individual structure 
or location and its associated property or a location with multiple 
related structures such as a campus, base, or multi-building 
manufacturing plant.
    Facility vulnerability assessment. The proposed rule defines this 
term as the process of identifying, quantifying, and prioritizing the 
potential and known vulnerabilities of the entire facility, including 
the facility's structures and surrounding locations, inhabitants, 
infrastructure, and hazardous conditions or processes. A facility's 
vulnerable areas are those areas which are most susceptible to 
emergencies or disasters; the loss of which could severely impact the 
facility's operation, adversely affect the health and safety of 
employees, or cause potential damage to the environment. OSHA intends 
for the assessment to be a systematic evaluation of the facility to 
determine the impact that could be caused by potential emergency 
incidents, the severity of the impact, and the available or needed 
resources for mitigation. It would include risks and vulnerabilities 
associated with the principal structures; processing facilities; 
significant storage; hazardous materials and processes; critical 
infrastructure such as available water supply, electric power 
generation and transmission, and routine and emergency communication; 
and potential for damage to the environment.
    Gross decontamination. The proposed rule defines this term as the 
initial phase of the decontamination process during which the surface 
contaminants and foreign materials on team member's or responder's 
skin, clothing, personal protective equipment (PPE), tools, and 
equipment are removed or significantly reduced, such as by brushing, 
rinsing, wiping, use of detergents, or use of personal hygiene wipes. 
The term is consistent with NFPA 1500. Gross decontamination is a 
preliminary exposure reduction method and is the first step in the 
decontamination process.
    Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH). The proposed rule 
defines this term as an atmosphere that poses an immediate threat to 
life, would cause irreversible adverse health effects, or would impair 
an individual's ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere. OSHA 
drew the term and definition from 29 CFR 1910.134, Respiratory 
Protection.
    Incident. The proposed rule defines this term as any situation to 
which a WERE or an ESO responds to perform services, such as 
firefighting; emergency medical service; technical search and rescue; 
other situations such as responses to downed electrical power lines, 
and outside propane or natural gas leaks. The term is based on NFPA 
1561 and NIMS. Incidents may be the result of a natural or human-caused 
occurrence.
    Incident action plan (IAP). The proposed rule defines this term as 
the

[[Page 7807]]

incident objectives, strategy, and tactics necessary to manage an 
incident. The definition further states that the IAP is developed at 
the incident site and provides essential information for actionable 
incident organization, work assignments, management of resources, risk 
management, and team member or responder safety when operating at an 
incident. This definition is consistent with NFPA 1500 and NIMS. The 
IAP is developed by the Incident Commander (IC) and updated as needed 
throughout the incident. Because the IAP includes the information 
``necessary to manage the incident,'' the form and level of detail of 
the IAP is dependent on the needs of the situation. In the initial 
stage of an incident, the IAP may be a simple plan, based on incomplete 
situational information, and communicated orally to team members and 
responders. Small-scale incidents may not need a written IAP or may 
only need to use something such as a fillable form, a white/wipe-off 
board, or a magnetic incident board. For a larger, complex, or long-
duration incident, a more comprehensive IAP would likely need to be 
developed.
    Incident Commander (IC). The proposed rule defines this term as the 
team member or responder who fulfills the incident command function of 
the Incident Management System (IMS); who is responsible for the 
overall management of an incident and the safety of all team members or 
responders involved in the response; and who is responsible for all 
incident activities, including the development of strategies and 
tactics, the direction and control of all team members and responders 
at the incident, and the ordering and release of resources. This 
definition is consistent with NFPA 1710 and NIMS. Proposed paragraph 
(o)(3) provides further clarification of the responsibilities of the 
IC, including front line management of the incident, overall incident 
safety, and planning and execution of intended tactics, and proposed 
paragraph (p)(2) contains additional specific requirements related to 
emergency incident operations. Depending on the WERE's or ESO's IMS, 
the team member or responder who serves in the role of the IC may vary. 
For instance, in a single unit response, the senior or ranking team 
member or responder would typically fulfill the role of IC. In a 
multiple unit response, often the senior or ranking team member or 
responder on the first arriving unit might serve at the initial IC 
until a higher-ranking team member or responder assumes the role.
    Incident Management System (IMS). The proposed rule defines this 
term as a system used for managing and directing incident scene 
operations and activities. The definition further states that the IMS 
includes establishing functions for managing incidents, describes the 
roles and responsibilities to be assumed by team members and 
responders, and standard operating procedures to be utilized. Incident 
command is a function of the IMS. The IMS would provide core concepts, 
principles, and terminology used by WEREs or ESOs, and provides for 
structure and coordination with other WEREs and ESOs for safely 
managing incidents.
    Incident Safety Officer (ISO). The proposed rule defines this term 
as the team member or responder at an incident scene who is responsible 
for monitoring and assessing safety hazards and unsafe situations and 
for developing measures for ensuring team member and responder safety. 
This term is based on NFPA 1521 and is consistent with the definition 
of safety officer in NIMS and other NFPA standards. The ISO is 
typically a member of the command staff responsible for advising the IC 
or Unified Command (UC) on matters related to operational safety, and 
the health and safety of team members and responders. The ISO monitors 
incident operations and modifies or stops the action(s) being performed 
to prevent unsafe acts.
    Incident scene. The proposed rule defines this term as the physical 
location where activities related to a specific incident are conducted. 
The definition goes on to state it includes nearby areas that are 
subject to incident-related hazards or used by the WERE or ESO for team 
members, responders, and equipment. The definition is consistent with 
NFPA 1561. Incident scenes can be divided into control zones, as 
defined in the proposed rule and discussed above, depending on the 
location and nature of the incident.
    Living area. The proposed rule defines this term as the room(s) or 
area(s) of the ESO's facility where responders may cook, eat, relax, 
read, study, watch television, complete paperwork or data entry, and 
similar daily living activities. The definition includes the following 
examples: day rooms, kitchen/dining areas, classrooms, offices, and TV 
rooms. Sleeping areas are not included in this definition because they 
are defined separately. However, if any areas provided as examples of 
living spaces have a bed(s), such as a wall bed or ``Murphy'' bed, then 
it is considered a sleeping area. The definition also clarifies that 
areas such as maintenance shops, utility and storage areas, and 
interior vehicle parking bays are not considered living areas. OSHA is 
aware that some ESOs have areas that are available for use by the 
community, such as large reception and meeting halls used for private 
or community events which may include commercial/catering kitchens. 
Areas such as these would need to meet the same protective requirements 
as living areas. WEREs are not included in this proposed definition 
because OSHA believes that these types of areas are typically not 
provided in WERE facilities. In Question (b)-1, OSHA is seeking 
information and data from commenters on whether WEREs have similar 
areas for team members, and if so, whether WEREs should be included in 
this definition.
    Mayday. The proposed rule defines this term as an emergency 
procedure term used to signal that a team member or responder is in 
distress, needs assistance and is unable to self-rescue; it is 
typically used when safety or life is in jeopardy. The term mayday 
comes from the French phrase ``venez m'aider'' meaning ``come help 
me.'' It is an internationally recognized radio term to signal 
distress, most frequently recognized as being used by the maritime and 
aviation industries. Use of the term by emergency services has become 
more prevalent with the expansive availability and use of portable 
radios. Examples of situations where the term mayday would apply 
include a lost or missing team member or responder, a Self-Contained 
Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) malfunction or loss of air, a team member or 
responder seriously injured or incapacitated, a team member or 
responder trapped or entangled, or any life-threatening situation that 
cannot be immediately resolved.
    Mutual aid agreement. The proposed rule defines this term as a 
written agreement or contract between WEREs and ESOs, or between ESOs, 
that they will assist one another upon request by furnishing personnel, 
equipment, materials, expertise, or other associated services as 
specified. The definition is consistent with NFPA 1710 and NIMS. The 
purpose of establishing a mutual aid agreement(s) is to facilitate the 
rapid deployment of needed resources, typically viewed as an automatic 
reciprocal response. WEREs and ESOs may have previously referred to 
such agreements by other terms such as automatic aid or fire protection 
agreement. Mutual aid agreements ensure availability of sufficient 
resources to mitigate incidents that may not be possible by the WERE or 
ESO alone, or for when an incident occurs that the ESO or WERE does not 
have the

[[Page 7808]]

personnel, training, or equipment to mitigate.
    Non-emergency service. The proposed rule defines this term as a 
situation where a WERT or ESO is called upon to provide a service that 
does not involve an immediate threat to health, life, or property, such 
as assisting law enforcement with tools, equipment, and scene lighting; 
removing people from a stuck elevator; resetting an accidentally 
activated fire alarm system; or assisting a mobility-challenged person 
downstairs during an elevator outage. OSHA recognizes that WERTs and 
ESOs are called upon to perform non-emergency services because of their 
knowledge, skills, abilities, and possession of the tools needed to 
perform the service. They may also be called upon to go to homes to 
check on the health or welfare of persons whom family members are 
unable to contact because they have forcible entry tools and can 
provide emergency medical treatment, if needed.
    Personal protective equipment (PPE). The proposed rule defines this 
term as the clothing and equipment worn and utilized to prevent or 
minimize exposure to serious workplace injuries and illnesses. The 
proposed provision also lists examples including gloves, safety glasses 
and goggles, safety shoes and boots, earplugs and muffs, hard hats and 
helmets, respirators and SCBA, protective coats and pants, hoods, 
coveralls, vests, and full body suits. This definition is consistent 
with the definition and use of the term in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart 
I--Personal Protective Equipment. Additional examples of PPE that team 
members and responders might be required to use include wet suits, dry 
suits, personal floatation devices, and self-contained underwater 
breathing apparatus (SCUBA) used in technical water rescue. PPE is 
particularly important for team members and responders because other 
protective measures such as administrative and engineering controls are 
often not practical for emergency response activities.
    Physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP). The 
proposed rule defines this term as an individual whose legally 
permitted scope of practice (i.e., license, registration, or 
certification) allows the individual to independently provide, or be 
delegated the responsibility to provide, some or all of the health care 
services required by paragraph (g) of this section. OSHA drew the term 
and definition from 29 CFR 1910.134, Respiratory Protection. The 
provisions in the proposed rule that require a PLHCP have varying 
degrees of medical complexity. OSHA expects that PLHCPs would only 
perform services within their area of expertise, as well as their 
license or certification, and would make referrals to a higher level or 
different area of expertise, as appropriate.
    Pre-incident plan (PIP). The proposed rule defines this term as a 
written document developed by gathering general and detailed data about 
a particular facility or location that is used by team members or 
responders in effectively and safely managing an emergency incident 
there. Specific requirements for WERE and ESO PIPs are set forth in 
paragraphs (m) and (n), respectively. A PIP is developed before an 
incident occurs and is intended to be used in the development of an IAP 
during an incident to aid in the safe mitigation of the incident. The 
term is consistent with NFPA 1660. The PIP provides crucial information 
to prepare WEREs and ESOs for emergency incidents and assists the IC 
with making informed decisions at the time of an emergency.
    Rapid intervention crew (RIC). The proposed rule defines this term 
as a group of at least two (2) team members or responders dedicated 
solely to serve as a stand-by rescue team available for the immediate 
search and rescue of any missing, trapped, injured or unaccounted-for 
team member(s) or responder(s). This crew must be fully equipped with 
the appropriate PPE and rescue equipment needed based on the specifics 
of the operation that is underway as required by paragraph (q)(2)(viii) 
of the proposed rule. OSHA based the definition on NFPA 1500.
    Responder. The proposed rule defines this term as an employee or 
member of an ESO who is, or will be, assigned to perform duties at 
emergency incidents. Some ESOs, especially those with volunteers, use 
the term member when referring to the people in their organizations. 
OSHA intends that the term responder in the proposed standard to be 
inclusive of both terms. Also, the term responder, as defined, excludes 
employees or volunteers who do not have emergency response duties, such 
as administrative staff who do not perform duties at emergency incident 
scenes. The proposed rule would not cover activities of these 
employees. Employees and members of public sector emergency response 
employers in states with OSHA-approved State Plans, who are regulated 
as employees by the State, are considered responders under this 
rulemaking.
    Size-up. The proposed rule defines this term as the observation and 
evaluation of the influencing factors at an incident used to determine 
the scope of the incident and to develop strategic goals and tactical 
objectives. The definition is consistent with NFPA 1700. Many factors 
are involved in a size-up, beginning with the emergency dispatch 
center's receipt of information and the need for emergency service, the 
dispatch of the appropriate service(s) to an incident, to the relay of 
information received. Factors involved in a size-up vary depending on 
the type of incident (fire, EMS, technical rescue), but as discussed in 
the Summary and Explanation of paragraph (p), all size-ups need to 
include evaluation of the level of safety hazards to the person/people 
involved in the incident, bystanders, and team members and responders. 
Size-up is an ongoing process that includes a continuing evaluation of 
information received and observations made at the incident scene. Based 
on the size-up, strategy and tactics may change depending on whether 
the changing conditions of the incident are improving or deteriorating.
    Skilled support worker (SSW). The proposed rule defines this term 
as an employee of an employer whose primary function is not as an 
emergency service provider and who is skilled in certain tasks or 
disciplines that can support a WERT or ESO. This definition is based on 
the description of skilled support personnel in 29 CFR 1910.120, 
HAZWOPER. SSWs are not limited to general industry employers. Examples 
of SSWs include operators of equipment such as heavy-duty wrecker/
rotator tow vehicles, mechanized earth moving or digging equipment, 
crane and hoisting equipment, and others such as utility service 
workers (gas, water, electricity), public works workers, and technical 
experts. SSWs perform immediate support work that cannot reasonably be 
performed in a timely fashion by responders or team members, and who 
will be or may be exposed to the hazards at an emergency incident. The 
proposed rule does not include requirements for employers of SSWs. 
However, proposed paragraph (p) establishes requirements for WEREs and 
ESOs who utilize SSWs to provide for the safety of those SSWs.
    Sleeping area. The proposed rule defines this term as designated 
room(s) or area(s) of the ESO's facility where responders sleep in 
beds. OSHA intends for this term to cover ESO's permanent facilities 
with room(s) or area(s) such as a dormitory, sleeping quarters, bunk 
room, or sack room. It includes rooms or areas with wall beds or 
``Murphy'' beds. The term is not intended to apply to areas used 
temporarily for sleeping, such as tents or a community center used as a 
base camp in a wildfire

[[Page 7809]]

situation, training room with cots set up during inclement weather 
events, or a TV room with couches.
    Standard operating procedure (SOP). The proposed rule defines this 
term as a written directive that establishes a course of action or 
administrative method to be followed routinely and explains what is 
expected of team members or responders in performing the prescribed 
action, duty, or task. OSHA based the definition on NFPA 1710. The 
definition is similar in concept with NIMS. Proposed paragraph (q) 
addresses requirements regarding SOPs.
    Team member. The proposed rule defines this term as an employee of 
the WERE whose primary job duties are typically associated with the 
business of the WERE (e.g., production, manufacturing, processing, 
warehousing, administration) and who is assigned to the WERT to perform 
certain designated duties at emergency incidents at the WERE facility. 
The definition further clarifies that emergency response is a 
collateral duty for team members. The term team member encompasses all 
employees who serve roles as part of the WERT in emergency operations, 
from the firefighter holding a hose to the facility engineer who, for 
example, closes a sprinkler valve at the direction of the IC, ensures 
the fire pump is operating properly, or adjusts the control switches 
for the heating/ventilating/air conditioning system to provide full 
exhaust of smoke.
    Technical search and rescue/Technical rescue. The proposed rule 
defines this term as a type of service that utilizes special knowledge 
and skills and specialized equipment to resolve complex search and 
rescue situations, such as rope, confined space, vehicle/machinery, 
structural collapse, trench, or technical water rescue. The definition 
is based on NFPA 2500. With respect to water rescue, OSHA specifically 
uses the term technical to specify that non-technical water rescue 
would be excluded from the proposed rule. Examples of non-technical 
water rescue include services such as pool and water-amusement park 
lifeguard services, lake and beach lifeguard services that only use 
non-mechanized equipment such as rescue boards, rescue buoys, rescue 
tubes and cans, and snorkeling equipment. Proposed paragraph 
(h)(2)(vii) addresses the required qualifications for technical search 
and rescue team members and responders.
    Unified Command (UC). The proposed rule defines this term as a 
structure for managing an incident that allows for all agencies with 
jurisdictional responsibility for an incident, either geographical or 
functional, to manage an incident by establishing a common set of 
incident objectives and strategies. The definition is consistent with 
NFPA 1561 and NIMS. A UC is typically utilized when an incident is 
large and complex and involves multiple ESOs and agencies, such as a 
large-scale wildland fire or flash flood; a derailed passenger train or 
aircraft crash; or the collapse of a large, occupied structure. Other 
agencies involved may vary depending on the type, size, and location of 
the incident and could include agencies such as law enforcement, public 
works, utilities, Federal agencies such as FEMA and OSHA, non-
governmental organizations, and others.
    Workplace Emergency Response Employer (WERE). The proposed rule 
defines this term as an employer who has a workplace emergency response 
team; and whose employees on the team, as a collateral duty to their 
regular daily work assignments, respond to emergency incidents to 
provide service such as firefighting, emergency medical service, or 
technical search and rescue. WEREs are typically for-profit entities 
engaged in industries such as manufacturing, processing, and 
warehousing. They have a workplace emergency response team to respond 
to emergency incidents at the facility. Workers on the employer's 
emergency response team meet the definition of team member under this 
proposed rule. However, if an employer has workers who meet the 
definition of responder (providing emergency service(s) is their 
primary duty for the employer), then the employer is an ESO, not a 
WERE.
    Workplace Emergency Response Team (WERT). The proposed rule defines 
this term as a group of employees (known as team members) who, as a 
collateral duty, prepare for and respond to emergency incidents in the 
WERE's workplace. This term, and variations of it, are currently in use 
in multiple industries, with varying degrees of application. OSHA is 
providing this proposed definition to clearly identify what it means by 
the term WERT. In the proposed rule, team members are workers who would 
typically be engaged in an activity related to the employer's primary 
business function and leave that position when alerted to an emergency 
requiring the worker's service as a WERT team member. OSHA believes 
that various terms previously used, such as industrial or facility fire 
brigade or fire department; emergency response team; fire team; and 
plant emergency organization are confusing to many employers. The terms 
have often been used interchangeably by various entities. In the 
proposed rule, OSHA clearly differentiates the types of emergency 
response entities by using and defining the terms WERE, WERT, and ESO. 
OSHA recognizes that WEREs may also be called upon to perform non-
emergency services, defined above.
Paragraph (c) Organization of the WERT, and Establishment of the ERP 
and Emergency Service(s) Capability
    As noted in the Summary and Explanation for proposed paragraph (a) 
Scope, the proposed rule would not apply to any employer that is not an 
Emergency Service Organization (ESO) and does not have a Workplace 
Emergency Response Team (WERT). Nothing in this proposed rule would 
require an employer to establish a WERT. Each employer makes the 
decision for itself, based on a risk assessment of its facility, about 
how emergency response services will be provided for its workers at its 
facility. Employers may choose to rely on emergency services available 
in the community where the facility is located. Community fire and EMS 
ESOs are available in varying capacities throughout the country. When 
an employer is considering how emergency response services will be 
provided at its facility, response time and community ESO availability 
may be a concern and should be a factor in the employer's decision. 
Additionally, employers should not assume that the local ESO is able to 
provide all types of services that may be needed at their facility. In 
particular, ESOs with technical rescue capabilities are not as widely 
available as fire and EMS ESOs.
    Another option would be for the employer to establish a team of 
facility workers into a WERT to provide some, or all of the emergency 
services potentially needed at the facility. The establishment of the 
WERT could be a component of the employer's 29 CFR 1910.38 compliant 
emergency action plan, when required. For example, if the employer's 
facility risk assessment identified the need for technical rescue, but 
the community ESO provides only fire and EMS services, the employer 
could establish a WERT for technical rescue only. Or perhaps the risk 
assessment indicates a need for firefighting services because the 
facility is located a long distance from the community ESO. To ensure 
an adequate response time, the employer could establish a WERT to 
provide the appropriate level of firefighting services at its facility. 
Under the proposed rule,

[[Page 7810]]

an employer who establishes a WERT is considered a Workplace Emergency 
Response Employer (WERE). If an employer chooses to establish a WERT, 
the requirements of the proposed standard would apply.
    Paragraph (c) of the proposed rule sets forth the core 
responsibilities of WEREs. The purpose of the proposed rule is to 
reduce team member injuries and fatalities, and a primary means to 
achieve this intended purpose is to require WEREs to develop and 
implement an Emergency Response Program (ERP) that encompasses the 
rule's requirements. As discussed in the Summary and Explanation of 
paragraph (b), the proposed rule defines an ERP as a written program, 
developed by the WERE or ESO, to ensure that the WERE or ESO is 
prepared to safely respond to and operate at emergency incidents and 
non-emergency service situations, and to provide for the occupational 
safety and health of team members and responders. The ERP will assist 
WEREs in ensuring emergency preparedness and compliance with the rule. 
In developing an ERP, WEREs will be better prepared for emergency 
incidents by establishing emergency procedures that are maintained in a 
central plan that can be readily shared with and accessed by 
supervisors and employees. This will promote clear understanding and 
knowledge of the WERE's emergency procedures and better prepare the 
workplace for emergency incidents.
    Paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of the proposed rule would require the 
WERE to develop and implement a written ERP that provides protection 
for each of its employees designated to operate at an emergency 
incident. In the proposed rule, these designated workers are referred 
to as team members. The ERP would establish the existence of the WERT; 
the basic organizational structure of the WERT, such as management and 
leadership structure/chain-of-command, and the purpose of the WERT and 
duties and responsibilities of team members; and include how the WERE 
is addressing the provisions in the following paragraphs of the 
Proposed rule: (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (k), (l), (m), (o), (p), 
(q), (r), and (s). The ERP must include an up-to-date copy of all 
written plans and procedures, except for pre-incident plans (PIPs), 
required by this section. Hence, the ERP is a compilation of all 
documents required by the proposed rule, except for PIPs. The 
organizational structure would include how the WERT is managed and how 
it fits into the operation of the facility. Most written plans and 
procedures might only be updated annually, unless deficiencies are 
discovered. The ERP would be revised as these plans and procedures are 
updated. PIPs, on the other hand, have the potential to be developed or 
updated on a much more frequent basis, new versions must be provided to 
the WERT when updates are made, and the most recent versions must be 
available and accessible to team members and responders on incident 
scenes. As such, OSHA has preliminarily determined it is not necessary 
for PIPs to also be redundantly included in the ERP.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would require the WERE to conduct a 
vulnerability assessment of their facility for the purpose of 
establishing its emergency response capabilities and determining its 
ability to match the facility's vulnerabilities with available 
resources. The employer's facility risk assessment would have already 
determined whether there is a need or desire to establish a WERT to 
provide emergency services. Building on that risk assessment, this 
proposed paragraph would require a more in-depth assessment of the 
facility to determine specific vulnerabilities, such as workers who 
work at elevated locations or the use or storage of large quantities of 
flammable liquids; what resources are needed for mitigation, such as 
the tools or equipment needed to rescue a worker who is suspended after 
falling from an elevated location or specialized extinguishing agents 
for flammable liquids; and whether the resources are available at the 
facility and are sufficient for mitigating the identified 
vulnerabilities.
    Paragraph (c)(4) of the proposed rule would require the WERE, as 
part of the facility vulnerability assessment, to identify each 
structure, process area, and other location where a PIP is needed. 
Proposed paragraph (m) provides additional information and proposed 
provisions for developing PIPs, which would be used by team members at 
emergency incidents as discussed further in proposed paragraph (p).
    Under proposed paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii), the facility 
vulnerability assessment would identify each vacant structure and 
location at the facility that is unsafe for team members to enter due 
to conditions such as previous fire damage, damage from natural 
disasters, and deterioration due to age and lack of upkeep; and would 
require the WERE to provide a means for notifying team members of the 
vacant structures and unsafe locations. Such vacant structures and 
locations are typically unsafe to enter under normal circumstances, and 
are even more dangerous during an emergency incident, particularly when 
on fire. Possible means of notification include installing a sign or 
painting a warning symbol on the wall adjacent to the entrance(s) that 
is visible to team members before they would enter the structure and 
blocking off an unsafe location. Also, the office responsible for 
alerting and communicating with team members (emergency dispatch 
center, safety office, security office) could maintain information on 
file for the vacant structure or unsafe location and could inform team 
members when an emergency incident occurs. The term vacant indicates 
that no person would be expected to be inside the structure. OSHA 
believes that team members should only enter the unsafe structure or 
location during an emergency incident in an attempt to perform a 
feasible rescue of a person or persons known to be inside.
    Paragraph (c)(5) of the proposed rule would require the WERE to 
specify the resources needed, including personnel and equipment, for 
mitigation of emergency incidents identified in the facility 
vulnerability assessment. This is an important step in the process of 
determining what is needed to address an emergency incident at the 
facility in order to ensure that team members have the resources 
necessary to perform their duties safely and effectively.
    In paragraphs (c)(6) and (7), the proposed rule would require the 
WERE to establish and document in the ERP, the type(s) and level(s) of 
emergency service it intends to perform, and establish tiers of team 
member responsibilities, qualifications, and capabilities for each of 
the type(s) and level(s). The concept of type(s), level(s), and tiers 
is used throughout the proposed rule. The WERE would use these terms 
consistently to determine how and to what extent various provisions of 
the proposed rule apply. For example, requirements for medical 
evaluations, training, and PPE may differ depending on the type(s), 
level(s), and tier(s) of service the WERT performs. The WERE would 
identify whatever tiers are appropriate to their organization.
    The type(s) of service(s) might include firefighting, technical 
rescue, or EMS for example. For firefighting operations, examples of 
levels of service could be incipient stage, advanced exterior, interior 
structural, and both advanced exterior and interior firefighting. Tiers 
of team members could be trainee, incipient stage, advanced exterior, 
interior structural, and both advanced exterior and interior 
firefighter, team leader/officer, team manager/chief, or support.

[[Page 7811]]

    For technical rescue type of operations, examples of levels of 
service could be rope rescue, vehicle/machinery rescue, structural 
collapse, trench rescue, and technical water rescue. Tiers of team 
members could be trainee, awareness, operation, technician, team 
leader/officer, team manager/chief, or support.
    For EMS, level(s) of service could be, for example, Basic Life 
Support or Advanced Life Support, or another level of pre-hospital care 
such as aeronautical medical evacuation. As noted above, the proposed 
rule would not apply to employers who only provide first aid and first 
aid kits in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.151, Medical services and first 
aid. For tiers, positions such as trainee, Emergency Medical Responder 
(EMR), Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), Advanced EMT, Paramedic, 
Nurse, Physician, or support.
    For the example support tier identified in proposed paragraph 
(c)(7), OSHA envisions that a team member in this tier would not 
perform any mitigation duties. Instead, this could be a building 
engineer who checks to make sure the fire pump is functioning properly 
while sprinklers are flowing, ensures that the smoke exhaust system is 
effectively exhausting smoke, or ensures sources of energy are locked 
out and tagged out during a technical rescue of an employee trapped in 
a machine. It could also be a cafeteria worker-team member designated 
to deliver and provide water and other refreshments at the incident 
scene, or an employee-team member designated to meet mutual aid WERTs 
or ESOs at the entrance gate and direct them to the location of the 
incident.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(8) would require the WERE to identify, and 
document in the ERP, what emergency service(s) the WERE itself is 
unable to provide, and develop mutual aid agreements with other WEREs 
and ESOs, as necessary, or contract with an ESO(s), to ensure adequate 
resources are available to mitigate foreseeable incidents. For example, 
if a WERE identifies that its facility has tall structures that need an 
aerial ladder or elevated platform vehicle for firefighting or rescue, 
but its WERT does not have such a vehicle, the WERE would need to 
establish a mutual aid agreement with a neighboring WERE or ESO with an 
aerial ladder or elevated platform vehicle to provide it when needed. 
Another example is where a WERE has a permit-required confined space, 
but its WERT only performs firefighting. The WERE would need to 
establish a mutual aid agreement with a neighboring WERE or ESO, or 
contract an ESO, that provides confined space rescue services.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(9) and (10) would require the WERE to keep 
for a minimum of five (5) years previous editions of ERP documents 
required by the proposed rule; notify team members of any changes to 
the ERP; and make the current ERP and previous editions available for 
inspection by team members, their representatives, and OSHA personnel. 
Ensuring that team members have knowledge of and access to the most up-
to-date ERP documents is essential to ensuring those documents serve 
their purpose. The proposed retention and access requirements will also 
aid OSHA's enforcement and compliance activities. Availability of OSHA 
required documents is a long-standing requirement imposed by the agency 
in its standards and is carried forward from existing 29 CFR 
1910.156(b)(1).
Paragraph (d) ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) 
Capability
    Paragraph (d) of the proposed rule sets forth the ESO's 
responsibility to establish and implement an Emergency Response Program 
(ERP). As explained above in the Summary and Explanation for paragraph 
(c), the purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce responder injuries and 
fatalities, and a primary means to achieve this intended purpose is to 
require WEREs and ESOs to develop and implement an ERP that encompasses 
the rule's requirements. An ERP serves the same purpose for ESOs as it 
does for WEREs; that is, it promotes clear understanding and knowledge 
among responders of the ESO emergency procedures by maintaining those 
procedures in a central plan that can be readily shared with and 
accessed by supervisors and employees. This understanding and knowledge 
will aid compliance and ensure the protections of the rule will be 
realized.
    Paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of the proposed rule would require the 
ESO to develop and implement a written ERP that provides protection for 
each of its responders designated to operate at an emergency incident. 
The ERP would include the ESO's plans for how it will comply with each 
of the following paragraphs of the proposed rule: (d) through (h), (j) 
through (l), and (n) through (s). The ERP must include an up-to-date 
copy of all written plans and procedures, except for PIPs, required by 
this section. Hence, the ERP is a compilation of all documents required 
by the proposed rule, except for PIPs. Most written plans and 
procedures might only be updated annually, unless deficiencies are 
discovered. The ERP would be revised as these plans and procedures are 
updated. PIPs, on the other hand, have the potential to be developed or 
updated on a much more frequent basis, are specific to a particular 
location, and are required to be available and accessible to team 
members and responders on incident scenes. As such, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined it is not necessary for PIPs to also be 
redundantly included in the ERP.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would require that the ESO conduct a 
community or facility vulnerability assessment of hazards within the 
primary response area where the emergency service(s) it provides is/are 
expected to be performed. An in-depth assessment of the community or 
facility would determine specific vulnerabilities. The ESO would be 
able to determine what resources are available for mitigation, both 
within the ESO and from mutual aid WERTs and ESOs, and whether the 
available resources are sufficient for mitigating the identified 
vulnerabilities. OSHA believes that most stakeholders are familiar with 
the concept of primary response area, which may also be known by other 
terms such as the first-due area. It is the area in which the ESO would 
be the first in line to be the only emergency service dispatched for an 
incident requiring a single response vehicle, such as for a dumpster 
fire that is outside with no exposures, or a person with a minor injury 
in need of emergency medical attention. In other words, it is the area 
where the ESO is principally responsible for responding to emergency 
incidents.
    In considering its primary response area, the ESO's assessment 
would include a systematic evaluation of the community it services to 
determine the impact that could be caused by potential emergency 
incidents, the severity of the impact, and the available or needed 
resources for mitigation. Such assessment would include risks and 
vulnerabilities associated with the prevailing residential structures; 
and principal structures such as schools, colleges, and universities; 
hospitals and medical centers; large residential structures and hotels; 
transportation, manufacturing, processing, and warehousing facilities; 
and retail. It would also include an assessment of the community's 
critical infrastructure such as available water supply, electric power 
generation and transmission, routine and emergency communication, and 
highways and railways. Natural features such as bodies of water, caves,

[[Page 7812]]

gorges, mountains, and cliffs would also need to be assessed.
    As the note to proposed paragraph (d)(3) explains, an ESO whose 
primary response area is a community would assess the community it 
serves. An ESO whose primary response area is, for example: a 
manufacturing facility, a military facility, a research and development 
facility, or similar occupational facility or workplace, would assess 
that facility.
    Paragraph (d)(4) of the proposed rule would require the ESO, as 
part of the community or facility vulnerability assessment, to identify 
each structure and other location where a PIP is needed. Proposed 
paragraph (m) provides additional information and proposed provisions 
for developing PIPs, which would be used by responders at emergency 
incidents as discussed further in proposed paragraph (p).
    Proposed paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii) would further require that 
the community or facility vulnerability assessment identify each vacant 
structure and location that is unsafe for responders to enter due to 
conditions such as previous fire damage, damage from natural disasters, 
and deterioration due to age and lack of upkeep; and would require the 
ESO to provide a means for notifying responders of the vacant 
structures and unsafe locations. Such vacant structures and locations 
are typically unsafe to enter under normal circumstances, and are even 
more dangerous during an emergency incident, particularly when on fire. 
Possible means of notification include installing a sign or painting a 
warning symbol on the wall adjacent to the entrance(s) that is visible 
to responders before they would enter the structure and blocking off an 
unsafe location. Also, the emergency dispatch center could maintain 
information on file for the vacant structure or unsafe location and 
could inform responders when an emergency incident occurs. The term 
vacant indicates that no person would be expected to be inside the 
structure. OSHA believes that responders should only enter an unsafe 
structure or location during an emergency incident in an attempt to 
perform a feasible rescue of a person or persons known to be inside.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(5) would require that the ESO's community 
vulnerability assessment include all facilities within the ESO's 
service area that are subject to reporting requirements under 40 CFR 
part 355 pursuant to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 
Act (EPCRA) (also referred to as the Superfund Amendments and 
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.). The fact 
that these types of facilities are subject to reporting to the Local 
Emergency Planning Committee indicates that they are hazardous, either 
because the facility handles an ``extremely hazardous substance'' or 
because it has been designated for emergency planning purposes by the 
relevant state or tribal entity (see 40 CFR 355.10). Some of these 
facilities may have WERTs, in which case, the ESO could communicate 
with the WERT to discuss the likelihood of the need for mutual aid, and 
to obtain a copy of the PIP from the WERT. In the absence of a WERT-
provided PIP, the ESO would need to develop its own PIP to ensure the 
ESO is sufficiently prepared to respond to incidents at the facilities 
as required by paragraph (n)(3) of this section.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(6) would require the ESO to evaluate the 
resources needed, including personnel and equipment, for mitigation of 
emergency incidents identified in the community or facility 
vulnerability assessment. The provision would also require the ESO to 
establish in the ERP the type(s) and level(s) of service(s) it intends 
to perform. This is an important step in the process of determining 
what is needed to address an emergency incident in the community or at 
the facility and would help ensure that responders know what services 
they are expected to provide when an incident occurs and have the 
resources needed to perform those services.
    In paragraph (d)(7), the proposed rule would require the ESO to 
establish tiers of responder responsibilities, qualifications, and 
capabilities for each of the type(s) and level(s). The concept of 
type(s), level(s), and tiers is used throughout the proposed rule. The 
ESO would use these terms consistently to determine how and to what 
extent various provisions of the proposed rule apply. For example, 
requirements for medical evaluations, training, and PPE may differ 
depending on the type(s), level(s), and tier(s) of service the ESO 
performs. The ESO would identify whatever tiers are appropriate to 
their organization. Typically, the ESO will already know what type(s) 
and level(s) of service it provides and may already have tiers of 
responders based on responder duties, training, qualifications, 
certifications, and responsibilities.
    The type(s) of service(s) might include firefighting, technical 
rescue, or EMS for example. For firefighting type of operations, 
examples of levels of service could be structural, wildland, proximity, 
marine, and aerial. Tiers of responders could be trainee, basic 
firefighter, advanced firefighter, officer/crew leader, command 
officer, chief, pilot, fire police/traffic control, or support.
    For technical rescue type of operations, examples of levels of 
service could be rope rescue, vehicle/machinery rescue, structural 
collapse, trench rescue, and technical water rescue. Tiers of 
responders could be awareness, operation, technician, crew leader/
officer, or support.
    For EMS, level(s) of service could be Basic Life Support or 
Advanced Life Support, or another level of pre-hospital care such as 
aeronautical medical evacuation. As noted above, the proposed rule 
would not apply to employers who only provide first aid and first aid 
kits in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.151, Medical services and first 
aid. For tiers, positions could be trainee, Emergency Medical Responder 
(EMR), Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), Advanced EMT, Paramedic, 
Nurse, Physician, EMS officer, chief, pilot, or support.
    For the example support tier identified in proposed paragraph 
(d)(7), OSHA envisions that a responder in this tier would not perform 
any mitigation duties. Instead, this could be, for example, an 
auxiliary/associate responder responsible for providing canteen/
refreshment services at incident scenes, a SCBA maintenance technician 
responsible for performing services at incident scenes, or vehicle 
maintenance technician responsible for servicing or refueling vehicles 
at incident scenes.
    Under paragraph (d)(8) of the proposed rule, the ESO would be 
required to define the service(s) needed, based on paragraph (d)(4) of 
this section, that the ESO is unable to provide, and develop mutual aid 
agreements with WEREs or other ESOs as necessary to ensure adequate 
resources are available to safely mitigate foreseeable incidents. For 
example, if an ESO identifies that its community or facility has tall 
structures that need an aerial ladder or elevated platform vehicle for 
firefighting or rescue, but does not have such a vehicle, the ESO would 
need to establish a mutual aid agreement with a neighboring ESO with an 
aerial ladder or elevated platform vehicle to provide it when needed. 
Another example is an ESO that only provides EMS at the Basic Life 
Support level. The ESO would need to establish a mutual aid agreement 
with a neighboring ESO to provide EMS at the Advanced Life Support 
level to its primary response area.

[[Page 7813]]

    Proposed paragraph (d)(9) and (10) would require the ESO to keep 
for a minimum of five (5) years previous editions of ERP documents 
required by the proposed rule; notify responders of any changes to the 
ERP; and make the current ERP, as well as previous editions, available 
for inspection by responders, their representatives, and OSHA 
personnel. Ensuring that responders have knowledge of and access to the 
most up-to-date ERP documents is essential to ensuring those documents 
serve their purpose. The proposed retention and access requirements 
will also aid OSHA's enforcement and compliance activities. 
Availability of OSHA required documents is a long-standing requirement 
imposed by the agency in its standards and is carried forward from 
existing 29 CFR 1910.156(b)(1).
Paragraph (e) Team Member and Responder Participation
    To be effective, any safety and health program needs the meaningful 
participation of workers and their representatives. Similarly, for the 
Emergency Response Program (ERP) to be effective, team members and 
responders need to be involved in establishing, operating, evaluating, 
and improving the ERP.
    Proposed paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) would require that the WERE and 
ESO establish and implement a process to involve team members and 
responders in developing and updating the ERP, in implementing and 
evaluating the ERP, and in the review and change process. Team members 
and responders have much to gain from a successful program and the most 
to lose if the program fails. They are often the most knowledgeable 
about potential hazards associated with their jobs. Participation by 
team members and responders allows them to identify steps to protect 
themselves. In addition, participation both enhances understanding and 
awareness of the ERP and increases the likelihood that team members and 
responders will consistently adhere to its requirements by creating a 
sense of ownership. In Question (e)-1, OSHA is considering adding to 
both paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) a requirement to permit employee 
representatives to be involved in the development and implementation of 
an ERP, and to paragraph (e)(4) a requirement to allow employee 
representatives to participate in walkaround inspections conducted by 
the WERT or ESO, along with team members and responders, and is seeking 
input from stakeholders on whether employee representative involvement 
should be added to this paragraph.
    Under proposed paragraph (e)(3), the WERE and ESO would need to 
request input from team members and responders regarding modifications 
proposed by the WERE or ESO to their own facility(ies). Just as in the 
case of paragraphs (e)(1) and (2), team members and responders who 
routinely work in the facility are typically most familiar with the 
location where potential modifications are proposed and potentially in 
a good position to recognize how modifications could affect their 
health and safety in responding to emergencies. It could be that the 
modification is being proposed as a result of a complaint or a 
suggestion from those familiar with the area, so including them could 
help determine if the modification will improve protections during an 
incident.
    Paragraph (e)(4) of the proposed rule would require the WERE and 
ESO to establish and implement a process to involve team members and 
responders in walkaround inspections conducted by the WERE or ESO, 
inspections conducted in response to health and safety concern(s) 
raised, and incident investigations at the WERE and ESO's own 
facility(ies). The inspections to which this paragraph refers include 
the safety and health inspections conducted to protect the workforce in 
general, and those conducted when a health or safety concern is 
identified, or in response to a complaint. The agency believes that 
inspections and incident investigations are most effective when they 
include managers and employees working together, since each bring 
different knowledge, understanding and perspectives to the inspection 
or investigation.
    Proposed paragraphs (e)(5) and (6) would require the WERE and ESO 
to establish and implement a process to encourage team members and 
responders to report safety and health concerns, such as hazards, 
injuries, illnesses, near misses, and deficiencies in the ERP, and to 
respond to such reports in a reasonable period. Team members and 
responders are often best positioned to identify safety and health 
concerns and program shortcomings, such as emerging workplace hazards, 
close calls/near misses, and actual incidents. By encouraging reporting 
and following up promptly on all reports, WEREs and ESOs can address 
issues before an illness, injury, or fatality occurs. Examples of how 
the WERE and ESO can encourage team members and responders to report 
safety issues include making the reporting process as easy as possible, 
giving the option of reporting anonymously, assuring team members and 
responders that they will not face retaliation for reporting concerns 
and ensuring that no retaliation occurs, addressing concerns quickly, 
and seeking input from all team members and responders.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(7) would require the WERE and ESO to 
establish and implement a process to post procedures for reporting 
safety and health concerns under paragraph (e)(5) of this section in a 
conspicuous place or places where notices to team members and 
responders are customarily posted. Examples of such places are bulletin 
boards and internal web pages. This requirement ensures that team 
members and responders know how to raise safety and health concerns and 
further serves to encourage involvement in the safety and health of the 
workplace.
Paragraph (f) WERE and ESO Risk Management Plan
    Paragraph (f)(1) of this proposed rule would require WEREs and ESOs 
to develop and implement a written comprehensive risk management plan 
based on the type and level of service(s) that would be established in 
proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) of the proposed rule. The purpose of 
the proposed risk management plan is to ensure that risks to the team 
members' and responders' health and safety have been identified and 
evaluated, and a control plan has been developed and implemented by the 
WERE and ESO in a manner that mitigates or reduces the risk to a level 
that is as low as reasonably practicable. The minimum proposed 
provisions of the risk management plan are based on NFPA 1500, as 
recommended by several commenters in response to the RFI (Document ID 
0072; 0074; 0078), and by SERs (Document ID 0115).
    Proposed paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) through (F) provides further 
detail and would require the comprehensive risk management plan to 
cover, at a minimum, risks to team members and responders associated 
with activities at WERE and ESO facilities; training; vehicle 
operations (both emergency and non-emergency); operations at emergency 
incidents; non-emergency services and activities (e.g., community 
outreach activities); and activities that lead to exposure to 
combustion products, carcinogens, and other incident-related health 
hazards. While these are the minimum areas to be covered, WEREs and 
ESOs would need to ensure all reasonably anticipated hazards are 
addressed in the risk management plan, regardless of whether it falls 
under a covered area identified in (f)(1)(i). In Question (f)-1, OSHA 
seeks input on whether other activities or subjects should be 
specifically

[[Page 7814]]

included in this list of minimum requirements for the risk management 
plan.
    To provide a framework for the proposed requirements of the risk 
management plan for each of the covered areas identified in proposed 
paragraph (f)(1)(i), proposed paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(A) through (E) 
would require the WERE and ESO to include, at a minimum, the following 
components: identification of actual and reasonably anticipated 
hazards; evaluation of the likelihood of occurrence of a given hazard 
and the severity of its potential consequences; establishment of 
priorities for action based upon a particular hazard's severity and 
likelihood of occurrence; risk control techniques for elimination or 
mitigation of potential hazards, and a plan for implementation of the 
most effective solutions; and a plan for post-incident evaluation of 
effectiveness of risk control techniques. If during a post-incident 
analysis conducted in accordance with paragraph (r) of the proposed 
rule, or during the ERP program evaluation conducted in accordance with 
paragraph (s) of the proposed rule, it is determined that the risk 
control techniques were not sufficient, the WERE and ESO would need to 
develop and implement improved risk control techniques. These new risk 
control techniques would then need to be documented in the risk 
management plan and, as required under paragraphs (c)(10) and (d)(10) 
of the proposed rule, communicated to all affected team members and 
responders.
    In addition to the risks that would be identified and addressed in 
proposed paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii), respectively, there are several 
other written components that would be needed as part of the overall 
risk management plan. Proposed paragraphs (f)(1)(iii)(A) through (D) 
would require the WERE and ESO to include, at a minimum, a PPE hazard 
assessment that meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.132(d); a 
respiratory protection program that meets the requirements of 29 CFR 
1910.134; an infection control program that identifies, limits or 
prevents exposure of team members and responders to infectious and 
contagious diseases to the extent feasible; and a plan to protect team 
members and responders from bloodborne pathogens that meets the 
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1030. OSHA does not currently have a 
standard on airborne infectious and contagious diseases. Rather than 
incorporating a consensus standard by reference, OSHA believes that 
allowing the infection control provision in (f)(1)(iii)(C) to be 
performance-based will give WEREs and ESOs the flexibility to design an 
infection control program that is tailored to their operations and 
facilities. WEREs and ESOs can reference consensus standards, such as 
NFPA 1581, 2022 ed., and OSHA, CDC, or other state and local guidance 
documents when creating and implementing the infection control program. 
In Question (f)-2, OSHA seeks comment on this approach including 
whether a final standard should incorporate a particular consensus 
standard or other guidance, or otherwise include specific requirements 
regarding infection control.
    OSHA recognizes that there are extraordinary instances where a team 
member or responder would need to deviate from the ordinary procedures 
set out in the risk management plan to rescue a person in imminent 
peril. To accommodate these situations, proposed paragraph (f)(2) would 
require the WERE and ESO to include in the risk management plan a 
policy for extraordinary situations when a team member or responder, 
after making a risk assessment determination based on the team member 
or responder's training and experience, is permitted to attempt to 
rescue a person in imminent peril, potentially without benefit of, for 
example, PPE, tools, or equipment. A team member's or responder's 
decision to not use a risk control technique that has been identified 
in the risk management plan is to be made on a case-by-case basis and 
must have been prompted by legitimate and truly extenuating 
circumstances. These circumstances typically have a time constraint 
that would make it infeasible to implement the risk control technique 
and rescue a person in imminent peril. This proposed provision could 
allow, for example, an ambulance crew, without benefit of firefighting 
PPE, to perform a rescue of a person endangered by fire who would 
potentially sustain significant injury or death if they did not take 
immediate action.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(3) would require the WERE and ESO to review 
the risk management plan when required by paragraph (r) or (s) of this 
section, but no less than annually, and update it as needed. Risks are 
dynamic and uncertain. Previously known risks may change, and new risks 
may develop that need to be addressed in the risk management plan. An 
annual review and update would ensure the risk management plan reflects 
the current situation for managing risks effectively, while proposed 
paragraphs (r) and (s) ensure that this review and update takes place 
upon occurrence of significant events or the discovery of deficiencies.
Paragraph (g) Medical and Physical Requirements
    Emergency response is a physically demanding occupation. As 
discussed in section II.A., Need for the Standard, approximately half 
of all firefighter on-duty and line of duty deaths are due to 
cardiovascular events. Emergency response activities can place a 
tremendous strain on the cardiovascular system which can trigger a 
catastrophic cardiovascular event. This is especially true for team 
members and responders with pre-existing heart conditions which they 
may or may not be aware of. Emergency response activities often involve 
activities that increase the risk of team member and responder 
musculoskeletal injuries, e.g., lifting and carrying heavy loads 
(equipment, PPE, victims, etc) in awkward positions, sustained use of 
equipment that may result in injuries related to repetitive motion, 
ergonomically unsafe cutting angles when safer approaches are 
unavailable, or vibration. Emergency response activities often occur in 
extreme environmental conditions that increase risks for heat or cold 
injury. Noise from sirens, alarms, and equipment motors can induce 
hearing loss especially if the noise exposure is occurring in 
situations where it may be concurrent with exposure to carbon monoxide 
or other substances known to have synergistic effects with noise on 
hearing loss especially as many responders may not use hearing 
protection devices out of concern for effective communication with 
others on scene.
    Emergency response activities may also involve exposure to numerous 
toxic substances. Team members and responders may be exposed to 
combustion products produced by the fire they are responding to as well 
as from operation of their own equipment/apparatus, hazardous materials 
when material releases occur, and infectious diseases during emergency 
medical responses that may result in adverse health effects to team 
members and responders. Additionally, exposure to combustion products 
increases team members' and responders' risk of developing several 
different kinds of cancer. Finally, emergency response activities 
expose team members and responders to traumatic, emotionally charged 
events, and the impact of these events on responders' mental health is 
compounded by inadequate duration and quality of sleep due to 
unpredictable nature of calls which is exacerbated by frequently 
working back-to-back long shifts and excessive overtime especially in 
understaffed fire

[[Page 7815]]

departments. Mental health issues may be worsened by perceived stigma 
regarding use of mental health services.
    Proposed paragraph (g) includes medical and physical requirements 
to address these hazards. The physical fitness and physical and mental 
medical requirements in paragraph (g) serve two purposes: (1) ensuring 
that responders are physically and mentally capable of performing their 
duties without injury to themselves or their fellow responders, and (2) 
identifying and addressing physical and mental health effects resulting 
from emergency response activities.
    Most major emergency response organizations support medical 
evaluation of emergency responders. The International Association of 
Fire Fighters (IAFF) and International Association of Fire Chiefs 
(IAFC) include medical evaluation consistent with NFPA 1582 in their 
Joint Labor-Management Wellness-Fitness Initiative (Document ID 0127). 
The National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) recommends getting an annual 
physical in their Lavender Ribbon Report--Best Practices for Preventing 
Firefighter Cancer (Document ID 0129). The National Fallen Firefighter 
Foundation (NFFF) recommends medical physicals in their 16 Firefighter 
Life Safety Initiatives (Document ID 0127). Comprehensive medical 
evaluations are also recommended by NFPA in NFPA 600 and NFPA 1582 
(Document ID 0133, 0118).
    OSHA agrees with the industry consensus that medical evaluation and 
surveillance is necessary for team members and responders who perform 
emergency response duties. The agency has preliminarily determined that 
the medical and physical requirements in proposed paragraph (g) are 
essential elements of a standard for emergency responders because they 
ensure team member and responder fitness for duty and also serve as a 
means to monitor and address team member and responder exposures that 
cannot otherwise be eliminated due to the nature of emergency response 
activities. Fitness and medical surveillance requirements are a highly 
effective means of reducing work-related injuries, illnesses, and 
fatalities and improving the health of team members and responders.
    NFPA 1582, Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical Program 
for Fire Departments, 2022 ed., contains provisions for an occupational 
medical program that is designed to reduce risks and provide for the 
health, safety, and effectiveness of fire fighters while performing 
emergency operations (Document ID 0118). It requires a comprehensive 
medical examination annually for fire fighters engaged in the full 
range of emergency response activities including firefighting, 
emergency medical response, HAZMAT response, and technical rescue. In 
response to the 2007 Emergency Response RFI, several commenters 
strongly supported consideration of the provisions in NFPA 1582 for the 
medical evaluation program (Document ID 0007, Att. 3; 0022, p. 10; 
0024, p. 4; 0041, pp. 26-27; 0046, p. 11; 0047, p. 13; 0050, p. 14; 
0060, pp. 17-18; 0078, p. 9; 0080, p. 4; 0083, p. 12; 0084, p. 1). 
During a NACOSH subcommittee meeting, Pat Morrison, a subcommittee 
member representing the IAFF, stated that requiring medical 
evaluations, ``is the single most important thing we can do'' with the 
proposed rule (Docket ID OSHA-2015-0019-0006, Tr. 22). The subcommittee 
members agreed that while a full NFPA 1582 compliant physical would 
provide optimal screening, such physicals are costly and should only be 
required for team members and responders expected to enter an IDLH 
environment. They also agreed that less extensive medical screening 
should be required for other team members and responders based on their 
duties. However, they were not able to agree on a recommendation of 
what those less extensive requirements should be (Docket ID OSHA-2015-
0019-0006, Tr. 11-14).
    During the 2021 SBREFA panel, many of the SERs expressed concern 
about the high cost of the medical exams and evaluations identified in 
the NFPA 1582 standard (Document ID 0115, p. 16). For example, Clarence 
E. ``Chip'' Jewell III, representing the Libertytown Volunteer Fire 
Department, submitted in post-panel comments that, ``Unfortunately, 
every fire department does not have the manpower or financial resources 
to fully implement NFPA 1582 and most likely would never be able to 
comply with mandatory regulations'' (Document ID 0109, p. 1). Many SERs 
were supportive of team members and responders receiving at least some 
medical screening and evaluation; however, SERs did not offer any clear 
indication of which medical screening tests should be retained and 
which were less crucial for maintaining a healthy workforce (Document 
ID 0115, p. 16).
    OSHA recognizes that the medical surveillance required by NFPA 
1582, Chapter 7, was intended specifically for fire fighters exposed to 
combustion products and not for all emergency responders. The 
provisions for medical screening and surveillance described below 
account for these concerns. The proposed baseline medical examination 
focuses on health hazards that are common to all team members and 
responders, with potential additional requirements based on the 
particular type and level of service(s) performed, while the proposed 
medical surveillance requiring a full NFPA 1582-compliant physical is 
reserved for those team members and responders exposed to combustion 
products above a specific action level. As explained in section VII.C., 
Costs of Compliance, OSHA expects that only structural and wildland 
firefighters will meet the threshold for the full NFPA 1582 
requirements.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i) would require that each WERE and ESO 
establish minimum medical requirements based on the type and level of 
service(s) established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. The 
medical requirements in proposed paragraph (g) would differ based on 
the tiers of team members and responders established by each WERE or 
ESO in accordance with paragraphs (c)(7) and (d)(7), except for those 
in a support tier (see examples in the Summary and Explanation for 
paragraphs (c) and (d)) who are excluded from the requirements in 
paragraph (g) of this section. By tying the medical requirements to the 
type and level of service(s), proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i) requires the 
WERE or ESO to establish those requirements, and only those 
requirements, necessary to ensure the health and safety of team members 
or responders based on the duties they are expected to perform. This 
proposed provision allows the WERE and ESO flexibility so that team 
members and responders with less physically demanding duties or who are 
exposed to fewer hazards may be subject to less stringent medical 
requirements than team members and responders expected to perform more 
physically demanding duties or who are exposed to more or more frequent 
hazards during emergency response incidents.
    Paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the proposed rule would require that each 
WERE and ESO maintain confidential records for each team member and 
responder that includes duty restrictions based on medical evaluations; 
occupational illnesses and injuries; and exposures to combustion 
products, known or suspected toxic substances, infectious diseases, and 
other dangerous substances. OSHA is sensitive to concerns that the 
medical evaluation may divulge confidential information regarding a 
responder's medical condition or may otherwise divulge information that 
may adversely affect the responder. The proposed

[[Page 7816]]

requirements are intended to balance team member and responder privacy 
with the WERE's and ESO's need for personal medical information to 
identify and address occupational hazards by limiting the medical 
information obtained, as identified in proposed paragraph (g)(2), to 
the type of information necessary to assess a team member's or 
responder's ability to perform specific tasks based on their health and 
fitness ability. The use of such medical information is limited to 
identifying potential health effects or risks related to a team 
member's or responder's ability to perform emergency response 
activities. The WERE or ESO would be required to maintain the 
confidentiality of these medical records by storing them in a secure 
location with restricted access.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(iii) would require that each WERE and ESO 
ensure that medical records maintained under this paragraph are 
maintained and made available in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020, 
Access to employee exposure and medical records. These recordkeeping 
requirements are in accordance with section 8(c) of the OSH Act which 
authorizes the promulgation of regulations requiring an employer to 
make, keep and preserve, and make available, such records as the 
Secretary deems necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of this 
Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention 
of occupational accidents and illnesses. As explained in 29 CFR 
1910.1020(a), access to personal medical records by employees, their 
representatives, and the Assistant Secretary is necessary to yield both 
direct and indirect improvements in the detection, treatment, and 
prevention of occupational disease. OSHA has preliminarily determined 
that maintenance of and access to the medical records required by this 
section will help ensure proper evaluation of the team member's or 
responder's health status, facilitate compliance, and assist the agency 
in enforcing the proposed standard.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i) would require that each WERE and ESO 
establish a medical evaluation program for team members and responders, 
based on the type and level of service(s), and tiers of team members 
and responders established in paragraphs (c) and (d). The purpose of 
medical evaluations for team members and responders is to determine, 
where reasonably possible, if the individual can perform emergency 
response duties without experiencing adverse health effects and to 
determine the team member's and responder's fitness to use PPE 
appropriate to their designated duties. As one commenter to the 2007 
Emergency Response RFI stated, ``[r]equirements should vary based upon 
the level of physical and mental activity required that must be 
performed'' (Document ID 0024, p. 4). Furthermore, another commenter 
stated that ``NFPA 1582 is not the appropriate standard for use by 
general industry'' since it was ``designed for municipal fire 
fighters'' (Document ID 0039, p. 15). Hence, as stated above, this 
proposed provision would allow the WERE and ESO flexibility to tailor 
its medical evaluation program so that team members and responders with 
less physically demanding duties or who are exposed to fewer hazards 
during emergency responses may have less stringent medical requirements 
than team members and responders expected to perform more physically 
demanding duties who are exposed to more or more frequent hazards. 
Additionally, each responder routinely exposed to combustion products 
at or above the threshold set forth in proposed paragraph (g)(3) would 
be afforded additional medical surveillance as described in that 
paragraph.
    Paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of the proposed rule would require WEREs and 
ESOs to ensure that, prior to performing emergency response duties, 
each team member and responder is medically evaluated to determine 
fitness for duty by a physician or other licensed health care 
professional (PLHCP) at no cost to the team member or responder, in 
accordance with proposed paragraphs (g)(2)(iii) through (vi) of this 
section. Each responder who is exposed to combustion products above the 
action level would also need to be evaluated in accordance with 
proposed paragraph (g)(3) of this section. The proposed rule would 
require that medical examinations be made available by the WERE and ESO 
without cost to team members and responders (as required by section 
6(b)(7) of the OSH Act), and at a reasonable time and place.
    Paragraph (g)(2)(ii) and the related fitness for duty requirements 
in proposed paragraph (g)(5), discussed below, ensure each team member 
and responder is capable of performing their assigned job duties 
without injury to themselves or their fellow team members or 
responders. These requirements are consistent with OSHA's existing Fire 
Brigades standard, which requires employers to ensure that employees 
expected to perform interior structural firefighting ``are physically 
capable of performing duties which may be assigned to them during 
emergencies'' (29 CFR 1910.156(b)(2)). Current Sec.  1910.156(b)(2) 
also specifies that the employer ``shall not permit employees with 
known heart disease, epilepsy, or emphysema, to participate in fire 
brigade emergency activities unless a physician's certificate of the 
employees' fitness to participate in such activities is provided.'' 
Other OSHA standards contain similar requirements. For example, the 
HAZWOPER standard requires employers to provide certain emergency 
responders with medical exams that include an evaluation of ``fitness 
for duty including the ability to wear any required PPE under 
conditions . . . that may be expected at the work site'' and ``the 
physician's recommended limitations upon the employee's assigned work'' 
(29 CFR 1910.120(f)(2) and (7)). Further, in all cases where 
respiratory protection is required, either by a substance-specific 
standard (see, e.g., Sec.  1910.1024(g)(1); 1910.1053(g)(1)) or by 
OSHA's general Respiratory Protection standard (id. Sec.  1910.134), 
employees must be medically evaluated to determine their ability to 
wear a respirator (id. Sec.  1910.134(e)(6)) and must pass a fit test 
(id. Sec.  1910.134(f)(1)).
    The term physician or other licensed health care professional 
(PLHCP), as defined in proposed paragraph (b), refers to individuals 
whose legal scope of practice allows them to provide, or be delegated 
responsibility to provide, some or all of the health care services 
required by the medical surveillance provisions. The determination of 
who qualifies as a PLHCP is based on state certification, which can 
vary from state-to-state. OSHA considers it appropriate to allow any 
professional to perform medical surveillance required by the standard 
when they are licensed by state law to do so. This proposed provision 
provides flexibility to the WERE and ESO while limiting cost and 
compliance burdens.
    Proposed paragraphs (g)(2)(iii)(A) through (D) specifies elements 
that must be included in all medical evaluations, regardless of the 
type and level service(s) provided or tiers of team members and 
responders, to detect any physical or medical condition(s) that could 
adversely affect the team member's or responder's ability to safely 
perform the essential job functions. Each evaluation would include 
medical and work history with emphasis on symptoms of cardiac and 
respiratory disease; physical examination with emphasis on the cardiac, 
respiratory, and musculoskeletal systems; spirometry; an assessment of 
heart disease risk including blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and 
other relevant heart disease risk factors; and any other

[[Page 7817]]

tests deemed appropriate by the PLHCP. These medical evaluations are 
all included in NFPA 1582. Medical and work histories are an efficient 
and inexpensive means for collecting information that can aid in 
identifying individuals who are at risk because of hazardous exposures 
(WHO, 1996, Document ID 0119, p. 26). Information on present and past 
work exposures, medical illnesses, and symptoms can lead to the 
detection of diseases at early stages when preventive measures can be 
taken. Recording of symptoms would in some cases help to identify the 
onset of disease in the absence of abnormal tests.
    OSHA is including spirometry as a baseline measurement so that 
decline in lung function can be assessed in subsequent evaluations if 
needed. In a study of emergency responders involved in the 2001 World 
Trade Center collapse response, a comparison of pre- and post-incident 
spirometry was able to demonstrate lung function decline, indicating 
the need for medical evaluation and ongoing surveillance (Aldrich et 
al., 2010, Document ID 0161, p. 791).
    Special emphasis is placed on heart disease risk assessment due to 
the nature of emergency response duties and the associated 
physiological stress. Cardiac risks include but are not limited to 
physical exertion, exposure to asphyxiants and other products of 
combustion, noise, psychological stress, and heat (Soteriades et al., 
2011, Document ID 0121, p. 202; Smith et al., 2016, Document ID 0120, 
p. 90). Roughly half of all firefighter on-duty and line of duty deaths 
(LODD) are the result of heart attacks (Fahey et al., 2022, Document ID 
0122, p. 5; Kahn et al., 2015, Document ID 0162, p. 218; Soteriades et 
al., Docket ID 0121, p. 202).
    Guidance from the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American 
Heart Association (AHA) for heart disease risk assessment and 
prevention in the general population utilizes risk calculators to guide 
preventive recommendations (Arnett et al., 2019, Document ID 0124, p. 
e603). Well-known risk factors, such as blood pressure, elevated 
cholesterol levels, smoking or vaping, and diabetic status are used to 
calculate lifetime and/or 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular 
disease risk. Risk enhancers, such as metabolic syndrome and chronic 
kidney disease, and coronary artery calcium (CAC) measurement, are 
additional considerations for those whose risk remains uncertain. Risk-
enhancing factors are reasonable to use to guide PLHCP screening 
decisions and preventive interventions.
    As discussed in section II.A., Need for the Standard, emergency 
responders are routinely exposed to a wide variety of airborne 
respiratory hazards including gases, fumes, particulates, and 
infectious diseases. In addition, many emergency responders are 
routinely exposed to diesel exhaust both responding to emergency 
incidents and while in WERE and ESO facilities where vehicles are 
located.
    The risks for musculoskeletal issues are further discussed in 
section II.A., Need for the Standard, which notes that the increased 
risk for musculoskeletal injury rates for emergency responders compared 
to all private industries varied by the type of emergency service 
provided, ranging from 1.7 times the reportable injury rates for 
private ambulance drivers to 4 times the reportable injury rates for 
EMS workers, with comparable rates among firefighters. Increased 
musculoskeletal injury rates for emergency responders is attributed to 
overexertion and strain associated with emergency response activities.
    Due to the risk of sudden cardiovascular death from strenuous 
emergency response activities, paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of the proposed 
rule would require that each WERE and ESO provide additional screening 
of team members and responders as deemed appropriate by the PLHCP and 
at no cost to the team member or responder. The PLHCP has the option of 
ordering additional testing they deem appropriate based on individual 
signs or symptoms and clinical judgment. OSHA recognizes that this may 
result in increased cardiovascular screening of team members and 
responders beyond those recommended for the general population. This is 
consistent with NFPA 1582, sections 7.7.7.3.1 through 7.7.7.3.2, which 
recommends additional cardiovascular assessment at certain risk levels 
beyond authoritative guidance for general population screening 
recommended by the ACC/AHA and the United States Preventative Services 
Task Force (USPSTF) (USPSTF 2018, Document ID 0163, p. 2311; Arnett et 
al., 2019, Document ID 0124, p. e602). The cardiovascular risk 
assessment of team members and responders allows the medical provider 
the ability to focus further screening on only those team members and 
responders at highest risk of suffering a cardiac event while 
performing emergency response duties. OSHA has preliminarily determined 
that compliance with the proposed provision would reduce the risk of 
sudden death in team members and responders brought on by the stress of 
their emergency response duties.
    These additional screenings may include a symptom-limiting exercise 
stress test with imaging of at least 12 Metabolic Equivalents (METs) as 
recommended in NFPA 1582, section 7.7.7.3.1.1, for the evaluation of 
those at intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease 
(10 to < 20% calculated risk over the next 10 years), and those with 
metabolic syndrome, diabetes, or history of coronary artery disease. 
This is noted as a consideration for intermediate risk asymptomatic 
adults (class IIb) \5\ by AHA/ACC as well (Greenland et al., 2010, 
Document ID 0125, p. e66). ACC/AHA also specifically addressed 
occupational screening in their 2002 Guideline Update for Exercise 
Testing in which exercise testing is a class IIb recommendation in 
asymptomatic individuals who work in occupations in which impairment 
might impact public safety (Gibbons et al., 2002, Document ID 0126, p. 
1538).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For ACC/AHA Class IIb medical conditions, the recommended 
procedure or treatment may be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NFPA 1582, section 7.7.6, also recommends a resting 
electrocardiogram at baseline and annually in those over age 40 or as 
clinically indicated. ACC/AHA considers resting to be reasonable for 
asymptomatic patient screening in those with diabetes or hypertension 
(class IIa) \6\ and a consideration in those without diabetes or 
hypertension (class IIb) (Greenland et al., 2010, Document ID 0125, p. 
e66). This test may detect abnormalities such as left ventricular 
hypertrophy and arrythmias indicative of increased risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For ACC/AHA Class IIa medical conditions, ACC/AHA considers 
it reasonable to perform the procedure or administer treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NFPA 1582, in the explanatory appendix section A.7.7.7.3.1.1, and 
ACC/AHA (Arnett et al., 2019, Document ID 0124, p. e613) both 
consistently mention CAC as a consideration for medical evaluation of 
emergency response personnel, although NFPA 1582 does not specify 
indications. Similarly, both organizations emphasize metabolic syndrome 
as a risk factor.
    Additional medical screening might also be required for other 
medical conditions that are detected in the baseline examination, which 
may affect a responder's or team member's ability to perform their 
emergency response duties. If the PLHCP suspects a musculoskeletal 
injury or condition, they may require an x-ray or MRI to determine 
medical fitness for duty. For respiratory diseases, the PLHCP may 
require a complete pulmonary function test, exercise stress testing, or

[[Page 7818]]

methacholine challenge testing to determine medical fitness for duty.
    As noted above, the proposed rule would require that all medical 
evaluations, regardless of type and level of service(s) provided or 
tiers of team members and responders, include a medical history, 
physical examination, spirometry, laboratory tests, and a 
cardiovascular disease risk assessment with additional screening as 
necessary. In Question (g)-1, OSHA is seeking input and data on whether 
the proposed rule's requirements are an appropriate minimum screening. 
Should the minimum screening include more or fewer elements, and if so, 
what elements? Provide supporting documentation and data that might 
establish the appropriate minimum screening. OSHA is also seeking 
additional data and information on the feasibility of the proposed 
medical evaluation and surveillance requirements for WEREs and ESOs.
    The proposed rule also specifies how frequently medical 
examinations would be required for team members and responders. In 
proposed paragraph (g)(2)(v), WEREs and ESOs would be required to 
provide medical evaluations to team members and responders with an 
initial (baseline) examination after assignment and repeated every two 
years thereafter unless the PLHCP deems more frequent evaluations 
necessary, except for spirometry which would be repeated when deemed 
appropriate by the PLHCP. The proposed requirement that a medical 
examination be required at the time of initial assignment is intended 
to determine if a team member or responder would be able to perform the 
assigned emergency response duties without adverse health effects. The 
expectation is that the baseline physical would be performed prior to 
any entrance into an emergency response training academy or beginning a 
training program. It also serves to establish a health baseline for 
future reference. OSHA has set the medical re-evaluation at every two 
years due to the focus on cardiovascular disease and the speed with 
which cardiovascular disease develops. The medical re-evaluations are 
intended to determine if a medical condition has developed that would 
inhibit safe emergency incident response by team members and 
responders. Allowing the PLHCP to order more frequent evaluations based 
on their medical judgment ensures that team members and responders at 
higher risk of adverse health effects, such as a cardiovascular event, 
are appropriately monitored to ensure their continued safety and 
ability to perform emergency response activities.
    Paragraph (g)(2)(vi) of the proposal would require that each WERE 
and ESO establish protocols regarding the length of time that absence 
from duty due to injury or illness would require a team member or 
responder to have a return-to-duty medical evaluation by a PLHCP prior 
to returning to work. Lengthy absences or certain medical conditions 
can alter a team member's or responder's ability to perform essential 
job tasks.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(3) applies to ESOs only and includes 
additional surveillance for responders who are exposed to combustion 
products. Paragraph (g)(3)(i) of the proposed rule would require that 
the ESO provide medical surveillance that includes a component based on 
the frequency and intensity of expected exposure to combustion products 
established in the risk management plan in proposed paragraph (f). 
Requirements would differ based on exposures. The proposal is 
consistent with section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)) 
which requires that, where appropriate, medical surveillance programs 
be included in OSHA standards to determine whether the health of 
workers is adversely affected by exposure to the hazard addressed by 
the standard.
    Under proposed paragraph (g)(3)(i)(A), the ESO would need to ensure 
that responders who are, or based on experience may be, exposed to 
combustion products 15 times or more per year, without regard to the 
use of respiratory protection, receive medical surveillance at least as 
effective as the criteria specified in the national consensus standard, 
NFPA 1582, Chapter 7. As noted above, OSHA recognizes that the 
recommendations in NFPA 1582 were aimed at and specifically designed 
for firefighters who are exposed to combustion products. Thus, although 
only some of the requirements in NFPA 1582 may be relevant to other 
team members and responders depending on the types and level of 
service(s) they provide, OSHA has preliminarily determined that it is 
appropriate to require the full NFPA 1582 physical for those responders 
exposed to combustion products above a particular action level.
    With respect to what level of exposure is appropriate to trigger 
these requirements, Matt Tobia, a subcommittee member representing the 
IAFC, reported at a subcommittee meeting that a subgroup that discussed 
medical requirements considered those emergency responders whose job 
duties required them to enter an IDLH environment to be the responders 
subject to the full medical requirements (Document ID OSHA-2015-0019-
0006, Tr. 108-111). OSHA received no other suggestions for a threshold 
to require additional medical requirements.
    Although the NACOSH subcommittee focused on emergency responders 
who must enter IDLH environments, some exposures to combustion products 
may occur outside of such environments. Because the health risks posed 
by combustion products are not limited to exposures in IDLH 
environments, the proposed standard would require ESO's to consider all 
exposures to combustion products, not just those that occur in an IDLH 
environment. At the same time, given the apparent dose-response 
relationship between exposures and health effects (see Need for the 
Standard), OSHA does not believe that a single exposure to combustion 
products would necessitate increased medical requirements beyond what 
would be required by proposed paragraph (g)(2).
    In considering what level of exposure (i.e., action level) should 
trigger additional medical surveillance, OSHA reviewed its existing 
standards that require medical surveillance triggered by a specified 
action level. Most OSHA standards that have an action level that 
triggers medical surveillance use 30 days of exposure at or above a 
specified action level: Arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018); Benzene (29 CFR 
1910.1028); 1,3 Butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051); Cadmium (29 CFR 
1910.1027); Hexavalent Chromium (29 CFR 1910.1026); Ethylene Oxide (29 
CFR 1910.1047); HAZWOPER (29 CFR 1910.120); Lead (29 CFR 1910.1025); 
Methylene Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052); and Methylenedianiline (29 CFR 
1910.1050).
    Several OSHA standards use exposure above the established 
permissible exposure level (PEL) or short-term exposure limit (STEL) 
for 10 days to trigger medical surveillance: Benzene (29 CFR 
1910.1028); 1,3 Butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051); and Methylene Chloride 
(29 CFR 1910.1052). Other OSHA standards use any exposure or exposure 
at or above an action level, PEL, or while working in a regulated area 
to trigger medical surveillance: Acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045); 
Asbestos (29 CFR 1910.1001); Compressed Air Environments (29 CFR 
1926.803); Cotton Dust (29 CFR 1910.1043); Formaldehyde (29 CFR 
1910.1048); Suspected Carcinogens (29 CFR 1910.1003); Vinyl Chloride 
(29 CFR 1910.1017); and 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (29 CFR 1910.1044).

[[Page 7819]]

    The proposed rule's action level for medical surveillance of 15 or 
more exposures per year is modeled after 29 CFR 1910.1050, 
Methylenedianiline (MDA), which requires that employees who are subject 
to dermal exposure to MDA for 15 or more days per year receive medical 
surveillance. 29 CFR 1910.1050(m)(1)(i)(B). Similar to MDA, dermal 
exposure is a particular concern for responders exposed to combustion 
products. Research by NIOSH and other scientific experts supports that 
dermal exposure is a significant exposure pathway for responders. 
Exposures occur as the combustion products enter the PPE through the 
interface areas (coat to gloves, coat to pants, pants to boots, neck to 
hood), as well as permeating directly through PPE (Hwang et al., 2022, 
Document ID 0156, p. 10; Baxter et al., 2014, Document ID 0157, p. D89; 
Hwang et al., 2021, Document ID 0155, p. 12; Pleil et al., 2014, 
Document ID 0158, p. 16).
    For purposes of proposed paragraph (g)(3)(i)(A), an exposure 
incident to combustion products is any exposure to materials that are 
on fire or smoldering regardless of the use of PPE or respiratory 
protection. PPE, such as respiratory protection, is considered the 
lowest level of protection in the hierarchy of exposure controls and 
cannot be 100% effective as the exposure has not been eliminated. 
Moreover, elimination of exposure is not an option for emergency 
response activities. Examples of exposure incidents include fires in 
residential homes, cars, dumpsters, kitchens, and training scenarios, 
among other similar incidents. In the event of a large fire or a 
training fire that requires multiple entries into the IDLH environment 
for extinguishment or training purposes, the multiple entries would be 
considered one exposure incident. Exposure incidents occur only for 
those responders who enter the hot zone of the incident, as defined in 
proposed paragraph (b) of this rule. If a responder is exposed to 
multiple incidents during one shift, the incidents would each be 
considered one individual exposure incident. For example, if a 
responder on a 24-hour shift responds to a house fire in the morning, 
then a car fire in the afternoon, and then a kitchen fire in the 
evening and entered the hot zone at each incident, that responder was 
exposed to combustion products on three separate incidents during that 
shift. For wildland firefighting, an exposure incident to toxic 
combustion products is the number of days the responder was exposed to 
combustion products while working on the fire line.
    OSHA is aware that not all exposure incidents are equal and that 
some of the exposure incidents described above involve a low level of 
exposure while others involve a higher level of exposure. While some of 
the individual components in combustion products have PELs, there are 
no PELs for combined combustion products. The nature of combustion 
products, being a combination of any number of potentially hazardous 
substances, often unknown and changing with each emergency incident, as 
well as the difficulty in measuring such exposures in the emergency 
response context, would make establishing any such PEL very difficult. 
Nonetheless, OSHA has determined that despite the varying levels of 
exposure, both low and high exposure incidents contribute in the 
aggregate to a responder's overall exposure to toxic combustion 
products. Thus, on balance, OSHA has determined that any incident 
resulting in exposure to toxic combustion products while in the 
incident hot zone, regardless of the level of exposure, should be 
counted towards the total number of exposure incidents triggering the 
action level in this proposed paragraph.
    To determine if their responders exceed the action level requiring 
medical surveillance for exposure, ESOs should review their incident 
response history. If the average number of exposure incidents is 15 or 
more a year for an individual responder or a particular tier of 
responders, then those responders would need the additional medical 
surveillance.
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that an action level of 15 or 
more exposures per year is an appropriate threshold for triggering 
medical surveillance to detect and prevent adverse health effects from 
combustion products. In Question (g)-2, OSHA is seeking input on 
whether this number of exposures is too high, too low, or an 
appropriate threshold. OSHA is also considering action levels of 5, 10, 
or 30 exposures a year as alternatives and is seeking public input on 
what action level would be appropriate. Provide supporting 
documentation and data that would help with identifying an appropriate 
action level.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(i)(B) would require ESOs to provide 
medical consultation and ongoing surveillance to responders who, either 
immediately or subsequently, exhibit signs and symptoms which may have 
resulted from exposure to combustion products. Examples include 
shortness of breath, coughing, or wheezing after an exposure incident. 
Demonstration of exposure signs and symptoms may indicate a significant 
exposure event, failure of PPE, a catastrophic event, or some 
combination thereof and warrants exposure monitoring and medical 
surveillance. The extension of medical surveillance to responders who 
demonstrate signs and symptoms of exposure would be required regardless 
of whether the responder was exposed above the action level. The PLHCP 
would determine the necessary medical surveillance following the 
significant exposure event.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii) would require the ESO to document 
each exposure to combustion products for each responder, for the 
purpose of determining the need for the medical surveillance as 
specified in (g)(3)(i)(A), and for inclusion in the responder's 
confidential record, as required in (g)(1)(ii). ESOs would review 
previous incident reports to determine a responder's exposures for the 
preceding 12 months or from the date when ESOs began keeping such 
records up to the preceding 12 months. This proposed requirement would 
ensure the ESO documents exposures in order to comply with the 
requirements of the proposed rule. OSHA notes, however, that the ESO 
would not need 12 months of records for a particular responder to 
determine whether that responder may be exposed above the action level. 
If the ESO knows, based on experience, that responders in the same tier 
may be exposed 15 or more times per year, medical surveillance pursuant 
to paragraph (g)(3) would be required for that responder. As stated 
previously, proposed paragraph (g)(3) applies only to ESOs. OSHA is 
seeking input in Question (g)-3 on whether the additional medical 
surveillance proposed in paragraph (g)(3) should be extended to include 
WEREs and team members.
    In paragraph (g)(4)(i) of the proposed rule, the WERE and ESO would 
be required to provide behavioral health and wellness resources at no 
cost to the team member or responder or identify where resources are 
available at no cost in their community. As discussed in section II.A., 
Need for the Standard, emergency response activities expose team 
members and responders to traumatic, emotionally charged events, and 
they frequently work long shifts, get inadequate rest and are 
repeatedly exposed to stressful scenarios that contribute to mental 
health issues. The physical and psychological stressors associated with 
emergency response activities puts team members and responders at 
increased risk of PTSD, depression, anxiety, burnout, suicide,

[[Page 7820]]

and substance use disorders. During the 2021 SBREFA panel, SERs 
reported that they believed that ongoing behavioral health support is 
an important component of team member and responder wellness (Document 
ID 0115, p. 18). For those WEREs and ESOs who do not provide behavioral 
health resources at their place of employment, they would need to 
identify local, state, or Federal governmental, non-governmental, and 
non-profit behavioral health resources that can be accessed by team 
members and responders. Behavioral health resources provided by a 
WERE's or ESO's health care plan would meet the requirements of the 
proposed rule. Although community-based resources are preferred, for 
those communities that do not have the resources available, telehealth 
resources would also meet the requirements of the proposed rule.
    Proposed paragraphs (g)(4)(ii)(A) through (D) identify the 
behavioral health and wellness resources that would need to be 
included, at a minimum. They are diagnostic assessment, short-term 
counseling, crisis intervention, and referral for behavioral health 
conditions arising from the team member's or responder's performance of 
emergency response duties. The conditions that could require referral 
include substance use disorder, anxiety, depression, suicidality, acute 
stress reactions, or grief resulting from or exacerbated by the team 
member's or responder's emergency response duties, such as potentially 
traumatic events or the cumulative emotional strain of emergency 
response work. These behavioral health conditions may require more 
intensive interventions than short-term counseling or crisis 
intervention would provide. Behavioral health resources should be 
accessible to the team member or responder both on and off-duty.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(4)(iii) would require that each WERE and ESO 
inform team members and responders, on a regular and recurring basis, 
and following each potentially traumatic event, of the behavioral 
health resources that are available to them and how to access those 
resources. Although resources familiar with the behavioral health 
aspects of emergency response activities are preferred, it is most 
important to have resources available for team members and responders 
to access. ESOs and WEREs should manage team member and responder 
expectations concerning available behavioral health resources and 
provide periodic reminders concerning their availability.
    In proposed paragraph (g)(4)(iv), the WERE and ESO would be 
required to ensure that if the WERE or ESO possesses records of a team 
member or responders use of behavioral health services, those records 
are kept confidential. Similar to the privacy and confidentiality 
concerns about medical evaluations and medical records, OSHA is aware 
that behavioral health evaluations present similar concerns due to the 
potential to divulge confidential information regarding a team member's 
or responder's psychological condition that may adversely affect the 
team member or responder. Proposed paragraph (g)(4)(iv) protects the 
team member or responder from such unwanted disclosure. Thus, 
behavioral health record management would be consistent with the 
requirements for medical record management established in paragraph 
(g)(1)(iii).
    Proposed paragraph (g)(5) focuses on fitness for duty and would 
require the WERE and ESO to establish and implement a process to 
evaluate and re-evaluate annually the ability of each team member and 
responder to perform the essential job functions, based on the type, 
level, and tier of service(s) established in paragraphs (c) and (d). 
The fitness for duty evaluation confirms for the WERE and ESO that the 
team member or responder can physically perform the job functions 
required of them at emergency scenes. This requirement differs from 
being medically cleared to perform emergency response duties as 
determined by paragraph (g)(2). This requirement requires the WERE or 
ESO to determine if the team member or responder is physically capable 
to perform the duties required of them during an emergency response. It 
is possible for a team member or responder to have no medical 
limitations to performing emergency response activities and still not 
be physically able to perform the duties. If the team member or 
responder does not have the physical capability to perform their 
assigned duties it not only places them at increased risk of injury or 
death but also increases the risk for other team members and responders 
on the emergency scene.
    During the 2021 SBREFA panel, many SERs expressed concern that the 
physical fitness for duty requirements would be difficult for team 
members and responders, especially volunteer responders, to meet 
(Document ID 0115, p. 17). OSHA understands these concerns. However, 
the safety of all team members and responders is dependent upon each 
team member and responder being physically able to perform their 
assigned duties at an emergency incident. OSHA expects that assessment 
of the ability to perform essential job functions would be determined 
during training scenarios in which emergency response activities are 
practiced under controlled conditions, or during the skills checks 
required under proposed paragraph (h)(3) of this section. OSHA does not 
expect a formal testing program to be initiated. In Question (g)-4, 
OSHA seeks input and data on whether stakeholders support the proposed 
fitness for duty requirements or whether the requirements pose a burden 
on or raise concerns for team members, responders, WEREs or ESOs. 
Commenters should provide explanation and supporting information for 
their position.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(6) applies to ESOs only and includes 
requirements for a health and fitness program. In proposed paragraph 
(g)(6)(i), the ESO would be required to establish and implement a 
health and fitness program that enables responders to develop and 
maintain a level of physical fitness that allows them to safely perform 
their assigned functions, based on the type, level, and tier of duty 
established in paragraph (d). Multiple studies and stakeholder 
organizations recognize the necessity of fitness programs to maintain 
the ability to perform job duties as well as to prevent or minimize 
injuries and to reduce the risk of heart disease and cancer (IAFF and 
IAFC (Document ID 0127, p. 33); NVFC (Docket ID 0128, p. 24); U.S. Fire 
Administration (USFA) (Document ID 0130, p. 131); NFPA (Docket ID 0135 
p. 34); NIOSH (Document ID 0131, p. 4)).
    As the proposed regulatory text indicates, these health and fitness 
requirements are focused solely on ensuring responders can safely 
perform their assigned functions. The requirements are aimed at 
minimizing the risk of occupational injury and illness posed by 
emergency response activities. OSHA intends these provisions to ensure 
that responders have the opportunity, means, and knowledge necessary to 
maintain fitness for duty and to prevent work-related injury and 
illness.
    Proposed paragraphs (g)(6)(ii)(A) through (D) establish the minimum 
components of the fitness program that the ESO would be required to 
include. Proposed paragraph (g)(6)(ii)(A) would require that the 
fitness program have an individual designated to oversee it. If 
available, the ESO should designate an individual who has knowledge and 
skills that would benefit program implementation. To have the desired 
effect on responder health and fitness, a

[[Page 7821]]

fitness program needs an individual identified to provide guidance and 
assistance to responders with the health and fitness program and 
maintain accountability.
    Paragraph (g)(6)(ii)(B) of the proposed rule would require a 
periodic fitness assessment for all responders, not to exceed every 
three years. The purpose of the fitness assessment is to inform the 
responder on their fitness status and whether their fitness has 
improved, maintained, or decreased. This physical fitness assessment is 
different from the fitness for duty evaluation described in proposed 
paragraph (g)(5) in that it is solely a physical fitness-related 
evaluation and is indirectly related to the evaluation of a responder's 
ability to perform essential job tasks. The physical fitness assessment 
should evaluate physical parameters such as responder muscular 
strength, muscular endurance, cardiovascular endurance, and mobility/
flexibility. A physical fitness assessment can flag fitness conditions 
that may make a responder particularly vulnerable to a negative 
cardiovascular event. Maintaining fitness is important as responders 
with higher fitness levels perform essential job tasks at a lower 
exertion level as a percent of their maximum exertion. Performing 
essential job tasks at a lower exertion level reduces the responder's 
risk of suffering a negative cardiovascular event while performing 
those job tasks.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(6)(ii)(C) would require exercise training 
that is available to all responders during working hours. This 
provision would not mandate a particular exercise regimen nor require 
the ESO to purchase or utilize any specific fitness equipment. 
Effective exercise training could be accomplished using common 
emergency response tools to provide the resistance necessary to achieve 
muscular overload. A program of body weight exercises, which use the 
responder's own body weight to provide resistance, would also satisfy 
the requirement.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(6)(ii)(D) would require health promotion 
education and counseling for all responders. Health promotion education 
and counseling aims to provide responders with the knowledge necessary 
to ensure fitness for duty and is another avenue to address the risk 
factors and adverse health effects associated with emergency response 
activities. Responder health promotion can be accomplished with 
educational resources available in the community or on the internet. 
Topics that may be covered by the health promotion program could 
include heart disease risk reduction, smoking-vaping and tobacco 
cessation, healthy blood pressure, physical fitness, safer personal 
training methods and other ways to minimize risk of muscle breakdown 
(rhabdomyolysis), nutrition, weight management, the amount and quality 
of sleep, infectious disease prevention, and behavioral health topics 
such as stress management. OSHA emphasizes that these education and 
counseling resources are one element in the broader health and fitness 
program with the ultimate goal of ensuring the safe performance of 
emergency response activities.
    OSHA is seeking input in Question (g)-5 whether the health and 
fitness program in proposed paragraph (g)(6) should be extended to 
include WEREs and team members. OSHA Question (g)-6 asks for input 
whether every three years is an appropriate length of time for fitness 
re-evaluation, and if not, what period of time would be appropriate. 
The agency is seeking any available data to support an alternative 
length of time between evaluations.
Paragraph (h) Training
    Training is the backbone of WERTs and ESOs. Effective training 
produces team members and responders with the skills, knowledge, and 
confidence to safely perform their duties in the face of various 
hazards at emergency incidents. Paragraph (h) of the proposed rule 
contains requirements for initial and follow-up training for responders 
and team members, as well as requirements for maintaining proficiency 
in the necessary skills and knowledge through regular--at least 
annual--skills checks. These provisions ensure that team members and 
responders become and remain prepared and capable of performing their 
duties safely. Many of the provisions in proposed paragraph (h) are 
based on, or consistent with, provisions in NFPA 600, NFPA 1500, and 
other NFPA standards.
    To ensure team members and responders are prepared to participate 
safely in emergency operations, WEREs and ESOs need to establish 
comprehensive training programs. Proposed paragraph (h)(1) addresses 
minimum training requirements for team members and responders. 
Paragraph (h)(1)(i) would require WEREs and ESOs to establish the 
minimum knowledge and skills required for each team member and 
responder to participate safely in emergency operations, based on the 
type and level of service(s), and tiers of team members and responders 
established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. These minimum 
requirements will vary based on the type of emergency response being 
performed; for example, firefighters will have different training 
requirements than technical rescuers.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of the proposed rule would require the WERE 
and ESO to ensure each team member and responder is provided with 
initial training, ongoing training, refresher training, and 
professional development commensurate with the safe performance of 
their expected duties and functions based on the tiers of team members 
and responders, and the type and level of service(s) established in 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. Training is important at all 
stages of a team member's or responder's career. Initial training 
teaches team members and responders how to properly and safely perform 
their duties; and ongoing and refresher training ensures that these 
skills stay sharp over time. As they progress through their careers 
providing emergency service(s), team members and responders learn more 
about protecting their fellow team members and responders, particularly 
if they become team leaders, officers, or chiefs.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iii) would require the WERE and ESO to 
restrict the activities of each new team member and responder during 
emergency operations until the team member or responder has 
demonstrated to a trainer/instructor, supervisor/team leader/officer, 
the skills and abilities to safely complete the tasks expected. Team 
members and responders performing tasks for which they are not 
appropriately trained pose a hazard not only to themselves, but also to 
other team members and responders. The proposed provision would ensure 
that team members and responders who are new to their jobs are properly 
trained before performing emergency service tasks.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iv) would require the WERE and ESO to 
ensure that each instructor/trainer has the knowledge, skills, and 
abilities to teach the subject matter being presented. It is intuitive 
that those teaching should be more knowledgeable in the subject matter 
than those being taught, and when physical skills are required it can 
be important for the instructor/trainer to have the ability to 
demonstrate the skills or address a problem when it arises. This 
provision ensures that the training is conducted by competent 
individuals who can provide accurate and valuable instruction, leading 
to a higher level of understanding and proficiency among the trainees.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(1)(v) of the proposed rule would require 
WEREs and ESOs to ensure that training is

[[Page 7822]]

provided in a language and at a literacy level that team members and 
responders understand, and that the training provides an opportunity 
for interactive questions and answers with the instructor/trainer. Team 
member and responder comprehension is critical to ensuring that 
training is effective. If training information is not presented in a 
way that all team members and responders understand, the training will 
not be effective. WEREs and ESOs must thus consider language, literacy, 
and social and cultural appropriateness when designing and implementing 
training programs for team members and responders. Compliance with the 
language requirement could be accomplished with an instructor/trainer 
providing direct instruction in the appropriate language or by use of 
an interpreter. The purpose of the literacy level provision is to make 
sure that each team member and responder understands the materials. 
WEREs and ESOs may consider providing training materials in a language 
which is as simple as possible without sacrificing necessary content.
    The last part of the provision recognizes the fact that asking 
questions facilitates the learning process for many people. WEREs and 
ESOs may conduct training in different ways, such as in-person or 
virtually (e.g., videoconference, recorded video). However, this 
paragraph requires the WERE and ESO to provide an opportunity to team 
members and responders to ask questions regardless of the medium of 
training. This may involve, for example, having a knowledgeable person 
present during the training in-person or via phone/video call. If it is 
not possible to have someone present during the training, WEREs and 
ESOs could also provide the contact information of the individual who 
team members or responders can contact to answer their questions (e.g., 
an email or telephone contact).
    Paragraph (h)(1)(vi) of the proposed rule would require the WERE 
and ESO to provide each team member and responder with training on the 
RMP (risk management plan) established in paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section. The training would ensure that team members and responders 
receive comprehensive instruction on various aspects of risk 
management. It would familiarize them with the specific protocols, 
procedures, and practices associated with WERE and ESO facilities, 
training activities, vehicle operations, response to emergency 
incidents, non-emergency services, and the risks associated with 
exposure to hazardous substances. Training would also need to include 
the PPE hazard assessment, the respiratory protection program, the 
infection control program, and the bloodborne pathogens exposure 
control plan required by paragraph (f)(1)(iii). Note that the training 
requirements of this standard are in addition to the training 
requirements of other standards such as the bloodborne pathogens 
standard (29 CFR 1910.1030(g)(2)).
    Proposed paragraph (h)(1)(vii) would require the WERE and ESO to 
train each team member and responder about the safety and health policy 
established in paragraph (f)(2) of this section and the Standard 
Operating Procedures (SOPs) established in paragraph (q) of this 
section. Proposed paragraph (f)(2) would require the WERE and ESO to 
establish a policy for extraordinary situations when a team member or 
responder, after making a risk assessment determination based on the 
team member or responder's training and experience, is permitted to 
attempt to rescue a person in imminent peril, potentially without 
benefit of, for example, PPE and other equipment. As explained above, 
proposed paragraph (f)(2) is important because there might be times 
when team members or responders come across emergency incidents while 
they are not fully equipped with PPE or other equipment but could, for 
example, potentially save a life.
    Team members and responders need to be trained so that they 
understand the policy established by the WERE or ESO for these 
extraordinary situations. SOPs form the foundation of how WEREs and 
ESOs expect team members and responders to perform at various types of 
incidents, where they will face a variety of hazards. The SOPs provide 
procedures intended to facilitate incident operations and keep team 
members and responders safe.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(viii) of the proposed rule would require the WERE 
and ESO to provide each team member and responder with training that 
covers the selection, use, limitations, maintenance, and retirement 
criteria for all PPE used by the team member or responder based on the 
type and level of service(s), and tiers of team members and responders 
established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. This training 
would provide team members and responders with the necessary knowledge 
and skills to effectively utilize the PPE they are required to wear on 
the basis of their duties. It would need to include various aspects, 
including selecting appropriate equipment, use including proper donning 
and doffing techniques, understanding the limitations of PPE, 
performing proper maintenance, and knowing when to retire and replace 
worn-out or damaged equipment. By providing this comprehensive 
training, WEREs and ESOs can enhance safety and ensure that team 
members and responders are well-prepared to utilize PPE effectively.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(ix) proposes to require the WERE and ESO to train 
each team member and responder in the selection, proper use, and 
limitations of portable fire extinguishers provided for employee use in 
the WERE or ESO's facility and vehicles, in accordance with 29 CFR 
1910.157. It is important for all team members and responders 
(firefighters, EMS providers, and technical rescuers) to be trained to 
use portable fire extinguishers. Most fires start out small enough that 
they can be easily controlled or extinguished by a portable fire 
extinguisher. Portable fire extinguishers are readily found in most 
workplaces and on many vehicles that team members and responders use, 
and it is important for team members and responders be trained about 
how to use them and what their limitations are.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(1)(x) would require the WERE and ESO to 
train each team member and responder in the incident management system 
(IMS) established under paragraph (o) of this section, in order to 
operate safely within the scope of the IMS. Because the IMS is required 
to be used at all emergency incidents (see proposed paragraph 
(p)(1)(i)), everyone on every incident scene would be operating within 
it. The training should focus on team member and responder roles and 
responsibilities within the IMS, including incident scene assessment 
for hazards, incident safety oversight, means for reporting unsafe 
conditions, and interactive components for clear communication and 
effective operations.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(xi) of the proposed rule would require the WERE 
and ESO to ensure that training for each team member and responder 
engaged in emergency activities includes procedures for the safe exit 
and accountability of team members and responders during orderly 
evacuations, rapid evacuations, equipment failure, or other dangerous 
situations and events. Development of the procedures is required by 
proposed paragraph (q)(2)(vii) of this section. Team members and 
responders need to be trained to know their roles in the accountability 
system. They need to be trained in the actions to take during an 
orderly evacuation, such as taking all their equipment with them as 
they back out to regroup their efforts, versus during a rapid 
evacuation, such as when a

[[Page 7823]]

structural collapse seems imminent, when the appropriate action may be 
to ``drop and run.'' PPE or equipment failure often occurs without 
warning. Team members and responders need to be trained in the proper 
procedures for evacuating safely and maintaining accountability should 
such a situation occur.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(xii) proposes to require the WERE and ESO to 
ensure that each team member and responder is trained to meet the 
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(i) (HAZWOPER), First Responder 
Awareness Level. While all team members and responders who take part in 
actual emergency operations are already subject to these requirements 
per the requirements of the HAZWOPER standard, this training is also 
important for other responders and team members. Team members and 
responders who are not part of a hazardous materials (hazmat) team need 
to be aware of the precautions and actions to be taken at hazmat 
incidents because they are usually the first to arrive. This training 
focuses on equipping team members and responders with the necessary 
knowledge and skills to respond effectively to hazardous materials 
incidents and take appropriate actions, such as maintaining a safe 
distance away, evacuating other people, cordoning off the area, and 
summoning the appropriate resources.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(1)(xiii) would require the WERE and ESO to 
ensure that each team member and responder who is not trained and 
authorized to enter specific hazardous locations (e.g., confined 
spaces, trenches, and moving water) is trained to an awareness level 
(similar to the requirements in 29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(i)) to recognize 
such locations and their hazards and avoid entry. Similar to the 
requirements of proposed paragraph (h)(1)(xii) with respect to hazmat 
incidents, this training would provide team members and responders with 
an understanding of the potential risks and dangers posed by specific 
hazardous locations, enabling them to identify such locations, exercise 
caution, not enter the hazardous area, and request assistance from 
those trained to enter such areas.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(xiv) of the proposed rule would require WEREs and 
ESOs to train each team member and responder to perform cardiopulmonary 
resuscitation (CPR) and use an automatic external defibrillator (AED). 
It is important that every team member and responder be able to perform 
CPR and use an AED as they may be nearby, or the first to arrive, when 
someone is experiencing a cardiac emergency. Proper training allows 
team members and responders to confidently respond to cardiac 
emergencies and perform potentially life-saving interventions. 
Furthermore, team members and responders need to know how to perform 
these procedures safely. For example, they need to know how to avoid 
electric shocks from an AED.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(2) specifies vocational training that would 
be required for designated team members and responders to perform their 
duties safely. Paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (viii) each reference a 
specific NFPA standard and require that team members and responders be 
trained to a level that is at least equivalent to the job performance 
requirements (JPR) of the identified standard, for the duties to which 
they are assigned. The particular editions of the NFPA standards noted 
in the proposed rule are the ones in existence at the time of the 
publication of this proposal. OSHA expects that in the final rule it 
will incorporate the particular edition most recently approved by the 
NFPA before the public comment period for this NPRM closes.
    Paragraph (h)(2)(i) of the proposed rule would require each WERT 
team member who is designated to perform firefighting duties to be 
trained to safely perform the duties assigned, to a level that is at 
least equivalent to the job performance requirements of NFPA 1081, 
Standard for Facility Fire Brigade Member Professional Qualifications, 
2018 ed. NFPA 1081 sets the professional qualifications for 
firefighting team members and specifies the essential competencies and 
performance standards required for effective firefighting. This 
training equips team members with necessary skills in fire suppression 
techniques, fire behavior, incident command, and other topics related 
to firefighting, ensuring their ability to perform their duties safely. 
As explained above, each individual team member need be trained only 
with respect to the specific job duties they are assigned to perform. 
For example, a WERT team member designated at the incipient stage tier 
would need to be trained to a level equivalent to the NFPA 1081 JPRs 
for that tier only, and not the JPRs for interior structural 
firefighting.
    Paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of the proposed rule would require each ESO 
responder who is designated to perform interior structural firefighting 
duties to be trained to safely perform the duties assigned, to a level 
that is at least equivalent to the job performance requirements of NFPA 
1001, Structural Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications, 2019 ed. 
NFPA 1001 sets the professional qualifications for structural 
firefighters and outlines the essential competencies and performance 
standards required for effective firefighting in interior structural 
environments. This training covers critical areas such as fire 
behavior, ventilation techniques, search and rescue operations, and 
incident command systems, ensuring that responders possess the 
necessary skills to perform their duties safely within interior 
structural firefighting scenarios.
    Paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of the proposed rule would require each team 
member and responder who is designated to perform interior structural 
firefighting duties to be trained to safely perform search and rescue 
operational capabilities at least equivalent to the job performance 
requirements of NFPA 1407, Standard for Rapid Intervention Team 
Training, 2020 ed. NFPA 1407 sets the standards for rapid intervention 
team (RIT) training, specifically focusing on the operational 
capabilities required for effective search and rescue in hazardous 
environments. The training covers critical areas, such as search 
techniques, victim extrication, firefighter self-rescue, and effective 
communication strategies during rescue operations. This ensures that 
team members and responders possess the necessary skills to perform 
search and rescue operations safely and effectively within interior 
structural firefighting incidents.
    Paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of the proposed rule would require each team 
member and responder who is a vehicle operator to be trained to safely 
operate that vehicle at a level that is at least equivalent to the job 
performance requirements of NFPA 1002, Standard for Fire Apparatus 
Driver/Operator Professional Qualifications, 2017 ed., or similar 
Emergency Vehicle Operator qualifications based on the type of vehicle 
the team member or responder operates. NFPA 1002 establishes the 
professional qualifications for fire apparatus driver/operators and 
outlines the essential competencies and performance standards required 
for safe and effective vehicle operation. The training covers critical 
areas such as vehicle handling, emergency vehicle operations, driving 
techniques, and knowledge of vehicle systems. This training will help 
ensure that team members and responders are capable of safely operating 
vehicles within the scope of their assigned responsibilities. Again, 
each individual team member or responder need be trained only with 
respect to the specific job duties they are assigned to perform. For 
example, a firefighter designated to only operate a

[[Page 7824]]

four-wheel drive pick-up truck with a skid-mounted pump and tank would 
only need to be trained to the equivalent JPRs for that vehicle, and 
not, for example, the JPRs for tillering a tractor-drawn aerial.
    Paragraph (h)(2)(v) of the proposed rule would require each team 
member and responder who is a manager/supervisor (crew leader/officer) 
to be trained to safely perform at a level that is at least equivalent 
to the job performance requirements of NFPA 1021, Standard for Fire 
Officer Professional Qualifications, 2020 ed. NFPA 1021 establishes the 
professional qualifications for fire officers and outlines the 
essential competencies and performance standards required for effective 
leadership and supervision in fire and emergency service organizations. 
The training covers critical areas such as incident management, 
emergency response coordination, personnel management, risk assessment, 
and decision-making processes. This training will help ensure that 
managers and supervisors are equipped with the expertise to fulfill 
their roles while prioritizing the safety and well-being of team 
members and responders.
    Paragraph (h)(2)(vi) of the proposed rule would require each 
wildland ESO responder to be trained to safely perform at a level that 
is at least equivalent to the job performance requirements of NFPA 
1140, Standard for Wildland Fire Protection, 2022 ed., or that such 
responder has a ``Red Card'' in accordance with the National Wildfire 
Coordinating Group--Interagency Fire Qualifications. NFPA 1140 
establishes the standards for wildland fire protection and outlines the 
essential competencies and performance requirements for personnel 
involved in wildland firefighting operations. The training covers 
critical areas such as fire behavior, incident management, 
communication systems, safety protocols, and effective use of 
firefighting equipment in wildland settings. This training will help 
ensure that wildland ESO responders are appropriately prepared to 
mitigate wildland fire risks and respond to these challenging 
situations in a safe and coordinated manner.
    Paragraph (h)(2)(vii) of the proposed rule would require each 
technical search and rescue team member and responder who is designated 
to perform a technical rescue to be trained to safely perform at a 
level that is at least equivalent to the technician capabilities of the 
job performance requirements of NFPA 1006, Standard for Technical 
Rescuer Professional Qualifications, 2021 ed. NFPA 1006 establishes the 
professional qualifications for technical rescuers, defining the 
essential capabilities and performance requirements for personnel 
involved in technical rescue operations. By adhering to this standard, 
team members and responders can acquire the necessary knowledge and 
skills to safely perform technical rescues. The training covers 
critical areas such as rope rescue, confined space rescue, structural 
collapse rescue, vehicle and machinery rescue, and water rescue. This 
training will help ensure that technical rescuers possess the expertise 
required to operate safely in complex and hazardous rescue scenarios.
    Paragraph (h)(2)(viii) of the proposed rule would require each 
firefighting team member and responder who operates in a marine 
environment to be trained to safely perform at a level that is at least 
equivalent to the job performance requirements of NFPA 1005, Standard 
for Professional Qualifications for Marine Fire Fighting for Land-Based 
Fire Fighters, 2019 ed. These individuals play a critical role in 
responding to fire incidents in marine settings, such as ports, 
marinas, or waterfront areas. NFPA 1005 sets the professional 
qualifications for land-based firefighters engaged in marine 
firefighting operations. It outlines the essential competencies and 
performance requirements necessary for effectively combating fires in 
marine environments. By adhering to this standard, firefighting team 
members and responders can acquire the necessary knowledge and skills 
to safely operate in marine settings. The training covers critical 
areas such as marine fire behavior, vessel fire suppression tactics, 
shipboard firefighting systems, water supply operations, and search and 
rescue techniques specific to marine environments. This training will 
help ensure that firefighters are appropriately prepared to handle the 
unique challenges presented by marine fire incidents.
    Paragraph (h)(2)(ix) of the proposed rule would require the WERE 
and ESO ensure that each EMS team member and responder possesses the 
professional qualification, certification, or license, required by the 
applicable jurisdiction, which is relevant to the type and level of 
service established in paragraphs (c) and (d). This requirement, which 
was recommended by NACOSH, would help ensure that EMS providers are up 
to date on the latest methods for safely performing their duties.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(3) contains requirements related to 
maintaining proficiency in the skills and knowledge required by 
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2). Proposed paragraph (h)(3) would require 
WEREs and ESOs to provide annual skills checks to ensure that each team 
member and responder maintains proficiency in the skills and knowledge 
commensurate with the safe performance of expected duties and 
functions, based on the type and level of service(s) established in 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. Initial training is important, 
but ongoing training or on-the-job performance is just as essential so 
that team members and responders can maintain proficiency.
    OSHA is proposing annual skills checks based on that periodicity 
referenced in national consensus standards such as NFPA 600, NFPA 1500, 
and NFPA 1670; and other OSHA regulations, such as 29 CFR 1910.120 and 
1910.134, and the existing 29 CFR 1910.156. Conducting periodic skills 
checks for team members and responders at least once a year (each 
twelve-month period) is important to ensure they maintain a minimum 
level of proficiency for safely performing their assigned duties. By 
conducting regular skills checks, organizations can identify any gaps 
in proficiency and provide additional training or resources as needed 
to enhance the capabilities of team members and responders.
    OSHA recognizes that skill checks may be completed in different 
ways, and within the minimum annual period between skill checks the 
appropriate interval for additional skill checks varies with the nature 
of the skill in question. For instance, if a pumper operator regularly 
operates the vehicle, including pumping hose lines, routine observation 
may substitute for a separate skills check. However, an operator who 
has not operated the vehicle and pump for nine months may need a more 
formal skills check to ensure they can still perform the tasks safely 
even if they last passed a skills check eleven months earlier. In 
Question (h)-1, OSHA is seeking stakeholder input and data regarding 
the appropriate methods and interval(s) for skills checks.
Paragraph (i) WERE Facility Preparedness
    Proposed paragraph (i) provides requirements to ensure that WERE 
facilities are safe for team members. Paragraph (i)(1)(i) of the 
proposed rule would require WEREs to ensure their facilities comply 
with 29 CFR part 1910, subpart E, Exit Routes and Emergency Planning. 
Note, however, that the various ERP plans and programs required by this 
proposed rule (e.g., IAPs, RMPs, PIPs) are not ``emergency

[[Page 7825]]

action plans'' for purposes of 29 CFR 1910.38. This proposed provision 
is not a new requirement because WEREs are already required to comply 
with subpart E. It is included here to reinforce the concept that 
compliant means of egress, emergency lightning, exit marking, etc., are 
of the utmost importance during emergency situations, for all workers, 
but especially for team members because they spend more time in the 
dangerous situation. For instance, an obstructed aisle or hallway could 
interfere with removing a sick or injured non-team-member employee by 
means of a wheelchair or ambulance cot. That same obstructed aisle or 
hallway could delay firefighting team members in reaching a fire, thus 
allowing the fire to grow, further endangering the team members, or 
block their escape path if they need to evacuate due to deteriorating 
conditions.
    Proposed paragraph (i)(1)(ii) would require WEREs to provide 
facilities for the decontamination, disinfection, cleaning, and storage 
of PPE and equipment. Cleaning and decontamination of PPE and equipment 
is an important step in reducing or preventing exposure to bloodborne 
pathogens, carcinogens, and other contaminants which can cause cancer 
and other illnesses in team members and responders. The proposed 
requirement would ensure that team members have a means to 
decontaminate, disinfect, and clean their PPE and equipment as needed 
and as required by proposed paragraph (k). These requirements are based 
on NFPA 1581, Standard on Fire Department Infection Control Program, 
2022 ed., and NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance 
of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire 
Fighting, 2020 ed. In Question (i)-1, OSHA seeks input regarding what 
WEREs are currently doing for decontamination, disinfection, cleaning, 
and storage of PPE and equipment, and whether OSHA should include any 
additional requirements for these processes in a final standard.
    The manner of compliance with this provision could vary depending 
on a WERE's facility, the activities of the WERT, and the 
manufacturer's instructions for particular PPE and equipment. Some 
WEREs may provide a dedicated room or area with commercial style 
washing machines or extractors for PPE. Others may only provide 
facilities for basic cleaning and gross decontamination using a utility 
hose and brushes, a large sink with spray nozzle, appropriate cleaning 
chemicals and disinfectants, and drying racks. Alternatively, if PPE is 
to be decontaminated or disinfected at another location, such as an 
off-site commercial launderer, WEREs would need to provide for bagging 
and storage of contaminated PPE while it is still at the WERE facility, 
to prevent exposure to employees and team members, and prevent cross 
contamination with clean PPE.
    Proposed paragraph (i)(1)(iii) would require the WERE to ensure 
that fire detection, suppression, and alarm systems, and occupant 
notification systems are installed, tested, and maintained in 
accordance with manufacturer's instructions and 29 CFR part 1910, 
subpart L--Fire Protection. WEREs are already required to comply with 
subpart L. Cross-referencing this provision in the proposed rule serves 
as a reminder to WEREs and reinforces the importance of these 
requirements in the context of a WERT, where proper operation of these 
systems during a fire emergency could affect the safety of team 
members.
    Proposed paragraph (i)(2) would require the WERE to ensure fire 
hose connections and fittings are compatible with, or adapters are 
provided for, firefighting infrastructure such as fire hydrants, 
sprinkler system and standpipe system inlet connections, and fire hose 
valves (FHV), to facilitate prompt firefighting support from mutual aid 
WERTs and ESOs. A majority of fire hose fittings and connections, with 
varying diameters, use a standard hose screw thread dimension. However, 
there are other screw thread dimensions that are available and used for 
fire hose connections and fittings, including nonthreaded connections. 
While OSHA believes it would be advantageous to have uniformity of all 
screw threads, it is more important that the fitting diameters, screw 
threads, and nonthreaded connections at the facility are compatible 
with those used by the WERT(s) and ESO(s) who would potentially provide 
firefighting support. Any delay in providing needed fire suppression 
water to a sprinkler system or standpipe system could result in a fire 
spreading and thus endangering or further endangering team members (as 
well as other employees at the facility). Inability to connect hoses 
from a fire engine to the inlet connections due to noncompatible screw 
treads or fitting diameter would certainly cause a delay in providing 
needed fire suppression water.
    OSHA's existing standard for standpipe and hose systems, 29 CFR 
1910.158, requires standardized screw threads or adapters for hose 
connections (29 CFR 1910.158(c)(2)(ii)) for quick connection of fire 
hoses. The existing provision applies within the employer's facility 
but fails to take into consideration the need for potential support 
from mutual aid WERTs or ESOs. Additionally, the existing provision 
predates the development of nonthreaded connections for large diameter 
fire hoses, which are sometimes used for sprinkler and standpipe inlet 
connections and fire hydrant fittings. The proposed provision would 
ensure mutual aid WERTs and ESOs, as required by proposed paragraph 
(c)(8) of this section, could provide needed water supply without 
delay, thus reducing the potential risk to team members, non-team 
member employees, and responders.
    To provide added clarity and as noted elsewhere in this preamble, 
OSHA proposes in this rulemaking to revise 29 CFR 1910.158, Standpipe 
and hose systems and 1910.159, Automatic sprinkler systems, to add a 
provision for system inlet fitting compatibility with, or adapters 
provided for, mutual aid WERTs and ESOs, consistent with paragraph 
(i)(2) of this proposed rule.
    Proposed paragraph (i)(3) would require WEREs to identify the 
location of each fire hose valve (FHV) in a manner suitable to the 
location, such as with a sign, painted wall, or painted column, to 
ensure prompt access to FHVs. The proposed provision excludes FHVs that 
are clearly visible on standpipes in enclosed stairways. Compliance 
with this provision could be achieved by various methods including 
marking the location of each FHV with a sign, painted wall, painted 
column, or other suitable means that would ensure that each FHV is 
clearly visible, thus making the FHV easier to locate during an 
emergency. This approach is particularly important in facilities with 
large open areas, such as parking garages, plant manufacturing areas, 
and storage rack areas, where FHVs may otherwise be difficult to 
locate, especially during an emergency.
Paragraph (j) ESO Facility Preparedness
    Many responders spend a significant amount of time in the 
workplace, often sleeping and eating meals there, because they are 
required to be at the ESO facility to respond to emergency incidents 
quickly. While responders expect to encounter hazards at an emergency 
incident, they may also become injured or ill from hazards they are 
exposed to in ESO facilities. Proposed paragraph (j) provides 
requirements to ensure that ESO facilities are safe for responders.
    Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i) states that the ESO must ensure each 
ESO facility complies with 29 CFR part 1910,

[[Page 7826]]

subpart E--Exit Routes and Emergency Planning. This proposed provision 
is not a new requirement because ESOs are already required to comply 
with subpart E. It is included here to emphasize the necessity of safe 
means of egress, emergency lightning, exit marking, etc., during 
emergency situations.
    Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(ii) would require the ESO to provide 
facilities for decontamination, disinfection, cleaning, and storage of 
PPE and equipment. As discussed in Need for the Standard, responders 
are exposed to a variety of hazardous substances from contaminated PPE 
and equipment. Cleaning and decontamination of PPE and equipment are 
important steps in reducing or preventing exposure to carcinogens, 
infectious diseases, and other contaminants which can cause other 
illnesses. This provision also aids compliance with proposed paragraph 
(k)(2)(viii), which would require the ESO to ensure that protective 
ensembles, ensemble elements, and protective equipment are 
decontaminated, cleaned, cared for, inspected and maintained in 
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions (see the Summary and 
Explanation for paragraph (k)).
    The manner of compliance with proposed paragraph (j)(1)(ii) would 
vary depending on an ESO's facility and manufacturers' instructions. 
However, basic cleaning and gross decontamination typically involves 
using a utility hose and brushes, a large sink with a spray nozzle, 
appropriate cleaning chemicals and disinfectants, and drying racks. 
Some ESOs may choose to install commercial-style washing machines or 
extractors for PPE. Alternatively, if PPE is to be decontaminated off-
site, ESOs must provide for bagging and storage of contaminated PPE 
while it is still at the ESO facility.
    The requirements proposed in paragraph (j)(1)(ii) are based on NFPA 
1581, Standard on Fire Department Infection Control Program, 2022 ed., 
and NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of 
Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire 
Fighting, 2020 ed.
    Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(iii) would establish requirements for 
fire poles, slides, and chutes. Under proposed paragraph 
(j)(1)(iii)(A), the ESO would need to ensure each responder who uses a 
fire pole maintains contact with the pole using all four extremities 
and is not holding anything other than the pole. Sliding down the pole 
is essentially a controlled fall, and maintaining contact with all four 
extremities offers the best chance for responders to control their 
speed while descending the pole. Ensuring the responder does not hold 
anything while using the pole would help them focus on the importance 
of gripping the pole and would avoid potential distraction such as 
spilling a cup of coffee or dropping a handful of papers.
    Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(iii)(B) would require the ESO to ensure 
that each fire pole has a landing cushion that is at least 30 inches in 
diameter, has a contrasting color to the surrounding floor, and has 
impact absorption to reduce the likelihood and severity of injury. The 
minimum diameter requirement is meant to accommodate responders of 
varying shapes and sizes. The contrasting color would enhance 
visibility to the potential tripping hazard on the floor. The landing 
cushion would also need to be made of a material with sufficient 
thickness to reduce the impact of a responder landing on the cushion.
    Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(iii)(C) would require ESOs to ensure that 
each floor hole with a fire pole, chute, or slide that provides rapid 
access to a lower level is secured or protected in accordance with 29 
CFR part 1910, subpart D--Walking-Working Surfaces to prevent 
unintended falls through the floor hole. Given the importance of these 
requirements in addressing the hazard posed by these floor openings in 
ESO facilities, OSHA believes it is important to remind ESOs of their 
obligations under subpart D to reinforce compliance.
    The trend in the design and construction of new ESO facilities is 
to install slides, chutes, and stairs as an alternative to installing 
new fire poles. In Question (j)-1, OSHA seeks input whether the agency 
should consider prohibiting the installation of fire poles in new ESO 
facilities. In addition to supporting data, the agency seeks input on a 
potential phase-in period should a prohibition against new poles is 
included in the final rule.
    Paragraph (j)(1)(iv) of the proposed rule would require the ESO to 
ensure that fire detection, suppression, and alarm systems, and 
occupant notification systems are installed, tested, and maintained in 
accordance with manufacturer's instructions and 29 part CFR 1910, 
subpart L--Fire Protection. Fire protection systems are important for 
protecting responders from the danger of fire in ESO facilities. They 
must function properly to provide protection. Following the 
manufacturer's instructions for installing, testing, and maintaining 
this equipment will help to provide this protection because the 
instructions are tailored to deal with the unique features of a 
particular manufacturer's equipment. The last part of this provision 
serves as a reminder to comply with subpart L, which contains specific 
requirements to ensure the effectiveness of various types of fire 
detection, suppression, and alarm systems.
    Paragraph (j)(2) proposes requirements for protective measures for 
sleeping and living areas of ESO facilities, as defined in proposed 
paragraph (b) of this section. Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(i) would 
require the ESO to ensure that interconnected hard-wired smoke alarms 
with battery back-up are installed inside each sleeping area, and 
outside in the immediate vicinity of each opening (door) to a sleeping 
area, and on all levels of the facility, including basements. Smoke 
detectors that are integral to a fire alarm system would also satisfy 
this proposed provision. Smoke alarms and detectors provide early 
warning about the presence of smoke, thus alerting occupants to the 
hazard and need for evacuation before they are overcome by smoke 
inhalation and typically before the fire grows to the point of 
preventing escape.
    Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(ii) would require the ESO to ensure that 
each new ESO facility with one or more sleeping area(s) is protected 
throughout by an automatic sprinkler system. This provision would apply 
to new facilities constructed (as determined by the date of building 
permit issuance) two years or more after the final rule is published. 
It has long been established that automatic sprinklers save lives. They 
provide containment or extinguishment of a fire, often before those 
endangered by the fire are aware of the fire, particularly for those 
who are asleep. Automatic sprinkler systems are routinely installed in 
many places where people sleep, such as hotels, motels, dormitories, 
apartment buildings, and single-family dwellings. OSHA believes it is 
important for ESOs to provide the same protection for responders. The 
proposed rule provides ample time for ESOs in the preliminary planning 
process of designing new facilities to include the installation of 
sprinklers. In Question (j)-2, OSHA seeks input on whether ESO 
facilities with sleeping facilities should be protected by automatic 
sprinkler systems.
    Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(iii) would require the ESO to ensure that 
each sleeping and living area has functioning carbon monoxide alarms 
installed. Similar to smoke alarms/detectors, carbon monoxide alarms 
alert occupants

[[Page 7827]]

to the presence of the poisonous gas, thus allowing them to evacuate 
before they become incapacitated. The risk of carbon monoxide exposure 
may be high for responders because ESO vehicle engines are started and 
run inside of ESO facilities.
    Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(iv) would require the ESO to prevent 
responder exposure to, and contamination of sleeping and living areas 
by, exhaust emissions. OSHA believes that compliance with this 
provision can be achieved by any of several means, including direct or 
source capture systems attached to vehicle exhaust pipes, automatic 
ventilation systems, positive air pressure in sleeping and living 
areas, self-closing doors with weather seals, and others.
    Paragraph (j)(2)(v) of the proposed rule would require the ESO to 
ensure that contaminated PPE is not worn or stored in sleeping and 
living areas. This provision, in conjunction with proposed paragraphs 
(j)(1)(ii) (decontamination, disinfection, cleaning, and storage 
facilities) and (k)(2)(viii) (decontamination and cleaning of PPE), 
would ensure that responders are not unnecessarily exposed to 
contaminants in sleeping and living areas.
Paragraph (k) Equipment and PPE
    Proposed paragraph (k) contains requirements related to the 
provision, maintenance, and use of equipment and PPE. Team members and 
responders rely on PPE to provide protection from and minimize exposure 
to various hazards they may encounter during emergency response 
activities that may cause injuries, illnesses, or fatalities. Team 
members and responders are routinely exposed to hazards such as sharp 
edges, falling and flying objects, extreme temperatures, bodily fluids, 
combustion products, and a broad range of other potential contaminants. 
They depend on PPE because many of the hazards they are exposed to 
cannot be abated by administrative or engineering controls (see, e.g., 
Sec.  1910.1000(e)).
    To train for and perform their duties properly and safely, team 
members and responders depend on a wide variety of equipment, such as 
hoses and nozzles; ladders; saws; hand tools; hydraulic, pneumatic, and 
electric rescue tools; rope access and fall protection equipment; 
ambulance cots; stethoscopes and blood pressure cuffs; and oxygen 
delivery systems. In the proposed rule, OSHA uses the general term 
equipment to be inclusive. (Note: Vehicles used in emergency response 
are addressed in proposed paragraph (l)). Malfunctioning or inoperable 
equipment may cause injuries or delays in performing emergency services 
which could escalate the seriousness of the incident, posing a greater 
hazard to team members and responders.
    Equipment and PPE are routinely exposed to various contaminants and 
combustion products on emergency incident scenes. Decontamination 
reduces exposure of team members and responders to the detrimental 
health effects related to contaminants and combustion products. Many of 
the provisions in proposed paragraph (k) are based on, or consistent 
with, NFPA 1500.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(1)(i) would require that each WERE and ESO 
provide or otherwise ensure access to the equipment that team members 
and responders need to train for and safely perform emergency services, 
based on the type and level of service(s) that the individual WERE or 
ESO has established in accordance with proposed paragraphs (c) and (d). 
The equipment must be provided at no cost to team members or 
responders. The provision states ``provide . . . or ensure access to'' 
because WEREs and ESOs may have their own training equipment for tasks 
they frequently perform, but may depend on a centralized cache of 
equipment, other WEREs or ESOs, or a training facility for other 
equipment. For example, all team members and responders would need to 
be trained to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and in the 
use of an automatic external defibrillator (AED) as proposed in 
paragraph (h). The training for these skills typically uses a CPR 
manikin and a training model AED. Since this equipment is not 
frequently used, OSHA believes that instead of purchasing their own 
training equipment, some WEREs and ESOs would ensure team members and 
responders have access to the equipment from another source.
    Employers are already required to provide necessary PPE at no cost 
to employees under OSHA's general PPE requirements, 29 CFR 1910.134(h). 
Proposed paragraph (k)(1)(i) reiterates this requirement and makes 
clear that non-PPE equipment needed to train for and safely perform 
emergency services must also be provided at no cost to team members and 
responders. This requirement is consistent with OSHA's longstanding 
position that ``[t]he OSH Act requires employers to pay for the means 
necessary to create a safe and healthful work environment'' (Employer 
Payment for Personal Protective Equipment, 72 FR 64342, 64344 (Nov. 15, 
2007)).
    Paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of the proposed rule would require that each 
WERE and ESO ensure that newly purchased or acquired equipment is safe 
for use in the manner the WERE or ESO intends to use it. ``Newly 
purchased or acquired'' means purchased or acquired after the effective 
date of any final rule that would result from this rulemaking. Often, 
when WEREs and ESOs purchase or obtain new(er) equipment, they donate 
or sell their older equipment to other WEREs or ESOs. This provision 
would require the receiving WERE and ESO to ensure that the equipment 
received is safe for use prior to utilizing the equipment. Under 
proposed paragraphs (k)(1)(iii), each WERE and ESO would be required to 
inspect, maintain, functionally test, and service test equipment at 
least annually, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and 
industry practices, and as necessary to ensure equipment is in safe 
working order. Functional testing and service testing are different in 
that functional testing is performed by using and observing the 
equipment as it would normally be used. Service testing involves 
following specific procedures and evaluating test criteria, such as 
hydrostatic testing of SCBA air cylinders and flow testing SCBA 
regulators. Proper inspection, maintenance, and testing are necessary 
to ensure equipment is in proper, safe, working order and ready for use 
by team members and responders. Many pieces of equipment, such as hand 
tools, ladders, and rope rescue equipment, would be inspected after 
each use, and some would only require annual service testing. The 
manufacturer's instructions are the best source of information about 
inspection frequency and appropriate maintenance and testing. However, 
if a WERE or ESO has reason to believe a piece of equipment may not be 
in safe working order, that equipment would need to be inspected and 
tested immediately or removed from service, regardless of the 
inspection frequency recommended by the manufacturer. Paragraph 
(k)(1)(iv) of the proposed rule would require that each WERE and ESO 
immediately remove from service any equipment found to be defective or 
in an unserviceable condition. Equipment that is defective or that is 
not ready or able to be used safely poses a hazard to team members and 
responders. The equipment would need to be immediately removed from 
service to prevent potential injuries to team members and responders. 
Once repaired to a safe operational condition, the equipment could be 
returned to service for use.
    In proposed paragraph (k)(2)(i), each WERE and ESO would be 
required to

[[Page 7828]]

conduct a PPE hazard assessment for the selection of the protective 
ensemble, ensemble elements, and other protective equipment for team 
members and responders. WEREs and ESOs would evaluate their facilities 
or communities to determine what hazards their team members and 
responders could be exposed to and what PPE they would need to be 
protected during an emergency incident, based on the type and level of 
service established under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. 
Potential hazards requiring PPE could be acute (such as fire) or 
longer-term (such as exposure to carcinogens) and a comprehensive 
hazard assessment would identify hazards in both categories. Examples 
of ensemble elements include gloves, safety glasses and goggles, safety 
shoes and boots, earplugs and muffs, hard hats and helmets, respirators 
and Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), protective coats and 
pants, hoods, coveralls, vests, and full body suits.
    Paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed rule would require that each 
WERE and ESO provide team members and responders with properly fitting 
protective ensembles, ensemble elements, and protective equipment 
designed to provide protection from hazards to which they are likely to 
be exposed and suitable for the tasks they are expected to perform, as 
determined by the PPE hazard assessment conducted under paragraph 
(k)(2)(i). It is OSHA's position that ``properly fits'' means the PPE 
is the appropriate size to provide the team member or responder with 
the necessary protection from hazards and does not create additional 
safety and health hazards arising from being either too small or too 
large. As with the equipment required by proposed paragraph (k)(1), all 
required PPE would need to be provided at no cost to team members and 
responders.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(iii) would require that each WERE and ESO 
ensure that PPE complies with 29 CFR part 1910, subpart I, Personal 
Protective Equipment. This provision makes clear that the specific PPE 
requirements in the proposed standard supplement, but do not replace, 
OSHA's existing PPE requirements. Because most exposures to hazards on 
emergency incident scenes cannot be abated by administrative or 
engineering controls, it is particularly important that team members 
and responders have appropriate PPE to perform their jobs safely. 
OSHA's existing PPE standard contains important requirements regarding 
selection of PPE, employee training, and fit testing, among other 
requirements, that ensure PPE is effective.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(iv) would require the WERE and ESO to 
ensure that existing PPE complies with the requirements of the edition 
of the respective standard, listed in proposed (k)(2)(v), in effect 
when the PPE was manufactured. Manufacturers of compliant PPE typically 
include a tag or label in or on the PPE that indicates the standard to 
which it was manufactured.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(v) lists the PPE-related national 
consensus standards that the WERE and ESO would need to follow where 
applicable. These standards represent industry consensus regarding the 
proper means of selecting, using, and maintaining specific types of 
PPE. Compliance with these consensus standards ensures that the 
relevant PPE serves its intended purpose and effectively protects team 
members and responders. The standards are proposed to be incorporated 
by reference as noted in section II.C., National Consensus Standards. 
These national consensus standards are as follows:
    (A) NFPA 1951, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Technical 
Rescue Incidents, 2020 ed.;
    (B) NFPA 1952, Standard on Surface Water Operations Protective 
Clothing and Equipment, 2021 ed.;
    (C) NFPA 1953, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Contaminated 
Water Diving, 2021 ed.;
    (D) NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire 
Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2018 ed.;
    (E) NFPA 1977, Standard on Protective Clothing and Equipment for 
Wildland Fire Fighting and Urban Interface Fire Fighting, 2022 ed.;
    (F) NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing 
Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services, 2019 ed.;
    (G) NFPA 1982, Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS), 
2018 ed.;
    (H) NFPA 1984, Standards on Respirators for Wildland Fire-Fighting 
Operations and Wildland Urban Interface Operations, 2022 ed.;
    (I) NFPA 1986, Standard on Respiratory Protection for Tactical and 
technical Operations, 2023 ed.;
    (J) NFPA 1987, Standard on Combination Unit Respirator Systems for 
Tactical and Technical Operations, 2023 ed.;
    (K) NFPA 1990, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Hazardous 
Materials and CBRN Operations, 2022 ed.;
    (L) NFPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing and Ensembles for 
Emergency Medical Operations, 2018 ed.; and
    (M) ANSI/ISEA 207, American National Standard for High-Visibility 
Public Safety Vests, 2011 ed.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(vi) would require each WERE and ESO to 
ensure that air-purifying respirators are not used in atmospheres that 
are immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH), as defined in 
paragraph (b), and are only used for those contaminants that NIOSH 
certifies them against. Air-purifying respirators are ineffective in 
IDLH atmospheres because they do not provide protection from the 
inhalation of gases and vapors, particularly the superheated gases 
present during fires. They are, however, appropriate for use by team 
members and responders performing duties such as post-fire overhaul, 
fire investigation, collapsed building search and rescue, trench/
excavation rescue when exposure to respirable crystalline silica is 
possible, and for emergency medical operations where an airborne 
infectious disease is known or suspected to be present.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(vii) would require that each WERE and ESO 
ensure that each team member and responder properly uses or wears the 
protective ensemble, ensemble elements, and protective equipment 
whenever the team member or responder is exposed, or potentially 
exposed to the hazards for which it is provided. PPE is effective only 
when it is worn and used properly. This provision makes clear that the 
WERE or ESO is not only responsible for providing required PPE and 
equipment, but must also ensure that they are used whenever exposure to 
the hazard for which they are provided is reasonably foreseeable.
    Paragraph (k)(2)(viii) of the proposed rule would require that each 
WERE and ESO ensure that protective ensembles, ensemble elements, and 
protective equipment are decontaminated, cleaned, cared for, inspected 
and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. 
Proper care and maintenance ensure the PPE will perform as designed. 
Cleaning and decontaminating ensure that team members and responders 
are not exposed to carcinogens and pathogens from their PPE. Cleaning, 
care, and maintenance consistent with this paragraph would include 
appropriate inspection and testing of the PPE to ensure that it 
continues to function and protect as it was designed.
    During the 2021 SBREFA process, some SERs expressed concern over 
the PPE retirement schedule in NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection, Care, 
and

[[Page 7829]]

Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and 
Proximity Fire Fighting (Document ID 0115, pp. 13-14), which calls for 
PPE to be retired ten years after the date of manufacture. OSHA 
recognizes that there are users with concerns that there may be a gap 
in the scientific evidence on whether PPE aged beyond the retirement 
schedule published in NFPA 1851 is incapable of providing the designed 
protection level, regardless of the amount of use. Additionally, OSHA 
recognizes that older PPE may still be of use for activities where the 
primary protective properties of the PPE are not needed, for example 
for some exterior activities on fire scenes, during some training 
scenarios, and firefighting PPE used for identification and for 
protection against sharp edges at vehicle accident scenes. However, 
there is concern that older PPE could be used in situations where it is 
no longer able to provide the needed protection. In the proposed rule, 
OSHA is not proposing specific retirement age criteria for any PPE, and 
instead requires that PPE be cared for and maintained in accordance 
with manufacturer's instructions. OSHA is seeking input in Question 
(k)-1 on whether the agency should specify retirement age(s) for PPE.
    Paragraph (k)(2)(ix) of the proposed rule would require each WERE 
and ESO to immediately remove from service any defective or damaged 
protective ensembles, ensemble elements, or protective equipment. 
Defective or damaged PPE is not protective and could expose team 
members and responders to the hazards that the PPE is supposed to be 
protecting against.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(x) would require that when a WERE or ESO 
permits a team member or responder to provide their own protective 
ensemble, ensemble element, or other protective equipment for personal 
use, the requirements of paragraphs (k)(2)(iii) through (ix) of this 
section are met. Some WEREs and ESOs permit their team members and 
responders to provide and use their own protective equipment. The 
proposed provision would require that, to ensure safety and health 
protections, team member or responder-provided PPE meet the same 
requirements as that provided by the WERE and ESO. OSHA emphasizes that 
the use of team member or responder-provided PPE and protective 
equipment must be truly voluntary. As discussed above, the WERE or ESO 
possesses primary responsibility for ensuring necessary PPE and 
equipment is provided at no cost to team members or responders.
    Finally, paragraph (k)(3) of the proposed rule addresses protection 
from contaminants. Paragraph (k)(3)(i) would require that, to the 
extent feasible, each WERE and ESO ensure that contaminated PPE and 
non-PPE equipment undergo gross decontamination or are separately 
contained before leaving the incident scene. Paragraph (k)(3)(ii) would 
require that, to the extent feasible, team members and responders are 
not exposed to contaminated PPE and non-PPE equipment in the passenger 
compartment(s) of vehicles. Decontaminating these items as soon as 
possible after an incident is an important step in protecting team 
members and responders from contaminants. It is preferable to perform 
gross decontamination of PPE and non-PPE equipment before the team 
member or responder leaves the incident scene. Gross decontamination is 
defined in paragraph (b) of this section. Examples include rinsing with 
a hose to reduce or dilute liquid contaminants, or rinsing and brushing 
to displace solid particulate matter. At times it may not be possible 
to gross decontaminate equipment at the scene due to weather or other 
operational considerations. In these situations, to the extent feasible 
the contaminated PPE or non-PPE equipment should be separated from team 
members and responders by bagging the contaminated PPE or non-PPE 
equipment, or separating it by some other physical means, such as 
storing it in an equipment compartment outside of the vehicle seating 
area(s). OSHA is seeking input in Question (k)-2 regarding whether and 
how WEREs and ESOs currently provide this type of separation.
    As discussed in section II.A., Need for the Standard, exposure to 
contaminated PPE has been identified as one of the many ways in which 
team members and responders have been exposed to carcinogens. Beginning 
the decontamination process at the incident scene and separating 
contaminated PPE from the team members and responders after the 
incident have been shown to reduce or eliminate many of these 
exposures. Full decontamination of PPE by removing or neutralizing 
contaminants by a mechanical, chemical, thermal, or combined process 
should occur as soon as operational requirements allow in accordance 
with the standard operating procedures required by proposed paragraph 
(q) (see the summary and explanation for paragraph (q), Standard 
Operating Procedures).
    According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), per- 
and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) are widely used, long-lasting 
chemicals found in many different consumer, commercial, and industrial 
products. (Further information regarding PFAS is available at: https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained.) EPA says there are thousands of PFAS 
chemicals and because of their widespread use and persistence in the 
environment, they are found in low levels in a variety of food 
products, water sources, and the environment. PFAS are found in the 
blood of some people and animals all around the world. OSHA is aware of 
the emerging concern of PFAS, their carcinogenicities, and potential 
exposure to firefighters from PFAS in some firefighting foam and 
firefighting PPE. While current information leans towards ingestion 
being the most common mode of exposure to PFAS, such as drinking water 
contaminated with it, concerns have been raised about other modes of 
exposure.
    Performance testing requirements in NFPA 1971, 2018 ed. resulted in 
firefighting PPE manufacturers using PFAS in their products. OSHA is 
also aware that manufacturers of firefighting foams and PPE are 
considering options for reducing or eliminating the use of PFAS in 
their products. OSHA seeks information in Question (k)-3 whether there 
is evidence of PFAS in PPE causing health issues for team members and 
responders. NFPA routinely updates their standards. OSHA seeks 
information in Question (k)-4 whether NFPA's future standard update(s) 
will address or alleviate stakeholder's concerns.
Paragraph (l) Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
    Paragraph (l) of the proposed rule establishes requirements for 
vehicle safety both in preparation of and during operation in both 
emergency and non-emergency incidents. Many team members and responders 
are injured and killed in vehicle-related incidents and collisions, as 
discussed in section II.A.I. Fatality and Injury Analysis.
    Some are due to poor or improper vehicle maintenance or repair, or 
the manner that the vehicles are operated. Others are a result of 
improper or lack of use of seat belts and restraints as designed and 
intended. The controls in paragraph (l) are aimed at mitigating these 
hazards.
    While not defined in the proposed rule, OSHA intends for the term 
vehicle to include any device used to transport responders and team 
members while performing their duties. This covers a broad range of 
modes of conveyance for transporting a person or people by land,

[[Page 7830]]

water, or air. Examples include bicycles, motorcycles, snowmobiles, 
golf carts, utility carts, cars, trucks, buses, ambulances, watercraft, 
and aircraft.
    Proposed paragraph (l)(1) would ensure that vehicles are prepared 
for safe use by team members and responders. Paragraph (l)(1)(i) of the 
proposal would require the WERE or ESO to ensure that each vehicle 
provided by the WERE or ESO and driven or operated by team members or 
responders be inspected, maintained, and repaired in accordance with 
the manufacturer's instructions. Inspection and maintenance schedules 
can vary widely based on the type of vehicle and the nature of the 
inspection or maintenance. WEREs and ESOs may choose to conduct more 
frequent inspections and maintenance, based on the type of vehicle and 
the amount of use. A robust vehicle inspection, maintenance, and repair 
program ensures vehicle safety.
    Proposed paragraph (l)(1)(ii) would require the WERE or ESO to 
ensure that vehicles are immediately removed from service when safety 
deficiencies are discovered. Once properly repaired the vehicle could 
be returned to service. Deficiencies could be discovered by team 
members and responders during the inspection performed in accordance 
with paragraph (l)(1)(i) or at times such as when being driven or 
operated, or during normal daily activities. Examples include a bird 
strike on the windshield that affects the driver's visibility, a 
missing or broken windshield wiper during inclement weather, the 
driver's seat belt not functioning properly, a door not latching closed 
properly, loose or missing lug nuts, brakes not functioning properly, a 
cot retention mechanism not latching, and no heat or air conditioning 
in the patient transport compartment. Manufacturers' instructions and 
guidance from national consensus standards such as NFPA 1910, 2024 ed., 
offer a broad range of examples of potential deficiencies. When a 
safety-related deficiency is identified, the vehicle would be required 
to be taken out of service as soon as possible.
    Some SERs expressed concern that OSHA would adopt the vehicle 
replacement schedule recommended in NFPA 1910, Standard for Inspection, 
Maintenance, Refurbishment, Testing, and Retirement of In-Service 
Emergency Vehicles and Marine Firefighting Vessels, 2024 ed. (Document 
ID 0115, pp. 19-20, 30). OSHA recognizes that there are many variables 
related to the amount of use and conditions of operation for the wide 
variety of vehicles used by team members and responders that can affect 
the safe working life of a particular vehicle and firm deadlines for 
retiring vehicles may result in costly and unwarranted replacement. 
Given this variability, OSHA is not proposing particular timeframes for 
vehicle replacement. Instead, the proposed rule requires that vehicles 
be inspected, maintained, and repaired as specified by the manufacturer 
and that any vehicle with a safety-related deficiency be immediately 
removed from service.
    Paragraph (l)(1)(iii) of the proposed rule would require the WERE 
or ESO to ensure that each vehicle is provided with a seat for each 
riding position, and each riding position is provided with a 
functioning seat belt or vehicle safety harness that is designed to 
accommodate a team member or responder with and without heavy clothing, 
unless the vehicle is designed, built, and intended for use without 
seat belts or vehicle safety harnesses. The seat belts and vehicle 
safety harnesses would need to accommodate a team member or responder 
wearing a duty uniform or other daily apparel or heavy clothing, such 
as a winter coat or firefighting PPE. The benefits of seatbelts and 
vehicle safety harnesses in preventing and reducing injuries and 
fatalities are well known. A vehicle safety harness would be used in 
place of a seatbelt, typically in a patient transport vehicle where the 
EMS provider needs access to treat a patient that would not be possible 
while using a seatbelt. Team members and responders would be required 
to use the seats, seatbelts, and vehicle safety harnesses as specified 
in proposed paragraph (l)(2) of this section.
    OSHA realizes that many types of vehicles used by team members and 
responders are designed, built, and intended for use without seatbelts 
or vehicle safety harnesses. Examples include some All-Terrain 
Vehicles, passenger seats in buses, bicycles, motorcycles, snowmobiles, 
boats, and personal watercraft. Such vehicles are exempted from the 
requirements in paragraph (1)(1)(iii).
    Proposed paragraphs (l)(1)(iv) and (v) would require the WERE or 
ESO to ensure that vehicles with aerial devices and vehicles with 
vehicle-mounted water pumps be inspected, maintained, and service 
tested in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions or in a 
manner at least equivalent to the criteria specified in NFPA 1910, 2024 
ed. The testing and maintenance program specified in the manufacturer's 
instructions and the consensus standard are recognized as the most 
effective programs to ensure the safety of these devices. Failure to 
inspect and maintain an aerial device could result in serious injuries 
or fatalities should a catastrophic failure occur when the device is 
elevated or extended. Water provided through vehicle mounted pumps is 
needed for fire suppression. Team members and responders depend on the 
water to protect them when they are in close proximity to a fire. They 
could be injured or killed if a pump were to malfunction or breakdown 
due to inadequate maintenance. Service testing ensures that aerial 
devices and pumps are functioning properly.
    Proposed paragraph (l)(2) would ensure vehicles are driven and 
operated in a manner that would keep team members and responders safe. 
While the primary focus of this provision is for the safety of team 
members and responders, it would also have the effect of protecting the 
public such as other drivers on the road and their passengers, 
bystanders, and patients being transported by EMS providers.
    Proposed paragraph (l)(2)(i) would require the WERE and ESO to 
ensure that each vehicle is operated by a team member or responder who 
has successfully completed an operator training program commensurate 
with the type of vehicle the team member or responder will operate, or 
by a trainee operator who is under the supervision of a qualified 
operator. Operators of vehicles would have to be adequately trained, or 
in the process of being trained, to operate the vehicle. An untrained 
or inadequately trained operator poses a safety hazard to team members 
and responders riding in the vehicle, to operators of other vehicles, 
and to bystanders.
    Proposed paragraph (l)(2)(ii) would require the WERE or ESO to 
ensure that each vehicle is driven or operated in accordance with the 
standard operating procedures (SOP) developed in proposed paragraph 
(q)(2)(iv) (see the Summary and Explanation for paragraph (q)). The 
proposed SOP provision includes several safety-related topics that are 
key to safe vehicle operation. Paragraph (l)(2)(ii) requires the WERE 
or ESO to ensure that these important procedures are not only 
established but that they are understood and followed by team members 
and responders.
    Paragraphs (l)(2)(iii) and (iv) are aimed at protecting team 
members and responders both during the normal operation of the vehicle 
and in the event of an accident. Paragraph (l)(2)(iii) would require 
that the WERE or ESO ensure the team member or responder operating the 
vehicle does not move the vehicle until all team members or

[[Page 7831]]

responders in or on the vehicle are seated and secured with seat belts 
or vehicle safety harnesses in approved riding positions, except for 
vehicles without seat belts and vehicle safety harnesses as noted in 
proposed paragraph (l)(1)(iii), or as provided in proposed paragraph 
(l)(2)(viii). The proposed provision anticipates that the driver or 
operator would verify with team members and responders that they are 
safely secured in an appropriate position or are otherwise prepared for 
vehicle movement. In Question (l)-1 OSHA is interested in getting 
information on whether there are any other situations or vehicles where 
OSHA should require, or exclude, the use of seat belts and vehicle 
harnesses? If so, please explain.
    Whereas proposed paragraph (l)(2)(iii) would ensure team members 
and responders are ready for the vehicle to move, proposed paragraph 
(l)(2)(iv) would require the WERE or ESO to ensure they remain seated 
and secured any time that the vehicle is in motion and ensure seat 
belts and vehicle safety harnesses are not released or loosened for any 
purpose while the vehicle is in motion, including the donning (putting 
on) or doffing (taking off) of PPE.
    When dispatched to an incident from the WERE or ESO facility, OSHA 
anticipates team members and responders would don PPE before being 
seated and secured, as required by proposed paragraph (l)(2)(iii). 
However, there are often occurrences when team members and responders 
are not wearing PPE while the vehicle is moving, such as for driver 
training, community assessment and familiarity, and other non-response 
driving situations, and they are dispatched to respond to an incident 
that requires donning PPE. The proposed provision requires that they 
not release or loosen seat belts or vehicle safety harnesses to don PPE 
when the vehicle is moving. Conversely, if the PPE has already been 
donned, the proposed provision prohibits the loosening of seat belts or 
vehicle safety harnesses to doff the PPE when the PPE is no longer 
needed, such as when the response is terminated. Question (l)-2 asks 
how would compliance be achieved? Would the team members or responders 
stop enroute or wait until arrival at the scene?
    Paragraph (l)(2)(v) of the proposed rule would require the WERE or 
ESO to ensure that team members and responders actively performing 
necessary emergency medical care while the vehicle is in motion are 
secured to the vehicle by a seat belt, or by a vehicle safety harness 
designed for occupant restraint, to the extent consistent with the 
effective provision of such emergency medical care. Restraining EMS 
providers who are providing care during transport reduces the 
likelihood of serious injury or death, should the vehicle make abrupt 
turns, stops, or starts; or become involved in a collision or rollover. 
In Question (l)-(3), OSHA is seeking input on whether it should also 
require that the patient be restrained to prevent an unrestrained 
patient from being thrown into a team member or responder in the event 
of a vehicle collision or an evasive driving maneuver?
    Proposed paragraph (l)(2)(vi) would require the WERE or ESO to 
ensure that the establishment and implementation of a procedure for 
driver training on vehicles with tiller steering that ensures when the 
instructor and trainee are both located at the tiller position, they 
are both adequately secured to the vehicle whenever it is in motion.
    Tractor-drawn aerial (TDA) ladder trucks, and tractor-drawn heavy 
duty and technical rescue vehicles, are unique in that they are 
required to have two operators; the main driver in the front, similar 
to other tractor-trailer trucks, and a second (tiller) operator who 
steers the wheels at the rear end of the trailer. They are also unique 
in that there is no passenger seat for the tiller instructor to sit in, 
as there would be when training the main driver at the front of the 
truck.
    Some manufacturers provide a detachable seat with a seat belt for 
the instructor to use. There are other options for compliance including 
the use of a vehicle safety harness with a designated anchor point that 
has sufficient strength to support a fallen team member or responder 
and is not just an ordinary handhold/grab rail.
    OSHA recognizes that boats are vehicles subject to the proposed 
standard, and some boats have tiller steering. However, this proposed 
provision would not apply to boats with tiller steering because they 
are designed, built, and intended for use without seat belts or vehicle 
safety harnesses, as noted in the discussion above regarding proposed 
paragraph (l)(1)(iii) of this section.
    Paragraph (l)(2)(vii) of the proposed rule would require the WERE 
or ESO to ensure that a vehicle safety harness designed for occupant 
restraint is provided to secure the team member or responder in a 
designated stand-up position during pump-and-roll operations. While 
manufacturers have typically phased out stand-up positions on newer 
models, many older model vehicles used for wildland or wildland urban 
interface firefighting have designated stand-up positions for operating 
the water delivery systems. Stand-up positions pose a fall hazard to 
team members and responders if they are not restrained.
    Proposed paragraph (l)(2)(viii) would require the WERE or ESO to 
ensure that policies and procedures are established and implemented for 
ensuring the safety of team members and responders when it is 
determined that it is not feasible for each team member, responder, or 
person to be belted in a seat. Examples include when moving the vehicle 
while reloading long lays of hose, standing as honor guards during a 
funeral procession, transporting people acting as holiday figures or 
other characters or mascots (e.g., Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Smokey 
Bear, Superman, etc.), during parades, and for vehicles without 
seatbelts as noted in proposed paragraph (l)(1)(iii) of this section. 
The policies and procedures would differ depending upon the type of 
vehicle and activity taking place. OSHA anticipates a variety of 
alternatives for compliance such as the use of ladder belts, harnesses, 
or other fall protection, and limitations on the speed vehicles may 
travel.
    When an emergency incident occurs, some WEREs and many ESOs depend 
on team members or responders driving to their facilities to provide 
staffing for emergency response vehicles, or to respond directly to the 
incident scene to provide emergency services. In these instances, as 
noted in section VII., Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, some team members and responders are 
injured and killed while responding in privately owned vehicles (POVs). 
OSHA is including requirements in the proposed rule to address this 
hazard.
    Proposed paragraph (l)(2)(ix) would require the WERE or ESO to 
ensure that policies and procedures are established and implemented for 
team members and responders who, when alerted of an emergency incident, 
are authorized by the WERE or ESO to respond in vehicles not under the 
direct control of the WERE or ESO to the emergency incident scene or to 
the WERE facility. Such vehicles are those that are, for example, 
privately owned, leased, rented, or otherwise under the control of the 
team member or responder (including on-loan from a friend or family 
member).
    Some WEREs and ESOs depend on ``home response'' by team members and 
responders. In other words, team members are at home or otherwise on 
personal time, and directly respond in their POV to the incident 
location or to the WERE or ESO facility when alerted

[[Page 7832]]

of an emergency incident. This response is typically time-sensitive, 
requiring the team member or responder to travel with haste, often 
while communicating and coordinating with the WERE, ESO, or other team 
members or responders. This scenario presents hazards that are directly 
related to emergency response activities. As such, OSHA does not 
consider this sort of home response to be a commute to the workplace as 
described in 29 CFR 1904.5(b)(2)(vii), which is not treated as work-
related for purposes of recordkeeping and injury and illness reporting 
requirements under 29 CFR part 1904. Rather, OSHA intends to cover 
these types of home responses under the proposed standard. Under the 
proposal, the WERE's or ESO's procedures for use of POV vehicles in 
these circumstances would need to include the same elements as those 
for driving their emergency vehicles, including requirements for 
wearing seatbelts, speed limits, stopping and proceeding at traffic 
control devices, passing other vehicles, and the use of warning lights 
and signals.
    Paragraph (l)(2)(x) proposes to require the WERE or ESO to ensure 
that, where tools, equipment, and respiratory equipment are carried 
within enclosed seating areas of vehicles, each is secured either by an 
effective mechanical means of holding the item in its stowed position 
or by placement in a compartment with an effective latching mechanism. 
This would ensure that these items do not become flying projectiles 
that could injure team members and responders should the vehicle be 
involved in a collision or roll-over.
Paragraph (m) WERE Pre-Incident Planning
    Pre-incident plans (PIPs) help team members effectively manage 
incidents and maximize the protection of team members as well as 
facility employees and the facility. PIPs provide critical information 
to team members that can guide their response to an emergency incident. 
PIPs typically include maps of the facility and diagrams and drawings, 
along with the designation of predetermined locations for emergency 
vehicle positioning during an incident. An accurate, up-to-date PIP is 
a valuable tool for assisting team members with safe and effective 
mitigation of incidents.
    Under paragraph (m)(1) of the proposed rule, the WERE would be 
required to develop PIPs for locations within the facility where team 
members may be called to provide service. The PIPS are based on the 
facility vulnerability assessment and the type(s) and level(s) of 
service(s) established in paragraph (c) of this section. The facility 
and vulnerability assessment would identify the locations and processes 
in the facility where WERT services are likely to be needed.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(2) would require the WERE to include in the 
PIP(s) the locations of unusual hazards that team members may 
encounter, such as storage and use of flammable liquids and gases, 
explosives, toxic and biological agents, radioactive sources, water-
reactive substances, permit-required confined spaces, and hazardous 
processes. Unusual hazards are those hazards that are particularly 
dangerous to the health and safety of team members when carrying out 
their activities on the WERT. Including them in the PIP provides team 
members with notice of their presence and thus allows team members to 
prepare for them and to take appropriate action during emergency 
situations.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(3) would require that the WERE include in 
the PIPs the locations of fire pumps, fire hose valves, control valves, 
control panels, and other equipment for fire suppression systems, fire 
detection and alarm systems, and smoke control and evacuations systems. 
During an emergency, team members need quick access to built-in 
protective systems, equipment, and components. Including their 
locations in the PIPs makes it easier for team members to find these 
items when needed. PIPs may also be used in training situations for 
familiarizing team members with the facility layout and locations of 
the important items specified in the proposed provision.
    Under paragraph (m)(4) of the proposed rule, the WERE would ensure 
that the most recent versions of PIPs are provided to the WERT and are 
accessible and available to team members operating at emergency 
incidents. To be useful, PIPs must be accessible to responding team 
members, especially the incident commander. PIPs should also be made 
available as a training tool.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(5) would require the WERE, to the extent 
feasible, to include in PIPs the actions to be taken by team members if 
the scope of the incident is beyond the capability of the WERT. For 
example, a PIP that includes the location of an unusual hazard that the 
WERT is not trained for might indicate that team members must remain a 
safe distance from the area, ensure facility workers are being 
evacuated, and summon mutual aid to mitigate the incident. Including 
these procedures in the PIP ensures that team members know the steps to 
take when faced with unusual hazards that are beyond their capability. 
It also helps to ensure team members do not expose themselves to 
hazards they are unequipped to handle by articulating the expectation 
in the event of such a hazard.
    Paragraph (m)(6) would require that WEREs review PIPs annually and 
when conditions or hazards change at the facility. They shall be 
updated as needed. To be useful, PIPs must be up to date. OSHA believes 
that requiring the WERE to review PIPs when condition or hazards change 
and at least annually is sufficient to ensure the WERE identifies 
deficiencies in the PIP and keeps it up to date. The requirement 
ensures the WERE addresses known changes that might affect the WERT in 
a timely manner while the annual review allows the WERE to identify 
small changes that may have been overlooked since the past review. For 
example, the WERE would know when significant changes are made to the 
facility, such as building renovations and additions. This knowledge 
would prompt an update of the PIP as soon as reasonably possible. A 
smaller change, such as the relocation of bottled gas storage from one 
room to another, is something that might be identified during an annual 
review of the PIPs and appropriate updates would then be made.
Paragraph (n) ESO Pre-Incident Planning
    Pre-incident plans (PIPs) help responders effectively manage 
incidents and maximize the protection of responders by planning in 
advance. Also, PIPs provide critical information to responders that can 
guide their response to an emergency incident. PIPs typically include 
maps of the subject facility, and diagrams and drawings, along with 
designation of predetermined locations for emergency vehicle 
positioning during an incident. The provisions in proposed paragraph 
(n) are based on the pre-incident planning paragraphs in NFPA 1660, 
Standard for Emergency, Continuity, and Crisis Management: 
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, 2024 ed. While not required by 
the proposed rule, ESOs would benefit from using a standard form and 
format for PIPs for ease of use by incident commanders (IC) and other 
responders during an incident.
    Under paragraphs (n)(1) and (2) of the proposed rule, the ESO would 
be required to determine the locations and facilities where responders 
may be called to provide services that need a PIP, based on the 
community or facility

[[Page 7833]]

vulnerability assessment and the type(s) and level(s) of service(s) 
established in paragraph (d), and develop PIPs for facilities, 
locations, and infrastructure where emergency incidents may occur. The 
proposed rule does not require a PIP for every incident imaginable. 
Rather, through the community or facility vulnerability assessment, the 
ESO must identify structures, facilities, and other locations where a 
PIP would help the ESO prepare for an incident, and then assist the IC 
with the development of the IAP in paragraph (p)(2)(vi).
    ESOs should prioritize PIP development according to the type and 
magnitude of the potential incident. Hazards to life and health are of 
the utmost importance and would have the highest priority in creating 
PIPs. Likewise, the larger or more complex a structure or facility is, 
the greater the risk in mitigating an emergency incident at these 
places and therefore the need for a PIP would also be greater.
    Proposed paragraph (n)(3) would require the ESO to prepare a PIP 
for each facility within the ESO's primary response area that is 
subject to reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 355 pursuant to the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (also 
referred to as the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 
(SARA)), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. These types of facilities are 
particularly hazardous because they involve hazardous chemicals, and 
PIPs are necessary to ensure ESOs are sufficiently prepared to respond 
to incidents at these facilities. Additionally, these facilities may 
not have a WERT organized to mitigate emergencies, or the size and 
scope of the emergency may be beyond the WERT's capabilities.
    Under proposed paragraph (n)(4), the ESO would need to ensure that, 
when preparing a PIP for a facility, the facility personnel the ESO 
consults are knowledgeable about the facility's use, contents, 
processes, hazards, and occupants. It is important that all potential 
hazards are identified to responders preparing PIPs, so it is important 
that the facility personnel assisting with the PIP development have 
thorough knowledge of the facility. It may be necessary to consult with 
more than one facility representative to ensure that all the necessary 
information needed for the PIP is accurately conveyed. While preparing 
the PIP, the responder may be provided access to information, 
materials, or processes that are considered proprietary business 
information. A note to proposed paragraph (n)(4) recommends that the 
ESO develop a policy for protecting this information.
    Paragraph (n)(5) of the proposed rule would require that the ESO 
ensure that the responders responsible for PIP preparation know how to 
identify the information to be collected and included in the PIP. The 
PIP is only as good as the information contained in it. For instance, 
all necessary facility information must be recorded, items of concern 
must be noted, and accurate sketches or diagrams must be prepared.
    Proposed paragraph (n)(6) would require the ESO to ensure that PIPs 
have a level of detail commensurate with the facility's complexity and 
hazards. PIPs for facilities which are not complex can be developed 
with minimal amounts of data. However, additional data are required for 
more complex facilities with more hazards. For example, the PIP for a 
multi-story high school would be expected to be more complex than the 
PIP for a fast-food restaurant. Regardless of facility complexity, the 
PIP details should be presented as concisely as possible to make them 
easily understandable to the appropriate responders.
    Paragraph (n)(7) of the proposed rule would require the ESO to 
ensure that PIPs include actions to be taken by responders if the scope 
of an incident is beyond the capacity of the ESO. The PIP would be 
developed with an understanding of the ESO's response capability based 
on the type(s) and level(s) of service established in paragraph (d), 
and this provision would require planning for what to do if the ESO 
encounters an incident that exceeds that response capability. For 
example, the PIP might include what mutual aid ESO or skilled support 
resources would be needed. The PIP would also describe action(s) the 
ESO would take, such as establishing defensive firefighting positions, 
establishing no-entry zones, ensuring surrounding areas are evacuated, 
etc. In some situations, the appropriate action might be simply to pull 
back all responders to a safe distance away from the hazard.
    Under proposed paragraph (n)(8), the ESO must ensure that the most 
recent PIPs are disseminated as needed and are accessible and available 
to responders operating at emergency incidents. OSHA is aware that some 
ESOs use electronic versions of PIPs in a database, while others use 
hardcopies kept in binders in response vehicles. Any method that 
ensures the PIPs are accessible and available would comply with the 
provision. PIPs can only be useful if they are available at the 
incident site and accessible to responders operating at emergency 
incidents. Also, they should be easy for responders to understand. PIPs 
are particularly important for the IC's use during an incident.
    Paragraph (n)(9) of the proposed rule would require the ESO to 
ensure that PIPs be reviewed annually and updated as needed. For 
example, during the course of their daily routines, responders might 
observe facilities being renovated, additions being built, or a change 
of occupancy. Observations such as these might prompt a PIP update. 
Other information on PIPs might not be easily observed, such as names 
and phone numbers for responsible parties, access codes for doors and 
gates, etc. This type of information would be gathered during an annual 
review.
Paragraph (o) Incident Management System
    WERTs and ESOs respond to a wide variety of incidents; most of 
which are considered routine and involve a small commitment of 
resources. Some incidents are more complex and involve larger 
commitments of resources, and potentially higher-risk operations. It is 
important for the WERE and ESO to develop an incident management system 
(IMS) that accommodates all types and sizes of incidents and provides 
for a systematic process of escalation from the arrival of the first 
units at a routine incident, to an appropriate response to larger and 
more complex incidents.
    As discussed in the Summary and Explanation of proposed paragraph 
(b), the proposed rule defines an IMS as ``a system used for managing 
and directing incident scene operations and activities. It includes 
establishing functions for managing incidents, describes the roles and 
responsibilities to be assumed by team members and responders, and 
standard operating procedures to be utilized.'' Because OSHA is aware 
that some WERTs and ESOs use the terms IMS and Incident Command System 
(ICS) synonymously, the definition also indicates that incident command 
is a functional component of the IMS.
    An IMS provides for the safety and health of team members and 
responders by establishing structure and coordination for the 
management of emergency incident operations. Several commenters 
responding to OSHA's 2007 RFI indicated that an IMS is appropriate for 
managing all types of emergency incidents and is effective in reducing 
injuries and illnesses to team members and responders (Document ID 
0018; 0022; 0024; 0030; 0032; 0036; 0037; 0039; 0041; 0044; 0046; 0047; 
0048;

[[Page 7834]]

0049; 0050; 0051; 0052; 0053; 0060; 0070; 0071; 0072; 0073; 0074; 0078; 
0080; 0081; 0082; 0083; 0085). Lack of, or deficiencies in, an IMS are 
routinely cited by NIOSH in their investigation reports for team member 
and responder injuries and fatalities (Document ID 0326; 0327; 0328; 
0329; 0330). Examples of deficiencies noted include multiple team 
members and responders serving in command roles in an uncoordinated 
manner, lack of an established accountability system for tracking team 
members and responders, not establishing a rapid intervention crew 
(RIC), and not designating an Incident Safety Officer (ISO) or 
otherwise ensuring for the safety and health of team members and 
responders.
    Paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of the proposed rule would 
require that each WERE and ESO develop and implement an IMS to manage 
emergency incidents based on the type and level of service(s) 
established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the facility or 
community vulnerability assessment conducted in accordance with 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, and the pre-incident plans 
developed in accordance with paragraphs (m) and (n) of this section. An 
IMS provides a standard approach to managing the broad range of 
emergency incidents that team members and responders may encounter. The 
IC should be able to apply the IMS in a manner that supports the 
effective and efficient management of the incident. Each WERE and ESO 
should evaluate existing systems as it develops and implements an IMS 
that meets its own requirements and provides compatibility with systems 
used by mutual aid WERTs and ESOs, and other agencies that it would 
reasonably be expected to work with at emergency incidents.
    Proposed paragraph (o)(2)(i) would require that WEREs and ESOs 
ensure that their IMS include flexible and scalable components that are 
adaptable to any situation. A note included with the proposed provision 
indicates that standardization of the IMS, such as provided in the NIMS 
and the National Response Framework (NRF), developed by FEMA, an agency 
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is essential to the 
successful coordination and function of WERTs and ESOs in incident 
response operations. The NRF provides guidance for how the nation 
responds to all types of disasters and emergencies. It is built on 
scalable, flexible, and adaptable concepts identified in the NIMS to 
align key roles and responsibilities. The NIMS guides WERTs and ESOs 
with shared vocabulary, systems, and processes for working effectively 
together at emergency incidents. In Question (o)-1, OSHA asks for 
stakeholder input about their current use of an IMS, whether the NIMS 
and NRF were used as guidance for the IMS, and if there are any 
concerns with being compatible with NIMS.
    Paragraph (o)(2)(ii) of the proposed rule would require that each 
WERE and ESO ensure that, in the absence of a dedicated ISO, the IC 
assesses the incident scene for existing and potential hazards and 
oversees incident safety. Many incidents have an ISO whose primary 
responsibilities are to assess the incident scene for existing and 
potential hazards and oversee incident safety. Small-scale incident 
scenes, however, may not have a team member or responder who is 
designated as the ISO. In these circumstances, the IC would need to 
oversee incident safety.
    Paragraph (o)(2)(iii) of the proposed rule would require that each 
WERE and ESO ensure that the IMS includes a means for team members or 
responders to notify the IC or Unified Command (UC) of unsafe 
conditions and actions on the incident scene. Unsafe conditions or 
actions may become evident to team members and responders while they 
are performing their duties. It is important that they be able to alert 
the ISO, IC or UC as soon as possible, by means of portable radio, cell 
phone, face-to-face communication, or another method designated in the 
IMS, so that actions can be taken by the IC or UC to address the 
hazard.
    Paragraph (o)(2)(iv) of the proposed rule would require that each 
WERE and ESO ensure that the IMS consists of collaborative components 
that provide the basis for clear communication and effective 
operations. Components, such as those identified in the NIMS--resource 
management, command and coordination, and communications and 
information management--would provide structure and coordination for 
ICs and UCs to manage emergency incident operations, which would 
provide for the safety and health of team members and responders.
    Proposed paragraphs (o)(3)(i) through (iii) would require that each 
WERE and ESO designate the responsibilities of the IC that at least 
include front-line management of the incident, overall incident safety, 
and tactical planning and execution. The front-line management of the 
incident could include activities such as establishing a command post, 
conducting size-ups of the incident, and controlling incident 
communications. The overall incident safety responsibility of the IC 
could cover activities such as including team member and responder 
safety in the IAP, and continuously assessing the risk to the safety 
and health of team members and responders. The tactical planning and 
execution could include activities such as developing an overall 
strategy and an IAP, assigning duties and tasks to team members and 
responders, establishing hazard control zones, maintaining resource and 
team member or responder accountability, and updating the IAP as 
needed.
    Under proposed paragraph (o)(3)(iv), the WERE and ESO would also 
designate to the IC the responsibility of determining if additional 
assistance is needed, and relaying requests for internal resources, 
mutual aid, and skilled support assistance through the emergency 
communications and dispatch center. The IC is in the best position to 
know what and when additional assistance is needed. Assistance is 
requested by the IC through the dispatch center which would contact the 
requested internal resources, mutual aid WERT or ESO, or the employer 
who can provide the requested skilled support.
    Paragraph (o)(4) of the proposed rule would require that each WERE 
and ESO ensure that the IC has the training and authority to perform IC 
duties. Training would vary depending on the team member's or 
responder's tier of duty. For example, NFPA 1021, Standard for Fire 
Officer Professional Qualifications, 2020 ed., identifies four levels 
for minimum requirements for leadership and supervision over others and 
operations, which includes incident management. Level 1 is a tier for 
an entry level/first-line supervisor, ESO ``company officer,'' or team 
leader. Level 4 is the top level or top tier for the chief of the ESO. 
On a single unit response incident, typically the senior team member or 
responder would be the IC. On a multi-unit response incident, the 
senior team member or responder could be the initial IC, but the role 
of IC would pass up the chain of command as more senior/higher tier 
team members or responders arrive on the scene. Additionally, as part 
of the IMS, the WERE and ESO would need to authorize the appropriate 
team members and responders to serve as an IC.
    Many of the provisions in this section are based on, or are 
consistent with, NFPA 1500, and NFPA 1561, Standard on Emergency 
Services Incident Management System and Command Safety, 2024 ed. OSHA 
has preliminarily determined that development and use of an IMS would 
make incident scenes safer and prevent injuries and fatalities. In 
Question (o)-2, OSHA is seeking input on which

[[Page 7835]]

aspects of an IMS are the most effective and the least effective in 
protecting the safety and health of team members and responders. 
Commenters should explain how and why certain IMS components are or are 
not effective.
Paragraph (p) Emergency Incident Operations
    During emergency incident operations, team members and responders 
face the most challenging aspects, both physically and psychologically, 
of their vocation. Ensuring safe operations at incidents can reduce 
team member and responder injuries and fatalities, and limit exposure 
to health hazards. Paragraph (p) of the proposed rule is based on 
current industry practices, as reflected by NFPA consensus standards 
and FEMA's ``National Incident Management System,'' and would not 
present new requirements for most ESOs and WEREs.
    Proposed paragraph (p)(1) would establish requirements for incident 
command and management. Paragraphs (p)(1)(i) and (ii) would require the 
WERE and ESO to ensure that the IMS developed in accordance with 
paragraph (o) of this section is used at every emergency incident and 
that every incident has an Incident Commander (IC) or a Unified Command 
(UC). For an IMS to be effective on large scale incidents, it needs to 
be used on small scale incidents so that all involved are familiar with 
it and experienced with working within its scope. Also, it is important 
that every incident, no matter how large or how small, has a person 
designated to be in charge. For a simple EMS response for a sick person 
laying in the yard with two EMS providers on the ambulance, one 
provider would be designated the leader, or IC, and in charge of 
response activities for the incident.
    Under proposed paragraph (p)(1)(iii), the WERE and ESO would need 
to ensure that the task of overseeing incident safety is addressed, or 
an ISO is assigned and designated to monitor and assess the incident 
scene for safety hazards and unsafe situations and develop measures for 
ensuring team member and responder safety. The task of overseeing 
incident safety is sometimes referred to as the ``safety'' role. 
Typically, the IC would oversee the safety role on small(er) incidents. 
For larger or more complex incidents, where division of labor is 
appropriate so that the IC is not overwhelmed, a team member or 
responder (usually with seniority or in a higher tier) can be 
designated to fill the safety role as the ISO. Whoever fulfills the 
safety role needs to be mindful of observed and anticipated safety 
hazards and develop measures to stop or correct them to prevent 
injuries or fatalities.
    Proposed paragraph (p)(1)(iv) would require the WERE and ESO to 
ensure that if an incident escalates in size and complexity, the IC 
divides the incident into strategic or tactical level management 
components. Dividing complex incidents into manageable components 
allows for an appropriate span of control for team members and 
responders managing the components and reduces the likelihood that the 
IC or component managers will be overwhelmed. For example, a derailed 
and overturned passenger train is a large-scale incident that involves 
multiple WERTs or ESOs spread apart by distance, due to the length of 
the train, and also by the train itself being a large obstruction 
physically separating one side of the incident from the other. In this 
situation, the ESO could separate the incident into geographic areas, 
separating each side of the tracks (north/south, east/west) into 
individual divisions (as described in NIMS), with an overall IC, and a 
senior team member or responder designated as the division leader.
    Under proposed paragraph (p)(1)(v), the WERE and ESO would need to 
ensure that a Unified Command (UC) structure is utilized on incidents 
where the complexity requires a shared responsibility among two or more 
WEREs, ESOs, or other agencies. For example, a common situation 
requiring a UC could be during a large-scale wildfire that crosses 
jurisdictional boundaries, such as town/city, county, state, and 
Federal lands (such as national parks). The UC would likely be 
comprised of individuals who would be the IC in their own jurisdiction, 
to coordinate efforts and operate together to achieve a common goal to 
mitigate the incident and prevent injuries and fatalities.
    Proposed paragraph (p)(1)(vi) would require the WERE and ESO ensure 
that IC(s), team members, and responders are rotated or replaced during 
complex or extended operations, as determined by the WERE or ESO. 
Emergency response activities can be physically and mentally 
challenging, resulting in fatigue that can impair the team member or 
responder's ability to safely and effectively perform their duties. It 
is important that team members and responders receive adequate rest 
breaks and the opportunity to mentally decompress.
    Proposed paragraph (p)(2) would establish requirements for the 
incident commander. Paragraph (p)(2)(i) would require the WERE and ESO 
to ensure a team member or responder is assigned as the IC. Each 
incident needs someone to be in charge, who would serve as the IC. 
However, the team member or responder designated to fill the role of IC 
may change as the incident progresses and more senior tier team members 
or responders arrive at the scene, or as the incident escalates in size 
or complexity.
    Paragraph (p)(2)(ii) would require each WERE and ESO to ensure that 
the identity of the IC and the location of the command post are 
communicated to the team members or responders who are on the incident 
scene or responding to it. The IC should announce via radio the 
specific location of the command post. For communications via radio 
between the sender and receiver, the command post could be anywhere 
within range of the radio. However, most often incident scene 
communication occurs face-to-face. Thus, team members and responders 
need to know who and where the IC is on the scene. Often, response 
vehicles are used as the command post, but where multiple vehicles are 
on the scene, it may be difficult to distinguish which vehicle is being 
used as the command post. The command post could also be a free-
standing table/command board located close to incident operations or 
away from vehicles. A visible object, such as a steady or flashing 
light of a distinct color, or a flag, banner, or other visible marker 
could be used to help identify the location of the command post. If the 
IC is outside of the identified vehicle, a distinguishing garment, such 
as a reflective vest with ``Command,'' or other suitable means should 
be used to identify the IC.
    Under proposed paragraphs (p)(2)(iii) and (iv), the WERE and ESO 
would need to ensure the IC conducts a comprehensive and ongoing size-
up of the incident scene that places life safety as the highest 
priority and conducts a risk assessment based on the size up before 
actively engaging the incident. Factors involved in a size-up vary 
depending on the type of incident (e.g., fire, EMS, technical rescue), 
but all size-ups need to include evaluation of the safety hazards to 
the person/people involved in the incident, bystanders, and team 
members and responders. Size-up is an ongoing process that includes a 
continuing evaluation of information received and assessment of the 
hazards present. When feasible, the size-up should include a 360-degree 
walkaround survey of the involved structure or incident scene to 
evaluate the incident from all angles so that a

[[Page 7836]]

clear mental picture of the scope of the incident can be developed.
    Under proposed paragraph (p)(2)(v), the WERE and ESO would ensure 
the IC coordinates and directs all activities for the duration of the 
incident. This provision would require the IC, or successive ICs, to 
remain engaged in managing the incident from beginning to end. Similar 
to the IC role being passed as an incident escalates, the IC role could 
be passed again as the incident de-escalates. Because all activities 
must be conducted under the direction of the IC, ``freelancing'' 
(operating without direction from the IC and outside the scope of the 
IMS) on the incident scene would be prohibited.
    Proposed paragraph (p)(2)(vi) would require the WERE and ESO to 
ensure the IC develops an Incident Action Plan (IAP) that prioritizes 
life safety for each incident, updates it as needed during the 
incident, and utilizes the information contained in the PIP. The IAP 
helps to coordinate incident operations and activities, and ensure they 
support the incident mitigation objectives. The IAP provides structure 
to manage the incident. For the majority of incidents, the IAP is 
usually not a formal, written plan, although for some large-scale 
incidents the IC or UC may develop a written plan. Often, the IAP may 
only be documented on a fill-in incident management/incident command 
template, chart, magnetic or wipe-off board, or others means depending 
on the IC's preference. If a PIP was developed for the incident scene 
location, proposed provision (p)(2)(vi) would require that it be used 
in the development of the IAP. The purpose for requiring the 
development of PIPs in proposed paragraphs (m) and (n) is to aid the 
IC's management of the incident.
    Proposed paragraph (p)(3) would establish requirements for control 
zones. In paragraph (p)(3)(i), the WERE and ESO would be required to 
establish control zones at every emergency incident to identify the 
level of risk to team members and responders and the appropriate 
protective measures needed, including PPE. Control zones serve to 
delineate the areas where certain team members and responders are 
designated to operate. In addition to the protective measures or PPE 
needed for each zone, the differentiation among control zones may also 
indicate the required level of training (i.e., team member or responder 
tier) appropriate to operate in each zone.
    Proposed paragraphs (p)(3)(ii) and (iii) would require the WERE and 
ESO to ensure the perimeters of control zones are designated by the IC, 
and that any changes to the perimeters during the incident are 
communicated to all team members and responders on the scene. For 
control zones to serve their intended purpose, team members and 
responders need to be notified of the zone perimeters. As an incident 
escalates or de-escalates the boundaries of the zones are likely to 
expand or contract. For example, when a fire extends from one attached 
dwelling (i.e., townhouse, rowhouse) to another the zones would expand 
to include the additional dwelling on fire. As the fire is brought 
under control, the zones would contract. Team members and responders 
would need to be notified of these changes via radio or visually by the 
relocation of the marking method required by proposed paragraph 
(p)(3)(iv)(B).
    Under proposed paragraphs (p)(3)(iv)(A) through (C), the WERE and 
ESO would need to ensure that control zones are established as no-
entry, hot, warm, and cold, as defined in proposed paragraph (b); 
marked in a conspicuous manner, with colored tape, signage, or other 
appropriate means, unless such marking is not possible; and 
communicated to all team members and responders attending the incident 
before the team member or responder is assigned to a control zone. 
These proposed provisions elaborate on the general requirements in the 
preceding provisions. The individual zones are defined in proposed 
paragraph (b), and further explained in the Summary and Explanation for 
paragraph (b). In Question (p)-1, OSHA is seeking stakeholder input on 
current practices for identifying and communicating the various zone 
boundaries. What marking methods are used? How are they communicated to 
team members and responders? Do the marking methods help or hinder on-
scene operations?
    Proposed paragraph (p)(3)(v) would require the WERE and ESO to 
ensure that only team members and responders with an assigned task are 
permitted in the hot zone. The hot zone is the area with the greatest 
potential for risk of injury or exposure to hazards. Team members or 
responders entering the hot zone without an assigned task would be 
considered to be freelancing, thus operating outside the scope of the 
IMS, and therefore placing themselves at risk, and potentially 
increasing the risk to those designated to operate within the zone. 
Freelancing team members and responders are also likely to be difficult 
to track in the personnel accountability system established in proposed 
paragraph (p)(2)(vi).
    Paragraph (p)(3)(vi) of the proposed rule would require the WERE 
and ESO ensure that where a no-entry zone is designated, team members 
and responders are prohibited from entering the area. A no-entry zone 
can be established for any number of reasons. The most important reason 
is to protect team members and responders from injury or death. For 
example, during a structure fire, there is the danger of a wall or 
other part of a structure collapsing. The area where the collapsing 
structural components are likely to fall would be designated as a no-
entry zone, and team members and responders would be prohibited from 
entering that area. While not a hazard to team members and responders, 
a no-entry zone could be established to protect evidence for a 
potential criminal investigation.
    In paragraph (p)(3)(vii) of the proposed rule, the WERE and ESO 
would be required to ensure that for each zone the appropriate 
protective measures are designated, including PPE, that are 
commensurate with the hazards in the zone the team member and responder 
will be operating in, and that each team member and responder 
appropriately uses the protective measures for that zone. The 
protective levels of PPE needed vary for each zone level, with the 
highest level needed for the hot zone. A protective measure for a 
downed electrical wire could be to a maintain a certain, safe distance 
away from the downed wire (a no-entry zone), with no specific PPE 
needed.
    Proposed paragraph (p)(4) would require safety and health measures 
to be taken on the incident scene. Under proposed paragraphs (p)(4)(i) 
and (ii), WEREs and ESOs would be required to identify the minimum 
staffing needed to ensure that incidents are mitigated safely and 
effectively and ensure that operations are limited to those that can be 
safely performed by the team members and responders available on the 
scene. OSHA recognizes that many WERTs and ESOs ``do more with less.'' 
The proposed provisions would require the WERE and ESO to identify the 
staffing needed for various types of incidents that they may respond 
to, potentially prompting a request for mutual aid resources, but also 
that they limit operations to those that can be safely performed with 
the team members and responders on the scene. NFPA 1710 and NFPA 1720 
provide guidance on staffing levels for various types of firefighting 
ESOs. To be clear, OSHA is not specifying, nor recommending minimum 
staffing levels for emergency response vehicles, or the minimum number 
of team members or responders needed on an incident scene for safe 
incident operations, except with respect to the ``2-in, 2-out'' 
requirement discussed below. Operations on the

[[Page 7837]]

incident scene would need to be limited to those that can be safely 
conducted by the team members or responders on the scene.
    Proposed paragraphs (p)(4)(iii) through (v) are essentially carried 
forward into the proposed rule from the existing requirements in 29 CFR 
1910.134(g)(4), Respiratory Protection; Procedures for interior 
structural firefighting. The existing provisions are commonly referred 
to as the ``2-in, 2-out'' rule. As part of this rulemaking, OSHA 
intends to delete existing paragraph (g)(4) from 29 CFR 1910.134 and 
insert a note there referring readers to this rule for the requirements 
on interior structural firefighting. WEREs and ESOs are required to 
continue to comply with the remaining provisions of 29 CFR 1910.134. In 
addition, under proposed paragraphs (p)(4)(iii) through (v), the 
coverage is expanded to include all IDLH atmospheres that team members 
and responders enter, not just interior structural firefighting. Team 
members and responders performing other duties, such as technical 
rescue in an IDLH, face many of the same hazards as those performing 
interior structural firefighting, and need to be afforded the same 
protective measures.
    Paragraph (p)(4)(iii) of the proposed rule would require the WERE 
and ESO to ensure that at least four team members or responders are 
assembled before operations are initiated in an IDLH atmosphere in a 
structure or enclosed area, unless upon arrival at an emergency scene, 
the initial team member(s) or responder(s) find an imminent life-
threatening situation where immediate action could prevent the loss of 
life or serious injury, in which case such action would be permitted 
with fewer than four team members or responders present. The 
requirement in this provision of a minimum of four team members or 
responders is consistent with existing 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(4), which 
requires at least two team members or responders to enter the IDLH 
environment and at least two team members or responders located outside 
the IDLH environment.
    This provision includes an exception to the 2-in, 2-out requirement 
and coincides with proposed provision (f)(2) of this section. OSHA's 
intent is that this exception is for the rescue of a person in imminent 
peril only, where team members or responders observe, or are informed 
by a witness of the imminent life hazard. The traditional emergency 
services adage may be relevant when considering whether an exception to 
the 2-in, 2-out requirement would be appropriate: ``Risk a lot to save 
a lot, risk little to save little; risk nothing to save nothing.'' This 
proposed provision is not intended to be used as a loophole for non-
compliance with proposed paragraph (p)(4)(iii). Some organizations have 
tried to use the existing 2-in, 2-out requirement to justify minimum 
staffing levels on emergency response vehicles, which is a 
mischaracterization of the requirement. The four team members or 
responders need not arrive on the same vehicle and could arrive at the 
incident scene separately to be in compliance with the proposed 
provision.
    Under proposed paragraph (p)(4)(iv), the WERE and ESO would need to 
ensure that at least two team members or responders enter the structure 
or enclosed area with an IDLH atmosphere as a team and remain in visual 
or voice contact with one another at all times, unless there is 
insufficient space for two team members or responders, such as for 
example, in a confined space or collapsed structure. Two team members 
or responders are needed to work together as a team in case one has an 
issue that requires the assistance of the other one. Often visible 
contact is not possible in dark or smoke-filled locations. Voice 
contact is person-to-person, without the use of radios, so that they 
can hear one another in case one needs help.
    Proposed paragraph (p)(4)(v) would require the WERE and ESO to 
ensure that outside the structure or enclosed area with the IDLH 
atmosphere, a minimum of two team members or responders are present to 
provide assistance to, or rescue of the team operating in the IDLH 
atmosphere. One of the two team members or responders located outside 
the IDLH atmosphere may be assigned to an additional role, such as IC, 
so long as this team member or responder is able to perform assistance 
or rescue activities without jeopardizing the safety or health of other 
team members or responders operating at the incident.
    Paragraph (p)(4)(vi) of the proposed rule would require WEREs and 
ESOs ensure each team member and responder in the IDLH atmosphere uses 
positive-pressure SCBA or a supplied-air respirator in accordance with 
the respiratory protection program specified in proposed paragraph (f) 
of this section. The air pressure inside the facepiece of a positive-
pressure SCBA and supplied air respirators is constantly higher than 
the air pressure outside the facepiece. Therefore, if a break in the 
seal of the facepiece to the face should occur, the high internal air 
pressure will push air out thus preventing contaminated air from 
entering.
    Proposed paragraph (p)(4)(vii) would require the WERE and ESO to 
ensure that each supplied-air respirator used in an IDLH atmosphere is 
equipped with a NIOSH-certified emergency escape air cylinder and 
pressure-demand facepiece. An escape cylinder is needed in case 
something happens that stops the air flow from the air hose, or an 
event occurs that requires the team member or responder to rapidly 
escape, thus disconnecting from the air hose to avoid being hindered by 
a potentially entangled air hose.
    Under proposed paragraph (p)(4)(viii), the WERE and ESO would 
ensure that team members and responders use NIOSH-certified respiratory 
protection during post-fire extinguishment activities, such as overhaul 
and fire investigation. Once the fire has been substantially 
extinguished, team members and responders typically begin overhaul 
activities to find and expose any smoldering or hidden pockets of fire 
in the area that has burned. Usually, SCBA is no longer needed to 
protect team members' and responders' respiratory systems from the 
heated gases. However, other combustion products are still present. 
Thus, NIOSH-certified respiratory protection suitable for carcinogenic 
combustion products would be needed. Fire investigator team members and 
responders are also exposed to combustion products while performing 
their duties on a fire scene, even after an emergency incident is 
contained. Therefore, these team members and responders would also need 
to use respiratory protection.
    Proposed paragraph (p)(5) would establish requirements for 
communication between the emergency communications and dispatch center, 
and team members and responders and the IC; and for on-scene 
communication. Paragraph (p)(5)(i) of the proposed rule would require 
the WERE and ESO ensure, to the extent feasible, that there is adequate 
dispatch and monitoring of on-scene radio transmissions by an emergency 
communications and dispatch center. Emergency communications and 
dispatch centers are known by many different terms, such as emergency 
communications center, public safety communications center, and 911 
center. OSHA recognizes that WEREs and ESOs may not have direct 
supervision or authority over the emergency communications and 
dispatch. However, OSHA expects that emergency communications and 
dispatch centers would do what they can to ensure adequate monitoring 
of on-scene radio transmissions. Even where the WERE or ESO does not 
have direct supervision or authority over the

[[Page 7838]]

communications and dispatch center, the WERE or ESO must still take all 
feasible steps to ensure adequate monitoring of on-scene radio, such as 
by notifying the communications and dispatch center of the need for 
monitoring and cooperating with them to facilitate such monitoring. 
Where a WERE or private ESO does not utilize the public emergency 
communications and dispatch center or knows that the center will not be 
monitoring on-scene radio transmissions, the WERE or ESO must ensure 
that their own means of communication with team members and responders 
are monitored in accordance with proposed paragraph (p)(5)(i). 
Monitoring of incident scene radio transmissions is important for 
relaying information, ensuring requests for additional resources are 
acknowledged and processed, and most importantly, ensuring Mayday calls 
are not missed.
    Proposed paragraph (p)(5)(ii) would require the WERE and ESO ensure 
there is effective communication capability between team members or 
responders and the IC. This may involve providing each team member and 
responder their own portable, two-way radio. However, in many cases 
effective communication may be achieved by ensuring all team members 
and responders work with someone who has a radio.
    Proposed paragraph (p)(5)(iii) would require the WERE and ESO 
ensure that communications equipment allows mutual aid team members and 
responders to communicate with the IC and other team members and 
responders. For mutual aid to be effective, WEREs and ESOs need to be 
able to communicate with each other on the incident scene. Radio 
technology has evolved through the years and continues to evolve such 
that some two-way radios used by team members and responders have 
communication capabilities across many radio channels and frequencies. 
OSHA is not proposing to require that WEREs and ESOs replace existing 
radio equipment with the latest equipment. Instead, the proposed 
provision would require the WERE or ESO to ensure communication 
capability, which could be that those WEREs or ESOs with mutual aid 
agreements be equipped with two-way radios that match or work with each 
other's frequency(ies), or that a separate mutual aid frequency be 
established and provided on their existing radios.
    Under proposed paragraph (p)(6), OSHA would require the WERE and 
ESO to ensure that the personnel accountability system established in 
proposed paragraph (q)(2)(vii) is implemented at all incidents. As the 
name implies, the personnel accountability system is intended to keep 
track of team members and responders operating on the incident scene. 
Its primary purpose is to identify any missing team member or 
responder. For instance, if a WERE or ESO establishes that personnel 
accountability check be conducted at a certain time interval and at 
that time interval it is determined that someone is missing, the 
personnel accountability system should be able to identify the 
individual and where they were expected to be operating on the incident 
scene. Many WEREs and ESOs are accustomed to using some form of 
personnel accountability system. The proposed provision would require 
that a personnel accountability system be used at every incident.
    Paragraph (p)(7) of the proposed rule would require the WERE and 
ESO to implement a Rapid Intervention Crew (RIC) at each structure fire 
incident where team members or responders are operating in an IDLH 
atmosphere, in accordance with the SOP established in paragraph 
(q)(2)(viii) of this section. Rescuing a team member or responder who 
is in trouble and in need of rescue is a difficult process. It is 
important that a properly staffed and equipped RIC be established at 
incidents where team members and responders are operating in IDLH 
atmospheres so that they can be deployed quickly when needed as team 
members and responders operating in an IDLH have a limited supply of 
air available in their SCBA.
    Proposed paragraph (p)(8) would require the WERE and ESO ensure 
that medical monitoring and rehabilitation procedures are implemented, 
as needed, in accordance with the SOP established in paragraph 
(q)(2)(ix) of this section. The IC would need to consider the 
circumstances of each incident and make provisions for rest, medical 
monitoring, and rehabilitation of team members or responders operating 
at the scene. Requirements for on-scene rehabilitation were considered 
appropriate by several commenters to the 2007 RFI (Document ID 0022; 
0032; 0037; 0041; 0044; 0046; 0047; 0049; 0051; 0052; 0060; 0063; 0071; 
0072; 0083). Having preplanned medical monitoring and rehabilitation 
procedures that can be applied to a variety of incident types is 
essential for the health and safety of team members and responders.
    Paragraph (p)(9) of the proposed rule would require that the WERE 
and ESO implement the traffic safety procedures, as needed, in 
accordance with the SOP established in paragraph (q)(2)(x) of this 
section. As noted in section II.A., Need for the Standard, many 
responders are injured and killed while operating at incidents on 
roadways and highways. To reduce the likelihood of injuries and 
fatalities, WEREs and ESOs would need to establish traffic safety 
procedures that could include using a large vehicle to block traffic 
lanes and the wearing of reflective PPE. Also, WEREs and ESO should 
consult with the appropriate authorities regarding procedures for the 
complete shutdown of traffic movement on the roadway or highway to 
protect team members and responders from moving vehicles on the scene 
of an emergency incident.
    Some emergency incidents may necessitate the WERE and ESO to call 
upon the services of employers who do not typically provide emergency 
services. One example would be to call upon the services of a heavy-
duty wrecker-rotator and operator to lift a tractor-trailer truck that 
has overturned unto a car with people trapped inside or calling a 
construction company to provide a bulldozer and operator to cut a fire 
line or access road for a wildland fire. Another example is calling a 
plumber with a sewer camera to search for trapped victims in a 
collapsed structure. These workers would provide their skills and 
equipment, when needed, to support team members and responders 
operating at an emergency incident. Known in the proposed rule as 
skilled support workers (SSW), they would potentially be exposed to 
some of the same hazards as team workers and responders.
    Proposed paragraphs (p)(10)(i) through (v) would require the WERE 
and ESO to ensure that prior to participation at an incident scene, 
each SSW has and utilizes PPE appropriate to the task(s) to be 
performed; an initial briefing is provided to each SSW that includes, 
at a minimum, what hazards are involved, what safety precautions are to 
be taken, and what duties are to be performed by the SSW; an effective 
means of communication between the IC and each SSW is provided; where 
appropriate, a team member or responder is designated and escorts the 
SSW at the emergency incident scene; and all other appropriate on-scene 
safety and health precautions provided to team members and responders 
are used to ensure the safety and health of each SSW.
    The SERs participating in the 2021 SBREFA panel generally agreed 
that SSWs did not need additional emergency response-specific PPE when 
responding to emergency incidents (Document ID 0115, p. 10). The SERs 
indicated that, even at emergency incidents, SSWs generally would need 
only the PPE they normally would use

[[Page 7839]]

on any job. Any additional PPE that the SSW would need to be protected 
at the incident scene would need to be provided by the WERE or ESO.
Paragraph (q) Standard Operating Procedures
    Use of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) helps to reduce the 
risk of injuries and fatalities by providing written guidance to team 
members and responders with established safe procedures for actions to 
be taken during a wide variety of incident responses. They provide 
direction for team members and responders on what they need to do to 
safely perform job tasks that are routine and predictable. SOPs ensure 
consistent work performance, contribute to a safe work environment, and 
create a template for how to resolve issues and overcome obstacles. 
NIOSH, in its firefighter fatality investigation and prevention 
program, frequently cites a lack of, or inadequacy of, standard 
operating procedures as a contributing factor in firefighter fatalities 
(Document ID 0326; 0327; 0328; 0329; 0330).
    Paragraph (q)(1) of the proposed rule would require that WEREs and 
ESOs develop and implement SOPs for emergency events they are likely to 
encounter, based on the type(s) and level(s) of service(s) established 
in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, and the community or 
facility vulnerability assessment developed in accordance with 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. For example, many communities 
have single family dwellings. An appropriate SOP for firefighting ESOs 
might include the location for response vehicles to be positioned as 
they arrive at a house on fire, and the duties of responders arriving 
on the scene.
    Paragraph (q)(2)(i) of the proposed rule would require that WEREs 
and ESOs establish SOPs that describe the actions to be taken by team 
members and responders in situations involving unusual hazards. 
Examples of unusual hazards include downed power lines, natural gas or 
propane leaks, flammable liquid spills, bomb threats, derailments of 
railroad and subway systems, fast-moving water, and floods. Team 
members and responders are sometimes dispatched to incident scenes with 
unusual hazards to evaluate the hazard, and a basic SOP may be to set 
up a security barrier to protect people from the hazard, request 
assistance from the resource provider such as a utility company, or 
initiate or assist with evacuation of people in the area. SOPs should 
also include additional key information to guide team members and 
responders in the appropriate action(s) to be taken in each of these 
scenarios to protect themselves and other responders from those 
hazards.
    Proposed paragraph (q)(2)(ii) would require that each WERE and ESO 
establish SOPs that address how team members and responders are to 
operate at incidents that are beyond the capability of the WERT or ESO, 
as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. Typically, this 
would include actions to preserve lives, stabilize the scene, and 
summon mutual aid resources to help resolve the situation or perform 
duties that the WERT or ESO is unable to perform, such as technical 
rescue.
    Under paragraphs (q)(2)(iii) of the proposed rule, each WERE and 
ESO would be required to establish SOPs to provide a systemic approach 
for protecting team members and responders from contaminants and for 
decontamination of team members, responders, PPE, and equipment. The 
SOPs would need to include at a minimum: proper techniques for doffing 
contaminated PPE; on-scene gross decontamination and decontamination at 
the WERE's or ESO's facility of PPE, equipment, and team members and 
responders; encouraging team members and responders to shower with soap 
and water, as soon as reasonably practicable, and change into clean 
clothing; and protecting team members and responders from contaminated 
PPE after an incident. On-scene gross decontamination helps to remove 
combustion products which helps prevent further contamination of team 
members and responders and reduces cross-contamination of the transport 
vehicle.
    Proposed paragraph (q)(2)(iv) would require that each WERE and ESO 
establish SOPs for vehicle operations that meet the requirements of 
paragraph (l)(2) of this section, and include procedures for safely 
driving vehicles during both non-emergency travel and emergency 
response; criteria for actions to be taken at stop signs and signal 
lights; vehicle speed; crossing intersections; driving on the opposite 
side of the road with oncoming traffic; use of cross-over/turnaround 
areas on divided highways; traversing railroad grade crossings; the use 
of emergency warning devices; and the backing of vehicles. For backing 
vehicles with obstructed views to the rear, the SOP would need to 
include the use of at least one of the following: a spotter, a 360-
degree walk-around of the vehicle by the operator, or a back-up camera. 
Other than for backing vehicles with obstructed views to the rear, OSHA 
is not specifying the particular content of the vehicle-related SOPs. 
The agency is aware that State vehicle laws often permit exceptions for 
emergency vehicles which should be included in the SOPs; for example, 
an allowance to exceed the posted speed limit by a certain amount. 
WEREs and ESOs should consult the appropriate State laws when 
considering development of their SOPs. While OSHA intends to provide 
discretion to WEREs and ESOs in the crafting of most provisions of the 
SOPs, it does not intend to allow WEREs and ESOs to avoid the mandatory 
requirements in this proposal even if similar requirements are exempted 
at the state or local level. For example, if a state or local law 
exempts emergency vehicles from requirements related to addressing 
obstructed views to the rear, OSHA's requirement in proposed paragraph 
(q)(2)(iv) would still apply.
    Under proposed paragraph (q)(2)(v), WEREs and ESOs would be 
required to establish SOPs to provide for the use of standard protocols 
and terminology for radio communications at all types of incidents. 
Standard protocols should include instructions on, for example: the 
operation of portable and mobile radios, with a preference for 
identifying the unit being called first (receiver), then identifying 
the sender; and the need for speaking in a calm voice and as clearly, 
concisely, and precisely as possible. Protocols should also include 
instructions on use of dispatch and incident scene/tactical radio 
frequencies, use of the emergency alert button, ``Mayday'' situations, 
and other special situations. The NIMS recommends, and OSHA agrees, 
that acronyms, unique jargon, and codes should not be used in radio 
communication (Document ID 0344, p. 57). NIMS and OSHA recommend, but 
do not require, the use of common terms, plain language, and clear text 
to help ensure all team members and responders can transmit and 
understand all information being communicated. This would be 
particularly helpful during incidents where multiple entities, such as 
mutual aid WERTs and ESOs, are participating.
    Paragraph (q)(2)(vi) of the proposed rule would require that WEREs 
and ESOs establish procedures for operating at structures and locations 
that are identified as, or determined to be, vacant, structurally 
unsound, or otherwise unsafe for entry by team members or responders. 
Structures such as these are typically unsafe to enter under normal 
circumstances and are even more dangerous during an emergency incident, 
particularly when

[[Page 7840]]

on fire. They pose a serious risk to team members and responders should 
they enter, especially if there is a fire in the structure that could 
obstruct or conceal structurally unsafe conditions. Structural collapse 
and falls through unstable structures have been responsible for many 
injuries and fatalities to team members and responders, as explained in 
section II.A.I., Fatality and Injury Analysis. OSHA does not intend 
that WEREs and ESOs develop SOPs that prohibit entry to these 
structures (although WEREs and ESOs may choose to prohibit entry as 
they see fit), but the SOPs should establish protocols for minimizing 
risks and avoiding hazards during such entries.
    Paragraph (q)(2)(vii) of the proposed rule would require each WERE 
and ESO to establish SOPs for maintaining accountability and 
coordinating evacuation of all team members and responders operating at 
an incident that includes periodic accountability checks and reports; 
procedures for orderly evacuation of team members and responders; and 
procedures for rapid evacuation of team members and responders from 
escalating situations, such as rapid growth of fire, impending 
collapse, impending explosion, and acts of active violence against team 
members and responders. Accountability means keeping track of each team 
member and responder on an incident scene. The sooner a team member or 
responder is identified as missing, the sooner efforts to find them 
could be initiated and the more likely harm could be avoided, so 
periodic accountability checks are important during incidents and 
evacuations. OSHA is aware that there are various methods already in 
use for maintaining accountability and performing periodic 
accountability checks to ensure all team members and responders are 
accounted for. Under this proposed provision, WEREs and ESOs would need 
to establish procedures that best fit their operations and use them at 
all incidents. The provision would also require SOPs for an orderly 
evacuation, which typically include instructions such as pulling back 
and regrouping, as well as procedures for rapid evacuation such as 
drop-and-run.
    Proposed paragraph (q)(2)(viii) would require that each WERE and 
ESO establish SOPs for Mayday situations, such as when a team member or 
responder becomes lost, trapped, injured, or ill. These SOPs would need 
to cover the use of radio emergency alert buttons and implementation of 
a rapid intervention crew (RIC) for immediate deployment to search and 
rescue any missing, disoriented, injured, ill, lost, unaccounted-for, 
or trapped team members or responders. The establishment of a RIC is 
required by proposed paragraph (p)(7) of this section at each 
structural fire incident where team members or responders are operating 
in an IDLH atmosphere. The SOP would need to specify the minimum number 
of team members or responders needed for the RIC, based on the size and 
complexity of potential incidents; and a standard list of equipment to 
be assembled by the RIC, for foreseeable incidents.
    Proposed paragraph (q)(2)(ix) would require that each WERE and ESO 
establish SOPs for a systematic approach to provide team members and 
responders with medical monitoring and rehabilitation at emergency 
incidents as needed, such as rest, medical treatment, rehydration 
(fluid replacement), active warming or cooling, and protection from 
extreme elements. While most emergency incidents are handled without 
the need for medical monitoring and rehabilitation, when it is needed 
procedures need to be in place to implement it quickly.
    Provisions in proposed paragraph (q)(3) apply to ESOs only. 
Proposed paragraph (q)(3)(i) would require that each ESO establish SOPs 
for operating at an emergency incident on, or adjacent to, roadways and 
highways. The SOP would need to cover setting up a safe work zone 
beginning with proper placement of the first arriving ESO vehicle and 
subsequent ESO vehicles, a means of coordination with law enforcement 
and mutual aid WERTs or ESOs, and use of safety vests that have high 
visibility and are reflective. Consideration should be given to using a 
large vehicle, such as a fire engine/pumper or ladder truck, to 
position as a blocker to prevent vehicles from driving into or through 
an incident scene where team members or responders are operating. ESOs 
should coordinate with law enforcement regarding authority over closing 
travel lanes or the entire roadway or highway for the protection of 
team members and responders. High-visibility and reflective vests help 
drivers see team members and responders during daylight and at night, 
thus reducing the risk of striking those operating on an incident.
    Proposed paragraph (q)(3)(ii) would require the ESO to establish 
SOPs for operating at incident scenes that are primarily related to law 
enforcement, such as crime scenes, active shooters, and civil 
disturbances. ESOs may be called upon to stand by at these types of 
incidents in case they are needed, and as such the SOP should provide 
direction for staging so that responders will not interfere with the 
law enforcement activities or be in harm's way. Paragraph (q)(3)(ii) 
identifies subjects that must each be addressed in the SOPs, but this 
is not a comprehensive list of everything that an employer could 
address in an SOP. For example, a typical SOP will prohibit team 
members and responders from approaching or entering an incident scene 
where there is ongoing violence, and require them to wait until law 
enforcement has secured the scene and indicated that it is safe for 
team members and responders to enter. Typical SOPs for these types of 
incident scenes will also address whether team members and responders 
need to be wearing identifying uniforms, ballistic vests, PPE, 
reflective vests or other apparel to differentiate team members and 
responders from law enforcement officers, bystanders and other 
citizens.
    Under proposed paragraph (q)(3)(iii), ESOs would be required to 
establish a baseline set of procedures for conducting non-emergency 
services. Rather than just requiring the ESO to address certain 
subjects, these would be mandatory SOPs with specific minimum 
requirements that could then be supplemented with additional detail at 
the ESO's discretion: responders must present themselves in uniforms, 
PPE, vests, or other apparel that clearly identifies them as fire/
rescue/EMS responders and must wear ballistic vests if they are 
provided by the ESO and appropriate for the type of incident. In non-
emergency situations, team members and responders might not wear their 
usual, identifiable PPE. However, it is important for them to be 
identifiable by some means so as not to be confused with bystanders, 
appear to be trespassers or intruders, or be mistaken for law 
enforcement officers. Often, when family members or friends are unable 
to contact an individual, they call 911 and ask for assistance in 
checking on the well-being of the individual. These situations can pose 
a risk to the responders because if they are not wearing something that 
identifies them as responders, they may appear to be trespassers or 
intruders. In these situations, the same concerns would dictate that 
the SOP would need to require the wearing of ballistic vests if they 
are provided by the ESO.
    OSHA is also concerned with workplace violence experienced by 
workers in various aspects of providing health care, both facility-
based and home-based. In Question (q)-1, OSHA seeks input on whether 
the agency

[[Page 7841]]

should include requirements for SOPs regarding protections against 
workplace violence for team members and responders, and for any data or 
documentation to support or refute potential requirements. OSHA notes 
that its regulatory agenda includes a separate rulemaking addressing 
Workplace Violence against health care workers. While OSHA has not 
published a proposed rule in that rulemaking, OSHA welcomes comments on 
whether violence against health care emergency responders should be 
addressed in this emergency response proposal in addition to that 
Workplace Violence rulemaking, instead of in that rulemaking, or 
primarily in that other rulemaking.
Paragraph (r) Post-Incident Analysis
    Paragraph (r) of the proposed rule contains requirements for Post-
Incident Analysis (PIA). A PIA serves as a systematic review of 
incident operations and activities, and determines whether programs, 
plans, and procedures developed by the WERE or ESO perform as intended. 
The PIA should be fact-based and focus on strengths, weaknesses, 
lessons learned, and recommendations for improvement to enhance health 
and safety protections for team members and responders. The primary 
purpose of a PIA is to make improvements for the future.
    Paragraph (r)(1) of the proposed rule would require the WERE and 
ESO to promptly conduct a PIA to determine the effectiveness of the 
WERT's or ESO's response after a significant event such as a large-
scale incident involving multiple WERTs or ESOs; a significant near-
miss incident; a team member, responder, or SSW injury or illness 
requiring off-scene treatment; or a team member, responder, or SSW 
fatality. OSHA believes that requiring a PIA after significant events 
will help WEREs and ESOs identify strengths and challenge points where 
improvements are needed in their systems, plans, and procedures. For 
example, large-scale incidents may test the ESO's or WERE's systems, 
plans, and procedures and reveal areas for improvement, while near-
misses, injuries, illnesses, or fatalities may signal inadequacies. The 
requirement that the PIA take place promptly following the incident 
ensures important information and observations are relayed before team 
member's and responder's memories fade.
    Proposed paragraph (r)(2) would require the WERE and ESO to include 
in the PIA, at a minimum, a review and evaluation of the RMP, IMS, 
PIPs, IAPs, and SOPs for accuracy and adequacy. The PIA would include 
evaluation of available information and resources relating to the 
significant event. It would include a basic review of the conditions 
present upon arrival at the incident scene and any changes during the 
incident, the actions taken by team members and responders, and any 
effect of the conditions and actions on the safety and health of team 
members or responders. The RMP would be evaluated for its effectiveness 
regarding anticipated outcomes and to identify flaws or shortcomings 
that need to be corrected. The IMS would be evaluated to determine if 
it functioned as intended. While proposed paragraphs (m) and (n) of 
this section would require the development of PIPs for certain types of 
locations, there are many locations where incidents occur where PIPs 
would not be required, and so would be non-existent. If a PIP was 
developed, it would be evaluated to ensure it is up to date and 
accurate, and if it functioned as intended or if revisions are needed. 
The PIA may also indicate that a PIP is needed for a particular type of 
location where one was not previously developed. SOPs would be reviewed 
to determine if they were followed and effective, or if changes are 
needed. IAPs are typically developed on the incident scene and may be 
documented. A review of the IAP would determine its effectiveness and 
whether different actions should be taken at future similar incidents. 
OSHA anticipates that during a post-incident analysis conducted under 
paragraph (r), WEREs and ESOs will involve team members and responders. 
In Question (r)-1, OSHA is considering adding to (r)(2) a requirement 
to permit team members, responders, and their representative to be 
involved in the review and evaluation of the relevant plans as part of 
the PIA and would like stakeholder input on whether to add this 
requirement.
    Proposed paragraph (r)(3) would require the WERE and ESO to 
promptly identify and implement changes needed to the RMP, IMS, PIPs, 
IAPs, and SOPs based on the lessons learned as a result of the PIA; or 
if the recommended changes cannot be promptly implemented, the WERE or 
ESO would need to develop a written timeline for implementation. Where 
implementation cannot be done promptly, the proposed rule requires that 
any needed changes be implemented as soon as feasible. The purpose of 
the PIA is to determine what improvements are needed to the systems, 
plans, and procedures for future success, and not for finding fault 
with or to blame individuals. Changes and improvements would need to be 
implemented in a timely manner so that such changes are in place before 
the next significant incident. If prompt implementation is not 
possible, a timeline for implementation as soon as feasible must be 
followed to ensure protective measures for team members and responders 
are put into place.
Paragraph (s) Program Evaluation
    The ERP is intended to be a dynamic program, with components that 
are periodically reviewed and updated. Periodic review and evaluation 
are key to ensure that the program functions appropriately, adapts to 
changing circumstances or new information as needed, and protects the 
health and safety of team members or responders.
    Paragraphs (s)(1) through (3) of the proposed rule would require 
the WERE and ESO to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the ERP 
at least annually, and upon discovery of deficiencies, and document 
when the evaluation(s) are conducted; determine if it was implemented 
as designed or if modifications are necessary to correct deficiencies; 
and identify and implement recommended changes to the ERP and provide a 
written timeline for correcting identified deficiencies as soon as 
feasible based on the program review, giving priority to 
recommendations that most significantly affect team member or responder 
safety and health. The agency recommends that all safety and health 
programs, such as the ERP, be reviewed at least annually to evaluate 
the program to ensure that it functions as intended, is effective in 
controlling identified hazards, and makes progress toward established 
safety and health goals and objectives (https://www.osha.gov/safety-management/program-evaluation). The proposed provisions would require a 
review of the ERP be conducted to identify any revisions or updates 
needed that had not been identified previously, such as a result of the 
PIA required by proposed paragraph (r) of this section. There may be 
discrepancies between how the ERP was designed and intended to function 
versus how it was implemented or functions during actual use. Another 
deficiency could be, for example, finding that a component of the ERP 
was overlooked during development. Periodic evaluations are one method 
of measuring how the program is being conducted. Any changes needed 
based on the review would need to be implemented with priority given to 
the recommendations that most significantly affect team member or 
responder safety and health.

[[Page 7842]]

Paragraph (t) Severability
    The severability provision, paragraph (t) of the proposed rule, 
serves two purposes. First, it expresses OSHA's intent that the general 
presumption of severability should be applied to this standard; i.e., 
if any section or provision of the proposed rule is held invalid or 
unenforceable or is stayed or enjoined by any court of competent 
jurisdiction, the remaining sections or provisions should remain 
effective and operative. Second, the severability provision also serves 
to express OSHA's judgment, based on its technical expertise, that each 
individual section and provision of the proposed rule can continue to 
sensibly function in the event that one or more sections or provisions 
are invalidated, stayed, or enjoined; thus, the severance of any 
provisions, sections, or applications of the standard will not render 
the rule ineffective or unlawful as a whole. Consequently, the 
remainder of the rule should be allowed to take effect.
    With respect to this rulemaking, it is OSHA's intent that all 
provisions and sections be considered severable. In this regard, the 
agency intends that: (1) in the event that any provision within a 
section of the rule is stayed, enjoined, or invalidated, all remaining 
provisions within shall remain effective and operative; (2) in the 
event that any whole section of the rule is stayed, enjoined, or 
invalidated, all remaining sections shall remain effective and 
operative; and (3) in the event that any application of a provision is 
stayed, enjoined, or invalidated, the provision shall be construed so 
as to continue to give the maximum effect to the provision permitted by 
law.
    Although OSHA always intends for a presumption of severability to 
be applied to its standards, the agency has opted to include an 
explicit severability clause in this standard to remove any potential 
for doubt as to its intent. OSHA believes that this clarity is useful 
because of the multilayered programmatic approach to risk reduction it 
proposes here. The agency has preliminarily determined that the suite 
of programmatic requirements described in the Summary and Explanation 
of the Proposed Rule, section V. of this preamble, is reasonably 
necessary and appropriate to protect emergency responders from the 
significant risks posed by their workplace activities. While OSHA 
preliminarily finds that these requirements substantially reduce 
emergency responders' risk of occupational injury and illness when 
implemented together, the agency also believes that each individual 
requirement will independently reduce this risk to some extent, and 
that each requirement added to the first will result in a progressively 
greater reduction of risk. Therefore, it is OSHA's intent to have as 
many protective measures implemented in as many workplaces as possible 
to reduce emergency responders' risk of occupational exposure to 
injury, illness, and death. Thus, should a court of competent 
jurisdiction determine that any provision or section of this standard 
is invalid on its face or as applied, the court should presume that 
OSHA would have issued the remainder of the standard without the 
invalidated provision(s) or application(s). Similarly, should a court 
of competent jurisdiction determine that any provision, section, or 
application of this standard is required to be stayed or enjoined, the 
court should presume that OSHA intends for the remainder of the 
standard to take effect. See, e.g., Am. Dental Ass'n v. Martin, 984 
F.2d 823, 830-31 (7th Cir. 1993) (affirming and allowing most of OSHA's 
bloodborne pathogens standard to take effect while vacating application 
of the standard to certain employers).

E. Section 1910.157 Portable Fire Extinguishers

    OSHA is proposing to update 29 CFR 1910.157, Portable Fire 
Extinguishers, to include Class K fires and Class K portable fire 
extinguishers, as defined in proposed 29 CFR 1910.155(c), and to update 
this standard, including revisions to Table L-1, to conform with the 
current national consensus standard. The existing standard was last 
updated in 2002, just as Class K was entering into consideration in the 
national consensus standard, NFPA 10, Portable Fire Extinguishers.

F. Section 1910.158 Standpipe Hose Systems

    As discussed previously, proposed Sec.  1910.156(i)(2) requires 
each WERE to ensure that fire hose connections and fittings are 
compatible with, or adapters are provided for, firefighting 
infrastructure such as fire hydrants, sprinkler system and standpipe 
system inlet connections, and fire hose valves (FHV). Existing 29 CFR 
1910.158, which addresses standpipe and hose systems, does not require 
fire hose threads to be compatible with the hoses used by the local 
fire department. For the same reasons discussed in the summary and 
explanation for Sec.  1910.156(i)(2), OSHA is proposing to add a new 
provision to 29 CFR 1910.158, at paragraph (c)(2)(iii), requiring the 
employer to ensure that standpipe system inlet connections and fittings 
are compatible with, or adapters are provided for, the fire hose 
couplings used by the fire department(s) or Workplace Emergency 
Response Team(s) that pump water into the standpipe system through the 
connections or fittings.

G. Section 1910.159 Automatic Sprinkler Systems

    Existing 29 CFR 1910.159, which includes requirements for automatic 
sprinkler systems, does not require fire hose threads on inlet 
connections for automatic sprinkler systems to be compatible with the 
hoses used by the local fire department. For the same reasons discussed 
in the summary and explanation for Sec.  1910.156(i)(2), OSHA is 
proposing to add a new provision, 29 CFR 1910.159(c)(12), requiring the 
employer to ensure that sprinkler system inlet connections and fittings 
are compatible with, or adapters are provided for, the fire hose 
couplings used by the fire department(s) or Workplace Emergency 
Response Team(s) that pump water into the sprinkler system through the 
connections or fittings.

VI. Technological Feasibility

    As discussed in Pertinent Legal Authority (Section III), OSHA must 
prove, by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record, that its 
standards are technologically and economically feasible, which the 
Supreme Court has defined as ``capable of being done, executed, or 
effected'' (American Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan (Cotton Dust), 452 
U.S. 490, 508-09 (1981)). A standard is technologically feasible if the 
protective measures it requires already exist, can be brought into 
existence with available technology, or can be created with technology 
that can reasonably be expected to be developed (Am. Iron & Steel Inst. 
v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin. (Lead II), 939 F.2d 975, 980 
(D.C. Cir. 1991); United Steelworkers v. Marshall (Lead I), 647 F.2d 
1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir, 1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981)).
    For this proposed rule, OSHA evaluated each proposed provision to 
identify those that required the implementation of protective measures 
or addressed facility and equipment-related aspects of emergency 
response, as opposed to those that established programs, processes, or 
procedures. OSHA also reviewed the emergency response safety practices 
currently in place across industry and the recommended practices of 
industry trade associations and standards-setting organizations, 
including NFPA standards. The NFPA standards provide

[[Page 7843]]

guidelines for industry and are generally compatible with current 
industry practices and technology. OSHA did not find any barriers to 
technological feasibility with regard to the protective measures, 
equipment, or facilities required to comply with these provisions. This 
subsection presents the details of this conclusion with regard to 
specific requirements for equipment and facilities.
    The proposed rule contains requirements for ensuring that team 
members and responders who respond to emergency incidents are prepared 
for the wide variety of situations where they may be called upon to 
provide service. The provisions of the proposed rule are largely 
programmatic and require employers to implement a written Emergency 
Response Program (ERP) that describes the employer's basic 
organizational structure and outlines how the employer is addressing 
the provisions of the rule. As part of the ERP, the proposed rule 
requires employers to develop a Risk Management Plan (paragraph (f)), 
conduct pre-incident planning (paragraphs (m) and (n)), and develop 
standard operating procedures (paragraph (q)). Other provisions require 
employers to involve employees in various phases of the program 
(paragraph (e)), conduct a post-incident analysis after major incidents 
(paragraph (r)), and evaluate the program periodically (paragraph (s); 
or outline the requirements for medical and physical fitness (paragraph 
(g)). These provisions do not include protective measures requiring the 
use of specific equipment or technology and therefore do not pose a 
technological feasibility concern.
    Paragraph (h) of the proposed rule requires that team members and 
responders receive training to establish the minimum knowledge and 
skills necessary to participate in emergency operations, based on the 
tiers of team members and responders and the type and level of 
service(s) established in paragraphs (c) and (d), including training on 
a number of specific topics. It also requires the employer to provide 
initial training, on-going training, refresher training, and 
professional development for each team member and responder, including 
periodic skills checks to verify the minimum proficiency of team 
members and responders. Proposed paragraph (h) does not mandate a 
particular form of training nor require the use of particular 
technology. Moreover, the proposed requirements are not substantially 
different from the requirements of existing NFPA consensus standards 
(NFPA 1001, NFPA 1002, NFPA 1005, NFPA 1006, NFPA 1021, NFPA 1081, NFPA 
1140, NFPA 1407, NFPA 1500, NFPA 1581), demonstrating that the training 
required under the proposed standard has widespread acceptance 
throughout the industry. Accordingly, OSHA has preliminarily determined 
that such training will not present technological feasibility concerns.
    Paragraph (i) of the proposed rule requires WEREs to ensure that 
their facilities comply with 29 CFR part 1910, subpart E--Exit Routes 
and Emergency Planning, provide facilities for decontamination, 
disinfection, cleaning and storage of PPE and equipment, and ensure 
that facilities are protected with fire protection systems in 
accordance with 29 CFR part 1910, subpart L--Fire Protection. This 
paragraph also contains requirements related to fire hose connections 
and fire hose valves. The majority of these provisions are already 
addressed by NFPA 1581 or required by existing OSHA standards. With 
regard to paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (iii), and (i)(2), the proposed rule 
does not substantially modify existing requirements or create new 
requirements; compliance with the existing standards under subpart E 
and subpart L would generally also meet the requirements of the 
proposed standard. Paragraph (i)(1)(ii) requires facilities for 
decontamination, disinfection, cleaning, and storage of PPE and 
equipment. Similar requirements exist under the HAZWOPER standard (29 
CFR 1910.120(k)(8)) and the sanitation standard (29 CFR 1910.141(e)). 
The latter requires employers to provide change rooms equipped with 
storage facilities whenever employees are required to wear protective 
clothing because of possible contamination with toxic materials. 
Employer compliance with these existing provisions demonstrates that 
this kind of facility is feasible for employers to provide. 
Furthermore, the proposed rule does not mandate which of a wide variety 
of currently used and readily available materials must be used to meet 
the performance-oriented criteria for decontamination and storage. 
Based on these considerations, OSHA has preliminary determined that the 
proposed requirements in paragraph (i) are technologically feasible.
    Paragraph (j)(1) of the proposed rule similarly requires ESOs to 
provide facilities for decontamination, disinfection, cleaning, and 
storage of PPE and equipment, and to comply with 29 CFR part 1910, 
subpart E--Exit Routes and Emergency Planning and subpart L--Fire 
Protection. Paragraph (j)(1)(iii) also requires employers to ensure 
employees are protected from hazards associated with the use of slide 
poles. The requirements related to slide poles are based on NFPA 1500 
section 10.1.8, which requires that openings around slide poles be 
secured by a cover, enclosure or other means to prevent someone from 
accidentally falling through the hole. As discussed above regarding 
paragraph (i), the majority of these provisions are already addressed 
in existing NFPA standards or required by existing OSHA standards.
    Paragraph (j)(2) addresses sleeping and living areas of the ESO's 
facility and requires the use of interconnected hard-wired smoke alarms 
with battery back-up on all levels of the facility and in sleeping 
areas. In addition, it requires that all sleeping and living areas be 
equipped with a functioning carbon monoxide detector and be maintained 
free from the contamination of exhaust emissions, and that the new 
construction of sleeping quarters have sprinkler systems installed. 
Employers must also ensure that contaminated PPE is not worn or stored 
in sleeping and living areas. OSHA based the requirements in this 
paragraph on NFPA 1581, section 10. Because the requirements of the 
provision are not substantially different from those in the NFPA 
standard, and because the equipment required (smoke alarms, carbon 
monoxide detectors, and sprinkler systems) is readily available on the 
market, OSHA has preliminarily determined that these requirements are 
technologically feasible.
    Paragraph (k)(1) of the proposed rule contains design, 
manufacturing, inspection, testing, and access requirements for 
equipment used in emergency operations. The requirements applicable to 
equipment in paragraph (k)(1) of the proposed rule reflect common 
industry safety practices, including those found in NFPA 1500, and 
currently available equipment meets these criteria. The proposed 
provisions generally do not require changes in current technology or 
practices for employers who use standard equipment and follow standard 
safety procedures.
    Paragraph (k)(2) addresses PPE used by team members and responders. 
The provision expands on the existing requirements under 29 CFR part 
1910, subpart I,Personal Protective Equipment by requiring the employer 
to ensure that PPE complies with certain relevant NFPA and ANSI 
consensus standards; pay for all required protective equipment without 
exceptions; implement procedures to ensure all protective equipment, 
not just respiratory protection, is

[[Page 7844]]

decontaminated, cleaned, cared for, inspected and maintained, in 
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions; and ensure air-
purifying respirators are not used in IDLH atmospheres and are only 
used for those contaminants that NIOSH certifies them against. 
Paragraph (k)(3) requires decontamination or containment of 
contaminated PPE and equipment before leaving an incident scene, where 
feasible, as well as ensuring employees are not exposed to contaminated 
PPE in passenger compartments of vehicles.
    The proposed rule's PPE requirements expand on existing OSHA 
requirements, incorporate widely accepted consensus standards and, as 
with the equipment requirements discussed above, do not require changes 
in current technology. The proposed rule allows the employer to choose 
any of a wide variety of currently used and readily available properly 
fitting equipment designs to meet the performance-oriented criteria, 
based on the hazards their team members and responders may encounter. 
With respect to the decontamination and cleaning requirements, the PPE 
must be decontaminated and cleaned according to the manufacturer's 
instructions. Such instructions are presumptively technologically 
feasible. Decontamination and cleaning typically involve methods such 
as rinsing with a hose to reduce or dilute liquid contaminants or 
rinsing and brushing to displace solid particulate matter. In any 
situation where PPE and equipment cannot be appropriately cleaned, it 
can be replaced. Based on these considerations, OSHA preliminarily 
concludes that the proposed requirements for equipment and PPE are 
technologically feasible.
    Paragraph (l) includes requirements for the inspection, repair, and 
maintenance of vehicles in paragraph (l)(1) and operation of vehicles 
in paragraph (l)(2). All provisions contained in proposed paragraph (l) 
establish program elements with the exception of paragraph (l)(1)(iii), 
which requires the use of seats, and seatbelts or a vehicle safety 
harness where equipped; paragraph (l)(2)(vii), which requires the use 
of a safety harness when riding in a standing position; and paragraph 
(l)(2)(x), which requires a positive latching enclosure for storage of 
tools, equipment, or respiratory protection carried within enclosed 
seating areas of vehicles. OSHA drew the requirements for seats, seat 
belts, safety harnesses, and the securing of tools and equipment from 
NFPA 1500, 1901 and 1911; indicating that industry already adopted the 
requirements as a feasible industry practice using existing technology. 
The proposed requirements for use of seats and safety belts reflect 
basic safety considerations already adopted by manufacturers of 
equipment and by employers. Readily available and currently used 
technology is capable of meeting these requirements. Where vehicles are 
designed, built, and intended for use without seat belts or vehicle 
safety harnesses, the employer is not required to comply with the 
requirement in paragraph (l)(1)(iii).
    Paragraph (p) of the proposed rule contains requirements for 
Emergency Incident Operations. In addition to outlining various roles 
and responsibilities, paragraph (p) requires employers to establish 
hazard control zones, implement traffic safety procedures, establish 
site communications, and establish incident safety procedures such as 
the use of protective equipment and minimum staffing levels for certain 
operations. Most of the provisions in paragraph (p) establish program 
and/or policy elements and procedures and compliance with these 
provisions does not require any additional or new technology.
    Paragraph (p)(5) contains requirements for the use of effective 
communication equipment, which can be satisfied with currently 
available compatible communication devices or radio technology. 
Moreover, the requirements in paragraph (p) are similar to existing 
OSHA requirements for certain hazardous chemical response activities in 
the HAZWOPER standard (29 CFR 1910.120) and to NFPA consensus codes, 
indicating that industry has already adopted the requirements as an 
industry practice using existing technology. Therefore, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that the requirements of paragraph (p) can be 
met with existing technology.
    In conclusion, the proposed rule is largely programmatic and allows 
the employer to choose any of a wide variety of currently used and 
readily available materials, equipment, and procedures to meet the 
performance-oriented criteria. For the few provisions where OSHA has 
specified requirements for equipment, the requirements are based on 
existing consensus standards, incorporate existing OSHA standards, or 
are similar to existing OSHA requirements in other standards. Both 
existing and new requirements can be met with readily available and 
currently used equipment and technology. Accordingly, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that the proposed rule is technologically 
feasible.

VII. Preliminary Economic Analysis

Introduction

    OSHA has examined the impacts of this rulemaking as required by 
Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 
1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory 
Review (January 18, 2011), Executive Order 14094 entitled ``Modernizing 
Regulatory Review'' (April 6, 2023), the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 202 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), and 
Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999).
    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).\7\ The 
Executive Order 14094 entitled ``Modernizing Regulatory Review'' 
(hereinafter, the Modernizing E.O.) amends section 3(f)(1) of Executive 
Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). The amended section 3(f) 
of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as 
an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) having an annual 
effect on the economy of $200 million or more in any 1 year (adjusted 
every 3 years by the Administrator of OIRA for changes in gross 
domestic product), or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a 
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or 
tribal governments or communities; (2) creating a serious inconsistency 
or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another 
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or (4) raise legal or policy issues for which 
centralized review would meaningfully further the President's 
priorities or the principles set forth in this Executive order, as 
specifically authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA 
in each case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ While OSHA presents the following analysis under the 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the agency 
ultimately cannot simply maximize net benefits due to the overriding 
legal requirements in the OSH Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules 
with significant regulatory action/s and/or with significant effects as 
per section

[[Page 7845]]

3(f)(1) ($200 million or more in any 1 year). Based on our estimates, 
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined this 
rulemaking is significant per section 3(f)(1) as measured by the $200 
million or more in any 1 year. Accordingly, OSHA has prepared this 
Preliminary Economic Analysis \8\ that to the best of the agency's 
ability presents the costs and benefits of the rulemaking. Therefore, 
OMB has reviewed this proposed regulation, and the agency has provided 
the following assessment of its impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ OSHA historically has referred to their regulatory impact 
analyses as Economic Analyses in part because performing an analysis 
of economic feasibility is a core legal function of their purpose. 
But a PEA (or Final Economic Analysis) should be understood as 
including an RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Market Failure and Need for Regulation

I. Introduction
    Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (September 30, 1993)) and 
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821 (January 18, 2011)) direct regulatory 
agencies to assess whether, from a legal or an economic view, a Federal 
regulation is needed to the extent it is not ``required by law.'' 
Executive Order 12866 states: ``Federal agencies should promulgate only 
such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the 
law, or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material 
failures of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety 
of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American 
people.'' This Executive order further requires that each agency 
``identify the problem that it intends to address (including, where 
applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that 
warrant new agency action)'' and instructs agencies to ``identify and 
assess available alternatives to direct regulation.'' (58 FR 51735 
(September 30, 1993)). This section addresses those issues of market 
failure and alternatives to regulation as directed by the Executive 
order.
    OSHA is proposing to replace its existing Fire Brigades standard, 
29 CFR 1910.156, with a new standard to fully address the workplace 
hazards faced by firefighters and other emergency responders because, 
based on the evidence in the record, there is a compelling public need 
for a stricter, comprehensive standard under OSH Act legal standards. 
OSHA presents the legal standards governing this rule and its 
preliminary findings and conclusions supporting the proposed rule in 
section II. of the Preamble, Pertinent Legal Authority, and throughout 
other sections of the Preamble. Even a perfectly functioning market 
maximizes efficient allocation of goods and services at the expense of 
other important social values to which the market (as reflected in the 
collective actions of its participants) is indifferent or undervalues. 
In such cases, government intervention might be justified to address a 
compelling public need. The history and enactment of the OSH Act 
indicate a Congressional view that American markets undervalued 
occupational safety and health when it set forth the Act's protective 
purposes and authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate 
occupational safety and health standards.
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that emergency responders are 
exposed to occupational hazards that place them at a significant risk 
of serious injury, material impairment of health and functional 
capacity, and death. Emergency responders suffer higher incidence and 
death rates of heart attacks and some types of cancers than the general 
population, high rates of fatal and nonfatal injuries, and high rates 
of suicide and other adverse behavioral health outcomes. OSHA's 
proposed rule would reduce the number of fatalities from certain types 
of cancer, fatal injuries, and suicide by an estimated 61 deaths per 
year and would prevent approximately 11,015 nonfatal injuries per year. 
These benefits show the need to protect emergency responders from the 
hazards faced while on duty.
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that the standard is 
technologically and economically feasible (see Section V of the 
preamble and Chapter VI of this PEA) and not only finds that this 
proposed rule is necessary and appropriate to ensure the safety and 
health of emergency responders, as required by the OSH Act, but also 
demonstrates, in this section, that this rulemaking corrects a market 
failure in which private and public labor markets fail to adequately 
protect human health. Although a majority of emergency responders are 
employed in the public sector, many are not, and OSHA is mandated to 
ensure, so far as possible, a critical minimum level of safety for 
these workers. In addition, as discussed, most of these issues pertain 
to the public sector labor market as well which, left unchecked, could 
undermine the efficiency of even the labor market as it affects 
government jobs. Further, in passing section 18 of the OSH Act, 
Congress determined that public sector employees in states with OSHA-
approved State Plans should receive the same protections as private 
sector employees under those State Plans who, in turn, must receive 
protections at least as effective as those provided by Federal 
standards (29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2), (6)). In doing so, Congress determined 
that protections for these public sector workers should not be left 
solely to the public sector labor market.
    As discussed in this chapter, OSHA concludes there is a 
demonstrable failure of labor markets to protect workers from exposure 
to unnecessary risks from emergency response activity. In making this 
statement, the agency recognizes that many firms and governments have 
responded to the risks to emergency responders by implementing control 
programs for their workers. In fact, some existing control programs go 
beyond the requirements of the proposed rule, and information that OSHA 
has collected suggests that a significant percentage of all employees 
in workplaces where emergency responder risks are present are currently 
receiving at least some level of protection against the risks posed by 
emergency response activities. For these organizations and these 
workers, the economic incentives provided by the current labor market 
appears to be working effectively. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of 
labor markets in providing the level of worker health and safety 
required by the OSH Act is not universal, as many other employers in 
the same sectors fail to provide their workers with equivalent levels 
of protection against emergency response hazards, as evidenced by the 
documented injuries, illnesses, and deaths discussed throughout this 
preamble. Accordingly, the general availability of adequate protections 
speaks to the feasibility of the standard, not necessarily to the lack 
of need.
    In this case, OSHA has preliminarily determined that, despite 
existing OSHA standards, new protections are needed to ensure the 
safety and health of emergency responders. If markets worked 
efficiently there would be no need for either the existing standards or 
a new one. This section is devoted to showing that markets fail with 
respect to optimal risk for occupational exposure to emergency response 
hazards. Other sections of this preamble address whether, given that 
markets fail, a new regulation is needed to replace the existing 
regulation.
    The discussion below considers why labor markets, as well as 
information dissemination programs, workers' compensation systems, and 
tort liability options, each may fail to protect workers from emergency 
response hazards, resulting in the need for a more

[[Page 7846]]

protective OSHA emergency response rule.
II. Labor Market Imperfections
    Under suitable conditions, a market system is economically 
efficient in the following sense: resources are allocated where they 
are most highly valued; the appropriate mix of goods and services, 
embodying the desired bundle of characteristics, is produced; and 
further improvements in the welfare of any member of society cannot be 
attained without making at least one other member worse off.
    Economic theory, supported by empirical data, argues that, in the 
job market, employers and workers bargain over the conditions of 
employment, including not only salary and other worker benefits, but 
also occupational risks to worker safety and health. Employers compete 
among themselves to attract workers. In order to induce workers to 
accept hazardous jobs, employers must offer a higher salary--termed a 
``wage premium for risk'' or ``risk premium'' for short--to compensate 
for the additional job risk.\9\ Because employers must pay higher wages 
for more hazardous work, they have an incentive to make the workplace 
safer by making safety-related investments in equipment and training or 
by using more costly but safer work practices. According to economic 
theory, the operation of the job market will provide the optimal level 
of occupational risk when each employer's additional cost for job 
safety just equals the avoided payout in risk premiums to workers. The 
theory assumes that each employer is indifferent to whether it pays the 
higher wage or pays for a safer or more healthful workplace but will 
opt for whichever costs less or improves productivity more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The concept of compensating wage differentials for 
undesirable job characteristics, including occupational hazards, 
goes back to Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, which was 
originally published in 1776.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the job market to function in a way that leads to optimal 
levels of occupational risk, three conditions must be satisfied. First, 
workers and employers must have the same, perfect information--that is, 
they must be fully informed about their workplace options, including 
job hazards, or be able to less costly acquire such information. 
Second, participants in the job market must directly bear all the costs 
and obtain all the benefits of their actions. In other words, none of 
the direct impacts of job market transactions can be externalized to 
outside parties. Third, the relevant job market must be perfectly 
competitive, which means it must contain such a large number of 
employers and such a large number of workers that no individual 
economic agent is able to influence the risk-adjusted wage.
    The discussion below examines (1) imperfect information, (2) 
externalities, and (3) imperfect competition in the job market in more 
detail, with particular emphasis on worker exposure to emergency 
response hazards, as appropriate.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The section on workers' compensation insurance later in 
this chapter identifies and discusses other related market 
imperfections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Imperfect Information
    As described below, imperfect information about job hazards is 
present at several levels that reinforce each other: employers 
frequently lack knowledge about workplace hazards and how to reduce 
them; workers are often unaware of the workplace health and safety 
risks to which they are exposed; and workers typically have difficulty 
in understanding the risk information they are able to obtain. 
Imperfect information at these various levels has likely impeded the 
efficient operation of the job market regarding workplace risk because 
workers--unaware of job hazards--do not seek, or receive, full 
compensation for the risks they bear. As a result, even if employers 
have full knowledge about the risk, their employees do not. If 
employees do not have full knowledge about the risk, employers have 
less incentive to invest in safer working conditions than they would in 
the presence of full information since wages are suppressed below what 
full knowledge by the workers would yield.
(i) Lack of Employer Information
    In the absence of regulation, employers may lack economic 
incentives to optimally identify the health risks that their workers 
face.\11\ Furthermore, employers have an economic incentive to withhold 
the information they do possess about job hazards from their workers, 
whose response would be to demand safe working conditions or higher 
wages to compensate for the risk. Relatedly, in the absence of 
regulation, employers, as well as third parties, may have fewer 
incentives to develop new technological solutions to protect workers on 
the job. For evidence of regulatory stimuli inducing innovations to 
improve worker health and safety, see, for example, Ashford, Ayers, and 
Stone (1985) OSHA-2010-0034, Document ID 0536, as well as more recent 
evidence from OSHA's regulatory reviews under section 610 of the RFA (5 
U.S.C. 610).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Other private parties may lack sufficient incentives to 
invest resources to collect and analyze occupational risk data due 
to the public-good nature of the information. See Ashford and 
Caldart (1996), OSHA-2010-0034, Document ID 0538, p. 234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, without regulation, many employers are unlikely to 
make themselves aware of the magnitude of emergency responder safety 
and health risks in the workplace or of the availability of effective 
ways of ameliorating or eliminating these risks.
(ii) Lack of Worker Information About Health Hazards
    Although some of the safety risks in emergency response may be 
somewhat apparent to the employee because they are obvious (e.g., a 
fire, a hole in the floor, or falling objects), the occupational health 
hazards are less obvious and well known to employers and employees. 
Whereas the relationship between a workplace accident and the resultant 
injury is usually both immediate and visible, the connection between 
exposure to an occupational health hazard and the resultant disease may 
not be. Even though falls and physical trauma occur in everyday life, 
it is easier to know when the injuries occurred on the job than to know 
the cause of a cancer that may be associated with occupational exposure 
to a toxic substance. Some diseases have multiple potential causes and 
may be the result of synergistic effects, thus creating difficulties in 
ascertaining whether, in some specific situations, a worker's disease 
is job-related rather than an ``ordinary disease of life'' resulting 
from genetic, physiological, lifestyle, or non-occupational 
environmental factors.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ It is true that, in rare circumstances, the cause of a 
disease is unique or nearly so. Examples of such ``signature'' 
diseases include mesothelioma and angiosarcoma, which are caused by 
exposure to asbestos and vinyl chloride, respectively. In the case 
of exposure to combustion products the toxic exposure is almost 
inevitably a complex mixture of substances lacking any clear 
signature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compounding this causation problem is the fact that there is 
frequently a long latency period between exposure to the occupational 
health hazard and the manifestation of the resultant disease. 
Consequently, without specialized knowledge, the connection between 
work conditions and a chronic disease is more easily missed than an 
acute injury and more easily attributed to non-occupational exposures. 
Furthermore, by the time that signs and symptoms of occupational health 
problems arise, it is often too late for workers to make use of that 
information. Therefore, any

[[Page 7847]]

incentive an employer has to invest in occupational disease prevention 
is diluted by the lengthy passage of time between exposure and disease 
manifestation (by which time the employees may be working elsewhere or 
retired) and the various uncertainties regarding causation in any 
specific case. Markets cannot adequately address this risk of latent 
occupational disease if employees and employers are unaware of the 
changes in risk brought about by an employer's actions. Even if 
employees and employers are aware of a risk, the employer may have 
limited economic motivation to install controls unless the employees 
are able to accurately assess the effects of those controls on their 
occupational risks.
    Accordingly, even if workers have general knowledge that they are 
at increased risk of disease from occupational exposure, it is 
unrealistic to expect, absent mandatory regulatory requirements, that 
they know the calculated risks associated with different exposure 
levels or the exposures they are experiencing or accumulated in the 
past, much less that they can use that knowledge to negotiate a 
significant reduction in exposures and other protections or (if more 
desirable) trade it for greater hazard pay. And without any way to 
enforce standards agreed to by an employer, employees would have no way 
to check that they are getting the benefit of their bargain or hold the 
employer to it. Another reason that imperfect information impairs a 
worker's decision-making ability is that workers are unlikely to know 
the workplace risks associated with their particular employer, or with 
one potential employer versus another, even if the types of work 
assignments are the same.
    Both experimental studies and observed market behavior suggest that 
individuals have considerable difficulty rationally processing 
information about low-probability, high-consequence events such as 
occupational fatalities and long-term disabilities.\13\ For example, 
many individuals may not be able to comprehend or rationally act on 
risk information when it is presented, as risk analysis often is, in 
mathematical terms--a \1/1\,000 versus a 1/10,000 versus a 1/100,000 
annual risk of death from occupational causes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The literature documenting risk perception problems is 
extensive. See, in particular, the classic work of Tversky and 
Kahneman (1974), OSHA-2010-0034, Document ID 1675. For a recent 
summary of risk perception problems and their causes, see Thaler and 
Sunstein (2008), OSHA-2010-0034, Document ID 1697, pp. 17-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, in the abstract, many of the problems that employers and 
workers face in obtaining and processing occupational risk can lead 
workers to overestimate as well as underestimate the risk. However, in 
the case of toxic exposure, the related diseases--including various 
forms of cancer--may be sufficiently unfamiliar and unobvious that many 
workers may be completely unaware of the risk, and therefore will 
underestimate it.
    In addition, for markets to optimally address this risk, employees 
need to be aware of the changes in risk brought about by an employer's 
actions. Even if employees are aware of a risk, the employer may have 
limited economic motivation to install controls unless the employees 
are able to accurately assess the effects of those controls on their 
occupational risks. Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that 
most individuals are unrealistically optimistic, even in high-stakes, 
high-risk situations and even if they are aware of the statistical 
risks (Thaler and Sunstein, 2009, OSHA-2010-0034, Document ID 1697, pp. 
31-33). Although the agency lacks specific evidence on the effect of 
these attitudes on assessing occupational safety and health risks, this 
suggests that some workers underestimate their own risk of work-related 
injury, disease, or fatality and, therefore, fail to demand adequate 
compensation for bearing those risks. Finally, the difficulty that 
workers have in distinguishing marginal differences in risk at 
alternative worksites, both within an industry and across industries, 
creates a disincentive for employers to incur the costs of reducing 
workplace risk.
B. Externalities
    Externalities arise when an economic transaction generates direct 
positive or negative spillover effects on third parties not involved in 
the transaction. The resulting spillover effect, which leads to a 
divergence between private and social costs, undermines the efficient 
allocation of resources in the market because the market is imparting 
inaccurate cost and price signals to the transacting parties. Applied 
to the job market, when costs are externalized, they are not reflected 
in the decisions that employers and workers make--leading to allocative 
distortions in that market.
    Negative externalities exist in the job market because many of the 
costs of occupational injury and illness are borne by parties other 
than individual employers or workers. The major source of these 
negative externalities, for chronic occupational diseases, is the 
occupational illness cost that workers' compensation does not 
cover.\14\ Workers and their employers often bear only a portion of 
these costs. Outside of workers' compensation, workers incapacitated by 
an occupational injury or illness and their families often receive 
health care, rehabilitation, retraining, direct income maintenance, or 
life insurance benefits, much of which are paid for by society through 
Social Security and other social insurance and social welfare 
programs.\15\ Moreover, specifically in the case of Emergency Response, 
volunteer responders may or may not be covered by Workers Compensation 
in any form.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Workers' compensation is discussed separately later in this 
chapter. As described there, in many cases (particularly for smaller 
firms), the premiums that an individual employer pays for workers' 
compensation are only loosely related, or unrelated, to the 
occupational risks that that employer's workers bear. However, 
workers' compensation does not cover chronic occupational diseases 
in most instances. For that reason, negative externalities tend to 
be a more significant issue in the case of occupational exposures 
that result in diseases.
    \15\ In addition, many occupational injuries and most 
occupational illnesses are not processed through the workers' 
compensation system at all. In these instances, workers receive care 
from their own private physician rather than from their employer's 
physician.
    \16\ This depends on the individual state law and how the ESO is 
organized. See https://workinjurysource.com/workers-compensation-for-volunteer-firefighters/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, substantial portions of the medical care system in the 
United States are heavily subsidized by the government so that part of 
the medical cost of treating injured or ill workers is paid for by the 
rest of society (Nichols and Zeckhauser, 1977, Docket OSHA-2010-0034, 
Document ID 0834, pp. 44-45). To the extent that employers and workers 
do not bear the full costs of occupational injury and illness, they 
will ignore these externalized costs in their job-market negotiations. 
The result may be an inefficiently high level of occupational risk.
    An extreme case of ``spillovers'' is one of a ``public good'': 
defined as a commodity such that if it is provided to one, it is zero 
cost for another individual to also ``consume'' the commodity. One 
classic example is national defense: a defense umbrella helps protect 
everyone in a country, though at no charge to any particular person. 
Marginal cost pricing can break down and there can be pressure for 
other institutional arrangements such as voting mechanisms and economic 
``clubs.'' \17\ OMB's circular A-4

[[Page 7848]]

specifically notes that public good aspects can be a valid reason to 
turn to a regulation. That document discusses various types of market 
failure as being a possible reason for regulation, stating: ```Public 
goods,' such as defense or basic scientific research, are goods where 
provision of the good to some individuals cannot occur without 
providing the same level of benefits free of charge to other 
individuals'' (OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003), 
p. 4, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The original classic reference on public goods is ``The 
Pure Theory of Public Expenditure,'' Samuelson, Paul A., The Review 
of Economics and Statistics, Nov. 1954. For related ``club theory,'' 
the original reference is ``An Economic Theory of Clubs,'' Buchanan, 
James M., Economica, Feb., 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to this proposed rule, the specific nature of 
emergency response means that in this industry, even more so than in 
others, ordinary market mechanisms do not operate to ensure an optimal 
level of employee safety and health. Fires and other types of 
emergencies are by their nature unplanned, and there would be no 
opportunity, for example, for a fire department to bargain with the 
owner of a burning building about the level of toxicity of the burning 
materials. Accordingly, fire departments and other emergency response 
employers have a prima facie case that regulation can be a replacement 
for a missing private market.
(C) Imperfect Competition
    In the idealized job market, the actions of large numbers of buyers 
and sellers of labor services establish the market-clearing, risk-
compensated wage, so that individual employers and workers effectively 
take that wage as given. In reality, however, the job market is not one 
market but many markets differentiated by location, occupation, and 
other factors; entrants in the labor market face search frictions 
because of limited information on employment options; and, furthermore, 
in wage negotiations with their own workers, employers are typically in 
an advantageous position relative to all other potential employers. In 
these situations, discussed below, employers may have sufficient power 
to influence or to determine the wage their workers receive. This may 
undermine the conditions necessary for perfect competition and can 
result in inadequate compensation for workers exposed to workplace 
hazards. Significant unemployment levels, local or national, may also 
undermine the conditions necessary for adequate compensation for 
exposure to workplace hazards.
    Beyond the classic--but relatively rare--example of a town 
dominated by a single company, there is significant evidence that some 
employers throughout the economy are not wage-takers but, rather, face 
upward-sloping labor supply curves and enjoy some market power in 
setting wages and other conditions of employment.\18\ An important 
source of this phenomenon is the cost of a job search and the 
employer's relative advantage, from size and economies of scale, in 
acquiring job market information.\19\ Another potentially noteworthy 
problem in the job market is that, contrary to the model of perfect 
competition, workers with jobs cannot without cost quit and obtain a 
similar job at the same wage with another employer. Workers leaving 
their current job may be confronted with the expense and time 
requirements of a job search, the expense associated with relocating to 
take advantage of better employment opportunities, the loss of firm-
specific human capital (i.e., firm-specific skills and knowledge that 
the worker possesses), the cost and difficulty of upgrading job skills, 
and the risk of a prolonged period of unemployment. In addition, 
employers derive market power from the fact that a portion of the 
compensation their workers receive is not transferable to other jobs. 
Examples include job-specific training and associated compensation, 
seniority rights and associated benefits, and investments in a pension 
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, for example, Borjas (2000) Docket OSHA-2010-0034, 
Document ID 0565. See also Ashenfelter, Farber, and Ransom (2010) 
and Boal and Ransom (1997), providing supplemental evidence. The 
term ``monopsony'' power is sometimes applied to this situation, but 
it does not necessarily require a single employer.
    \19\ See Borjas (2000), Docket OSHA-2010-0034, Document ID 0565. 
As supplemental authorities, Weil (2014) presents theory and 
evidence both in support of this proposition and to show that, in 
many situations, larger firms have more monopsony power than smaller 
firms, while Boal and Ransom (1997, p. 97) note that the persistent 
wage dispersion observed in labor markets is a central feature of 
equilibrium search models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the conditions described above, employers would not have to 
take the market-clearing wage as given but could offer a lower wage 
than would be observed in a perfectly competitive market,\20\ including 
less than full compensation for workplace health and safety risks. As a 
result, relative to the idealized competitive job market, employers 
would have less incentive to invest in workplace safety. In any event, 
for reasons already discussed, an idealized wage premium is not an 
adequate substitute for a workplace that puts a premium on health and 
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For a graphical demonstration that an employer with 
monopsony power will pay less than the competitive market wage, see 
Borjas (2000), Docket OSHA-2010-0034, Document ID 0565, pp. 187-189.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is worth further noting that while there might be elements of 
competition in the labor market for emergency responders, the local 
fire department or EMS does in some ways approximate a monopolistic 
employer in many localities, for those individuals with emergency 
responder skills who choose to use them for the benefit of the 
community. Volunteers as well as career employees may have limited 
options as to which ESO they choose to join within a certain geographic 
area.
    The following discussion considers whether non-market and quasi-
market alternatives to the final rule would be capable of protecting 
emergency response workers from numerous workplace hazards. The 
alternatives under consideration are information dissemination 
programs, workers' compensation systems, and tort liability options.
(i) Information Dissemination Programs
    One alternative to OSHA's proposed Emergency Response rule could be 
the dissemination of information, either voluntarily or through 
compliance with a targeted mandatory information rule, akin to OSHA's 
Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), which would provide 
more information about the safety and health risks associated with 
workplace exposure to the physical hazards and toxic substances 
emergency responders might be exposed to. Better informed workers could 
more accurately assess the occupational risks associated with different 
jobs, thereby facilitating, through labor market transactions, higher 
risk premiums for more hazardous work and inducing employers to make 
the workplace less hazardous. The proposed rule recognizes the link 
between the dissemination of information and workplace risks by 
requiring that emergency response workers be provided with information 
and training about the risks they encounter and ways to prevent them. 
There are several reasons, however, why reliance on information 
dissemination programs alone would not yield the level of worker 
protection achievable through the proposed rule, which incorporates 
hazard communication as part of a comprehensive approach designed to 
control the hazard in addition to providing for the disclosure of 
information about it.
    First, in the context of the Hazard Communication standard, which

[[Page 7849]]

requires employers to transmit information about hazardous substances, 
that standard alone does not require that sufficient information be 
provided to identify risks in specific workplaces. Emergency responder-
related risks, for instance, are highly specific to individual tasks 
and work environments. More hazard-specific training required under the 
proposed standard would supplement that.
    Second, in the case of voluntary information dissemination 
programs, absent a regulation, there may be significant economic 
incentives, for all the reasons discussed in the Labor Market Failure 
section above, for the employer not to gather relevant exposure data or 
distribute occupational risk information so that the workers would not 
change jobs or demand higher wages to compensate for their newly 
identified occupational risks.
    Third, even if workers were better informed about workplace risks 
and hazards, all of the defects in the functioning of the private job 
market previously discussed--the limited ability of workers to evaluate 
risk information, externalities, and imperfect competition--would still 
apply. Because of the existence of these defects, better information 
alone would not lead to wage premiums for risk in accordance with 
efficient market theory.
    Finally, as discussed in the Benefits chapter, a number of 
additional safety provisions under the proposal would complement 
information and training provided by other regulatory vehicles. For 
example, while it is useful to know about what toxic substances one 
would encounter on the job, proper use and maintenance of PPE are 
critical to protecting emergency responders.
    Thus, while improved access to information about emergency 
response-related hazards can provide for more rational decision-making 
in the private job market, OSHA concludes that information 
dissemination programs would not, by themselves, produce an adequate 
level of worker protection.
(ii) Workers' Compensation Systems
    Another theoretical alternative to OSHA regulation could be to 
determine that no rule is needed because State workers' compensation 
programs augment the workings of the job market to limit occupational 
risks to worker safety and health. After all, one of the objectives of 
the workers' compensation system is to shift the costs of occupational 
injury and disease from workers to employers in order to induce 
employers to improve working conditions. Two other objectives relevant 
to this discussion are to provide fair and prompt compensation to 
workers for medical costs and lost wages resulting from workplace 
injury and disease and, through the risk-spreading features of the 
workers' compensation insurance pool, to prevent individual employers 
from suffering a catastrophic financial loss (Ashford, 2007, Docket 
OSHA-2010-0034, Document ID 1702, p. 1712).
    OSHA identifies three primary reasons, discussed below, why the 
workers' compensation system has fallen short of the goal of shifting 
to employers the costs of workplace injury and disease--including, in 
particular, the costs of worker exposure to emergency response related 
hazards. As a result, OSHA concludes that workers' compensation 
programs alone do not adequately protect workers. In addition, although 
not necessary to support this conclusion, OSHA takes notice of several 
studies highlighting the general decline in the adequacy and fairness 
of State workers' compensation programs, the significant variability 
among State workers' compensation programs, and the compensation 
inadequacies that ultimately shift these costs back to the workers or 
to the government (Docket OSHA-2010-0034, Document ID 0386. Document ID 
0387).
(a) Failure To Provide Compensation for Most Occupational Diseases
    The first, and most important, reason that workers' compensation is 
not an adequate alternative is that State workers' compensation 
programs tend not to provide benefits for most work-related diseases--
including those resulting from exposure to combustion products and 
other hazards encountered in emergency response situations. Several 
related factors account for this:
     Most occupational diseases have multiple causes and are 
indistinguishable from ordinary diseases of life. Therefore, it is 
difficult for workers' compensation to trace the cause of these 
diseases to the workplace;
     Many occupational diseases have long latency periods, 
which tends to obscure the actual cause of disease or the place of 
employment where exposure occurred;
     Workers (as well as medical personnel) often do not 
realize that a disease is work-related and, therefore, fail to file a 
workers' compensation claim; and
     Most States have statutes of limitations that are 10 years 
or less for filing workers' compensation claims. This may preclude 
claims for illnesses involving long latency periods. Also, many States 
have a minimum exposure time period before a disease can be attributed 
to an occupational cause.
    With the exception of musculoskeletal disorders, workers' 
compensation covers only 5 percent of occupational diseases (including 
emergency response-related occupational diseases) and 1.1 percent of 
occupational fatalities (Ashford, 2007, Docket OSHA-2010-0034 Document 
ID 1702, p. 1714).
(b) Limitations on Payouts
    The second reason that employers do not fully pay the costs of 
work-related injuries and disease under the workers' compensation 
system is that, even for those claims that are accepted into the 
system, states have imposed significant limitations on payouts. 
Depending on the State, these limitations and restrictions include:
     Caps on wage replacement based on the average wage in the 
State rather than the injured workers' actual wage;
     Restrictions on which medical care services are 
compensated and the amount of that compensation;
     No compensation for non-pecuniary losses, such as pain and 
suffering or impairment not directly related to earning power;
     Either no, or limited, cost-of-living increases;
     Restrictions on permanent, partial, and total disability 
benefits, either by specifying a maximum number of weeks for which 
benefits can be paid or by imposing an absolute ceiling on dollar 
payouts; and
     A low absolute ceiling on death benefits.
    The last two restrictions may be the most limiting for occupational 
diseases with long-term health effects and possible fatal outcomes, 
such as those associated with worker exposure to emergency response-
related hazards.
(c) A Divergence Between Workers' Compensation Premiums and Workplace 
Risk
    The third reason workers' compensation does not adequately shift 
the costs of work-related injuries and illnesses to employers is that 
the risk-spreading objective of workers' compensation conflicts with, 
and ultimately helps to undermine, the cost-internalization 
objective.\21\ For the 99 percent of employers who rely on workers' 
compensation insurance,\22\ the

[[Page 7850]]

payment of premiums represents their primary cost for occupational 
injuries and illnesses, such as emergency response-related injuries and 
illnesses. However, the mechanism for determining an employer's 
workers' compensation insurance premium typically fails to reflect the 
actual occupational risk present in that employer's workplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Recall from the earlier discussion of externalities that 
the failure to internalize costs leads to allocative distortions and 
inefficiencies in the market.
    \22\ Only the largest firms, constituting approximately 1 
percent of employers and representing approximately 15 percent of 
workers, are self-insured. These individual firms accomplish risk-
spreading as a result of the large number of workers they cover. See 
Ashford (2007), Docket OSHA-2010-0034, Document ID 1702, p. 1712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approximately 85 percent of employers have their premiums set based 
on a ``class rating,'' which is based on industry illness and injury 
history. Employers in this class are typically the smallest firms and 
represent only about 15 percent of workers (Ashford, 2007, Docket OSHA-
2010-0034, Document ID 1702, p. 1713). Small firms are often ineligible 
for experience rating because of insufficient claims history or because 
of a high year-to-year variance in their claim rates. These firms are 
granted rate reductions only if the experience of the entire class 
improves. The remaining 14 percent of employers, larger firms 
representing approximately 70 percent of workers, have their premiums 
set based on a combination of ``class rating'' and ``experience 
rating,'' which adjusts the class rating to reflect a firm's individual 
claims experience. A firm's experience rating is generally based on the 
history of workers' compensation payments to workers injured at that 
firm's workplace, not on the quality of the firm's overall worker 
protection program or safety and health record. Thus, for example, the 
existence of circumstances that may lead to catastrophic future losses 
are not included in an experience rating--only actual past losses are 
included.\23\ Insurance companies do have the right to refuse to 
provide workers' compensation insurance to an employer--and frequently 
exercise that right based on their inspections and evaluations of a 
firm's health and safety practices. However, almost all States have 
assigned risk pools that insist that any firm that cannot obtain 
workers' compensation policies from any insurer must be provided 
workers' compensation insurance at a State-mandated rate that reflects 
a combination of class and experience rating. Workers' compensation 
insurance does protect individual employers against a catastrophic 
financial loss due to work-related injury or illness claims. As a 
result of risk spreading, however, employers' efforts to reduce the 
incidence of occupational injuries and illnesses are not fully 
reflected in reduced workers' compensation premiums. Conversely, 
employers who devote fewer resources to promoting worker safety and 
health may not incur commensurately higher workers' compensation costs. 
This creates a type of moral hazard, in that the presence of risk 
spreading in workers' compensation insurance may induce employers to 
make fewer investments in equipment and training to reduce the risk of 
workplace injuries and illnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In order to spread risks in an efficient manner, it is 
critical that insurers have adequate information to set individual 
premiums that reflect each individual employer's risks. As the 
preceding discussion has made clear, by and large, they do not. In 
that sense, insurers can be added to employers and workers as 
possessing imperfect information about job hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In short, the premiums most individual employers pay for workers' 
compensation insurance coverage do not reflect the actual cost burden 
those employers impose on the worker's compensation system. 
Consequently, employers considering measures to lower the incidence of 
workplace injuries and illnesses can expect to receive a less-than-
commensurate reduction in workers' compensation premiums. Thus, for all 
the reasons discussed above, the workers' compensation system does not 
provide adequate incentives to employers to control occupational risks 
to worker safety and health.
III. Tort Liability Options
    Another alternative to OSHA regulation could be for workers to use 
the tort system to seek redress for work-related injuries and diseases, 
including emergency response-related ones. A tort is a civil wrong 
(other than breach of contract) for which the courts can provide a 
remedy by awarding damages. The application of the tort system to 
occupational injury and disease would allow workers to sue their 
employer, or other responsible parties (e.g., ``third parties'' such as 
suppliers of hazardous material or equipment used in the workplace) to 
recover damages. In theory, the tort system could shift the liability 
for the direct costs of occupational injury and illness from the worker 
to the employer or to other responsible parties. In turn, the employer 
or third parties would be induced to improve worker safety and health.
    With limited exceptions, the tort system has not been a viable 
alternative to occupational safety and health regulation because State 
statutes make workers' compensation the ``exclusive remedy'' for work-
related injuries and illnesses. Workers' compensation is essentially a 
type of no-fault insurance. In return for employers' willingness to 
provide, through workers' compensation, timely wage-loss and medical 
coverage for workers' job-related injuries and diseases, regardless of 
fault, workers are barred from suing their employers for damages, 
except in cases of intentional harm or, in some States, gross 
negligence (Ashford and Caldart, 1996, Docket OSHA-2010-0034, Document 
ID 0538, p. 233). Practically speaking, in most cases, workers' 
compensation is the exclusive legal remedy available to workers for 
workplace injuries and illnesses.
    Workers are thus generally barred from suing their own employers in 
tort for occupational injuries or disease but may attempt to recover 
damages for work-related injuries and disease from third parties 
through the tort system. However, the process may be lengthy, 
adversarial, and expensive. In addition, in tort cases involving 
chronic occupational disease, the likelihood of prevailing in court and 
ultimately obtaining compensation may be small because:
     In a tort action, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff 
(i.e., the worker) to demonstrate by ``a preponderance of the 
evidence'' that the defendant (i.e., the responsible third party) owed 
a duty to the plaintiff, that the defendant breached that duty, and 
that the breach caused the worker's injury or disease;
     To establish third-party liability the worker must 
typically show that the third party's products or equipment or 
instructions were defective or negligently designed. Liability is often 
in dispute and difficult to prove;
     In cases of chronic disease, especially those with long 
latency periods, it is typically even more difficult to prove that the 
third-party was causally responsible. The worker must prove that not 
only was the disease the result of occupational exposure and not an 
ordinary disease of life or the result of non-occupational exposure, 
but also the causal exposure was due to the defendant's product at the 
plaintiff's particular worksite rather than exposure to some other 
third party's product or exposure at some other worksite;
     For chronic diseases, the potentially lengthy latency 
period between worker exposure and manifestation of disease lowers the 
probability that the responsible third party will still be in business 
when tort claims are ultimately

[[Page 7851]]

filed and have sufficient assets to cover the claims; \24\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The same qualification about the firm being in business and 
having sufficient assets to pay claims may also apply to liability 
insurers, in those cases where the firm has purchased liability 
insurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Workers may be deterred from filing tort actions because 
of the substantial costs involved--including attorney fees, court 
costs, and the costs of obtaining evidence and securing witnesses--and 
the lengthy period before a final decision is rendered.
    In sum, the use of the tort system as an alternative to regulation 
is severely limited because of the ``exclusive remedy'' provisions in 
workers' compensation statutes; because of the various legal and 
practical difficulties in seeking recovery from responsible third 
parties, particularly in cases of occupational disease such as cancer; 
and because of the substantial costs associated with a tort action. The 
tort system, therefore, does not adequately protect workers from 
exposure to hazards in the workplace.
IV. Summary
    OSHA's primary reasons for proposing this rule are based on the 
requirements of the OSH Act and are discussed in section II of the 
preamble, Pertinent Legal Authority. As shown in the preamble to the 
proposed rule and this PEA, OSHA has determined that emergency 
responders are exposed to numerous safety and health hazards in the 
workplace. This section has shown that labor markets--even when 
augmented by information dissemination programs, workers' compensation 
systems, and tort liability options--appear to still operate at a level 
of risk for these workers that is higher than socially optimal due to a 
lack of information about safety and health risks, the presence of 
externalities or imperfect competition, and other factors discussed 
above.
    The following sections present OSHA's estimates of the costs, 
benefits, and other impacts anticipated to result from the proposed 
rule. The estimated costs are based on employers achieving full 
compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule. They do not 
include prior costs associated with firms whose current practices are 
already in compliance with the proposed rule requirements. The purposes 
of this analysis are to:
     Identify the establishments and industries affected by the 
proposed rule;
     Estimate and evaluate the costs and economic impacts that 
regulated establishments will incur to achieve compliance with the 
proposed rule;
     Evaluate the economic feasibility of the proposed rule for 
affected industries;
     Estimate the benefits resulting from employers coming into 
compliance with the proposed rule in terms of reductions in injuries 
and fatalities; and
     Assess the impact of the proposed rule on small entities 
through an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), which 
includes an evaluation of significant regulatory alternatives to the 
proposed rule that OSHA has considered.

B. Profile of Affected Industries

I. Introduction
    This chapter presents a profile of the entities and employees 
within the emergency response service sectors that would be affected by 
OSHA's proposed Emergency Response Standard. OSHA first identifies the 
types of organizations that provide emergency response services that 
would be subject to the standard. Next, OSHA provides summary 
statistics for the affected entities, including the number of affected 
entities and the number of affected workers. This information is 
provided for each affected emergency response service sector in total 
as well as for small entities as defined by the RFA and by the SBA.
II. Affected Industries and Responders
    The proposed rule would apply to employers that provide one or more 
of the following emergency response services as a primary function: 
firefighting, emergency medical service, and technical search and 
rescue; or the employees perform the emergency service(s) as a primary 
duty for the employer. OSHA refers to these employers as Emergency 
Service Organizations (ESOs) and their employees as responders. The 
proposed rule also would apply to Workplace Emergency Response 
Employers (WEREs), which are defined as employers that have an 
emergency response team where employees, as a collateral duty to their 
regular daily work assignments, respond to emergency incidents to 
provide services such as fire suppression, emergency medical care, and 
technical search and rescue. The team is called a Workplace Emergency 
Response Team (WERT), and the employees assigned to the team are called 
team members.
    The proposed rule would directly cover private ESOs and WERTs but 
would also impact a significant number of state and local government 
entities, as well as Federal Government entities under the Departments 
of Defense, Agriculture, and the Interior. Firefighting services, as 
well as technical search and rescue groups, are often part of state and 
local governments. These emergency response services are also prominent 
functions of the Federal Government. Emergency medical services (e.g., 
ambulance services) are more commonly provided by private entities but 
may also be provided by state or local governments. While state and 
local government employees are not directly covered by Federal OSHA, 
they are covered by states with OSHA-approved State Plans because the 
OSH Act requires State Plans to cover government employees. Under 
Executive Order 12866, agencies must consider the likely effects of 
their rulemakings on state and local governments in their regulatory 
analyses. For this analysis, OSHA is assuming that State Plan states 
would adopt the requirements in this proposed rule as written. 
Emergency response activities undertaken by WERT members at private 
worksites are fully covered by Federal OSHA.
    Another issue in determining the entities that would be affected by 
the proposed rule is that many emergency responders are volunteers. 
OSHA does not regulate volunteers, but some State Plan states, listed 
below, have laws that treat volunteers as employees for occupational 
safety and health purposes. Therefore, in those situations, State Plans 
would have to cover those volunteers.
    The proposed rule would not cover employers performing disaster 
site clean-up or recovery duties following natural disasters such as 
earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, and floods; and human-made disasters 
such as explosions and transportation incidents.
    The specific types of organizations that would be covered by the 
proposed rule are as follows:
     Firefighting Services--These organizations include private 
and public entities engaged in structural, wildland, proximity, marine, 
and aerial firefighting. Employees of these entities may be volunteer 
or career team members or responders. This group represents the vast 
majority of entities, team members and responders potentially affected 
by the proposed rule.
     Emergency Medical Services (EMS)--These organizations 
include private and public entities engaged in provision of pre-
hospital emergency medical service. Employees of these entities may be 
volunteer or career team members and responders, emergency

[[Page 7852]]

medical technicians (EMTs), paramedics, and registered nurses.
     Technical Search and Rescue--These organizations are 
involved in complex search and rescue situations, such as rope, 
vehicle/machinery, structural collapse, trench, and technical water 
rescue. Employees of these entities may be volunteer or career team 
members and responders.
    Detailed descriptions of these organization types are provided in 
section 4.
III. Entities Not Covered by the Proposed Rule
    As noted above, Federal OSHA does not cover public ESOs in States 
without OSHA-approved State Plans. Therefore, for the PEA, public ESOs 
and responders in States without OSHA-approved State Plans are excluded 
from the analysis. The following states and territories have State 
Plans \25\: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, 
Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, U.S. Virgin 
Islands, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. The remaining 
states and territories that are assumed to classify volunteers as 
covered employees include Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, 
Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, 
Washington, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, 
New York, and U.S. Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Seven of these--Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, 
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands--only 
cover public sector employees. However, the comparatively limited 
number of private sector employees in those states are covered by 
Federal OSHA and have been included in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also noted above, many emergency responders are unpaid volunteers 
rather than paid employees. Some State Plans cover volunteers, and some 
do not. This analysis does not include volunteer responders in State 
Plan states where the State Plan does not cover volunteers. State Plan 
states do not define ``employee'' in a standard way. Therefore, 
determining which employees are covered is not straightforward. For 
example, some states may provide benefits in the form of insurance and 
tax benefits to volunteers that might affect whether they are 
considered employees. Additionally, some State Plans may extend OSHA 
protections to volunteer firefighters but not to volunteer EMS 
providers or other non-firefighting volunteers, while other State Plans 
extend OSHA protections to all volunteers or to no volunteers. OSHA has 
determined that the following State Plan states do not consider 
volunteers to be employees and therefore do not extend OSHA protections 
to volunteers.\26\ As a result, volunteers in these states are not 
included in this analysis (although career responders for public entity 
ESOs are included): Kentucky, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, 
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ There are an additional three states (Connecticut, 
Minnesota, and South Carolina), plus the U.S. Virgin Islands, for 
which it was somewhat ambiguous and where OSHA was unable to 
determine whether volunteers are considered employees under their 
State Plans. For this analysis, OSHA assumed that these states do 
consider volunteers as employees, so as not to underestimate the 
impacts of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA welcomes feedback on why this is or is not an appropriate 
approach to estimating the number of affected responders. The agency 
welcomes additional data or information on how volunteer responders are 
treated regarding OSHA protections in State Plan states.
    Some states utilize prison labor to fight wildfires. These inmate 
firefighters are either paid significantly less per hour than career 
firefighters or are not paid at all. While some state plans, such as 
California clearly extend OSH coverage to prison labor,\27\ it is 
somewhat ambiguous whether all such states do. Therefore, for this PEA, 
OSHA assumed that State Plan states that extend OSH coverage to 
volunteers do the same for inmate firefighters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The California Prison Industry Authority (CALPIA) was cited 
by the state Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) 
and fined for exposing prisoners employed in a metal fabrication and 
vehicle-outfitting facility at California State Prison-Solano to 
COVID-19. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2021/apr/1/california-prison-factories-fined-exposing-unwitting-workers-covid-19/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VII-B-1 shows the number and percentage of volunteer ESOs and 
responders in State Plan states where volunteers are and are not 
covered. ESOs in State Plan states that do not cover volunteers, and 
which are entirely staffed by volunteer responders, would not be 
affected by the proposed rule. Approximately 60.2 percent of volunteer 
ESOs and 62.9 percent of volunteer responders in State Plan states are 
covered overall.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7853]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.008

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
IV. Affected WEREs, ESOs, and Responders
    Emergency response services provided by WEREs and ESOs can overlap 
(e.g., firefighters may also be trained to provide medical assistance 
and technical search and rescue). Additionally, OSHA assumes that WERTs 
will likely provide all emergency response services within each 
facility. Given the overlap among these groups, OSHA first profiles 
WEREs as one group (vs. separately for each emergency response 
activity) and then profiles each type of ESO (firefighter, EMS, 
technical search and rescue).
A. WEREs
    OSHA's estimate of the number of WEREs was derived using data from 
the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) registry on the number of ``private 
or industrial fire brigades.'' These entities include private companies 
that have indicated they have employees (team members) who, collateral 
to their normal duties, provide firefighting and other emergency 
response services at the workplace.\28\ Upon examination, OSHA found 
that unlike ESOs, WEREs typically do not appear in the registry. OSHA 
asked the USFA how representative the National Fire Registry data is, 
with USFA stating that the number of fire departments in the Registry 
accounted for about 92% of U.S. fire departments. The National Fire 
Registry indicates there are 27,091 organizations in the fire registry 
with available counts on employees. Multiplying 27,091 by 1/0.92 yields 
an estimate of 29,447 total emergency response organizations overall in 
the United States. The agency made an additional adjustment for an 
undercount of private ESOs, estimating that there are 788 private ESOs 
in the U.S. (twice the official count of 394). This leaves a residual 
of approximately 1,582 emergency response teams unaccounted for. Based 
in part on this, the agency estimates that approximately 1,500 
emergency response teams are unaccounted for and exist in the form of 
WEREs. Based on communications with SERs, OSHA believes these WEREs to 
be within larger establishments across a number of industries such as 
refineries, auto assembly plants, paper mills, chemical plants, 
hospitals, and airports, among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Note that not all private firefighting organizations 
reported in the NFPA data are WEREs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To account for potential underreporting of these types of entities 
to the registry as well as to account for other types of WEREs that may 
not be captured by this registry, OSHA adjusted the number of WEREs to 
1,500 WEREs. OSHA scaled the number of WERT members that are captured 
in the Registry (1,548) by the ratio of adjusted

[[Page 7854]]

WEREs (1,500) to WEREs captured in the Registry (36). Using this ratio 
(1,500/36 = 41.7), OSHA estimates that there are 64,500 team members 
employed in total by 1,500 WEREs. The agency welcomes additional data 
about the number of WEREs and team members who would fall within the 
scope of the proposed rule.
B. Fire Departments
    According to the USFA registry, in 2022 there were 27,144 fire 
departments; 52,177 fire stations; and approximately 1,232,980 
firefighting and non-firefighting individuals employed by fire 
departments in the United States.\29\ The registry data also include 
the fire department's organization type (e.g., private, state, local, 
etc.), department type (i.e., career, volunteer, mostly career, mostly 
volunteer), and firefighter type (e.g., active career, paid per call, 
active volunteer, etc.). ``Mostly career'' and ``mostly volunteer'' 
departments are those with a majority of responders who are career or 
volunteer firefighters, respectively, and are considered to be 
``mixed'' departments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ These statistics are based on the USFA registry database as 
of May 17, 2022. Registry data are voluntarily reported by fire 
departments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VII-B-2 provides an overview of the number of fire 
departments in the USFA (2022) registry data by type of department 
based on firefighter type. This estimate includes all fire departments, 
whether or not they would be covered by the proposed rule. Table VII-B-
2 shows that the majority of fire departments (approximately 61 
percent) are volunteer.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The fire registry data are self-reported by individual fire 
departments, and in some cases, departments have classified 
themselves as a ``volunteer'' department even though they also 
reported some career or paid-per-call responders. OSHA has 
reclassified these departments such that only those departments 
where all active firefighters are volunteers are listed as 
``volunteer'' departments and only those where all active 
firefighters are either career or paid per call are ``career,'' with 
the remainder being ``mixed.''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.009

    The USFA data also enumerate responders by type at each department 
in the registry and characterize whether they are career, volunteer, 
``paid per call'' (i.e., firefighters employed on a per-incident 
basis), or non-firefighting employees and volunteers. (This estimate 
includes all firefighters and non-firefighters, whether or not they 
would be covered by the proposed rule.) Table VII-B-3 summarizes these 
data, showing that a plurality of fire department personnel are 
volunteer firefighters (approximately 47 percent), career firefighters 
(approximately 30 percent) being the next most common type and paid-
per-call firefighters constituting 11 percent of all personnel.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.010

    Table VII-B-4 shows the interplay between department and personnel 
types (including all departments and personnel, whether or not they 
would be covered by the proposed rule). As noted above, the numbers 
below have been adjusted so that the ``volunteer'' department type 
includes data for those departments comprising only volunteer 
firefighters.

[[Page 7855]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.011

    As shown in Table VII-B-5, the vast majority of fire departments 
(approximately 96 percent) are operated by local governments. When 
other public non-federal fire departments (state governments, tribal 
governments, transportation authority/airport fire departments, and 
``other'' departments) are included, public fire departments account 
for about 97.6 percent of fire departments.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.012

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
    Not all fire departments and responders included in Table VII-B-5 
would be covered by the proposed rule. OSHA does not estimate costs or 
impacts for fire departments reporting zero responders \31\ and the 
non-firefighting personnel included in the USFA (2022) registry data. 
Further, the analysis excludes public fire departments in non-State 
Plan states, volunteers in State Plan states where volunteers are not 
covered by the State Plan, and all-volunteer fire departments in State 
Plan states that do not cover volunteers. OSHA thus limits the fire 
department profile to include all private fire departments, all public 
fire departments in State Plan states that cover volunteers, all public 
fire departments in State Plan states that do not cover volunteers 
except those departments that are 100 percent volunteer, and all 
Federal fire departments. In addition to removing some fire departments 
and responders that are not covered, OSHA checked to ensure that all 
fire departments operated by tribal governments were removed from this 
analysis for being out-of-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ There are 90 fire departments with no reported active 
firefighting personnel in the 2022 USFA Registry.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7856]]

scope. After these adjustments, OSHA estimates that there are 12,096 
fire departments and 534,599 responders (see Table VII-B-6) that would 
be affected by the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
performing particular support activities related to timber 
production, wood technology, forestry economics and marketing, and 
forest protection. These establishments may provide support 
activities for forestry, such as estimating timber, forest 
firefighting, forest pest control, treating burned forests from the 
air for reforestation or on an emergency basis, and consulting on 
wood attributes and reforestation. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.013

C. Wildland Firefighting Services
    In addition to fire departments, many private-sector fire 
suppression organizations provide wildland firefighting and other 
emergency services, primarily to Federal, State, and local agencies. 
These services include direct firefighting as well as support services 
and are assumed to fall into NAICS 115310 Support Activities for 
Forestry.\32\ The total number of such organizations and the associated 
personnel is unknown. However, the National Wildfire Suppression 
Association (NWSA) states that it represents 348 private wildland 
firefighting services contractors with 24,000 employees who operate on 
an as-needed basis to provide Federal, State, and local agencies with a 
variety of resources for wildland firefighting and other emergency 
incidents (such as hurricanes and other disasters) (Miley, 2022). These 
for-profit companies represent between 65 and 70 percent of for-profit 
wildland firefighting services (Miley, 2022). Taking the midpoint of 
NWSA's representativeness range (67.5 percent), OSHA estimates that 516 
companies offer wildland firefighting services across the United 
States.
    Using addresses for member companies as well as other contractor 
lists (WildlandFireJobs.com) and projecting to the total estimated 
number of organizations, OSHA calculated the percent and total wildland 
firefighting entities within each state.
    Total employment was calculated by dividing the number of wildland 
firefighting service estimated above by the number of firms in NAICS 
115310 and multiplying this percentage by the total number of employees 
in NAICS 115310, according to the 2021 Statistics of U.S. Businesses 
(SUSB). This calculation results in an estimated 35,556 employees. All 
wildland firefighting entities are private entities, according to the 
NWSA. All responders are considered career; none of these employees are 
volunteers.
    In some states, prison labor is also employed to fight wildfires. 
To estimate the number of inmate firefighters, OSHA conducted internet 
searches regarding the number of state prison inmates participating in 
firefighting training and deployment programs, focusing on State Plan 
states. While there are non-State Plan states that have inmate 
firefighting programs, those inmates are not within OSHA's 
jurisdiction, since the state prisons are publicly owned and operated. 
OSHA used the search terms ``[state] inmate firefighters,'' ``[state] 
corrections forestry camps,'' ``[state] prisoner wildfires,'' and 
``[state] corrections firefighter training.'' Among the 27 states and 
two territories that have State Plans, OSHA found evidence of inmate 
firefighting programs in 14 states. For this PEA, OSHA assumes that 
inmate firefighters are treated as volunteers within State Plan states. 
Therefore, only inmate firefighters in State Plan states where the 
State Plan covers volunteers would be affected. Of the 14 State Plan 
states for which OSHA found evidence of inmate firefighting programs, 
seven of them cover volunteers. The counts of inmate firefighters for 
each of these states are provided in Table VII-B-7. For some states, 
OSHA found more than one count of inmate firefighters. In these 
instances, OSHA uses the highest estimate.

[[Page 7857]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.014

    The Federal Government also employs wildland firefighters within 
the Forest Service. There are approximately 18,700 dedicated wildland 
firefighters (GAO, 2022) and an additional 50,000 reserve wildland 
firefighters (USDA, 2023).
D. Emergency Medical Services
    The proposed rule, or its State Plan equivalent, would cover public 
and private ESOs that provide emergency medical services (EMS). 
However, detailed data for EMS providers similar to those for fire 
departments are not available. Available data on EMS providers are not 
captured adequately in the data sources typically used by OSHA that 
allow the agency to delineate affected entities by NAICS industry. OSHA 
combined data from several sources to construct a profile with similar 
parameters to the firefighter profile. OSHA welcomes information on 
additional or alternate data sources that would allow the agency to 
better estimate the universe of EMS providers.
    First, statistics reported by the National Association of Emergency 
Medical Technicians (NAEMT, 2014) based on 2008 data suggest that there 
are an estimated 15,276 ambulance services ESOs in the United States, 
which NAEMT breaks down into detailed categories (see Table VII-B-8). 
NAEMT reported that an estimated 49 percent of EMS providers are fire 
departments with either cross-trained or separate EMS responders. Other 
``government or third party'' providers represent an estimated 15 
percent of the total, while private EMS providers account for 18 
percent, and hospital-based services represent 7 percent.
    The ESOs considered in this section exclude EMS responders that 
operate as part of a fire department (as they are already included in 
the fire department profile detailed above) and public ESOs located in 
non-State Plan states. OSHA combined all other public EMS ESOs to 
arrive at an estimated affected population of ambulance service 
providers. OSHA based the estimate of the percentages of public ESOs 
that are in State Plan and non-State Plan states on the ratio of 
employment in Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes 29-2042 
Emergency Medical Technicians and 29-2043 Paramedics in State Plan 
states to employment of those two SOCs in all states in BLS (2023) 
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) data for May 2022. 
Based on this calculation, OSHA assumes that 59.04 percent of public 
ESOs are based in State Plan states, with 40.96 percent of public ESOs 
based in non-State Plan states.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7858]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.015

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
    NAEMT (2014) estimates that ambulance services employ 840,669 
responders, which includes first responders, EMTs, paramedics, and 
registered nurses. This analysis assumes that those responders are 
distributed proportionately among the ambulance services of each type, 
which yields an estimate of 360,957 responders at affected ESOs, with 
66,723 of these responders at public ESOs in State Plan states and 
294,234 responders at private ESOs nationwide.
    NAEMT (2014) estimates that approximately 39 percent of ambulance 
service entities are staffed by career responders, 21 percent by 
volunteers, and 41 percent by both. Unlike the USFA (2022) data used 
for the firefighter profile, NAEMT does not specify responder types at 
``mixed'' ambulance services (e.g., how many career responders are at 
ESOs that are primarily staffed with volunteers). For the fire 
departments and firefighters analysis, OSHA identified different types 
of staffing arrangements for fire departments, including where 
departments were mostly, but not completely, staffed by volunteers and 
vice versa. Lacking any data to make similar determinations, this 
analysis of ambulance ESOs assumes that entities reported as staffed by 
career responders are staffed entirely by career responders, entities 
reported as volunteer services are staffed entirely by volunteers, and 
an unknown mix of career and volunteer responders staff services in the 
``mixed'' category. The estimates of career, volunteer, and ``mixed'' 
services and responders are shown in Table VII-B-9.
    As with fire departments and firefighters, volunteer responders and 
ESOs where 100 percent of responders are volunteers are excluded in 
OSHA State Plan states where the State Plan does not cover volunteers. 
Since the NAEMT and BLS data are not granular enough to allow an exact 
calculation of the percentage of volunteers in State Plan states that 
cover or do not cover volunteers, OSHA assumes that the percentage of 
volunteer emergency medical service ESOs and responders located in 
these states is the same as for firefighters.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7859]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.016

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
E. Technical Search and Rescue
    The proposed rule covers technical search and rescue organizations 
using special knowledge, skills, and specialized equipment to resolve 
complex search and rescue situations, such as rope, vehicle/machinery, 
structural collapse, trench, and technical water rescue. The term 
covers a variety of activities and operations that may be performed by 
different types of team members and responders. (The proposed rule does 
not include technical search and rescue activities specifically covered 
by other OSHA standards, such as permit-required confined spaces 
covered by 29 CFR 1910.146.) OSHA specifically uses the term 
``technical'' to limit the proposed rule's coverage to search and 
rescue activities that utilize special knowledge and skills and 
specialized equipment to resolve complex search and rescue situations 
because these activities are particularly hazardous for emergency 
responders. There are activities with the same or similar names that 
would not be covered by the proposed rule because they do not use 
specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment. For example, the term 
``wilderness search and rescue'' could apply to both technical and non-
technical operations. Hiking or riding horseback through the wilderness 
searching for a lost hiker does not necessarily require special skills, 
knowledge, or equipment. However, if it is mountainous terrain where 
rescuing the hiker requires rope rescue techniques, for example, then 
it is technical search and rescue.
    These services are provided by a range of organizations that may 
focus on one or more skills (e.g., trench, technical water rescue) or 
environments (e.g., wilderness, urban) and may be provided by 
volunteers, private companies, fire departments, or law enforcement 
agencies. Employers that provide these services do not appear in any 
one defined NAICS industry. OSHA's research showed that these employers 
are many disparate industries and are frequently providing technical 
search and rescue services in conjunction with other lines of business 
(e.g., they may primarily train people in occupational safety practices 
or rent equipment but also provide technical search and rescue). To 
profile these organizations,

[[Page 7860]]

OSHA obtained information from several sources including the National 
Association for Search and Rescue (NASAR) and the Mountain Rescue 
Association (MRA). OSHA supplemented the MRA and NASAR information with 
data on private companies offering specialized skills and equipment, 
such as rope/high angle rescue, estimates of Federal Park Rangers who 
can perform technical rescue, and U.S. lifeguarding entities providing 
specialized skills and equipment to better estimate the total number of 
entities and employees involved in technical search and rescue. OSHA 
assumed that all WEREs whose WERT members perform technical search and 
rescue also perform firefighting operations. Therefore, all WERE and 
WERT members were captured above and none are profiled in this section 
as providing only technical search and rescue.
    According to NASAR, there are between 4,000 and 6,000 search and 
rescue organizations in the United States. Information was not 
available on the total number of individuals involved in search and 
rescue. NASAR estimates that 90 percent of these organizations are 
focused on wilderness search and rescue and the other 10 percent are 
urban search and rescue organizations (Boyer, 2022). Urban search and 
rescue groups are sponsored by fire departments and run by FEMA. Given 
the overlap with fire departments, which are accounted for above, urban 
search and rescue organizations are excluded from the count of affected 
technical search and rescue groups estimated below. Wilderness search 
and rescue organizations are typically under the purview of law 
enforcement agencies (e.g., police departments, sheriff's offices, 
etc.) and are staffed by volunteers.
    An estimated 80 percent of wilderness search and rescue groups use 
special skills or equipment during search and/or rescue (Boyer, 2022) 
and are therefore considered to be technical search and rescue groups. 
Combining the midpoint (5,000) of NASAR's estimate of total search and 
rescue organizations with these estimates, OSHA estimates that there 
are approximately 3,600 wilderness search and rescue groups that use 
technical skills or equipment during missions (5,000 search and rescue 
organizations x 90 percent wilderness x 80 percent using technical 
skills or equipment). OSHA distributed these 3,600 groups across each 
state based on the proportion of the population within each state 
according to the U.S. Census Bureau (2022b). Accounting only for groups 
in State Plan states where volunteers are considered employees, OSHA 
estimates a total of 1,572 affected technical search and rescue groups.
    Based on the number of MRA member organizations and individuals, 
OSHA assumed that there are 30 volunteers per technical search and 
rescue group (Miraglia, 2022). After multiplying the number of 
technical search and rescue groups within each state by this estimate, 
OSHA distributed these employees across employee class sizes using 
ratios of employees within specific employee class sizes compared to 
the total number of employees derived from Government Units Survey 
data. OSHA made a further adjustment to account for instances where the 
number of technical search and rescue groups exceeded the number of 
volunteers estimated. These instances can occur since the relationships 
between MRA's estimates, the Government Units Survey data, and U.S. 
Census population data are not uniform from one state to another. In 
instances where the number of technical search and rescue groups 
exceeded the number of volunteers, the number of entities was capped at 
half of the number of employees.\33\ OSHA then calculated the ratio 
between the original number of technical search and rescue groups 
(3,600) and the new adjusted number of technical search and rescue 
groups (2,824) to scale the number of entities and employees to reflect 
the original estimate of technical search and rescue groups. This 
process results in a preliminary estimate of 3,600 technical search and 
rescue groups and 137,675 technical search and rescue responders. All 
of these technical search and rescue groups are public entities and all 
associated responders are considered volunteers. After accounting for 
State Plan status and whether or not a State Plan state covers 
volunteers, the number of affected technical search and rescue 
responders is adjusted to 60,106. OSHA welcomes comment on the 
estimates and assumptions presented here. The agency also encourages 
anyone with additional data that could be used to refine these 
estimates to submit those data to the rulemaking record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ OSHA assumes that there are at least 2 volunteer responders 
per technical search and rescue group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA separately researched private companies offering technical 
search and rescue services using internet searches. However, given the 
range of industrial sectors to which these companies appear to belong, 
OSHA was not able to identify a comprehensive list of all such 
companies in the U.S. Therefore, OSHA assumes that the number of 
private companies involved in technical search and rescue is equal to 
the number of FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Task Force locations 
(28).\34\ OSHA requests additional data on private technical search and 
rescue service providers that would allow the agency to better estimate 
the universe of these employers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness/frameworks/urban-search-rescue/task-force-locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the number of responders at these private technical 
search and rescue companies, OSHA used the sample of companies it 
identified via internet searches. Using Demographics Now (2023), OSHA 
obtained the number of employees associated with each company. OSHA 
also searched for employment numbers for each company through Manta and 
ZoomInfo. OSHA then aggregated the companies and their respective 
employee estimates into employment class sizes (<25, 25-49, 50-99, 100-
249, 250-499, and 500+). Using the percentage of companies that fell 
into each employee class size, OSHA then scaled the number of employees 
within each employee class size to reflect expected employment figures 
for the estimated 28 companies. With this method, OSHA estimated 1,304 
employees across private technical search and rescue companies.
    OSHA used publicly available information to estimate approximately 
15,000 Park Rangers employed in the United States (Zippia, 2023). OSHA 
assumes that a third of these Park Rangers have technical rescue 
skills, resulting in 5,000 additional technical search and rescue 
responders, which are included in this industry profile.
    To calculate the number of technical water rescue entities and 
responders affected by the proposed rule, OSHA developed estimates of 
the total number of public and private lifeguard agencies that use 
specialized knowledge and skills using data from the USLA (USLA, 
2022a). While pool and waterpark lifeguards would be excluded because 
they do not use specialized equipment, beach and open water lifeguard 
employees may be included, depending on whether or not they use 
specialized equipment such as SCUBA, boats, personal watercraft, and 
ATVs. There are other emergency responders, notably firefighters, who 
also provide technical water rescue, but their numbers are already 
accounted for elsewhere in the analysis. For the purposes of this 
analysis, OSHA assumed that use of

[[Page 7861]]

rescue vehicles \35\ was linked to the provision of specialized 
equipment and skills among lifeguards. Using USLA data on ownership of 
rescue vehicles by lifeguard agencies, OSHA determined how many of 
these employees might use rescue vehicles and therefore be potentially 
subject to the proposed rule. The U.S. has 144 USLA-certified lifeguard 
agencies (USLA, 2022b). According to USLA, 70 percent of all public 
lifeguard agencies are USLA-certified (Brewster, 2022). OSHA, 
therefore, estimates that there are 206 public lifeguard agencies 
nationwide. USLA also indicated that 95 percent of all lifeguard 
entities are public, which translates to an estimated 217 total (public 
and private) lifeguard entities nationwide (Brewster, 2022), all of 
which are assumed to have the potential to use rescue vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ USLA defines rescue vehicles as lifeguard emergency 
vehicles described as four-wheel-drive motor vehicles which are 
legally permitted to drive on streets and highways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA counted the number of USLA-certified agencies in each state in 
the USLA data and then proportionally distributed the remaining 
lifeguard agencies based on the percentage of all USLA-certified 
agencies within the state. Based on the statistics presented above, 95 
percent of all agencies were assumed to be public and the remaining 5 
percent private. Accounting only for public groups in State Plan States 
and all private entities, OSHA estimates a total of 134 additional 
affected technical water rescue entities.
    OSHA used the same approach as used for the other technical search 
and rescue organizations to distribute public and private agencies 
among each employee class size for technical water rescue 
organizations. Partial data on the number of full-time and part-time 
employees at each lifeguard agency by year was available from USLA. 
However, employment data for some currently certified lifeguard 
agencies was unavailable. To fill in these gaps, OSHA calculated the 
average number of full-time and part-time employees among the currently 
certified lifeguard agencies with recorded employment data. OSHA then 
calculated the average number of full-time and part-time employees per 
agency in each state. These estimates were then multiplied by the 
number of public and private entities in each state to estimate total 
full-time and part-time employees within public and private entities. 
OSHA then used USLA data on ownership of rescue vehicles by lifeguard 
agency to determine how many of these employees might use rescue 
vehicles and therefore be providing specialized equipment and skills. 
OSHA calculated the average number of employees per rescue vehicle 
across currently USLA-certified lifeguard entities and multiplied it by 
the number of rescue vehicles per entity to estimate the number of 
employees potentially operating rescue vehicles per entity. Next, OSHA 
took the difference between total employment at each entity and the 
expected number of employees given the number of rescue vehicles to 
determine ``excess'' employees, or the employees at an entity that may 
not operate a rescue vehicle. OSHA divided the total number of 
``excess'' employees by total employment to determine the percentage of 
all employees that do not use rescue vehicles. Then the percentage of 
employees that do use rescue vehicles was multiplied by total public 
and private employment within each employee class size to determine the 
number of affected employees within each state. As a final step, OSHA 
used the same approach as outlined above for the search and rescue 
organizations, capping the number of entities at half the number of 
employees estimated given the number of entities originally estimated 
exceeded the number of employees. The number of entities and employees 
was then scaled back up so that the total number of entities estimated 
matched the original estimate. As shown in Table VII-B-10, there are an 
estimated 8,275 affected technical water rescuers.

[[Page 7862]]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.017

    In summary, the total number of affected technical search and 
rescue organizations and responders is presented in Table VII-B-11.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.018


[[Page 7863]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.019

F. Summary of Affected WEREs, ESOs, Responders, and Team Members
    Table VII-B-12 summarizes the total estimated number of 
organizations and responders affected by the proposed rule, drawing 
from the profiles for WEREs, firefighters (Table VII-B-6), wildland 
firefighters, emergency medical services (Table III-9), and technical 
search and rescue groups (Table VII-B-11).

[[Page 7864]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.020

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
V. Potentially Affected Small Entities
A. Determining Entity Size
    Under the RFA, small governmental jurisdictions (sometimes referred 
to as ``small governments'' in this analysis) are defined as 
``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school 
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty 
thousand.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(5). For this PEA, fire departments, EMS 
providers, and technical search and rescue groups that are part of 
state and local governments are referred to as small entities if the 
government they are part of meets this definition of a small 
governmental jurisdiction. For private entities, the RFA uses the 
definition of ``small business'' found in the Small Business Act, which 
authorizes the SBA to define ``small business'' by regulation. This 
analysis uses the SBA's definition of a small business for each 
industry sector (according to NAICS code) as defined in the SBA table 
of size standards (SBA, 2019).
    The available data on small governmental jurisdictions does not 
allow OSHA to identify the number of fire departments or EMS providers 
that serve these jurisdictions, or the number of firefighters and EMS 
providers employed by small governments. To derive these estimates, 
OSHA estimated the median population served per fire department 
employee and used that to estimate how many workers a department would 
need to employ to serve a population greater than 50,000. OSHA used 
data from multiple Firehouse Magazine surveys to determine the median 
population served per employee for career, volunteer, and mixed fire 
departments at various employment size classes to extrapolate to the 
entire universe of fire

[[Page 7865]]

departments. Part 1 of Firehouse Magazine's (2022) 2021 National Run 
Survey presents data from 229 career fire departments' statistics about 
population and staffing. Similarly, Firehouse Magazine has volunteer 
and mixed fire department data from the 2021 Volunteer Fire Department 
Run Survey and 2021 Combination Fire Department Run Survey, 
respectively. Estimates of the median population served per employee 
derived from each survey are multiplied by the number of employees for 
each department in the U.S. Fire Administration's (USFA, 2022) registry 
data (used for the Fire Department profile (see Section VII.B.IV.B)) 
within each employee size class to determine how many departments serve 
populations of fewer than 50,000.
    No comparable data are available for publicly operated EMS or 
technical search and rescue groups. Therefore, OSHA calculated the 
number of fire departments serving various population sizes compared to 
the total number of fire departments and applied this ratio to the 
total number of each of these other responder groups. This approach 
estimates the number of government-operated EMS providers and technical 
search and rescue groups serving populations of each size.
    As mentioned above, private entities are defined as small pursuant 
to the SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201, which include different 
definitions for each NAICS industry. For private fire departments, the 
USFA (2022) registry data do not include the NAICS code of each 
department, and these entities represent several industries, each with 
a unique SBA definition.\36\ Most private firefighting entities are in 
NAICS 561000 Administrative and Support Services, but WEREs can be 
found across a wide variety of manufacturing, oil and gas, 
petrochemical, and other industries and each 6-digit NAICS industry can 
define small entities differently. As a simplifying assumption, OSHA 
used an employment size class definition of 500 employees or fewer to 
classify private fire departments as small. On balance, this approach 
likely overestimates the number of affected small entities. While some 
SBA size class definitions within NAICS 561000 use revenue definitions 
of ``small'' that approximate to 500 employees, more industries' 
definitions of ``small'' within this NAICS code approximate to 100 
employees. OSHA uses the 500-employee definition of small fire 
departments for this analysis--a method that would pull more ESOs into 
the scope of this analysis than a lower threshold would.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Some information on the NAICS distribution of private 
firefighting services is available from the BLS employment data, but 
these are not at the 6-digit NAICS level needed to determine small 
entity status using the SBA definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wildland firefighting services may also be distributed across 
several NAICS codes given that many of these entities provide other 
forestry support services such as logging, earth moving, and planting. 
To estimate the number of wildland firefighting services for the small 
entity analysis, OSHA used the proportion of firms in NAICS 115310 
(Support Activities for Forestry) that are classified as SBA small to 
distribute total wildland firefighting services into an SBA 
classification. The SBA small entity definition for NAICS 115310 is 
$8,000,000 in receipts, which OSHA converted to 100 employees.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ This conversion was made by finding the largest employment 
size class with revenue less than $8.0 million per entity in the 
U.S. Census Bureau's (2021) Statistics of U.S. Businesses data for 
2017, with revenue adjusted to 2022$ using the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis (BEA, 2023) implicit price deflators for gross domestic 
product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For private emergency medical services (NAICS 621910 Ambulance 
Services), SBA defines a small entity as one with annual revenues of 
$16.5 million or less. To use this definition in conjunction with the 
U.S. Census data used to profile this industry, OSHA converted the 
revenue data to an employment size class-based definition.\38\ The 
result is that entities with fewer than 500 employees are determined to 
meet the SBA definition of a small entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ This conversion was made by finding the largest employment 
size class with revenue less than $16.5 million per entity in the 
U.S. Census Bureau's (2021) Statistics of U.S. Businesses data for 
2017, with revenue adjusted to 2022$ using the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis (BEA, 2023) implicit price deflators for gross domestic 
product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This PEA examines costs by entity employment size class including 
the six employment size classes used to estimate unit costs for 
entities of various sizes (fewer than 25, 25-49, 50-99, 100-249, 250-
499, and 500-plus employees). For state prison inmate populations 
engaged in wildfire fighting, the state is assumed to be the affected 
entity, where all affected states are assumed to be large based on the 
RFA definition.
    For fire departments, the USFA (2022) registry data used for the 
profile provides an estimate of the number of employees of various 
types at each department, and departments are allotted to employment 
size classes using the total number of employees. For wildland 
firefighting services, OSHA combined data on the number of these 
entities represented by the NWSA with the distribution of entities and 
associated employees in NAICS 115310 Support Activities for Forestry to 
estimate the number of wildland firefighting service employees per 
employment size class.
    For emergency medical services, OSHA allocated the NAEMT (2014) 
data on the total number of responders and ESOs into employment size 
classes using the distribution in the U.S. Census Bureau's (2021) SUSB 
data for NAICS 621910 Ambulance Services for 2017, which includes data 
on the number of entities and employees by detailed size class.
    For the public technical search and rescue services, OSHA estimated 
the total number of organizations from NASAR and MRA and adjusted this 
estimate for the percent that use specialty skills or equipment during 
search and rescue. Because there were no available data on these 
organizations' location or size characteristics, OSHA distributed these 
groups across each state using the percent of the overall U.S. 
population residing in a given state (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022b). Next, 
OSHA distributed the entities by employee class size using the 
Government Units Survey (GUS) data from U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census 
Bureau, 2017b) as a proxy for local government law enforcement 
agencies. OSHA then calculated the proportion of all local government 
entities that fall within each employee class size using the GUS data 
and multiplied these proportions by the total number of search and 
rescue groups in each state. The same approach was used to distribute 
total employees (developed from MRA data on the average number of 
employees per organization) by employee class size. As outlined in 
section VII.B.VI.E, OSHA made a further adjustment to cap the number of 
entities to half of the number of employees and then scaled the number 
of entities and employees back up to reflect the number of entities 
originally estimated.
    For private technical search and rescue companies, OSHA used 
employment and revenue figures for the sample of companies it 
identified via internet searches and their respective SBA definitions. 
Each of the identified technical search and rescue companies has a 
unique SBA definition of a small entity, with some based on employment 
and others on revenues. Based on the varying definitions for these 
companies, OSHA determined that seven of the eight companies are 
considered small based on their SBA definition. OSHA then scaled up to 
obtain an estimated total of 25 small technical search and rescue 
companies.

[[Page 7866]]

    Finally, for the additional group of technical water rescuers, OSHA 
used data on lifeguarding entities in the U.S., limiting the affected 
employees to those using rescue vehicles in their activities to 
indicate those individuals using specialized equipment or skills. OSHA 
used the same process for allocating entities and employees to employee 
class sizes as outlined above for technical search and rescue.
B. WEREs
    In the absence of data specific enough to identify the industry 
sector associated with each of the 1,500 WEREs, OSHA assumed that all 
1,500 WEREs are small under SBA definitions, with all 64,500 WERT 
members working at these small WEREs.
C. Fire Departments and Responders by Population Served
    As noted above, the population served by each fire department is 
estimated using the number of firefighters in the USFA (2022) registry 
data and the ratio of the population served to firefighters in 
Firehouse Magazine's (2022) surveys for career, volunteer, and mixed 
departments. Table VII-B-13 presents the number of public fire 
departments estimated to serve a population of 50,000 people or fewer 
affected by the proposed rule, accounting for the adjustments noted 
earlier in this chapter (removing public entities in non-State Plan 
states, removing volunteers in State Plan states that do not cover 
volunteers, and removing non-firefighting volunteers and civilians).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.021

    Table VII-B-14 shows the number of firefighters estimated to serve 
a population of 50,000 people or fewer.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.022

D. Wildland Firefighting Services
    As mentioned in section VII.B.V.A, OSHA used the proportion of 
firms in NAICS 115310 that are small from the Census Bureau's SUSB 
dataset (2021) based on that NAICS' SBA definition ($8,000,000 in 
receipts, which OSHA converted to 100 employees) to determine the 
number of small wildland firefighting entities. Table VII-B-15 shows 
the number of wildland firefighting entities that are small based on 
the SBA definition, as well as the responders at those small entities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.023

E. Emergency Medical Services
    As outlined in section VII.B.V.A, small entity determinations for 
private EMS entities are based on the SBA definition for NAICS 621910 
Ambulance Services ($16.5 million or less in revenue, which OSHA 
converted to 500 employees or less). Public EMS entities are small if 
they serve a

[[Page 7867]]

population of fewer than 50,000 people. Table VII-B-16 presents the 
number of small EMS entities based on both definitions. Table VII-B-16 
also shows the number of responders at these small EMS entities.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.024

F. Technical Search and Rescue
    As described above, OSHA's method for estimating the technical 
search and rescue universe included data from wilderness and urban 
search and rescue organizations, lifeguard agencies, and private 
companies. Table VII-B-17 presents the estimated number of affected 
small technical search and rescue groups, as well as the number of 
responders among those affected entities.

[[Page 7868]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.025

G. Summary of Affected Small Entities
    Table VII-B-18 summarizes the number of small organizations and 
responders according to either RFA definitions (for public ESOs) or SBA 
definitions (for private ESOs and WEREs).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See section V for a discussion of how entity size was 
determined.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7869]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.026

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

References

Biancolli, A. (2018). Albany County launches inmate firefighter-
training program. Available at https://www.timesunion.com/7day-albany/article/Albany-County-launches-inmate-12870374.php. (Accessed 
May 29, 2023)
Boyer, C. (2022). Personal communication with the National 
Association for Search and Rescue (NASAR).
Brewster, B.C. (2022). Personal communication with United States 
Lifesaving Association (USLA).
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (2022). Census of State and 
Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2018--Statistical Tables. Available 
at https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/census-state-and-local-law-enforcement-agencies-2018-statistical-tables. (Accessed November 
16, 2022)
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2022a). Occupational Employment 
and Wage Statistics--May 2021 (Released April 4, 2022). Available at 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/#data. (Accessed April 8, 2022)
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). 
(2023). Conservation (Fire) Camps Program. Available at https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/facility-locator/conservation-camps/. (Accessed May 
29, 2023)
Firehouse Magazine. (2022). 2021 Volunteer Fire Department Run 
Survey. Available at https://www.firehouse.com/careers-education/document/21278671/2021-volunteer-fire-department-run-survey. 
(Accessed November 17, 2022)
Maddux, S. (2020). Prisoner Firefighters Giving Back to Society. 
Available at https://hometownnewsnow.com/local-news/515917. 
(Accessed May 29, 2023)
Miley, D. (2022). Personal communication with National Wildfire 
Suppression Association (NWSA).
Miraglia, M. (2022). Personal communication with Mountain Rescue 
Association (MRA).
Mountain Rescue Association (MRA). (2022). MRA Mission Data 
Dashboard. Available at https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/6b84b11fc6eb495ea518ee964b79f712/. (Accessed October 21, 2022)
National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (NAEMT). 
(2014). EMS statistics. Available at https://www.naemt.org/about_ems/statistics.aspx. (Accessed October 27, 2014)
National Wildfire Suppression Association (NWSA). (2022). National 
Wildfire Suppression Association Member List.

[[Page 7870]]

Available at https://www.nwsa.us/. (Accessed October 4, 2022)
Nevada Division of Forestry. (2023). Conservation Camps. Available 
at https://forestry.nv.gov/conservation-camps-program. (Accessed May 
29, 2023)
Office of the Arizona Governor. (2021). Arizona Healthy Forest 
Initiative. Available at https://azgovernor.gov/sites/default/files/arizona_healthy_forest_initiative_one-pager.pdf. (Accessed May 29, 
2023)
Small Business Administration (SBA). (2019). Table of Small Business 
Size Standards--August 19, 2019. Available at https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards/table-small-business-size-standards. (Accessed January 8, 
2020)
Stenvick, B. (2020). Prison Inmates Are Fighting Oregon Wildfires 
for Under $10 a Day. Available at https://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2020/08/21/28756155/prison-inmates-are-fighting-oregon-wildfires-for-under-10-a-day. (Accessed May 29, 2023)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2017a). State and local government employment 
and payroll data: March 2017. Available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cog/data/tables.All.html. (Accessed July 7, 2020)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2017b). Government Units Survey. Available at 
https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2017/econ/gus/public-use-files.html. (Accessed July 6, 2020)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). 2017 SUSB Annual Datasets by 
Establishment Industry--May 2021 (Last Revised: May 6, 2021). 
Available at https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2017/econ/susb/2017-susb.html. (Accessed June 3, 2021)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2022a). Annual Survey of State and Local 
Government Finances--2017 State & Local Government Finance 
Historical Tables. Revised July 6, 2022. Available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gov-finances/summary-tables.html. (Accessed November 2, 2022)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2022b). County Population Totals: 2020-2021: 
Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties: April 1, 
2020 to July 1, 2021. Available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-counties-total.html. (Accessed 
October 12, 2022)
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2023). OSHA communication 
with USDA and U.S. Department of Interior, (November 30, 2023)
U.S. Fire Administration (USFA). (2022). U.S. Fire Administration 
(USFA) National Fire Department Registry: National Data. Available 
at https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/registry/download. (Accessed May 17, 
2022)
United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2022). 
Wildland Fire: Barriers to Recruitment and Retention of Federal 
Wildland Firefighters. Available at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105517. (Accessed December 1, 2023)
United States Lifesaving Association (USLA). (2022a). American 
Lifeguard Rescue and Drowning Statistics for Beaches. Available at 
https://www.usla.org/page/Statistics. (Accessed November 16, 2022)
United States Lifesaving Association (USLA). (2022b). USLA Certified 
Programs. Available at https://www.usla.org/page/CERTIFIEDAGENCIES. 
(Accessed November 16, 2022)
Washington State Department of Corrections (WA DOC). (2023). Work 
Crews. Available at https://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/programs/work-crews.htm. (Accessed May 29, 2023)
Wildland Fire Jobs. (2022). List of Wildland Fire Contractors. 
Available at https://wildlandfirejobs.com/list-of-wildland-fire-contractors/. (Accessed October 4, 2022)
Zippia. (2023). Park Ranger Demographics and Statistics in the US. 
Available at https://www.zippia.com/park-ranger-jobs/demographics/. 
(Accessed December 1, 2023)

C. Costs of Compliance

I. Introduction
    This chapter presents OSHA's preliminary analysis of the compliance 
costs associated with the proposed emergency response standard.
    OSHA estimates that the proposed rule would cost $661 million per 
year in 2022 dollars.\40\ All costs were annualized using a discount 
rate of 3 percent, which--along with 7 percent and 0 percent--is one of 
the discount rates recommended by OMB.\41\ A 10-year period is used to 
annualize one-time costs. Note that the benefits of the standard, 
discussed in section D of this PEA, were annualized over a 50-year 
period to reflect the time needed to sufficiently capture the full 
benefits of the proposal. Therefore, the time horizon of OSHA's 
complete analysis of this rule is 50 years. Employment and production 
in affected sectors are implicitly held constant over this time horizon 
for purposes of the analysis. All non-annual costs are implicitly 
estimated to repeat every ten years over the 50-year time horizon, 
including one-time costs that recur because of changes in operations 
over time or because of new entrants that must comply with the 
standard.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Any adjustments to the price year reflect the use of the 
GDP Deflator (https://www.bea.gov/data/prices-inflation/gdp-price-deflator).
    \41\ Table VII-C-16 provides estimated costs using a 7% discount 
rate, while Table VII-C-17 provides undiscounted costs.
    \42\ To the extent one-time costs do not recur, OSHA's cost 
estimates, when expressed as an annualization over a 10-year period, 
will overstate the cost of the proposed standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows: first, OSHA 
discusses cost assumptions used in the analysis, followed by the 
derivation of the wage information used in the analysis. Next OSHA 
presents unit and total costs by affected emergency response service 
sectors and by applicable provision of the proposed rule. The final 
section presents the total costs of the proposed rule for all affected 
entities and responders as well as those that meet the SBA/RFA 
definitions of small entities and those with fewer than 20 employees.
II. Cost Assumptions
    This section describes the cost assumptions used in this analysis 
including those relevant to baseline conditions and type and frequency 
of medical exams for certain responders (i.e., firefighters).
A. Baseline Non-Compliance Rates
    The estimated costs of the proposed rule are measured against the 
baseline activities of the affected emergency services sectors. The 
baseline for this analysis includes existing conformity with the 
provisions of the proposed rule, which is discussed in terms of 
entities with practices that currently do not conform with the proposed 
rule and would therefore incur costs to comply with it.
    Table VII-C-1 shows the estimated baseline non-compliance rate for 
each provision of the proposed rule by entity size, for WEREs, fire 
departments, wildland firefighting services, EMS providers, and 
technical search and rescue groups. OSHA has estimated that few to no 
small WEREs and ESOs currently have many of the plans required by the 
proposed rule while the majority of very large ESOs are doing much of 
what this proposed rule would require. This conclusion is consistent 
with comments made by SERs during the SBREFA process suggesting that 
larger organizations are likely to have more resources to implement 
consensus standards like NFPA 1582 (Document ID 0115). OSHA's estimates 
of baseline non-compliance rates were based on consultation with 
emergency response organizations and the professional expertise of OSHA 
personnel. Non-compliance rates were first estimated for organizations 
with 250-499 responders and then scaled to the other size classes.
    For both structural and wildland fire departments, the percentage 
of firefighters in each group that currently do not receive a full 
medical exam as defined in the proposed rule is presented in Table VII-
C-1. For structural firefighters, the estimates of non-compliance for 
the full medical exam are broken out by the department

[[Page 7871]]

type in which firefighters serve (career, volunteer, or mixed). These 
estimates are derived from a 2016 survey conducted by the IAFC's 
Safety, Health and Survival Section (LeDuc, 2018). The non-compliance 
rate for professional wildland firefighters is assumed to be the same 
as for career firefighters, while the non-compliance rate for inmate 
firefighters is assumed to be the same as for volunteer firefighters.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.027


[[Page 7872]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.028


[[Page 7873]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.029

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
B. Type and Frequency of Medical Exams
(i) Exposure Threshold Adjustments
    The proposed rule requires all team members and responders, except 
those in a support tier, to receive a basic medical exam, with 
additional screening required in certain circumstances. This exam must 
be given once initially and repeated at least biennially. In addition, 
team members and responders who are, or based on experience may be, 
exposed to combustion products 15 or more times a year without regard 
to the use of respiratory protection must be provided an expanded 
medical exam that is at least equivalent to the criteria specified in a 
national consensus standard (like NFPA 1582). Therefore, OSHA made 
additional adjustments to the population of responders for which ESOs 
would incur the cost of each medical exam based on how many times per 
year responders are exposed to combustion products. Table VII-C-2 
presents the percentage of responders within each responder group that 
would be required to undergo each type of medical exam. WERT members 
are all expected to undergo the minimum medical exam, with 12.5 percent 
of those team members estimated to also require additional heart 
screening tests.\43\ OSHA assumes that no WERT members will reach the 
15-times-a-year exposure threshold for expanded medical exams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Le Duc 2018 indicated approximately 12.5 percent of 
firefighters had some type of underlying, significant cardiovascular 
issues such as hypertension, elevated cholesterol levels, or 
abnormal stress that indicated a need for additional screening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For responders at EMS and technical search and rescue ESOs, OSHA 
assumed that no responders would meet the 15-combustion product 
exposure event threshold that would require an expanded medical exam. 
Therefore, responders in these groups all undergo the minimum medical 
evaluation, with 12.5 percent estimated to undergo further heart 
screening tests. In order to estimate the percentage of firefighters 
that would meet the 15-combustion product exposure event threshold, 
OSHA obtained data from the NFPA on the number of firefighters and fire 
calls responded to categorized by department type (all-career, mostly 
career, mostly volunteer, and all-volunteer) and population served size 
brackets. OSHA extrapolated the NFPA data to represent a national 
estimation of firefighters and fire calls by each department type and 
population served bracket. Assuming that an average of eight 
firefighters respond to a single fire call, OSHA determined that 96.4 
percent of firefighters at career fire departments within the 250-499 
employee class size, 21.9 percent at mixed fire departments, and 0.2 
percent at volunteer fire departments would meet the 15-combustion 
product exposure event threshold. OSHA scaled these percentages to 
reflect an assumption that the percentage of firefighters meeting the 
exposure threshold would decrease as the department size decreased. 
Firefighters with more than 15 exposures, plus a subset of firefighters 
that do not exceed the threshold but have medically indicated health 
risks warranting more medical evaluation (assumed to be 2 percent of 
firefighters within each department type), are estimated to undergo an 
expanded medical exam (referred to as additional ESO surveillance in 
the proposed rule and in Table VII-C-2). Firefighters who do not meet 
the event threshold would undergo the minimum medical exam, with 12.5 
percent of those firefighters also undergoing the additional heart 
screening.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7874]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.030


[[Page 7875]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.031


[[Page 7876]]


BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
(ii) Frequency of Medical Exams
    Unlike most provisions of the proposed rule, the number of 
responders undergoing each medical exam type changes each year due to 
new hires needing a medical exam. Other established employees may need 
to be reexamined, since the minimum medical exam is required every 
other year. OSHA calculated the number of responders and team members 
expected to undergo each medical exam based on the hire rates for each 
responder group, the percentage of responders needing each medical exam 
based on the event threshold of 15 or more combustion product exposure 
events per year, and how often the exam is required under this 
standard.
    OSHA derived a formula (shown below in Equation 1) for the number 
of responders requiring a medical exam nt in a given year t. Initially, 
a very large cohort would receive their first medical exam together in 
the first year after implementation of the proposed rule. In subsequent 
years, new hires would require their initial exam, and those who are 
not new hires would be re-examined periodically. However, the initial 
cohort would continue to have a large effect, as they would all be re-
examined together every k years. During years when this initial cohort 
is not up for re-examination, the number receiving an exam will be 
smaller and limited to individuals who were hired later and entered the 
workforce when the initial cohort was not being re-examined. As time 
passes, the imbalance produced by this initial cohort will gradually 
reduce, and the initial cohort will decrease in size due to turnover. 
The number of exams given per year will approach a long-run value 
nequil.
    Equation 1, explained in detail below, accounts for all of these 
effects associated with the initial cohort, its re-examination years, 
and new hires. The number of responders requiring a medical exam nt in 
year t takes one of three forms depending on whether the year t in 
question (a) is re-examination year for the first large cohort, (b) 
immediately follows a re-examination year for the first large cohort, 
or (c) is more than one year after a re-examination year for the first 
large cohort.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.032

Where:

 nt is the number of responders requiring a medical exam in 
year t.
 N is the total number of responders.
 p is the retention rate, which could alternatively be 
defined as 1 minus the hire rate.
 nequil is the long-run number of medical exams 
per year.
 nt-1 is the number of exams given in the 
preceding year t-1.

    The long-run number of medical exams per year nequil is 
calculated in the following way and depends on the time between exams 
k. For example, if an exam is required every 5 years, then k = 5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.033

    Based on the hiring rates for similar jobs with EMS providers 
reported in Patterson et al., 2010 and BLS job growth projections, OSHA 
estimated that the annual hire rate for fire departments is 10 percent. 
For EMS providers, the annual hire rate is estimated to be 10.7 percent 
(Patterson et al., 2010). OSHA assumed wildland fire services, search 
and rescue groups, and technical water rescue entities have a similar 
hire rate to firefighters for this analysis.
III. Wage Estimates Used in the Analysis
    Labor costs associated with the proposed rule were derived using 
wage data from BLS' cross-industry OEWS for May 2022 (BLS, 2023). Table 
VII-C-3 shows the loaded hourly wages used in the analysis. To the 
extent possible, OSHA employed the relevant occupational wage category. 
As discussed below, for example, OSHA used SOC code 33-2011 
Firefighters to estimate the wage for career firefighters.
    Volunteer firefighters, volunteer EMS providers, and volunteer 
technical search and rescue group members, however, do not receive 
wages for their services, and the career emergency responder wages may 
not be an accurate characterization of the opportunity cost of 
volunteers' time. The same is true for inmate firefighters, who are 
typically paid very little or nothing for their work.\44\ Therefore, 
OSHA is not using career responder wages to estimate compliance costs 
for volunteer responders and inmate firefighters. For these responders, 
OSHA believes it is more appropriate to use the overall private 
industry median hourly wage, $21.42, because volunteers come from a 
broad spectrum of the workforce; their primary occupational wage is a 
proxy for the opportunity cost of their time. OSHA recognizes that 
compliance costs related to inmate firefighters are likely an 
overestimate since the opportunity cost of their time is different from 
the average non-incarcerated individual. Accordingly, OSHA created a 
weighted average for responders of all types using the number of 
volunteer \45\ and non-volunteer responders who would be covered by the 
proposed rule. For firefighters, the weighted average is calculated 
with 332,658 career and paid-per-call firefighters making the BLS OEWS 
median hourly wage for SOC 33-2011 Firefighters ($24.85) and 187,519 
volunteer firefighters making

[[Page 7877]]

the private industry median hourly wage ($21.42), for a weighted 
average base hourly wage of $23.61. These estimates are also used to 
represent wildland firefighter wages, including inmate wildland 
firefighters. For WEREs, OSHA used the cross-industry, private sector 
median wage for SOC code 11-1021 General and Operations Managers to 
represent the wage of WERT leaders and the cross-industry, private 
sector median wage of all occupations to represent the wage of WERT 
members. These wages equal $46.65 and $21.42, respectively. For EMS 
providers, the weighted average is calculated with 280,846 responders 
in career and mixed (career and volunteer) ESOs making the BLS OEWS 
median hourly wage for SOC 29-2040 Emergency Medical Technicians and 
Paramedics ($18.95) and 80,111 responders in volunteer ESOs making the 
private industry median hourly wage ($21.42), for a weighted average 
base hourly wage of $19.50. Note that while the median wage used for 
volunteers is higher than the BLS OEWS wage for EMS providers, OSHA 
uses that median wage for volunteer EMS providers as well as for 
volunteer firefighters in this analysis to maintain consistency. OSHA 
solicits comments on these estimates and, in particular, is interested 
in whether the valuation of volunteers' time and incarcerated 
individuals' time is reasonable. The agency welcomes suggestions and 
thoughts on different wage rates that commenters feel might better 
capture the value of these responders' time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/.
    \45\ For the purposes of this PEA, inmate firefighters are 
treated the same as volunteer responders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA developed separate wage estimates for wilderness and urban 
search and rescue and additional technical water rescue groups. For 
wilderness and urban search and rescue responders, the weighted average 
is calculated with 1,304 responders in career ESOs making the BLS OEWS 
median hourly wage for SOC 33-9092 Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other 
Recreational Protective Service Workers ($13.11) and 60,106 responders 
in volunteer ESOs making the private industry median hourly wage 
($21.42), for a weighted average base hourly wage of $21.24. There are 
no volunteer technical water rescuers in the industry profile, so the 
BLS OEWS median hourly wage for SOC code 33-9092 Lifeguards, Ski 
Patrol, and Other Recreational Protective Service Workers ($13.11) is 
used in this analysis for technical water rescuers.
    OSHA applied a fringe benefits rate of 31.0 percent to the base 
wages, drawn from BLS' Employer Costs for Employee Compensation for 
December 2022 (BLS, 2023) to account for the value of fringe benefits 
provided by the employer. OSHA then calculated total compensation as 
wages plus benefits. There are also indirect expenses that cannot be 
tied to producing a specific product or service, called overhead costs. 
Common examples include rent, utilities, and office equipment. There is 
no general consensus on the cost elements that fit this definition and 
the lack of a common definition has led to a wide range of overhead 
estimates. Consequently, the treatment of overhead costs needs to be 
case-specific. In this analysis, OSHA used an overhead rate of 17 
percent of base wages (EPA, 2002; Rice, 2002). This 17 percent rate is 
based on an estimate of overhead costs for safety and health 
professionals in large private organizations. This overhead rate is 
consistent with, for example, the overhead rate used for sensitivity 
analyses in the Final Economic Analysis (FEA) in support of the 2017 
final rule delaying the deadline for electronic submission of certain 
injury and illness data (82 FR 55761) and the FEA in support of OSHA's 
2016 final standard on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline 
Silica \46\ (83 FR at 36501). OSHA expects that this rate may be an 
overestimate in this context, as this reflects a component of average 
overhead; in this case, however, the agency anticipates that, for 
example, emergency responders will be able to work within the general 
physical infrastructure they currently operate in. A rate of 17 percent 
of base wages is equivalent to 11.73 percent of the hourly wage rate 
with fringe applied.\47\ To calculate the fully loaded hourly labor 
cost, OSHA added the three components together: base wages + fringe 
benefits (31.0 percent of base wages) + applicable overhead (17 percent 
of base wages).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See the sensitivity analyses in the Improved Tracking FEA 
(https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-11-24/pdf/2017-25392.pdf, 
page 55765) and the FEA in support of OSHA's 2016 final standard on 
Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica (81 FR 16285) 
(https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-03-25/pdf/2016-04800.pdf 
pp.16488-16492.). The methodology was modeled after an approach used 
by the Environmental Protection Agency. More information on this 
approach can be found at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
``Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory 
Program,'' June 10, 2002 (Ex. 2066). This analysis itself was based 
on a survey of several large chemical manufacturing plants: Heiden 
Associates, Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs Under 
the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, Prepared for 
the Chemical Manufacturers Association, December 14, 1989, Ex. 2065.
    \47\ This is calculated as 69 percent x 17 percent, i.e., the 
percent of wages that are the base hourly rate exclusive of fringe 
(69 percent) multiplied by the overhead rate as a percentage of base 
hourly wages (17 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7878]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.034


[[Page 7879]]


BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
IV. Estimated Compliance Costs
    This section presents the unit and total costs of the proposed rule 
by emergency services sector and provision. First, the components of 
each provision as they pertain to fire departments and wildland fire 
services are detailed, followed by a description of any differences in 
requirements or approaches to deriving estimates for WEREs, emergency 
medical services ESOs, and technical search and rescue ESOs. Where 
appropriate, to account for variations in unit costs by size of entity, 
OSHA first estimated the labor hours per provision for establishments 
in the 250-499 employee size class. Using that estimate as the base, 
OSHA scaled the estimates proportionally for the unit time estimates 
for establishments in the other size classes. Generally, where an 
activity is estimated to take less than an hour, the same estimate is 
used across organization sizes since scaling down very small time 
estimates would result in unreasonably low time estimates for smaller 
establishments.
    Unless otherwise noted in this section, the time estimates for 
complying with proposed provisions are based on OSHA's professional 
expertise, considering what the proposed rule requires and estimates of 
the hours necessary to comply with similar requirements in other OSHA 
rules.
A. Firefighting
    As described in the Profile of Affected Industries, these 
organizations include private and public entities engaged in structural 
and wildland firefighting. Responders at these entities may be 
volunteer or career. This group represents the vast majority of 
entities and responders who would be affected by the proposed rule.
    Wildland firefighting services providers include private sector 
ESOs that provide less common types of firefighting services, primarily 
to state and Federal agencies. These services typically support 
wildland fire suppression and include direct firefighting as well as 
support services such as transportation and food supply services. There 
are also some states that utilize prison labor as supplementary 
personnel for state wildfire fighting programs.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Note that in this analysis, the seven State Plan states 
with inmates potentially engaged in wildfire fighting are assumed to 
incur the costs of the proposed rule. This approach means that state 
governments would be the organization and would incur organization 
level costs once. It may be possible that organization level costs 
are incurred for each conservation camp (the minimum-security camps 
that house inmates serving as firefighters) that has inmates 
potentially engaged in wildfire fighting. OSHA welcomes comment on 
this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Rule Familiarization
    All ESOs and WEREs affected by the proposed rule would need to 
review the requirements under the proposed rule. OSHA estimates that 
rule familiarization would take an organization leader two hours to 
complete.
(ii) ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
    Under paragraph (d) of the proposed rule, ESOs would be required to 
develop, update, and revise an emergency response program. They would 
have to conduct a community and/or facility vulnerability assessment to 
establish their emergency response capabilities, develop mutual aid 
agreements with other ESOs as necessary to ensure adequate resources 
are available to safely mitigate foreseeable incidents, evaluate 
resources needed, and establish tiers of responders. Except for the ERP 
revision and update, all of these tasks are one-time activities, and 
all would be carried out by an organization leader. See Table VII-C-5 
for the specific labor hours OSHA estimates would be incurred for each 
activity at ESOs in all employment size classes. Table VII-C6 presents 
the associated unit costs.
(iii) Team Member and Responder Participation
    Under paragraph (e) of the proposed rule, ESOs would be required to 
involve team members and responders in the process of developing, 
updating, implementing, and evaluating the ERP and in inspections and 
incident investigations at their own facilities. ESOs would also have 
to encourage responders to report safety and health concerns and 
respond to those concerns within a reasonable timeframe. In addition, 
they would be required to post signs explaining procedures in place for 
reporting on safety and health concerns. Both of these activities would 
occur annually, with labor hours incurred by firefighters for all 
activities except the posting of signs, which would be carried out by 
an organization leader. See Table VII-C-5 for the specific labor hours 
OSHA estimates would be incurred for each activity at ESOs in all 
employment size classes. Table VII-C-6 presents the associated unit 
costs.
(iv) WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
    Under paragraph (f) of the proposed rule, ESOs would be required to 
prepare and annually update a comprehensive risk management plan (RMP). 
The minimum requirements to be covered in the plan are itemized in 
paragraph (f)(1) of the proposed rule. Development of the plan is a 
one-time activity while updating should occur annually.\49\ Both of 
these activities would be carried out by an organization leader. See 
Table VII-C-5 for the specific labor hours OSHA estimates would be 
incurred for each activity at ESOs in all employment size classes. 
Table VII-C-6 presents the associated unit costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ For this analysis, OSHA estimates that as-needed plan 
updates will occur infrequently enough that assuming annual updates 
for all entities will be representative of the average firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(v) Medical and Physical Requirements
    Under paragraph (g) of the proposed rule, and as discussed in 
detail in the Summary and Explanation, ESOs must establish minimum 
medical requirements for responders, have responders medically 
evaluated (at no cost to the responder), and have their fitness for 
duty evaluated. Exposures to combustion products would be tracked and 
all medical information would be maintained in a confidential record 
for each responder. Beyond these requirements, ESOs would be required 
to establish and implement a health and fitness program that enables 
responders to develop and maintain a level of physical fitness that 
allows them to safely perform their assigned functions, as well as a 
behavioral health and wellness program to maintain mental fitness to 
safely perform their duties and to address occupational risk factors 
for behavioral health. Developing the plan for the health and fitness 
program is a one-time activity, while a fitness assessment would take 
place every three years and would involve both the time of a responder 
and organization leader, one hour each (this estimate may overstate the 
amount of time necessary for the fitness assessment if groups of 
responders can be evaluated at the same time). OSHA assumes that 
fitness for duty assessments and fitness education and counseling will 
coincide with periodic refresher training or similar events, which are 
already captured in the training provision (see Section IV.I.E.).
    The proposed rule would provide a framework for encouraging 
responders to maintain fitness levels commensurate with their 
responsibilities including, for example, providing exercise training. 
However, the agency believes that the proposed rule would not require 
an increase in responder compensation by their organizations. For 
example, fitness exercises are routine among firefighters

[[Page 7880]]

during downtime (see Poston, et al. (2013), which found that between 80 
and 95 percent of firefighters surveyed reported engaging in exercise 
at least ``some days'' while at the fire station). The agency welcomes 
comment on this aspect of the analysis. Table VII-C-5 presents 
estimates of the labor hours incurred for each activity at ESOs by 
employment size class. Table VII-C-6 presents the associated unit 
costs.
    The proposed rule would require that responders receive, at a 
minimum, a medical evaluation every two years that includes a medical 
and work history, physical examination, spirometry, and assessment of 
heart disease risk (includes assessment of blood pressure, cholesterol 
levels, and relevant heart disease risk factors such as blood glucose). 
Note that OSHA's estimated cost of these services accounts for the fact 
that some individuals may already be receiving them (see Section C.II.A 
on Baseline Non-Compliance Rates). Responders who show signs of heart 
disease risk or who are, or may be, exposed to combustion products 15 
or more times a year will require additional screening. To estimate the 
percentage of responders needing each type of exam, OSHA relied on the 
frequencies in the 2018 NFPA 1582 standard's recommendations for 
occupational medical programs. In addition, since some tests are only 
recommended or needed for firefighters of certain ages or sex, OSHA 
also used NFPA's (2022) estimate of the number of firefighters by age 
and sex. The percentage of firefighters needing each exam is multiplied 
by the unit cost for each exam to derive a weighted average unit cost 
for initial and periodic medical surveillance (for example, if only 
half of all firefighters needed a given test, the weighted average per 
firefighter for all firefighters would be 50 percent of the cost of the 
test). Table VII-C-4 presents the derivation of the weighted average 
unit costs for medical surveillance.
    The proposed rule would require additional medical screening for 
responders if determined by the ESO or WERE to be appropriate for the 
particular type and level of service provided or if deemed appropriate 
by the PLHCP conducting the baseline screening. OSHA assumed that this 
additional screening would include an electrocardiogram (EKG), a 
coronary artery calcium (CAC) score test, and an exercise stress test 
(EST).
    The proposed rule would also require that responders who are either 
exposed to combustion products 15 times or more a year or show signs or 
symptoms that may have resulted from exposure to combustion products 
receive a medical evaluation that is at least equivalent to the 
criteria outlined by a national consensus standard. For this PEA, OSHA 
uses the NFPA 1582 medical exam to represent the estimated costs of 
this additional medical evaluation. As outlined above, not every 
responder would need every component of the NFPA 1582 exam since 
certain medical components are age- and/or sex-specific. The unit costs 
and percentages of responders undergoing each medical component are 
presented in Table VII-C-4.
    The unit costs for medical surveillance are drawn from the Centers 
for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS, 2022a) Physician Fee Schedule 
data for 2022, CMS (2022b) Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule data for 
2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2023) Adult 
Vaccine Price List, GoodRx's (Khan, 2023) estimate of the cost of a 
colonoscopy, HealthInsurance.com's (2022) estimate of the cost to 
receive a vision test, and Tatar et al.'s (2020) estimate of the cost 
of Hepatitis C screening. The unit costs are applied per exam per 
employee. The cost of the exam is added to the per hour cost for the 
employee to undergo the exam.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7881]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.035


[[Page 7882]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.036


[[Page 7883]]


BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
(vi) Training
    Under paragraph (h) of the proposed rule, ESOs would be required to 
establish the minimum knowledge and skills required for each responder 
to perform emergency response operation activities. ESOs would be 
required to provide initial, ongoing, and refresher trainings, as well 
as professional development for each responder. The hours necessary to 
complete trainings can vary significantly by state and by type of 
firefighter (career, volunteer, or paid per call).
    While most emergency responders already receive vocational training 
for their duties, the PEA estimates the cost of bringing the remainder 
up to minimum requirements. OSHA used the time needed to complete an 
NFPA-approved volunteer firefighter course (estimated at 110 hours) 
(VolunteerFD.org, 2018) to represent initial responder training labor 
time for volunteers at fire departments. For career firefighters, OSHA 
identified a selection of state firefighter training programs and their 
estimated completion times (CA OSFM, 2019a; CA OSFM, 2019b; Florida 
Department of Financial Services, 2022; MFSI, 2017; MFRI, 2023a; MFRI, 
2023b; New Hampshire Fire Academy and EMS, 2023a; New Hampshire Fire 
Academy and EMS, 2023b; Ohio EMS, 2023; Washington State Patrol, 2023). 
OSHA calculated the average time to complete these training programs 
and used this labor time estimate (308 hours) to represent initial 
responder training for career firefighters. For mixed fire departments, 
OSHA calculated the weighted average of the initial training time 
estimates using the percentages of volunteer and career (or paid-per-
call) firefighters within mixed fire departments according to the 
National Fire Registry. Using this method, OSHA estimates that, for the 
250-499 employee class size, a ``typical'' firefighter would complete 
about 245.5 hours of initial responder training. On-going refresher 
training time estimates reflect OSHA's estimation that firefighters 
work 10 shifts per month, with firefighter training occurring during 
two of those shifts. Under this assumption, firefighters are training 
during six shifts per quarter, or 24 shifts per year. Assuming 
firefighters train for two hours per training session, OSHA estimates 
48 hours of training annually. To estimate the annual time spent on 
refresher training courses, OSHA multiplied the maximum time for NREMT 
cognitive exams (two hours) by the number of certifications that 
responders need, which OSHA estimated was three (NREMT, 2018). This 
calculation yields six hours every two years, or three hours every 
year. OSHA determined that the use of EMT re-certification estimates 
was also appropriate for firefighters given that most career 
firefighters are also EMTs (Unitek EMT, 2022). OSHA assumes that other 
training required by the proposed rule, including that on various 
policies developed under this standard, training on PPE, training to an 
awareness level on confined spaces, and others, are either costed under 
another OSHA standard (i.e., the PPE standard) or are included in the 
training times estimated here.
    ESOs would also be required to ensure each responder maintains 
proficiency in the skills commensurate with their respective emergency 
response activities. Organization leaders would need to document 
responders' professional qualifications to ensure proficiency.
    Aside from the requirement to establish minimum knowledge and 
skills, which occurs once, all other training labor hours would be 
incurred annually. OSHA expects an organization leader to establish 
minimum knowledge and skills and document professional qualifications, 
while firefighters would need labor hours to be trained. Of note, 
initial training would only apply to new hires, so the unit cost is 
only multiplied by a percentage (the hire rate) of the number of 
firefighters in the estimation of total costs for this provision. See 
Table VII-C-5 for the specific labor hours OSHA estimates would be 
incurred for each activity at ESOs by employment size class. Table VII-
C-6 presents the associated unit costs.
(vii) ESO Facility Preparedness
    Under paragraph (j) of the proposed rule, ESOs would be required to 
ensure that each facility complies with 29 CFR part 1910, subpart E--
Exit Routes and Emergency Planning; provide facilities for the 
decontamination, disinfection, cleaning, and storage of PPE and 
equipment; and ensure that fire detection, suppression, and alarm 
systems, and occupant notification systems are installed, tested, and 
maintained. Additional requirements are directed at ensuring the safety 
of firehouse slide poles and sleeping and living areas, including 
requirements for smoke alarms, sprinkler systems, carbon monoxide 
detectors, vehicle exhaust emissions, and properly handling 
contaminated PPE. These activities would be conducted annually by an 
organization leader. See Table VII-C-5 for the specific labor hours 
OSHA estimates would be incurred for each activity at ESOs in all 
employment size classes. Table VII-C-6 presents the associated unit 
costs.
(viii) Equipment and PPE
    Under paragraph (k) of the proposed rule, ESOs would be required to 
provide access to equipment that is compliant with applicable existing 
standards as well as to inspect, maintain, and test equipment at 
prescribed intervals. Additionally, ESOs would be required to conduct a 
hazard assessment to select appropriate PPE; provide PPE to responders 
that is compliant with 29 CFR part 1910, subpart I, Personal Protective 
Equipment; and ensure SCBA meet applicable requirements, and maintain 
all PPE. OSHA expects that equipment and PPE inspection and maintenance 
would be conducted by firefighters annually. Organization leaders are 
expected to expend labor hours annually to ensure new equipment meets 
design and manufacturing requirements, as well as on a one-time basis 
to conduct the hazard assessment and provide the PPE. Firefighters 
would be expected to annually inspect, maintain, and test equipment, as 
well as perform maintenance of PPE. See Table VII-C-5 for the specific 
labor hours OSHA estimates would be incurred for each activity at ESOs 
by employment size class. Table VII-C-6 presents the associated unit 
costs.
(ix) Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
    Under paragraph (l) of the proposed rule, ESOs would be required to 
ensure that vehicles are prepared for safe use by inspecting, 
maintaining, and repairing their vehicles and associated parts (e.g., 
aerial devices, water pumps). ESOs would be required to develop written 
SOPs for operating their own and other vehicles as necessary. OSHA 
assumes that an organization leader would perform these activities with 
the development of the SOPs being a one-time activity and all others 
occurring annually. See Table VI-5 for the specific labor hours OSHA 
estimates would be incurred for each activity at ESOs by employment 
size class. Table VI-6 presents the associated unit costs.
(x) ESO Pre-Incident Planning
    Under paragraph (n) of the proposed rule, ESOs would be required to 
develop pre-incident plans (PIPs) for facilities where responders may 
be called to provide service, based on the community or facility 
vulnerability assessment and other factors. ESOs would need to review 
their PIPs annually and update them as needed.

[[Page 7884]]

Additionally, ESOs would have to prepare a PIP for any facility in 
their response area that is subject to the Emergency Planning and 
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). OSHA expects that organization 
leaders will conduct these one-time activities. See Table VII-C-5 for 
the specific labor hours OSHA estimates would be incurred each activity 
at ESOs by employment size class. Table VII-C-6 presents the associated 
unit costs.
(xi) Incident Management System Development
    Under paragraph (o) of the proposed rule, ESOs would be required to 
develop and implement an Incident Management System (IMS) to manage all 
emergency incidents. OSHA expects that organization leaders would 
establish a procedural template for such activities one time initially. 
See Table VII-C-5 for the specific labor hours OSHA estimates would be 
incurred at ESOs by employment size class. Table VII-C-6 presents the 
associated unit costs.
(xii) Emergency Incident Operations
    Under paragraph (p) of the proposed rule, ESOs would be required to 
ensure that the IMS is employed at each emergency incident. OSHA 
expects that organization leaders would conduct this activity, 
including developing an Incident Action Plan (IAP) for every incident. 
While overseeing responder operations at an emergency incident is 
underlying job duty for organization leaders, the PEA nonetheless 
assumes a limited incremental amount of time at each incident for 
implementing the requirements set forth in paragraph (p) of the 
proposal. See Table VII-C-5 for the specific labor hours OSHA estimates 
would be incurred at WEREs and ESOs by employment size class. Table 
VII-C-6 presents the associated unit costs.
(xiii) Standard Operating Procedures
    Under paragraph (q) of the proposed rule, ESOs would be required to 
develop and implement SOPs for emergency events that they are likely to 
encounter, based on the community or facility vulnerability assessments 
they have developed as well as SOPs for unusual hazards, responder 
protection from contaminants and for decontamination, vehicle 
operations, radio communication, Mayday situations, and others. OSHA 
expects that organization leaders would conduct this one-time activity. 
See Table VII-C-5 for the specific labor hours OSHA estimates would be 
incurred at ESOs by employment size class. Table VII-C-6 presents the 
associated unit costs.
(xiv) Post Incident Analysis
    Under paragraph (r) of the proposed rule, ESOs would be required to 
conduct a Post-Incident Analysis (PIA) to determine the effectiveness 
of the ESO's response to an incident after any significant event such 
as, for example, a large-scale incident, significant near-miss 
incident, serious injury, or responder fatality. ESOs would be required 
to implement changes to the RMP, IMS, PIPs, IAPs, and SOPs based on 
lessons learned. OSHA estimates that organization leaders would spend 
five minutes per incident to conduct these activities. OSHA recognizes 
that the number of significant events is less than the number of 
incidents and adjusted the per-incident time estimate accordingly. OSHA 
estimated the number of incidents an organization would respond to 
based on whether the organization is composed of career responders, 
volunteer responders, or a mix of career and volunteer responders, as 
well as the employment class size of the organization. See Table VII-C-
5 for the specific labor hours OSHA estimates would be incurred for 
each activity at ESOs by employment size class. Table VII-C-6 presents 
the associated unit costs.
(xv) Program Evaluation
    Under paragraph (s) of the proposed rule, ESOs would be required to 
conduct annual evaluations of the adequacy and effectiveness of their 
ERP. They must also identify and implement changes to the ERP based on 
the review of the program. OSHA expects that organization leaders would 
conduct these annual activities. See Table VII-C-5 for the specific 
labor hours OSHA estimates would be incurred for each activity at ESOs 
in all employment size classes. Table VII-C-6 presents the associated 
unit costs.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7885]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.037


[[Page 7886]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.038


[[Page 7887]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.039


[[Page 7888]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.040


[[Page 7889]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.041


[[Page 7890]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.042


[[Page 7891]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.043


[[Page 7892]]


BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
B. WEREs
    WEREs potentially affected by the proposed rule are private 
organizations whose employees, as a collateral duty to their regular 
daily work assignments, are part of a workplace emergency response team 
(WERT) and respond to emergency incidents to provide services such as 
fire suppression, emergency medical care, and technical search and 
rescue. These organizations would be required to comply with many 
provisions of the proposed rule, with some requirements taking less 
time for WEREs compared to ESOs. OSHA's methods for estimating labor 
hours and costs by provision and employee size class are the same as 
for firefighters for the following provisions:
     Rule Familiarization;
     Team Member and Responder Participation;
     WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan;
     Equipment and PPE;
     Vehicle Preparedness and Operation;
     Incident Management System Development;
     Standard Operating Procedures; and
     Program Evaluation.
    There are two provisions that, while specific to WEREs, have the 
same labor hour estimates as the corresponding ESO-specific provisions:
     Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and 
Emergency Service(s) Capability (this provision has the same labor hour 
estimates as the ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) 
Capability provision); and
     WERE Pre-Incident Planning (this provision has the same 
labor hour estimates as the ESO Pre-Incident Planning provision).
    Estimation methods differ for the following provisions:
     Medical and Physical Requirements;
     Training;
     WERE Facility Preparedness;
     Emergency Incident Operations; and
     Post-Incident Analysis.
    The methods specific to WEREs are described below.
(i) Medical and Physical Requirements
    Under paragraph (g) of the proposed rule, WEREs are not required to 
establish or implement a health and fitness program, whereas ESOs are. 
Team members must receive the same minimum medical evaluation that 
responders receive and must also receive any additional screening 
determined to be appropriate by the WERE or the PLHCP. Team members are 
not required to receive the full NFPA 1582 screening required for 
responders exposed to combustion materials. OSHA assumes that all WERT 
members would undergo each component of the minimum medical exam, and 
all WERT members that exhibit signs and symptoms warranting additional 
heart screening (12.5 percent of all WERT members, as shown in Table 
VII-C-2) would undergo all components of the additional heart 
screening.\50\ The percentage needing each exam is multiplied by the 
unit cost for each exam to derive a weighted average unit cost for the 
minimum medical evaluation and additional heart screening. Table VII-C-
7 shows the derivation of the weighted average unit cost for medical 
surveillance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Le Duc, 2018 indicated approximately 12.5 percent of 
firefighters had some type of underlying, significant cardiovascular 
issues such as hypertension, elevated cholesterol levels, or 
abnormal stress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The unit costs for medical surveillance are drawn from the Centers 
for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS, 2022a) Physician's Fee Schedule 
for 2022 and CMS (2022b) Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule. The unit 
costs are applied per exam per employee. The cost of the exam is added 
to the per hour cost for the employee to undergo the exam.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7893]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.044

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
(ii) Training
    The time estimate used to determine initial team member training 
for WEREs is assumed to be equal to the time estimate for responders in 
volunteer fire departments (110 hours). All other training-related 
items are the same as for fire departments.
(iii) WERE Facility Preparedness
    WEREs are assumed to take less time than ESOs to meet facility 
preparedness requirements, since these facilities would not have to 
account for elements such as firepoles or sleeping areas. However, 
under paragraph (i) of the proposed rule, WEREs have some additional 
requirements that ESOs do not have, such as ensuring readiness for 
prompt support from mutual aid groups and identifying fire hose valves. 
WEREs are estimated to take half the time of fire departments to 
prepare their facilities.
(iv) Emergency Incident Operation
    OSHA assumes that WEREs would spend the same amount of time (five 
minutes) as all other ESOs performing emergency incident operations. 
OSHA further assumes that the number of incidents that WERT members 
would respond to in a given year equals the number of incidents to 
which volunteer fire departments respond.
(v) Post-Incident Analysis
    Similar to emergency incident operations, OSHA assumes that WEREs 
would spend the same amount of time (five minutes) as all other ESOs 
conducting a post-incident analysis after each incident. OSHA has 
adjusted this time estimate to be based on the number of incidents, as 
the expectation is that organizations would need to conduct a post-
incident analysis only when a significant event occurs. OSHA further 
assumes that the number of incidents for which WERT members conduct 
post-incident analyses in a given year equals the number of incidents 
for which volunteer fire departments conduct post-incident analyses.
    Table VII-C-8 shows the specific labor hours that OSHA estimates 
would be incurred at WEREs by employment size class. Table VII-C-9 
shows the estimated unit costs for each requirement in the proposed 
rule for WEREs by employee class size.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7894]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.045


[[Page 7895]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.046


[[Page 7896]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.047


[[Page 7897]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.048


[[Page 7898]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.049


[[Page 7899]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.050


[[Page 7900]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.051


[[Page 7901]]


BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
C. Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
    Emergency medical services subject to the proposed rule, or its 
State Plan equivalent, include private and public entities engaged in 
first response and provision of emergency medicine. Employees of EMS 
ESOs may be volunteer or career and include first responders, emergency 
medical technicians (EMTs), paramedics, and registered nurses. These 
organizations would be required to comply with all provisions of the 
proposed rule, as described in section D.IV.A. OSHA's methods for 
estimating labor hours and costs by provision and employee size class 
are the same as for firefighters for the following provisions:
     Rule Familiarization;
     ESO Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s) 
Capability;
     Team Member and Responder Participation;
     WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan;
     Vehicle Preparedness and Operation;
     ESO Pre-Incident Planning;
     Incident Management System Development;
     Standard Operating Procedures; and
     Program Evaluation.
    Estimation methods differ for the following provisions:
     Medical and Physical Requirements;
     Training;
     ESO Facility Preparedness;
     Equipment and PPE; and
     Post-Incident Analysis.
    The methods specific to EMS are described below.
(i) Medical and Physical Requirements
    EMS providers typically have a lower risk of exposure to hazardous 
environments or materials relative to firefighters and therefore EMS 
providers have fewer medical exam requirements. Specifically, EMS 
providers are not expected to undergo a full NFPA 1582 medical exam 
since they are not anticipated to reach the 15-times-per-year exposure 
threshold to combustion products. OSHA assumes that all EMS providers 
would undergo each component of the minimum medical exam, and all EMS 
providers that exhibit signs and symptoms warranting additional heart 
screening (12.5 percent of all EMS providers, as shown in Table VII-C-
2) would undergo all components of the additional heart screening.\51\ 
The percentage needing each exam is multiplied by the unit cost for 
each exam to derive a weighted average unit cost for the minimum 
medical evaluation and additional heart screening. The weighted average 
unit cost for medical surveillance is the same as for WEREs, as shown 
in Table VII-C-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Le Duc, 2018 indicated approximately 12.5 percent of 
firefighters had some type of underlying, significant cardiovascular 
issues such as hypertension, elevated cholesterol levels, or 
abnormal stress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Training
    The initial training time for EMS providers varies widely depending 
on the responder's certification level. Estimates for training hours 
for emergency responders, basic EMTs, advanced EMTs and paramedics were 
based on information from the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's (NHTSA, 2009) Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 
National Emergency Medical Services Education Standards and UCLA Center 
for Prehospital Care (2018). NHTSA (2009) reports a range of hours of 
training needed to attain each certification level. OSHA made an 
initial assumption that EMS providers at smaller ESOs would have lower 
levels of certification but welcomes comment on this assumption. OSHA 
then assigned the estimated hours of training at the low end of that 
range to the smallest establishments (those with <25 and 25-49 
employees) and the hours of training estimated at the higher end of 
that range to the remaining size classes. The agency then estimated the 
weighted average initial training hours by multiplying the number of 
training hours by the estimated share of responders at each 
certification level (NAEMT, 2014). As shown in Table VII-C-10, for the 
size class 250-499, the initial training course is estimated at 776 
hours.
    OSHA used a similar approach to estimate the hours required for 
ongoing training. OSHA obtained training hours estimates for emergency 
responders, basic EMTs, advanced EMTs and paramedics from the NREMT 
(2018a-d), and multiplied those estimates by the estimated share of 
responders at each certification level (NAEMT, 2014) to estimate the 
weighted average ongoing training hours.
(iii) ESO Facility Preparedness
    ESOs would be required to ensure that each facility complies with 
29 CFR part 1910, subpart E--Exit Routes and Emergency Planning and 
provide facilities for the decontamination, disinfection, cleaning, and 
storage of PPE and equipment. They would also need to ensure that fire 
detection, suppression, and alarm systems and occupant notification 
systems are installed, tested, and maintained in accordance with 
manufacturer's instructions and 29 CFR part 1910, subpart L--Fire 
Protection and that any sleeping and living areas meet the requirements 
in paragraph (j)(2). These activities would be conducted annually by an 
organization leader. Table VII-C-10 presents estimates of labor hours 
incurred for each activity at EMS ESOs by employment size class.
(iv) Equipment and PPE
    Under paragraph (k) of the proposed rule, all ESOs would be 
required to provide access to equipment that conforms with applicable 
existing standards as well as inspect, maintain, and test equipment at 
prescribed intervals. Additionally, all ESOs would be required to 
conduct a hazard assessment to select appropriate PPE; provide PPE to 
responders that conforms with 29 CFR part 1910, subpart I, Personal 
Protective Equipment; ensure SCBA meet applicable requirements, and 
maintain all PPE. While OSHA assumes that equipment preparation and the 
inspection, maintenance and testing of equipment would take as long for 
EMS as for fire departments, OSHA estimates that the PPE hazard 
assessment, provision of PPE, and maintenance of PPE would take less 
time for EMS than for fire departments. OSHA bases this assumption on 
the fact that EMS PPE are primarily disposable (i.e., gloves and 
masks). Organization leaders are expected to expend labor hours 
annually to ensure new equipment meets design and manufacturing 
requirements, as well as on a one-time basis to conduct the hazard 
assessment and provide the PPE. EMTs would be expected to annually 
inspect, maintain, and test equipment, as well as perform maintenance 
of PPE. See Table VII-C-10 for the specific labor hours OSHA estimates 
that would be incurred for each activity at EMS ESOs by employment size 
class.
(v) Post-Incident Analysis
    While EMS organizations would still be required to conduct a post-
incident analysis to determine the effectiveness of the ESO's response 
to an incident after any significant event, OSHA expects that the 
average time per incident for an EMS organization to conduct a post-
incident analysis will be less than the average time for fire 
departments. OSHA believes that most incidents to which EMS 
organizations respond would not be characterized as significant events 
(large-scale incidents, significant near-miss incidents, incidents 
involving injury or illness to responders requiring off-scene

[[Page 7902]]

treatment, or incidents involving a responder fatality). Based on this 
assumption, OSHA estimates that EMS organizations would spend one 
minute per incident to meet this requirement. See Table VII-C-10 for 
the specific labor hours OSHA estimates that would be incurred annually 
for this activity at EMS ESOs by employment size class.
    Table VII-C-11 shows the estimated unit costs for each requirement 
in the proposed rule for emergency medical services by employee class 
size. Note that where unit labor hours are the same as for 
firefighters, unit costs differ due to the application of wage rates 
for EMS providers rather than firefighters.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7903]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.052


[[Page 7904]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.053


[[Page 7905]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.054


[[Page 7906]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.055


[[Page 7907]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.056


[[Page 7908]]


D. Technical Search and Rescue Groups
    Technical search and rescue groups are involved in wilderness and 
urban search and rescue using technical skills and equipment. These 
organizations would be required to comply with all provisions of the 
proposed rule, as described in section IV.I.. Technical search and 
rescue groups are assumed to incur the same labor hours and medical 
costs as EMS organizations for most provisions, as described in section 
IV.III., with three exceptions. First, for initial and ongoing training 
OSHA assumes that technical search and rescue employees would expend 
200 hours on initial training and would spend the same amount of time 
as firefighters on ongoing training. Second, in the case of emergency 
incident operations, the per incident time estimate is the same for 
both EMS and technical search and rescue; however, the number of 
incidents that these groups respond to each year differs, which results 
in different annual time spent responding to all incidents. Third, the 
time per incident for technical search and rescue groups to conduct a 
post-incident analysis is five minutes instead of one minute as 
estimated for EMS.
    As described in the Industry Profile, to fully capture the universe 
of technical search and rescue organizations, OSHA obtained data from 
multiple sources, which, for the purposes of estimating unit costs, 
requires the derivation of separate wage rates. The unit costs are 
provided for both subgroups of technical search and rescue in sections 
VII.D(i) and VII.D(ii)
(i) Wilderness and Urban Search and Rescue
    Wilderness and urban search and rescue groups are involved in and 
use special Vknowledge, skills, and specialized equipment to resolve 
complex search and rescue situations, such as rope, vehicle/machinery, 
structural collapse, trench, and technical water rescue. Table VII-C-12 
and Table VII-C-13 show the estimated unit labor hours and costs, 
respectively, for each requirement in the proposed rule for wilderness 
and urban search and rescue groups by employee class size. Note that 
while the unit labor hours are largely the same as for EMS 
organizations, unit costs differ due to the application of wage rates 
for wilderness and urban search and rescue responders rather than EMS 
responders.

[[Page 7909]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.057


[[Page 7910]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.058


[[Page 7911]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.059


[[Page 7912]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.060


[[Page 7913]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.061


[[Page 7914]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.062


[[Page 7915]]


(ii) Additional Technical Water Rescue Entities
    This additional group of technical search and rescue entities 
includes lifeguarding where specialty skills or equipment is employed 
during search and/or rescue. This group is in addition to technical 
water rescue activities undertaken by wilderness and urban search and 
rescue. These organizations would be required to comply with all 
provisions of the proposed rule, as described in section IV.I. 
Additional technical water rescue entities would incur the same labor 
hours and medical costs as wilderness and urban search and rescue 
groups, as described in section IV.A. Table VII-C-14 shows the 
estimated unit costs associated with the proposed rule for additional 
technical water rescue groups by employment size class. Note that while 
the unit labor hours are the same as for wilderness and urban search 
and rescue groups, unit costs vary due to the different wage rates for 
technical water rescue professionals compared to wilderness and urban 
search and rescue responders, as outlined in section III.

[[Page 7916]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.063


[[Page 7917]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.064


[[Page 7918]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.065


[[Page 7919]]


E. Total Costs
(i) Total Costs of the Proposed Rule
    OSHA estimated the total cost of the proposed rule by multiplying 
the numbers of affected emergency services entities and responders 
estimated in the industry profile, as summarized in Table VII-B-12, by 
the unit labor costs shown in Table VII-C-6 (for fire departments), 
Table VII-C-11 (for emergency medical services), Table VII-C-13 (for 
technical search and rescue groups), and Table VII-C-14 (for additional 
technical water rescue entities), and adding the unit medical costs 
shown in Table VII-C-4 (structural fire departments and wildland fire 
services) and Table VII-C-7 (WEREs, emergency medical services, and 
technical search and rescue groups).
    Table VII-C-15, Table VII-C-16, and Table VII-C-17 show the total 
costs (including labor and non-labor costs) for all organizations 
affected by the proposed rule at three, seven, and zero percent 
discount rates, respectively. Table VII-C-18 shows the costs for 
organizations considered small by either the RFA definition (for public 
ESOs) or SBA definition (for private organizations) using a three 
percent discount rate.

[[Page 7920]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.066


[[Page 7921]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.067


[[Page 7922]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.068


[[Page 7923]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.069


[[Page 7924]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.070


[[Page 7925]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.071


[[Page 7926]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.072


[[Page 7927]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.073


[[Page 7928]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.074


[[Page 7929]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.075


[[Page 7930]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.076


[[Page 7931]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.077


[[Page 7932]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.078


[[Page 7933]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.079


[[Page 7934]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.080


[[Page 7935]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.081


[[Page 7936]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.082


[[Page 7937]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.083


[[Page 7938]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.084


[[Page 7939]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.085


[[Page 7940]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.086


[[Page 7941]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.087


[[Page 7942]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.088


[[Page 7943]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.089


[[Page 7944]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.090


[[Page 7945]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.091


[[Page 7946]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.092


[[Page 7947]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.093


[[Page 7948]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.094


[[Page 7949]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.095


[[Page 7950]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.096


[[Page 7951]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.097


[[Page 7952]]


(ii) Insurance Adjustments for Medical Exam Costs
    OSHA acknowledges that insurance companies likely cover a portion 
of the medical costs required by the proposed rule. For this analysis, 
OSHA assumed that all career responders would be covered under an 
employer-sponsored medical insurance plan. To determine the percentage 
of responders at volunteer and mixed departments with medical insurance 
coverage, OSHA used data from BLS's (2023) National Compensation 
Survey--Benefits program, which suggests that 66 percent of private 
industry workers with access to employer-sponsored medical insurance 
plans choose to participate. Costs were adjusted for minimum medical 
exams (for both WERT members and ESO responders), additional heart 
screenings (for both WERT members and ESO responders) and expanded 
medical exams (only required for ESO responders). These costs are used 
in Chapter VI: Economic Feasibility Analysis to better reflect the 
costs that will actually be borne directly by affected entities. 
Insurance-adjusted costs for the medical and physical requirements 
provision are presented in Table VII-C-19. Total costs with the 
insurance-adjusted medical and physical requirements costs are shown in 
Table VII-C-20.

[[Page 7953]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.098


[[Page 7954]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.099


[[Page 7955]]


BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

References

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2023). Employer Costs for 
Employee Compensation--December 2022 (Released March 17, 2023). 
Available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/
ecec.htm#:~:text=Total%20employer%20compensation%20costs%20for,and%20
accounted%20for%2029.5%20percent. (Accessed June 10, 2023)
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2023). Occupational Employment 
and Wage Statistics--May 2022 (Released April 27, 2023). Available 
at https://www.bls.gov/oes/#data. (Accessed May 16, 2023)
California Office of the State Fire Marshal (CA OSFM). (2019a). Fire 
Fighter 1. Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/state-fire-training/cfstes-professional-certification/fire-fighter-1-2019/. (Accessed September 6, 2023)
California Office of the State Fire Marshal (CA OSFM). (2019b). Fire 
Fighter 2. Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/state-fire-training/cfstes-professional-certification/fire-fighter-2-2019/. (Accessed September 6, 2023)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2023). CDC Adult 
Vaccine Price List. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/awardees/vaccine-management/price-list/. 
(Accessed February 9, 2023)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). (2022a). 
PhysicianFee Schedule--2022. Available at https://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/search/search-criteria.aspx. (Accessed May 
10, 2022)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). (2022b). Clinical 
Laboratory Fee Schedule: Details for Title: 22CLABQ2. Available at 
https://www.cms.gov/medicaremedicare-fee-service-paymentclinicallabfeeschedclinical-laboratory-fee-schedule-files/22clabq2. (Accessed May 11, 2022)
eHealthInsurance.com. (2022). Eye Exams: Understanding the Costs. 
Available at https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/resources/vision-insurance/eye-exams-importance-costs. (Accessed September 7, 2023)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2002). Revised Economic 
Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final report. August 
2002. Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0054-0260. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0054-0260. 
(Accessed January 28, 2015)
Florida Department of Financial Services. (2022). Firefighter, Part 
II. Available at https://www.myfloridacfo.com/division/sfm/bfst/standards/fire-certifications/certification---florida-firefighter. 
(Accessed September 6, 2023)
Khan, S. (2023). How Much Does a Colonoscopy Cost? Available at 
https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/colon-cancer/colonoscopy-cost#. 
(Accessed October 16, 2023)
LeDuc, T. (2018). Firefighter Physicals: A Picture is Worth a 
Thousand Words. Available at https://www.fireengineering.com/health-safety/firefighter-physicals-a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words/#gref. (Accessed March 8, 2023)
Maine Fire Service Institute (MFSI). (2017). MFSI Fire Training 
Course Catalog. Available at https://mfsi.me.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Course-Catalog-Training-Catalot-2017-Final.pdf. (Accessed 
September 6, 2023)
Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute (MFRI). (2023a). Firefighter I. 
Available at https://www.mfri.org/course/msfs/FIRE/101/. (Accessed 
September 6, 2023)
Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute (MFRI). (2023b). Firefighter II. 
Available at https://www.mfri.org/course/msfs/FIRE/201/. (Accessed 
September 6, 2023)
New Hampshire Fire Academy and EMS. (2023a). Firefighter I. 
Available at https://nhfa-ems.com/course/firefighter-i/. (Accessed 
September 6, 2023)
National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (NAEMT). 
(2014). EMS statistics. Available at https://www.naemt.org/about_ems/statistics.aspx. (Accessed October 27, 2014)
National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (NAEMT). 
(2023). EMS Safety. Available at https://www.naemt.org/education/ems-safety. (Accessed July 17, 2023)
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). (2022). U.S. Fire 
Department Profile--2020. September 2022. Available at https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-tools/Emergency-Responders/US-fire-department-profile. (Accessed March 30, 2023)
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). (2023a). Number of 
Firefighters by Department Type and Population Served for 2020 and 
2021.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). (2023b). Fire Calls by 
Department Type and Population Served for 2020 and 2021.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Emergency 
Medical Services (EMS). (2009). National Emergency Medical Services 
Education Standards. Available at https://www.ems.gov/pdf/811077a.pdf. (Accessed September 27, 2018)
National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (NREMT). (2018). 
Emergency Medical Technician Recertification Information. Available 
at https://www.nremt.org/rwd/public/document/emt-recert. (Accessed 
September 27, 2018)
National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (NREMT). (2018a). 
EMR Recertification. Available at https://www.nremt.org/rwd/public/document/emr-recert. (Accessed October 3, 2018)
National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (NREMT). (2018b). 
EMT Recertification. Available at https://www.nremt.org/rwd/public/document/emt-recert. (Accessed October 3, 2018)
National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (NREMT). (2018c). 
AEMT Recertification. Available at https://www.nremt.org/rwd/public/document/advancedemt-recert. (Accessed October 3, 2018)
National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (NREMT). (2018d). 
Paramedic Recertification. Available at https://www.nremt.org/rwd/public/document/paramedic-recert. (Accessed October 3, 2018)
New Hampshire Fire Academy and EMS. (2023b). Firefighter II. 
Available at https://nhfa-ems.com/course/firefighter-ii/. (Accessed 
September 6, 2023)
Ohio EMS. (2023). Fire Service Certificates to Practice. Available 
at https://ems.ohio.gov/certifications/fire-service/fire-service-certificates-to-practice. (Accessed September 6, 2023)
Patterson, P.D., Jones, C.B., Hubble, M.W., Carr, M., Weaver, M.D., 
Engberg, J., Castle, N. (2010). The longitudinal study of turnover 
and the cost of turnover in emergency medical services. Prehospital 
Emergency Care, 14(2), 209-221.
Poston, W., Haddock, C., Jahnke, S., Jitnarin, N., Day, R.S. (2013). 
An examination of the benefits of health promotion programs for the 
national fire service. Available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2458-13-805. (Accessed September 7, 2023)
Rice, C. (2002). Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics 
Release Inventory Program. June 10, 2002.
Tatar, M., Keeshin, S., Mailliard, M., Wilson, F. (2020). Cost-
effectiveness of Universal and Targeted Hepatitis C Virus Screening 
in the United States. Available at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2770156. (Accessed May 17, 2022)
UCLA Center for Prehospital Care. (2018). What's the Difference 
Between an EMT and a Paramedic? Available at https://www.cpc.mednet.ucla.edu/node/27. (Accessed October 3, 2018)
Unitek EMT. (2022). EMT to Firefighter: Career Guide for Firefighter 
EMTs. Available at https://www.unitekemt.com/blog/emt-to-
firefighter-a-career-guide-for-aspiring-firefighter-emts/
#:~:text=The%20majority%20of%20calls%20to,before%20jumping%20on%20the
%20truck. (Accessed October 17, 2023)
VolunteerFD.org in partnership with the National Volunteer Fire 
Council (VolunteerFD.org). (2018). How to Become a Volunteer 
Firefighter. Available at https://www.volunteerfd.org/become-a-volunteer-firefighter/. (Accessed August 30, 2018)
Washington State Patrol. (2023). 2023 Weekday Recruit Academy. 
Available at https://www.wsp.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2023-Weekday-RA-Announcement.pdf. (Accessed September 6, 2023)

D. Benefits

I. Introduction
    Benefits from OSHA's proposed Emergency Response standard would

[[Page 7956]]

stem from reductions in the number of fatal and nonfatal injuries and 
incidents that occur on duty, work-related suicides that would be 
prevented by the standard, and reductions in the incidence of illnesses 
and subsequent mortality among affected employees. In this benefits 
analysis, OSHA estimated and quantified the benefits associated with 
the avoidance of certain fatal and nonfatal incidents involving 
emergency responders if the safety requirements of this standard were 
to be implemented. OSHA also estimated and quantified the benefits of 
reducing the number of deaths by suicide among responders when the 
behavioral health and wellness components of the proposed standard are 
applied. In addition, OSHA estimated and quantified the benefits from 
the reduction in deaths from certain cancers due to increased screening 
for lung, colorectal, and breast cancers. Although incidence and death 
for other types of cancer may be reduced due to the more general 
medical evaluation and surveillance provisions of this standard, OSHA 
was unable find data to support a specific quantitative impact on the 
incidence or mortality of these other types of cancer for responders.
    As discussed below, OSHA estimates that the proposed Emergency 
Response standard would reduce fatal and non-fatal work-related 
injuries to emergency responders, (e.g., burns, struck by objects and 
equipment, vehicle collisions) by 50 percent. OSHA also estimates that 
the proposed Emergency Response standard would reduce firefighter 
deaths due to prostate, testicular, buccal cavity/pharynx, thyroid, and 
melanoma cancers by at least 20 percent. As explained in further detail 
below, OSHA estimates that this proposed rule would prevent an average 
of approximately 54 fatalities and 11,015 nonfatal injuries per year, 
with an associated value of $1,864.9 million in Year 1 (using 2022 
dollars, the most recent year of data available). Assuming these annual 
benefits would continue for 50 years, the average annualized value of 
the benefits would be $2,628.5 million using a 3 percent discount rate 
and $2,262.3 million using a 7 percent discount rate in 2022 dollars. A 
discussion of expected benefits that could not be quantified is 
presented in the final section of the chapter.
II. Benefits From Reducing Responder Fatalities
    OSHA gathered data from its OIS to characterize fatal incidents 
among emergency responders.\52\ OIS is the primary repository of OSHA's 
data. This database contains information about work-related incidents 
collected through OSHA's Fatality and Investigation Summaries (OSHA 
Form 170), which OSHA prepares after conducting an inspection in 
response to a fatality or catastrophe. As explained further below, the 
OIS database does not capture the full number of emergency responder 
fatalities that occur, but the details contained within the summary 
descriptions of the incidents in the database provides useful 
information that OSHA used to estimate how the proposed rule would help 
prevent fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration. Fatality and Catastrophe Investigation Summaries. 
Available at: https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/accidentsearch.html.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7957]]

    Each Fatality and Investigation Summary provides a narrative of the 
fatal incident and includes information such as the characteristics of 
the worksite; the employee task or activity performed at the time of 
the incident; the equipment used; a brief description of the injuries 
sustained by those involved in the accident; and other pertinent 
information surrounding the incident, including any worksite hazards 
present at the time of an individual's death. OSHA used these data to 
develop an informed understanding of the workplace fatalities 
frequently occurring among the emergency response professions, to 
identify common hazards present in worksites at which an emergency 
responder fatality has occurred, and to develop an estimate of the 
number of fatalities that would be addressed by at least one provision 
of the proposed Emergency Response standard.
    To identify those fatalities that would be within the scope of the 
proposed rule, OSHA performed a query of the OIS database over a 15-
year period (2007 through 2021), using keywords associated with 
emergency response activities (examples of relevant keywords include 
``fire,'' ``emergency,'' ``respond''). From this initial dataset of 
several thousand fatalities, the summary abstracts of each accident 
were individually reviewed to determine if the death could be 
classified as relevant to the scope of the proposed rule. For each 
fatality determined to fall within the scope of the proposed rule, OSHA 
collected descriptive information relating to the manner of death, the 
assigned task at the time of death, the cause of death, and any 
workplace hazards present at the time of death, as identified by OSHA 
inspectors during the fatality investigation. OSHA identified 273 fatal 
incidents in the OIS database that involved responders or team members 
as defined in the proposed standard and emergency response activities 
that are within the scope of the proposed rule.
    As shown in Table VII-1, the leading cause of death among emergency 
responders was attributed to struck by/crushing/collision injuries, 26 
percent of all fatalities in the OIS database. Sixty-one percent of all 
struck by, crushing, and collision incidents were due to vehicle 
accidents. The most common contributory factor of these accidents was 
the unsafe operation of emergency response vehicles and equipment. 
Heart attacks accounted for an additional 20 percent of all fatalities 
in the OIS database, followed by burns, asphyxiations, and falls. Fatal 
accidents related to burns, falls and asphyxiations mainly occurred at 
the scene of an emergency during participation in response activities.
    OSHA did a further analysis of the 273 emergency response-related 
fatalities in the OIS database to develop an estimate of how many might 
have been prevented if at least one of the provisions of the proposed 
standard had been followed. The details surrounding the fatalities were 
carefully examined and compared with the requirements of each provision 
of the proposed standard. Contributory hazards, as identified by the 
investigating OSHA inspector in both an accident's descriptive summary 
abstract and cited safety standards, were reviewed to determine the 
number and frequency of workplace hazards present at emergency 
response-related fatalities. If the identified workplace hazards 
present at the time of a fatality were determined to be addressed by 
the safety requirements of one or more of the emergency response 
provisions, then that fatality was classified as preventable. On the 
other hand, if the circumstances surrounding a fatality could not be 
matched with any requirements of the proposed standard, then that 
incident was categorized as not preventable by the standard. Of the 273 
emergency-response-related fatalities in the OIS database, 77.7 percent 
or 212 were identified as being preventable if at least one of the 
provisions of the proposed standard had been followed. See example 
below.
Example:
Inspection Nr: 310966023
Event: 06/18/2007
Fire Department Employees Die of Smoke Inhalation

    On June 18, 2007, nine employees of the City of Charleston Fire 
Department were engaged in interior structural firefighting in a 
furniture store at Sofa Super Store, 1807 Savannah Highway, Charleston, 
SC. The store had been converted from a 1960s era grocery store with a 
metal truss roof system. The fire and smoke spread rapidly, and they 
became lost and separated from their hoses. With air in air-packing 
running out, they could not find their way out. They died of smoke 
inhalation.
    From the investigation report, OSHA inspectors identified four 
hazards present at the workplace, including inadequate inspection or 
maintenance of the workplace or equipment, inadequate training, and 
inadequate or incorrect use of personal protective equipment (PPE). 
OSHA determined that the requirements in proposed paragraphs (c), (d), 
(h), and (k) could have prevented this fatal incident.
    Next, OSHA further developed estimates to determine what percentage 
of preventable incidents related to emergency response activities (for 
example, the 77.7 percent or 212 out of 273 identified in the OIS 
database) would actually be avoided by the standard, treating non-heart 
attacks and heart attacks differently. Table VII-2 shows the number of 
fatalities in the OIS database the agency estimates could have been 
addressed by each major provision category (a fatal incident may be 
covered by more than one safety provision of the proposed standard). 
Because emergency response operations are highly unpredictable and 
dangerous

[[Page 7958]]

in ways that cannot be mitigated, OSHA does not believe this standard 
will prevent every fatality among responders. However, the process of 
developing plans will help to clarify procedures, roles, training 
needs, and other factors that will allow responders to operate more 
efficiently and safely at response scenes. The requirements for 
equipment, vehicles, and other preparedness measures would, if 
followed, protect responders during response operations. Improved and 
enhanced training is always a critical step in improving safety in all 
sorts of workplaces. OSHA assumes that a reasonable estimate of non-
heart attack fatal incidents related to emergency response activities 
that are classified as preventable is that 50 percent would be avoided 
by following the requirements of this proposed standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Natural causes is defined as an internal factor, such as a 
disease, that caused the body to shut down; no external reason 
contributing to death such as a traumatic injury.
    \54\ Deaths for which a descriptive sequence of causes could not 
be determined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.100


[[Page 7959]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.101

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
    OSHA treats heart attack prevention differently. As mentioned 
earlier, heart attacks made up 20 percent or 55 of the 273 emergency 
response-related fatalities in the OIS database. Thirty-one percent of 
the 55 heart attack fatalities occurred on worksites of an emergency 
(See Table VII-3). Twenty-seven percent occurred onsite while 
participating in training exercises. Another 15 percent occurred on-
site during non-emergency activities such as maintenance work, and 15 
percent of heart attacks happened less than 24 hours after 
participating in a work-related activity. The remainder were 
unspecified.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.102

    Many studies show that following a healthy lifestyle including 
getting regular physical activity, maintaining a healthy weight, and 
healthy sleep habits may prevent many cases of sudden cardiac 
death.\55\ A number of provisions in the proposed rule--the medical and 
physical, fitness for duty, and health and fitness program 
requirements--focus on components of a healthy lifestyle for emergency 
responders as well as fitness for duty requirements and medical 
monitoring that would be expected to prevent some fatal heart attacks. 
While the proposed standard would not prevent all fatal heart attacks, 
based on a review of the circumstances surrounding the deaths caused by 
heart

[[Page 7960]]

attack in the OIS dataset, OSHA believes a reasonable estimate is that 
the rule would prevent 20 percent of work-related fatal heart attacks 
among emergency responders. OSHA welcomes comment on this estimate and 
encourages the public to submit any additional data or data sources 
that the agency might use to better estimate this parameter of the 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/disease-prevention/cardiovascular-disease/preventing-cvd/ based on Chiuve, 
SE, Rexrode, K.M., D.S, Logroscino, G., Manson, J.E., Rimm, E.B. 
(2008). Primary prevention of stroke by healthy lifestyle. 
Circulation. 118:947-54 and Chiuve, SE, Fung, T.T., Rexrode, K.M., 
et al. (2011). Adherence to a low-risk, healthy lifestyle and risk 
of sudden cardiac death among women. JAMA. 306:62-9. The Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention's ``Prevent Heart Disease.'' 
Available at https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/prevention.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above and explained in section II.A., Need for the 
Standard, OSHA recognizes that the number of fatalities occurring among 
emergency responders contained in the OIS is incomplete. This is in 
large part because so many emergency responders are volunteers and/or 
work for state or local governments in States without OSHA-approved 
State Plans; OSHA inspectors typically would not investigate fatalities 
in these groups. Other data sources, such as the NFPA, help provide a 
more complete picture, even if they may not contain the same level of 
detail about individual incidents that OIS does. From 2007 to 2021, the 
NFPA reported a total of 1,086 firefighter fatalities,\56\ compared to 
the 273 in the OIS database. Of those 1,086 fatalities, 464 or 42.7 
percent were from heart attacks. Applying the assumptions developed 
from the OIS data, OSHA first excluded the 464 NPFA fatalities 
attributable to heart attacks to produce a total of 622 emergency 
response-related fatalities. From this estimate, OSHA applied its 
assumption that 77.7 percent of total fatalities would be preventable 
by the provisions of the Emergency Response standard, to develop an 
estimate of 483.3 fatalities; an average of 32.2 fatalities per year. 
OSHA then applied the assumption that only 50 percent of NFPA's 
preventable firefighter fatalities would be actually prevented, giving 
an estimate of 241.8 prevented firefighter fatalities; an annual 
average of 16.1 fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-tools/Emergency-Responders/Firefighter-fatalities-in-the-United-States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that while the data can provide broad 
characterization in terms of cause of death, there is frequently 
insufficient information to isolate the effect on very specific causes 
of injury. Injuries to emergency responders take many forms, and the 
proposed standard is designed to reduce them on many fronts. For 
example, the proposal includes provisions for the safer use of fire 
poles. While not the leading cause of firefighter injury and 
fatalities, use of fire poles continues to present needless hazards to 
responders. While the use of fire poles has become less common due to 
use of slides, chutes and stairs, fatalities and serious injuries still 
occur, including the recent death of a North Carolina firefighter in 
2021 (https://www.firefighterclosecalls.com/north-carolina-firefighter-dies-after-falling-down-pole-hole-in-firehouse/). In 2013 a Seattle 
firefighter was awarded $12.75 million due to disabling injuries 
related to a fall down a fire pole shaft. (https://www.seattletimes.com/news/high-court-upholds-1275m-award-to-ex-seattle-firefighter/). For these reasons, many fire departments are already 
moving away from installing fire poles in new firehouses. The agency 
supports the trend away from the use of fire poles, and has included 
questions seeking input and data from stakeholders about whether the 
agency should consider prohibiting the installation of fire poles in 
new facilities in the final rule. On the whole, the agency believes the 
multifaceted approach of the emergency response program standard should 
prevent approximately half of most safety-related fatalities and 
injuries to firefighters.
    Because the NFPA data is based on firefighter fatalities only, OSHA 
relied on data from BLS, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, to 
develop estimates for non-firefighting emergency responders 
(paramedics, EMTs) and applied the same assumptions. From 2007 to 2021, 
BLS reported a total of 169 fatalities to emergency responders,\57\ not 
including firefighters. Applying the assumption that 77.7 percent would 
fall under the provisions of the Emergency Response standard (131.3 
fatalities, an average of 8.8 fatalities per year), and 50 percent 
would be preventable (65.7 fatalities), OSHA estimates an additional 
4.4 preventable fatalities per year. OSHA did not apply its assumption 
for heart attacks to this estimate because BLS considers heart attacks 
to be an illness and excludes them from its Census of Fatal 
Occupational Injuries unless a traumatic injury contributed to the 
death. According to a study, ``Prevalence of risk factors for 
cardiovascular disease in paramedics,'' printed in the 2015 publication 
of the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 
nine out of ten paramedics are at risk of developing cardiovascular 
disease as a result of the cardiovascular risk factors of occupational 
stress, obesity, and tobacco consumption.\58\ OSHA is aware that heart 
attacks among non-firefighting emergency responders are prevalent and 
therefore welcomes comment on this estimate and encourages the public 
to submit any additional data or data sources that the agency might use 
to better estimate this parameter of the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ https://data.bls.gov/gqt/ProfileData.
    \58\ Hegg-Deloye, S., Brassard, P., Prairie, J., Larouche, D., 
Jauvin, N., Poirier, P., Tremblay, A., Corbeil, P. (2015). 
Prevalence of risk factors for cardiovascular disease in paramedics. 
International archives of occupational and environmental health, 
88(7), 973-980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-015-1028-z.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the 2022 estimate of the value of a statistical life (VSL) 
developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), $12.5 
million, OSHA estimates the benefit from avoiding 20.5 fatal incidents 
(16.1 firefighter and 4.4 non-firefighter responders) other than heart 
attacks in Year 1 would produce benefits of $256.2 million in 2022 
dollars.\59\ As stated above, 464 of NFPA's total firefighter 
fatalities were heart attacks; an average of 30.9 fatalities per year. 
Applying the assumption that 20 percent of heart attacks would be 
prevented by the standard, yields another 92.8 fatalities; an annual 
average of 6.2 fatalities. The annual value of these avoided cases is 
$77.3 million in 2022 dollars. Combining the benefits from avoided non-
heart attack safety-related fatalities and heart attack fatalities 
yields estimated annual benefits of $333.5 million in 2022 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ As elsewhere in the PEA, these calculations were performed 
on an Excel spreadsheet, so the rounded numbers may appear not to 
add precisely. The spreadsheet appears in the docket at (Document ID 
0394).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Benefits From Reducing Non-Fatal Injuries for Responders
    NFPA reported a total of 1,012,250 non-fatal firefighter injuries 
between 2007 and 2021 of which 215,022 resulted in lost time from work; 
an average of 14,335 lost time injuries per year. Non-fatal injuries 
occurring during fireground operations (structure fires, vehicle fires, 
brush fires, etc.) accounted for 41.7 percent of total injuries, 
followed by non-fire emergencies (rescue calls, hazardous calls, and 
natural disaster calls) at 20.5 percent, other duties (e.g., inspection 
or maintenance duties) at 19.4 percent, training at 11.7 percent, and 
responding to or returning from an emergency at 6.7 percent. As shown 
in Table VII-4, overexertion and strains were the leading cause of 
injuries amongst firefighters, accounting for an average of 27 percent 
of total injuries during the 2007 thru 2021 period. Falls, jumps, and 
slips accounted for an additional 22.8 percent, with another 20.7 
percent of injuries attributed to exposures to fire products, chemicals 
or radiation.

[[Page 7961]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.103

    From 2007 to 2020, BLS reported a total of 107,720 non-fatal 
injuries requiring days away from work to emergency medical technicians 
(EMTs) and paramedics; an average of 7,694 injuries per year. As shown 
below in Table VII-5, the leading cause of injuries to these responders 
were overexertion and bodily reactions, commonly resulting from worker 
activities such as lifting, pushing, pulling, carrying, holding, etc. 
Falls, slips and trips accounted for nearly 14 percent of all injuries 
to EMTs and paramedics, with an average of 1,050 injuries per year, 
followed by contacts with objects or equipment, and transportation 
incidents, at 10 percent and 7 percent, respectively.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.104


[[Page 7962]]


    OSHA expects that the proposed standard would reduce the number of 
non-fatal emergency responder injuries. Further, given the provisions 
of the proposal address the contributory causes of over 75 percent of 
the estimated fatalities to emergency responders, OSHA believes it is 
reasonable that the proposed standard would reduce these occurrences by 
at least 50 percent for all responders. OSHA monetized the benefit of 
preventing injuries using the midpoint of the range cited in Viscusi 
and Gentry (2015), converted to 2022 dollars using the GDP 
deflator.\60\ The total Year 1 benefit of reducing firefighter injuries 
by 7,168 (50%) would be $777.5 million and reducing EMT and paramedic 
injuries by 3,847 (50%) would be $417.3 million (Table VII-11) for a 
total of approximately $1,194.8 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Viscusi, K. and E.P Gentry. (2015). ``The value of a 
statistical life for transportation regulations: A test of the 
benefits transfer methodology.'' Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 
51:53-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-015-9219-2. OSHA used the 
midpoint of the range listed of $77,000 and $84,000 in 2008 dollars 
converted to 2022 dollars using the GDP deflator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Benefits From Preventing Some Firefighter and EMT Suicides
    OSHA preliminarily finds that the behavioral health and wellness 
resources provisions in the proposed standard would benefit responders 
by reducing the number of deaths by suicide. Based on Firefighter 
Behavioral Health Alliance (FBHA) data, 1,348 firefighters and EMTs 
died by suicide between 2007 and 2020, which is an average of 96 deaths 
per year.\61\ FBHA estimates that about 17 percent of these deaths 
occurred during retirement, so 83 percent, or approximately 77, of the 
annual deaths by suicide occurred among active duty responders (64 
firefighters and 13 EMTs).62 63 This estimate is adjusted to 
account only for the proportion of firefighters and EMTs covered by the 
proposed rule, yielding an estimated 43 annual deaths among covered 
responders (31 firefighters and 12 EMTs). OSHA was unable to find 
definitive evidence to support a specific reduction to these figures 
resulting from the implementation of the provisions of this proposed 
standard; however, based on available evidence the agency estimates 
that a 20 percent reduction is a realistic, even arguably low 
estimate.\64\ The expected number of avoided deaths by suicide is 
therefore estimated to be 8.5 per year. Based on the value of a 
statistical life (VSL) developed by DOT,\65\ the VSL estimate for 2022 
is $12.5 million, which translates to an annual benefit from the 
reduction in deaths by suicide in Year 1 of $106.8 million. OSHA 
expects, but could not quantify, additional benefits from the reduction 
in adverse behavioral health outcomes identified in health effects 
(stress, depression, PTSD, anxiety, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Available at: https://www.ffbha.org/ff-ems-suicide-deaths-by-year-type/. Validated and verified by Firefighter Behavioral 
Health Alliance.
    \62\ OSHA communication with an FBHA representative on May 1, 
2023.
    \63\ OSHA was unable to determine whether deaths by suicide of 
retired responders are considered occupational. If those deaths are 
considered occupational, the limitation to active-duty deaths by 
suicide in this analysis would likely underestimate the impact of 
the proposed standard.
    \64\ A review of 13 studies found that the suicide prevention 
programs for protective and emergency services employees were 
associated with an approximate 50 percent reduction on average in 
suicide rates. See Witt, K., et al. (2017). ``Effectiveness of 
suicide prevention programs for emergency and protective services 
employees: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal 
of Industrial Medicine 60(4): 394-407. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22676.
    \65\ U.S. Department of Transportation. (2022). ``Departmental 
Guidance of Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis.'' 
Available at https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Cancer Cases in Firefighters
    Several studies have found evidence that firefighters are more 
likely to develop certain types of cancer compared to the general 
population. OSHA did not estimate benefits related to avoided cancer 
cases or fatalities among other types of responders due to insufficient 
data for other types of emergency responders. To the extent that 
medical evaluations and physical fitness requirements prevent cancer 
cases or fatalities in other types of responders, the estimated 
benefits of this proposed standard may be underestimated. Researchers 
have investigated whether firefighters have higher or lower rates of 
incidences or mortality for various types of cancer compared to the 
general population. Commonly considered cancers are those for which 
firefighters may have greater risks due to occupational exposures to 
carcinogenic substances. In order to estimate the benefits of reduced 
cancer fatalities other than those being screened for and discussed 
previously, OSHA primarily used the estimates of the incidence rates of 
cancer for firefighters relative to the general population from Lee et 
al. (2020).\66\ Lee et al. provided estimates for firefighters for 
melanoma, thyroid, prostate, and testicular cancers. OSHA estimated 
cases of buccal cavity and pharynx cancer based on Daniels et al. 
(2014, Document ID 0187) estimates of incidence.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Lee, D.J., Koru-Sengul, T., Hernandez, M.N., Caban-
Martinez, A.J., McClure, L.A., Mackinnon, J.A., Kobetz, E.N. (2020). 
Cancer risk among career male and female Florida firefighters: 
Evidence from the Florida Firefighter Cancer Registry (1981-2014). 
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 63(4):285-299. doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23086. These researchers compared firefighters to the 
general population over the most recent time period and generally 
had estimates that were similar or between other estimates.
    \67\ Daniels, R.D., Kubale, T.L., Yiin, J.H., Dahm, M.M., Hales, 
T.R., Baris, D., Zahm, S.H., Beaumont, J.J., Waters, K.M., 
Pinkerton. L.E. (2014). Mortality and cancer incidence in a pooled 
cohort of US firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago, and 
Philadelphia (1950-2009). Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 
71:388-397. doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2013-101662.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these cancers, estimates of the incidence rates for the general 
population were from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC) or the American Cancer Society (ACS).\68\ To estimate the rates 
for firefighters, OSHA made adjustments based on the relevant findings 
in the literature. For example, the risk of a firefighter getting 
prostate cancer is 1.36 times that of the general population. 
Therefore, the annual incidence rate for the general population of 0.11 
percent was multiplied by 1.36, which yields a firefighter annual 
incidence rate of prostate cancer of 0.15 percent. Multiplying each 
incidence rate by the applicable number of firefighters, Table VII-6 
shows the estimated annual number of incidents of cancer, by cancer 
type and firefighter type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Data for incidence and mortality rates for prostate cancer 
from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/basic_info/
risk_factors.htm#:~:text=Out%20of%20every%20100%20American,increased%
20risk%20for%20prostate%20cancer. Data from ACS for testicular, 
buccal cavity and pharynx, thyroid, and melanoma cancers. For 
example, see https://www.cancer.org/cancer/testicular-cancer/about/
key-
statistics.html#:~:text=Testicular%20cancer%20is%20not%20common,testi
cular%20cancer%20is%20about%2033 (Accessed March 26, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7963]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.105


[[Page 7964]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.106

BILLING CODE 4150-26-C
VI. Benefits From Reducing Cancer Fatalities of Firefighters Through 
Screening
    OSHA preliminarily finds that the proposed rule would result in 
benefits in the form of avoided firefighter fatalities due to increased 
screening for lung, colorectal, and breast cancers. Three recent 
articles provided estimates of the effects of screening on fatalities 
due to certain types of cancer. Nishihara et al. (2013) followed almost 
89,000 participants over 22 years and measured a 53 percent reduction 
in mortality from proximal colon cancer with regular colonoscopies.\69\ 
Among men, de Koning et al. (2020) found that lung-cancer mortality was 
0.8 deaths per 1,000 person-years lower over 10 years for patients 
getting CT screening than those not getting screened for lung 
cancer.\70\ Finally, Seely and Alhassan (2018) conducted a meta-
analysis of breast cancer studies and concluded that women 40-74 years 
of age experience a 40 percent reduction in breast cancer mortality 
with regular screenings.\71\ The results of these studies are discussed 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Nishihara, R., Wu, K., Lochhead, P., Morikawa, T., Liao, 
X., Qian, Z.R., et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and 
mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1095-105.
    \70\ de Koning, H.J., et al. Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with 
Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial. N. Engl. J. Med. 382, 
503-513 (2020). The difference for women in the study was not 
statistically significant.
    \71\ Seely, J.M., Alhassan, T. Screening for breast cancer in 
2018--what should we be doing today? Curr Oncol. 2018 Jun; 25(Suppl 
1): S115-S124. doi:10.3747/co.25.3770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefits of increased screening are expected to occur for 
firefighters in the age ranges designated for screening for each type 
of cancer by NFPA 1582. Under the proposed standard, increased 
screening would be required for firefighters with at least 15 exposures 
to combustion products per year or who have a medically-indicated need 
for ongoing surveillance. Based on data from NFPA on the number of fire 
calls responded to, 98 percent of career firefighters and 2.2 percent 
of volunteer firefighters meet one of these criteria.\72\ The number of 
potentially affected firefighters was taken from the U.S Fire 
Administration (USFA, 2020) registry data and OSHA's estimate of the 
number of inmate firefighters (see Section VII.B., Industry Profile, 
for more details).\73\ The age distribution based on NFPA (2017) 
estimates was then applied.\74\ The appropriate populations of 
firefighters potentially affected by the

[[Page 7965]]

rule would be: women ages 50 and older for breast cancer; individuals 
ages 50-75 for colorectal cancer; and individuals ages 55+ for lung 
cancer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See section VI.2.2.1 for more detail.
    \73\ Inmate firefighters were included only in state plan states 
that cover volunteer firefighters. Due to lack of more appropriate 
data, OSHA assumed the same demographic distribution as the 
firefighters for the inmate firefighters. In the benefits 
estimations, OSHA used the lower estimate of inmate firefighters 
when numbers varied by source.
    \74\ U.S. Fire Administration (USFA). (2020). U.S. Fire 
Administration (USFA) National Fire Department Registry: National 
Data. Available at https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/registry/download 
(Accessed January 13, 2020).
    NFPA (2017). U.S. Fire Department Profile--2015. April 2017. 
Available at https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Fire-statistics/The-fire-service/Administration/US-fire-department-profile (Accessed September 13, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA applied the findings from the respective studies to the subset 
of the firefighter population who would be required to get each of the 
screenings to estimate the reduction in annual fatalities that the 
proposed rule would yield. For colorectal cancer, a 53 percent 
reduction in mortality from proximal colon cancer over a 22-year period 
for individuals getting colonoscopy screenings corresponds to a 2.4 
percent reduction per year in the probability of a colorectal cancer 
fatality (0.53/22 years = .024) (Nishihara (2013), Docket No. 
0384).\75\ Applying this reduction to the current number of colorectal 
cancer fatalities (15.8) results in a reduction of 0.4 fatalities per 
year due to colorectal cancer (Table VII-9). OSHA assumes this annual 
benefit begins in Year 10 but welcomes comments on the most appropriate 
lag time for benefits.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ While the probability of death is likely not uniformly 
distributed over the time period, this simplifying assumption should 
reasonably provide a way to approximate the benefits.
    \76\ See Lee S J, Boscardin W J, Stijacic-Cenzer I, Conell-Price 
J, O'Brien S, Walter L C et al. Time lag to benefit after screening 
for breast and colorectal cancer: meta-analysis of survival data 
from the United States, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Denmark BMJ 
2013; 346:e8441 doi:10.1136/bmj.e8441 as an example of research 
findings that may be applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For lung cancer, OSHA additionally restricted the subpopulation of 
firefighters to males due to the lack of a statistically significant 
difference found in de Koning et al. (2020) for females (de Koning 
2020, Docket No. 0377). Because the results were expressed in terms of 
deaths per 1,000 person-years, OSHA could directly apply the difference 
in the findings of 0.8, the difference between 2.5 deaths per 1,000 
person-years for patients who get CT scans and 3.3 deaths per 1,000 
person-years for patients who do not get screenings, to the current 
number of cases, 22.9 (Table VII-9). Thus, OSHA estimates that 9.7 
fatalities from lung cancer would be avoided annually starting in Year 
10 by the proposed rule.
    For breast cancer, in addition to restricting the subpopulation of 
firefighters to females ages 50 and older, OSHA also assumed that these 
women would already be getting mammograms at the same rate as the 
general population. According to the National Cancer Institute, about 
76 percent of women aged 50-74 years had a mammogram within the past 2 
years.\77\ The high rates of screening already being performed likely 
contributed to the reduced benefits observed for this screening 
activity. Seely and Alhasan (2018) conclude that breast cancer 
mortality is reduced by 40 percent in women 40-74 years of age who get 
screened (Seely (2018), Docket No. 0379). This result seems to be 
strongly driven by a study that followed women from 1990 to 2009, so 
OSHA approximated an annual reduction in deaths of 2.1 percent (0.40/19 
years). Table VII-9 also contains the value of these avoided fatalities 
expected to begin in Year 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ National Cancer Institute. August 2023. Breast Cancer 
Screening. Available at https://progressreport.cancer.gov/detection/breast_cancer. Accessed October 19, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The value of the benefits in Year 1 along with the average 
annualized benefits using a 3 percent and a 7 percent discount rate are 
shown in Table VII-9.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.107


[[Page 7966]]


VII. Benefits From Reducing Cancer Fatalities of Firefighters Through 
General Medical Evaluation and Other Provisions of the Proposed 
Standard
    As noted previously, many researchers have found that firefighters 
have higher rates of incidents and/or mortality for various types of 
cancer compared to the general population. In order to estimate the 
benefits of reduced cancer fatalities other than those being screened 
for and discussed previously, OSHA included a range of potential 
benefits from a reduction in buccal cavity and pharynx cancer based on 
Muegge et al. (2018) estimates of mortality.\78\ For the other types of 
cancer checked for in a general medical evaluation (prostate, 
testicular, thyroid, melanoma), OSHA applied Pinkerton et al.'s (2020) 
estimates of the relative mortality rates of firefighters for cancer in 
general.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Muegge, C.M., Zollinger, T.W., Song, Y., Wessel, J., 
Monahan, P.O., Moffatt, S.M. (2018). Excess mortality among Indiana 
firefighters, 1985-2013. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 
61(12):961-967. Doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22918.
    \79\ Pinkerton, L., Bertke, S.J., Yiin, J., Dahm, M., Kubale, 
T., Hales, T., Purdue, M., Beaumont, J.J., Daniels, R. (2020). 
Mortality in a cohort of US firefighters from San Francisco, 
Chicago, and Philadelphia: an update. Occupational and Environmental 
Medicine 77(2):84-93. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2019-105962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these five cancers, estimates of the mortality rates for the 
general population were from the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) or the American Cancer Society (ACS).\80\ To estimate 
the rates for firefighters, OSHA made adjustments based on the relevant 
findings in the literature of statistically significant mortality rates 
of firefighters relative to the general population by type of cancer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Data for incidence and mortality rates for prostate cancer 
from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/basic_info/
risk_factors.htm#:~:text=Out%20of%20every%20100%20American,increased%
20risk%20for%20prostate%20cancer. Data from ACS for testicular, 
buccal cavity and pharynx, thyroid, and melanoma cancers. For 
example, see https://www.cancer.org/cancer/testicular-cancer/about/
key-
statistics.html#:~:text=Testicular%20cancer%20is%20not%20common,testi
cular%20cancer%20is%20about%2033 (Accessed March 26, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multiplying the calculated mortality rates for firefighters by the 
applicable population of firefighters yielded an estimate of the 
expected number of firefighter deaths from each type of cancer in Year 
1.\81\ Although OSHA was unable to find current research directly 
quantifying the likely reduction in these fatalities from programs 
similar to this proposed standard, the agency believes, for reasons 
discussed in the Health Effects of Emergency Response Activities and 
the Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule sections, that a 
combined effect of improved medical surveillance and more consistent 
and hygienic use of PPE would provide a meaningful reduction in cancer 
mortality among firefighters. In addition, the agency believes the 
enhanced medical surveillance and tracking of worker exposure to 
combustion products will enhance research in this area to optimize 
future cancer reduction. OSHA estimates the proposed standard would 
prevent 20 percent of these cancer fatalities (Table VII-10). OSHA also 
expects a lag in achieving benefits and assumes they will begin in Year 
20. However, this is an area of ongoing research and the agency invites 
comment on this estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ U.S. Fire Administration (USFA). (2020). U.S. Fire 
Administration (USFA) National Fire Department Registry: National 
Data. Available at https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/registry/download 
(Accessed January 13, 2020). The distributions by age and sex were 
based on:
    NFPA (2017). U.S. Fire Department Profile--2015. April 2017. 
Available at https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Fire-statistics/The-fire-service/Administration/US-fire-department-profile (Accessed September 13, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To quantify the benefits of reduced fatalities, OSHA used the value 
of a statistical life (VSL) originally developed by the DOT.\82\ The 
total value of prevented cancer fatalities in Year 20 is $210.6 
million. Table VII-10 also contains the average annualized benefits 
over 50 years using a 3 percent discount rate ($163.6 million) and a 7 
percent discount rate ($88.3 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ U.S. Department of Transportation. (2022). ``Departmental 
Guidance of Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis.'' 
Available at https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7967]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.108

VIII. Summary of Quantified Benefits
    Table VII-11 presents a summary of the quantified benefits of the 
proposed standard in reducing emergency responder fatalities on the 
job, firefighter and EMT suicides, and firefighter fatalities from 
certain types of cancer. The monetization of the reduction in these 
fatalities is based on the VSL developed by DOT. OSHA applied the 
estimates of the cost of injuries from the Viscusi and Gentry 
(2015).\83\ In total, OSHA estimated that the proposed standard would 
prevent an average of approximately 54 fatalities and 11,015 nonfatal 
injuries per year, with an associated value of $1,864.9 million in 2022 
dollars. Assuming these annual benefits would continue for 50 years, 
the average annualized value of the benefits would be $2,628.5 million 
using a 3 percent discount rate and $2,262.3 million using a 7 percent 
discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Viscusi, K. and E.P Gentry. (2015). ``The value of a 
statistical life for transportation regulations: A test of the 
benefits transfer methodology.'' Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 
51:53-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-015-9219-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a sensitivity analysis, OSHA estimated the benefits based on 
assuming a large reduction of certain fatalities and injuries. Table B-
1 in Appendix B shows the estimated benefits for 20, 35, and 50 percent 
reductions of fatalities and injuries. OSHA assumed a 20 percent 
reduction in heart attacks, suicides, and cancer fatalities prevented 
by the general medical evaluation (prostate, testicular, buccal cavity 
and pharynx, thyroid, and melanoma cancers). OSHA also assumed a 50 
percent reduction for safety-related fatalities and nonfatal injuries. 
Based on a 50 percent reduction, average annualized benefits would be 
$3.4 billion using a 3 percent discount rate, and $2.8 billion using a 
7 percent discount rate.

[[Page 7968]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.109

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
IX. Non-Quantified Benefits for Emergency Responders
(i) Reduction in the Incidence of Cancer
    OSHA believes that the proposed standard would reduce both the 
number of fatalities due to cancer and the incidence of cancer among 
firefighters. As previously explained, OSHA believes that research 
exists that can be used to estimate the reduction in fatalities but an 
estimate of the reduction in the number of total cancer cases would be 
more speculative. Additionally, OSHA was unable to develop a monetary 
value of avoided cases of non-fatal cancer as empirically validated as 
that for the fatal cases. Nonetheless, the agency welcomes comment on 
this issue for potential inclusion of these benefits in the Final 
Economic Analysis.
    As previously noted, several studies have found evidence that 
firefighters are more likely to develop certain types of cancer 
compared to the general population. Based on general population 
incidence rates from the ACS with adjustments as determined in the 
studies referenced above, OSHA estimated the number of cancer cases in 
firefighters. (Table VII-6).\84\ OSHA

[[Page 7969]]

believes the proposed standard would prevent some of the 765.4 
estimated cases of cancer diagnosed per year in firefighters but was 
not able to calculate a robust estimate of how many of these cases 
would be prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ The ACS general population estimates, see for example 
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/testicular-cancer/about/key-
statistics.html#:~:text=Testicular%20cancer%20is%20not%20common,testi
cular%20cancer%20is%20about%2033. OSHA primarily used the estimates 
of the incidence rates of cancer for firefighters relative to the 
general population from Lee et al. (2020). Lee et al. provided 
estimates for firefighters for melanoma, thyroid, prostate, and 
testicular cancers. Daniels et al. (2014) found differences in 
incidence rates for buccal cavity and pharynx cancer. Lee, D.J., 
Koru-Sengul, T., Hernandez, M.N., Caban-Martinez, A.J., McClure, 
L.A., Mackinnon, J.A., Kobetz, E.N. (2020). Cancer risk among career 
male and female Florida firefighters: Evidence from the Florida 
Firefighter Cancer Registry (1981-2014). Daniels, R.D., Kubale, 
T.L., Yiin, J.H., Dahm, M.M., Hales, T.R., Baris, D., Zahm, S.H., 
Beaumont, J.J., Waters, K.M., Pinkerton, L.E. (2014). Mortality and 
cancer incidence in a pooled cohort of US firefighters from San 
Francisco, Chicago, and Philadelphia (1950-2009). Occupational and 
Environmental Medicine, 71:388-397. doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2013-101662. The number of in-scope firefighters are from U.S. Fire 
Administration (USFA). (2020). U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) 
National Fire Department Registry: National Data. Available at 
https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/registry/download (Accessed January 13, 
2020). The distributions by age and sex were based on:
    NFPA (2017). U.S. Fire Department Profile--2015. April 2017. 
Available at https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Fire-statistics/The-fire-service/Administration/US-fire-department-profile (Accessed September 13, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Other Non-Quantified Benefits to Society
    While OSHA is estimating the potential costs of vocational training 
and has occupational safety-related benefits included in the analysis, 
it has not quantified the potential spillover value to society from the 
vocational training involved. For example, the NFPA Research Foundation 
estimated the total cost to society of fire and fire protections in the 
U.S. to be over $300 billion, more than $50 billion of which was the 
cost to society of the fires themselves (NFPA, 2017). If the enhanced 
vocational training of firefighting estimated in this analysis resulted 
in even a 1 percent increase in the proficiency of firefighting, that 
would represent a savings to society of over $500 million. The health 
value to society from EMT vocational training is potentially of a 
similar or greater magnitude.

References

American Cancer Society's Cancer Statistics Center (CSC). 2015-2019 
average annual incidence rate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevent Heart Disease. 
Available at https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/prevention.htm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fire Fighter Fatality 
Map. Available at: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/wisards/fffmap/.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Data and Statistics. 
Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/data.html.
Chiuve, S.E., Fung, T.T., Rexrode, K.M., et al. (2011). Adherence to 
a low-risk, healthy lifestyle and risk of sudden cardiac death among 
women. JAMA. 306:62-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.907.
Chiuve, S.E., Rexrode, K.M., D. S, Logroscino, G., Manson, J.E., 
Rimm, E.B. (2008). Primary prevention of stroke by healthy 
lifestyle. Circulation. 118:947-54. https://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.781062.
Daniels, R.D., Kubale, T.L., Yiin, J.H., et al. (2014). Mortality 
and cancer incidence in a pooled cohort of US firefighters from San 
Francisco, Chicago, and Philadelphia (1950-2009). Occup Environ Med. 
71:388-397. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2013-101803.
De Koning, H.J., van der Aalst, C.M., de Jong, P.A., et. Al (2020). 
Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a 
Randomized Trial. The New England Journal of Medicine. 382(6):503-
513.
Firefighter Behavioral Health Alliance (FBHA). (2023). FF, EMS & 
DISP Suicide Deaths by Year & Type. Available at https://www.ffbha.org/ff-ems-suicide-deaths-by-year-type/ but requires 
membership. Validated and verified by personal communication with an 
FBHA representative on May 1.
Hegg-Deloye, S., Brassard, P., Prairie, J., Larouche, D., Jauvin, 
N., Poirier, P., Tremblay, A., Corbeil, P. (2015). Prevalence of 
risk factors for cardiovascular disease in paramedics. International 
archives of occupational and environmental health, 88(7), 973-980. 
https://doi.0rg/10.1007/s00420-015-1028-z.
International Fire Chiefs Association. (2016). Physicals: Your Life 
Depends on Them! Available at https://www.fstaresearch.org/physicals-your-life-depends-on-them/.
Jalilian et al. (2019) Cancer incidence and mortality among 
firefighters. International Journal of Cancer. 145:2639-2646. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.32199.
Lee, D.J., Koru[hyphen]Sengul, T., Hernandez, M.N., et al. (2020). 
Cancer risk among career male and female Florida firefighters: 
Evidence from the Florida Firefighter Cancer Registry (1981-2014). 
Am J Ind Med. 63:285-299. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23086.
Lee, S.J., Boscardin, W.J., Stijacic-Cenzer, I., Conell-Price, J., 
O'Brien, S., Walter, L.C., et al. Time lag to benefit after 
screening for breast and colorectal cancer: meta-analysis of 
survival data from the United States, Sweden, United Kingdom, and 
Denmark BMJ 2013; 346:e8441. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8441 as an 
example of research findings that may be applicable.
Muegge, C.M., Zollinger, T.W., Song, Y., Wessel, J., Monahan, P.O., 
Moffatt, S.M. (2018). Excess mortality among Indiana firefighters, 
1985-2013. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 61(12):961-967. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22918.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). (2017). U.S. Fire 
Department Profile--2015. April 2017. Available at https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Fire-statistics/The-fire-service/Administration/US-fire-department-profile (Accessed September 13, 2018).
Nishihara, R., Wu, K., Lochhead, P., Morikawa, T., Liao, X., Qian, 
Z.R., et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality 
after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1095-105.
Peterson, C., Miller, G.F., Barnett, S.B., Florence, C. Economic 
Cost of Injury--United States, 2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021; 
70:1655-1659. https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7048a1.
Pinkerton, L., Bertke, S.J., Yiin, J., Dahm, M., Kubale, T., Hales, 
T., Purdue, M., Beaumont, J.J., Daniels, R. (2020). Mortality in a 
cohort of US firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago, and 
Philadelphia: an update. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 
77(2):84-93.
Seely, J.M., Alhassan, T. (2018) Screening for breast cancer in 
2018--what should we be doing today? Current Oncology 25(1):S115-
S124.
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration. Fatality and Catastrophe Investigation Summaries. 
Available at: https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/accidentsearch.html.
U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
Occupational Injuries/Illnesses and Fatal Injuries Profiles. 
Available at https://data.bls.gov/gqt/InitialPage.
U.S. Department of Transportation. (2022). Departmental Guidance of 
Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis. Available at 
https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) National Fire Department Registry: 
National Data. (2020). Available at https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/registry/download (Accessed January 13, 2020).
Viscusi, K. and E.P Gentry. (2015). ``The value of a statistical 
life for transportation regulations: A test of the benefits transfer 
methodology.'' Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 51:53-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-015-9219-2.
Witt, K. et al. (2017). Effectiveness of suicide prevention programs 
for emergency and protective services employees: A systematic review 
and meta-analysis. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 
60(4):394-407. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22676.

Appendix A. NIOSH Firefighter Fatalities

    While OSHA is relying on data from the OIS and from NFPA to 
estimate the safety benefits of the rule, NIOSH has also conducted 
extensive analyses of firefighter injuries that parallel OSHA's 
analysis and OSHA believes these merit summarizing here. The agency 
finds these largely parallel the analysis of the OIS and NFPA data 
in terms of the distribution of the cause and nature of the fatal 
injuries. However, OSHA decided against using the NIOSH data to 
estimate the number of firefighter fatalities

[[Page 7970]]

due to issues in identifying volunteers and which fatalities 
occurred in States with OSHA-approved State Plans.
    Between 2007 and 2021, NIOSH reported a total of 1,490 
firefighter on-duty fatalities, an average of 99.33 firefighter 
fatalities per year.\85\ The definition used by NIOSH to categorize 
a fatality as ``on-duty'' was provided by the USFA. The USFA defines 
``on duty'' as ``being at the scene of an alarm, whether a fire or 
non-fire incident; being enroute while responding to or returning 
from an alarm; performing other assigned duties such as training, 
maintenance, public education, inspection, investigations, court 
testimony and fundraising; and being on call, under orders or on 
standby duty other than at home or at the individual's place of 
business.'' The USFA also states that ``fatalities that occur at a 
firefighter's home may be counted if the actions of the firefighter 
at the time of injury involved firefighting or rescue'' (USFA 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ https://wwwn.cdc.gov/wisards/fffmap/. This estimate 
includes 99 Covid-19 related fatalities reported by the USFA for 
years 2020 and 2021; https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/firefighter-fatalities/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During this 15-year period, the leading cause of injury was 
stress/over-exertion, making up nearly 50 percent of total 
fatalities. The USFA places all firefighter fatalities that are 
cardiac or cerebrovascular in nature in this category due to the 
strenuous and physical demands of the work. Of the 741 stress and 
over-exertion fatalities, 665 were heart attacks. NIOSH cites 
undiagnosed medical conditions such as cardiovascular diseases, 
hypertension, and obesity as contributing factors to these 
fatalities.
    Vehicle accidents were the second leading cause of firefighter 
deaths in the NIOSH data, accounting for 14 percent of total 
fatalities. More than 50 percent of the 209 vehicle accident 
fatalities reported occurred when firefighters were responding to an 
emergency. In many of these cases, firefighters were fatally injured 
when fire apparatus collided with roadway objects or overturned from 
traveling at speeds unsafe for vehicle maneuvering, especially 
during unfavorable weather and road conditions. In addition, 
firefighters' failure to wear seatbelts and lack of experience 
operating fire apparatus were also frequently contributors to these 
fatal incidents.
    The leading nature of these fatal injuries or the primary 
physical characteristic that resulted in the death of these 
firefighters was heart attacks, accounting for 45 percent of total 
fatalities, followed by bodily trauma and asphyxiation, at 24 and 7 
percent, respectively.

Appendix B

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7971]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.110


[[Page 7972]]


BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

E. Economic Feasibility Analysis

I. Introduction
    This section estimates the economic impacts of the proposed rule on 
affected employers in the three emergency response service sectors: 
firefighting, emergency medical service, and technical search and 
rescue. The purpose of this analysis is twofold. First, it is used to 
determine whether the proposed rule is economically feasible for all 
entities in the affected emergency response service sectors, and 
second, OSHA will use the results to determine whether the agency can 
certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
II. Analytical Approach
    To determine whether a rule is economically feasible, OSHA 
typically begins by using two screening tests to determine whether the 
costs of the rule are beneath the threshold level at which the economic 
viability of an affected industry might be threatened. As noted in the 
Industry Profile, the proposed rule will impact private entities in all 
states and state and local government entities in States with OSHA-
approved State Plans.\86\ Because a significant proportion of affected 
entities are expected to be state and local government ESOs, the 
determination of economic feasibility discussed in this chapter is 
expanded to include both private and public (state and local 
government) entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ As explained in section VII, Additional Requirements, 
States that have elected voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved 
by the agency pursuant to section 18 of the Act must adopt a 
standard at least as effective as the Federal standard, which must 
apply to State and local government agencies (29 U.S.C. 667(b), 
(c)(2) and (6)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first screening test is a revenue test. In the context of 
public entities, for the screening test, existing emergency 
organization budgets are used as a measure of revenues. While there is 
no hard and fast rule on which to base the threshold, OSHA generally 
considers a rule to be economically feasible for an affected industry 
when the annualized costs of compliance are less than one percent of 
annual revenues for an average firm in that industry. The one-percent 
revenue threshold is intentionally set at a low level so that OSHA can 
confidently assert that the rule is economically feasible for 
industries where the average firm is below the threshold (i.e., 
industries for which the costs of compliance are less than one percent 
of annual revenues). As discussed further later, ultimately the larger 
pool of locality revenue is more analogous to the revenues afforded 
private firms; however, impact screening based on the more limited pre-
assigned budget of the emergency organization will readily expose 
potential constraints facing the organization.
    One complexity to note in the economic impact of the rule is that 
the agency anticipates that part of the cost of the rule will not be 
borne directly by affected emergency response entities but will be 
dispersed widely in the economy because the cost of medical 
examinations will be borne in part by insurance companies and other 
third parties. While these represent costs to society and are reflected 
in the estimated total costs of the rule, they do not pose issues for 
the economic feasibility of the rule to emergency response 
organizations. Details of this are discussed in the Costs chapter.
    The second screening test that OSHA traditionally uses for private 
entities to consider whether a rule is economically feasible for an 
affected industry is if the costs of compliance are less than ten 
percent of annual profits for the average firm in an industry (see, 
e.g., OSHA's economic analysis of its Silica rule, 81 FR 16286, 16533 
(March 25, 2016); upheld in N. Am. Bldg. Trades Unions v. OSHA, 878 
F.3d 271, 300 (D.C. Cir. 2017)). The ten-percent profit test is also 
intended to be at a sufficiently low level to allow OSHA to identify 
industries that might require further examination. For public entities, 
OSHA considers the costs of compliance compared to the revenue for the 
entire locality as an alternative revenue measure to assess regulatory 
impacts. To the extent that a city or town's budget can be reallocated 
to different functions, this approach may result in a better 
representation of how the costs of the proposed rule might impact a 
given government entity. There has been no threshold established for 
public entities equivalent to the ten-percent profits threshold for 
private entities, but the agency invites comment on what would 
reasonably apply to the public sector.
    When an industry ``passes'' both the ``cost-to-revenue'' and 
``cost-to-profit'' screening tests, OSHA is assured that the costs of 
compliance with the rule are economically feasible for firms in that 
industry. A rule is not necessarily economically infeasible, however, 
for firms in industries where the average firm does not pass the 
initial revenue screening test (i.e., those for which the costs of 
compliance with the rule are one percent or more of annual revenues), 
the initial profit screening test (i.e., those for which the costs of 
compliance are ten percent or more of annual profits), or both. 
Instead, OSHA normally views those industries as requiring additional 
examination as to whether the rule would be economically feasible (see 
N. Am. Bldg. Trades Unions v. OSHA, 878 F.3d at 291).
III. Impacts
A. Impacts and Economic Feasibility Screening Analysis--All 
Establishments
    Previous chapters of this PEA present summary profile information 
of the number of potentially affected ESOs, WEREs, responders, and team 
members as well as the costs of the proposed rule by provision and 
responder or team member type. As shown in the Costs chapter, the 
training and medical requirements provisions contribute the most to the 
overall cost of the proposed rule.
    To determine whether the proposed rule's projected costs of 
compliance would threaten the economic viability of affected emergency 
response service sectors, OSHA first compared, for the average firm in 
each sector, annualized compliance costs to annual revenues and profits 
for private organizations and annualized compliance costs to annual 
revenues (represented by ESO budgets) and locality revenues per 
(average) affected public organization. Table VII-E-2 and Table VII-E-3 
show economic impacts for all public and private organizations, 
respectively, where total costs include one-time and annual costs 
annualized using a 3 percent discount rate. The estimated average 
annualized cost per public organization is $17,012, while the estimated 
average annualized cost per private organization is $22,464.
    OSHA estimated revenues as follows:
    Firefighting Services: To estimate public fire department revenue 
by department type (career, volunteer, and mixed), OSHA used data from 
Firehouse Magazine's (2022) 2021 National Run Survey, 2021 Volunteer 
Fire Department Run Survey, and 2021 Combination Fire Department Run 
Survey, respectively. Each of these surveys presents statistics on 
funding and staffing.\87\ In order to extrapolate from these fire 
departments to the entire universe of public fire departments in the 
U.S., OSHA calculated the median budget per employee for each 
department type and multiplied that estimate by the number

[[Page 7973]]

of firefighters in each size class as reported in the fire department 
profile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ The National Run Survey includes 229 fire departments; the 
Volunteer Fire Department Run Survey includes 259 fire departments; 
and the Combination Fire Department Run Survey includes 94 fire 
departments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For private fire departments, OSHA conducted an internet search for 
NAICS codes linked to a randomly designated subset of the entities 
recorded as either a ``contract fire department'' or ``private or 
industrial fire brigade'' in the National Fire Registry database (USFA, 
2022).\88\ OSHA compared revenue per firm estimates from the 2017 SUSB 
dataset for these NAICS codes and used the 25th percentile revenue per 
firm estimate ($16,664,010 in 2022 dollars) as representative of 
revenues for all private entities in the National Fire Registry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ The National Fire Registry does not list NAICS codes 
associated with each organization in the database. Since there are 
435 organizations listed as ``contract fire department'' or 
``private or industrial fire brigade'' in the Registry, OSHA 
determined that a subset of organizations could be taken as 
representative. OSHA used the 25th percentile revenue estimate as 
representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate revenues for private wildland fire service 
organizations, OSHA used revenue and employment data from the U.S. 
Census Bureau's (2021) 2017 SUSB for NAICS 115310 Support Activities 
for Forestry, dividing the total revenue figure by total employment to 
estimate revenue per employee ($154,471). This estimate was then 
multiplied by the number of wildland firefighters in each employee 
class size from section V (Industry Profile) to determine revenues in 
each employee class size. These estimates are then inflated to 2022 
dollars using the Bureau of Economic Analysis' (BEA, 2023) implicit 
price deflators for gross domestic product. OSHA used state-level 
revenue data from the Survey of State and Local Government Finances 
(2022) and inflated to 2022 dollars using the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis' (BEA, 2023) implicit price deflators for gross domestic 
product for state governments that utilize inmate firefighters.
    Emergency Medical Services (EMS): Emergency medical service revenue 
were estimated using revenue data from the U.S. Census Bureau's (2021) 
2017 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) for detailed employment size 
classes in NAICS 621910 Ambulance Services, inflating those data to 
2022 dollars using the Bureau of Economic Analysis' (BEA, 2023) 
implicit price deflators for gross domestic product.
    Technical Search and Rescue: Derivation of technical search and 
rescue revenues involves characterization of wilderness and urban 
search and rescue entities as well as additional technical water rescue 
entities. For the former, OSHA used police department expenditures data 
from the U.S. Census Bureau's (2022) 2017 Annual Survey of State and 
Local Government Finances, as well as employment data from the Bureau 
of Justice Statistics (2022) Census of State and Local Law Enforcement 
Agencies for 2018. Using these two sources, OSHA calculated the average 
expenditure per employee and multiplied this estimate by the number of 
public wilderness and urban search and rescue group members derived in 
section V (Industry Profile) for each employee class size. These 
estimates are then inflated to 2022 dollars using the Bureau of 
Economic Analysis' (BEA, 2023) implicit price deflators for gross 
domestic product. OSHA also estimated revenues for private wilderness 
and urban search and rescue groups by identifying a subset of these 
entities and obtaining annual sales for them in DemographicsNow. OSHA 
then extrapolated the revenues of this subset of entities to the full 
profile of private wilderness and urban search and groups identified in 
section V.
    To estimate technical water rescue entity revenue, OSHA used the 
median budget of all career fire departments from the Firehouse 
Magazine's (2022) 2021 National Run Survey, inflated to 2022 dollars 
using the Bureau of Economic Analysis's (BEA, 2023) implicit price 
deflators for gross domestic product. OSHA's rationale for using career 
fire departments budgets to estimate technical water rescue entity 
revenue is explained in the Industry Profile. This estimate was 
multiplied by the number of employees within each employee class size 
as shown in section V (Industry Profile).
    OSHA estimated profits and locality revenues for these emergency 
response service sectors as follows:
    OSHA estimated before-tax profit rates using corporate balance 
sheet data from the Internal Revenue Service's Corporation Source Book 
(IRS, 2016).\89\ For each of the years 2000 through 2013, OSHA 
calculated profit rates as the ratio of total receipts to net income by 
NAICS code and averaged profit rates across the fourteen-year (2000-
2013) period. Since some data provided by the IRS were not available at 
disaggregated levels for all industries and profit rates, data at more 
highly aggregated levels were used as proxy for such industries--that 
is, where data were not available for each six-digit NAICS code, 
corresponding 4- and 5-digit NAICS codes were used as appropriate. 
Table VII-E-1 presents the NAICS codes and profit rates used for each 
emergency response service sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ At the time of this analysis, this source was the most 
recent publicly available dataset on industry-wide profit rates at 
the NAICS level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate locality revenues, the agency used U.S. Census Bureau 
(2022) data on local government finances, which breaks down 
expenditures for various functions for local governments in the U.S. 
and by state. OSHA used the ratio of expenditures for current 
operations ($1.5 trillion) to expenditures for fire protection ($50 
billion), a multiplier of approximately 30, to inflate estimated 
revenue per public ESO to estimated total expenditures.

[[Page 7974]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.111

    As previously discussed, OSHA has established a minimum threshold 
level of annualized costs equal to one percent of annual revenues--and, 
secondarily, annualized costs equal to ten percent of annual profits--
below which the agency has concluded that costs are unlikely to 
threaten the economic viability of an affected sector. Table VII-E-2 
shows that costs as a percent of locality revenues for public 
organizations generally range from less than 0.01 percent to 0.16 
percent. Public volunteer fire departments are the only emergency 
response service group with costs as a percent of revenues estimated to 
exceed the one percent revenue test, at an estimated 4.99% of revenues. 
In most situations, OSHA expects that the affected community would be 
able to allocate the very small additional share of the locality 
revenues necessary to permit the fire department to comply with the 
standard. However, the agency welcomes comments, information, and data 
on the feasibility of compliance for these entities.
    Table VII-E-3 shows that all private emergency response service 
sectors have costs that are less than one percent of revenues and ten 
percent of profits.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7975]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.112


[[Page 7976]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.113

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
B. Impacts and Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis--Small 
Entities
    The discussion in the preceding section focused on the economic 
viability of each sector overall. This section considers the potential 
impact of the proposed rule specifically on small organizations. The 
RFA requires Federal agencies to consider the economic

[[Page 7977]]

impact that a proposed rulemaking will have on small entities. The RFA 
states that whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a general 
notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule, the agency must 
prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis (IRFA). 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Pursuant to section 
605(b), in lieu of an IRFA, the head of an agency may certify that the 
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The agency performed the 
following screening analysis to determine whether it can certify that 
the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    Again, OSHA used a minimum threshold level of annualized costs 
equal to one percent of annual revenues--and, secondarily, annualized 
costs equal to ten percent of annual profits--below which the agency 
has concluded that the costs are unlikely to threaten the survival of 
small organizations. Compliance costs for organizations meeting the RFA 
or SBA definition of a small entity were calculated using compliance 
cost estimates for each provision of the proposed rule for each 
emergency response service sector.
    Table VII-E-4 and Table VII-E-5 show economic impacts for 
organizations considered small by RFA (public organizations) and SBA 
(private organizations) definitions, respectively, where total costs 
include one-time and annual costs annualized using a 3 percent discount 
rate. The estimated average annualized cost per small public 
organization is $15,027, while the estimated average annualized cost 
per small private organization is $22,073. These average costs vary by 
emergency sector and organization type (career, volunteer, and mixed). 
For small public organizations, the estimated average cost ranges from 
$9,040 for volunteer technical search and rescue groups to $30,660 for 
volunteer emergency medical services. Small volunteer and mixed public 
fire departments are estimated to experience costs that exceed one 
percent of revenues. Costs as a percentage of locality revenues are 
estimated to vary from 0.01 percent or less for several public 
emergency response organizations to 0.17 percent for volunteer public 
fire departments. For private organizations, the estimated average cost 
per organization varies from $7,956 for technical search and rescue 
groups to $26,090 for both volunteer and mixed responder emergency 
medical services. All groups are estimated to incur costs that are less 
than one percent of revenues. Small private emergency medical services 
are estimated to experience costs that exceed ten percent of profits.
    Based on these findings, OSHA is unable to certify that the 
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities and has therefore prepared an 
IRFA, to further examine issues related to small entities and the 
proposed rule. The IRFA is presented in Chapter F of this PEA.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7978]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.114


[[Page 7979]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.115


[[Page 7980]]


BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

F. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

I. Introduction
    The RFA requires Federal agencies to consider the economic impact 
that a proposed rulemaking will have on small entities. The RFA states 
that whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a general notice 
of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule, the agency must prepare 
and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (IRFA). 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Pursuant to section 605(b), in lieu 
of an IRFA, the head of an agency may certify that the proposed rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. A certification must be supported by a factual basis. 
If the head of an agency makes a certification, the agency shall 
publish such certification in the Federal Register at the time of 
publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking or at the time 
of publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    To determine whether OSHA can certify that the proposed emergency 
response rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the agency has developed 
screening tests to consider minimum threshold effects of the proposed 
rule on small entities. These screening tests are similar in concept to 
the revenue and profit tests described in Preliminary Economic Analysis 
and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, section VII.E., to 
identify minimum threshold effects for purposes of demonstrating 
economic feasibility. For private entities, there are two differences. 
First, for each affected industry, the screening tests are applied, not 
to all establishments, but to small entities (called ``small business 
concerns'' by SBA). Second, although OSHA's regulatory flexibility 
screening test for revenues also uses a minimum threshold level of 
annualized costs equal to one percent of annual revenues, OSHA has 
established a minimum threshold level of annualized costs equal to five 
percent of annual profits for the average small entity. The agency has 
chosen a lower minimum threshold level for the profitability screening 
analysis and has applied its screening tests to small entities to 
ensure that certification will be made, and an IRFA will not be 
prepared, only if OSHA can be highly confident that a proposed rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities in any affected industry.
    As stated in Chapter VI, OSHA is not able to certify that the 
proposed rule will not result in a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, thus triggering the need for an 
IRFA. Under the provisions of the RFA, as amended in 1996, each such 
analysis shall contain:
    1. A description of the impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities;
    2. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being 
considered;
    3. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
the proposed rule;
    4. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
    5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the 
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record;
    6. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant 
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed rule; and
    7. A description and discussion of any significant alternatives to 
the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable 
statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities, such as:
    (a) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting 
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources 
available to small entities;
    (b) The clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities;
    (c) The use of performance rather than design standards; and
    (d) An exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 
for such small entities.
    5 U.S.C. 603, 607. The RFA further states that the required 
elements of the IRFA may be performed in conjunction with or as part of 
any other agenda or analysis required by any other law if such other 
analysis satisfies the provisions of the IRFA. 5 U.S.C. 605. The 
remaining sections of this chapter address each of the components 
listed above.
II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
A. Description of the Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities
    The potential small entity impacts of the proposed rule were 
derived and presented in Chapter VI. Table VII-E-4 of that chapter 
shows that small public volunteer and mixed fire departments are 
estimated to experience costs that exceed one percent of revenues. 
Costs as a percentage of locality revenues are estimated to vary from 
0.01 percent or less for several types of public emergency response 
organizations to 0.17 percent for volunteer public fire departments. 
Additionally, Table VII-E-5 shows that small private wildland fire 
service and emergency medical service organizations, are estimated to 
experience costs that exceed five percent of profits. Note that the 
costs in these tables were annualized using a 3 percent discount rate.
B. Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being 
Considered
    Emergency response workers in America face considerable 
occupational health and safety hazards in dynamic and often 
unpredictable work environments. Current OSHA emergency response and 
preparedness standards are outdated and incomplete. Specifically, the 
standards do not address the full range of hazards facing emergency 
responders, lag behind changes in protective equipment performance and 
industry practices, and conflict with current industry consensus 
standards. OSHA's current fire brigade standard, 29 CFR 1910.156, was 
promulgated in 1980 and has only had minor revisions since then.
    Every day, the duties of an emergency responder may require making 
life and death decisions. A typical workday of an emergency responder 
could range from responding to a mild medical emergency to a more 
severe incident such as a multi-building fire. In doing their jobs of 
protecting the public, personal and real property, and the environment, 
emergency responders risk exposing themselves to safety and health 
hazards that may lead to injuries, illnesses, and death.
    Some of the most common hazards emergency responders may face 
include:
     vehicle collisions while traveling to or from emergency 
incidents;
     falls from heights due to structural or building 
collapses;
     being struck by, caught in between, or crushed by falling 
objects and debris;
     burns and other injuries from flashovers and backdrafts;
     exposure to extreme temperatures, both hot and cold;
     excessive noise exposure;
     exposure to carbon monoxide and other toxic chemicals;
     oxygen depletion and inadequate fresh air to breathe; and
     over-exertion due to lifting heavy objects, wearing heavy 
protective

[[Page 7981]]

equipment, repetitive motion, and other similar activities.
    Long-term exposure to the various hazards found at emergency 
incidents may lead not only to physical ailments among responders, but 
to mental health issues as well. Some longer-term adverse health 
effects may potentially be associated with the duties of emergency 
responders include:
     infectious diseases;
     cardiovascular diseases due to environmental stressors and 
exposures;
     cancer due to exposure to combustion products, asbestos, 
carcinogens, and other chemicals; and
     stress, PTSD, depression, anxiety, and suicidality 
resulting from exposure to traumatic events including workplace 
violence.
    As described in the benefits analysis in Chapter VII (see Table 
VII-10), OSHA estimates that approximately 250 fatalities and 
approximately 22,000 non-fatal injuries among emergency responders 
occur annually.
C. Statement of the Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule
    The objective of the proposed rule is to reduce the number of 
injuries, illnesses, and fatalities occurring among emergency 
responders in the course of their work. This objective will be achieved 
by requiring employers to establish risk management plans, provide 
training and medical surveillance, establish medical and physical 
requirements, develop standard operating procedures, and provide other 
protective measures enabling emergency responders to perform their 
duties safely. The legal basis for the rule is the responsibility 
delegated to the Secretary of Labor by the Occupational Safety and 
Health (OSH) Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). The OSH Act was 
enacted ``to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in 
the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our 
human resources.'' 29 U.S.C. 651(b). The legal authority for issuing 
safety and health standards is found in section 6(b) of the OSH Act (29 
U.S.C. 655).
    The OSH Act imposes a number of requirements OSHA must satisfy 
before adopting a safety standard. Among other things, the standard 
must be highly protective, materially reduce a significant risk to 
workers, be technologically feasible, and be economically feasible. See 
58 FR 16612, 16614-16 (Mar. 30, 1993); Int'l Union, United Auto., 
Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668-
69 (D.C. Cir. 1994). A standard is technologically feasible if the 
protective measures it requires already exist, can be brought into 
existence with available technology, or can be created with technology 
that can reasonably be expected to be developed. United Steelworkers of 
Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In determining 
economic feasibility, OSHA must consider the cost of compliance on an 
industry rather than on individual employers. In the preliminary and 
final economic analyses, OSHA follows the advice of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to ``construct a reasonable estimate of 
compliance costs and demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that these 
costs will not threaten the existence or competitive structure of an 
industry.'' Id.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rule Will Apply
    As described above, Chapter VI of this PEA presents OSHA's 
preliminary analysis of the impacts associated with this proposed rule, 
including an analysis of the type and number of small entities to which 
the proposed rule would apply. To estimate the number of small entities 
potentially affected by this rulemaking, OSHA used definitions 
developed by SBA for each emergency services sector as well as the 
definition of a small government according to the RFA. OSHA estimates 
that approximately 21,000 small entities would be affected by the 
proposed rule. Across these small entities, roughly 833,000 emergency 
responders would be protected by the proposed rule.
E. Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
    Table VII-F-1 shows the average costs per small entity for each 
provision of the rule by organization type for public entities. Across 
all provisions of the proposed rule, the average public fire department 
is estimated to incur costs of $14,766 annually. The costs differ 
slightly across department type, ranging from $14,397 annually for all-
volunteer departments to $15,389 annually for mixed fire departments. 
The average public emergency medical service organization is estimated 
to incur costs of $24,180 annually. Among emergency medical services 
ESO types, the average annual cost varies from $21,397 for mixed 
organizations to $30,660 for volunteer organizations. Technical search 
and rescue groups are estimated to incur costs of $9,419 on average 
annually, with career organizations incurring costs of $14,266 annually 
and volunteer organizations incurring costs of $9,040 annually. 
Training is the most expensive provision for fire departments and 
emergency medical services, accounting for 35 and 46 percent of costs 
overall, respectively. The program evaluation provision is the most 
expensive provision for technical search and rescue groups, accounting 
for 25 percent of their overall costs on average. The second most 
expensive provision for fire departments and technical search and 
rescue groups is the medical and physical requirements provision, which 
accounts for 16 and 14 percent of costs overall, respectively. For 
emergency medical services, the second most expensive provision is the 
post incident analysis provision, which accounts for 13 percent of 
their overall costs under the proposed rule.
    Table VII-F-2 presents the average costs per small entity for each 
provision of the rule by organization type for private entities. WEREs 
are estimated to incur costs of $16,097 on average annually. Private 
fire departments are expected to spend $15,100 on average annually to 
comply with the proposed standard, with a range of $13,702 annually for 
volunteer fire departments to $18,670 annually for mixed departments. 
Private wildland fire services are estimated to incur compliance costs 
of $17,909 annually. Emergency medical service organizations are 
expected to spend $25,359 on average annually to comply with the 
proposed rule, with career EMS entities estimated to spend $24,167 on 
average and both volunteer and mixed emergency medical services 
entities expected to spend $26,090. The average technical search and 
rescue group would spend an estimated $7,956 annually. Training is the 
costliest provision of the proposed rule for all private emergency 
response service sector entities except for technical search and rescue 
groups, with costs ranging from 36 to 52 percent in total costs, 
depending on the ESO or WERE type and sector (excluding technical 
search and rescue; this group's training costs are estimated to account 
for 12 percent of their overall costs). For technical search and rescue 
groups, the most expensive provision of the proposed rule is the 
program evaluation provision, accounting for 21 percent of overall 
costs. The second most expensive provision for all private emergency 
response service sector entities except WEREs is the medical and 
physical requirements provision, accounting for 11 to 16 percent of 
costs overall, depending on the sector. For WEREs, the second most 
expensive provision is the equipment and PPE

[[Page 7982]]

provision, which accounts for 14 percent of the average WERE's costs.
    OSHA welcomes comment on this analysis and these findings. While 
the RFA requires OSHA to show impacts on small entities and defines 
small government entities as those serving populations of less than 
50,000, it is possible that, given the unique circumstances of 
volunteer fire departments, some other approach may be more useful for 
purposes of OSHA's analysis. Are there additional analyses that the 
agency should develop to demonstrate economic feasibility and 
illustrate economic impacts on small entities? If so, what analyses 
would be most useful for understanding the potential impacts on small 
entities? In addition, there appear to be limitations on the systematic 
data available to develop such analyses, particularly as they might 
focus on smaller governmental jurisdictions. The agency would welcome 
any suggestions in this area.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7983]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.116


[[Page 7984]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.117


[[Page 7985]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.118


[[Page 7986]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.119


[[Page 7987]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.120


[[Page 7988]]


BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
F. Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule
    OSHA has identified several Federal rules and guidelines that 
address emergency responders. Below, the agency discusses whether these 
rules and guidelines would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed regulatory language.
    The first set of Federal rules or guidelines that OSHA identified 
are regulations promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 
NRC fire protection regulations specify requirements for fire brigades 
at nuclear reactor facilities. See 10 CFR 50.48 and appendix R.III(H) 
and (I).
    OSHA and the NRC have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) pursuant 
to which the NRC has authority and responsibility for hazards related 
to radioactive materials, including facility conditions that could 
affect the safety of radioactive materials by, for example, causing a 
fire. Under the MOU, OSHA has authority and responsibility for 
industrial safety and health hazards not related to the use of 
radioactive materials. MOU (Sept. 6, 2013). Thus, pursuant to the MOU, 
the proposed standard would apply at nuclear reactor facilities to the 
extent it covers hazards not related to the use of radioactive 
materials.
    The second set of Federal rules or guidelines that OSHA identified 
are regulations promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA). The FAA establishes requirements for aircraft rescue and 
firefighting. (14 CFR 139.315, 139.317, 139.319)
    Pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1), 
and the Supreme Court's decision in Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 
534 U.S. 235 (2002), OSHA's regulations are preempted if they conflict 
with an exercise of authority by another Federal agency to address 
working conditions under that agency's jurisdiction. Therefore, to the 
extent the FAA has exercised authority to regulate emergency response 
activities covered by the proposed standard that fall under FAA 
jurisdiction, the proposed standard would be preempted.
    The third set of Federal rules or guidelines that OSHA identified 
are standards and a practice model put out by the National Highway 
Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), part of the Department of 
Transportation (DOT). NHTSA establishes standards for EMS providers and 
EMS training curriculums.
    There would be no conflict between OSHA's proposed standard and the 
NHTSA standards and practice model because the NHTSA standards and 
practice model recommend practices but do not carry the force of law. 
Such non-mandatory guidelines do not constitute rules that would 
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with a rule as outlined in the proposed 
standard. Cf. Ensign-Bickford Co. v. OSHRC, 717 F.2d 1419, 1421 (D.C. 
Cir. 1983) (agency regulates working conditions only if it ``implements 
[a] regulatory apparatus''); Marshall v. Northwest Orient Airlines, 
Inc., 574 F.2d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1978) (``sister agency must actually 
be exercising a power to regulate safety conditions''). There would 
also be no conflict because OSHA's proposed standard would be 
performance-based and is intended to ensure that employers adopt and 
implement practices and training requirements that are consistent with 
the NHTSA standards.
    The fourth set of Federal rules or guidelines that OSHA identified 
apply to the mining industry which is regulated by the Mine Safety and 
Health Administration (MSHA). MSHA regulations have extensive 
provisions for emergency incidents in mines including the enhanced 
emergency response and rescue requirements established by the Mine 
Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (MINER Act).
    Upon the creation of MSHA in 1977, OSHA and MSHA entered into an 
interagency agreement to delineate authority between them. The 
agreement stipulates that OSHA does not have jurisdiction where MSHA 
regulations apply. As such, there is no conflict between OSHA's 
proposed standard and MSHA's emergency response regulations.
    The final set of Federal rules or guidelines that OSHA identified 
are existing OSHA standards that cover emergency response activities. 
OSHA has reviewed existing standards and determined that no standard 
conflicts or overlaps with the proposed Emergency Response standard. To 
the extent other standards are applicable, they are complementary of 
the proposed standard.
G. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
    This section first presents OSHA's responses to recommendations 
made by the SBREFA panel in response to comments made by SERs to 
potentially alleviate impacts on small entities. Next, the agency 
presents four regulatory alternatives to the proposed OSHA emergency 
response rule.
(i) SBREFA Panel Recommendations
    Table VII-F-3 lists the SBAR Panel recommendations and OSHA's 
responses to these recommendations.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7989]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.121


[[Page 7990]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.122


[[Page 7991]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.123


[[Page 7992]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.124


[[Page 7993]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.125

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

[[Page 7994]]

(ii) Regulatory Alternatives
    This section discusses four regulatory alternatives considered by 
OSHA for the proposed rule. Each regulatory alternative presented here 
is described and analyzed relative to the proposed rule and addresses 
the costs and benefits to all entities.
    Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 change the threshold at which responders 
would qualify for the full medical exam requirement of the proposed 
standard. While the proposed rule sets this threshold at 15 combustion 
products exposure events per year, these alternatives set the threshold 
at one (alternative 1), ten (alternative 2), and thirty (alternative 3) 
combustion product exposure events per year. Alternative 4 would 
require that all responders, regardless of the number of times a 
responder is exposed to combustion products, undergo the full medical 
exam.
    Table VII-F-4. presents the total annualized costs and incremental 
costs for each regulatory alternative. Alternative 4, where all 
responders receive the full NFPA 1582 exam, is the costliest, with ESOs 
incurring an additional $164.5 million annually compared to the 
proposed rule. The least costly alternative would set the number of 
exposure events at 30 per year, which results in approximately $13.2 
million less in compliance costs per year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.126

    Table VII-F-5 presents the estimated number and monetized benefits 
of fatalities and non-fatal injuries avoided by each of the four 
alternatives, compared to the proposed rule. As shown in the table, the 
alternatives only affect the number of fatalities that would be avoided 
by the proposed rule.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 7995]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.127


[[Page 7996]]


III. Net Benefits
    Combining the results of the calculations in the Costs of 
Compliance and Benefits sections, OSHA estimates that the proposed rule 
would result in annualized net benefits (i.e., benefits minus costs) of 
approximately $2 billion, with the results varying somewhat depending 
on the discount rate. The calculation is presented in Table VII-F-6.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.128

    OSHA has also estimated the unannualized stream of benefits and 
costs over the next 50 years, as shown in Table VII-F-7.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.129


[[Page 7997]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.130

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

VIII. Additional Requirements

A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule according to the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. Section 202 of the 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1532(a), requires agencies to assess the anticipated 
costs and benefits of a rule before issuing ``any general notice of 
proposed rulemaking'' that includes a Federal mandate that may result 
in expenditures in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of at least 
$100 million, adjusted annually for inflation. In 2023, that threshold 
is $177 million.
    This proposed rule does not place a mandate on State or local 
government, for purposes of the UMRA, because the agency's standards do 
not apply to State and local governments (29 U.S.C. 652(5)). States 
that have elected voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved by the 
agency must adopt a standard at least as effective as the Federal 
standard, which must apply to State and local government agencies (29 
U.S.C. 667(b), (c)(2) and (6)).
    The OSH Act does not cover tribal governments in the performance of 
traditional governmental functions, such as firefighting, EMS, and 
search and rescue for the tribe in general. Reich v. Mashantucket Sand 
& Gravel, 95 F.3d 174, 180 (2nd Cir. 1996) (traditionally governmental 
activities are excepted from the rule that general Federal statutes 
apply to tribes); cf. Snyder v. Navajo Nation, 382 F.3d 892, 895 (9th 
Cir. 2004) (Fair Labor Standards Act does not apply to tribal police 
because the maintenance of law and order is a traditional governmental 
function). However, when tribes engage in activities of a commercial or 
service character, such as firefighting, EMS, and search and rescue for 
particular commercial enterprises, like casinos and sawmills, they are 
subject to general Federal statutes, including the OSH Act. Menominee 
Tribal Enters. v. Solis, 601 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2010) (OSH Act applies 
to tribal sawmill); Mashantucket Sand & Gravel, 95 F.3d at 180; Smart 
v. State Farm Ins. Co., 868 F.2d 929 (7th Cir. 1989) (original version 
of Employment Retirement Income Security Act applied to tribal health 
center). However, this proposed rule would not require tribal 
governments to expend, in the aggregate, $100 million or more in any 
one year for these activities. As noted below, OSHA also reviewed this 
rulemaking in accordance with Executive Order 13175 on Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249 (November 9, 
2000)) and determined that it does not have ``tribal implications'' as 
defined in that Executive order.
    Based on the analysis presented in the Preliminary Economic 
Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, section VII. of 
this preamble, OSHA concludes that the proposed rule would impose a 
Federal mandate on the private sector of $100 million or more annually, 
adjusted for inflation. The Preliminary Economic Analysis constitutes 
the written statement containing a qualitative and quantitative 
assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits required under section 
202(a) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532).

B. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments/
Executive Order 13175

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order 
13175 (E.O. 13175), Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000), and determined that it does 
not have ``tribal implications'' as defined in that order. Section 5 of 
the Executive order requires agencies to consult with tribal officials 
early in the process of developing regulations that: (1) have tribal 
implications, impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian 
governments, and are not required by statute; or (2) have tribal 
implications and preempt tribal law (E.O. 13175 section 5(b), (c)). The 
Executive order requires that such consultation occur to the extent 
practicable.
    As explained above, the OSH Act does not cover tribal governments 
in the performance of traditional governmental functions, so the 
proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes in their sovereign capacity, on the relationship between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes (see E.O. 13175 section 1(a)). However, employees performing, 
for example, firefighting and search and rescue for particular tribal 
commercial enterprises,

[[Page 7998]]

would receive the same protections and benefits of the standard as all 
other covered employees.
    On June 20, 2023, OSHA held a listening session with tribal 
representatives regarding this Emergency Response rulemaking. OSHA 
provided an overview of the rulemaking effort and invited comments and 
questions from tribal representatives. A summary of the meeting and 
list of attendees can be viewed in the docket (Document ID 0154).

C. Environmental Impacts/National Environmental Policy Act

    OSHA reviewed the proposed rule according to the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the 
regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR 
chapter V, subchapter A, and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures, 
29 CFR part 11. The agency has preliminarily determined that the 
proposed rule would have no impact on air, water, or soil quality; 
plant or animal life; the use of land; or other aspects of the external 
environment. Therefore, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed 
rule will have no significant environmental impacts.

D. Consensus Standards

    OSHA must consider adopting existing national consensus standards 
that differ substantially from OSHA's proposed standard if the 
consensus standard would better effectuate the purposes of the Act (see 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 
104-113, section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 Note; see also 29 U.S.C. 
655(b)(8)). Whenever an OSHA rule differs substantially from a national 
consensus standard, OSHA must publish in the Federal Register a 
statement of the reasons why the rule will better effectuate the 
purposes of the Act than the national consensus standard (29 U.S.C. 
655(b)(8)). In the development of the proposed rule, OSHA relied 
heavily on NFPA national consensus standards. Many of the proposed 
provisions are based on or consistent with NFPA standards. Where a 
proposed provision does deviate substantially from the relevant 
consensus standard, OSHA has explained the departure in the Summary and 
Explanation of the Proposed Rule for that provision (see Section V. of 
this preamble).

E. Executive Order 13045 (Protecting Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks)

    Executive Order 13045 (E.O. 13045), on Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, as amended by Executive 
Orders 13229 and 13296, requires that Federal agencies provide 
additional evaluation of economically significant regulatory actions 
that concern an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has 
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children. This proposed 
rule is intended to protect emergency responders from occupational 
hazards. OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed rule will 
not disproportionately affect children or have any adverse impact on 
children. Accordingly, E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, requires no further agency 
action or analysis.

F. Federalism

    The agency reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive 
Order 13132 (E.O. 13132) on Federalism, which requires that Federal 
agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy 
options, consult with States before taking actions that would restrict 
States' policy options, and take such actions only when required by 
statute or when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem 
is of national scope (64 FR 43255, (August 10, 1999)). The Executive 
Order generally allows Federal agencies to preempt State law only as 
provided by Congress or where State law conflicts with Federal law. In 
such cases, Federal agencies must limit preemption of State law to the 
extent possible.
    The Occupational Safety and Health Act is an exercise of Congress's 
Commerce Clause authority, and under section 18 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 
667, Congress expressly provided that States may adopt, with Federal 
approval, a plan for the development and enforcement of occupational 
safety and health standards. OSHA refers to the occupational safety and 
health plans that have been submitted by States and approved by OSHA as 
``State Plans.'' Occupational safety and health standards developed by 
State Plans must be at least as effective in providing safe and 
healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal standards. 
Subject to these requirements, State Plans are free to develop and 
enforce their own occupational safety and health standards.
    This proposed rule complies with E.O. 13132. The hazards addressed 
by this proposed rule and its goal of protecting firefighters and other 
emergency responders are national in scope. As explained in the Need 
for the Standard (Section II.A of this preamble), firefighters and 
other emergency responders face a significant risk of harm, and a 
national standard is necessary to ensure that a uniform, baseline 
approach is taken to protect them. Accordingly, the rulemaking 
establishes minimum requirements for employers in every State to 
protect these workers.
    In States without OSHA-approved State Plans, Congress provided for 
OSHA standards to preempt State occupational safety and health 
standards for issues addressed by the Federal standards. In these 
States, this rulemaking limits State policy options in the same manner 
as every standard promulgated by the agency. Furthermore, public-sector 
fire departments and other public-sector emergency response providers 
in these States are not subject to the OSH Act. 29 U.S.C. 652(5). The 
following section addresses the effect of the proposed rule on States 
with OSHA-approved State Plans.

G. Requirements for States With OSHA-Approved State Plans

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent 
amendment to an existing standard, OSHA-approved State Plans must 
either amend their standards to be identical to or ``at least as 
effective as'' the new standard or amendment or show that an existing 
State Plan standard covering this area is already ``at least as 
effective'' as the new Federal standard or amendment. 29 CFR 1953.5(b). 
State Plan adoption must be completed within six months of the 
promulgation date of the final Federal rule.
    OSHA preliminarily concludes that this proposed rule would increase 
protections beyond those provided by current standards, including 29 
CFR 1910.156. Therefore, within six months of any final rule's 
promulgation date, State Plans would be required to adopt standards 
that are identical or ``at least as effective'' as this rule, unless 
they demonstrate that such amendments are not necessary because their 
existing permanent standards are already ``at least as effective'' in 
protecting workers. To avoid delays in worker protection, the effective 
date of the State standard and any of its delayed provisions must be 
the date of State promulgation or the Federal effective date, whichever 
is later. The Assistant Secretary may

[[Page 7999]]

permit a longer time period if the State timely demonstrates that good 
cause exists for extending the time limitation (29 CFR 1953.5(a)).
    As with all non-identical State Plan standards, State Plans must 
submit to Federal OSHA for approval standards that differ from Federal 
standards addressing the same issues for such standards to become part 
of the State Plan. OSHA will review such non-identical State standards 
to determine whether they are at least as effective as any final rule 
which may be adopted.
    Of the 29 States and Territories with OSHA-approved State Plans, 22 
cover both public and private-sector employees: Alaska, Arizona, 
California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, 
South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and 
Wyoming. The remaining seven States and Territories cover only State 
and local government employees: Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, 
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands.
    The proposed rule, if adopted, would impact municipal fire 
departments and other public-sector emergency response providers in 
States with OSHA-approved State Plans. Section 18(c)(6) of the Act, 29 
U.S.C. 667(c), provides that a State Plan must ``establish and maintain 
an effective and comprehensive occupational safety and health program 
applicable to all employees of public agencies of the State and its 
political subdivisions, which program is as effective as the standards 
contained in an approved plan.'' Thus, States with OSHA-approved State 
Plans would be required to treat these public-sector employees the same 
as they do private-sector employees when adopting and enforcing a 
standard at least as effective as any final standard which may result 
from this rulemaking. Cf. Memorandum from Bruce Hillenbrand, Deputy 
Director, Federal Compliance and State Programs, to William W. Gordon, 
Regional Administrator-IV, Subject: Tennessee's Fire Protection 
Standard, Jan. 24, 1983 (Tennessee State Plan agency must apply its 
fire brigade standard analogue to public-sector employees as it does to 
private-sector employees) (Document ID 0322). Similarly, State Plans 
covering only State and local government employees would need to adopt 
and enforce a standard at least as effective as any such Federal 
standard.

H. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

I. Overview
    In this NPRM, OSHA is proposing to revise its existing Fire 
Brigades standard, 29 CFR 1910.156. This proposal would change the 
title of Sec.  1910.156 from Fire Brigades to Emergency Response as 
well as impose new requirements for emergency response employers. These 
new provisions contain collections of information that are subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and OMB 
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, with new 29 CFR 1910.156, Emergency 
Response. The agency is planning to revise and update the existing 
previously approved paperwork package under OMB control number 1218-
0075 by replacing the existing collection of information requirements 
with the proposed collections.
    The PRA defines ``collection of information'' to mean ``the 
obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the 
disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions by or 
for an agency regardless of form or format'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). 
Under the PRA, a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection 
of information unless OMB approves it and the agency displays a 
currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also, 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, no employer shall be 
subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of 
information if the collection of information does not display a 
currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512).
II. Solicitation of Comments
    OSHA prepared and submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) 
to OMB proposing to revise certain collections of information currently 
contained in that paperwork package in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 
3507(d). The agency is soliciting comments on the revision of these 
collection of information requirements, including comments on the 
following items:
     Whether the collections of information are necessary for 
the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the 
information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and 
cost) of the collections of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the compliance burden on employers, for 
example, by using automated or other technological techniques for 
collecting and transmitting information (78 FR 56438).
III. Proposed Information Collection Requirements
    As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2), the 
following paragraphs provide information about the ICR.
    1. Title: Emergency Response Standard (29 CFR 1910.156).
    2. Description of the ICR: The proposal would revise the currently 
approved Fire Brigades ICR by changing the title to Emergency Response 
ICR and revising the existing collection of information requirements 
currently approved by OMB.
    3. Brief Summary of the Information Collection Requirements: This 
proposal would revise the collection of information contained in the 
existing ICR. Specifically, OSHA is proposing to (1) remove the 
existing language currently approved under Sec.  1910.156(b)(1) that 
requires employers to develop and maintain an organizational statement 
that establishes the existence of a fire brigade; the basic 
organizational structure; the type, amount, and frequency of training 
to be provided to fire brigade members; the expected number of members 
in the brigade; and the functions that the fire brigade is to perform 
at the workplace; (2) remove the existing language currently approved 
under Sec.  1910.156(b)(2) that requires employers to obtain a 
physician's certificate of certain employees' fitness to participate in 
fire brigade emergency activities; and (3) remove the existing language 
currently approved under Sec.  1910.156(c)(4) that requires the 
employer to inform fire brigade members about special hazards such as 
storage and use of flammable liquids and gases, toxic chemicals, 
radioactive sources, and water reactive substances, to which they may 
be exposed during fire and other emergencies. In place of these 
collection of information requirements, the agency is proposing to add 
new collections contained in the proposed Emergency Response standard. 
See Table V-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Full details of the burden and cost estimates for each 
provision are available in the ICR's supporting statement at 
reginfo.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 8000]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.131


[[Page 8001]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.132


[[Page 8002]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.133


[[Page 8003]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.134


[[Page 8004]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.135


[[Page 8005]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.136


[[Page 8006]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.137


[[Page 8007]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.138


[[Page 8008]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE24.139

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
    4. OMB Control Number: 1218-0075.
    5. Affected Public: Business or other for-profit and not for profit 
entities.
    6. Number of Respondents: 22,551.
    7. Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    8. Number of Reponses: 28,305,800.
    9. Average Time per Response: Varies.
    10. Estimated Annual Total Burden Hours: 3,896,763.
    11. Estimated Annual Total Cost (Operation and maintenance): 
$104,682,854.
IV. Submitting Comments
    Members of the public who wish to comment on the revisions to the 
paperwork requirements in this proposal must send their written 
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB 
Desk Officer for the Department of Labor, OSHA (RIN: 1218-AD91), Office 
of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, email: 
OIRA[email protected]. The agency encourages commenters also to 
submit their comments on these paperwork requirements to the rulemaking 
docket (Docket Number OSHA-2007-0073) along with comments on other 
parts of the proposed rule. For instructions on submitting these 
comments to the rulemaking docket, see the sections of this Federal 
Register notice titled DATES and ADDRESSES. Comments submitted in 
response to this document are public records; therefore, OSHA cautions 
commenters about submitting personal information such as Social 
Security numbers and dates of birth.
V. Docket and Inquiries
    To access the docket to read or download comments and other 
materials related to this paperwork determination, including the 
complete ICR (containing the Supporting Statement with attachments 
describing the paperwork determinations in detail), use the procedures 
described under the section of this document titled ADDRESSES.
    You also may obtain an electronic copy of the complete ICR by 
visiting the web page at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 
Scroll under ``Currently Under Review'' to ``Department of Labor 
(DOL)'' to view all of the DOL's ICRs, including those ICRs submitted 
for proposed rulemakings. To make inquiries, or to request other 
information, contact Ms. Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and 
Guidance, telephone (202) 693-2222.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

    Emergency response, Emergency responder, Emergency medical service, 
Firefighter, Incorporation by reference, Search and rescue personal 
protective equipment, Occupational safety and health.

Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Douglas L. 
Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and 
Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, 
DC 20210. It is issued under the authority of sections 4, 6, and 8 of 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
657); 5 U.S.C. 553, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 
58383), and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC.
Douglas L. Parker,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Proposed Amendments

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, OSHA proposes to amend 29 
CFR part 1910 to read as follows:

[[Page 8009]]

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

Subpart A--General

0
1. The authority citation for subpart A continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order 
Numbers 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 
n1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 
(67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 
(77 FR 3912), as applicable. Sections 1910.6, 1910.7, 1910.8 and 
1910.9 also issued under 29 CFR 1911. Section 1910.7(f) also issued 
under 31 U.S.C. 9701; 29 U.S.C. 9a; 5 U.S.C. 553; Public Law 106-113 
(113 Stat. 1501A-222); Public Law 11-8 and 111-317; and OMB Circular 
A-25 (dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993).

0
2. Amend Sec.  1910.6 by:
0
a. Throughout the section,
0
i. Removing the text ``The following material is available for purchase 
from the'';
0
ii. Removing the text ``The following materials are available for 
purchase from the'';
0
iii. Removing the text ``The following material is available from 
the''; and
0
iv. Removing the text ``The following materials are available from 
the'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (a) and the introductory text of paragraph (e);
0
c. In paragraph (e),
0
i. Removing the second sentence of paragraphs (e)(59) and (65);
0
ii. Revising paragraphs (e)(66), (67), and (69) through (71); and
0
iii. Adding paragraph (e)(80);
0
d. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (h);
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (k);
0
f. Adding introductory text to paragraph (r) and removing and reserving 
paragraphs (r)(1) and (2);
0
g. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (t);
0
h. Redesignating paragraphs (t)(2) through (37) as set forth in the 
following table:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Old paragraph                        New paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
paragraphs (t)(2) through (8)..........  paragraphs (t)(3) through (9)
paragraphs (t)(9) through (15).........  paragraphs (t)(12) through (18)
paragraphs (t)(17) through (33)........  paragraphs (t)(19) through (35)
paragraph (t)(34)......................  paragraph (t)(49)
paragraphs (t)(35) through (36)........  paragraphs (t)(10) through (11)
paragraph (t)(37)......................  paragraph (t)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
i. In newly redesignated paragraph (t)(10), removing the second 
sentence;
0
j. Adding new paragraphs (t)(36) and (37) and adding paragraphs (t)(38) 
through (48);
0
k. Revising newly-redesignated paragraph (t)(49);
0
l. Adding paragraphs (t)(50) through (57); and
0
m. Removing and reserving paragraph (v)(2).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  1910.6  Incorporation by reference.

    (a)(1) The standards of agencies of the U.S. Government and of 
organizations which are not agencies of the U.S. Government, which are 
incorporated by reference in this part, have the same force and effect 
as other standards in this part. The Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) adopts only the mandatory provisions (i.e., 
provisions containing the word ``shall'' or other mandatory language) 
of material incorporated by reference as standards under the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act.
    (2) Any changes in the material incorporated by reference in this 
part and an official historic file of such changes are available for 
inspection in the Docket Office at the national office of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Washington, DC 20210; phone: 202-693-2350 (TTY: 877-889-5627).
    (3) The material listed in this section are incorporated by 
reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, OSHA 
must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must 
be available to the public. All approved incorporation by reference 
(IBR) material is available for inspection at OSHA and at the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact OSHA at: any OSHA 
Regional Office or at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 
200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-3508, Washington, DC 20210; phone: 
202-693-2350 (TTY: 877-889-5627); email: [email protected]; 
website: www.osha.gov/contactus/byoffice/dtsem/technical-data-center. 
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit 
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email 
[email protected]. The material may be obtained from the source(s) 
in the following paragraph(s) of this section or through a document 
reseller, including:
    (i) Document Center Inc., 111 Industrial Road, Suite 9, Belmont, 
94002; phone: 650-591-7600; fax: 650-591-7617; email: center.com">info@document-center.com; website: www.document-center.com.
    (ii) Global Engineering Documents, 15 Inverness Way East, 
Englewood, CO 80112; phone: 800-854-7179 or 303-397-7956; fax: 303-397-
2740; email: [email protected]; website: https://global.ihs.com;
    (iii) Techstreet, a business of Thomson Reuters, 3916 Ranchero 
Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108; phone: 800-699-9277 or 734-780-8000; fax: 
734-780-2046; email: [email protected]; website: 
www.Techstreet.com.
    (iv) Linda Hall Library, 5109 Cherry Street, Kansas City, Missouri, 
64110-2498; phone: 816-363-4600; email: [email protected]; 
website: https://www.lindahall.org/.
* * * * *
    (e) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd 
Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036; phone: 212-642-4900; fax: 212-
398-0023; website: www.ansi.org.
* * * * *
    (66) ANSI Z535.1-2006 (R2011), Safety Colors, reaffirmed July 19, 
2011; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1910.97(a) and 1910.145(d).
    (67) ANSI Z535.2-2011, Environmental and Facility Safety Signs, 
published September 15, 2011; IBR approved for Sec.  1910.261(c).
* * * * *
    (69) ANSI/ISEA Z87.1-2010, Occupational and Educational Personal 
Eye and Face Protection Devices,

[[Page 8010]]

Approved April 13, 2010; IBR approved for Sec.  1910.133(b).
    (70) ANSI Z87.1-2003, Occupational and Educational Eye and Face 
Personal Protection Devices Approved June 19, 2003; IBR approved for 
Sec.  1910.133(b).
    (71) ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R-1998), Practice for Occupational and 
Educational Eye and Face Protection, Reaffirmation approved January 4, 
1999; IBR approved for Sec.  1910.133(b).
* * * * *
    (80) ANSI/ISEA 207-2011, American National Standard for High-
Visibility Safety Vests [2011 ed]; IBR approved for Sec.  1910.156(k).
* * * * *
    (h) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; phone: 610-832-9585; fax: 610-832-9555; 
email: [email protected]; website: www.astm.org.
* * * * *
    (r) International Standards Organization (ISO) through ANSI, 25 
West 43rd Street, Fourth Floor, New York, NY 10036-7417; phone: 212-
642-4980; fax: 212-302-1286; email: [email protected]; website: 
www.ansi.org.
* * * * *
    (t) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch 
Park, Quincy, MA 02269; phone: 800-344-3555 or 617-770-3000; fax: 800-
593-6372 or 508-895-8301; email: [email protected]; website: 
www.nfpa.org.
* * * * *
    (36) NFPA 1001, Standard for Structural Fire Fighter Professional 
Qualifications, [2019 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  1910.156(h).
    (37) NFPA 1002, Standard for Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator 
Professional Qualifications, [2017 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  
1910.156(h).
    (38) NFPA 1005, Standard for Professional Qualifications for Marine 
Fire Fighting for Land-Based Fire Fighters, [2019 edition]; IBR 
approved for Sec.  1910.156(h).
    (39) NFPA 1006, Standard for Technical Rescue Personnel 
Professional Qualifications, [2021 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  
1910.156(h).
    (40) NFPA 1021, Standard for Fire Officer Professional 
Qualifications, [2020 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  1910.156(h).
    (41) NFPA 1081, Standard for Facility Fire Brigade Member 
Professional Qualifications, [2018 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  
1910.156(h).
    (42) NFPA 1140, Standard for Wildland Fire Protection, [2022 
edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  1910.156(h).
    (43) NFPA 1407, Standard for Training Fire Service Rapid 
Intervention Crews, [2020 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  1910.156(h).
    (44) NFPA 1582, Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical 
Program for Fire Departments, [2022 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  
1910.156(g).
    (45) NFPA 1910, Standard for the Inspection, Maintenance, 
Refurbishment, Testing, and Retirement of In-Service Emergency Vehicles 
and Marine Firefighting Vessels, [2024 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  
1910.156(l).
    (46) NFPA 1951, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Technical 
Rescue Incidents, [2020 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  1910.156(k).
    (47) NFPA 1952, Standard on Surface Water Operations Protective 
Clothing and Equipment, [2021 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  
1910.156(k).
    (48) NFPA 1953, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Contaminated 
Water Diving, [2021 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  1910.156(k).
    (49) NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural 
Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, [2018 edition]; IBR approved 
for Sec.  1910.156(k).
    (50) NFPA 1977, Standard on Protective Clothing and Equipment for 
Wildland Fire Fighting and Urban Interface Fire Fighting, [2022 
edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  1910.156(k).
    (51) NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing 
Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services, [2019 edition]; IBR approved 
for Sec.  1910.156(k).
    (52) NFPA 1982, Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS), 
[2018 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  1910.156(k).
    (53) NFPA 1984, Standards on Respirators for Wildland Fire-Fighting 
Operations and Wildland Urban Interface Operations, [2022 edition]; IBR 
approved for Sec.  1910.156(k).
    (54) NFPA 1986, Standard on Respiratory Protection for Tactical and 
technical Operations, [2023 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  
1910.156(k).
    (55) NFPA 1987, Standard on Combination Unit Respirator Systems for 
Tactical and Technical Operations, [2023 edition]; IBR approved for 
Sec.  1910.156(k).
    (56) NFPA 1990, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Hazardous 
Materials and CBRN Operations, [2022 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  
1910.156(k).
    (57) NFPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing and Ensembles for 
Emergency Medical Operations, [2018 edition]; IBR approved for Sec.  
1910.156(k).
* * * * *

Subpart H--Hazardous Materials

0
3. The authority citation for subpart H continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's 
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 
or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355) or 1-2012 (77 FR 
3912), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Sections 1910.103, 1910.106 through 1910.111, and 1910.119, 
1910.120, and 1910.122 through 1910.126 also issued under 29 CFR 
part 1911.
    Section 1910.119 also issued under Section 304, Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-549), reprinted at 29 U.S.C.A. 655 
Note.
    Section 1910.120 also issued under Section 126, Superfund 
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 as amended (29 U.S.C.A. 
655 Note), and 5 U.S.C. 553.

0
4. Amend Sec.  1910.120 by:
0
a. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), removing the text ``appendix B'' and 
adding in its place the text ``appendix D to this subpart'';
0
b. In paragraph (f)(4)(ii), removing the text ``appendix D'' and adding 
in its place the text ``appendix D to this subpart'';
0
c. In paragraphs (g)(3)(iv) and (v). removing the text ``appendix B'' 
and adding in its place the text ``appendix B to this subpart'';
0
d. In paragraphs (g)(4)(ii) and (iii), removing the text ``appendix A'' 
and adding in its place the text ``appendix A to this subpart'';
0
e. Revising paragraph (q)(3)(iii);
0
f. Redesignating the note immediately following the undesignated 
heading ``Appendices to Sec.  1910.120'' as paragraph (r);
0
g. Removing the undesignated heading ``Appendices to Sec.  1910.120''; 
and
0
h. Redesignating appendices A through E to Sec.  1910.120 as appendices 
A through E to subpart H of part 29.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  1910.120  Hazardous waste operations and emergency response.

* * * * *
    (q) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) Based on the hazardous substances and/or conditions present, 
the individual in charge of the ICS shall implement appropriate 
emergency operations, and ensure that the personal

[[Page 8011]]

protective equipment worn is appropriate for the hazards to be 
encountered. However, personal protective equipment shall meet, at a 
minimum, the criteria contained in Sec.  1910.156(k) when worn while 
performing firefighting operations beyond the incipient stage for any 
incident.
    (r) Appendices to this subpart--Hazardous Waste Operations and 
Emergency Response. Appendices A through E to this subpart serve as 
non-mandatory guidelines to assist employees and employers in complying 
with the appropriate requirements of this section. However, paragraph 
(g) of this section makes mandatory in certain circumstances the use of 
Level A and Level B PPE protection set forth in the appendices.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend newly redesignated appendix B to subpart H by revising Part 
B.IV to read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart H of Part 1910--General Description and 
Discussion of the Levels of Protection and Protective Gear

* * * * *
    Part B * * *
    IV. Level D--Level D protection should be used when:
    1. The atmosphere contains no known hazard; and
    2. Work functions preclude splashes, immersion, or the potential 
for unexpected inhalation of or contact with hazardous levels of any 
chemicals.

    Note:  As stated before, combinations of personal protective 
equipment other than those described for Levels A, B, C, and D 
protection may be more appropriate and may be used to provide the 
proper level of protection.

    As an aid in selecting suitable chemical protective clothing, it 
should be noted that the NFPA has developed standards on chemical 
protective clothing. The standards that have been adopted include:
    NFPA 1990, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Hazardous 
Materials and CBRN Operations, [2022 ed]. (as incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  1910.6).
    This standard applies documentation and performance requirements 
to the manufacture of chemical protective suits. Chemical protective 
suits meeting these requirements are labelled as compliant with the 
appropriate standard. It is recommended that chemical protective 
suits that meet these standards be used.

Appendix C to Subpart H [Amended]

0
6. Amend newly redesignated appendix C to subpart H by:
0
a. In section 2., removing the text ``appendix D'' and adding in its 
place the text ``appendix D to this subpart''; and
0
b. In section 5., removing the text ``appendix B'' and adding in its 
place the text ``appendix B to this subpart''.

Appendix E to Subpart H [Amended]

0
7. Amend newly redesignated appendix E to subpart H by:
0
a. In paragraph B.1.(m), removing the text ``appendices to 29 CFR 
1910.120'' and adding, in its place, the text ``appendices to this 
subpart''; and
0
b. In section 5., removing the text ``appendix B'' and adding, in its 
place, the text ``appendix B to this subpart''.

Subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment

0
8. The authority citation for subpart I continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order 
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 
(55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 
65008 preview citation details), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 
55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.

0
9. Amend Sec.  1910.134 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b), removing the definition for ``Interior structural 
firefighting'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (g)(4); and
0
c. Removing Notes 1 and 2 to paragraph (g).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  1910.134  Respiratory protection.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (4) Procedures for interior structural firefighting. (Refer to 
Sec.  1910.156)
* * * * *

Subpart L--Fire Protection

0
10. The authority citation for subpart L continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); Secretary of 
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as 
applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.

0
11. Amend Sec.  1910.155 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1910.155  Scope, application and definitions applicable to this 
subpart.

    (a) Scope. This subpart contains requirements for Workplace 
Emergency Response Employers and Emergency Service Organizations (as 
defined in Sec.  1910.156), and all portable and fixed fire suppression 
equipment, fire detection systems, and fire or employee alarm systems 
installed to meet the fire protection requirements of this part.
* * * * *
    (c) Definitions applicable to this subpart--
    Aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) means a fluorinated surfactant 
with a foam stabilizer which is diluted with water to act as a 
temporary barrier to exclude air from mixing with the fuel vapor by 
developing an aqueous film on the fuel surface of some hydrocarbons 
which is capable of suppressing the generation of fuel vapors.
    Approved means acceptable to the Assistant Secretary under the 
following criteria:
    (i) If it is accepted, or certified, or listed, or labeled or 
otherwise determined to be safe by a nationally recognized testing 
laboratory; or
    (ii) With respect to an installation or equipment of a kind which 
no nationally recognized testing laboratory accepts, certifies, lists, 
labels, or determines to be safe, if it is inspected or tested by 
another Federal agency and found in compliance with the provisions of 
the applicable National Fire Protection Association Fire Code; or
    (iii) With respect to custom-made equipment or related 
installations which are designed, fabricated for, and intended for use 
by its manufacturer on the basis of test data which the employer keeps 
and makes available for inspection to the Assistant Secretary.
    (iv) For the purposes of paragraph (c)(3) of this section:
    (A) Equipment is listed if it is of a kind mentioned in a list 
which is published by a nationally recognized testing laboratory which 
makes periodic inspections of the production of such equipment and 
which states that such equipment meets nationally recognized standards 
or has been tested and found safe for use in a specified manner;
    (B) Equipment is labeled if there is attached to it a label, 
symbol, or other identifying mark of a nationally recognized testing 
laboratory which makes periodic inspections of the production of such 
equipment, and whose labeling indicates compliance with nationally 
recognized standards or tests to determine safe use in a specified 
manner;
    (C) Equipment is accepted if it has been inspected and found by a 
nationally recognized testing laboratory to conform to specified plans 
or to procedures of applicable codes; and
    (D) Equipment is certified if it has been tested and found by a 
nationally recognized testing laboratory to meet nationally recognized 
standards or to be

[[Page 8012]]

safe for use in a specified manner or is of a kind whose production is 
periodically inspected by a nationally recognized testing laboratory, 
and if it bears a label, tag, or other record of certification.
    (E) Refer to Sec.  1910.7 for definition of nationally recognized 
testing laboratory.
    Assistant Secretary means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health or designee.
    Automatic fire detection device means a device designed to 
automatically detect the presence of fire by heat, flame, light, smoke 
or other products of combustion.
    Carbon dioxide means a colorless, odorless, electrically 
nonconductive inert gas (chemical formula CO2) that is a 
medium for extinguishing fires by reducing the concentration of oxygen 
or fuel vapor in the air to the point where combustion is impossible.
    Class A fire means a fire involving ordinary combustible materials 
such as paper, wood, cloth, and some rubber and plastic materials.
    Class B fire means a fire involving flammable or combustible 
liquids, flammable gases, greases and similar materials, and some 
rubber and plastic materials.
    Class C fire means a fire involving energized electrical equipment 
where safety to the employee requires the use of electrically 
nonconductive extinguishing media.
    Class D fire means a fire involving combustible metals such as 
magnesium, titanium, zirconium, sodium, lithium and potassium.
    Class K fire means a fire in a cooking appliance involving animal 
oils, vegetable oils, or fats.
    Clean agent means an extinguishing agent that is odorless, 
colorless, electrically non-conducive, and leaves no residue.
    Dry chemical means an extinguishing agent composed of very small 
particles of chemicals such as, but not limited to, sodium bicarbonate, 
potassium bicarbonate, urea-based potassium bicarbonate, potassium 
chloride, or monoammonium phosphate supplemented by special treatment 
to provide resistance to packing and moisture absorption (caking) as 
well as to provide proper flow capabilities. Dry chemical does not 
include dry powders.
    Dry powder means a compound used to extinguish or control Class D 
fires.
    Education means the process of imparting knowledge or skill through 
systematic instruction. It does not require formal classroom 
instruction.
    Extinguisher classification means the letter classification given 
an extinguisher to designate the class or classes of fire on which an 
extinguisher will be effective.
    Extinguisher rating means the numerical rating given to an 
extinguisher which indicates the extinguishing potential of the unit 
based on standardized tests developed by Underwriters' Laboratories, 
Inc.
    Fixed extinguishing system means a permanently installed system 
that either extinguishes or controls a fire at the location of the 
system.
    Foam means a stable aggregation of small bubbles which flow freely 
over a burning liquid surface and form a coherent blanket which seals 
combustible vapors and thereby extinguishes the fire.
    Gaseous agent is a fire extinguishing agent which is in the gaseous 
state at normal room temperature and pressure. It has low viscosity, 
can expand or contract with changes in pressure and temperature, and 
has the ability to diffuse readily and to distribute itself uniformly 
throughout an enclosure.
    Halogenated agent means a liquified gas extinguishing agent that 
chemically interrupts the combustion reaction between the fuel and 
oxygen to extinguish fires.
    Halon 1211 means a colorless, faintly sweet smelling, electrically 
nonconductive liquefied gas (chemical formula CBrC1F2) which 
is a medium for extinguishing fires by inhibiting the chemical chain 
reaction of fuel and oxygen. It is also known as 
bromochlorodifluoromethane.
    Halon 1301 means a colorless, odorless, electrically nonconductive 
gas (chemical formula CBrF3) which is a medium for 
extinguishing fires by inhibiting the chemical chain reaction of fuel 
and oxygen. It is also known as bromotrifluoromethane.
    Incipient stage fire means a fire which is in the initial or 
beginning stage and which can be controlled or extinguished by portable 
fire extinguishers, Class II standpipe or small hose systems without 
the need for protective clothing or breathing apparatus.
    Inspection means a visual check of fire protection systems and 
equipment to ensure that they are in place, charged, and ready for use 
in the event of a fire.
    Interior structural firefighting means the physical activity of 
fire suppression, rescue or both, inside of buildings or enclosed 
structures which are involved in a fire situation beyond the incipient 
stage.
    Local application system means a fixed fire suppression system 
which has a supply of extinguishing agent, with nozzles arranged to 
automatically discharge extinguishing agent directly on the burning 
material to extinguish or control a fire.
    Maintenance means the performance of services on fire protection 
equipment and systems to assure that they will perform as expected in 
the event of a fire. Maintenance differs from inspection in that 
maintenance requires the checking of internal fittings, devices and 
agent supplies.
    Multipurpose dry chemical means a dry chemical which is approved 
for use on Class A, Class B and Class C fires.
    Pre-discharge employee alarm means an alarm which will sound at a 
set time prior to actual discharge of an extinguishing system so that 
employees may evacuate the discharge area prior to system discharge.
    Sprinkler alarm means an approved device installed so that any 
waterflow from a sprinkler system equal to or greater than that from 
single automatic sprinkler will result in an audible alarm signal on 
the premises.
    Sprinkler system means a system of piping designed in accordance 
with fire protection engineering standards and installed to control or 
extinguish fires. The system includes an adequate and reliable water 
supply, and a network of specially sized piping and sprinklers which 
are interconnected. The system also includes a control valve and a 
device for actuating an alarm when the system is in operation.
    Standpipe systems. (i) Class I standpipe system means a 21/2'' (6.3 
cm) hose connection for use by fire departments and those trained in 
handling heavy fire streams.
    (ii) Class II standpipe system means a 11/2'' (3.8 cm) hose system 
which provides a means for the control or extinguishment of incipient 
stage fires.
    (iii) Class III standpipe system means a combined system of hose 
which is for the use of employees trained in the use of hose operations 
and which is capable of furnishing effective water discharge during the 
more advanced stages of fire (beyond the incipient stage) in the 
interior of workplaces. Hose outlets are available for both 11/2'' (3.8 
cm) and 21/2'' (6.3 cm) hose.
    (iv) Small hose system means a system of hose ranging in diameter 
from 5/8'' (1.6 cm up to 11/2'' (3.8 cm) which is for the use of 
employees and which provides a means for the control and extinguishment 
of incipient stage fires.
    Training means the process of making proficient through instruction 
and hands-on practice in the operation of equipment, including 
respiratory protection equipment, that is expected to be used and in 
the performance of assigned duties.

[[Page 8013]]

    Total flooding system means a fixed suppression system which is 
arranged to automatically discharge a predetermined concentration of 
agent into an enclosed space for the purpose of fire extinguishment or 
control.
    Wet chemical means an aqueous solution of organic or inorganic 
salts, or a combination thereof, that forms an extinguishing agent.
    Wetting agent means a concentrate mixed with water that reduces the 
surface tension of the water which increases its ability to spread and 
penetrate, thus extending the efficiency of the watering extinguishing 
fires.
0
12. Revise Sec.  1910.156 to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.156  Emergency response.

    (a) Scope. (1) This section applies to:
    (i) Employers that have a workplace emergency response team, as 
defined in paragraph (b) of this section. The employees on the team, as 
a collateral duty to their regular daily work assignments, respond to 
emergency incidents to provide service such as firefighting, emergency 
medical service, and technical search and rescue. For the purposes of 
this section, this type of employer is called a Workplace Emergency 
Response Employer (WERE), the team is called a Workplace Emergency 
Response Team (WERT), and the employees assigned to the team are called 
team members; and
    (ii) Employers that are emergency service organizations as defined 
in paragraph (b) of this section, that provide one or more of the 
following emergency response services as a primary function; or the 
employees perform the emergency service(s) as a primary duty for the 
employer: firefighting, emergency medical service, and technical search 
and rescue. For the purposes of this section, this type of employer is 
called an Emergency Service Organization (ESO), and the employees are 
called responders.
    (2) This section does not apply to:
    (i) Employers performing disaster site clean-up or recovery duties 
following natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, 
and floods; and human-made disasters such as explosions and 
transportation incidents.
    (ii) Activities covered by Sec.  1910.120 (Hazardous Waste 
Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER)), Sec.  1910.146 (Permit-
Required Confined Spaces in General Industry).
    (b) Definitions.
    Combustion product means the heat, volatized liquids and solids, 
particulate matter (microscopic and small unburned particles), ash, and 
toxic gases released as a result of combustion (fire).
    Community means a state, region, municipality or portion thereof, 
such as a village, town, township, borough, city, county, or parish.
    Community vulnerability assessment means the process of 
identifying, quantifying, and prioritizing the potential and known 
vulnerabilities of the overall community that may require emergency 
service from the ESO, including the community's structures, 
inhabitants, infrastructure, organizations, and hazardous conditions or 
processes. The assessment is intended to include both human-created 
vulnerabilities and natural disasters.
    Control zone means an area at an incident that is designated based 
upon safety and the degree of hazard to team members and responders. A 
control zone may be designated as cold, warm, hot, or no-entry.
    (i) Cold zone means the area immediately outside the boundary of 
the established warm zone where team members and responders are not 
exposed to dangerous areas or contaminants from fire, toxic chemicals, 
or carcinogens. The cold zone typically contains the command post and 
such other support functions as are deemed necessary to control the 
incident. It may also be known as the support zone.
    (ii) Warm zone means the area immediately outside the boundary of 
the hot zone that serves to transition to the cold zone. The warm zone 
typically is where team member and responder and equipment 
decontamination and hot zone support take place. It may also be known 
as the contamination reduction zone.
    (iii) Hot zone means the area including and immediately surrounding 
the physical location of a fire or other hazardous area, having a 
boundary that extends far enough away to protect team members and 
responders outside the hot zone from being directly exposed to the 
hazards present in the hot zone.
    (iv) No-entry zone means an area designated to keep out team 
members and responders, due to the presence of dangers such as imminent 
hazard(s), potential collapse, or the need to preserve the scene.
    Emergency Medical Service (EMS) means the provision of patient 
treatment, such as basic life support, advanced life support, and other 
pre-hospital procedures, and may include transportation to a medical 
facility. It does not include the provision of first aid within the 
scope of Sec.  1910.151.
    Emergency Response Program (ERP) means a written program, developed 
by the WERE or ESO, to ensure that the WERE or ESO is prepared to 
safely respond to and operate at emergency incidents and non-emergency 
service situations, and to provide for the occupational safety and 
health of team members and responders. The ERP shall be composed of at 
least the information and documents required in this section.
    Emergency Service Organization (ESO) means an organization that 
provides one or more of the following emergency response services as a 
primary function: firefighting, emergency medical service, and 
technical search and rescue; or the employees perform the emergency 
service(s) as a primary duty for the employer. Personnel (called 
responders in this section), as part of their regularly assigned 
duties, respond to emergency incidents to provide service such as 
firefighting, emergency medical service, and technical search and 
rescue. It does not include organizations solely engaged in law 
enforcement, crime prevention, facility security, or similar 
activities.
    Facility means a structure or structures and surrounding locations, 
including industrial, commercial, mercantile, warehouse, power plant 
(utility), assembly occupancy, institutional or similar occupancy; and 
public and private as well as for-profit, not-for-profit, and 
governmental location, campus, compound, base, or similar 
establishment.
    Facility vulnerability assessment means the process of identifying, 
quantifying, and prioritizing the potential and known vulnerabilities 
of the entire facility, including the facility's structures and 
surrounding locations, inhabitants, infrastructure, and hazardous 
conditions or processes.
    Gross decontamination means the initial phase of the 
decontamination process, during which the surface contaminants and 
foreign materials on a team member's or responder's skin, clothing, 
personal protective equipment (PPE), and equipment are removed or 
significantly reduced, such as by brushing, rinsing, wiping, use of 
detergents, and use of personal hygiene wipes.
    Immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) means an atmosphere 
that poses an immediate threat to life, would cause irreversible 
adverse health effects, or would impair an individual's ability to 
escape from a dangerous atmosphere.
    Incident means any situation to which a WERE or an ESO responds to 
perform services, such as firefighting; emergency medical service; 
technical search and rescue; other situations such as responses to 
downed electrical power lines, and outside propane or natural gas 
leaks.

[[Page 8014]]

    Incident action plan (IAP) means the incident objectives, strategy, 
and tactics necessary to manage an incident. The IAP is developed at 
the incident site and provides essential information for actionable 
incident organization, work assignments, management of resources, risk 
management, and team member or responder safety when operating at an 
incident.
    Incident Commander (IC) means the team member or responder who 
fulfills the incident command function of the Incident Management 
System; who is responsible for the overall management of an incident 
and the safety of all team members or responders involved in the 
response; and who is responsible for all incident activities, including 
the development of strategies and tactics, the direction and control of 
all team members and responders at the incident, and the ordering and 
release of resources.
    Incident Management System (IMS) means a system used for managing 
and directing incident scene operations and activities. It includes 
establishing functions for managing incidents, describes the roles and 
responsibilities to be assumed by team members and responders, and 
standard operating procedures to be utilized. Incident command is a 
function of the IMS.
    Incident Safety Officer (ISO) means the team member or responder at 
an incident scene who is responsible for monitoring and assessing 
safety hazards and unsafe situations and for developing measures for 
ensuring team member and responder safety.
    Incident scene means the physical location where activities related 
to a specific incident are conducted. It includes nearby areas that are 
subject to incident-related hazards or used by the WERE or ESO for team 
members, responders, and equipment.
    Living area means the room(s) or area(s) of the ESO's facility 
where responders may cook, eat, relax, read, study, watch television, 
complete paperwork or data entry, and similar daily living activities. 
Examples include day room, kitchen/dining area, classroom, office, and 
TV room. Areas such as maintenance shops, utility and storage areas, 
and interior vehicle parking bays are not considered living areas.
    Mayday means an emergency procedure term used to signal that a team 
member or responder is in distress, needs assistance and is unable to 
self-rescue; it is typically used when safety or life is in jeopardy.
    Mutual aid agreement means a written agreement or contract between 
WEREs and ESOs, or between ESOs, that they will assist one another upon 
request by furnishing personnel, equipment, materials, expertise, or 
other associated services as specified.
    Non-emergency service means a situation where a WERT or ESO is 
called upon to provide a service that does not involve an immediate 
threat to health, life, or property, such as assisting law enforcement 
with equipment and scene lighting; removing people from a stuck 
elevator; resetting an accidentally activated fire alarm system; or 
assisting a mobility-challenged person downstairs during an elevator 
outage.
    Personal protective equipment (PPE) means the clothing and 
equipment worn and utilized to prevent or minimize exposure to serious 
workplace injuries and illnesses. Examples include gloves, safety 
glasses and goggles, safety shoes and boots, earplugs and muffs, hard 
hats and helmets, respirators and Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus 
(SCBA), protective coats and pants, hoods, coveralls, vests, and full 
body suits.
    Physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP) means 
an individual whose legally permitted scope of practice (i.e., license, 
registration, or certification) allows the individual to independently 
provide, or be delegated the responsibility to provide, some or all of 
the health care services required by paragraph (g) of this section.
    Pre-incident plan (PIP) means a written document developed by 
gathering general and detailed data about a particular facility or 
other location that is used by team members or responders in 
effectively and safely managing an emergency incident there. It is 
developed before an incident occurs and is intended to be used during 
an incident to aid in the safe mitigation of hazards.
    Rapid intervention crew (RIC) means a group of team members or 
responders dedicated solely to serve as a stand-by rescue team 
available for the immediate search and rescue of any missing, trapped, 
injured or unaccounted-for team member(s) or responder(s).
    Responder means an employee or member of an ESO who is, or will be, 
assigned to perform duties at emergency incidents.
    Size-up means the observation and evaluation of the influencing 
factors at an incident used to determine the scope of the incident and 
to develop strategic goals and tactical objectives.
    Skilled support worker (SSW) means an employee of an employer whose 
primary function is not as an emergency service provider and who is 
skilled in certain tasks or disciplines that can support a WERT or ESO. 
Examples include operators of heavy-duty wrecker/rotator tow vehicles, 
mechanized earth moving or digging equipment, or crane and hoisting 
equipment; utility service employees (gas, water, electricity); public 
works employees; and technical experts.
    Sleeping area means designated room(s) or area(s) of the ESO's 
facility where responders sleep in beds.
    Standard operating procedure (SOP) means a written directive that 
establishes a course of action or administrative method to be followed 
routinely and explains what is expected of team members or responders 
in performing the prescribed action, duty, or task.
    Team member means an employee of the WERE whose primary job duties 
are typically associated with the business of the WERE (e.g., 
production, manufacturing, processing, warehousing, administration) and 
who is assigned to the WERT to perform certain designated duties at 
emergency incidents at the WERE facility. Emergency response is a 
collateral duty for team members.
    Technical search and rescue/Technical rescue means a type of 
service that utilizes special knowledge and skills and specialized 
equipment to resolve complex search and rescue situations, such as 
rope, vehicle/machinery, structural collapse, trench, and technical 
water rescue.
    Unified command (UC) means a structure for managing an incident 
that allows for all agencies with jurisdictional responsibility for an 
incident, either geographical or functional, to manage an incident by 
establishing a common set of incident objectives and strategies.
    Workplace Emergency Response Employer (WERE) means an employer who 
has a workplace emergency response team; and whose employees on the 
team, as a collateral duty to their regular daily work assignments, 
respond to emergency incidents to provide service such as firefighting, 
emergency medical service, and technical search and rescue.
    Workplace Emergency Response Team (WERT) means a group of WERE 
employees (known as team members) who, as a collateral duty, prepare 
for and respond to emergency incidents in the WERE workplace.
    (c) Organization of the WERT, and Establishment of the ERP and 
Emergency Service(s) Capability. (1) The WERE shall develop and 
implement a written ERP that provides protection for each of its 
employees (team members)

[[Page 8015]]

who is designated to provide services at an emergency incident.
    (2) In the ERP, the WERE shall establish the existence of a WERT; 
describe the basic organizational structure of the WERT; and include 
how the WERE is addressing the provisions in the following paragraphs 
of this section: (c), (e) through (i), (k) through (m), and (o) through 
(s). The ERP must include an up-to-date copy of all written plans and 
procedures, except for PIPs, required by this section.
    (3) The WERE shall conduct a facility vulnerability assessment for 
the purpose of establishing its emergency response capabilities and 
determining its ability to match the facility's vulnerabilities with 
available resources.
    (4) The assessment required by paragraph (c)(3) of this section 
shall identify structures, facilities, and other locations where PIPs 
are needed.
    (i) The assessment shall identify each vacant structure and 
location at the facility that is unsafe for team members to enter due 
to conditions such as previous fire damage, damage from natural 
disasters, and deterioration due to age and lack of upkeep.
    (ii) The WERE shall provide a means for notifying team members of 
the vacant structures and locations identified in paragraph (c)(4)(i) 
of this section.
    (5) The WERE shall specify the resources needed, including 
personnel and equipment, for mitigation of emergency incidents 
identified in the facility vulnerability assessment.
    (6) The WERE shall establish, and document in the ERP, the type(s) 
and level(s) of emergency service(s) that it intends for the WERT to 
perform.
    (7) The WERE shall establish, and document in the ERP, tiers of 
team members based on responsibilities, qualifications, and 
capabilities for the type(s) and level(s) of service it intends to 
perform.
    Examples of tiers include, but are not limited to:
    (i) For firefighting types of operations, tiers such as: trainee, 
incipient stage, advanced exterior, interior structural, both advanced 
exterior and interior firefighter, support.
    (ii) For technical search and rescue types of operations, tiers 
such as: trainee, awareness, operation, technician, support.
    (iii) For emergency medical types of services, tiers such as: 
trainee, Emergency Medical Responder (EMR), Emergency Medical 
Technician (EMT), advanced EMT (EMT-A), paramedic, nurse, physician, 
support.
    (8) The WERE shall define, and document in the ERP, the service(s) 
needed, based on paragraph (c)(3) of this section, that the WERE is 
unable to provide, and develop mutual aid agreements with other WEREs 
and ESOs as necessary, or contract with an ESO(s), to ensure adequate 
resources are available to safely mitigate foreseeable incidents.
    (9) Previous editions of ERP documents required by this section 
shall be maintained by the WERE for a minimum of five (5) years.
    (10) The WERE shall notify team members of any changes to the ERP 
and make the ERP and documents maintained in accordance with paragraph 
(c)(9) of this section available for inspection by team members, their 
representatives, and OSHA representatives.
    (d) ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability. 
(1) The ESO shall develop and implement a written ERP that provides 
protection for each of its responders who is designated to operate at 
an emergency incident.
    (2) In the ERP the ESO shall include how the ESO is addressing the 
provisions in the following paragraphs of this section: (d) through 
(h), (j) through (l), and (n) through (s). The ERP must include an up-
to-date copy of all written plans and procedures, except for PIPs, 
required by this section.
    (3) The ESO shall perform a community or facility vulnerability 
assessment of hazards within the primary response area where the 
emergency service(s) it provides is/are expected to be performed.

    Note 1 to paragraph (d)(3): An ESO whose primary response area 
is a community would assess the community it serves. An ESO whose 
primary response area is, for example: a manufacturing facility, a 
military facility, a research and development facility, or similar 
occupational facility or workplace, would assess that facility.

    (4) The assessment required by paragraph (d)(3) of this section 
shall identify structures, facilities, and other locations where PIPs 
are needed.
    (i) The assessment shall identify each vacant structure and 
location that is unsafe for responders to enter due to conditions such 
as previous fire damage, damage from natural disasters, and 
deterioration due to age and lack of upkeep.
    (ii) The ESO shall provide a means for notifying responders of the 
vacant structures and locations identified in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of 
this section.
    (5) All facilities within the ESO's service area that are subject 
to reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 355 pursuant to the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (also 
referred to as the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 
(SARA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.), shall be included in the ESO's 
community vulnerability assessment.
    (6) The ESO shall evaluate the resources needed, including 
personnel and equipment, for mitigation of emergency incidents 
identified in the community or facility vulnerability assessment, and 
establish in the ERP the type(s) and level(s) of emergency service(s) 
it intends to perform.
    (7) In the ERP the ESO shall establish tiers of responders based on 
responsibilities, qualifications and capabilities for the type(s) and 
level(s) of service it intends to perform. Examples of tiers include, 
but are not limited to:
    (i) For firefighting types of operations, tiers such as: trainee, 
basic firefighter, advanced firefighter, officer/crew leader, command 
officer, pilot, support.
    (ii) For technical search and rescue types of operations, tiers 
such as: awareness, operation, technician, support.
    (iii) For emergency medical types of services, tiers such as: EMR, 
EMT, advanced EMT (EMT-A), paramedic, nurse, pilot, support.
    (8) In the ERP the ESO shall define the service(s) needed, based on 
paragraph (d)(4) of this section, that the ESO is unable to provide, 
and develop mutual aid agreements with WEREs or other ESOs as necessary 
to ensure adequate resources are available to safely mitigate 
foreseeable incidents.
    (9) Previous editions of documentation required by this section 
shall be maintained by the ESO for a minimum of five (5) years.
    (10) The ESO shall notify responders of any changes to the ERP and 
make the ERP and documents maintained in accordance with paragraph 
(d)(9) of this section available for inspection by responders, their 
representatives, and OSHA representatives.
    (e) Team Member and Responder Participation. Each WERE and ESO 
shall establish and implement a process to:
    (1) Involve team members and responders in developing and updating 
the ERP;
    (2) Involve team members and responders in implementing and 
evaluating the ERP, and in the review and change process;
    (3) Request input from team members and responders regarding 
modifications to the WERE's or ESO's own facility(ies);
    (4) Involve team members and responders in walkaround inspections, 
inspections conducted in response to a

[[Page 8016]]

health or safety concern raised, and incident investigations at the 
WERE and ESO's own facility(ies);
    (5) Encourage team members and responders to report safety and 
health concerns, such as hazards, injuries, illnesses, near misses, and 
deficiencies in the ERP;
    (6) Respond to reports made in accordance with paragraph (e)(5) of 
this section in a reasonable period; and
    (7) Post procedures for reporting safety and health concerns under 
paragraph (e)(5) of this section in a conspicuous place or places where 
notices to team members and responders are customarily posted.
    (f) WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan. (1) The WERE and the ESO 
shall develop and implement a written comprehensive risk management 
plan (RMP), based on the type and level of service(s) established in 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, that:
    (i) Covers, at a minimum, risks to team members and responders 
associated with the following:
    (A) Activities at WERE and ESO facilities;
    (B) Training;
    (C) Vehicle operations;
    (D) Operations at emergency incidents;
    (E) Non-emergency services and activities; and
    (F) Activities that lead to exposure to combustion products, 
carcinogens, and other incident-related health hazards.
    (ii) Includes, at a minimum, the following components with respect 
to hazards faced by team members and responders operating at incidents:
    (A) Identification of actual and reasonably anticipated hazards;
    (B) Evaluation of the likelihood of occurrence of a given hazard 
and the severity of its potential consequences;
    (C) Establishment of priorities for action based upon a particular 
hazard's severity and likelihood of occurrence;
    (D) Risk control techniques for elimination or mitigation of 
potential hazards, and a plan for implementation of the most effective 
solutions; and
    (E) A plan for post-incident evaluation of effectiveness of risk 
control techniques.
    (iii) Includes, at a minimum, the following:
    (A) A personal protective equipment (PPE) hazard assessment that 
meets the requirements of Sec.  1910.132(d);
    (B) A respiratory protection program that meets the requirements of 
Sec.  1910.134;
    (C) An infection control program that identifies and limits or 
prevents the exposure of team members and responders to infectious and 
contagious diseases; and
    (D) A bloodborne pathogens exposure control plan that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  1910.1030.
    (2) The RMP shall include a policy for extraordinary situations 
when a team member or responder, after making a risk assessment 
determination based on the team member or responder's training and 
experience, is permitted to attempt to rescue a person in imminent 
peril, potentially without benefit of, for example, PPE or equipment.
    (3) The WERE and ESO shall review the RMP when review is required 
by paragraph (r) or (s) of this section, but not less than annually, 
and update it as needed.
    (g) Medical and Physical Requirements--(1) WERE and ESO medical 
requirements. (i) The WERE and ESO shall establish the minimum medical 
requirements for team members and responders, based on the type and 
level of service(s) established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this 
section. The medical requirements will differ based on the tiers of 
team members and responders in accordance with paragraphs (c)(7) and 
(d)(7) of this section, except that team members and responders in a 
support tier are excluded from the requirements in paragraph (g) of 
this section; and
    (ii) The WERE and ESO shall maintain a confidential record for each 
team member and responder that records, at a minimum, duty restrictions 
based on medical evaluations; occupational illnesses and injuries; and 
exposures to combustion products, known or suspected toxic products, 
contagious diseases, and dangerous substances.
    (iii) The WERE and ESO shall ensure that medical records are 
maintained and made available in accordance with Sec.  1910.1020, 
Access to employee exposure and medical records.
    (iv) Medical evaluations, tests, and laboratory analysis required 
to comply with paragraph (g) of this section shall be provided at no 
cost to team members or responders and without loss of pay.
    (2) WERE and ESO medical evaluation and surveillance. (i) The WERE 
and ESO shall establish a medical evaluation program for team members 
and responders, except for those in a support tier, based on the type 
and level of service(s), and tiers of team members and responders 
established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section;
    (ii) Prior to performing emergency response duties, each team 
member and responder shall be medically evaluated to determine fitness 
for duty by a physician or other licensed health care professional 
(PLHCP), in accordance with paragraphs (g)(2)(iii) through (vi) of this 
section, and each responder shall also be evaluated in accordance with 
paragraph (g)(3) of this section. The WERE and ESO must make medical 
surveillance required by this paragraph (g) available at no cost to the 
team members and responders, and at a reasonable time and place, to 
each team member and responder;
    (iii) All medical evaluations must include the following to detect 
any physical or medical condition(s) that could adversely affect the 
team member or responder's ability to safely perform the essential job 
functions:
    (A) Medical and work history with emphasis on symptoms of cardiac 
and respiratory disease;
    (B) Physical examination with emphasis on the cardiac, respiratory, 
and musculoskeletal systems;
    (C) Spirometry; and
    (D) An assessment of heart disease risk including blood pressure, 
cholesterol levels, and relevant heart disease risk factors.
    (iv) Additional screening shall be provided as deemed appropriate 
by the PLHCP;
    (v) The medical evaluation shall be repeated biennially (every two 
years) thereafter unless the PLHCP deems more frequent evaluations are 
necessary with the exception of spirometry which will be repeated when 
deemed appropriate by the PLHC; and
    (vi) The WERE and ESO shall establish protocols regarding the 
length of time that absence from duty due to injury or illness requires 
a team member or responder to have a return-to-duty medical evaluation 
by a PLHCP.
    (3) Additional ESO surveillance. (i) For ESOs whose responders are 
exposed to combustion products, medical surveillance shall include a 
component based on the frequency and intensity of expected exposure to 
combustion products established in the risk management plan in 
paragraph (f) of this section. The surveillance component shall 
include:
    (A) For responders who are, or based on experience may be, exposed 
to combustion products 15 times or more a year without regard to the 
use of respiratory protection, medical surveillance shall be provided, 
at least as effective as the occupational medical examination criteria 
specified in a national consensus standard, such as NFPA 1582 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1910.6); and
    (B) For responders who, either immediately or subsequently, exhibit 
signs or symptoms which may have resulted from exposure to combustion 
products, medical consultation shall be

[[Page 8017]]

provided and, if medically indicated, ongoing medical surveillance.
    (ii) The ESO shall document each exposure to combustion products 
for each responder, for the purpose of determining the need for the 
medical surveillance specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i)(A) of this 
section, and for inclusion in the responder's confidential record, as 
required in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (4) WERE and ESO behavioral health and wellness. (i) The WERE and 
ESO shall provide, at no cost to the team member or responder, 
behavioral health and wellness resources for team members and 
responders, or identify where such resources are available at no cost 
in the community;
    (ii) The resources shall include, at minimum:
    (A) Diagnostic assessment;
    (B) Short-term counseling;
    (C) Crisis intervention; and
    (D) Referral services for behavioral health and personal problems 
that could affect the team member or responder's performance of 
emergency response duties.
    (iii) The WERE and ESO shall inform each team member and responder, 
on a regular and recurring basis, and following each potentially 
traumatic event, of the resources available; and
    (iv) The WERE and ESO shall ensure that if there are any records of 
team member or responder use of these resources in possession of the 
WERE or ESO, the records are kept confidential.
    (5) WERE and ESO fitness for duty. The WERE and ESO shall establish 
and implement a process to evaluate and re-evaluate annually the 
ability of team members and responders to perform essential job 
functions, based on the type and level of service(s), and tiers of team 
members and responders established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this 
section.
    (6) ESO health and fitness program. (i) The ESO shall establish and 
implement a health and fitness program that enables responders to 
develop and maintain a level of physical fitness that allows them to 
safely perform their assigned functions, based on the type and level of 
service(s), and tiers of responders established in paragraph (d) of 
this section; and
    (ii) The program shall include the following components:
    (A) An individual designated to oversee the responder health and 
fitness program;
    (B) A periodic (not to exceed 3 years) fitness assessment for all 
responders;
    (C) Exercise training that is available to all responders during 
working hours; and
    (D) Education and counseling regarding health promotion for all 
responders.
    (h) Training--(1) Minimum training. The WERE and the ESO shall:
    (i) Establish the minimum knowledge and skills required for each 
team member and responder to participate safely in emergency 
operations, based on the type and level of service(s), and tiers of 
team members and responders established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 
this section;
    (ii) Provide initial training, ongoing training, refresher 
training, and professional development for each team member and 
responder commensurate with the safe performance of expected duties and 
functions based on the tiers of team members and responders and the 
type and level of service(s) established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 
this section;
    (iii) Restrict the activities of each new team member and responder 
during emergency operations until the team member or responder has 
demonstrated to a trainer/instructor, supervisor/team leader/officer, 
the skills and abilities to safely complete the tasks expected;
    (iv) Ensure each instructor/trainer has the knowledge, skills, and 
abilities to teach the subject matter being presented.
    (v) Ensure training is provided in a language and at a literacy 
level that team members and responders understand, and that the 
training provides an opportunity for interactive questions and answers 
with the instructor/trainer.
    (vi) Provide each team member and responder with training on the 
RMP established in paragraph (f)(1) of this section;
    (vii) Train each team member and responder about the safety and 
health policy established in paragraph (f)(2) of this section and the 
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) established in paragraph (q) of 
this section;
    (viii) Provide each team member and responder with training that 
covers the selection, use, limitations, maintenance, and retirement 
criteria for all PPE used by the team member or responder based on the 
type and level of service(s), and tiers of team members and responders 
established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section;
    (ix) Train each team member and responder in the selection, proper 
use, and limitations of portable fire extinguishers provided for 
employee use in the WERE or ESO's facility and vehicles, in accordance 
with Sec.  1910.157;
    (x) Train each team member and responder in the incident management 
system (IMS) established in paragraph (o) of this section, in order to 
operate safely within the scope of the IMS.
    (xi) Ensure training for each team member and responder engaged in 
emergency activities includes procedures for the safe exit and 
accountability of team members and responders during orderly 
evacuations, rapid evacuations, equipment failure, or other dangerous 
situations and events.
    (xii) Ensure each team member and responder is trained to meet the 
requirements of Sec.  1910.120(q)(6)(i) (HAZWOPER), First Responder 
Awareness Level.
    (xiii) Ensure each team member and responder who is not trained and 
authorized to enter specific hazardous locations (e.g., confined 
spaces, trenches, and moving water) is trained to an awareness level 
(similar to the requirements in Sec.  1910.120(q)(6)(i)) to recognize 
such locations and their hazards and avoid entry;
    (xiv) Train each team member and responder to perform 
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and use an automatic external 
defibrillator (AED).
    (2) Vocational training. The WERE and ESO shall:
    (i) Ensure each WERT team member who is designated to perform 
firefighting duties is trained to safely perform the duties assigned, 
to a level that is at least equivalent to the job performance 
requirements of NFPA 1081(incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6);
    (ii) Ensure each ESO responder who is designated to perform 
interior structural firefighting duties is trained to safely perform 
the duties assigned, to a level that is at least equivalent to the job 
performance requirements of NFPA 1001 (incorporated by reference see 
Sec.  1910.6);
    (iii) Ensure each team member and responder who is designated to 
perform interior structural firefighting duties is trained to safely 
perform search and rescue operational capabilities at least equivalent 
to the job performance requirements of NFPA 1407 (incorporated by 
reference see Sec.  1910.6);
    (iv) Ensure each team member and responder who is a vehicle 
operator is trained to safely operate the vehicle at a level that is at 
least equivalent to the job performance requirements of NFPA 1002 
(incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6), or similar Emergency 
Vehicle Operator qualifications based on the type of vehicle the team 
member or responder operates;
    (v) Ensure each team member and responder who is a manager/
supervisor (crew leader/officer) is trained to safely perform at a 
level that is at least equivalent to the job performance

[[Page 8018]]

requirements of NFPA 1021 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6);
    (vi) Ensure each wildland ESO responder is trained to safely 
perform at a level that is at least equivalent to the job performance 
requirements of NFPA 1140 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6), 
or has a ``Red Card'' in accordance with the National Wildfire 
Coordinating Group--Interagency Fire Qualifications;
    (vii) Ensure each technical search and rescue team member and 
responder who is designated to perform a technical rescue is trained to 
safely perform at a level that is at least equivalent to the technician 
capabilities of the job performance requirements of NFPA 1006 
(incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6);
    (viii) Ensure each firefighting team member and responder who 
operates in a marine environment is trained to safely perform at a 
level that is at least equivalent to the job performance requirements 
of NFPA 1005 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6); and
    (ix) Ensure, based on the type and level of service(s) established 
in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, that each EMS team member 
and responder possesses the relevant professional qualification, 
certification, or license required in the WERE's and ESO's 
jurisdiction.
    (3) Proficiency. The WERE and ESO shall provide annual skills 
checks to ensure each team member and responder maintains proficiency 
in the skills and knowledge commensurate with the safe performance of 
expected duties and functions, based on the type and level of 
service(s) established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
    (i) WERE Facility Preparedness. (1) The WERE shall:
    (i) Ensure the facility complies with subpart E of this part;
    (ii) Provide facilities for the decontamination, disinfection, 
cleaning, and storage of PPE and equipment. If PPE is to be 
decontaminated off-site, the WERE must provide for bagging and storage 
of contaminated PPE while it is still at the WERE facility; and
    (iii) Ensure that fire detection, suppression, and alarm systems, 
and occupant notification systems are installed, tested, and maintained 
in accordance with manufacturer's instructions and subpart L of this 
part.
    (2) Ensure that, for prompt firefighting support from mutual aid 
WERTs and ESOs, fire hose connections and fittings are compatible with, 
or adapters are provided for, firefighting infrastructure such as fire 
hydrants, sprinkler system and standpipe system inlet connections, and 
fire hose valves (FHV); and
    (3) Identify the location of each FHV, except for those clearly 
visible on standpipes in enclosed stairways, in a manner suitable to 
the location, such as with a sign, painted wall, or painted column, to 
ensure prompt access to FHVs.
    (j) ESO Facility Preparedness--(1) General requirements. The ESO 
shall:
    (i) Ensure each ESO facility complies with subpart E of this part;
    (ii) Provide facilities for the decontamination, disinfection, 
cleaning, and storage of PPE and equipment. If PPE is to be 
decontaminated off-site, the ESO must provide for bagging and storage 
of contaminated PPE while it is still at the ESO facility;
    (iii) For fire poles, slides and chutes;
    (A) Ensure each responder using a fire pole maintains contact with 
the pole using all four extremities and does not hold anything other 
than the pole;
    (B) Ensure each fire pole has a landing cushion that is at least 30 
inches in diameter, has a contrasting color to the surrounding floor, 
and has impact absorption to reduce the likelihood and severity of 
injury;
    (C) Ensure each floor hole with a fire pole, chute, or slide that 
provides rapid access to a lower level is secured or protected in 
accordance with subpart D of this part to prevent unintended falls 
through the floor hole; and
    (iv) Ensure fire detection, suppression, and alarm systems, and 
occupant notification systems are installed, tested, and maintained in 
accordance with manufacturer's instructions and subpart L of this part.
    (2) Sleeping and living areas. The ESO shall:
    (i) Ensure interconnected hard-wired smoke alarms with battery 
back-up are installed inside each sleeping area, and outside in the 
immediate vicinity of each opening (door) to a sleeping area, and on 
all levels of the facility, including basements;
    (ii) Ensure each new ESO facility with one or more sleeping area(s) 
(approved for construction, as determined by building permit, after [2 
years after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register]) is protected throughout by an automatic sprinkler system, 
installed in accordance with Sec.  1910.159;
    (iii) Ensure each sleeping and living area has functioning carbon 
monoxide alarms installed;
    (iv) Prevent responder exposure to, and contamination of sleeping 
and living areas by, vehicle exhaust emissions; and
    (v) Ensure that contaminated PPE is not worn or stored in sleeping 
and living areas.
    (k) Equipment and PPE--(1) Equipment needed for emergency 
operations. The WERE and the ESO shall:
    (i) Provide or ensure access to the equipment needed to train for 
and safely perform emergency services, at no cost to team members and 
responders, based on the type and level of service(s) established in 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section;
    (ii) Ensure newly purchased or acquired equipment is safe for use 
in the manner the WERE or ESO intends to use it;
    (iii) Inspect, maintain, functionally test, and service test 
equipment as follows:
    (A) At least annually;
    (B) In accordance with manufacturer's instructions and industry 
practices; and
    (C) As necessary to ensure equipment is in safe working order; and
    (iv) Immediately remove from service equipment found to be 
defective or in an unserviceable condition.
    (2) Personal protective equipment (PPE). The WERE and the ESO 
shall:
    (i) Conduct a PPE hazard assessment for the selection of the 
protective ensemble, ensemble elements, and other protective equipment 
for team members and responders, based on the type and level of 
service(s) established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section;
    (ii) Provide, at no cost to team members and responders, protective 
ensembles, ensemble elements, and protective equipment designed to 
provide protection from the hazards to which the team members and 
responders are likely to be exposed and suitable for the task the team 
members and responders are expected to perform, as determined by the 
PPE hazard assessment in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of this section;
    (iii) Ensure PPE complies with subpart I of this part;
    (iv) Ensure existing PPE complies with the requirements of the 
edition of the respective standard, listed in paragraph (k)(2)(v) of 
this section, that was current when it was manufactured;
    (v) Ensure new PPE complies with the appropriate following 
standard(s):
    (A) NFPA 1951 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6);
    (B) NFPA 1952 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6);
    (C) NFPA 1953 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6);
    (D) NFPA 1971 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6);
    (E) NFPA 1977, (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6);

[[Page 8019]]

    (F) NFPA 1981 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6);
    (G) NFPA 1982 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6);
    (H) NFPA 1984 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6);
    (I) NFPA 1986 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6);
    (J) NFPA 1987 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6);
    (K) NFPA 1990 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6);
    (L) NFPA 1999 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6); and
    (M) ANSI/ISEA 207-2011 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  
1910.6).
    (vi) Ensure air-purifying respirators are not used in IDLH 
atmospheres and are only used for those contaminants that NIOSH 
certifies them against;
    (vii) Ensure each team member and responder properly uses or wears 
the protective ensemble, ensemble elements, and protective equipment 
whenever the team member or responder is exposed, or potentially 
exposed, to the hazards for which it is provided;
    (viii) Ensure protective ensembles, ensemble elements, and 
protective equipment are decontaminated, cleaned, cared for, inspected 
and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions;
    (ix) Immediately remove from service any defective or damaged 
protective ensembles, ensemble elements, or protective equipment;
    (x) Ensure, when a WERE or an ESO permits a team member or 
responder to provide their own protective ensemble, ensemble element, 
or other protective equipment for personal use, the requirements of 
paragraphs (k)(2)(iii) through (ix) of this section are met;
    (3) Protection from contaminants. To the extent feasible, the WERE 
and ESO shall:
    (i) Ensure contaminated PPE and non-PPE equipment undergo gross 
decontamination or are separately contained before leaving the incident 
scene; and
    (ii) Ensure team members and responders are not exposed to 
contaminated PPE and non-PPE equipment in the passenger compartment(s) 
of vehicles.
    (l) Vehicle preparedness and operation. (1) To ensure vehicles are 
prepared for safe use by team members and responders, the WERE and the 
ESO shall:
    (i) Inspect, maintain, and repair each WERE and ESO provided 
vehicle operated by team members and responders, as specified by the 
manufacturer;
    (ii) Immediately remove from service any vehicle with safety-
related deficiencies; (iii) Ensure each riding position is provided 
with a seat and functioning seat belt or vehicle safety harness that is 
designed to accommodate a team member or responder with and without 
heavy clothing, unless the vehicle is designed, built, and intended for 
use without seat belts or vehicle safety harnesses;
    (iv) Inspect, maintain, and service test aerial devices on 
vehicles, to ensure they are safe for use, as specified by the 
manufacturer, or to a standard at least equivalent to NFPA 1910 
(incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6); and
    (v) Inspect, maintain, and service test vehicle-mounted water pumps 
as specified by the manufacturer, or to a standard at least equivalent 
to NFPA 1910 (incorporated by reference see Sec.  1910.6).
    (2) To ensure vehicles are operated in a manner that will keep team 
members and responders safe, the WERE and ESO shall:
    (i) Ensure each vehicle is operated by a team member or responder 
who has successfully completed a training program commensurate with the 
type of vehicle the team member or responder will operate, or by a 
trainee operator who is under the supervision of a qualified operator;
    (ii) Ensure each vehicle is operated in accordance with SOP 
developed in paragraph (q)(2)(iv) of this section;
    (iii) Ensure the team member or responder operating the vehicle 
does not move the vehicle until all team members or responders in or on 
the vehicle are seated and secured with seat belts or vehicle safety 
harnesses in approved riding positions, other than as specifically 
excepted in paragraph (l)(1)(iii) of this section or as provided in 
paragraph (l)(2)(viii) of this section;
    (iv) Ensure team members and responders remain seated and secured 
any time that the vehicle is in motion, except when standing as 
permitted in paragraphs (l)(2)(vii) and (viii) of this section, and 
that seat belts and vehicle safety harnesses are not released or 
loosened for any purpose while the vehicle is in motion, including the 
donning or doffing of PPE;
    (v) Ensure team members and responders actively performing 
necessary emergency medical care while the vehicle is in motion are 
secured to the vehicle by a seat belt, or by a vehicle safety harness 
designed for occupant restraint, to the extent consistent with the 
effective provision of such emergency medical care;
    (vi) Establish and implement a procedure for operator training on 
vehicles with tiller steering that ensures when the instructor and 
trainee are both located at the tiller position, they are adequately 
secured to the vehicle whenever it is in motion;
    (vii) Provide a vehicle safety harness designed for occupant 
restraint to secure the team member or responder in a designated stand-
up position during pump-and-roll operations;
    (viii) Establish and implement policies and procedures that provide 
alternative means for ensuring the safety of team members and 
responders when the WERE or ESO determines it is not feasible for each 
team member, responder, or person to be belted in a seat, such as when 
reloading long lays of hose, standing as honor guards during a funeral 
procession, transporting people acting as holiday figures or other 
characters or mascots, parades, and for vehicles without seat belts;
    (ix) Establish and implement policies and procedures for operating 
vehicles not directly under the control of the WERE or ESO (i.e., 
privately owned/leased/operated by team members and responders), when 
the WERE or ESO authorizes team members or responders to respond 
directly to emergency incident scenes or to WERE or ESO facilities when 
alerted for an emergency incident response; and
    (x) Ensure, where equipment or respiratory protection are carried 
within enclosed seating areas of vehicles, each is secured either by a 
positive mechanical means of holding the item in its stowed position or 
by placement in a compartment with an effective latching closure.
    (m) WERE Pre-Incident Planning. (1) The WERE shall develop PIPs for 
locations within the facility where team members may be called to 
provide service, based on the facility vulnerability assessment and the 
type(s) and level(s) of service(s) established in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (2) PIPs shall include locations of unusual hazards that team 
members may encounter, such as storage and use of flammable liquids and 
gases, explosives, toxic and biological agents, radioactive sources, 
water-reactive substances, permit-required confined spaces, and 
hazardous processes.
    (3) PIPs shall include locations of fire pumps, fire hose valves, 
control valves, control panels, and other equipment for fire 
suppression systems, fire detection and alarm systems, and smoke 
control and evacuation systems.
    (4) The WERE shall ensure that the most recent versions of PIPs are 
provided to the WERT and are accessible and available to team members 
operating at emergency incidents.

[[Page 8020]]

    (5) To the extent feasible, PIPs shall include actions to be taken 
by team members if the scope of the incident is beyond the capability 
of the WERT.
    (6) PIPs shall be reviewed annually and when conditions or hazards 
change at the facility. They shall be updated as needed.
    (n) ESO Pre-Incident Planning. (1) The ESO shall determine the 
locations and facilities where responders may be called to provide 
service that need a PIP, based on the community or facility 
vulnerability assessment and the type(s) and level(s) of service(s) 
established in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) The ESO shall develop PIPs for facilities, locations, and 
infrastructure where emergency incidents may occur.
    (3) The ESO shall prepare a PIP for each facility within the ESO's 
primary response area that is subject to reporting requirements under 
40 CFR part 355 pursuant to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act (EPCRA) (also referred to as the Superfund Amendments and 
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.).
    (4) The ESO shall ensure facility personnel consulted are 
knowledgeable about the facility's use, contents, processes, hazards, 
and occupants.

    Note 2 to paragraph (n)(4): The ESO should develop and implement 
a written policy to protect proprietary business information.

    (5) The ESO shall ensure the responder(s) responsible for PIP 
preparation are knowledgeable in identifying the information to be 
collected and included in the PIP.
    (6) The PIP shall have a level of detail commensurate with the 
facility's complexity and hazards.
    (7) PIPs shall include actions to be taken by responders if the 
scope of the incident is beyond the capability of the ESO.
    (8) The ESO shall ensure that the most recent versions of PIPs are 
disseminated as needed and are accessible and available to responders 
operating at emergency incidents.
    (9) PIPs shall be reviewed annually and updated as needed.
    (o) Incident Management System Development. (1) The WERE and the 
ESO shall develop and implement an Incident Management System (IMS) to 
manage all emergency incidents, based on:
    (i) The type and level of service(s) established in paragraphs (c) 
and (d) of this section;
    (ii) The facility or community vulnerability assessment conducted 
in accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section; and
    (iii) The PIPs developed in accordance with paragraphs (m) and (n) 
of this section.
    (2) To provide structure and coordination to the management of 
emergency incident operations, for the safety and health of team 
members and responders involved in those activities, the IMS shall:
    (i) Include flexible and scalable components that are adaptable to 
any situation;

    Note 3 to paragraph (o)(2)(i):  Standardization of the IMS, such 
as provided in the National Incident Management System and the 
National Response Framework, developed by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security; is essential to the successful coordination and function 
of WERTs and ESOs in incident response.

    (ii) Ensure that, in the absence of a dedicated Incident Safety 
Officer (ISO), the Incident Commander (IC) assesses the incident scene 
for existing and potential hazards and oversees incident safety;
    (iii) Include a means for team members and responders to notify the 
ISO, IC or Unified Command (UC) of unsafe conditions and unsafe actions 
on the incident scene; and
    (iv) Consist of collaborative components that provide the basis for 
clear communication and effective operations.
    (3) The WERE and the ESO shall designate the responsibilities of 
the IC. The IC shall be responsible for, at least:
    (i) Front-line management of the incident;
    (ii) Overall incident safety;
    (iii) Tactical planning and execution; and
    (iv) Determining whether additional assistance is needed and 
relaying requests for internal resources, mutual aid, and skilled 
support assistance through the communications or emergency operations 
center, as appropriate.
    (4) The WERE and ESO shall ensure the IC has the training and 
authority to perform the assigned duties.
    (p) Emergency incident operations--(1) Incident command and 
management. The WERE and the ESO shall ensure that:
    (i) The IMS, developed in accordance with paragraph (o) of this 
section, is utilized at each emergency incident;
    (ii) Each emergency incident has an IC or a UC;
    (iii) The task of overseeing incident safety is addressed, or an 
ISO is assigned and designated to monitor and assess the incident scene 
for safety hazards and unsafe situations and develop measures for 
ensuring team member and responder safety;
    (iv) If an incident escalates in size and complexity, the IC 
divides the incident into strategic or tactical-level management 
components;
    (v) A UC structure is utilized on incidents where the complexity 
requires a shared responsibility among two or more WEREs, ESOs, or 
other agencies; and
    (vi) The IC(s), team members, and responders are rotated or 
replaced during complex or extended operations, as determined by the 
WERE or ESO.
    (2) Incident Commander. The WERE and the ESO shall ensure that:
    (i) A team member or responder is assigned as the IC;
    (ii) The identity of the IC and the location of command post are 
communicated to other team members or responders who are on the 
incident scene or responding to it;
    (iii) The IC conducts a comprehensive and ongoing size-up of the 
incident scene that places life safety as the highest priority;
    (iv) The IC conducts a risk assessment based on the size-up before 
actively engaging the incident;
    (v) The IC coordinates and directs all activities for the duration 
of the incident; and
    (vi) The IC develops an Incident Action Plan (IAP) that prioritizes 
life safety for each incident, updates it as needed during the 
incident, and utilizes the information contained in the PIP.
    (3) Control zones. The WERE and the ESO shall ensure that:
    (i) Control zones are established at every emergency incident to 
identify the level of risk to team members and responders and the 
appropriate protective measures needed, including PPE;
    (ii) The perimeters of the control zones are designated by the IC;
    (iii) Any changes to the perimeters during the incident are 
communicated to all team members and responders on the scene;
    (iv) Control zones are established as follows:
    (A) Designated as no-entry, hot, warm, or cold;
    (B) Marked in a conspicuous manner, with colored tape, signage, or 
other appropriate means, unless such marking is not possible; and
    (C) Communicated to all team members and responders attending the 
incident before the team member or responder is assigned to a control 
zone;
    (v) Only team members and responders with an assigned task are 
permitted in the hot zone;
    (vi) Where a no-entry zone is designated, team members and

[[Page 8021]]

responders are prohibited from entering the zone; and
    (vii) The designation of appropriate protective measures, including 
PPE, is commensurate with the hazards in the zone the team member and 
responder will be operating in, and that each team member and responder 
appropriately uses the protective measures for that zone.
    (4) On-scene safety and health measures. The WERE and the ESO 
shall:
    (i) Identify minimum staffing requirements needed to ensure 
incidents are mitigated safely and effectively;
    (ii) Ensure operations are limited to those that can be safely 
performed by the team members and responders available on the scene;
    (iii) Ensure that at least four team members or responders are 
assembled before operations are initiated in an IDLH atmosphere in a 
structure or enclosed area, unless upon arrival at an emergency scene, 
the initial team member(s) or responder(s) find an imminent life-
threatening situation where immediate action could prevent the loss of 
life or serious injury, in which case such action is permitted with 
fewer than four team members or responders present;
    (iv) Ensure at least two team members or responders enter the 
structure or enclosed area with an IDLH atmosphere as a team and remain 
in visual or voice contact with one another at all times, unless there 
is insufficient space for more than one team member or responder, such 
as for example, in a confined space or collapsed structure;
    (v) Ensure that outside the structure or enclosed area with the 
IDLH atmosphere, a minimum of two team members or responders are 
present to provide assistance to, or rescue of, the team operating in 
the IDLH atmosphere. One of the two team members or responders located 
outside the IDLH atmosphere may be assigned to an additional role, such 
as IC, so long as this team member or responder is able to perform 
assistance or rescue activities without jeopardizing the safety or 
health of other team members or responders operating at the incident;
    (vi) Ensure each team member and responder in the IDLH atmosphere 
uses positive-pressure SCBA or a supplied-air respirator in accordance 
with the respiratory protection program specified in paragraph 
(f)(1)(iii)(B) of this section;
    (vii) Ensure each supplied-air respirator used in an IDLH 
atmosphere is equipped with a NIOSH-certified emergency escape air 
cylinder and pressure-demand facepiece; and
    (viii) Ensure each team member and responder uses NIOSH-certified 
respiratory protection during post-fire extinguishment activities, such 
as overhaul and investigation.
    (5) Communication. The WERE and the ESO shall:
    (i) Ensure, to the extent feasible, adequate dispatch and 
monitoring of on-scene radio transmissions by an emergency 
communications and dispatch center;
    (ii) Ensure effective communication capability between team members 
or responders and the IC; and
    (iii) Ensure that communications equipment allows mutual aid team 
members and responders to communicate with the IC and other team 
members and responders.
    (6) The WERE and the ESO shall ensure the personnel accountability 
system established in paragraph (q)(2)(vii) of this section is utilized 
at each emergency incident.
    (7) The WERE and the ESO shall implement a Rapid Intervention Crew 
(RIC) at each structural fire incident where team members or responders 
are operating in an IDLH atmosphere, in accordance with the SOP 
established in paragraph (q)(2)(viii) of this section.
    (8) The WERE and the ESO shall implement the medical monitoring and 
rehabilitation procedures, as needed, in accordance with the SOP 
established in paragraph (q)(2)(ix) of this section.
    (9) The WERE and the ESO shall implement the traffic safety 
procedures, as needed, in accordance with the SOP established in 
paragraph (q)(2)(x) of this section.
    (10) Use of skilled support workers (SSW). Prior to participation 
by SSWs at an emergency incident, the WERE or the ESO shall ensure 
that:
    (i) Each SSW has and utilizes PPE appropriate to the task(s) to be 
performed;
    (ii) An initial briefing is provided to each SSW that includes, at 
a minimum, what hazards are involved, what safety precautions are to be 
taken, and what duties are to be performed by the SSW;
    (iii) An effective means of communication between the IC and each 
SSW is provided;
    (iv) Where appropriate, a team member or responder is designated 
and escorts the SSW at the emergency incident scene; and
    (v) All other appropriate on-scene safety and health precautions 
provided to team members and responders are used to ensure the safety 
and health of each SSW.
    (q) Standard Operating Procedures. (1) The WERE and the ESO shall 
develop and implement SOPs for emergency events that the WERE or ESO is 
reasonably likely to encounter, based on the type(s) and level(s) of 
service(s) established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, and 
the community or facility vulnerability assessment developed in 
accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
    (2) The WERE and ESO shall establish SOPs that:
    (i) Describe the actions to be taken by team members and responders 
in situations involving unusual hazards, such as downed power lines, 
natural gas or propane leaks, flammable liquid spills, and bomb 
threats;
    (ii) Address how team members and responders are to operate at 
incidents that are beyond the capability of the WERT or ESO, as 
specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section;
    (iii) Provide a systematic approach to team member and responder 
protection from contaminants, and for decontamination of team members, 
responders, PPE, and equipment, including at a minimum:
    (A) Proper techniques for doffing (removing) contaminated PPE;
    (B) On-scene gross decontamination, and decontamination at the 
WERE's or ESO's facility, of PPE, equipment, and team members and 
responders;
    (C) Encouraging team members and responders to shower with soap and 
water, as soon as reasonably practicable, and change into clean 
clothing; and
    (D) Protecting team members and responders from contaminated PPE 
after an incident;
    (iv) Meet the requirements for vehicle operation found in paragraph 
(l)(2) of this section and include procedures for safely driving 
vehicles during both non-emergency travel and emergency response; 
criteria for actions to be taken at stop signs and signal lights; 
vehicle speed; crossing intersections; driving on the opposite side of 
the road with oncoming traffic; use of cross-over/turnaround areas on 
divided highways; traversing railroad grade crossings; the use of 
emergency warning devices; and the backing of vehicles. For backing 
vehicles with obstructed views to the rear, the SOP shall require use 
of at least one of the following: a spotter, a 360-degree walk-around 
of the vehicle by the operator, or a back-up camera;
    (v) Provide for the use of standard protocols and terminology for 
radio communication at all types of incidents;
    (vi) Establish procedures for operating at structures and locations 
that are identified as, or determined to be vacant, structurally 
unsound, or otherwise unsafe for entry by team members and responders;

[[Page 8022]]

    (vii) Establish a system for maintaining personnel accountability 
and coordinating evacuation of all team members and responders 
operating at an incident that includes periodic accountability checks 
and reports; procedures for orderly evacuation of team members and 
responders; and procedures for rapid evacuation of team members and 
responders from escalating situations, such as rapid growth of fire, 
impending collapse, impending explosion; in case of PPE or equipment 
failure; and acts of active violence against team members and 
responders;
    (viii) Establish procedures for Mayday situations, such as when a 
team member or responder becomes lost, trapped, injured, or ill, 
including the use of the radio's emergency alert button and 
implementation of a RIC for immediate deployment to search and rescue 
any missing, disoriented, injured, ill, lost, unaccounted-for, or 
trapped team members or responders. The SOP shall specify the minimum 
number of team members or responders needed for the RIC, based on the 
size and complexity of potential incidents; and a standard list of 
equipment to be assembled by the RIC, for foreseeable incidents; and
    (ix) Establish a systematic approach to provide team members and 
responders with medical monitoring and rehabilitation at emergency 
incidents as needed, such as rest, medical treatment, rehydration 
(fluid replacement), active warming or cooling, and protection from 
extreme elements.
    (3) The ESO shall establish SOPs that:
    (i) Establish procedures for protecting responders from vehicular 
traffic while operating at an emergency incident on, or adjacent to, 
roadways and highways, including setting up a safe work zone beginning 
with proper placement of the first arriving ESO vehicle and subsequent 
ESO vehicles, a means of coordination with law enforcement and mutual 
aid WERTs or ESOs, and use of safety vests that have high visibility 
and are reflective;
    (ii) Establish procedures for operating at incident scenes that are 
primarily related to law enforcement, such as crime scenes, active 
shooters, and civil disturbances; and
    (iii) Establish procedures for incidents where responders are 
called upon to conduct non-emergency services, including a requirement 
for responders to present themselves in uniforms, PPE, vests, or other 
apparel that clearly identifies them as fire/rescue/EMS responders and 
a requirement that responders wear ballistic vests, if provided by the 
ESO and appropriate for the type of incident.
    (r) Post-Incident Analysis. (1) The WERE or ESO shall promptly 
conduct a Post-Incident Analysis (PIA) to determine the effectiveness 
of the WERT's or ESO's response to an incident after a significant 
event such as a large-scale incident; a significant near-miss incident; 
a team member, responder or SSW injury or illness requiring off-scene 
treatment; or a team member, responder, or SSW fatality.
    (2) The PIA shall include, but not be limited to, a review and 
evaluation of the RMP, IMS, PIPs, SOPs, and IAPs for accuracy and 
adequacy.
    (3) The WERE or ESO shall promptly identify and implement changes 
needed to the RMP, IMS, PIPs, IAPs, and SOPs based on the lessons 
learned as a result of the PIA; or if the changes cannot be promptly 
implemented, the WERE or ESO shall develop a written timeline for 
implementation as soon as feasible.
    (s) Program Evaluation. (1) The WERE and ESO shall evaluate the 
adequacy and effectiveness of the ERP at least annually, and upon 
discovering deficiencies, and document when the evaluation(s) are 
conducted.
    (2) Review of the ERP shall include determining whether the ERP was 
implemented as designed and whether modifications are necessary to 
correct deficiencies.
    (3) The WERE and ESO shall identify and implement recommended 
changes to the ERP, with written timelines for correcting identified 
deficiencies as soon as feasible, based on the review of the program, 
giving priority to recommendations that most significantly affect team 
member or responder safety and health.
    (t) Severability. Each section of this standard, and each provision 
within those sections, is separate and severable from the other 
sections and provisions. If any provision of this standard is held to 
be invalid or unenforceable on its face, or as applied to any person, 
entity, or circumstance, or is stayed or enjoined, that provision shall 
be construed so as to continue to give the maximum effect to the 
provision permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of utter 
invalidity or unenforceability, in which event the provision shall be 
severable from this standard and shall not affect the remainder of the 
standard.
0
13. Amend Sec.  1910.157 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(3);
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(7); and
0
c. In paragraph (f):
0
i. Redesignating Table L-1 as table 1 to paragraph (f)(3);
0
ii. Removing the text ``Table L-1'' wherever it appears, and adding in 
its place the text ``table 1 to paragraph (f)(3)''; and
0
iii. Revising newly redesignated table 1 to paragraph (f)(3).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  1910.157  Portable fire extinguishers.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) The employer shall not provide or make available in the 
workplace portable fire extinguishers using carbon tetrachloride, 
chlorobromomethane, or methyl bromide extinguishing agents.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) The employer shall distribute portable fire extinguishers of 
Class K extinguishing agent for use by employees so that the travel 
distance from the Class K hazard area to any extinguisher is 30 feet 
(9.15 m) or less.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *

                       Table 1 to Paragraph (f)(3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Test interval
                  Type of extinguisher                        (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam)........................               5
Carbon dioxide..........................................               5
Dry chemical with stainless steel shells................               5
FFFP (film-forming fluoroprotein foam...................               5
Wet chemical............................................               5
Wetting agent...........................................               5
Stored-pressure water, water mist, loaded steam, and/or                5
 antifreeze.............................................
Dry chemical, cartridge- or cylinder-operated, with mild              12
 steel shells...........................................
Dry chemical, stored-pressure, with mild steel shells,                12
 brazed brass shells, or aluminum shells................
Dry powder, stored-pressure, cartridge- or cylinder-                  12
 operated, with mild steel shells.......................
Halogenated agents......................................              12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec.  1910.158 by adding paragraph (c)(2)(iii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1910.158  Standpipe and hose systems.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that standpipe system inlet 
connections and fittings are compatible with, or adapters are provided 
for, the fire hose couplings used by the fire department(s) or 
Workplace Emergency Response Team(s) that pump water into the

[[Page 8023]]

standpipe system through the connections or fittings.
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec.  1910.159 by adding paragraph (c)(12) to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.159  Automatic sprinkler systems.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (12) Inlet connections. The employer shall ensure that sprinkler 
system inlet connections and fittings are compatible with, or adapters 
are provided for, the fire hose couplings used by the fire 
department(s) or Workplace Emergency Response Team(s) that pump water 
into the sprinkler system through the connections or fittings.

[FR Doc. 2023-28203 Filed 2-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P