Download as PDF
7774
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. OSHA–2007–0073]
RIN 1218–AC91
Emergency Response Standard
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
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
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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-andstandards/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: meilinger.francis2@
dol.gov.
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:
hagemann.mark@dol.gov.
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7775
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 OSHAApproved 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 ‘‘onesize-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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7776
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 multibuilding 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 OSHAapproved 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
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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
7777
- -.
'Iabl e VII A 1 A nnua num ber off'ire fi1g ht er dea th s b1y reporfmg agency.
Investigatin USFA
FEMA
NFPA
NIOS
OSHA
BLS
NWCG
(01S)
2 Entity:
H
20072007200720072007-2021
Data Range 19902020
2012
2021
2021
2016
2021
(excludin
g 2001)
Average
Number of
Fatalities,
Annually
102
(Includes
36
Covid-19
related
deaths)
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 nonfirefighter 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
72.4
(Exclude
s Covid19
related
deaths)
99.3
17
(Wildlan
d
firefighte
r deaths
only)
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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
18.2
(Exclude
s Covid19
related
deaths)
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_30year_experience. Similarly, as noted
above, OSHA believes that many
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.000</GPH>
11.3 (Includes
only nonfirefighter
personnel,
excludes Covid19 related
deaths)
Source: USFAAnnual Fatality Summary Reports, 2007-2021; NFPAAnnual Fatality Summary Reports,
2007 - 2021; NIOSH, Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program - Fire Fighter Fatality
Map (2007-2021); U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; OSHA's Occupational Safety and
Health Information System (OIS).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
105.2
7778
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 peerreviewed 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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).
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
7779
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-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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,
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.001</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table VII-A-2. Summary comparison of the characteristics of the NFPA and O1S
fatality datasets.
Average Number of
Average Number of
Annual Fatalities
Annual Fatalities
(2007-2021)
(2007-2021)
Fatality Descriptive Information
NFPA Dataset
O1S Dataset
Average Annual Fatality Rate (AAFR)72.4
18.2
Overall Rate
AAFR-Paid Employee
35.1 (48%)
16.3 (90%)
1.9 (10%)
37.3 (52%)
AAFR-Volunteer
Task at Time of Death
42.1 (58%)
11.3 (62%)
Fire or Emeq~ency Response
Other Emer2encies
7.9 (11%)
0.4 (2%)
8.5 (12%)
2.5 (14%)
Trainin2 Exercise
On Duty, Other
13.8 (19%)
3.7(21%)
Cause of Death
2.4 (3%)
0.6 (3%)
Explosion
4.5 (6%)
1.9 (10%)
Fall
Heat Exhaustion
1 (1%)
0.5 (3%)
13.5 (19%)
4.8 (26%)
Struck By
Workplace Violence
1.7 (2%)
0.1 (1%)
Nature of Death
Asphyxia
7 (10%)
1.9 (10%)
4.8 (7%)
2.6 (14%)
Burn or Scald
1.4 (2%)
0.8 (4%)
Drownin2
3.8 (20%)
30.9 (43%)
Heart Attack
Strikin'i!/Crushin'i!/Collision
23.2 (32%)
4.8 (26%)
Source: NFPA Annual Fatality Summary Reports, 2007 - 2021.
NOTE: Because of rounding and data exclusion of nonclassifiable responses, data may not sum to the totals
Source: OSHA's Occupational Safety and Health Information System (OIS).
7780
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Document ID 0265; NFPA, 2022,
Document ID 0122).
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
Table VII-A-3. Summary of nature and cause of deaths in 01S fatality analysis.
Emergen
cy
Response
-Not Fire
Emergenc
y
ResponseFire
Rescue
-
28
38
-
1
-
-
28
39
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
1
1
1
Cuti
Laceration
5
5
2
Drownin2
Explosion
1
6
2
Fall
2
11
2
6
7
Heart
3
15
15
14
Attack
Heat
3
4
Exhaustion
Natural
1
1
Causes
Stroke
1
Smoke
1
Exposure
Striking/
6
17
2
9
Crushing/
Collision
Struck By
6
23
1
8
Suicide
1
Unknown
6
3
4
Violence
1
1
Total
19
150
7
38
51
Source: OSHA's Occupational Safety and Health Information System (OIS).
-
1
8
12
9
28
55
-
7
-
2
-
1
1
-
34
-
38
1
13
2
273
------------------Cause of
Death
Asphyxia
Burn/
Scald
Cancer
Chemical
Exposure
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
Training
Exercise
On DutyOther
-
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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Off Duty
8
Total
Deaths
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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.002</GPH>
Assigned
Task
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
7781
Table VII-A-4. A summary of hazards identified by OSHA during fatality
investi~ations.
Identified Safety Deficiencies Leading to
Number of
Workplace Hazards
Fatalities
Correct Use of PPE and Other Equipment
59 (21.6%)
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
29 (10.6%)
Standard Operating Procedures-Creation and
47 (17.2%)
Adherence
IDLH Practices-Creation and Adherence
18 (6.6%)
18 (6.6%)
Medical Evaluation
Minimum Training Requirements
41 (15.0%)
ERP- Creation and Adherence
56 (20.5%)
RMP- Creation and Adherence
43 (15.8%)
Source: OSHA's Occupational Safety and Health Information System (OIS).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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, overexertion 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.003</GPH>
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.
7782
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table VII-A-5. Non-Fatal Injuries to EMTs and Paramedics, All Ownerships, 20072020.
Number oflnjuries
Percent of Total Average Annual
Injuries
Injuries
10,570
9.8
755
1,050
14,700
13.6
Contact with objects
IFalls, slips, trips
Overexertion and bodily reaction
57,790
53.6
!Exposure to harmful substance or
7,010
6.5
~nvironment
rrransportation incidents
7,540
7.0
IFires and explosions
260
0.2
~iolence and other injuries by
4,720
4.4
persons or animals
Other
4,640
4.3
Total Injuries
107,720
100.0
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, SuIVey of Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses in cooperation with participating State agencies. https://data.bls.gov/gqt/ProjileData.
Number of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses involving days away from work (1) by selected
worker and case characteristics and occupation, All U.S., private industry, 2007 - 2020.
NOTE: Because of rounding and data exclusion of nonclassifiable responses, data may not sum to the
totals.
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
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
337
331
7,694
those classified as a lost time injury,
21% of total injuries (see Table VII–A–
6).
Table VII-A-6. A Summary of Non-Fatal In_iuries to Firefi2hters, 2007-2020.
Year of Total Number of Total Number of Lost
Lost Time Injuries as a
In_iuries
Time In_iuries
Percent of Total In_iuries
Record
2007
80,100
16,350
20.4%
2008
79.700
15.250
19.1%
78,150
15,150
2009
19.4%
2010
71,875
15,000
20.9%
2011
70,090
13,650
19.5%
69,400
14,350
2012
20.7%
65,880
10,000
2013
15.2%
63,350
2014
10.700
16.9%
2015
68,085
11,500
16.9%
2016
62,085
19,050
30.7%
2017
58.835
10.155
17.3%
58,250
15.500
26.6%
2018
2019
60,825
17,575
28.9%
2020*
64,875
13,590
28.9%
Annual
67,964
14,172
21.0%
Avera2e
Source: NFPA Annual Fatality Summary Reports, 2007 - 2021.
NOTE: Because of rounding and data exclusion of nonclassifiable responses, data may not sum to the
totals.
*2020 lost-time number is derived from the 15-year average.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
501
539
19
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.005</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
To determine the number of injuries
occurring annually among firefighters,
OSHA reviewed the annual NFPA
injury summary reports from 2007 to
4,128
EP05FE24.004</GPH>
Event or Exposure
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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,
7783
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).
- -.
•
'Ia ble VII A 7 A ss12ne
• d 'Ias k 0 f F"irefi121hteratth e T"1meofTh.
e1r I n.1urw.
Responding to
or Returning
from an
Emere:encv
6.2%
6.2%
6.4%
6.1%
5.5%
6.0%
6.1%
6.6%
5.6%
8.4%
7.7%
7.1%
6.7%
7.7%
6.6%
Fireground
Non-Fire
Other
Year of Record
Operations
Emere:encies
Trainine:
Duties
2007
47.9%
19.3%
9.7%
17.1%
2008
45.9%
19.8%
10.2%
17.9%
2009
41.2%
19.8%
10.2%
22.5%
2010
45.5%
18.6%
10.1%
19.7%
2011
43.5%
21.3%
10.7%
19.0%
2012
45.4%
18.4%
10.3%
19.9%
2013
45.2%
19.0%
11.8%
17.9%
2014
42.6%
23.0%
10.9%
16.9%
2015
42.8%
21.0%
11.1%
19.5%
2016
39.2%
20.6%
13.7%
18.2%
2017
41.6%
20.8%
14.2%
15.6%
2018
39.4%
20.0%
14.0%
19.4%
2019
39.2%
23.3%
13.4%
17.4%
2020
34.6%
21.0%
11.6%
25.1%
Annual Average
42.4%
20.4%
11.6%
19.0%
Source: NFPA Annual Fatality Summary Reports, 2007 - 2021.
NOTE: Because of rounding and data exclusion of nonclassifiable responses, data may not sum to the
totals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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).
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.006</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
7784
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
- -.
•
'Ia ble VII A 8 N atureof F irefi11 hter I n_1ury.
0
Exposure
to
chemicals
or
radiation
1.0%
2.8%
5.0%
0.9%
2.3%
1.8%
2.2%
3.0%
2.6%
3.7%
4.0%
2.0%
5.0%
3.0%
2.8%
Fall,
Contact Struck
Exposure
Year of
Jump, Overexertion,
with
byan
Extreme
to fire
Slip
ob_ject
ob_ject
Record
Strain
weather products
2007
27.3%
24.4%
11.9%
8.8%
2.4%
8.8%
2008
23.5%
23.1%
13.0%
4.9%
2.9%
12.7%
2009
22.7%
25.2%
11.4%
5.8%
2.4%
12.9%
2010
22.5%
25.7%
12.4%
6.9%
4.7%
9.0%
2011
21.0%
28.4%
11.7%
5.7%
3.7%
8.0%
2012
23.2%
27.5%
10.9%
5.5%
3.4%
9.7%
2013
22.7%
26.5%
12.0%
4.7%
3.8%
10.4%
2014
29.0%
25.0%
11.0%
6.0%
3.0%
9.0%
2015
27.2%
27.2%
7.4%
9.0%
1.8%
8.2%
2016
21.0%
27.1%
9.7%
5.9%
3.1%
13.6%
2017
20.0%
29.0%
11.0%
6.0%
3.0%
11.0%
2018
18.0%
29.0%
10.0%
5.0%
3.0%
17.0%
2019
20.0%
29.0%
9.0%
5.0%
3.0%
15.0%
2020
21.0%
31.0%
10.0%
5.0%
3.0%
15.0%
Annual
22.8%
27.0%
10.8%
6.0%
3.1%
11.5%
Avera2e
Source: NFPA Annual Fatality Summary Reports, 2007 - 2021.
NOTE: Because of rounding and data exclusion of nonclassifiable responses, data may not sum to the totals.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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/
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.007</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
Other
15.4%
16.9%
14.6%
18.0%
19.1%
17.9%
17.8%
14.0%
16.4%
16.4%
16.0%
16.0%
14.0%
16.0%
16.3%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
response gear. The infectious diseases
review summarizes research on a variety
of diseases, including hepatitis B,
Clostridiodes difficile, Methicillinresistant 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 postfire clean-up activities. Emergency
responders can also be exposed to
combustion products through offgassing 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 WildlandUrban 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7785
(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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7786
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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, mopup, 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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-headrelated 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 methamphetaminerelated 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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(2ethylhexyl)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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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%). ElieTurenne 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7787
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7788
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 doseresponse 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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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-
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7789
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 crossseason 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) metaanalysis. 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7790
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lung-related health conditions as soon
as possible in order to mitigate longterm health impacts.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 posttraumatic 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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; PiazzaGardner 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 patientinitiated 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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7791
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7792
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 41question 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 cochaired 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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-andstandards/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
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
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
§ 1910.6 with updated Federal Register
requirements.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7793
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 wildlandurban interface firefighting protective
clothing and equipment including
protective garments, helmets, gloves,
footwear, goggles, chain saw protectors,
and load-carrying equipment.
NFPA 1981, Standard on OpenCircuit 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7794
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 nonfirefighting 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 airpurifying 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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 highvisibility 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 largescale 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 preincident 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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-andStandards/Free-access or for purchase
at https://catalog.nfpa.org/Codes-andStandards-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-ResponderSafety-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 SelfContained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)
for Emergency Services, and Personal
Alert Safety Systems (PASS), scheduled
for 2024.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7795
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7796
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 OSHAapproved State Plans pursuant to
section 18 of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C.
667, would be required to treat publicsector 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.
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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)).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7797
Thus, ‘‘[w]hen Congress passed the
[OSH] Act in 1970, it chose to place preeminent 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7798
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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))).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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-byindustry 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 OSHAapproved 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/standard
interpretations/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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 OSHAapproved 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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7799
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7800
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 reevaluation, 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 Staterun 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 sideby-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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7801
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, prehospital 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7802
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 ‘‘allhazards’’ 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 § 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
Protection
Respiratory
The proposed rulemaking essentially
moves the Respiratory Protection for
Structural Firefighting requirements
from 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(4) to proposed
§ 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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
Response
Emergency
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 OSHAapproved 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 privatesector 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 OSHAapproved State Plans that do not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7803
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 responserelated 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.’’
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7804
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 nontechnical 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7805
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 noentry. 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7806
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 prehospital care that WEREs and ESOs may
provide. Examples of EMS include Basic
Life Support, First Responder,
Emergency Medical Technician (EMT)–
Basic, EMT-Intermediate, EMTAdvanced, 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
§ 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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 nonemergency 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 OSHAapproved 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
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 incidentrelated 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
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7807
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7808
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 nonemergency 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 sizeups 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7809
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 nonemergency 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,
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7810
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 indepth 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
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 longstanding 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
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7811
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 firstdue 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,
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7812
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 WERTprovided 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7813
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7814
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 postincident 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 onduty 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 backto-back long shifts and excessive
overtime especially in understaffed fire
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 LaborManagement 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
(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 postpanel 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
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7815
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 1582compliant 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7816
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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)).
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Current § 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., § 1910.1024(g)(1);
1910.1053(g)(1)) or by OSHA’s general
Respiratory Protection standard (id.
§ 1910.134), employees must be
medically evaluated to determine their
ability to wear a respirator (id.
§ 1910.134(e)(6)) and must pass a fit test
(id. § 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 stateto-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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 postincident 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). Wellknown risk factors, such as blood
pressure, elevated cholesterol levels,
smoking or vaping, and diabetic status
are used to calculate lifetime and/or 10year 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7817
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).
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.
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
5 For ACC/AHA Class IIb medical conditions, the
recommended procedure or treatment may be
considered.
6 For ACC/AHA Class IIa medical conditions,
ACC/AHA considers it reasonable to perform the
procedure or administer treatment.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7818
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 returnto-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
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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-3chloropropane (29 CFR 1910.1044).
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7819
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,
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7820
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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, nongovernmental, 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 communitybased 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 reevaluate 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
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7821
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7822
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 inperson 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7823
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7824
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 tractordrawn 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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 landbased 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
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 onthe-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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7825
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,
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7826
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 hardwired smoke alarms with battery backup 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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., § 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7827
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7828
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 OpenCircuit 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
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 responderprovided 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 nonPPE 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 nonPPE 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 nonPPE 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
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7829
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 nonemergency 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,
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7830
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7831
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7832
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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, permitrequired 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
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7833
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;
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7834
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7835
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-toface. 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 freestanding 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 sizeups 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7836
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 noentry 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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, 2out’’ 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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-toperson, 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 suppliedair 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7837
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, NIOSHcertified 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7838
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 twoway 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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, fastmoving 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 360degree 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
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7839
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7840
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 factbased 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7841
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/safetymanagement/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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7842
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
§ 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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 § 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 equipmentrelated 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7843
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 hardwired smoke alarms with battery backup 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7844
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 performanceoriented 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA)
must be prepared for major rules with
significant regulatory action/s and/or
with significant effects as per section
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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7845
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7846
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 safetyrelated 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.
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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 riskadjusted 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
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
10 The section on workers’ compensation
insurance later in this chapter identifies and
discusses other related market imperfections.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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).
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 jobrelated rather than an ‘‘ordinary disease
of life’’ resulting from genetic,
physiological, lifestyle, or nonoccupational environmental factors.12
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 nonoccupational 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
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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
Of course, in the abstract, many of the
problems that employers and workers
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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, highrisk 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’
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7847
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
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
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://workinjury
source.com/workers-compensation-for-volunteerfirefighters/.
17 The original classic reference on public goods
is ‘‘The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure,’’
Samuelson, Paul A., The Review of Economics and
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
Continued
05FEP2
7848
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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).
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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
(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
Statistics, Nov. 1954. For related ‘‘club theory,’’ the
original reference is ‘‘An Economic Theory of
Clubs,’’ Buchanan, James M., Economica, Feb.,
1965.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 wagetakers 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., firmspecific 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 jobspecific training and associated
compensation, seniority rights and
associated benefits, and investments in
a pension plan.
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
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 responderrelated 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 responserelated 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
provide fair and prompt compensation
to workers for medical costs and lost
wages resulting from workplace injury
and disease and, through the riskspreading 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 workrelated 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
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7849
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 riskspreading objective of workers’
compensation conflicts with, and
ultimately helps to undermine, the costinternalization objective.21 For the 99
percent of employers who rely on
workers’ compensation insurance,22 the
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,
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
Continued
05FEP2
7850
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
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 yearto-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 Statemandated rate that reflects a
combination of class and experience
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.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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 workrelated 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
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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’ jobrelated 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
filed and have sufficient assets to cover
the claims; 24 and
• 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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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;
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
• 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7851
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7852
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 OSHAapproved 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,
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,
Washington, Connecticut, Illinois,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, and U.S. Virgin Islands.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-exposingunwitting-workers-covid-19/.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
7853
Table VII-B-1. Volunteer ESOs & Responders in State Plan States that
Cover and Do Not Cover Volunteers
Type of State Plan
ESOs
Number
Responders
ESOs
Percentage
Responders
Fire Deoartments
Volunteers Covered
Volunteers not Covered
Total
Wildland Fire Services ral
5216
2,517
7,733
174.895
69,290
244,183
67.5%
32.5%
100.0%
71.6%
28.4%
100.0%
7
5
12
3,737
815
4,552
58.3%
41.7%
100.0%
82.1%
17.9%
100.0%
221
97
318
15,379
2,092
17,471
69.5%
30.5%
100.0%
88.0%
12.0%
100.0%
1,572
2,028
3,600
60,106
77,570
137,676
43.7%
56.3%
100.0%
43.7%
56.3%
100.0%
7,015
4,467
11,662
254,117
149,766
403,883
60.2%
39.8%
100.0%
62.9%
37.1%
100.0%
Volunteers Covered
Volunteers not Covered
Total
Emergency Medical Services
Volunteers Covered
Volunteers not Covered
Total
Technical Search and Rescue
Volunteers Covered
Volunteers not Covered
Total
All Groups
Volunteers Covered
Volunteers not Covered
Total
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
28 Note that not all private firefighting
organizations reported in the NFPA data are
WEREs.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.008</GPH>
Source: OSHA derived from USFA, 2022; Office of the Arizona Governor, 2021; CDCR, 2023; Maddux,
2020; Nevada Division of Forestry, 2023; Biancolli, 2018; Stenvick, 2020; WA DOC, 2023; NAEMT,
2014, BLS, 2023; Brewster, 2022; USLA, 2022b; U.S. Census Bureau, 2017a; Miley, 2022; and Wildland
Fire Jobs, 2022.
Note: The USFA data in this table does not include Federal entities. However, appendix A, which includes
data on all fire departments whether or not they are included in the analysis, does include Federal entities.
[a] The count ofwildland fire services ESOs and responders include inmate firefighters and the state
governments that utilize prison labor for wildland fighting activities.
7854
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
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
Table VII-B-2. Summary Statistics by Fire Department Type
Department Type
ESOs
6,844
16,541
3,759
27,144
Career
Volunteer
Mixed
Total Fire Departments
Percenta2e
25%
61%
14%
100%
Source: OSHA derived from USF A (2022).
Notes: ESOs are designated as career if they employ 100 percent career and/or paid-per-call firefighters,
and as volunteer if they employ 100 percent volunteer firefighters. Figures may not add to totals due to
rounding.
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.
Table VII-B-3. Summary Statistics by Personnel Type
Firefi2hter Type
Number
365,311
578,565
131177
157,927
1,232,980
Active Firefighters - Career
Active Firefighters - Volunteer
Active Firefighters - Paid per Call
Non-Firefighting Personnel
Total Firefi2hters
Percenta2e
30%
47%
11%
13%
100%
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.
29 These statistics are based on the USFA registry
database as of May 17, 2022. Registry data are
voluntarily reported by fire departments.
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.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.010</GPH>
Table VII–B–4 shows the interplay
between department and personnel
types (including all departments and
personnel, whether or not they would
EP05FE24.009</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: OSHA derived from USF A (2022).
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
7855
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table VII-B-4. Summary Statistics by Department and Personnel Type
Number
Active
Active
Active
Nonof
Firefighters - Firefighters - Firefighters Firefighting
Stations
Career
Volunteer
Paid per Call
Personnel
Career
20,023
294,408
0
112,520
35,581
Volunteer
21,725
0
452,512
0
87,996
Mixed
10,429
70,903
126,053
18,657
34,350
52,177
365,311
578,565
131,177
157,927
Total
Source: OSHA derived from USF A (2022).
Notes: ESOs are designated as career if they employ 100 percent career and/or paid-per-call firefighters,
and as volunteer if they employ 100 percent volunteer firefighters.
Department
Type
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
Table VII-B-5. Summary Statistics by Fire Department Operator for All Fire
Department
Departments
Number Percent
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 nonfirefighting personnel included in the
31 There are 90 fire departments with no reported
active firefighting personnel in the 2022 USFA
Registry.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
25,973
95.7%
1,019,599
94.8%
188
0.7%
15,951
1.5%
85
0.3%
1,936
0.2%
64
183
190
63
254
144
0.2%
0.7%
0.7%
0.2%
0.9%
0.5%
2,595
6,775
10,476
3,946
8,939
4,836
0.2%
0.6%
1.0%
0.4%
0.8%
0.4%
26,493
97.6%
1,046,856
97.4%
253
0.9%
14,422
1.3%
398
1.5%
13,775
1.3%
27,144 100.0% 1,075,053 100.0%
in this standard, this term is used in the NFPA
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
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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-
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.012</GPH>
Local Government (includes career, mixed, and
volunteer)
State Government
Transportation Authority or Airport Fire
Department
Tribal Government
Other
Federal Government (Department of Defense)
Federal Government (Executive Branch)
Contract Fire Department
Private or Industrial Fire Brigade
Non-Federal Public (Local, State, Tribal,
Transportation Authority/Airport, and
Other)
Federal Government
Private (Contract, Private or Industrial Fire
Bri2ade) 1
Total
While OSHA is not using the term "Industrial Fire Brigade"
database which is being summarized here.
Source: OSHA derived from USF A (2022).
Note: Figures inay not add to totals due to rounding.
Responders
Number Percent
EP05FE24.011</GPH>
Organization Type
7856
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(see Table VII–B–6) that would be
affected by the proposed rule.
scope. After these adjustments, OSHA
estimates that there are 12,096 fire
departments and 534,599 responders
Table VII-B-6. Fire Departments and Firefi2hters in Scope by Department Type
Department Type
Departments
4,266
5,674
2,156
12,096
C. Wildland Firefighting Services
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 asneeded 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
32 This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in performing particular support
activities related to timber production, wood
technology, forestry economics and marketing, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.013</GPH>
% Departments Responders % Responders
Career
35.3%
246,561
46.1%
Volunteer
46.9%
187,621
35.1%
Mixed
17.8%
100,417
18.8%
Total
100.0%
534,599
100.0%
Source: OSHA derived from USFA (2022).
Note: Excludes public ESOs in non-State Plan states, volunteer ESOs in State Plan states where volunteers
are not covered, and ESOs with zero responders.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
7857
Table VII-B-7. State Wildland Firefighting Programs and Inmate
Firefighters Affected
% Inmate Firefighters
Inmate Firefighters
State
Arizona
California
Indiana
Nevada
New York
Oregon
Washington
720
1,600
17
720
5
345
330
Total
3,737
19.3%
42.8%
0.5%
19.3%
0.1%
9.2%
8.8%
100.0%
Source: OSHA derived from Office of the Arizona Governor, 2021; CDCR, 2023; Maddux, 2020; Nevada
Division of Forestry, 2023; Biancolli, 2018; Stenvick, 2020; WA DOC, 2023.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 hospitalbased 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
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.014</GPH>
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).
7858
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table VII-B-8. Ambulance Services by Detailed Type of Provider
Ambulance ESOs
Percentaee rdl Total rdl
Total U.S.
6,110
Fire Department with Cross-Trained EMS Personnel
40.0%
1,375
Fire Department with Separate EMS Personnel
9.0%
2,750
Private Company
18.0%
1,222
8.0%
Other
7.0%
1,069
Hospital-Based Service
Public Utility Model (Private Contractor)
2.0%
306
14.5%
2,215
Government or Third Party
0.5%
76
Police Department with Cross-Trained EMS Personnel
1.0%
Police Department with Separate EMS Personnel
153
100%
Total Ambulance Services
15,276
Total Excludine Fire Departments
68.6%
5,347
Private ral
1,443
18.5%
Public, State Plan State rb l rCl
1,001
12.9%
Public, Non-State Plan State rbl rel
100%
Total Ambulance Services
7,791
Total Affected
79.9%
5,347
Private ral
1,346
20.1%
Public State Plan State rb l rcl
100%
Total Ambulance Services
6,693
Sources: OSHA derived from NAEMT (2014) and BLS (2023).
Notes:
[a] The "private" category includes private company, other, hospital-based service, and public utility model
(private contractor).
[b] The public category includes "government or third party" and police department ambulance services.
This count excludes fire departments, which are profiled in the previous section.
[c] The portion of public services in state plan states is based on the ratio of employment in SO Cs 29-2042
'Emergency Medical Technicians' and 29-2043 'Paramedics' in state plan states to employment of those two
occupations in all states in BLS OEWS data for May 2022 (BLS, 2023), which equals 59.04%.
[d] Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.015</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
7859
Table VII-B-9. Estimated Number of Ambulance Services and PersonnelCareer, Volunteer, and Mixed
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:49 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 nontechnical 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
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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,
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.016</GPH>
Private ral
Public, State Plan State rbl rel
Total Affected rdl
Ambulance ESOs
Number
Career
2,032
548
2,580
1,397
Volunteer
1,176
221
2,716
Mixed
2,139
577
6,693
Total
5,347
1,346
Percent of Total Affected
39%
Career
30%
8%
21%
Volunteer
18%
3%
41%
Mixed
32%
9%
100%
80%
20%
Total
Personnel
Number
141,986
Career
111,809
30,177
80,111
Volunteer
64,732
15,379
138,860
Mixed
117,694
21,166
360,957
294,234
66,723
Total
Percent of Total Affected
39%
Career
31%
8%
22%
Volunteer
18%
4%
38%
Mixed
33%
6%
100%
82%
18%
Total
Sources: OSHA derived from NAEMT (2014), USFA (2022), and BLS (2023).
Notes:
[a] The "private" category includes private company, other, hospital-based service, and public utility model
(private contractor).
[b] The public category includes "government or third party" and police department ambulance services.
This count excludes fire departments, which are profiled in the previous section.
[c] The portion of public services in State Plan states is based on the ratio of employment in SOCs 29-2042
'Emergency Medical Technicians' and 29-2043 'Paramedics' in State Plan states to employment in those
two occupations all states in BLS OEWS data for May 2022 (BLS, 2023), which equals 59.04%.
[d] Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7860
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 × 90 percent
wilderness × 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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.
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
33 OSHA assumes that there are at least 2
volunteer responders per technical search and
rescue group.
34 https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/
national-preparedness/frameworks/urban-searchrescue/task-force-locations.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 USLAcertified (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.
OSHA counted the number of USLAcertified 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
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7861
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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7862
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
Table VII-B-10. Technical Water Rescue Entities and Employees Affected
Size Class
ESOs
%ESOs
Resnonders
% Resnonders
Total
Public - State Plan State
123
56.7%
7,676
64.1%
Public - Non-State Plan State
83
38.2%
3,699
30.9%
Private
11
5.1%
599
5.0%
Total
217
100.0%
11,974
100.0%
Total Affected
Public - State Plan State
123
91.8%
7.676
92.8%
Public - Non-State Plan State
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Private
11
8.2%
599
7.2%
Total
134
100.0%
8,275
100.0%
Source: OSHA derived from Brewster (2022), USLA (2022b), and U.S. Census Bureau (2017a).
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
In summary, the total number of
affected technical search and rescue
organizations and responders is
presented in Table VII–B–11.
Table VII-B-11. Estimated Number of Technical Search and Rescue
Oreanizations and Responders - Career and Volunteer
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
29
1,572
1,601
2%
98%
100%
6,304
60,106
66,409
9%
91%
100%
134
0
134
100%
0%
100%
8,275
0
05FEP2
EP05FE24.018</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Total in Scope
ral
EP05FE24.017</GPH>
Public, State Plan
Federal
State
Technical Search and Rescue Or2anizations
Number
Career
28
0
1
Volunteer
0
1 572
0
Total
28
1,572
1
Percent of Total in Scope
Career
2%
0%
0%
Volunteer
0%
98%
0%
2%
98%
0%
Total
Technical Search and Rescue Responders
Number
Career
L304
0
5.000
Volunteer
0
60 106
0
Total
1,304
60,106
5,000
Percent of Total in
Scope
Career
2%
0%
8%
Volunteer
0%
91%
0%
2%
91%
8%
Total
Technical Water Rescue Organizations
Number
Career
11
123
0
Volunteer
0
0
0
Total
11
123
0
Percent of Total in Scope
Career
8%
92%
0%
Volunteer
0%
0%
0%
8%
92%
0%
Total
Technical Water Rescue Responders
Number
Career
599
7,676
0
Volunteer
0
0
0
Private
7863
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Private
Public, State Plan
State
7,676
0%
0%
0%
100%
1
0
1
163
1,572
1,735
98%
0%
0%
0%
91%
100%
Career
Volunteer
7%
0%
7%
93%
Career
Volunteer
39
0
123
1,572
Total
Percent of Total in Scope
39
1,695
2%
0%
7%
91%
93%
0%
2%
Total
Technical Search and Rescue Responders
Number
ral
8,275
599
Career
Volunteer
Total in Scope
0
Total
Percent of Total in Scope
Total
Total Technical Search and Rescue Or2anizations
Number
Federal
0%
100%
9%
Career
Volunteer
1,902
0
7,676
60,106
5,000
0
Total
Percent of Total in Scope
1,902
67,782
5,000
14,579
60,106
74,685
Career
Volunteer
3%
0%
10%
80%
Total
3%
91%
7%
0%
7%
20%
80%
100%
Sources: OSHA derived from Boyer (2022), Brewster (2022), Demographics Now (2023), Manta (2023ab), USLA (2022b), U.S. Census Bureau (2017a-b), U.S. Census Bureau (2022b), and Zippia (2023).
Notes:
[a] Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table VII–B–12 summarizes the total
estimated number of organizations and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
responders affected by the proposed
rule, drawing from the profiles for
WEREs, firefighters (Table VII–B–6),
wildland firefighters, emergency
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
medical services (Table III–9), and
technical search and rescue groups
(Table VII–B–11).
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.019</GPH>
F. Summary of Affected WEREs, ESOs,
Responders, and Team Members
7864
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table VII-B-12. Combined Profile of WEREs, Fire Departments, Emergency
Medical Services, and Technical Search and Rescue Entities - Summary
Total in Scope
Group Type
Responders
On:i:anizations
WEREs
Career
Total
Fire Departments
Career
Volunteer
Mixed
Total
Wildland Fire Services ral
Career
Volunteer
Total
Emergency Medical Services
Career
Volunteer
Mixed
Total
Technical Search and Rescue
Career
Volunteer
Total
All Groups
Career
Volunteer
Mixed
Total
1,500
1,500
64,500
64,500
4,266
5,674
2,156
12,096
246,561
187,621
100,417
534,599
521
8
529
54,256
53 737
107,993
2,580
1,397
2,716
6,693
141,986
80,111
138 860
360,957
163
1,572
1,735
14,579
60,106
74,685
9,030
8,650
4,872
22,552
521,881
381,574
239,277
1,142,733
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
V. Potentially Affected Small Entities
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.020</GPH>
Sources: OSHA derived from USFA (2022), NAEMT (2014), BLS (2022a), Firehouse Magazine (2018,
2022), U.S. Census Bureau (2021), Miley (2022), Wildland Fire Jobs (2022), Government Accountability
Office (2022), USDA (2023), Boyer (2022), U.S. Census Bureau (2022b), U.S. Census Bureau (2017b),
Brewster (2022), USLA (2022b), Demographics Now (2023), Manta (2023a-b), U.S. Census Bureau
(2017a), and Zippia (2023).
Note: Excludes public ESOs in non-State Plan states, volunteer ESOs in State Plan states where volunteers
are not covered, and ESOs with zero responders.
[a] The count ofwildland fire seivices ESOs and responders includes inmate firefighters captured in Table
Vll-B-7.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 governmentoperated 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
36 Some information on the NAICS distribution of
private firefighting services is available from the
BLS employment data, but these are not at the 6digit NAICS level needed to determine small entity
status using the SBA definitions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7865
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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7866
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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).
Table VII-B-13. Small Fire Departments Affected
Private
Career
Volunteer
Mixed
Total
SBA/RFA Definition Small
Public
3,297
218
450
5,199
118
1,839
786
10,335
Total
3,515
5,649
1,957
11,121
Source: OSHA derived from USFA (2022) and Firehouse Magazine (2022).
Table VII–B–14 shows the number of
firefighters estimated to serve a
population of 50,000 people or fewer.
Table VII-B-14. Affected Firefi2hters at Small Fire Departments
SBA/RFA Definition Small
Public
8,252
100,612
12.624
169 019
56 096
5J40
26,216
325,727
Private
Career
Volunteer
Mixed
Total
Total
108,864
181.643
6L436
351,943
Source: OSHA derived from USF A (2022) and Firehouse Magazine (2022).
D. Wildland Firefighting Services
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
As mentioned in section VII.B.V.A,
OSHA used the proportion of firms in
NAICS 115310 that are small from the
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.
Table VII-B-15. Small Wildfire Fi2htin2 Entities and Responders Affected
SBA Definition Small
I
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
25,816
Career
I
Source: OSHA derived from Miley (2022), Wildland Fire Jobs (2022), and U.S. Census Bureau (2021).
E. Emergency Medical Services
As outlined in section VII.B.V.A,
small entity determinations for private
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
EMS entities are based on the SBA
definition for NAICS 621910
Ambulance Services ($16.5 million or
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
less in revenue, which OSHA converted
to 500 employees or less). Public EMS
entities are small if they serve a
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.022</GPH>
507
I
EP05FE24.021</GPH>
Career
Responders
EP05FE24.023</GPH>
ESOs
7867
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
Table VII-B-16. Small Emergency Medical Service Entities and Responders
Affected
SBA/RFA Definition Small
Public
Private
ESOs
Career
Volunteer
Mixed
Total
Responders
Career
Volunteer
Mixed
Total
Total
1,971
1,141
2,075
524
211
552
2,495
1,352
2,626
5,186
1,287
6,473
99,185
57,423
104,405
28,843
14,699
20,231
128,028
72,122
124,636
261,013
63,773
324,786
Sources: OSHA derived from NAEMT (2014) and BLS (2023).
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
wilderness and urban search and rescue
organizations, lifeguard agencies, and
private companies. Table VII–B–17
presents the estimated number of
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
affected small technical search and
rescue groups, as well as the number of
responders among those affected
entities.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.024</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
F. Technical Search and Rescue
As described above, OSHA’s method
for estimating the technical search and
rescue universe included data from
7868
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table VII-B-17. Small Technical Search and Rescue Groups and Responders
Affected
SBA/RFA Definition Small
Private
Public
Total
Wilderness and Urban Search and Rescue
ESOs
Career
25
0
25
Volunteer
0
1,502
1,502
Total
25
1,502
1,527
Resoonders
Career
954
0
954
Volunteer
0
57,448
57,448
Total
954
57,448
58,402
Additional Technical Water Rescue
ESOs
Career
10
118
128
Volunteer
0
0
0
Total
10
118
128
Responders
Career
197
7.337
7 534
Volunteer
0
0
0
Total
197
7,337
7,534
Total Technical Search and Rescue
ESOs
Career
35
118
152
Volunteer
0
1,502
1,502
Total
35
1,620
1,655
Responders
7,337
8,488
Career
1 151
Volunteer
0
57,448
57,448
Total
1,151
64,786
65,937
Source: OSHA derived from Boyer (2022), U.S. Census Bureau (2022b), and U.S. Census Bureau (2017b).
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
G. Summary of Affected Small Entities
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.025</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table VII–B–18 summarizes the
number of small organizations and
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
7869
Table VII-B-18. Combined Profile of Fire Departments, Emergency Medical
Services, and Technical Search and Rescue Groups - RFA/SBA Small
RF A/SBA Small
Organizations
Responders
WEREs
Career
Subtotal
Fire Departments
Career
Volunteer
Mixed
Subtotal
Wildland Fire Services
Career
Subtotal
Emen?:encv Medical Services
Career
Volunteer
Mixed
Subtotal
Technical Search and Rescue
Career
Volunteer
Subtotal
All Groups
Career
Volunteer
Mixed
Total
1,500
1,500
64,500
64,500
3,515
5,649
1,957
11,121
108,864
181,643
61,436
351,943
507
507
25,816
25,816
2,495
1,352
2,626
6,473
128,028
72,122
124,636
324,786
152
1,502
1,655
8,488
57,448
65,937
8,169
8,503
4,583
21,256
335,696
311,214
186,072
832,982
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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-Countylaunches-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-andlocal-law-enforcement-agencies-2018statistical-tables. (Accessed November
16, 2022)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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/careerseducation/document/21278671/2021volunteer-fire-department-run-survey.
(Accessed November 17, 2022)
Maddux, S. (2020). Prisoner Firefighters
Giving Back to Society. Available at
https://hometownnewsnow.com/localnews/515917. (Accessed May 29, 2023)
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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/6b84b11fc6eb495ea
518ee964b79f712/. (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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.026</GPH>
Sources: OSHA derived from USFA (2022), NAEMT (2014), BLS (2022a), Firehouse Magazine (2018,
2022), U.S. Census Bureau (2021), Miley (2022), Wildland Fire Jobs (2022), Govermnent Accountability
Office (2022), USDA (2023), Boyer (2022), U.S. Census Bureau (2022b), U.S. Census Bureau (2017b),
Brewster (2022), USLA (2022b), Demographics Now (2023), Manta (2023a-b), U.S. Census Bureau
(2017a), and Zippia (2023).
Note: Excludes public ESOs in non-State Plan states, volunteer ESOs in State Plan states where volunteers
are not covered, and ESOs with zero responders.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7870
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Available at https://www.nwsa.us/.
(Accessed October 4, 2022)
Nevada Division of Forestry. (2023).
Conservation Camps. Available at https://
forestry.nv.gov/conservation-campsprogram. (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-sureyou-meet-sba-size-standards/table-smallbusiness-size-standards. (Accessed
January 8, 2020)
Stenvick, B. (2020). Prison Inmates Are
Fighting Oregon Wildfires for Under $10
a Day. Available at https://www.portland
mercury.com/news/2020/08/21/
28756155/prison-inmates-are-fightingoregon-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/summarytables.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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23105517. (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-wildlandfire-contractors/. (Accessed October 4,
2022)
Zippia. (2023). Park Ranger Demographics
and Statistics in the US. Available at
https://www.zippia.com/park-rangerjobs/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 10year period is used to annualize onetime 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 onetime costs that recur because of changes
in operations over time or because of
new entrants that must comply with the
standard.42
The remainder of this chapter is
organized as follows: first, OSHA
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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. Noncompliance 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7871
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
Table VII-C-1. Baseline Non-Compliance Rate by Provision of the Proposed Rule
and Organization Size
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
On?:anization Size bv Number of Responders
<25
25-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
93%
Frm 00099
88%
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
75%
63%
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
50%
05FEP2
500+
100%
38%
EP05FE24.027</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Provision of the
Proposed Rule
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the
WERT and Establishment
of ERP, Paragraph (c)
7872
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Provision of the
Proposed Rule
ESO Establishment of
ERP and Emergency
Service(s) Capability,
Paragraph (d)
Team Member and
Responder Participation,
Parrui:raoh (e)
WERT and ESO Risk
Management Plan,
Parrui:raph ffl
Medical and Physical
Requirements, Paragraph
<25
Or2anization Size by Number of Responders
25-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500+
93%
88%
75%
63%
50%
38%
19%
18%
15%
13%
10%
8%
93%
88%
75%
63%
50%
38%
93%
88%
75%
63%
50%
38%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
55%
55%
55%
55%
55%
55%
36%
36%
36%
36%
36%
36%
9%
9%
8%
6%
5%
4%
37%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
37%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
37%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
28%
26%
23%
19%
15%
11%
100%
100%
100%
88%
70%
53%
100%
100%
100%
88%
70%
53%
28%
26%
23%
19%
15%
11%
19%
18%
15%
13%
10%
8%
100%
100%
100%
88%
70%
53%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
60%
100%
100%
100%
100%
90%
68%
fo)
Additional ESQ
Surveillance (Full NFPA
Medical Exam) - Career,
Parauraph fo)(3) fal
Additional ESO
Surveillance (Full NFPA
Medical Exam) Vohmteer, Paragraph
fo)(3) fal
Additional ESO
Surveillance (Full NFPA
Medical Exam) - Mixed,
Paragraph fo)(3) fbl
Training, ParaQraph (h)
WERE Facility
Preparedness, Paragraph
(i)
ESQ Facility
Preparedness, Paragraph
Equipment and PPE,
Paragraph (k)
Vehicle Preparedness and
Operation. PafllQraph (l)
WERE Pre-Incident
Planning_ Para2:ranh (m)
ESQ Pre-Incident
Planning, Paragraoh (n)
Incident Management
System Development,
Paragraph (o)
Emergency Incident
Operations, Paragraph (p)
Standard Operating
Procedures, Paragraph (q)
Post Incident Analysis,
Parrui:raph (r)
Program Evaluation,
Parauraph (s)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.028</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
(j)
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
7873
Source: OSHA; LeDuc, 2018.
[a] The full NFP A 1582 medical exam is only applicable to responders who meet or exceed the combustion
products exposure threshold outlined in the standard. Only structural and wildland firefighters are assumed
to have any responders meeting that threshold, therefore these provisions are only applicable to structural
and wildland fire departments.
[b] It is assumed that there are no "mixed" wildland firefighting services, therefore this specific noncompliance rate for additional ESO medical surveillance is only applicable to structural fire departments.
(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.
For responders at EMS and technical
search and rescue ESOs, OSHA assumed
that no responders would meet the 15combustion 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 15combustion 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.
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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Type and Frequency of Medical
Exams
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.029</GPH>
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
7874
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table VII-C-2. Percentage of Responders and Team Members by Employment Size
Class N eedine Medical Exams
WEREs
Minimum Medical Surveillance 100.0%
Career
Minimum Medical Surveillance 100.0%
Volunteer
Minimum Medical Surveillance 100.0%
Mixed
Additional Heart Screening 12.5%
Career
Additional Heart Screening 12.5%
Volunteer
Additional Heart Screening 12.5%
Mixed
Additional ESO Surveillance
(Full NFPA Medical Exam) 0.0%
Career
Additional ESO Surveillance
(Full NFPA Medical Exam) 0.0%
Volunteer
Additional ESO Surveillance
(Full NFPA Medical Exam) 0.0%
Mixed
Fire Departments and Firetfahters
Minimum Medical Surveillance 51.8%
Career fal
Minimum Medical Surveillance 99.9%
Volunteer fal
Minimum Medical Surveillance 89.0%
Mixed fal
Additional Heart Screening 6.5%
Career
Additional Heart Screening 12.5%
Volunteer
Additional Heart Screening 11.1%
Mixed
Additional ESO Surveillance
(Full NFPA Medical Exam) 50.2%
Career fal
Additional ESO Surveillance
(Full NFPA Medical Exam) 2.1%
Volunteer [a]
Additional ESO Surveillance
(Full NFPA Medical Exam) 13.0%
Mixed [a]
Wildland Firefo?htin2 Services
Minimum Medical Surveillance 51.8%
Career [a]
Minimum Medical Surveillance 99.9%
Volunteer fal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00102
25-49
50-99
249
499
500+
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
42.2%
42.2%
27.7%
3.6%
0.0%
99.9%
99.9%
99.8%
99.8%
99.7%
86.9%
86.9%
83.6%
78.1%
67.1%
5.3%
5.3%
3.5%
0.5%
0.0%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
10.9%
10.9%
10.5%
9.8%
8.4%
59.8%
59.8%
74.3%
98.4%
100.0%
2.1%
2.1%
2.2%
2.2%
2.3%
15.1%
15.1%
18.4%
23.9%
34.9%
42.2%
42.2%
27.7%
3.6%
0.0%
99.9%
99.9%
99.8%
99.8%
99.7%
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.030</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
<25
Emolovment Size Class
100250-
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Employment Size Class
10025025-49
50-99
249
499
<25
500+
5.3%
5.3%
3.5%
0.5%
0.0%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
59.8%
59.8%
74.3%
98.4%
100.0%
2.1%
2.1%
2.2%
2.2%
2.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Sources: OSHA based on ERG estimate; LeDuc, 2018; NFPA, 2022; NFPA, 2023a; and NFPA, 2023b.
[a] Adding the minimum and additional groups will exceed 100% because 2% of firefighters are estimated
to receive both exams, as some of the <15 annual combustion exposure group will require a full NFP A
examination due to signs and symptoms revealed under minimum medical surveillance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.031</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Additional Heart Screening 6.5%
Career
Additional Heart Screening 12.5%
Volunteer
Additional ESQ Surveillance
(Full NFPA Medical Exam) 50.2%
Career ral
Additional ESQ Surveillance
(Full NFPA Medical Exam) 2.1%
Volunteer ral
Emer2ency Medical Services
Minimum Medical Surveillance 100.0%
Career
Minimum Medical Surveillance 100.0%
Volunteer
Minimum Medical Surveillance 100.0%
Mixed
Additional Heart Screening 12.5%
Career
Additional Heart Screening 12.5%
Volunteer
Additional Heart Screening 12.5%
Mixed
Additional ESQ Surveillance
(Full NFPA Medical Exam) 0.0%
Career
Additional ESQ Surveillance
0.0%
(Full NFPA Medical Exam) Volunteer
Additional ESQ Surveillance
0.0%
(Full NFPA Medical Exam) Mixed
Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Minimum Medical Surveillance 100.0%
Career
Minimum Medical Surveillance 100.0%
Volunteer
Additional Heart Screening 12.5%
Career
Additional Heart Screening 12.5%
Volunteer
Additional ESQ Surveillance
(Full NFPA Medical Exam) 0.0%
Career
Additional ESQ Surveillance
(Full NFPA Medical Exam) 0.0%
Volunteer
7875
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(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.
nequil
nequil
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 reexamined periodically. However, the
initial cohort would continue to have a
large effect, as they would all be reexamined 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 reexamined. As time passes, the
+ (N - nequii)Pt-l
+ (N(1 - p) + nequn)(pt-Z)
1-p
nequil
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
if initial cohort was re-examined
in the preceding year,
if initial is not being re-examined
that year or in the preceding year
H
(2)
Jkt 262001
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,
44 https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/
wages/.
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(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.
= N 1- pk= N 1- (1- H)k
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
if re-examination year for initial cohort,
• 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.
Where:
• nt is the number of responders requiring a
medical exam in year t.
• N is the total number of responders.
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 reexamination 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 reexamination year for the first large
cohort.
$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 nonvolunteer 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
45 For the purposes of this PEA, inmate
firefighters are treated the same as volunteer
responders.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.033</GPH>
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
EP05FE24.032</GPH>
7876
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7877
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).
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
46 See the sensitivity analyses in the Improved
Tracking FEA (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2017-11-24/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.1648816492.). 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 × 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).
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7878
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Labor Category
soc
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Private Industrv Median
WERE Leader
WERT Member
00-0000
ll-l021
00-0000
Fire Chief
33-I021
Firefighter (OEWS)
Firefighter (Weighted
Average)
EMD
EMT/Paramedic (OEWS)
EMT/Paramedic (Weighted
Average)
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue Worker
(OEWS)
Search and Rescue Worker
(Weighted Average)
Technical Water Rescue
Supervisor
Technical Water Rescuer
(OEWS)
Technical Water Rescuer
(Weighted Average)
33-2011
00-0000/332011
11-9160
29-2040
00-0000/292040
33-I012
33-9092
00-0000/339092
33-I099
33-9092
00-0000/339092
31.0%
31.0%
31.0%
17.00%
17.00%
17.00%
Loaded
Hourly Wage
rdl
$34.69
$75.54
$34.69
$38.53
31.0%
17.00%
$62.39
$24.85
31.0%
17.00%
$40.24
All Occupations/Firefighters
$23.61
31.0%
17.00%
$38.24
Emergencv Management Directors
Emergencv Medical Technicians and Paramedics
All Occupations/Emergency Medical Technicians
and Paramedics
$38.07
$18.95
31.0%
31.0%
17.00%
17.00%
$61.65
$30.69
$19.50
31.0%
17.00%
$31.57
$46.29
31.0%
17.00%
$74.96
$13.11
31.0%
17.00%
$21.23
$21.24
31.0%
17.00%
$34.40
$29.34
31.0%
17.00%
$47.51
$13.11
31.0%
17.00%
$21.23
$13.11
31.0%
17.00%
$21.23
Occupation
All Occupations
General and Operations Managers
All Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Firefighting and
Prevention Workers
Firefighters
First-Line Supervisors of Police and Detectives
Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other Recreational
Protective Service Workers
All Occupations/Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other
Recreational Protective Service Workers
First-Line Supervisors of Protective Service
Workers, All Other
Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other Recreational
Protective Service Workers
All Occupations/Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other
Recreational Protective Service Workers
Median
Hourly Wage
ral
$21.42
$46.65
$21.42
Fringe
[b]
Overhead
[c]
Sources: OSHA derived from BLS (2023), BLS (2023), EPA (2002) and Rice (2002).
Note: All dollar figures are presented in 2022$.
ra l Median hourly wage rates are drawn from BLS' cross-industry OEWS for May 2022. For all responders, a weighted average of the private industry median and BLS OEWS
wage, weighted by the number of volunteer and non-volunteer responders in scope is used.
[b] The fringe rate is drawn from BLS' Employer Costs for Responder Compensation for December 2022.
rcl The overhead rate is derived from EPA (2002) and Rice (2002).
[d] The loaded hourly wage is derived by dividing the median hourly wage by (1 - the fringe rate) and then multiplying by (1 + the fringe-adjusted overhead rate).
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.034</GPH>
Table VII-C-3. Wa2e Rates Used in the Analysis
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
(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 onetime 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
that has inmates potentially engaged in wildfire
fighting. OSHA welcomes comment on this issue.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7879
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.
(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
49 For this analysis, OSHA estimates that asneeded plan updates will occur infrequently
enough that assuming annual updates for all
entities will be representative of the average firm.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7880
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
7881
Table VII-C-4. Medical Surveillance Unit Costs - Structural and Wildland
Fire Services and Firefighters
Percent/ Unit
Cost
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
100.0% Biennial
100.0% Biennial
100.0% Biennial
100.0% Biennial
100.0% Biennial
$84
$27
$4
$3
$15
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
$135
Biennial
100.0% Biennial
100.0% Biennial
100.0% Biennial
$15
$266
$348
$629
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
100.0% Annual
05FEP2
EP05FE24.035</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Minimum Medical Surveillance
% Receiving Each Exam
Office Visit [a]
Spirometrv
Blood Cholesterol Test
Blood Glucose Test
Blood Pressure
Unit Medical Costs
Office Visit [a]
Spirometrv
Blood Cholesterol Test
Blood Glucose Test
Blood Pressure
Weighted Average Unit Cost - Minimum Medical
Surveillance
Additional Heart Screening
% Receiving Each Exam
EKG
CAC
EST
Unit Medical Costs
EKG
CAC
EST
Wei2:hted Avera2:e Unit Cost - Additional Heart Screenin2:
Additional ESO Surveillance (Full NFPA Medical Exam)
% Receiving Each Exam
Office Visit
Frequency
7882
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
$84
$38
$48
$95
$0
$15
$133
$2 750
$147
$62
$4
$18
$18
$140
$43
$18
$52
$90
$160
$121
$41
$17
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Frequency
$670 Annual
Sources: OSHA based on ERG estimate; CMS, 2022a; CMS, 2022b; Khan, 2023; eHealthlnsurance.com,
2022; Tatar et al., 2020; CDC, 2023; and NFPA, 2022.
Note: All dollar figures are presented in 2022$. Unit costs are shown with zero decimal places, but
unroundcd figures arc used in the underlying calculations.
[a] The medical history and physical examination are both covered by the "Office Visit" item.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.036</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Audiogram
ChestX-Ray
Vision Test
Misc. Testing
EKG
Mammography
Colonoscopy
Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT
Blood Tests
Urinalysis
PSA Testing
HIV Screening
Hepatitis C screening
Heavy Metal Screening
Immunization - Influenza
Immunization -TDAP
Immunization - MMR
Immunization - Varicella
Immunization - Hepatitis A/Hepatitis B
Immunization - Polio
Immunization -Administration
Unit Medical Costs
Office Visit
Audiogram
ChestX-Ray
Vision Test
Misc. Testing
EKG
Mammography
Colonoscopy
Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT
Blood Tests
Urinalysis
PSA Testing
HIV Screening
Hepatitis C screenin_g
Heavy Metal Screening
Immunization - Influenza
Immunization - TDAP
Immunization - MMR
Immunization - Varicella
Immunization - Hepatitis A/Hepatitis B
Immunization - Polio
Immunization -Administration
Weighted Average Unit Cost - Additional ESO Surveillance
(Full NFPA Medical Exam)
Percent/ Unit
Cost
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
50.0%
3.3%
2.7%
1.3%
66.7%
100.0%
24.4%
25.0%
100.0%
100.0%
80.0%
10.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
100.0%
10.0%
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 NFPAapproved 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. Ongoing 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7883
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 onetime 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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7884
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
(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 nearmiss incident, serious injury, or
responder fatality. ESOs would be
required to implement changes to the
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Basis
Labor
Category
Frequency
2.00
2.00
2.00
Organization
Fire Chief
One-time
30.00
6.00
40.00
8.00
60.00
12.00
Or.ganization
Organization
Fire Chief
Fire Chief
One-time
Annual
18.00
24.00
36.00
Organization
Fire Chief
One-time
60.00
80.00
120.00
Organization
Fire Chief
One-time
1.00
1.00
2.00
Organization
Fire Chief
One-time
12.00
0.05
16.00
0.05
24.00
0.05
Organization
Organization
Firefighter
Fire Chief
Annual
Annual
18.00
8.00
24.00
10.00
36.00 Organization
15.00 Organization
Fire Chief
Fire Chief
One-time
Annual
12.00
16.00
24.00
Organization
Fire Chief
One-time
0.08
0.08
0.08
Responder
Fire Chief
One-time
12.00
16.00
24.00
Organization
Fire Chief
One-time
2.50
1.25
2.50
1.25
2.50
1.25
Responder
Responder
Firefighter
Firefighter
Varies
Varies
2.50
2.50
2.50
Responder
Firefighter
Varies
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00 Responder
1.00 Responder
3.00 Organization
Fire Chief
Firefighter
Fire Chief
Varies
Varies
Annual
5.39
7.18
10.77 Organization
Fire Chief
Annual
0.47
0.63
Fire Chief
Annual
0.94
Organization
7885
Rule Familiarization
Rule Familiarization
2.00
2.00
2.00
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emer2ency Service(s) Ca Jability
ESO Develop ERP
20.00
24.00
24.00
ESO Update and Revise ERP
4.00
5.00
5.00
ESO Establishment of Service(s)
12.00
14.00
14.00
Capability
ESO Community or Facility
40.00
48.00
48.00
Vulnerability and Risk Assessment
ESO Develop Mutual Aid Agreements
1.00
1.00
1.00
Team Member and Responder Participation
Responder Participation-Meetings
8.00
10.00
10.00
Responder Participation-Post Sign
0.05
0.05
0.05
WERT and ESO Risk Mana2ement Plan
Prepare Written RMP
12.00
14.00
14.00
Update Written RMP
5.00
6.00
6.00
Medical and Physical Requirements
Minimum Medical Requirement 8.00
10.00
10.00
Statement
Confidential Records System
0.08
0.08
0.08
Establish Health and Fitness Program 8.00
10.00
10.00
Written Plan
Minimum Medical Surveillance
2.50
2.50
2.50
Additional Heart Screening
1.25
1.25
1.25
Additional ESO Surveillance (Full NFPA
2.50
2.50
2.50
Medical Exam)
Implement Fitness Assessment
1.00
1.00
1.00
Undergo Fitness Assessment
1.00
1.00
1.00
Behavioral Health & Wellness Program
1.00
1.00
1.00
Document Combustion Product
3.59
4.31
4.31
Exposures - Career Fire Departments fal
Document Combustion Product
Exposures - Volunteer Fire Departments
0.31
0.38
0.38
fal
500+
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.037</GPH>
Table VII-C-5. Unit Labor Hours for Labor-Based Costs by Employment Size Class- Structural and Wildland Fire Services
and Firefighters
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
2.08
2.08
2.61
3.47
0.08
0.28
1.06
7.35
10.00
10.00
12.00
308.00
308.00
110.00
5.21
Basis
Labor
Category
Frequency
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Organization
Fire Chief
Annual
10.27 Organization
Fire Chief
Annual
16.00
24.00
Organization
Fire Chief
One-time
308.00
308.00
308.00
Responder
Firefighter
Annual
110.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
Responder
Firefighter
Annual
198.87 212.76
29.00
29.00
2.00
2.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
207.67
36.00
2.00
30.00
30.00
245.46
48.00
3.00
40.00
40.00
282.04
72.00
5.00
60.00
60.00
Responder
Responder
Responder
Responder
Organization
Firefighter
Firefighter
Firefighter
Firefi2:hter
Fire Chief
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
48.00
48.00
60.00
80.00
120.00
Organization
Fire Chief
Annual
48.00
48.00
10.00
10.00
48.00
48.00
48.00
10.00
10.00
48.00
60.00
60.00
12.00
12.00
60.00
80.00
80.00
16.00
16.00
80.00
120.00 Organization
120.00 Organization
24.00 Organization
24.00 Organization
120.00 Organization
Fire Chief
Firefighter
Fire Chief
Fire Chief
Firefighter
Annual
Annual
One-time
One-time
Annual
10.00
10.00
12.00
16.00
Organization
Fire Chief
One-time
48.00
48.00
60.00
80.00
120.00 Organization
Fire Chief
Annual
24.00
5.00
24.00
5.00
30.00
6.00
40.00
8.00
60.00
12.00
Organization
Organization
Fire Chief
Fire Chief
One-time
Annual
14.00
14.00
18.00
24.00
36.00
Organization
Fire Chief
One-time
10.77
10.77
13.46
17.95
26.93
Organization
Fire Chief
Annual
24.00
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Document Combustion Product
1.74
Exposures - Mixed Fire Departments ral
Document Combustion Product
Exposures - All Wildland Fire Services
0.42
fal
Trainin2
Establish Minimum Knowledge and
8.00
Skills
Initial New Responder Training - Career
308.00
Initial New Responder Training 110.00
Volunteer
Initial New Responder Training - Mixed
192.00
Ongoing Responder Training
24.00
Refresher Responder Training
2.00
Professional Development
20.00
Document Professional Qualifications
20.00
ESO Facility Preparedness
ESO Facility Preparedness
40.00
Equipment and PPE
Eauipment Preparedness
40.00
Inspect, Maintain, and Test Equipment
40.00
PPE Hazard Assessment
8.00
PPE Provision
8.00
PPE Maintenance
40.00
Vehicle Preoaredness and Ooeration
Written SOPs - Vehicle Preparedness and
8.00
Operation
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
40.00
ESO Pre-Incident Plannin2
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
20.00
ESO PIP Annual Review
4.00
Incident Mana2:ement Svstem Development
Incident Management System
12.00
Development
Emer2:encv Incident Operations
Emergency Incident Operations - Career
8.98
Fire Departments ral
500+
7886
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.038</GPH>
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
500+
Basis
Labor
Category
Frequency
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Emergency Incident Operations Annual
0.79
0.94
0.94
1.18
1.57
2.36 Organization Fire Chief
Volunteer Fire Departments [a]
Emergency Incident Operations - Mixed
4.34
5.21
5.21
6.52
8.69
13.03 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
Fire Departments ral
Emergency Incident Operations - All
Annual
1.04
0.21
0.69
2.65
18.38
25.68 Organization Fire Chief
Wildland Fire Services [a]
Standard Operatin2 Procedures
SOPs
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00 Organization Fire Chief
One-time
Post Incident Analysis
Post Incident Analysis - Career Fire
Annual
8.98
10.77
10.77
13.46
17.95
26.93 Organization Fire Chief
Departments fal
Post Incident Analysis - Volunteer Fire
Annual
0.94
0.94
1.18
1.57
2.36 Organization Fire Chief
0.79
Departments [al
Post Incident Analysis - Mixed Fire
Annual
4.34
5.21
5.21
6.52
8.69
13.03 Organization Fire Chief
Departments fa l
Post Incident Analysis - All Wildland
1.04
0.21
0.69
2.65
18.38
25.68 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
Fire Services [al
ID/Implement Changes to Pre-Incident
Annual
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00 Organization Fire Chief
Plan
Pro2ram Evaluation
ERP Program Evaluation
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
ID and Implement Changes to ERP
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
More Frequent ID and Implement
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
Changes to ERP
Source: OSHA, unless otherwise noted in text.
[a] These estimates are calculated using the expected number of events/incidents for a given responder group type and employee class size. The expected number
of events/incidents does not always follow the expected pattern of smaller employment class sizes incurring lower numbers of events/incidents. This is why some
unit labor hour estimates do not go in order from smallest to largest by employee class size.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
<25
Emplo_yment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
7887
EP05FE24.039</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7888
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Emolovment Size Class
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.040</GPH>
<25
Rule Familiarization
Rule Familiarization
100-
25-49
249
I
250-
499
Labor
Category
Basis
500+
Frequency
$125
I
$125
I
$125
I
$125
I
$125
I
$125
I
Or.ganization
I
Fire Chief
One-time
$1,248
I
$1,497
I
$1,497
I
$1,872
I
$2,496
I
$3,744
I
Or.ganization
I
Fire Chief
One-time
I
ESO Establishment of ERP and Erner
ESO Develop ERP
I
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Table VII-C-6. Labor-Based Unit Costs by Employment Size Class - Structural and Wildland Fire Services and Firefie:hters
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Basis
Labor
Category
Frequency
$312
$312
$374
$499
$749 Organization Fire Chief
$874
$874
$1,123
$1,497
$2,246 Organization Fire Chief
One-time
$2,995
$2,995
$3,744
$4,991
$7,487 Organization Fire Chief
One-time
$62
$62
$62
$62
$125 Organization Fire Chief
One-time
$382
$3
$382
$3
$459
$3
$612
$3
$918 Organization Firefighter
$3 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
Annual
$874
$374
$874
$374
$1,123
$499
$1,497
$624
$2,246 Organization Fire Chief
$936 Organization Fire Chief
One-time
Annual
$624
$624
$749
$998
$1,497 Organization Fire Chief
One-time
$5
$5
$5
$5
$624
$624
$749
$998
$96
$48
$96
$48
$96
$48
$96
$48
$96 Responder
$48 Responder
Firefighter
Firefighter
Varies
Varies
$96
$96
$96
$96
$96 Responder
Firefighter
Varies
$62
$38
$62
$38
$62
$38
$62
$38
$62 Responder
$38 Responder
Fire Chief
Firefighter
Varies
Varies
$62
$62
$125
$125
$187 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
$269
$269
$336
$448
$672 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
$24
$24
$29
$39
$59 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
$130
$130
$163
$217
$325 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
$5 Responder
Annual
Fire Chief
One-time
$1,497 Organization Fire Chief
One-time
7889
$250
ESO Update and Revise ERP
ESO Establishment of Service(s)
$749
Capability
ESO Community or Facility
$2,496
Vulnerability and Risk Assessment
ESO Develop Mutual Aid
$62
Agreements
Team Member and Resoonder Particioation
Responder Participation-Meetings
$306
$3
Responder Participation-Post Sign
WERT and ESO Risk Manae:ement Plan
$749
Prepare Written RMP
$312
Update Written RMP
Medical and Physical Requirements
Minimum Medical Requirement $499
Statement
$5
Confidential Records Svstem
Establish Health and Fitness
$499
Program - Written Plan
$96
Minimum Medical Surveillance fal
$48
Additional Heart Screening fal
Additional ESO Surveillance (Full
$96
NFPA Medical Exam) fal
$62
Implement Fitness Assessment
$38
Undergo Fitness Assessment
Behavioral Health & Wellness
$62
Program
Document Combustion Product
$224
Exposures - Career Fire
Departments
Document Combustion Product
$20
Exposures - Volunteer Fire
Departments
Document Combustion Product
$108
Exposures - Mixed Fire
Departments
500+
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.041</GPH>
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49
50-99
249
499
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Basis
Labor
Category
Frequency
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$5
$17
$66
$459
$641
Organization
Fire Chief
Annual
$624
$624
$749
$998
$1,497
Organization
Fire Chief
One-time
$11,777
$11,777
$11,777
$11,777
$11,777
Responder
Firefighter
Annual
$4,206
$4,206
$4,206
$4,206
$4,206
Responder
Firefighter
Annual
$7,604
$8,135
$7,941
$9,386
$10,785
Responder
Firefighter
Annual
$1,109
$76
$918
$1,109
$76
$918
$1,377
$76
$1,147
$1,835
$115
$1,530
$2,753
$191
$2,294
Responder
Responder
Responder
Firefighter
Firefighter
Firefighter
Annual
Annual
Annual
$1,497
$1,497
$1,872
$2,496
$3,744
Organization
Fire Chief
Annual
$2,995
$2,995
$3,744
$4,991
$7,487
Organization
Fire Chief
Annual
$2,995
$2,995
$3,744
$4,991
$7,487
Organization
Fire Chief
Annual
$1,835
$1,835
$2,294
$3,059
$4,589
Organization
Firefighter
Annual
$624
$624
$1,835
$624
$624
$1,835
$749
$749
$2,294
$998
$998
$3,059
$1,497
$1,497
$4,589
Organization
Organization
Organization
Fire Chief
Fire Chief
Firefighter
One-time
One-time
Annual
$624
$624
$749
$998
$1,497
Organization
Fire Chief
One-time
$2,995
$2,995
$3,744
$4,991
$7,487
Organization
Fire Chief
Annual
$1,497
$312
$1,497
$312
$1,872
$374
$2,496
$499
$3,744
$749
Organization
Organization
Fire Chief
Fire Chief
One-time
Annual
$874
$874
$1,123
$1,497
$2,246
Organization
Fire Chief
One-time
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Document Combustion Product
Exposures - All Wildland Fire
$26
Services
Training
Establish Minimum Knowledge and
$499
Skills
Initial New Responder Training $11,777
Career
Initial New Responder Training $4,206
Volunteer
Initial New Responder Training $7,342
Mixed
Ongoing Responder Training
$918
$76
Refresher Responder Training
Professional Development
$765
Document Professional
$1,248
Qualifications
ESO Facility Preparedness
ESO Facility Preparedness
$2,496
Equipment and PPE
Equipment Preparedness
$2,496
Inspect, Maintain, and Test
$1,530
Equipment
PPE Hazard Assessment
$499
PPE Provision
$499
PPE Maintenance
$1,530
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
Written SOPs - Vehicle
$499
Preparedness and Operation
Vehicle Inspection and
$2,496
Maintenance
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
$1,248
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
ESO PIP Annual Review
$250
Incident Management System Development
Incident Management System
$749
Development
500+
7890
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.042</GPH>
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49
50-99
249
499
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
500+
Basis
Labor
Category
Frequency
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Emergency Incident Operations
Emergency Incident Operations $560
$672
$672
$840 $1,120 $1,680 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
Career Fire Departments
Emergency Incident Operations $49
$59
$59
$74
$98
$147 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
Volunteer Fire Departments
Emergency Incident Operations $271
$325
$325
$406
$542
$813 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
Mixed Fire Departments
Emergency Incident Operations $65
$13
$43
$166 $1,147 $1,602 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
All Wildland Fire Services
Standard O_Q_erating Procedures
SOPs
$1,248 $1,497 $1,497 $1,872 $2,496 $3,744 Organization Fire Chief
One-time
Post Incident Analysis
Post Incident Analysis - Career Fire
$560
$672
$672
$840 $1,120 $1,680 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
Departments
Post Incident Analysis - Volunteer
$49
$59
$59
$74
$98
$147 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
Fire Departments
Post Incident Analysis - Mixed Fire
$271
$325
$325
$406
$542
$813 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
Departments
Post Incident Analysis - All
$65
$13
$43
$166 $1,147 $1,602 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
Wildland Fire Services
ID/Implement Changes to Pre$62
$62
$62
$62
$62
$125 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
Incident Plan
Program Evaluation
ERP Program Evaluation
$1,248 $1,497 $1,497 $1,872 $2,496 $3,744 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
$62
$62
$62
$62
$62
$125 Organization Fire Chief
ID and Implement Changes to ERP
Annual
More Frequent ID and Implement
$6
$6
$6
$6
$6
$12 Organization Fire Chief
Annual
Changes to ERP
Sources: OSHA based on BLS (2023), BLS (2023), EPA (2002) and Rice (2002).
Note: All dollar figures are presented in 2022$. Unit costs are shown with zero decimal places, but unrounded figures are used in the underlying calculations.
[a] These costs to undergo medical exams are only inclusive of the labor costs. The cost of the medical exam components are presented in Table VII-C-4.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49
50-99
249
499
7891
EP05FE24.043</GPH>
7892
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
• 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
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
7893
Table VII-C-7. Medical Surveillance Unit Costs - WEREs
Percent / Unit Cost Frequency
Minimum Medical Surveillance
% Receiving Each Exam
100.0% Biennial
Office Visit fal
100.0% Biennial
Soirometrv
100.0% Biennial
Blood Cholesterol Test
100.0% Biennial
Blood Glucose Test
Blood Pressure
100.0% Biennial
Unit Medical Costs
$84 Biennial
Office Visit fal
$27 Biennial
Soirometrv
$4 Biennial
Blood Cholesterol Test
$3 Biennial
Blood Glucose Test
$15 Biennial
Blood Pressure
$135 Biennial
Weie:hted Averae:e Unit Cost - Minimum Medical Surveillance
Additional Heart Screenine:
% Receiving Each Exam
EKG
100.0% Biennial
CAC
100.0% Biennial
100.0% Biennial
EST
Unit Medical Costs
$15 Biennial
EKG
$266 Biennial
CAC
$348 Biennial
EST
$629 Biennial
Weighted Average Unit Cost -Additional Heart Screening
Sources: OSHA based on CMS, 2022a and CMS, 2022b.
Note: All dollar figures are presented in 2022$. Unit costs are shown with zero decimal places, but unrounded
figures are used in the underlying calculations.
[a] The medical history and physical examination are both covered by the "Office Visit" item.
(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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 postincident 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.044</GPH>
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7894
VerDate Sep<11>2014
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
Basis
50o+
Labor
Category
Frequency
Rule Familiarization
Rule Familiarization
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Organization
WERE
Leader
One-time
On?:anization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emere:ency Service(s) Capability
Jkt 262001
WERE Develop ERP
PO 00000
WERE Update and Revise ERP
Frm 00122
WERE Establishment of Service(s)
Capability
WERE Community or Facility
Vulnerability and Risk Assessment
Fmt 4701
WERE Develop Mutual Aid Agreements
Sfmt 4725
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00
Organization
4.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
8.00
12.00
Organization
12.00
14.00
14.00
18.00
24.00
36.00
Organization
40.00
48.00
48.00
60.00
80.00
120.00
Organization
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Organization
Organization
WERE
Leader
WERE
Leader
WERE
Leader
WERE
Leader
WERE
Leader
One-time
Annual
One-time
One-time
One-time
Team Member and Responder Participation
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
WERT
Members
WERE
Organization
Leader
05FEP2
Responder Participation-Meetings
8.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
16.00
24.00
Responder Participation-Post Sign
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Prepare Written RMP
12.00
14.00
14.00
18.00
24.00
36.00
Update Written RMP
5.00
6.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
15.00
8.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
16.00
24.00
Confidential Records System
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
Responder
Minimum Medical Surveillance
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
Responder
Additional Heart Screening
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
Responder
Additional ESO Surveillance (Full NFPA
Medical Exam)
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
Responder
Annual
Annual
WERT and ESQ Risk Manae:ement Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Minimum Medical Requirement Statement
WERE
Leader
WERE
Organization
Leader
Organization
Organization
WERE
Leader
WERE
Leader
WERT
Members
WERT
Members
WERT
Members
One-time
Annual
One-time
One-time
Varies
Varies
Varies
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.045</GPH>
Table VII-C-8. Unit Labor Hours for Labor-Based Costs by Employment Size Class-WEREs
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
<25
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
0.31
0.38
0.38
0.47
0.63
0.94
8.00
l0.00
10.00
12.00
16.00
24.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
Responder
Ongoing Responder Training
24.00
29.00
29.00
36.00
48.00
72.00
Responder
Refresher Responder Training
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
Responder
Professional Development
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00
Responder
Document Professional Qualifications
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00
Organization
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00
Organization
Equipment Preparedness
40.00
48.00
48.00
60.00
80.00
120.00
Organization
Inspect, Maintain, and Test Equipment
40.00
48.00
48.00
60.00
80.00
120.00
Organization
PPE Hazard Assessment
8.00
l0.00
10.00
12.00
16.00
24.00
Organization
PPE Provision
8.00
l0.00
10.00
12.00
16.00
24.00
Organization
40.00
48.00
48.00
60.00
80.00
120.00
Organization
8.00
l0.00
10.00
12.00
16.00
24.00
Organization
40.00
48.00
48.00
60.00
80.00
120.00
Document Combustion Product
Exposures
Training
Establish Minimum Knowledge and
Skills
Initial New Responder Training
Labor
Category
WERE
Leader
WERE
Organization
Leader
1.00
Organization
Organization
WERE
Leader
WERT
Members
WERT
Members
WERT
Members
WERT
Members
WERE
Leader
Frequency
Annual
Annual
One-time
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
WERE Facility Preparedness
WERE Facility Preparedness
WERE
Leader
Annual
Eauioment and PPE
PPE Maintenance
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
Written SOPs - Vehicle Preparedness and
Operation
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
WERE
Leader
WERT
Members
WERE
Leader
WERE
Leader
WERT
Members
WERE
Leader
WERE
Organization
Leader
Annual
Annual
One-time
One-time
Annual
One-time
Annual
7895
WERE Pre-Incident Plannine:
EP05FE24.046</GPH>
50o+
Basis
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Behavioral Health & Wellness Program
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7896
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
Basis
Labor
Category
WERE
Frequency
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
10.00
12.00
12.00
15.00
20.00
30.00
Organization
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
6.00
Organization
Incident Mana2ement Svstem Development
Incident Management System
12.00
Development
Emer2encv Incident Ooerations
14.00
14.00
18.00
24.00
36.00
Organization
WERE
Leader
One-time
0.79
0.94
0.94
1.18
1.57
2.36
Organization
WERE
Leader
Annual
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00
Organization
WERE
Leader
One-time
0.79
0.94
0.94
1.18
1.57
2.36
Organization
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
WERE PIP Annual Review
Emergency Incident Operations
Leader
WERE
Leader
One-time
Annual
Standard Operating Procedures
SOPs
Post Incident Analysis
Post Incident Analysis
ID/Implement Changes to Pre-Incident
Plan
Program Evaluation
ERP Program Evaluation
ID and Implement Changes to ERP
More Frequent ID and Implement
Changes to ERP
Source: OSHA, unless otherwise noted in text.
EP05FE24.047</GPH>
50o+
WERE
Leader
WERE
Organization
Leader
Organization
WERE
Leader
WERE
Organization
Leader
WERE
Organization
Leader
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VII-C-9. Labor-Based Unit Costs by Employment Size Class - WEREs
I
<25
I 25-49 I 50-99 I ~~~- I ~~~- I 500+ I
L b
Basis
I
Ca~g:~
I Frequency
Rule Familiarization
Rule Familiarization
$151
$151
$151
$151
$151
$151
Jkt 262001
On?:anization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emer2encv Service(s) Capabili
Organization WELadRE
e er
I One-time
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Employment Size Class
7897
EP05FE24.048</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
$1,511
$1,813 $1,813
$378
$2,266
$3,022 $4,533
$604
Basis
Organization
Jkt 262001
WERE Update and Revise ERP
$302
$378
$453
$907 Organization
WERE Establishment of Service(s)
Capability
WERE Community or Facility
Vulnerabilitv and Risk Assessment
$907 $1,058 $1,058
$1,360
$1,813 $2,720 Organization
$3,022 $3,626 $3,626
$4,533
$6,043 $9,065
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$76
$76
$76
$76
$76
Responder Participation-Meetings
$277
$347
$347
$416
$555
Responder Participation-Post Sign
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
Prepare Written RMP
$907 $1,058 $1,058
$1,360
Update Written RMP
$378
$453
$453
$604
$755 $1,133
$604
$755
$755
$907
$1,209 $1,813
$6
$6
$6
$6
$6
$6
Minimum Medical Surveillance [a]
$87
$87
$87
$87
$87
$87
Additional Heart Screening [a]
$43
$43
$43
$43
$43
$43
Additional ESO Surveillance (Full NFPA
Medical Exam) ral
$87
$87
$87
$87
$87
$87
Behavioral Health & Wellness Program
$76
$76
$76
$151
$151
$227
Document Combustion Product
Exposures
Trainin2
$24
$29
$29
$36
$47
$71
WERE Develop Mutual Aid Agreements
$151
Organization
Organization
Labor
Category
WERE
Leader
WERE
Leader
WERE
Leader
WERE
Leader
WERE
Leader
Frequency
One-time
Annual
One-time
One-time
One-time
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT
Members
WERE
Organization
Leader
$832 Organization
$4
Annual
Annual
WERT and ESO Risk Manae:ement Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Minimum Medical Requirement Statement
Confidential Records System
WERE
Leader
WERE
Organization
Leader
$1,813 $2,720 Organization
WERE
Leader
WERE
Responder
Leader
WERT
Responder
Members
WERT
Responder
Members
WERT
Responder
Members
WERE
Organization
Leader
WERE
Organization
Leader
Organization
One-time
Annual
One-time
One-time
Varies
Varies
Varies
Annual
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
WERE Develop ERP
500+
7898
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.049</GPH>
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
<25
500+
Basis
$755
$907
Initial New Responder Training
$3,815
$3,815
$3,815
$3,815
Ongoing Responder Training
$832
$1,006
$1,006
$1,249
Jkt 262001
Refresher Responder Training
$69
$69
$69
$69
$694
$832
$832
$1,041
$1,511
$1,813
$1,813
$2,266
$1,511
$1,813
$1,813
$2,266
$3,022
$4,533
Organization
Equipment Preparedness
$3,022
$3,626
$3,626
$4,533
$6,043
$9,065
Organization
Inspect, Maintain, and Test Equipment
$1,387
$1,665
$1,665
$2,081
$2,775
$4,162
Organization
PPE Hazard Assessment
$604
$755
$755
$907
$1,209
$1,813
Organization
PPE Provision
$604
$755
$755
$907
$1,209
$1,813
Organization
$1,387
$1,665
$1,665
$2,081
$2,775
$4,162
Organization
$604
$755
$755
$907
$1,209
$1,813
Organization
$3,022
$3,626
$3,626
$4,533
$6,043
$9,065
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
$755
$907
$907
$1,133
$1,511
$2,266
WERE PIP Annual Review
$151
$151
$151
$227
$302
$453
Document Professional Qualifications
$1,209
$1,813
Organization
Frequency
One-time
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Frm 00127
WERE Facilitv Preparedness
WERE Facility Preparedness
Fmt 4701
WERE
Leader
Annual
Eauioment and PPE
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
PPE Maintenance
05FEP2
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
Written SOPs - Vehicle Preparedness and
Operation
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
WERE
Leader
WERT
Members
WERE
Leader
WERE
Leader
WERT
Members
WERE
Leader
WERE
Organization
Leader
Annual
Annual
One-time
One-time
Annual
One-time
Annual
WERE Pre-Incident Plannin2
EP05FE24.050</GPH>
One-time
Annual
7899
Incident Manae:ement System Development
WERE
Leader
WERE
Organization
Leader
Organization
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
$755
PO 00000
$604
Professional Development
Labor
Category
WERE
Leader
WERT
$3,815 $3,815 Responder
Members
WERT
$1,665 $2,497 Responder
Members
WERT
$104
$173 Responder
Members
WERT
$1,387 $2,081 Responder
Members
WERE
$3,022 $4,533 Organization
Leader
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Establish Minimum Knowledge and
Skills
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7900
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
500+
Basis
Labor
Category
Frequency
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$907
$1,058
$1,058
$1,360
$1,813
$2,720
Organization
WERE
Leader
One-time
$59
$71
$71
$89
$119
$178
Organization
WERE
Leader
Annual
$1,511
$1,813
$1,813
$2,266
$3,022
$4,533
Organization
WERE
Leader
One-time
$59
$71
$71
$89
$119
$178
Organization
$76
$76
$76
$76
$76
$151
$1,511
$1,813
$1,813
$2,266
$3,022
$4,533
ID and Implement Changes to ERP
$76
$76
$76
$76
$76
$151
More Frequent ID and Implement
Changes to ERP
$8
$8
$8
$8
$8
$15
Incident Management System
Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
SOPs
Post Incident Analysis
Post Incident Analysis
ID/Implement Changes to Pre-Incident
Plan
Program Evaluation
ERP Program Evaluation
WERE
Leader
WERE
Organization
Leader
WERE
Leader
WERE
Organization
Leader
WERE
Organization
Leader
Organization
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Sources: OSHA based on BLS (2023), BLS (2023), EPA (2002) and Rice (2002).
Note: All dollar figures are presented in 2022$. Unit costs are shown with zero decimal places, but unrounded figures are used in the underlying calculations.
laj These costs to undergo medical exams are only inclusive of the labor costs. The cost of the medical exam components are presented in Table Vll-C-7.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.051</GPH>
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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-peryear 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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7901
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7902
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VII-C-10. Unit Burden for Labor-Based Costs by Employment Size Class - Emergency Medical Service Organizations and
Res_l!_onders
25-49
Employment Size Class
50-99
100-249 250-499
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Rule Familiarization
Rule Familiarization
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergenc~ Service(s) Capabilit"
ESO Develop ERP
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
ESO Update and Revise ERP
4.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
ESO Establishment of Service(s) Capability
12.00
14.00
14.00
18.00
ESO Community or Facility Vulnerability
40.00
48.00
48.00
60.00
and Risk Assessment
ESO Develop Mutual Aid Agreements
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Team Member and Responder Participation
Responder Participation-Meetings
8.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
Responder Participation-Post Sign
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Prepare Written RMP
12.00
14.00
14.00
18.00
Update Written RMP
5.00
6.00
6.00
8.00
Medical and Physical Requirements
Minimum Medical Requirement - Statement
8.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
Confidential Records Svstem
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
Establish Health and Fitness Program 8.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
Written Plan
Minimum Medical Surveillance
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
Additional Heart Screening
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
Additional ESO Surveillance (Full NFPA
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
Medical Exam)
Implement Fitness Assessment
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Undergo Fitness Assessment
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Behavioral Health & Wellness Program
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Train in 2:
Establish Minimum Knowledge and Skills
8.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
513.32
513.32
776.23
776.23
initial New Responder Trainin_g
EMR
48.00
48.00
60.00
60.00
EMT
120.00
120.00
190.00
190.00
Advanced EMT (AEMT)
270.00
270.00
440.00
440.00
1,200.00 1,200.00 1,800.00 1,800.00
Paramedic
Ongoing Responder Training
45.67
45.67
45.67
45.67
500+
Basis
Labor
Category
Frequency
2.00
2.00
Organization EMD
One-time
40.00
8.00
24.00
60.00
12.00
36.00
Organization EMD
Organization EMD
Organization EMD
One-time
Annual
One-time
80.00
120.00
Organization EMD
One-time
1.00
2.00
Organization EMD
One-time
16.00
0.05
24.00
0.05
Organization EMT/Paramedic
Organization EMD
Annual
Annual
24.00
10.00
36.00
15.00
Organization EMD
Organization EMD
One-time
Annual
16.00
0.08
24.00
0.08
Organization EMD
EMD
Responder
One-time
One-time
16.00
24.00
Organization EMD
One-time
2.50
1.25
2.50
1.25
Responder
Responder
EMT/Paramedic
EMT/Paramedic
Varies
Varies
2.50
2.50
Responder
EMT/Paramedic
Varies
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
Responder
EMD
Responder
EMT/Paramedic
Organization EMD
Varies
Varies
Annual
16.00
776.23
60.00
190.00
440.00
1,800.00
45.67
24.00
776.23
60.00
190.00
440.00
1,800.00
45.67
Organization EMD
Responder
EMT/Paramedic
Responder
EMT/Paramedic
Responder
EMT/Paramedic
Responder
EMT/Paramedic
Responder
EMT/Paramedic
Responder
EMT/Paramedic
One-time
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
<25
7903
EP05FE24.052</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7904
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
Employment Size Class
25-49
50-99
100-249 250-499
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
60.00
60.00
60.00
60.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
Basis
Labor
Category
EMT/Paramedic
EMT/Paramedic
EMT/Paramedic
EMT/Paramedic
EMT/Paramedic
EMT/Paramedic
Frequency
500+
16.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
5.00
60.00
60.00
Responder
Responder
Responder
Responder
Responder
Responder
Organization
EMD
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
8.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
16.00
24.00
Organization
EMO
Annual
40.00
40.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
48.00
48.00
2.00
1.00
5.00
48.00
48.00
2.00
1.00
5.00
60.00
60.00
3.00
1.00
6.00
80.00
80.00
4.00
1.60
8.00
120.00
120.00
6.00
2.00
12.00
Organization
Organization
Organization
Organization
Organization
EMO
EMT/Paramedic
EMO
EMO
EMT/Paramedic
Annual
Annual
One-time
One-time
Annual
8.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
16.00
24.00
Organization
EMD
One-time
40.00
48.00
48.00
60.00
80.00
120.00
Organization
EMD
Annual
20.00
4.00
24.00
5.00
24.00
5.00
30.00
6.00
40.00
8.00
60.00
12.00
Organization
Organization
EMO
EMD
One-time
Annual
12.00
14.00
14.00
18.00
24.00
36.00
Organization
EMO
One-time
48.33
188.47
389.63
844.92
2,723.62
2,980.78
Organization
EMD
Annual
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00
Organization
EMD
One-time
9.67
1.00
37.69
1.00
77.93
1.00
168.98
1.00
544.72
1.00
596.16
2.00
20.00
1.00
24.00
1.00
24.00
1.00
30.00
1.00
40.00
1.00
60.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Organization EMO
Organization EMO
Annual
Annual
Organization
Omanization
EMO
EMO
Annual
Annual
Organization
EMO
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.053</GPH>
EMR
FMT
Advanced EMT (AEMT)
Paramedic
Refresher Responder Training
Professional Development
Document Professional Qualifications
ESO Facility Preparedness
ESO Facility Preparedness
Eauioment and PPE
Equipment Preparedness
Inspect, Maintain, and Test Equipment
PPE Hazard Assessment
PPE Provision
PPE Maintenance
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
Written SOPs - Vehicle Preparedness and
Operation
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
ESO Pre-Incident Plannine:
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
ESO PIP Ammal Review
Incident Manae:ement System Development
Incident Management Svstem Develooment
Emergency Incident Operations
Emcrgencv Incident Operations
Standard Operatine Procedures
SOPs
Post Incident Analysis
Post Incident Analysis
ID/Implement Changes to Pre-Incident Plan
Program Evaluation
ERP Program Evaluation
ID and Implement Changes to ERP
More Frequent ID and Implement Changes
to ERP
Source: OSHA
<25
16.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
2.00
20.00
20.00
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
[a] These estimates are calculated using the expected number of events/incidents for a given responder group type and employee class size. The expected number of
events/incidents does not always follow the expected pattern of smaller employment class sizes incurring lower numbers of events/incidents. This is why some unit labor hour
estimates do not go in order from smallest to largest by employee class size.
7905
EP05FE24.054</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7906
VerDate Sep<11>2014
<25
Emplovment Size Class
10025-49
50-99
250-499
249
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Rule Familiarization
$123
$123
$123
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emereencv Service(s) Capabilitv
ESO Develop ERP
$1,233 $1,480 $1,480
$247
$308
$308
ESO Update and Revise ERP
$740
$863
$863
ESO Establishment of Service(s) Capability
ESO Community or Facility Vulnerability
$2,466 $2,959 $2,959
and Risk Assessment
$62
$62
$62
ESO Develop Mutual Aid Agreements
Team Member and Responder Participation
Responder Participation-Meetings
$253
$316
$316
$3
$3
$3
Responder Participation-Post Sign
WERT and ESQ Risk Manaeement Plan
$740
$863
$863
Prepare Written RMP
$308
$370
$370
Update Written RMP
Medical and Physical Requirements
$493
$616
$616
Minimum Medical Requirement - Statement
$5
$5
$5
Confidential Records Svstem
Establish Health and Fitness Program $493
$616
$616
Written Plan
$79
$79
$79
Minimum Medical Surveillance fal
$39
$39
$39
Additional Heart Screenin_g fal
Additional ESO Surveillance (Full NFPA
$79
$79
$79
Medical Exam) lal
$62
$62
$62
Implement Fitness Assessment
$32
$32
$32
Undergo Fitness Assessment
$62
$62
$62
Behavioral Health & Wellness Program
Training
$493
$616
$616
Establish Minimum Knowledge and Skills
Initial New Responder Training
$16207 $16 207 $24 509
Ongoing Responder Training
$1,442 $1,442 $1,442
$63
$63
$63
Refresher Responder Training
$631
$758
$758
Professional Development
Document Professional Qualifications
$L233 $1480 $1480
ESQ Facility Preparedness
500+
Basis
Labor
Category
Frequency
$123
$123
$123 Organization EMD
One-time
$1,849
$370
$1,110
$2,466
$493
$1,480
$3,699 Organization EMD
$740 Organization EMD
$2,219 Organization EMO
One-time
Annual
One-time
$3,699
$4,932
$7,398 Organization EMD
One-time
$62
$62
$123 Organization EMD
One-time
$379
$3
$505
$3
$758 Organization EMT/Paramedic
$3 Organization EMD
Annual
Annual
$1,110
$493
$1,480
$616
$2,219 Organization EMO
$925 Organization EMD
One-time
Annual
$740
$5
$986
$5
$1,480 Organization EMO
$5 Responder
EMD
One-time
One-time
$740
$986
$1,480 Organization EMD
One-time
$79
$39
$79
$39
$79 Responder
$39 Responder
EMT/Paramedic
EMT/Paramedic
Varies
Varies
$79
$79
$79 Responder
EMT/Paramedic
Varies
$62
$32
$123
$62
$32
$123
$740
$24,509
$1,442
$63
$947
$1.849
$986
$24 509
$1,442
$95
$1,263
$2466
$62 Responder
EMD
$32 Responder
EMT/Paramedic
$185 Organization EMD
$1480
$24 509
$1,442
$158
$1,894
$3 699
Organization
Responder
Responder
Responder
Responder
Organization
EMO
EMT/Paramedic
EMT/Paramedic
EMT/Paramedic
EMT/Paramedic
EMD
Varies
Varies
Annual
One-time
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.055</GPH>
Table VII-C-11. Labor-Based Unit Costs by Employment Size Class - Emer2ency Medical Service Or2anizations and Responders
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
500+
Basis
Labor
Category
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$493
ESO Facility Preparedness
$1,480 Organization EMD
Equipment and PPE
Equipment Preparedness
$2 959
$2 959
$3,699
$4 932
$7 398 Organization EMD
$2A66
Inspect Maintain, and Test Eauipment
$L263
$1 516 $1 516
$L894
$2 526
$3 789 Organization EMT/Paramedic
$123
$123
$123
$185
$247
$370 Organization EMD
PPE Hazard Assessment
PPE Provision
$62
$62
$62
$62
$99
$123 Organization EMD
PPE Maintenance
$126
$158
$158
$189
$253
$379 Organization EMT/Paramedic
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
Written SOPs - Vehicle Preparedness and
$493
$616
$616
$740
$986
$1,480 Organization EMD
Operation
$2,466
$2,959
$2,959
$3,699
$4,932
$7,398 Organization EMD
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
$L233
$1480
$1480
$L849
$2466
$3 699 Organization EMD
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
ESO PIP Annual Review
$247
$308
$308
$370
$493
$740 Organization EMD
Incident Management System Development
Incident Management Svstem Development
$740
$863
$863
$1,110
$1,480
$2,219 Organization EMD
Emeni:ency Incident Operations
Emergencv Incident Operations
$2,980 $11 619 $24,020 $52,088 $167 906 $183 760 Organization EMD
Standard Ooeratine Procedures
SOPs
$1,233
$1,480 $1,480
$1,849
$2,466
$3,699 Organization EMD
Post Incident Analysis
Post Incident Analvsis
$596
$2,324
$4,804 $10,418
$33,581
$36,752 Organization EMD
$62
$62
$62
$62
$62
$123 Organization EMD
ID/Implement Changes to Pre-Incident Plan
Pro2ram Evaluation
ERP Program Evaluation
$1480
$1480
$2 466
$3 699 Organization EMD
$L233
$L849
TD and Tmolement Changes to ERP
$62
$62
$62
$62
$62
$123 Organization EMD
More Frequent ID and Implement Changes to
$6
$6
$6
$6
$6
$12 Organization EMD
ERP
Sources: OSHA based on BLS, 2023; BLS, 2023; EPA, 2002; Rice, 2002.
Note: All dollar figures are presented in 2022$. Unit costs are shown with zero decimal places, but unrounded figures are used in the underlying calculations.
[a] These costs to undergo medical exams are only inclusive of the labor costs. The cost of the medical exam components are presented in Table VII-C-7.
Frequency
Annual
Annual
Annual
One-time
One-time
Annual
One-time
Annual
One-time
Annual
One-time
Annual
One-time
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
<25
Emplovment Size Class
10025-49
50-99
250-499
249
$616
$616
$740
$986
7907
EP05FE24.056</GPH>
7908
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
D. Technical Search and Rescue Groups
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
500+
Basis
Labor Category
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Frequency
Rule Familiarization
Rule Familiarization
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Organization
One-time
Jkt 262001
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emere:ency Service(s) Capability
ESO Develop ERP
PO 00000
ESO Update and Revise ERP
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00
Organization
4.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
8.00
12.00
Organization
14.00
18.00
24.00
36.00
Organization
48.00
60.00
80.00
120.00
Organization
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Organization
ESO Establishment of Service(s)
12.00
14.00
Capability
ESO Community or Facility
40.00
48.00
Vulnerabilitv and Risk Assessment
ESO Develop Mutual Aid
1.00
1.00
Agreements
Team Member and Responder Participation
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
Responder Participation-Meetings
8.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
16.00
24.00
Responder Participation-Post Sign
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Worker
Search and Rescue
Organization
Supervisor
Organization
One-time
Annual
One-time
One-time
One-time
Annual
Annual
WERT and ESO Risk Manaeement Plan
05FEP2
12.00
14.00
14.00
18.00
24.00
36.00
Organization
Update Written RMP
5.00
6.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
15.00
Organization
8.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
16.00
24.00
Confidential Records System
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
Establish Health and Fitness
Program - Written Plan
8.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
16.00
24.00
Minimum Medical Surveillance
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
Additional Heart Screening
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
Medical and Physical Requirements
Minimum Medical Requirement Statement
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Responder
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Organization
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Responder
Worker
Search and Rescue
Responder
Worker
Organization
One-time
Annual
One-time
One-time
One-time
Varies
Varies
7909
Prepare Written RMP
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.057</GPH>
Table VII-C-12. Unit Burden for Labor-Based Costs by Employment Size Class - Wilderness and Urban Search and Rescue
Groups and Responders
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
500+
Basis
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
Implement Fitness Assessment
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Undergo Fitness Assessment
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
8.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
16.00
24.00
200.00
200.00
200.00
200.00
200.00
200.00
Ongoing Responder Training
24.00
29.00
29.00
36.00
48.00
72.00
Refresher Responder Training
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00
8.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
16.00
24.00
Organization
Equipment Preparedness
40.00
48.00
48.00
60.00
80.00
120.00
Organization
Inspect, Maintain, and Test
Equipment
40.00
48.00
48.00
60.00
80.00
120.00
Organization
PPE Hazard Assessment
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
6.00
Organization
PPE Provision
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.60
2.00
Organization
PPE Maintenance
4.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
8.00
12.00
Organization
Behavioral Health & Wellness
Program
Trainin2
Establish Minimum Knowledge and
Skills
Initial New Responder Training
Professional Development
Document Professional
Qualifications
ESO Facility Preparedness
ESO Facility Preparedness
Labor Category
Search and Rescue
Worker
Search and Rescue
Responder
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Responder
Worker
Search and Rescue
Organization
Supervisor
Responder
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Responder
Worker
Search and Rescue
Responder
Worker
Search and Rescue
Responder
Worker
Search and Rescue
Responder
Worker
Search and Rescue
Organization
Supervisor
Organization
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Frequency
Varies
Varies
Varies
Annual
One-time
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Equipment and PPE
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Worker
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Worker
Annual
Annual
One-time
One-time
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Additional ESO Surveillance (Full
NFPA Medical Exam)
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
EP05FE24.058</GPH>
7910
VerDate Sep<11>2014
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
Written SOPs - Vehicle
Preparedness and Operation
Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance
ESO Pre-Incident Plannine:
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
PO 00000
ESO PIP Annual Review
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
SOPs
Basis
Labor Category
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Frequency
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
8.00
l0.00
l0.00
12.00
16.00
24.00
Organization
40.00
48.00
48.00
60.00
80.00
120.00
Organization
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00
Organization
4.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
8.00
12.00
Organization
14.00
14.00
18.00
24.00
36.00
Organization
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
One-time
2.77
1.68
1.54
1.66
3.27
2.49
Organization
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Annual
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00
Organization
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
One-time
2.77
1.68
1.54
1.66
3.27
2.49
Organization
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Organization
20.00
24.00
24.00
30.00
40.00
60.00
Organization
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Organization
Incident Management System Development
Incident Management System
12.00
Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Emergency Incident Operations
500+
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
One-time
Annual
One-time
Annual
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Post Incident Analysis
ID/Implement Changes to PreIncident Plan
Proe:ram Evaluation
ERP Program Evaluation
TD and Implement Changes to ERP
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
EP05FE24.059</GPH>
7911
More Frequent ID and Implement
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00 Organization
Annual
Changes to ERP
Source: OSHA.
[a] These estimates are calculated using the expected number of events/incidents for a given responder group type and employee class size. The expected number
of events/incidents does not always follow the expected pattern of smaller employment class sizes incurring lower numbers of events/incidents. This is why some
unit labor hour estimates do not go in order from smallest to largest by employee class size.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Basis
Labor Category
Frequency
Rule Familiarization
Rule Familiarization
$150
$150
$150
$150
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
$150 Organization
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
$2,998 $4,498 Organization
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Suoervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
$150
One-time
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emere:encv Service(s) Caoabilitv
ESQ Develop ERP
$1,499 $1,799 $1,799
$300
$2,249
Sfmt 4725
$375
$375
$450
ESQ Establishment of Service(s)
$900 $1,049
Capability
ESO Community or Facility
$2,998 $3,598
Vulnerability and Risk Assessment
ESQ Develop Mutual Aid
$75
$75
Agreements
Team Member and Responder Participation
$1,049
$1,349
$1,799 $2,699 Organization
$3,598
$4,498
$5,997 $8,995 Organization
$75
$75
$75
ESQ Update and Revise ERP
$600
$900 Organization
$150 Organization
$826 Organization Search and Rescue
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Responder Participation-Meetings
$275
$344
$344
$413
$550
Responder Participation-Post Sign
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
Prepare Written RMP
$900 $1,049 $1,049
$1,349
$1,799 $2,699 Organization
Update Written RMP
$375
$450
$450
$600
$750 $1,124 Organization
$600
$750
$750
$900
$1,199 $1,799 Organization
$6
$6
$6
$6
$6
$600
$750
$750
$900
$1,199
$86
$86
$86
$86
$86
$4
Worker
Search and Rescue
Organization
Supervisor
One-time
Annual
One-time
One-time
One-time
Annual
Annual
WERT and ESQ Risk Manae:ement Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Minimum Medical Requirement Statement
Confidential Records System
Establish Health and Fitness
Program - Written Plan
Minimum Medical Surveillance [a]
EP05FE24.060</GPH>
500+
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Suoervisor
Search and Rescue
$6 Responder
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
$1,799 Organization
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
$86 Responder
Worker
One-time
Annual
One-time
One-time
One-time
Varies
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
7912
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VII-C-13. Labor-Based Unit Costs by Employment Size Class - Wilderness and Urban Search and Rescue Groups and
Responders
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
500+
Basis
Labor Category
$43
$43
$43
$43
$43
$43 Responder
Varies
Additional ESQ Surveillance (Full
NFP A Medical Exam) fal
$86
$86
$86
$86
$86
$86
Varies
Implement Fitness Assessment
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
Jkt 262001
Undergo Fitness Assessment
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$75
$75
$75
$150
$150
$225
$600
$750
$750
$900
$6,880 $6,880 $6,880
Frm 00141
Behavioral Health & Wellness
Program
Trainin2
Establish Minimum Knowledge and
Skills
Initial New Responder Training
$6,880 $6,880
Annual
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
$998
$1,238
$1,651
$2,477
Refresher Responder Training
$69
$69
$69
$69
$103
$172
$688
$826
$826
$1,032
$1,376 $2,064
$1,499 $1,799 $1,799
$2,249
$2,998 $4,498
05FEP2
$750
$900
$1,199 $1,799 Organization
$600
$750
Equipment Preparedness
$2,998 $3,598 $3,598
$4,498
$5,997 $8,995 Organization
Inspect, Maintain, and Test
Equipment
$1,376 $1,651
$1,651
$2,064
$2,752 $4,128 Organization
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Equipment and PPE
PPE Hazard Assessment
PPE Provision
$150
$150
$150
$225
$300
$450 Organization
$75
$75
$75
$75
$120
$150 Organization
$138
$172
$172
$206
$275
$413 Organization
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Worker
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Worker
Annual
Annual
One-time
One-time
Annual
7913
PPE Maintenance
EP05FE24.061</GPH>
$6,880
$998
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Annual
One-time
$826
Document Professional
Qualifications
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Varies
$1,199 $1,799 Organization
Ongoing Responder Training
Professional Development
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Responder
Worker
Search and Rescue
Responder
Worker
Search and Rescue
Responder
Worker
Search and Rescue
Responder
Worker
Search and Rescue
Organization
Supervisor
Varies
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Additional Heart Screening [a]
PO 00000
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Search and Rescue
Worker
Search and Rescue
Responder
Worker
Search and Rescue
Responder
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Responder
Worker
Search and Rescue
Organization
Supervisor
Frequency
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7914
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
Written SOPs - Vehicle
$600
Preparedness and Operation
Vehicle Inspection and
$2,998
Maintenance
ESO Pre-Incident Plannin2
500+
Basis
Labor Category
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Frequency
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
$750
$750
$900
$1,199
$1,799
Organization
$3,598
$3,598
$4,498
$5,997
$8,995
Organization
$1,499
$1,799
$1,799
$2,249
$2,998
$4,498
Organization
$300
$375
$375
$450
$600
$900
Organization
Incident Management System Development
Incident Management System
$900 $1,049
Development
Emergency Incident Operations
$1,049
$1,349
$1,799
$2,699
Organization
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
One-time
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
ESO PIP Annual Review
Emergency Incident Operations
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
One-time
Annual
One-time
Annual
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$208
$126
$116
$124
$245
$187
Organization
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Annual
$1,499
$1,799
$1,799
$2,249
$2,998
$4,498
Organization
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
One-time
$208
$126
$116
$124
$245
$187
Organization
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$150
Organization
$1,499
$1,799
$1,799
$2,249
$2,998
$4,498
Organization
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$150
Organization
Standard Operatine: Procedures
SOPs
Post Incident Analysis
Post Incident Analysis
ID/Implement Changes to PreIncident Plan
Proe:ram Evaluation
ERP Program Evaluation
ID and Implement Changes to ERP
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Search and Rescue
Supervisor
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
More Frequent ID and Implement
$7
$7
$7
$7
$7
$15 Organization
Annual
Changes to ERP
Sources: OSHA based on BLS, 2023; BLS, 2023; EPA, 2002; Rice, 2002.
Note: All dollar figures are presented in 2022$. Unit costs are shown with zero decimal places, but unrounded figures are used in the underlying calculations.
laj These costs to undergo medical exams are only inclusive of the labor costs. The cost of the medical exam components are presented in Table Vll-C-7.
EP05FE24.062</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(ii) Additional Technical Water Rescue
Entities
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7915
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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Basis
Labor Category
Frequency
Rule Familiarization
Rule Familiarization
$95
$95
$95
$95
$95
$95 Organization Technical Water
Jkt 262001
Rescue Supervisor
One-time
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emere:encv Service(s) Capability
PO 00000
ESO Develop ERP
$950 $1,140 $1,140
ESO Update and Revise ERP
$190
$1,425
$1,900 $2,851
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
$238
$238
$285
ESO Establishment of Service(s)
$570
$665
Capability
ESO Community or Facility
Vulnerability and Risk
$1,900 $2,281
Assessment
ESO Develop Mutual Aid
$48
$48
Agreements
Team Member and Responder Participation
$665
$855
$1,140 $1,710
$2,281
$2,851
$3,801 $5,701
$48
$48
$48
$380
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
Responder Participation-Meetings
$170
$212
$212
$255
$340
Responder Participation-Post Sign
$2
$2
$2
$2
$2
$570
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Organization
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Organization
Rescue Supervisor
Organization
One-time
Annual
One-time
Organization
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
One-time
$95 Organization
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
One-time
$510 Organization Technical Water
$2
Rescuer
Technical Water
Organization
Rescue Supervisor
Annual
Annual
WERT and ESO Risk Mana2ement Plan
05FEP2
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Organization
Rescue Supervisor
Prepare Written RMP
$570
$665
$665
$855
Update Written RMP
$238
$285
$285
$380
$475
$475
$475
$570
$760 $1,140 Organization
$4
$4
$4
$4
$380
$475
$475
$570
$53
$53
$53
$53
Medical and Physical Requirements
Minimum Medical Requirement $380
Statement
Confidential Records System
Establish Health and Fitness
Program - Written Plan
Minimum Medical Surveillance
ral
EP05FE24.063</GPH>
500+
$1,140 $1,710 Organization
$4
$713
$4
$760 $1,140
$53
$53
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Responder
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Organization
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Responder
Rescuer
One-time
Annual
One-time
One-time
One-time
Varies
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
7916
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VII-C-14. Labor-Based Unit Costs by Employment Size Class -Additional Technical Water Rescue Groups and
Employees
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
<25
500+
Basis
Labor Category
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
$27
$27
$27
$27
$27
$27 Responder
Varies
Additional ESO Surveillance (Full
NFPA Medical Exam) fal
$53
$53
$53
$53
$53
$53
Varies
Implement Fitness Assessment
$48
$48
$48
$48
$48
$48
Undergo Fitness Assessment
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
Behavioral Health & Wellness
Program
Training
Establish Minimum Knowledge
and Skills
$48
$48
$48
$95
$95
$143
$380
$475
$475
$570
$4,246 $4,246 $4,246
$4,246
$4,246 $4,246
$1,019 $1,529
Initial New Responder Training
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
Ongoing Responder Training
$510
$616
$616
$764
Refresher Responder Training
$42
$42
$42
$42
Professional Development
$425
$510
$510
$637
$849 $1,274
Document Professional
Qualifications
ESO Facility Preparedness
$950 $1,140 $1,140
$1,425
$1,900 $2,851
ESO Facility Preparedness
$380
$475
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Responder
Rescuer
Technical Water
Responder
Rescuer
Technical Water
Responder
Rescuer
Technical Water
Responder
Rescuer
Technical Water
Organization
Rescue Supervisor
$760 $1,140 Organization
$64
$106
05FEP2
$475
$570
$760 $1,140 Organization
$1,900 $2,281 $2,281
$2,851
$3,801 $5,701
$849 $1,019 $1,019
$1,274
$1,698 $2,548
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Varies
Varies
Annual
One-time
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Equipment and PPE
Inspect, Maintain, and Test
Equipment
$95
$95
$95
$143
$190
$285
PPE Provision
$48
$48
$48
$48
$76
$95
PPE Maintenance
$85
$106
$106
$127
$170
$255
Annual
Annual
One-time
One-time
Annual
7917
PPE Hazard Assessment
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Organization
Rescuer
Technical Water
Organization
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Organization
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Organization
Rescuer
Organization
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Technical Water
Rescuer
Technical Water
Responder
Rescuer
Technical Water
Responder
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Responder
Rescuer
Technical Water
Organization
Rescue Supervisor
Frequency
Additional Heart Screening [a]
Equipment Preparedness
EP05FE24.064</GPH>
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7918
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
Written SOPs - Vehicle
$380
Preparedness and Operation
Vehicle Inspection and
$1,900
Maintenance
ESO Pre-Incident Plannin2
500+
Basis
$475
$475
$570
$760
$1,140
Organization
$2,281
$2,281
$2,851
$3,801
$5,701
Organization
Labor Category
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Frequency
One-time
Annual
Fmt 4701
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
$950
$1,140
$1,140
$1,425
$1,900
$2,851
Organization
ESO PIP Annual Review
$190
$238
$238
$285
$380
$570
Organization
Incident Mana2ement System Development
Incident Management System
$570
$665
Development
Emer2encv Incident Operations
$665
$855
$1,140
$1,710
Organization
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
One-time
Sfmt 4725
Emergency Incident Operations
One-time
Annual
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$132
$80
$73
$79
$156
$119
Organization
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Annual
$950
$1,140
$1,140
$1,425
$1,900
$2,851
Organization
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
One-time
$132
$80
$73
$79
$156
$119
Organization
$48
$48
$48
$48
$48
$95
Organization
$950
$1,140
$1,140
$1,425
$1,900
$2,851
Organization
Standard Operatin2: Procedures
SOPs
Post Incident Analysis
Post Incident Analysis
ID/Implement Changes to PreIncident Plan
Pro2:ram Evaluation
ERP Program Evaluation
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Technical Water
Rescue Supervisor
Annual
Annual
Annual
ID and Implement Changes to
$48
$48
$48
$48
$48
$95 Organization
Annual
ERP
More Frequent ID and Implement
$5
$5
$5
$5
$5
$10 Organization
Annual
Changes to ERP
Sources: OSHA based on BLS, 2023; BLS, 2023; EPA, 2002; Rice, 2002.
Note: All dollar figures are presented in 2022$. Unit costs are shown with zero decimal places, but unrounded figures are used in the underlying calculations.
[a] These costs to undergo medical exams are only inclusive of the labor costs. The cost of the medical exam components are presented in Table VII-C-7.
EP05FE24.065</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
<25
Employment Size Class
10025025-49 50-99
249
499
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
E. Total Costs
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
(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–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7919
(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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7920
VerDate Sep<11>2014
One-Time Annualized,
3%
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
WEREs
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency
Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Phvsical Reauirements
Training
WERE Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management Svstem Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Fire Departments
Career Fire Departments
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management Svstem Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analvsis
Program Evaluation
Total
Total Annualized,
3%
Annual
$26,567
$0
$26,567
$951,248
$456,809
$1,408,057
$0
$154,630
$8 586.477
$10,716
$0
$85,223
$32,006
$151.582
$46,220
$0
$303,164
$0
$0
$86,698
$562,127
$140 416
$12 139,003
$86,698
$716,757
$8.726.893
$12,149 718
$888,248
$888,248
$3,407,900
$1,334,575
$234 684
$0
$17,927
$0
$216,729
$2 756.023
$3,493,123
$1,366,581
$386.266
$46,220
$17,927
$303,164
$216,729
$2.756 023
$10,347,833
$22,241,138
$32,588,971
$62,406
$2,223,682
$0
$361,117
$17,367,275
$25,295
$0
$199,717
$75,084
$715,138
$108.099
$0
$715,138
$0
$0
$0
$1 069,936
$269,662
$1,310 079
$28,938,124
$64 936.817
$4 155,983
$9,250,059
$3,125,171
$1,250,777
$0
$477,677
$0
$3,041,219
$6,504,400
$62,406
$3,293 618
$269,662
$1,671,196
$46,305,399
$64.962 112
$4,155 983
$9,449,776
$3,200,255
$1,965,915
$108.099
$477,677
$715,138
$3,041,219
$6,504,400
$21,852,951
$124,329,905
$146,182,856
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.066</GPH>
Table VII-C-15. Total Cost Summary by Provision - All Organizations,_ 3 Percent Discount Rate
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Total Annualized,
3%
$83,003
$2,950,132
$0
$479,587
$33,808,879
$33,243
$0
$264,082
$99,267
$923,982
$143,526
$0
$923,982
$0
$0
$39,709,683
$0
$1,414,999
$356,996
$1,733 623
$2 106,398
$39,699,661
$5,509,024
$12,261,552
$4 142,154
$1,612,539
$0
$55,489
$0
$665 293
$8,318,364
$77,876,092
$83,003
$4,365,132
$356,996
$2,213,209
$35,915,276
$39,732,904
$5,509,024
$12,525,634
$4,241 421
$2,536,521
$143,526
$55,489
$923,982
$665,293
$8,318,364
$117,585,775
$31,540
$1,133,189
$0
$183,516
$13,435,208
$13,091
$0
$102,451
$38,485
$372,351
$54,899
$0
$372,351
$0
$0
$15,737,080
$0
$548,752
$138,157
$669,134
$5,800,599
$24 049.853
$2 120.425
$4,719,475
$1,593,169
$654,500
$0
$117.810
$0
$835,516
$3,391,214
$44,638,604
$31,540
$1,681 941
$138,157
$852,650
$19,235,807
$24.062 944
$2,120 425
$4,821,926
$1,631,655
$1,026,850
$54,899
$117.810
$372,351
$835,516
$3,391,214
$60,375,684
$176,949
$6,307,003
$0
$3,033,688
$176,949
$9,340,691
7921
Volunteer Fire Departments
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Mixed Fire Departments
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Fire Departments Total
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.067</GPH>
One-Time Annualized,
3%
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3%
Total Annualized,
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$0
$1,024,219
$64,611,361
$71,629
$0
$566.250
$212,836
$2,011,471
$306,524
$0
$2,011,471
$0
$0
$77,299,714
$764 816
$3,712,836
$36,845,121
$128,686,331
$11 785,432
$26 231.085
$8,860,495
$3,517,815
$0
$650,975
$0
$4,542,029
$18,213,977
$246,844,602
3%
$764,816
$4,737,056
$101,456,482
$128,757,961
$11,785 432
$26,797 336
$9,073,331
$5,529,286
$306,524
$650,975
$2,011,471
$4,542,029
$18,213,977
$324,144,315
$7,615
$260,466
$0
$42,768
$3,573,693
$2,787
$0
$22,782
$8,611
$77,959
$12,862
$0
$77,959
$0
$0
$4,087,501
$0
$122,122
$30,889
$152 349
$6,393,251
$14,122,292
$484,607
$1 078,600
$366,331
$133,370
$0
$7,261
$0
$73 800
$706,928
$23,671,803
$7,615
$382,588
$30,889
$195,117
$9,966,944
$14,125,080
$484,607
$1.101 382
$374 942
$211,329
$12,862
$7,261
$77,959
$73,800
$706,928
$27,759,304
$117
$4,847
$0
$800
$0
$2,276
$589
$2,845
$117
$7,123
$589
$3,646
Wildland Firefh?:htin2: Services
Career Wildland Firefi2htin2 ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Volunteer Wildland Firefi2htin2 ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capabilitv
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
EP05FE24.068</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Annual
7922
VerDate Sep<11>2014
One-Time Annualized,
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$7,732
$265,313
$0
$43,568
$7,968,612
$2,843
$0
$23,204
$8,765
$79,820
$13.094
$0
$79,820
$0
$0
$8,492,770
$0
$124,398
$31,479
$155,195
$6,918,397
$26,287,939
$493,592
$1,098,597
$372,920
$136,545
$0
$8 287
$0
$82,090
$728,040
$36,437,477
$7,732
$389 712
$31,479
$198,763
$14,887,009
$26,290,782
$493 592
$1,121,801
$381,685
$216,365
$13.094
$8,287
$79,820
$82,090
$728,040
$44,930,247
$37,292
$1,302,959
$0
$212,983
$16,822,891
$14,363
$0
$618,063
$130 680
$765,870
$147,807
$41,880,573
$37,292
$1,921,021
$130,680
$978,852
$16,970,698
$41,894,936
7923
$525 146
$12,165,646
$8,985
$19,997
$6,589
$3.175
$0
$1,025
$0
$8,289
$21,112
$12,765,674
Total Annualized,
3%
$4,920,064
$12,165,702
$8,985
$20,418
$6 743
$5 035
$232
$1,025
$1,861
$8,289
$21,112
$17,170,943
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.069</GPH>
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Wildland Firefighting Total
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management Svstem Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Emen?:encv Medical Services
Career Emergency Medical Services ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
One-Time Annualized,
3%
$4 394,919
$56
$0
$421
$154
$1,861
$232
$0
$1,861
$0
$0
$4,405,269
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$20,189
$705,515
$0
$115,326
$9,387,879
$7,780
$0
$10,862
$23,537
$222,442
$34,596
$0
$222.442
$0
$0
$10,750,570
$0
$334,679
$70,761
$414 764
$80,085
$23,516,412
$266,336
$2,057,491
$991,776
$384,345
$0
$3,210,860
$0
$4 468.519
$2,050,495
$37,846,526
$20,189
$1,040,194
$70,761
$530,091
$9,467,965
$23,524,193
$266,336
$2,068,354
$1,015 314
$606,787
$34,596
$3,210,860
$222.442
$4.468.519
$2,050,495
$48,597,096
$39,255
$1.371.536
$0
$224,192
$16,581,615
$15,119
$0
$21,130
$45,755
$0
$650.592
$137,558
$806,179
$155,586
$41113,375
$517,741
$3,999,701
$1,927,991
$39 255
$2.022 128
$137,558
$1,030,371
$16,737,201
$41,128 494
$517,741
$4,020,831
$1,973,746
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
$491,854
$3,799,716
$1,831,591
$708,379
$0
$5.769 083
$0
$8,002,159
$3,774,436
$67,920,210
Total Annualized,
3%
$491 854
$3,819,790
$1,875,059
$1,118,363
$63,892
$5.769.083
$409,984
$8,002,159
$3,774,436
$87,258,098
Annual
7924
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.070</GPH>
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Volunteer Emere:encv Medical Services ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Ooerating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Mixed Emergency Medical Services ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
One-Time Annualized,
3%
$0
$20,073
$43,468
$409,984
$63,892
$0
$409,984
$0
$0
$19,337,888
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$96,736
$3,380,010
$0
$552,501
$42,792,385
$37,263
$0
$52,066
$112,760
$1,063,988
$165,742
$0
$1,063,988
$0
$0
$49,317,439
$0
$1 603,334
$338,999
$1,986,813
$383,479
$106,510,361
$1275,931
$9,856,909
$4,751,358
$1,838,386
$0
$15 052,662
$0
$20,894,004
$9,798,021
$174,290,256
$96,736
$4,983 344
$338,999
$2,539,314
$43,175,864
$106,547,623
$1,275 931
$9,908,975
$4,864,118
$2,902,374
$165,742
$15,052,662
$1,063,988
$20,894,004
$9,798,021
$223,607,695
$2,002
$72,491
$0
$11.860
$1,228,014
$821
$0
$1,063
$2,416
$25,622
$3,538
$0
$34,529
$6,426
$43 019
$8,489
$2,453,601
$27,453
$202,383
$101,571
$44,308
$0
$2,002
$107,020
$6 426
$54.879
$1,236,504
$2,454,422
$27,453
$203 447
$103,986
$69,930
$3,538
7925
$745 662
$0
$6,072,719
$0
$8 423,326
$3 973.090
$68,523,520
Total Annualized,
3%
$1,177,224
$67,254
$6,072,719
$431,562
$8,423,326
$3.973 090
$87,752,501
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.071</GPH>
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Emer2encv Medical Services Total
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Career Technical Search and Rescue ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Manruzement Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
One-Time Annualized,
3%
$431,562
$67,254
$0
$431,562
$0
$0
$19,228,981
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$27,622
$1,015,690
$0
$166,384
$5,441,734
$11,549
$0
$14,755
$33,729
$369,978
$49,493
$0
$369,978
$0
$0
$7,500,912
$0
$483,501
$91,873
$603 946
$120,445
$13,069,649
$384,229
$2,854,651
$1419,793
$638,882
$0
$31,342
$0
$334 470
$3,789,179
$23,821,962
$27,622
$1,499,192
$91,873
$770,331
$5,562,179
$13,081,198
$384,229
$2,869,406
$1,453 522
$1,008,860
$49,493
$31,342
$369,978
$334,470
$3,789,179
$31,322,873
$29.625
$1.088.181
$0
$178,244
$6,669,748
$12,370
$0
$15,818
$36,145
$395,600
$53,031
$0
$395,600
$0
$0
$518.031
$98,299
$646,965
$128,935
$15 523,250
$411.682
$3,057,035
$1,521,364
$683,190
$0
$33,893
$0
$359,493
$29 625
$1.606 211
$98,299
$825,210
$6,798,683
$15,535 620
$411 682
$3,072,853
$1,557,508
$1,078,790
$53,031
$33,893
$395,600
$359,493
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
$2 551
$0
$25,023
$255,544
$3,204,897
Total Annualized,
3%
$2,551
$25,622
$25,023
$255,544
$4,578,346
Annual
7926
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.072</GPH>
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Volunteer Technical Search and Rescue ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Caoabilitv
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Phvsical Requirements
Training
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Technical Search and Rescue Total
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Caoabilitv
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergencv Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
One-Time Annualized,
3%
$0
$25,622
$0
$0
$1,373,449
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Source: OSHA.
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
$4,044,723
$27,026,859
Total Annualized,
3%
$4,044,723
$35,901,219
$337,609
$0
$337,609
$951,248
$456,809
$1,408,057
$11,040,506
$0
$1,953,163
$130,628,583
$134,821
$0
$0
$742,560
$402,512
$151,582
$3,550,878
$584,610
$0
$3,854,042
$0
$0
$154,332,116
$5,279,451
$1,320,291
$7,063,936
$44,416,347
$289,146,883
$888,248
$13,966,637
$43,651,527
$16,840,711
$234,684
$6,175,936
$0
$15,763,744
$0
$26,094,344
$35,540,783
$506,840,331
$16,319,958
$1,320,291
$9,017,099
$175,044,930
$289,281,704
$888,248
$13,966,637
$44,394,087
$17,243,223
$386,266
$9,726,814
$584,610
$15,763,744
$3,854,042
$26,094,344
$35,540,783
$661,172,447
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Program Evaluation
Total
Total for All Responder Groups
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency
Service(s) Capability
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
WERE Facility Preparedness
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
One-Time Annualized,
3%
$0
$8,874,361
7927
EP05FE24.073</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$32,266
$0
$32,266
$1,155,299
$456,809
$1,612,108
$0
$187,800
$8 722.884
$13,014
$0
$103,504
$38,872
$184.098
$56,135
$0
$368,196
$0
$0
$10,862,067
$86,698
$562,127
$140 416
$12 139,003
$86,698
$749,926
$8.863.300
$12,152 017
$888,248
$888,248
$3,407,900
$1,334,575
$234 684
$0
$17,927
$0
$216,729
$2 756.023
$22,241,138
$3,511,404
$1,373,447
$418.782
$56,135
$17,927
$368,196
$216,729
$2.756 023
$33,103,205
$75,793
$2,700,681
$0
$438,579
$17,716,105
$30,721
$0
$242,559
$91,190
$868,542
$131.287
$0
$868,542
$0
$0
$23,163,999
$0
$1 069,936
$269,662
$1,310 079
$28,938,124
$64 936.817
$4 155,983
$9,250,059
$3,125,171
$1,250,777
$0
$477,677
$0
$3,041,219
$6,504,400
$124,329,905
$75,793
$3,770 618
$269,662
$1,748,659
$46,654,229
$64.967 538
$4,155 983
$9,492,618
$3,216,361
$2,119,318
$131.287
$477,677
$868,542
$3,041,219
$6,504,400
$147,493,904
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
WEREs
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency
Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Phvsical Reauirements
Training
WERE Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management Svstem Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Fire Departments
Career Fire Departments
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management Svstem Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analvsis
Program Evaluation
Total
7928
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.074</GPH>
Table VII-C-16. Total Cost Summary by Provision -All Organizations,_ 7 Percent Discount Rate
One-Time Annualized,
Total Annualized,
Annual
7%
7%
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Total Annualized,
7%
$100,808
$3,582,962
$0
$582,462
$34,394,053
$40,374
$0
$320,730
$120,561
$1,122,184
$174,314
$0
$1,122,184
$0
$0
$41,560,633
$0
$1,414,999
$356,996
$1,733 623
$2 106,398
$39,699,661
$5,509,024
$12,261,552
$4 142,154
$1,612,539
$0
$55,489
$0
$665 293
$8,318,364
$77,876,092
$100,808
$4,997,962
$356,996
$2,316,085
$36,500,451
$39,740,035
$5,509,024
$12,582,282
$4,262 715
$2,734,723
$174,314
$55,489
$1,122,184
$665,293
$8,318,364
$119,436,725
$38,305
$1,376,268
$0
$222,882
$13,668,041
$15,900
$0
$124,428
$46,741
$452,223
$66,675
$0
$452,223
$0
$0
$16,463,685
$0
$548,752
$138,157
$669,134
$5,800,599
$24 049.853
$2 120,425
$4,719,475
$1,593,169
$654,500
$0
$117.810
$0
$835,516
$3,391,214
$44,638,604
$38,305
$1,925 020
$138,157
$892,016
$19,468,640
$24.065 753
$2,120 425
$4,843,902
$1,639,910
$1,106,723
$66,675
$117.810
$452,223
$835,516
$3,391,214
$61,102,290
$214,906
$7,659,911
$0
$3,033,688
$214,906
$10,693,600
7929
Volunteer Fire Departments
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Mixed Fire Departments
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Fire Departments Total
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.075</GPH>
One-Time Annualized,
7%
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$9,249
$316,338
$0
$51,942
$3,636,332
$3,385
$0
$27.669
$10,458
$94,682
$15,621
$0
$94,682
$0
$0
$4,260,357
$0
$122,122
$30,889
$152 349
$6,393,251
$14,122,292
$484,607
$1 078.600
$366.331
$133,370
$0
$7,261
$0
$73 800
$706,928
$23,671,803
$9,249
$438,460
$30,889
$204,291
$10,029,584
$14,125,678
$484,607
$1.106 269
$376 789
$228,052
$15,621
$7,261
$94,682
$73.800
$706,928
$27,932,160
$142
$5,887
$0
$972
$0
$2,276
$589
$2,845
$142
$8,163
$589
$3,817
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
$764 816
$3,712,836
$36,845,121
$128,686,331
$11 785,432
$26 231.085
$8,860,495
$3,517,815
$0
$650,975
$0
$4,542,029
$18,213,977
$246,844,602
Total Annualized,
7%
$764,816
$4,956,760
$102,623,320
$128,773,326
$11,785 432
$26.918 801
$9,118,986
$5,960,764
$372,277
$650,975
$2,442,949
$4,542,029
$18,213,977
$328,032,919
Annual
7930
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.076</GPH>
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Wildland Firefh?:htin2: Services
Career Wildland Firefi2htin2 ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Volunteer Wildland Firefi2htin2 ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capabilitv
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
One-Time Annualized,
7%
$0
$1,243,924
$65,778,199
$86,995
$0
$687.716
$258,491
$2,442,949
$372,277
$0
$2,442,949
$0
$0
$81,188,318
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$9,391
$322,225
$0
$52,914
$8,090,190
$3,453
$0
$28,181
$10,645
$96,942
$15.902
$0
$96,942
$0
$0
$8,726,785
$0
$124,398
$31,479
$155,195
$6,918,397
$26,287,939
$493,592
$1,098,597
$372,920
$136,545
$0
$8 287
$0
$82,090
$728,040
$36,437,477
$9,391
$446 624
$31,479
$208,109
$15,008,587
$26,291,392
$493 592
$1,126,778
$383,565
$233,487
$15.902
$8,287
$96,942
$82,090
$728,040
$45,164,262
$45,292
$1,582,455
$0
$258,670
$17,103,833
$17,444
$0
$618,063
$130 680
$765,870
$147,807
$41,880,573
$45,292
$2,200,518
$130,680
$1,024,539
$17,251,640
$41,898,017
7931
$525 146
$12,165,646
$8,985
$19,997
$6,589
$3,175
$0
$1,025
$0
$8,289
$21,112
$12,765,674
Total Annualized,
7%
$4,979,004
$12,165,714
$8,985
$20,509
$6 776
$5 434
$281
$1,025
$2,260
$8,289
$21,112
$17,232,102
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.077</GPH>
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Wildland Firefighting Total
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management Svstem Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Emen?:encv Medical Services
Career Emergency Medical Services ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
One-Time Annualized,
7%
$4 453,858
$68
$0
$512
$188
$2,260
$281
$0
$2,260
$0
$0
$4,466,428
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$24,520
$856,854
$0
$140,065
$9,543,692
$9,449
$0
$13,192
$28,586
$270,158
$42,017
$0
$270.158
$0
$0
$11,198,692
$0
$334,679
$70,761
$414 764
$80,085
$23,516,412
$266,336
$2,057,491
$991,776
$384,345
$0
$3,210,860
$0
$4 468.519
$2,050,495
$37,846,526
$24,520
$1,191,534
$70,761
$554,829
$9,623,778
$23,525,862
$266,336
$2,070,684
$1,020 363
$654,503
$42,017
$3,210,860
$270.158
$4.468.519
$2,050,495
$49,045,218
$47,676
$1.665.742
$0
$272,284
$16,862,435
$18,362
$0
$25,663
$55,570
$0
$650.592
$137,558
$806,179
$155,586
$41113,375
$517,741
$3,999,701
$1,927,991
$47 676
$2.316 335
$137,558
$1,078,462
$17,018,022
$41,131 738
$517,741
$4,025,364
$1,983,561
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
$491,854
$3,799,716
$1,831,591
$708,379
$0
$5.769 083
$0
$8,002,159
$3,774,436
$67,920,210
Total Annualized,
7%
$491 854
$3,824,096
$1,884,383
$1,206,308
$77,597
$5.769.083
$497,929
$8,002,159
$3,774,436
$88,078,531
Annual
7932
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.078</GPH>
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Volunteer Emere:encv Medical Services ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Ooerating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Mixed Emergency Medical Services ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
One-Time Annualized,
7%
$0
$24,379
$52,792
$497,929
$77,597
$0
$497,929
$0
$0
$20,158,320
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$117,487
$4,105,052
$0
$671,018
$43,509,961
$45,256
$0
$63,234
$136,949
$1,292,223
$201,295
$0
$1,292,223
$0
$0
$51,434,697
$0
$1 603,334
$338,999
$1,986,813
$383,479
$106,510,361
$1275,931
$9,856,909
$4,751,358
$1,838,386
$0
$15 052,662
$0
$20,894,004
$9,798,021
$174,290,256
$117,487
$5,708 386
$338,999
$2,657,831
$43,893,440
$106,555,617
$1,275 931
$9,920,144
$4,888,307
$3,130,608
$201,295
$15,052,662
$1,292,223
$20,894,004
$9,798,021
$225,724,953
$2,432
$0
$34,529
$6,426
$43 019
$2,432
$122,570
$6 426
$57.423
$1,256,202
$2,454,598
$27,453
$203 675
$104,505
$75,427
$4,297
$88,040
$0
$14.404
$1,247,713
$997
$0
$1,291
$2,934
$31,118
$4,297
$8,489
$2,453,601
$27,453
$202,383
$101,571
$44,308
$0
7933
$745 662
$0
$6,072,719
$0
$8 423,326
$3 973.090
$68,523,520
Total Annualized,
7%
$1,269,798
$81,681
$6,072,719
$524,136
$8,423,326
$3.973 090
$88,601,204
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.079</GPH>
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Emer2encv Medical Services Total
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Career Technical Search and Rescue ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Manruzement Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
One-Time Annualized,
7%
$524,136
$81,681
$0
$524,136
$0
$0
$20,077,685
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$33,547
$1,233,565
$0
$202,075
$5,560,787
$14,027
$0
$17,920
$40,964
$449,341
$60,109
$0
$449,341
$0
$0
$8,061,677
$0
$483,501
$91,873
$603 946
$120,445
$13,069,649
$384,229
$2,854,651
$1419,793
$638,882
$0
$31,342
$0
$334 470
$3,789,179
$23,821,962
$33,547
$1,717,066
$91,873
$806,022
$5,681,232
$13,083,676
$384,229
$2,872,571
$1,460 757
$1,088,223
$60,109
$31,342
$449,341
$334,470
$3,789,179
$31,883,638
$35.979
$1.321.605
$0
$216,479
$6,808,500
$15,023
$0
$19,211
$43,898
$480,460
$64,406
$0
$480,460
$0
$0
$518.031
$98,299
$646,965
$128,935
$15 523,250
$411.682
$3,057,035
$1,521,364
$683,190
$0
$33,893
$0
$359,493
$35 979
$1.839 636
$98,299
$863,445
$6,937,434
$15,538 274
$411 682
$3,076,246
$1,565,261
$1,163,650
$64,406
$33,893
$480,460
$359,493
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
$2 551
$0
$25,023
$255,544
$3,204,897
Total Annualized,
7%
$2,551
$31,118
$25,023
$255,544
$4,629,242
Annual
7934
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.080</GPH>
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Volunteer Technical Search and Rescue ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Caoabilitv
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Phvsical Requirements
Training
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Technical Search and Rescue Total
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Caoabilitv
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergencv Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
One-Time Annualized,
7%
$0
$31,118
$0
$0
$1,424,345
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Source: OSHA.
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
$4,044,723
$27,026,859
Total Annualized,
7%
$4,044,723
$36,512,880
$410,030
$0
$410,030
$1,155,299
$456,809
$1,612,108
$13,408,794
$0
$2,372,134
$132,909,734
$163,741
$0
$0
$901,846
$488,855
$184,098
$4,312,573
$710,014
$0
$4,680,769
$0
$0
$161,697,888
$5,279,451
$1,320,291
$7,063,936
$44,416,347
$289,146,883
$888,248
$13,966,637
$43,651,527
$16,840,711
$234,684
$6,175,936
$0
$15,763,744
$0
$26,094,344
$35,540,783
$506,840,331
$18,688,245
$1,320,291
$9,436,070
$177,326,081
$289,310,625
$888,248
$13,966,637
$44,553,373
$17,329,566
$418,782
$10,488,509
$710,014
$15,763,744
$4,680,769
$26,094,344
$35,540,783
$668,538,219
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Program Evaluation
Total
Total for All Responder Groups
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency
Service(s) Capability
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
WERE Facility Preparedness
ESO Facility Preparedness
Eauioment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
One-Time Annualized,
7%
$0
$9,486,022
7935
EP05FE24.081</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7936
VerDate Sep<11>2014
One-Time Annualized,
0%
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
WEREs
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency
Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Phvsical Reauirements
Training
WERE Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management Svstem Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Fire Departments
Career Fire Departments
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management Svstem Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analvsis
Program Evaluation
Total
Total Annualized,
0%
Annual
$22,663
$0
$22,663
$811,434
$456,809
$1,268,243
$0
$131,903
$8 487.315
$9,141
$0
$72,697
$27,302
$129.303
$39,427
$0
$258,605
$0
$0
$9,989,788
$86,698
$562,127
$140 416
$12 139,003
$86,698
$694,029
$8.627.731
$12,148 143
$888,248
$888,248
$3,407,900
$1,334,575
$234 684
$0
$17,927
$0
$216,729
$2 756.023
$22,241,138
$3,480,597
$1,361,877
$363.986
$39,427
$17,927
$258,605
$216,729
$2.756 023
$32,230,926
$53,234
$1,896,846
$0
$308,040
$17,125,735
$21,577
$0
$170,363
$64,048
$610,027
$92.211
$0
$610,027
$0
$0
$20,952,108
$0
$1 069,936
$269,662
$1,310 079
$28,938,124
$64 936.817
$4 155,983
$9,250,059
$3,125,171
$1,250,777
$0
$477,677
$0
$3,041,219
$6,504,400
$124,329,905
$53,234
$2,966 782
$269,662
$1,618,119
$46,063,859
$64.958 395
$4,155 983
$9,420,422
$3,189,219
$1,860,804
$92.211
$477,677
$610,027
$3,041,219
$6,504,400
$145,282,013
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.082</GPH>
Table VII-C-17. Total Cost Summary by Provision -All Organizations,_ 0 Percent Discount Rate
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Total Annualized,
0%
$70,804
$2,516,523
$0
$409,097
$33,393,743
$28,357
$0
$225,267
$84,677
$788,175
$122,431
$0
$788,175
$0
$0
$38,427,249
$0
$1,414,999
$356,996
$1,733 623
$2 106,398
$39,699,661
$5,509,024
$12,261,552
$4 142,154
$1,612,539
$0
$55,489
$0
$665 293
$8,318,364
$77,876,092
$70,804
$3,931,522
$356,996
$2,142,720
$35,500,141
$39,728,018
$5,509,024
$12,486,819
$4,226 831
$2,400,714
$122,431
$55,489
$788,175
$665,293
$8,318,364
$116,303,341
$26,904
$966,633
$0
$156,543
$13,270,499
$11,167
$0
$87,393
$32,829
$317,623
$46,830
$0
$317,623
$0
$0
$15,234,043
$0
$548,752
$138,157
$669,134
$5,800,599
$24 049.853
$2 120.425
$4,719,475
$1,593,169
$654,500
$0
$117.810
$0
$835,516
$3,391,214
$44,638,604
$26,904
$1,515 385
$138,157
$825,677
$19,071,098
$24.061 020
$2,120 425
$4,806,867
$1,625,998
$972,122
$46,830
$117.810
$317,623
$835,516
$3,391,214
$59,872,647
$150,941
$5,380,001
$0
$3,033,688
$150,941
$8,413,690
7937
Volunteer Fire Departments
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Mixed Fire Departments
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Fire Departments Total
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.083</GPH>
One-Time Annualized,
0%
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$6,496
$222,183
$0
$36,482
$3,530,266
$2,378
$0
$19,434
$7,345
$66,500
$10,971
$0
$66,500
$0
$0
$3,968,554
$0
$122,122
$30,889
$152 349
$6,393,251
$14,122,292
$484,607
$1 078,600
$366,331
$133,370
$0
$7,261
$0
$73 800
$706,928
$23,671,803
$6,496
$344,305
$30,889
$188,831
$9,923,517
$14,124,670
$484,607
$1.098 034
$373 676
$199,871
$10,971
$7,261
$66,500
$73,800
$706,928
$27,640,357
$100
$4,135
$0
$683
$0
$2,276
$589
$2,845
$100
$6,411
$589
$3,528
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
$764 816
$3,712,836
$36,845,121
$128,686,331
$11 785,432
$26 231.085
$8,860,495
$3,517,815
$0
$650,975
$0
$4,542,029
$18,213,977
$246,844,602
Total Annualized,
0%
$764,816
$4,586,516
$100,635,098
$128,747,433
$11,785 432
$26,714 108
$9,042,048
$5,233,641
$261,471
$650,975
$1,715,825
$4,542,029
$18,213,977
$321,458,001
Annual
7938
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.084</GPH>
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Wildland Firefh?:htin2: Services
Career Wildland Firefi2htin2 ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Volunteer Wildland Firefi2htin2 ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capabilitv
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
One-Time Annualized,
0%
$0
$873,680
$63,789,977
$61,101
$0
$483,023
$181,553
$1,715,825
$261,471
$0
$1,715,825
$0
$0
$74,613,399
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$6,596
$226,317
$0
$37,165
$7,882,922
$2,426
$0
$19,793
$7,477
$68,088
$11,169
$0
$68,088
$0
$0
$8,330,040
$0
$124,398
$31,479
$155,195
$6,918,397
$26,287,939
$493,592
$1,098,597
$372,920
$136,545
$0
$8 287
$0
$82,090
$728,040
$36,437,477
$6,596
$350 716
$31,479
$192,359
$14,801,319
$26,290,364
$493 592
$1,118,390
$380,397
$204,633
$11,169
$8,287
$68,088
$82,090
$728,040
$44,767,517
$31,811
$1,111,450
$0
$181,679
$16,623,534
$12,252
$0
$618,063
$130 680
$765,870
$147,807
$41,880,573
$31,811
$1,729,513
$130,680
$947,548
$16,771,341
$41,892,825
7939
$525 146
$12,165,646
$8,985
$19,997
$6,589
$3.175
$0
$1,025
$0
$8,289
$21,112
$12,765,674
Total Annualized,
0%
$4,877,802
$12,165,694
$8,985
$20,357
$6720
$4 762
$198
$1,025
$1,587
$8,289
$21,112
$17,127,159
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.085</GPH>
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Wildland Firefighting Total
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management Svstem Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Emen?:encv Medical Services
Career Emergency Medical Services ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
One-Time Annualized,
0%
$4 352,656
$48
$0
$359
$132
$1,587
$198
$0
$1,587
$0
$0
$4,361,485
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$17,222
$601,819
$0
$98,376
$9,277,290
$6,637
$0
$9,266
$20,078
$189,748
$29,511
$0
$189.748
$0
$0
$10,439,692
$0
$334,679
$70,761
$414 764
$80,085
$23,516,412
$266,336
$2,057,491
$991,776
$384,345
$0
$3,210,860
$0
$4 468.519
$2,050,495
$37,846,526
$17,222
$936,498
$70,761
$513,140
$9,357,375
$23,523,049
$266,336
$2,066,757
$1,011 854
$574,092
$29,511
$3,210,860
$189.748
$4.468.519
$2,050,495
$48,286,218
$33,485
$1.169.948
$0
$191,241
$16,382,449
$12,897
$0
$18,024
$39,030
$0
$650.592
$137,558
$806,179
$155,586
$41113,375
$517,741
$3,999,701
$1,927,991
$33 485
$1.820 540
$137,558
$997,419
$16,538,035
$41,126 272
$517,741
$4,017,726
$1,967,021
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
$491,854
$3,799,716
$1,831,591
$708,379
$0
$5.769 083
$0
$8,002,159
$3,774,436
$67,920,210
Total Annualized,
0%
$491 854
$3,816,839
$1,868,670
$1,058,103
$54,501
$5.769.083
$349,724
$8,002,159
$3,774,436
$86,689,088
Annual
7940
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.086</GPH>
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Volunteer Emere:encv Medical Services ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Ooerating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Mixed Emergency Medical Services ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
One-Time Annualized,
0%
$0
$17,123
$37,079
$349,724
$54,501
$0
$349,724
$0
$0
$18,768,878
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$82,518
$2,883,217
$0
$471,295
$42,283,272
$31,786
$0
$44,413
$96,187
$907,603
$141,381
$0
$907,603
$0
$0
$47,849,276
$0
$1 603,334
$338,999
$1,986,813
$383,479
$106,510,361
$1275,931
$9,856,909
$4,751,358
$1,838,386
$0
$15 052,662
$0
$20,894,004
$9,798,021
$174,290,256
$82,518
$4,486 551
$338,999
$2,458,108
$42,666,751
$106,542,147
$1,275 931
$9,901,322
$4,847,545
$2,745,989
$141,381
$15,052,662
$907,603
$20,894,004
$9,798,021
$222,139,532
$1,708
$61,836
$0
$10.117
$1,213,988
$700
$0
$907
$2,061
$21,856
$3,018
$0
$34,529
$6,426
$43 019
$8,489
$2,453,601
$27,453
$202,383
$101,571
$44,308
$0
$1,708
$96,365
$6 426
$53.136
$1,222,478
$2,454,301
$27,453
$203,290
$103,631
$66,164
$3,018
7941
$745 662
$0
$6,072,719
$0
$8 423,326
$3 973.090
$68,523,520
Total Annualized,
0%
$1,113,793
$57,369
$6,072,719
$368,131
$8,423,326
$3.973 090
$87,164,225
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.087</GPH>
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Emer2encv Medical Services Total
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Career Technical Search and Rescue ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Manruzement Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
One-Time Annualized,
0%
$368,131
$57,369
$0
$368,131
$0
$0
$18,640,705
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$23,562
$866,404
$0
$141.929
$5,358,052
$9,852
$0
$12,586
$28,771
$315,599
$42,218
$0
$315,599
$0
$0
$7,114,572
$0
$483,501
$91,873
$603 946
$120,445
$13,069,649
$384,229
$2,854,651
$1419,793
$638,882
$0
$31,342
$0
$334 470
$3,789,179
$23,821,962
$23,562
$1,349,906
$91,873
$745.876
$5,478,497
$13,079,501
$384,229
$2,867,238
$1,448 564
$954,481
$42,218
$31,342
$315,599
$334,470
$3,789,179
$30,936,534
$25,270
$928,240
$0
$152,046
$6,572,040
$10.552
$0
$13,493
$30,832
$337,455
$45.236
$0
$337,455
$0
$0
$518,031
$98,299
$646,965
$128,935
$15 523.250
$411,682
$3,057,035
$1,521,364
$683,190
$0
$33,893
$0
$359,493
$25 270
$1,446 271
$98,299
$799,011
$6,700,975
$15.533 802
$411 682
$3,070,528
$1,552,196
$1,020,645
$45.236
$33,893
$337,455
$359,493
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
$2 551
$0
$25,023
$255,544
$3,204,897
Total Annualized,
0%
$2,551
$21,856
$25,023
$255,544
$4,542,944
Annual
7942
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.088</GPH>
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Volunteer Technical Search and Rescue ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Ooerations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Technical Search and Rescue Total
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management Svstem Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
One-Time Annualized,
0%
$0
$21,856
$0
$0
$1,338,047
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Source: OSHA.
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
$4,044,723
$27,026,859
Total Annualized,
0%
$4,044,723
$35,479,478
$287,988
$0
$287,988
$811,434
$456,809
$1,268,243
$9,417,776
$0
$1,666,088
$129,015,527
$115,005
$0
$0
$633,419
$343,351
$129,303
$3,028,971
$498,684
$0
$3,287,576
$0
$0
$149,235,122
$5,279,451
$1,320,291
$7,063,936
$44,416,347
$289,146,883
$888,248
$13,966,637
$43,651,527
$16,840,711
$234,684
$6,175,936
$0
$15,763,744
$0
$26,094,344
$35,540,783
$506,840,331
$14,697,227
$1,320,291
$8,730,024
$173,431,875
$289,261,889
$888,248
$13,966,637
$44,284,946
$17,184,062
$363,986
$9,204,907
$498,684
$15,763,744
$3,287,576
$26,094,344
$35,540,783
$656,075,453
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Pro.gram Evaluation
Total
Total for All Responder Groups
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency
Service(s) Capability
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
WERE Facility Preparedness
ESO Facility Preparedness
Eauioment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
One-Time Annualized,
0%
$0
$8,452,619
7943
EP05FE24.089</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
WEREs
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency
Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
WERE Facility Preparedness
Eauipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Fire Departments
Career Fire Departments
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total Annualized,
3%
Annual
$26,567
$0
$26,567
$951,248
$456,809
$1,408,057
$0
$154,630
$142,874
$10,716
$0
$85.223
$32,006
$151,582
$46,220
$0
$303.164
$0
$0
$1,904,231
$86 698
$562,127
$8,689,778
$12,139,003
$888,248
$3 407.900
$1,334,575
$234,684
$0
$17 927
$0
$216,729
$2,756,023
$30,790,499
$86.698
$716,757
$8,832,652
$12,149,718
$888,248
$3.493 123
$1,366,581
$386,266
$46,220
$17,927
$303.164
$216,729
$2,756,023
$32,694,730
$51,420
$1,842,835
$0
$298.958
$470,617
$20,973
$0
$165,668
$62J89
$576,629
$89,355
$0
$576,629
$0
$0
$0
$887,593
$223 829
$1.081496
$21,865,052
$30,810,465
$3,443,293
$7,663,810
$2 585.395
$1,010,170
$0
$395,891
$0
$2 427.977
$5,162,786
$51,420
$2,730,428
$223.829
$1.380.454
$22,335,669
$30,831,438
$3,443,293
$7,829,479
$2.647 583
$1,586,799
$89,355
$395,891
$576,629
$2.427.977
$5,162,786
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
One-Time Annualized,
3%
7944
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.090</GPH>
Table VII-C-18. Total Cost Summary by Provision - Organizations Considered Small by SBA/RFA Definitions, 3 Percent
Discount Rate
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$82,638
$2,936,930
$0
$477.408
$748,927
$33,097
$0
$262,920
$98,831
$919,245
$142,875
$0
$919,245
$0
$0
$6,622,117
$0
$1,408,788
$355 446
$1.725 872
$34,900,661
$38,490,404
$5,484,292
$12 206 504
$4,123,606
$1,604,445
$0
$55,242
$0
$662,140
$8,267,686
$109,285,085
$82,638
$4,345,718
$355,446
$2.203.280
$35,649,588
$38,523,501
$5,484,292
$12,469,424
$4,222,437
$2,523,690
$142,875
$55,242
$919,245
$662,140
$8,267,686
$115,907,202
$28,628
$1,030,014
$0
$166,480
$264.085
$11.983
$0
$93,421
$35,077
$332,885
$49.793
$0
$332,885
$0
$0
$2,345,252
$0
$500,259
$125,850
$605,805
$12 727 473
$15 127.510
$1,927,980
$4,291,146
$1,447,919
$587 133
$0
$106,980
$0
$740,343
$2 981,304
$41,169,701
$28 628
$1,530,272
$125,850
$772,284
$12.991.558
$15.139 494
$1,927,980
$4,384,567
$1,482,996
$920,018
$49.793
$106,980
$332,885
$740,343
$2,981 304
$43,514,953
$162,686
$0
$162,686
7945
$77,557,756
Total Annualized,
3%
$81,713,029
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.091</GPH>
Total
Volunteer Fire Departments
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Mixed Fire Departments
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Phvsical Requirements
Training
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Fire Departments Total
Rule Familiarization
One-Time Annualized,
3%
$4,155,273
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$7,417
$252,859
$0
$41,511
$68,854
$2,702
$0
$22.119
$8,364
$75,035
$12,492
$0
$75.035
$0
$0
$566,387
$0
$118,549
$29 975
$147,799
$5,069,710
$7,058,410
$470.454
$1 047.100
$355,810
$128,382
$0
$6 009
$0
$63,361
$674,860
$15,170,422
$7,417
$371,409
$29,975
$189,311
$5,138,564
$7,061,113
$470 454
$1.069 219
$364,174
$203,417
$12,492
$6,009
$75.035
$63,361
$674,860
$15,736,809
$7,417
$252,859
$0
$0
$118,549
$29,975
$7,417
$371,409
$29,975
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
$2 796,639
$705,125
$3,413,172
$69,493,186
$84 428,379
$10 855.565
$24,161,460
$8,156,919
$3,201,747
$0
$558,114
$0
$3,830,459
$16,411,776
$228,012,542
Total Annualized,
3%
$8,606 419
$705,125
$4,356,018
$70,976,815
$84,494 433
$10.855 565
$24,683,470
$8,353,017
$5,030,507
$282,022
$558,114
$1,828,759
$3,830,459
$16,411,776
$241,135,184
Annual
7946
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.092</GPH>
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Wildland Firefighting Services
Career Wildland Firefi2htin2 ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESO Facilitv Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Wildland Firefie:hting Total
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
One-Time Annualized,
3%
$5,809,779
$0
$942,846
$1,483,629
$66,053
$0
$522,010
$196,098
$1,828,759
$282,022
$0
$1,828,759
$0
$0
$13,122,642
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$36,062
$1,254,284
$0
$204,965
$330,454
$13,806
$0
$19,357
$41,898
$392.149
$61,550
$0
$392,149
$0
$0
$2,746,675
$0
$595,148
$125,748
$737,290
$18 428 377
$41,735,056
$473,727
$3,658,444
$1 764.860
$677 868
$0
$4,821,121
$0
$6 581,871
$3 580.357
$83,179,868
$36,062
$1,849,433
$125,748
$942,256
$18,758,831
$41,748,862
$473,727
$3,677,801
$1,806 758
$1,070.017
$61,550
$4,821,121
$392,149
$6,581,871
$3,580 357
$85,926,543
$19,539
$679,494
$0
$111,037
$180,017
$0
$322,436
$68,123
$399,484
$10,334,860
$19,539
$1,001 930
$68,123
$510,522
$10,514,877
7947
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
$147 799
$5,069,710
$7,058,410
$470,454
$1 047,100
$355,810
$128,382
$0
$6,009
$0
$63,361
$674,860
$15,170,422
Total Annualized,
3%
$189,311
$5,138,564
$7,061,113
$470,454
$1,069 219
$364 174
$203,417
$12,492
$6,009
$75,035
$63,361
$674,860
$15,736,809
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.093</GPH>
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management Svstem Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analvsis
Program Evaluation
Total
Emer2ency Medical Services
Career Emer2ency Medical Services ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Volunteer Emergency Medical Services ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
One-Time Annualized,
3%
$41,511
$68,854
$2,702
$0
$22,119
$8,364
$75,035
$12,492
$0
$75,035
$0
$0
$566,387
Annual
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$37,960
$1,320,299
$0
$215,753
$344,791
$14,533
$0
$20,376
$44,103
$412,789
$64,789
$0
$412.789
$0
$0
$2,888,181
$0
$626,472
$132 366
$776,095
$18,310,870
$41,091,560
$498,660
$3 850,994
$1,857,748
$713,546
$0
$5.074 864
$0
$6,928,285
$3,768,797
$83,630,257
$37,960
$1,946,771
$132,366
$991,848
$18,655,661
$41,106,093
$498,660
$3,871 370
$1,901,851
$1,126,334
$64,789
$5.074.864
$412.789
$6,928,285
$3,768,797
$86,518,438
$93.561
$3,254,077
$0
$531,756
$855,261
$35,820
$0
$50,214
$0
$1,544,057
$326,237
$1,912,869
$47 074 108
$106,291,065
$1,229,043
$9,491,433
$93 561
$4,798,134
$326,237
$2,444,625
$47,929,369
$106,326,885
$1,229,043
$9,541,647
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
$23 464,448
$256,656
$1,981,995
$956,176
$367 820
$0
$2,667,749
$0
$3,653,511
$1 944,088
$46,417,347
Total Annualized,
3%
$23,471 929
$256,656
$1,992,476
$978,877
$580,596
$33.346
$2,667,749
$212,776
$3,653,511
$1,944 088
$47,906,995
Annual
7948
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.094</GPH>
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Mixed Emer2ency Medical Services ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Ooerations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Emer2ency Medical Services Total
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
One-Time Annualized,
3%
$7,481
$0
$10,481
$22,701
$212,776
$33.346
$0
$212,776
$0
$0
$1,489,648
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$1,855
$67,132
$0
$10,978
$16,908
$762
$0
$985
$2,239
$23,615
$3,275
$0
$23,615
$0
$0
$151,364
$0
$32,000
$5,948
$39,775
$721 621
$1,210,381
$25,446
$187,422
$94,080
$40 868
$0
$2,400
$0
$23 291
$234.741
$2,617,974
$1,855
$99,131
$5,948
$50,753
$738,528
$1,211,143
$25,446
$188,407
$96,319
$64,483
$3,275
$2,400
$23,615
$23.291
$234 741
$2,769,337
$26,401
$970,789
$0
$159,029
$233,081
$11,039
$0
$14,102
$32,238
$353,622
$0
$462,127
$87 811
$577,247
$5,146,998
$12,491,867
$367,243
$2,728,453
$1,357,027
$610,638
$26,401
$1,432 916
$87.811
$736,276
$5,380,079
$12,502,906
$367 243
$2,742,556
$1,389,265
$964,260
7949
$4 578,784
$1,759,234
$0
$12,563,733
$0
$17.163 667
$9,293,242
$213,227,471
Total Annualized,
3%
$4,687 487
$2,776,948
$159,685
$12,563,733
$1,017,714
$17.163.667
$9,293,242
$220,351,976
Annual
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.095</GPH>
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Career Technical Search and Rescue ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Mana2ement Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analvsis
Program Evaluation
Total
Volunteer Technical Search and Rescue ESOs
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Eauipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
One-Time Annualized,
3%
$108,702
$1,017,714
$159,685
$0
$1 017,714
$0
$0
$7,124,505
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$28,256
$1,037,920
$0
$170,007
$249,989
$11,800
$0
$15.088
$34,477
$377,237
$50,580
$0
$377.237
$0
$0
$2,352,590
$0
$494,127
$93 759
$617,022
$5,868,619
$13,702,249
$392,690
$2 915.875
$1,451,107
$651,506
$0
$32,357
$0
$342,975
$3,856,409
$30,418,694
$28,256
$1,532,047
$93.759
$787,029
$6,118,607
$13,714,049
$392,690
$2.930 963
$1,485,584
$1,028,743
$50,580
$32,357
$377.237
$342,975
$3,856,409
$32,771,285
$318.488
$0
$318 488
$951,248
$456,809
$1,408,057
$10,354,636
$0
$1,840,749
$2,800,607
$127,092
$0
$0
$694,652
$379,647
$151,582
$4,953,372
$124L795
$6,652,990
$136,195,401
$223,619,106
$888,248
$12 947.752
$41,023,768
$15,877,195
$234,684
$15,308,008
$L24L795
$8,493,739
$138,996,007
$223,746,197
$888,248
$12.947 752
$41,718,421
$16,256,842
$386,266
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
$0
$29,957
$0
$319,684
$3 62L667
$27,800,721
Total Annualized,
3%
$47.305
$29,957
$353,622
$319,684
$3.621 667
$30,001,947
Annual
7950
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.096</GPH>
Incident Management Svstem Development
Emergencv Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analvsis
Program Evaluation
Total
Technical Search and Rescue Total
Rule Familiarization
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management Svstem Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Total for All Responder Groups
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency
Service(s) Capabilitv
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
WERE Facility Preparedness
ESQ Faeilitv Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
One-Time Annualized,
3%
$47.305
$0
$353,622
$0
$0
$2,201,227
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
Source: OSHA.
PO 00000
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Annual
$5,740,870
$0
$13,178,140
$0
$21,617,192
$32,992,309
$517,619,629
Total Annualized,
3%
$9,039,615
$550,999
$13,178,140
$3,601,910
$21,617,192
$32,992,309
$542,689,984
Frm 00179
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
One-Time Annualized,
3%
$3,298,745
$550,999
$0
$3,601,910
$0
$0
$25,070,355
7951
EP05FE24.097</GPH>
7952
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(ii) Insurance Adjustments for Medical
Exam Costs
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00180
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Emen?:ency Response Service Sector
WEREs
Career Fire Departments
Volunteer Fire Departments
Mixed Fire Departments
Total Fire Departments
Career Wildland Fire Services
Volunteer Wildland Fire Services
Total Wildland Fire Services
Career Emergency Medical Services
Volunteer Emergency Medical Services
Mixed Emergency Medical Services
Total Emergency Medical Services
Career Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Volunteer Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Total Technical Search and Rescue Groups
All Responder Groups
Sources: OSHA based on BLS, 2023.
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
One-Time Annualized, 3%
$142,874
$7.707 602
$16,327,508
$6,734,327
$30,769,437
$1,575,064
$2.078 413
$3,653,477
$3,562,892
$4,501,581
$7 965 807
$16,030,280
$251,438
$2,757,816
$3,009,254
$53,605.322
Annual
$140,416
$1.177.334
$998,272
$2,204,320
$4,379,926
$44,402
$180.211
$224,613
$147,807
$80,085
$155,586
$383,479
$8,489
$120,445
$128,935
$5,257.368
Total Annualized, 3%
$283,290
$8.884.936
$17,325,780
$8,938,647
$35,149,363
$1,619,466
$2.258.624
$3,878,090
$3,710,699
$4,581,667
$8.121.393
$16,413,759
$259,928
$2,878,261
$3,138,189
$58,862.690
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Table VII-C-19. Insurance-Adjusted Medical and Physical Requirements Costs -All Organizations, 3 Percent Discount Rate
7953
EP05FE24.098</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7954
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Emergency Response Service Sector
WEREs
Career Fire Departments
Volunteer Fire Departments
Mixed Fire Departments
Total Fire Departments
Career Wildland Fire Services
Volunteer Wildland Fire Services
Total Wildland Fire Services
Career Emergency Medical Services
Volunteer Emergency Medical Services
Mixed Emergency Medical Services
Total Emereencv Medical Services
Career Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Volunteer Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Total Technical Search and Rescue Groups
All Responder Groups
Sources: OSHA based on BLS, 2023.
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
One-Time Annualized, 3%
$1,904,231
$12.193 278
$22,228,312
$9.036 199
$43,457,789
$2,088,872
$2.088.763
$4,177,635
$6,077,889
$5,864,272
$10,613,173
$22.555.334
$396,873
$4,816,994
$5,213,867
$77,308,855
Annual
$22,241,138
$96.569.115
$76,767,966
$41.042.325
$214,379,407
$17,322,954
$12.420.739
$29,743,693
$67,920,210
$37,846,526
$68,523,520
$174.290.256
$3,204,897
$23,821,962
$27,026,859
$467,681,352
Total Annualized, 3%
$24,145,368
$108.762 393
$98,996,278
$50.078 524
$257,837,196
$19,411,826
$14.509.502
$33,921,328
$73,998,100
$43,710,798
$79,136,692
$196.845.590
$3,601,770
$28,638,955
$32,240,725
$544,990,208
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.099</GPH>
Table VII-C-20. Total Costs with Insurance-Adjusted Medical and Physical Requirements Costs -All Organizations, 3 Percent
Discount Rate
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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/cfstesprofessional-certification/fire-fighter-12019/. (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/cfstesprofessional-certification/fire-fighter-22019/. (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/
index.html. (Accessed February 9, 2023)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(CMS). (2022a). PhysicianFee
Schedule—2022. Available at https://
www.cms.gov/apps/physician-feeschedule/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-payment
clinicallabfeeschedclinical-laboratoryfee-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-examsimportance-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-OPPT2002-0054-0260. (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/coloncancer/colonoscopy-cost#. (Accessed
October 16, 2023)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
LeDuc, T. (2018). Firefighter Physicals: A
Picture is Worth a Thousand Words.
Available at https://www.fireengineering.
com/health-safety/firefighter-physicalsa-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/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/CourseCatalog-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/firefighteri/. (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-andResearch/Data-research-and-tools/
Emergency-Responders/US-firedepartment-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
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7955
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/firefighterii/. (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/jama
networkopen/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-foraspiring-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-avolunteer-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-RAAnnouncement.pdf. (Accessed
September 6, 2023)
D. Benefits
I. Introduction
Benefits from OSHA’s proposed
Emergency Response standard would
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7956
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
these other types of cancer for
responders.
As discussed below, OSHA estimates
that the proposed Emergency Response
standard would reduce fatal and nonfatal 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 emergencyresponse-related fatalities in the OIS
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7957
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7958
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
Table VII-1. Estimated Number of Fatal Incidents in O1S Database by Nature of
Fatality, 2007-2021
Number of
Fatalities
28
39
1
1
1
12
9
28
55
7
2
1
72
1
1
13
2
273
Nature of Fatality
Asphvxia
Bum/Scald (Heat)
Cancer
Chemical Exposure
Cut/Laceration
Drowning
Explosion
Fall
Heart Attack
Heat Exhaustion
Natural Causes 53
Smoke Exposure
Struck Bv/Crushing/Collision
Stroke
Suicide
Unknown/Unspecified 54
Violence
Total Fatalities
Percent of
Total Fatalities
10.3
14.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
4.4
3.3
10.3
20.1
2.6
0.7
0.4
26.4
0.4
0.4
4.8
0.7
100
Average Annual
Fatalities
1.9
2.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.6
1.9
3.7
0.5
0.1
0.1
4.8
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.1
18.2
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.100</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: OSHA's Occupational Safety and Health Information System (OIS). Note: Totals may not equal
sums due to rounding.
7959
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table VII-2: Fatalities in O1S Database Addressed by Provisions of the Proposed
Rule (Excluding Heart Attacks)
Emergency Response
Provision
Provision Description
Establishment of the ERP and Emergency
1910.156 (c/d)
Services Capability
1910.156 (e)
Team Member and Responder Participation
1910.156 (f)
Risk Management Plan
1910.156 (h)
Training
1910.156 (i/i)
Facility Preparedness
1910.156(k)
Equipment and PPE
1910.156 (1)
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
1910.156(m)/(n)
Pre-Incident Planning
1910.156 (o)
Incident Management System Development
1910.156(p)
Emergency Incident Operations
1910.156(q)
Standard Operating Procedures
Total Number of Instances a Provision was Aoolicable
Total Number of Fatalities: 2007 to 2021
Total Number of Fatalities with at Least One Provision Applied (77.7%)
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
Number of
Fatalities
56
43
41
59
29
1
11
47
287
273
212
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.
Table VII-3. Estimated Number of Fatal Heart Attacks in O1S Database by Activity,
2007-2021
Number of
Fatalities
Activity
Accident Response, Onsite of an Emergency
Emergency Response, Onsite of an Emergency
Fire Fighting, Onsite of an Emergency
Fire Fighting, Onsite, Non-Emergency
Maintenance Work- Onsite, Non-Emergency
Off Duty, Less than 24 Hours of Work-Related Activities
On Dutv, Onsite, Non-Emergency
Training Exercise, Onsite, Non-Emergency
Unspecified
Total Fatal Heart Attacks
1
2
14
1
2
8
5
15
7
55
55 See https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/
nutritionsource/disease-prevention/cardiovasculardisease/preventing-cvd/ based on Chiuve, SE,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
in the proposed rule—the medical and
physical, fitness for duty, and health
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.102</GPH>
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
EP05FE24.101</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: OSHA, OIS
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7960
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
attack in the OIS dataset, OSHA believes
a reasonable estimate is that the rule
would prevent 20 percent of workrelated 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.
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 OSHAapproved 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.
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
56 https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/
Data-research-and-tools/Emergency-Responders/
Firefighter-fatalities-in-the-United-States.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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-afterfalling-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-exseattle-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 safetyrelated 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
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 nonfirefighter 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.
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.
archives of occupational and environmental health,
88(7), 973–980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-0151028-z.
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).
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
7961
Table VII-4. Leading Causes of Non-Fatal Injuries to Firefighters with Lost Time
from Work, 2007-2021
Average Percent
of Total Lost
Time Injuries
Cause of Injury
Estimated
Injuries by
Average
Percent of Lost
Time In iuries
49 025
58,056
23,222
12,901
6 451
24 728
19,782
Estimated
Injuries, Annual
Average
Falls, iumps slips
3,268
22.8
Overexertion, strains
27.0
3,870
Contact with object
10.8
1,548
6.0
860
Struck bv an obiect
Extreme weather
3.1
430
1,649
Exposure to fire products
11.5
Exposure to chemicals or
9.2
1,319
radiation
Other
16.3
35 049
2 337
Total Lost Time from Work
Injuries
215,022
Average Annual Non-Fatal
Injuries
14,335
Source: NFPA.
Note: Number of injuries by cause is an estimation derived from published injuries percentages by year.
Totals may not equal sums due to rounding and using averages of yearly percentages.
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.
Table VII-5. Non-Fatal Injuries to EMTs and Paramedics, All Ownerships, 20072020
Percent of Total
Injuries
9.8
13.6
53.6
Average Annual
Injuries
755
1,050
4,128
Contact with objects
Falls, slips, trips
Overexertion and bodily reaction
Exposure to harmful substance or
7,010
environment
6.5
501
Transportation incidents
7,540
7.0
539
260
0.2
19
Fires and explosions
Violence and other injuries by
persons or animals
4,720
337
4.4
4,640
Other
4.3
331
Total Injuries
107,720
100.0
7,694
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Survey of Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses in cooperation with participating State agencies. https://data.bls.govlgqt/ProjileData.
Number of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses involving days away from work ( 1) by selected
worker and case characteristics and occupation, All U.S., private industry, 2007 - 2020.
NOTE: Because of rounding and data exclusion of nonclassifiable responses, data may not sum to the
totals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00189
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.104</GPH>
Number of
Injuries
10,570
14,700
57,790
EP05FE24.103</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Event or Exposure
7962
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
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.
61 Available at: https://www.ffbha.org/ff-emssuicide-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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.).
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
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-departmentalguidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-ineconomic-analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00190
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
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.
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
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.
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%20
not%20common,testicular%20
cancer%20is%20about%2033 (Accessed March 26,
2023).
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7963
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table VII-6. Estimated Annual Incidents of Cancer in Firefighters, by Type of
Cancer
Public, State Plan, and Private Fire Departments [a]
Volunteer
Total
Career
Paid per Call
Cancer Type
Breast fbl
r
6.4
2.4
0.2
8.9
Colorectal Cl
Lung (using ACS
w/adiustment) fdl
26.2
9.8
0.6
36.7
27.7
10.4
0.7
38.7
Prostate fel
80.4
30.1
84.8
195.3
Testicular ffl
Buccal cavity and pharynx
f_g l
19.0
7.1
20.1
46.2
52.6
19.7
55.5
127.8
Thyroid fhl
40.7
15.3
43.0
98.9
Melanoma fil
97.0
36.4
102.4
235.8
351.3
131.7
308.7
791.7
Total
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00191
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.105</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
[a] Number of non-inmate firefighters from the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) National Fire Department
Registry: National Data. (2020). Available at https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/registry/download. Also included
are the estimated number of inmate firefighters compiled from internet searches primarily of states'
websites.
[b] Incidence rate based on the American Cancer Society's Cancer Statistics Center (CSC). 2015-2019
average annual incidence rate. https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/#!/cancer-site/Breast
[c] Incidence rate based on CSC 2015-2019 average annual incidence rate
(https://cancerstatisticscenter. cancer.orgl# !/cancer-site/Colorectum) and Jalilian et al. (2019) "Cancer
7964
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
incidence and mortality among firefighters." International Journal of Cancer. 145:2639-2646.
https://dx.doi.org/l 0.1002/ijc.32199.
[d] Incidence rate based on CSC 2015-2019 average annual incidence rate
(https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/#!/cancer-site/Lung%20and%20bronchus) and Daniels, R.D.,
Kubale,T.L., Yiin, J.H., et al. (2014). OccupEnviron Med. 71:388-397. http:/ldx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed2013-101803
[e] Incidence rate based on CSC 2015-2019 average annual incidence rate
(https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/#!/cancer-site/Prostate) and Lee, D.J., Koru-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
[fj Incidence rate based on CSC 2015-2019 average annual incidence rate
(https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/#!/cancer-site/Testis) and Lee, D.J., Koru-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
[g] Incidence rate based on CSC 2015-2019 average annual incidence rate
(https://cancerstatisticscenter. cancer. org/# I/cancer-site/Ora/% 20cavity%20and%20pharynx) and Daniels,
R.D., Kubale, T.L., Yiin, J.H., etal. (2014). OccupEnvironMed. 71:388-397.
https://dx.doi.org/J0.1136/oemed-2013-101803
[h] Incidence rate based on CSC 2015-2019 average annual incidence rate
(https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/#!/cancer-site/Thyroid) and Lee, D.J., Koru-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
[i] Incidence rate based on CSC 2015-2019 average annual incidence rate
(https://cancerstatisticscenter. cancer. org/# !/cancer-sitellvfelanoma%20o.f/420the%20skin) and Lee, D .J.,
Koru-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. 63:285299. https://doi.org/10. 1002/ajim.23086
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 lungcancer 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
69 Nishihara, R., Wu, K., Lochhead, P., Morikawa,
T., Liao, X., Qian, Z.R., et al. Long-term colorectalcancer incidence and mortality after lower
endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1095–105.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00192
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
72 See
section VI.2.2.1 for more detail.
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-statisticsand-reports/Fire-statistics/The-fire-service/
Administration/US-fire-department-profile
(Accessed September 13, 2018).
73 Inmate
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.106</GPH>
BILLING CODE 4150–26–C
7965
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Table VII-9. Benefits of Firefighter Cancer Fatalities Prevented
b1y Screen1n
• •, M·n
•
2022$
I IOnS
Current
Cases
Source
Cases
Prevented
Current
Annual
Cases
Annual
Cases
Prevented
Value of
Annual Cases
Prevented
Year 10 and later [a]
50 Year Period
Cancer fatalities-firefighters
Colo rectal
Lung
792
19
15.8
0.4
$4.8
1,143
487
22.9
9.7
$121.8
16
0.3
0.3
0.0
$0.1
1,952
507
39.0
10.1
$126.7
Breast
Total Fatalities
Average annualized value over 50 years
3 percent discount rate
$138.98
7 percent discount rate
$97.04
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00193
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
77 National Cancer Institute. August 2023. Breast
Cancer Screening. Available at https://progress
report.cancer.gov/detection/breast_cancer.
Accessed October 19, 2023.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.107</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
[a] Estimated cases avoided are per year from Year 10 to Year 50 in this analysis. OSHA applied the 2022
VSL value from U.S. Department of Transportation. (2022).
7966
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
For these five cancers, estimates of the
mortality rates for the general
population were from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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
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%20
for%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,testicular%20
cancer%20is%20about%2033 (Accessed March 26,
2023).
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-statisticsand-reports/Fire-statistics/The-fire-service/
Administration/US-fire-department-profile
(Accessed September 13, 2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00194
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
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).
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
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-departmentalguidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-ineconomic-analysis.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7967
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table VII-10. Benefits of Prevented Cancer Fatalities by General Medical
Evaluation
Public, State Plan, and Private Fire Departments
Type of Cancer/ Discount Rate
Career
Paid per Call
Volunteers
Total
Prostate
Fatalities prevented
2.3
Value (millions $2022)
$28.3
Testicular
Fatalities prevented
0.1
Value (millions $2022)
$1.7
Buccal cavity and pharynx
Fatalities prevented
2.8
Value (millions $2022)
$35.5
Thyroid
Fatalities prevented
0.2
Value (millions $2022)
$3.1
Melanoma
1.5
Fatalities prevented
Value (millions $2022)
$18.1
Total
Fatalities prevented
6.9
Value (millions $2022)
$86.7
Avera2e Annualized Over 50 Years (Millions $2022)
3 percent discount rate
$67.3
7 percent discount rate
$36.3
Note: Totals may not match the sums due to rounding.
VIII. Summary of Quantified Benefits
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
83 Viscusi, K. and E.P Gentry. (2015). ‘‘The value
of a statistical life for transportation regulations: A
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
0.8
$10.6
2.4
$29.9
5.5
$68.8
0.1
$0.6
0.1
$1.8
0.3
$4.1
1.1
$13.3
3.0
$37.4
6.9
$86.2
0.1
$1.2
0.3
$3.3
0.6
$7.5
0.5
$6.8
1.5
$19.1
3.5
$44.1
2.6
$32.5
7.3
$91.5
16.9
$210.6
$25.2
$13.6
$71.1
$38.3
$163.6
$88.3
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.
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 $2.8 billion using a
7 percent discount rate.
test of the benefits transfer methodology.’’ Journal
of Risk and Uncertainty. 51:53–77. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11166-015-9219-2.
PO 00000
Frm 00195
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.108</GPH>
Year 20
7968
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table VII-11. Summary of Benefits, Millions 2022$
Current
Cases
Source
Cases
Prevented
Average
Annualized
Value, 3
Percent
Discount
Rate
50 Year Period
Suicides-firefighters and EMTs
Safety-Related fatal injuries-firefighters and
EMTs
2,179
436
$154.8
2,049
1,025
$363.9
Health-Related fatal injuries-firefighters
Cancer fatalities-firefighters
1,546
309
$109.8
Colorectal
Lung
792
1,143
15
$5.2
390
$133.7
Breast
16
1,376
0.277
$0.1
82
165
10
$53.4
$3.2
1,724
207
$67.0
150
18
$5.8
882
106
$34.3
11,939
384,700
716,750
2,681
192,350
358,375
$931.2
$592.8
$1,104.5
Prostate
Testicular
Buccal cavity and pharvnx
Thyroid
Melanoma
Total Fatalities
Nonfatal in.iuries-EMTs and paramedics [al
Nonfatal in.iuries-firefi2hters [al
Avera2e annualized value over 50 years
3 oercent discount rate
7 oercent discount rate
$2.628.5
$2.262.3
Note: Totals may not match the sums due to rounding.
[a] The value assigned to a non-fatal injury is the midpoint of the range ($77,000 to $84,000) cited by
Viscusi, W.K., Gentry, E.P. The value of a statistical life for transportation regulations: A test of the
benefits transfer methodology. J Risk Uncertain 51, 53-77 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/sll 166-0159219-2, inflated to 2022 dollars using the GDP deflator.
IX. Non-Quantified Benefits for
Emergency Responders
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00196
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
firefighters. (Table VII–6).84 OSHA
84 The ACS general population estimates, see for
example https://www.cancer.org/cancer/testicularcancer/about/key-statistics.html#:∼:text=
Testicular%20cancer%20is%20
not%20common,testicular%20
cancer%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,
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.109</GPH>
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
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
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
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-statisticsand-reports/Fire-statistics/The-fire-service/
Administration/US-fire-department-profile
(Accessed September 13, 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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-suicidedeaths-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/s00420-0151028-z.
International Fire Chiefs Association. (2016).
Physicals: Your Life Depends on Them!
Available at https://www.fstaresearch.
org/physicals-your-life-depends-onthem/.
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-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: metaanalysis 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/Firestatistics-and-reports/Fire-statistics/Thefire-service/Administration/US-firedepartment-profile (Accessed September
13, 2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00197
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7969
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/reviseddepartmental-guidance-on-valuation-ofa-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/s11166-0159219-2.
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7970
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00198
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20 Percent Reduction
Frm 00199
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Value of
Average
Annual
Cases
Prevented
$190.7
21.8
$272.4
14.3
10.8
$179.3
$135.3
20.5
15.5
$256.2
$193.2
$31.7
$45.7
$0.7
4.4
6.4
0.1
$55.5
$80.0
$1.2
6.3
9.1
0.1
$79.2
$114.3
$1.6
3.3
0.2
$41.3
$2.5
5.8
0.3
$72.2
$4.3
8.3
0.5
$103.2
$6.2
34.5
3.0
4.1
0.4
$51.7
$4.5
7.2
0.6
$90.5
$7.9
10.3
0.9
$129.3
$11.2
17.6
2.1
$26.5
3.7
$46.3
5.3
$66.1
238.8
39.5
$493.2
69.0
$863.0
98.6
$1,232.9
7,694
14,335
1,539
$166.9
2,693
$292.1
3,847
$417.3
2,867
$311.0
5,017
$544.2
7,168
$777.5
Average
Annual
Cases
Prevented
43.6
8.7
$109.0
15.3
41.0
30.9
8.2
6.2
$102.5
$77.3
Breast
15.8
22.9
0.3
2.5
3.7
0.1
Prostate
Testicular
27.5
1.6
Buccal cavity and pharvnx
Thyroid
Melanoma
Source
Average
Annual
Cases
Prevented
Value of
Average
Annual
Cases
Prevented
50 Percent Reduction
Average
Annual
Cases
Prevented
Current
Annual
Cases
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Value of
Average
Annual
Cases
Prevented
35 Percent Reduction
Year 1
Suicides-firefighters and EMTs
Safety-Related fatal incidents-firefighters and
EMTs
Health-Related fatal incidents-firefighters
Cancer fatalities-firefighters
Colorectal
Lung
Total Fatalities
Nonfatal incidents-EMTs and paramedics
Non fatal incidents-firefie:hters
Avera2e annualized value over 50 years
3 percent discount rate
7 percent discount rate
$1,359.8
$1,138.3
$2,379.7
$1,992.0
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Table B-1. Summary of Benefits Sensitivity Analysis, Millions $2022
$3,399.6
$2,845.7
Note: Totals may not match the sums due to rounding.
7971
EP05FE24.110</GPH>
7972
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
E. Economic Feasibility Analysis
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
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 onepercent 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).
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)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 tenpercent 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
PO 00000
Frm 00200
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
of firefighters in each size class as
reported in the fire department profile.
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.
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 statelevel 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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00201
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7973
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 4and 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.
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.
89 At the time of this analysis, this source was the
most recent publicly available dataset on industrywide profit rates at the NAICS level.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7974
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table VII-E-1. Private Sector Profit Rates Used in the Economic Feasibility
Analysis
Emergency Response Service Sector
NAICS
Profit Rate
WEREs [a]
562210
3.5%
Private Fire Departments [a]
562210
3.5%
Wildland Fire Services
115310
2.0%
Emergency Medical Services
621910
4.4%
Technical Search and Rescue Groups
541618
5.0%
Sources: IRS, 2016.
[a] 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 (USF A, 2022). OSHA compared revenue per firm estimates from the 2017 SUSB
dataset for these NAICS codes and used the 25th percentile revenue per firm estimate as representative of
revenues for all private entities in the National Fire Registry. OSHA also used the profit rate for the same
NAICS code when calculating profits for these private entities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00202
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.111</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00203
Fmt 4701
Sources: OSHA derived from USFA, 2022; BLS, 2023; BLS, 2023; EPA, 2002; Rice, 2002; U.S. Census, 2021.
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
Average
Total
Costs as
Annualized Cost Average Revenue
Organizations
Annualized
%of
per
per Organization
Revenue
Costs [a]
On?:anization
Fire Departments
Career
3,807
$76,468,238
$20,086
$8,539,522
0.24%
Volunteer
5,216
$75,896,161
$14,551
$291,703
4.99%
Mixed
2,032
$38,308,712
$18,853
$3,290,935
0.57%
$190,673,112
$17,248
$3,054,294
Total
11,055
0.56%
Wildland Fire Services
Volunteer
7
$784,787
$112,112
$98,229,775,991
0.00%
Average
Revenue per
Locality
Costs as%
of Locality
Revenue
$258,221,245
$8,820,610
$99,512,530
$92,356,876
0.01%
0.16%
0.02%
0.02%
$98,229,775,991
0.00%
lbl
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
$784,787
$112,112
$98,229,775,991
$98,229,775,991
Total
7
0.00%
0.00%
Emer2enc, Medical Services
$13,427,932
$24,488
$183,559,703
Career
548
$6 070 423
0.40%
0.01%
Volunteer
221
$6,751,172
$30,616
$6,070,423
0.50%
$183,559,703
0.02%
Mixed
577
$12,335,922
$21,371
$6,070,423
0.35%
$183,559,703
0.01%
$32,515,027
$24,155
$6,070,423
$183,559,703
Total
1,346
0.40%
0.01%
Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Career
123
$1,755,945
$14,255
$15,079,160
0.09%
$455,969,256
0.00%
Volunteer
1,572
$14,184,107
$9,025
$4,229,050
0.21%
$127,879,578
0.01%
$15,940,052
$9,405
$4,834,888
$146,199,132
Total
1,695
0.19%
0.01%
Total
Career
4,479
$91,652,116
$20,465
$8,417,071
0.24%
$254,518,540
0.01%
Volunteer
7,015
$97,616,228
$13,915
$117,467,842
0.01%
$154,908,438
0.01%
Mixed
2,609
$50,644,634
$19,410
$3,905,818
0.50%
$118,105,566
0.02%
$239,912,978
$17,012
$72,552,496
$193,938,058
Total
14,103
0.02%
0.01%
[a] These annualized costs reflect lower costs than presented in the Costs chapter because they are adjusted to reflect the percentage of medical exam
costs that will be covered by insurance companies.
[b] The volunteer wildland fire service organizations represented here are the State Plan state governments that use prison labor to fight wildfires. The
revenues shown here represent the average revenues of the applicable State Plan states.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Table VII-E-2. Economic Impacts Experienced by Organizations Affected by the Proposed Rule with Costs Calculated
Using a 3 Percent Discount Rate - All Public State-Plan State Organizations
7975
EP05FE24.112</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7976
~
Organizations
Total
Annualized
Costs [al
~
Average
Annualized Cost
per Organization
Average
Revenue per
Organization
Costs as%
of Revenue
Average Profit
per
Organization
Costs as
%of
Profit
Jkt 262001
WEREs
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
05FEP2
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
B. Impacts and Regulatory Flexibility
Screening Analysis—Small Entities
Frm 00204
The discussion in the preceding
section focused on the economic
PO 00000
EP05FE24.113</GPH>
Career
1,500
$24,145,368
$16,097
$16,664,010
0.10%
$24,145,368
$16,097
$16,664,010
Total
1,500
0.10%
Fire Departments
Career
220
$3,767,753
$17,126
$16,664,010
0.10%
Volunteer
450
$6,153,007
$13,673
$16,664,010
0.08%
Mixed
118
$2,198,398
$18,630
$16,664,010
0.11%
$12,119,158
$15,380
$16,664,010
Total
788
0.09%
Wildland Fire Services
Career
516
$10,869,070
$21,082
$12,575,542
0.17%
$10,869,070
$21,082
$12,575,542
Total
516
0.17%
Emereenc 'r Medical Services
Career
2,032
$49,800,769
$24,512
$6,092,267
0.40%
Volunteer
1,176
$30,745,950
$26,139
$6,092,267
0.43%
Mixed
2,139
$55,901,728
$26,139
$6,092,267
0.43%
$136,448,447
$25,521
$6,092,267
Total
5,347
0.42%
Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Career
39
$371,702
$9,573
$10,915,200
0.09%
$371,702
$9,573
$10,915,200
Total
39
0.09%
Total
Career
4,306
$88,954,662
$20,658
$11,134,694
0.19%
Volunteer
1,626
$36,898,957
$22,690
$9,017,573
0.25%
Mixed
2,257
$58,100,126
$25,746
$6,645,065
0.39%
$183,953,745
$22,464
$9,528,799
Total
8,189
0.24%
Sources: OSHA derived from USFA, 2022; BLS, 2023; BLS, 2023; EPA, 2002; Rice, 2002; U.S. Census, 2021.
$578,873
$578,873
2.78%
2.78%
$578,873
$578,873
$578,873
$578,873
2.96%
2.36%
3.22%
2.66%
$252,124
$252,124
8.36%
8.36%
$266,673
$266,673
$266,673
$266,673
9.19%
9.80%
9.80%
9.57%
$546,972
$546,972
1.75%
1.75%
$392,162
$353,062
$282,998
$356,908
5.27%
6.43%
9.10%
6.29%
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
[a] These annualized costs reflect lower costs than presented in the costs chapter because they are adjusted to reflect the percentage of medical exam
costs that will be covered by insurance companies
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table VII-E-3. Economic Impacts Experienced by Organizations Affected by the Proposed Rule with Costs Calculated
Usine a 3 Percent Discount Rate - All Private Oreanizaf
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00205
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7977
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7978
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
Organizations
Total
Annualized
Costs ral
Average
Annualized Cost
per Organization
Average
Revenue per
Locality
Costs as% of
Locality
Revenue
PO 00000
Frm 00206
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Average Revenue
per Organization
Costs as%
of Revenue
$15,001
$14,397
$15,389
$14,766
$4,353,689
$278,588
$1,476,936
$1,495,659
0.34%
5.17%
1.04%
0.99%
$131,648,474
$8,424,035
$44,660,155
$45,226,308
0.01%
0.17%
0.03%
0.03%
$24,504
$30,660
$21,397
$24,180
$6,070,423
$6,070,423
$6,070,423
$6,070,423
0.40%
0.51%
0.35%
0.40%
$183,559,703
$183,559,703
$183,559,703
$183,559,703
0.01%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
$14,266
$9,040
$9,419
$15,079,160
$4,229,050
$4,834,888
0.09%
0.21%
0.19%
$455,969,256
$127,879,578
$146,199,132
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
$16.244
$13,728
$16,775
$15,027
$4 902 708
$1,795,450
$2,536,967
$2,936,793
0.33%
0.76%
0.66%
0.51%
$148.249 901
$54,291,487
$76,713,748
$88,803,830
0.01%
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
Fire Departments
3,297
$49,459,098
$74,848,077
5,199
1,839
$28,300,040
$152,607,215
Total
10,335
Wildland Fire Services
Emergenc v Medical Services
Career
524
$12,842,892
Volunteer
211
$6,461,895
Mixed
552
$11,804,516
1,287
$31,109,302
Total
Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Career
118
$1,679,532
Volunteer
1,502
$13,579,128
1,620
$15,258,660
Total
Total
Career
3.939
$63.981.521
Volunteer
6,912
$94,889,100
$40,104,555
Mixed
2,391
13,241
$198,975,177
Total
Career
Volunteer
Mixed
Sources: OSHA derived from USFA, 2022; BLS, 2023; BLS, 2023; EPA, 2002; Rice, 2002; U.S. Census, 2021.
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
[a] These annualized costs reflect lower costs than presented in the Costs chapter because they are adjusted to reflect the percentage of medical exam costs that
will be covered by insurance companies.
EP05FE24.114</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Table VII-E-4. Economic Impacts Experienced by Organizations Affected by the Proposed Rule with Costs Calculated Using a
3 Percent Discount Rate - RFA Small Organizations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Organizations
Jkt 262001
Total
Annualized
Costs ral
Average Annualized
Cost per
Or2anization
Average Revenue
per Organization
Costs as%
of Revenue
Average Profit
per Organization
Costs as
%of
Profit
PO 00000
Frm 00207
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
WEREs
$24,145,368
$16,097
$16,664,010
$578,873
Career
1,500
0.10%
2.78%
$24,145,368
$16,097
$16,664,010
$578,873
0.10%
Total
1,500
2.78%
Fire Departments
0.10%
Career
218
$3,499,760
$16,054
$16,664,010
$578,873
2.77%
0.08%
Volunteer
450
$6,165,972
$13,702
$16,664,010
$578,873
2.37%
0.11%
Mixed
118
$2,203,011
$18,670
$16,664,010
$578,873
3.23%
$11,868,743
$15,100
$16,664,010
$578,873
0.09%
Total
786
2.61%
Wildland Fire Services
0.19%
Career
507
$9,080,060
$17,909
$9,284,797
$186,149
9.62%
$9,080,060
$17,909
$9,284,797
$186,149
0.19%
Total
507
9.62%
Emere:enc v Medical Services
Career
1,971
$47,628,769
$24,167
$2,863,241
0.84%
$125,331
19.28%
Volunteer
1,141
$29,769,590
$26,090
$2,863,241
0.91%
$125,331
20.82%
Mixed
2,075
$54,126,527
$26,090
$2,863,241
0.91%
$125,331
20.82%
$131,524,886
$25,359
$2,863,241
$125,331
Total
5,186
0.89%
20.23%
Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Career
35
$275,941
$7,956
$10,113,051
0.08%
$506,775
1.57%
$275,941
$7,956
$10,113,051
$506,775
Total
35
0.08%
1.57%
Total
Career
4,231
$84,629,898
$20,005
$9,296,695
0.22%
$319,928
6.25%
Volunteer
1,591
$35,935,562
$22,587
$6,766,629
0.33%
$253,610
8.91%
Mixed
2,193
$56,329,538
$25,691
$3,605,972
0.71%
$149,740
17.16%
$176,894,999
$22,073
$7,281,257
$262,394
Total
8,014
0.30%
8.41%
Sources: OSHA derived from USFA, 2022; BLS, 2023; BLS, 2023; EPA, 2002; Rice, 2002; U.S. Census, 2021.
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
[a] These annualized costs reflect lower costs than presented in the Costs chapter because they are adjusted to reflect the percentage of medical exam costs that
will be covered by insurance companies.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Table VII-E-5. Economic Impacts Experienced by Organizations Affected by the Proposed Rule with Costs Calculated Using a
3 Percent Discount Rate - SBA Small Or_g_anizations
7979
EP05FE24.115</GPH>
7980
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00208
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 nonfatal 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00209
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7981
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
7982
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00210
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00211
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
7983
EP05FE24.116</GPH>
Table VII-F-1. Average Costs for Small Public State-Plan State Entities Affected by the Proposed Emergency Response Rule
by Emergency Response Service Sector and Organization Type
Career Volunteer Mixed
Total
Fire Departments
$15
$15
$15
$15
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s)
$0
$0
$0
$0
Capability
$778
$768
$783
$774
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
$43
$42
$44
$43
Team Member and Responder Participation
$393
$390
$395
$392
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
$1,405
$2,750 $2,825 $2,335
Training
$5,885
$4,671
$5,115 $5,137
$0
$0
$0
$0
WERE Facility Preparedness
$980
$970
$986
$976
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
$1,837
$1,816 $1,848 $1,828
$754
$747
$758
$751
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
$0
$0
$0
$0
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
$451
$447
$470
$452
$25
$25
$25
$25
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
$113
$10
$55
$51
$164
$163
$170
$164
Standard Operating Procedures
$690
$117
$378
$346
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
$1,468
$1,464 $1,522 $1,476
$15,001
$14,397 $15,389 $14,766
Total
Emer2ency Medical Services
$14
$14
$14
$14
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s)
$0
$0
$0
$0
Capability
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
$745
$745
$745
$745
$38
$38
$38
$38
Team Member and Responder Participation
$379
$380
$379
$379
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
$1,351
$3,560 $2,137 $2,050
Training
$12,309
$15,202 $8,416 $11,113
$0
$0
$0
$0
WERE Facility Preparedness
ESQ Facility Preparedness
$191
$191
$191
$191
$1,351
Equipment and PPE
$1,351
$1,353
$1,351
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7984
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00212
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Volunteer
Mixed
$727
$0
$433
$25
$2 229
$159
$3 090
$1,462
$728
$0
$439
$25
$2624
$161
$3 704
$1,495
$727
$0
$433
$25
$2 229
$159
$3 090
$1,462
$727
$0
$11
$18
$17
$0
$0
$602
$36
$309
$898
$8,309
$0
$154
$1 142
$584
$0
$401
$20
$13
$147
$137
$1 501
$954
$1
$490
$1362
$269
$0
$244
$1224
$925
$0
$642
$31
$20
$235
$213
$2 411
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
$14,266
$9,040
NIA
$24,504
Sources: OSHA derived from USFA, 2022; BLS, 2023; BLS, 2023; EPA, 2002; Rice, 2002; U.S. Census, 2021.
EP05FE24.117</GPH>
Total
$434
$25
$2,294
$159
$3,191
$1,468
$30,660 $21,397 $24,180
$0
$928
$4
$477
$1,328
$853
$0
$238
$1,218
$900
$0
$624
$31
$19
$229
$207
$2,345
$9,419
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s)
Capability
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capabilitv
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
WERE Facility Preparedness
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Career
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00213
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Career
Volunteer
Mixed
Total
$18
$939
$0
$58
$478
$189
$8,100
$592
$0
$2,329
$911
$258
$0
$31
$12
$202
$144
$1,837
$16,097
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
$18
$939
$0
$58
$478
$189
$8,100
$592
$0
$2.329
$911
$258
$0
$31
$12
$202
$144
$1,837
$16,097
$15
$0
$765
$42
$388
$1,528
$6,864
$0
$966
$1,809
$745
$0
$452
$25
$111
$15
$0
$779
$43
$394
$2,513
$4,168
$0
$982
$1,840
$754
$0
$445
$26
$10
$15
$0
$768
$43
$389
$3,935
$7,349
$0
$968
$1,814
$748
$0
$472
$25
$54
$15
$0
$773
$43
$392
$2,453
$5,393
$0
$976
$1,827
$751
$0
$451
$25
$44
7985
WEREs
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capabilitv
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Man:mement Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
WERE Facility Preparedness
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
ESQ Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Fire Departments
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
WERE Facility Preparedness
ESQ Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Management System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.118</GPH>
Table VII-F-2. Average Costs for Small Private Entities Affected by the Proposed Emergency Response Rule by Emergency
Response Service Sector and Organization Type
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00214
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
$164
$696
$1,484
$162
$117
$1,454
$171
$382
$1,539
$16,054
$13,702
$18,670
$15
$0
$733
$40
$373
$1,912
$9 412
$0
$928
$1,737
$718
$0
$401
$25
$12
$148
$125
$1,331
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
$17,909
05FEP2
$14
$0
$740
$38
$377
$1,549
$12,783
$0
$190
$1,344
$723
$0
$428
Mixed
Total
$164
$317
$1,475
$15,100
$15
NIA
$0
NIA
$733
NIA
$40
NIA
$373
NIA
NIA $1,912
NIA $9,412
$0
NIA
$928
NIA
NIA $1,737
$718
NIA
$0
NIA
$401
NIA
$25
NIA
$12
NIA
$148
NIA
$125
NIA
NIA $1,331
NIA $17,909
$14
$14
$14
$0
$0
$0
$740
$740
$740
$38
$38
$38
$377
$377
$377
$3,473 $3,473 $2,742
$12,783 $12,783 $12,783
$0
$0
$0
$190
$190
$190
$1,344 $1,344 $1,344
$723
$723
$723
$0
$0
$0
$428
$428
$428
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Volunteer
7986
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP05FE24.119</GPH>
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Wildland Fire Services
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
WERE Facility Preparedness
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Incident Manauement System Development
Emergency Incident Operations
Standard Operating Procedures
Post Incident Analysis
Program Evaluation
Total
Emer2ency Medical Services
Rule Familiarization
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
Team Member and Responder Participation
WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan
Medical and Physical Requirements
Training
WERE Facility Preparedness
ESO Facility Preparedness
Equipment and PPE
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
Career
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00215
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Volunteer
$25
$1,853
$157
$2,518
$1,428
$26,090
Mixed
$25
$1,853
$157
$2,518
$1,428
$26,090
Total
$25
$1,853
$157
$2,518
$1,428
$25,359
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
$16
$0
$815
$11
$414
$991
$944
$0
$211
$1,153
$795
$0
$497
$27
$24
$181
$205
$1,672
$7,956
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Career
Incident Management System Development
$25
Emergency Incident Operations
$1,853
Standard Operating Procedures
$157
Post Incident Analysis
$2,518
Program Evaluation
$1,428
$24,167
Total
Technical Search and Rescue Groups
Rule Familiarization
$16
Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
$0
ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability
$815
Team Member and Responder Participation
$11
WERT and ESQ Risk Manruzement Plan
$414
Medical and Physical Requirements
$991
Training
$944
WERE Facility Preparedness
$0
ESO Facility Preparedness
$211
Equipment and PPE
$1,153
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation
$795
WERE Pre-Incident Planning
$0
ESO Pre-Incident Planning
$497
Incident Management System Development
$27
Emergency Incident Operations
$24
Standard Operating Procedures
$181
Post Incident Analysis
$205
Program Evaluation
$1,672
$7,956
Total
Sources: OSHA derived from USFA, 2022; BLS, 2023; BLS, 2023; EPA, 2002; Rice, 2002; U.S. Census, 2021.
7987
EP05FE24.120</GPH>
7988
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
F. Federal Rules Which May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rule
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00216
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
Recommendation
PO 00000
The Panel recommends that OSHA thoroughly review and clearly
present who is and who is not in the scope of this standard.
Frm 00217
Fmt 4701
OSHA should conduct a thorough review to determine which states
consider volunteers to be employees who would be covered by this
standard and present this analysis as part of the proposed rule.
Sfmt 4725
The Panel further recommends that OSHA thoroughly consider
whether volunteers currently covered as employees would be
negatively impacted by inclusion in all the provisions of this rule.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider the feasibility of
implementation for small and volunteer ESOs and review whether
exemption from some or all parts of the standard would be appropriate
for some or all small or volunteer ESOs.
05FEP2
The Panel recommends that OSHA continue working to identify
additional areas where burdens could be reduced or eliminated for
small and volunteer ESOs.
OSHA's Response
The Scope paragraph clearly identifies which employers would be
covered by the rule. In the preamble, OSHA identifies that employers
not under Federal jurisdiction could be covered by State Plan state
requirements.
A thorough explanation is provided in the preamble. Related data are
discussed in Industry Profile section of the PEA.
OSHA believes that volunteers could be negatively impacted by being
excluded from parts of the proposal. However, to the extent possible,
as discussed in the preamble, the agency has tailored the requirements
to the specific needs of the affected responders.
The agency has drafted a proposed standard that is designed to provide
an appropriate level of protection for the hazards routinely
encountered, has examined the economic impact on various types of
departments, and has preliminarily determined that proposed standard
is feasible. However, the agency is also seeking broad public comment
on many issues and potential alternatives as well as its preliminary
feasibilitv analysis.
The agency drafted the proposal with this in mind. In addition, the
proposed rule's preamble contains multiple solicitations for comment
from the regulated community.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Table VII-F-3. SBAR Panel Recommendations and OSHA Responses
7989
EP05FE24.121</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7990
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00218
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
OSHA's Resp_onse
The Panel recognizes that OSHA must show that a standard is
economically feasible as part of the agency's legal requirements but
highlights here that it is especially important in this circumstance
where infeasibility may affect public safety. There are also additional
analytical challenges given that traditional government data sources
may not adequately capture the financial situation of volunteer ESOs
that rely entirely on donations to fund their operations and that typical
methodologies and assumptions used to establish economic feasibility
may not be applicable for all volunteer ESOs that lack a dedicated
source of funding. The Panel recommends that OSHA thoroughly
consider these unique situations, explain how the economic feasibility
analysis took these situations into consideration, and what, if any,
adjustments the agency made to the feasibility assessment, including
to account for ESOs that are sustained wholly by donations from the
community.
The agency has attempted to minimize feasibility issues in its proposed
standard. It has also examined the potential economic impact of the
proposal in the PEA and IRFA. Nonetheless, the agency welcomes
comment on this issue.
The Panel recommends that OSHA not include skilled support
employers in the scope of a proposed Emergency Response standard.
OSHA has not included skilled support employers in the scope of the
proposed rule.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider whether some minimum
level of pre-incident familiarization, training, or coordination
requirements for ES Os with respect to use of skilled support services
would improve safety and should be included in the requirements of a
proposed Emergency Response standard.
OSHA developed some requirements for WEREs and ESO to protect
the health and safety of skilled support workers on emergency incident
scenes.
The Panel recommends that OSHA evaluate whether the hazards
encountered by workplace emergency response teams are adequately
and appropriately addressed by the provisions of the draft standard.
OSHA drafted the proposed rule to clearly differentiate the
requirements for WEREs and ESOs based on the differences in
hazards encountered.
If OSHA finds they are not, the Panel further recommends that OSHA
consider developing different requirements for workplace emergency
response teams taking into consideration their unique characteristics
relative to other ESOs.
OSHA drafted the proposed rule to clearly differentiate the
requirements for WEREs and ESOs based on the differences in
hazards encountered.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.122</GPH>
Recommendation
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Recommendation
OSHA's Response
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00219
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
The proposed rule would require the WERE or ESQ to determine the
amount of training needed, based on the emergency services provided
and duties performed.
The Panel recommends that OSHA closely evaluate the various
planning requirements and eliminate or reduce those requirements
where possible. OSHA should look closely at the labor costs
associated with written planning requirements.
The agency believes the proposed standard includes only those
planning requirements that are necessary and appropriate for
emergency responder safety. The labor costs of those provisions are
included in the PEA.
If OSHA's analysis determines that some planning requirements are
unnecessary or infeasible, the Panel recommends that OSHA remove
those entirely.
As indicated, OSHA believes unnecessary or infeasible planning
requirements were not included in the proposal, but the agency
welcomes comment on the issue.
Where the development and writing of a plan is found to be necessary
to protect workers, the Panel recommends that OSHA simplify those
requirements to the extent feasible and to make model plans,
checklists, and other assistance available to small entities where
possible.
Plan requirements would be based on individual circumstances for
each WERE or ESO. Model plans, checklists, etc., could be provided
with or subsequent to the final rule.
The Panel recommends that OSHA clarify, reduce, or eliminate the
requirement for a health and fitness coordinator since the duties of this
individual and the benefits they would provide are not clear.
The proposed rule does not include a requirement for a health and
fitness coordinator. The rule would require an individual designated to
oversee the health and fitness program, but that role can be staffed
from within the ESQ.
The Panel recommends that OSHA reconsider the necessity of
recordkeeping of health and fitness data.
OSHA believes it is important to maintain health and fitness records
for the reasons discussed in this preamble.
The Panel recommends that OSHA clarify the fitness for duty
requirements and determine how to balance requirements that would
improve responder safety with the necessity to allow volunteer ESOs
and small ES Os of all types to adequately staff their ESQ and to
provide the necessary services to their constituent communities.
The proposed rule requires the WERE or ESQ need only to confirm
that the team member or responder can safely perform the job
functions expected of them.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
OSHA's draft regulatory text does not specify the number of hours of
training that responders would need to complete. The Panel
recommends that OSHA clarify that the draft standard does not
require all responders to complete any set number of hours of training
but rather that responders would be trained to a level appropriate for
the complexity and requirements of their job duties or activities.
7991
EP05FE24.123</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7992
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 262001
The Panel acknowledges the importance of mental health support for
emergency responders. The Panel recommends that OSHA examine
the costs and benefits associated with behavioral health and wellness
programs as part of its assessment of whether to maintain the
requirements for these programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00220
The Panel further recommends that OSHA ensure that responder
confidentiality is not compromised, and that the agency provide
additional guidance and clarification on how ESOs can meet any
behavioral health and wellness requirements.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
The Panel recommends that, unless the agency finds evidence
showing that Good Samaritans and Spontaneous Unaffiliated
Volunteers (SUVs) arc exposing responders to an increased risk,
OSHA remove the requirements related to Good Samaritans and
SUVs.
OSHA's Response
The proposed rule allows the WERE or ESO to either provide
behavioral health resources or identify those resources in the
community. OSHA reviewed the available literature on mental health
support for emergency responders and identified studies that
demonstrate the effectiveness of these programs. This is further
discussed in the Benefits section of the PEA and in the summary and
explanation of paragraph (g).
Maintaining record confidentiality is a requirement in the proposed
rule.
OSHA has discussed the requirements of the proposed behavioral
health section and how employers can comply with those requirements
in the summary and explanation. Additional guidance could be
provided with or subsequent to a final standard.
As recommended, Good Samaritans and SUV s are not covered in the
proposed standard.
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
Specific references to NFPA standards are explained in the preamble.
The Panel recommends that OSHA clarify the use of NFPA provisions
The agency has only incorporated the NFPA guidance as mandatory to
in the proposed rule and consider how incorporation by reference
the extent necessary for responder safety. Relevant costs are reflected
could affect small and volunteer ESOs.
in the PEA and the economic impact has been assessed.
05FEP2
The agency should look closely at the feasibility of NFPA's
recommendations for sun setting/retirement of PPE, vehicles, and
equipment.
Sunset provisions are not included in the proposed standard.
The Panel recommends that OSHA conduct further research on the
necessity and cost effectiveness of the NFPA recommended medical
screenings, exams, and evaluations, and the appropriateness of
requiring those screenings for responders with various levels of
exposure and risk based on their duties and designated tasks.
The proposed standard's medical requirements have been modified in
response to input from small entity panelists and the record as a whole.
The preamble discusses the various potential options, and the PEA
assesses the attendant costs and effectiveness.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
EP05FE24.124</GPH>
Recommendation
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
OSHA's Response
Jkt 262001
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider replacing prescriptive
provisions with performance-based provisions, where practical, and
tailor, to the extent possible, certain requirements of this standard for
small and volunteer ESOs.
The agency believes it has made the proposed standard as
performance-oriented as reasonably possible. OSHA welcomes
comment from the public on specific provisions that commenters
believe could be enhanced in this regard.
OSHA should consider scaling the various analysis, planning, and
written plans required by this standard to the size and complexity of
the ESO and their operations.
The agency believes the proposal is sufficiently performance-oriented
to accomplish this objective.
PO 00000
Frm 00221
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Recommendation
7993
EP05FE24.125</GPH>
7994
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(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
$13.2 million less in compliance costs
per year.
Table VII-F-4. Costs for Re~ulatory Alternatives (2022$)
Alternative
Draft Rule
1. Exposure threshold equals 1 event per
vear
2. Exposure threshold equals 10 events
per vear
3. Exposure threshold equals 30 events
per vear
4. All responders receive the full NFPA
1582 exam
Total Annualized
Costs
$661,172,447
$743,674,761
Difference from Draft
Rule
$0
$82,502,314
$668,851,082
$7,678,634
$647,950,873
-$13,221,575
$825,678,832
$164,506,384
Source: OSHA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
by each of the four alternatives,
compared to the proposed rule. As
shown in the table, the alternatives only
PO 00000
Frm 00222
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
affect the number of fatalities that
would be avoided by the proposed rule.
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.126</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table VII–F–5 presents the estimated
number and monetized benefits of
fatalities and non-fatal injuries avoided
7995
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table VII-5. Summary of Benefits for Re2ulatorv Alternatives
Alternative
Average
Annual
Cases
Prevented
Value of Average
Annual Cases
Prevented, Millions of
Dollars (2022$)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Proposed Rule
Total Fatalities
239
54
Nonfatal injuries-EMTs and
7,694
3,847
paramedics
Nonfatal injuries-firefighters
14,335
7,168
Average annualized value over 50 years, 3 percent discount rate
1. Exposure threshold equals 1 event per year
Total Fatalities
264
66
Nonfatal injuries-EMTs and
7,694
3,847
paramedics
Nonfatal injuries-firefighters
14,335
7,168
Average annualized value over 50 years, 3 percent discount rate
Difference from Draft Rule
2. Exposure threshold equals 10 events per year
Total Fatalities
234
54
Nonfatal injuries-EMTs and
7,694
3,847
paramedics
Nonfatal injuries-firefighters
14,335
7,168
Average annualized value over 50 years, 3 percent discount rate
Difference from Draft Rule
3. Exposure threshold equals 30 events per year
Total Fatalities
202
46
Nonfatal injuries-EMTs and
7,694
3,847
paramedics
Nonfatal injuries-firefighters
14,335
7,168
Average annualized value over 50 years, 3 percent discount rate
Difference from Draft Rule
4. All responders receive the full NFPA 1582 exam
Total Fatalities
264
66
Nonfatal injuries-EMTs and
7,694
3,847
paramedics
Nonfatal injuries-firefighters
14,335
7,168
Average annualized value over 50 years, 3 percent discount rate
Difference from Draft Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00223
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
$670
$417
$778
$2,628.5
$825
$417
$778
$2,841.6
$213.0
$676
$417
$778
$2,637.2
$8.7
$574
$417
$778
$2,496.6
-$131.9
$825
$417
$778
$2,841.6
$213.0
05FEP2
EP05FE24.127</GPH>
Current
Annual Cases
7996
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
Table VII-F-6. Annualized Net Benefits of Proposed Emergency Response
Standard
Discount Rate Annualized Benefits
3%
$2,628,500,000
7%
$2,262,300,000
OSHA has also estimated the
unannualized stream of benefits and
Annualized Costs
$661,172,447
$668,538,219
Annualized Net Benefits
$1,967,327,553
$1,593,761,781
costs over the next 50 years, as shown
in Table VII–F–7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00224
$832,711,890
$506,763,028
$654,055,969
$570,377,723
$643,824,865
$539,942,918
$668,350,844
$551,872,341
$628,947,752
$585,219,491
$832,711,890
$506,763,028
$654,055,969
$570,377,723
$643,824,865
$539,942,918
$668,350,844
$551,872,341
$628,947,752
$585,219,491
$832,711,890
$506,763,028
$654,055,969
$570,377,723
$643,824,865
$539,942,918
$668,350,844
$551,872,341
$628,947,752
$585,219,491
$832,711,890
$506,763,028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.129</GPH>
$1,637,153,750
$1,665,803,941
$1,694,955,510
$1,724,617,232
$1,754,798,033
$1,785,506,999
$1,816,753,371
$1,848,546,555
$1,880,896,120
$2,061,898,074
$2,097,981,290
$2,134,695,963
$2,172,053,142
$2,210,064,072
$2,248,740,193
$2,288,093,147
$2,328,134,777
$2,368,877,135
$2,410,332,485
$2,745,388,364
$2,793,432,661
$2,842,317,732
$2,892,058,293
$2,942,669,313
$2,994,166,026
$3,046,563,931
$3,099,878,800
$3,154,126,679
$3,209,323,896
$3,265,487,064
$3,322,633,088
$3,380,779,167
Year 1
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
Year9
Year 10
Yearll
Year 12
Yearl3
Year 14
Year 15
Year 16
Year 17
Year 18
Year 19
Year20
Year21
Year22
Year23
Year24
Year25
Year26
Year27
Year28
Year29
Year30
Year 31
Year32
EP05FE24.128</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table VII-F-7. Unannualized Benefits and Costs by Year for a 50-Year Time Horizon
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
$3,439,942,802
$3,500,141,801
$3,561,394,283
$3,623,718,683
$3,687,133,760
$3,751,658,600
$3,817,312,626
$3,884,115,597
$3,952,087,620
$4,021,249,153
$4,091,621,013
$4,163,224,381
$4,236,080,808
$4,310,212,222
$4,385,640,936
$4,462,389,652
$4,540,481,471
$4,619,939,897
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
$654,055,969
$570,377,723
$643,824,865
$539,942,918
$668,350,844
$551,872,341
$628,947,752
$585,219,491
$832,711,890
$506,763,028
$654,055,969
$570,377,723
$643,824,865
$539,942,918
$668,350,844
$551,872,341
$628,947,752
$585,219,491
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
PO 00000
Frm 00225
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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,
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
EP05FE24.130</GPH>
Year 33
Year 34
Year 35
Year 36
Year 37
Year 38
Year 39
Year40
Year41
Year42
Year43
Year44
Year45
Year46
Year47
Year48
Year49
Year 50
7997
7998
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00226
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 OSHAApproved 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
E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM
05FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 nonidentical 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 OSHAapproved 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 OSHAapproved 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 Feb 02, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00227
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7999
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
§ 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
§ 1910.156(b)(2) that requires employers
to obtain
