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 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing through 

this notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) to issue a new safety and health 

standard, titled Emergency Response, to 

replace the existing Fire Brigades 

Standard. The new standard would 

address a broader scope of emergency 

responders and would include 

programmatic elements to protect 

emergency responders from a variety of 

occupational hazards. The agency 

requests comments on all aspects of the 

proposed rule. 

DATES: Comments on this NPRM 

(including requests for a hearing) and 

other information must be submitted by 

May 6, 2024. 

Informal public hearing: OSHA will 

schedule an informal public hearing on 

the proposed rule if requested during 

the comment period. If a hearing is 

requested, the location and date of the 

hearing, procedures for interested 

parties to notify the agency of their 

intention to participate, and procedures 

for participants to submit their 

testimony and documentary evidence 

will be announced in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: 

Written comments: You may submit 

comments and attachments, identified 

by Docket No. OSHA–2007–0073, 

electronically at https://

www.regulations.gov, which is the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow the 

instructions online for making 

electronic submissions. After accessing 

‘‘all documents and comments’’ in the 

docket (Docket No. OSHA–2007–0073), 

check the ‘‘proposed rule’’ box in the 

column headed ‘‘Document Type,’’ find 

the document posted on the date of 

publication of this document, and click 

the ‘‘Comment Now’’ link. When 

uploading multiple attachments to 

regulations.gov, please number all of 

your attachments because 

regulations.gov will not automatically 

number the attachments. This will be 

very useful in identifying all 

attachments in the preamble. For 

example, Attachment 1—title of your 

document, Attachment 2—title of your 

document, Attachment 3—title of your 

document. For assistance with 

commenting and uploading documents, 

please see the Frequently Asked 

Questions on regulations.gov. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency’s name and the 

docket number for this rulemaking 

(Docket No. OSHA–2007–0073). All 

comments, including any personal 

information you provide, are placed in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA 

cautions commenters about submitting 

information they do not want made 

available to the public, or submitting 

materials that contain personal 

information (either about themselves or 

others), such as Social Security 

Numbers and birthdates. 

Docket citations: This Federal 

Register document references materials 

in Docket ID OSHA–2007–0073, which 

is the docket for this rulemaking. OSHA 

also references documents in the 

following dockets which the agency 

adopts by reference into this 

rulemaking: 

• 2016, National Advisory Committee 

on Occupational Safety and Health 

(NACOSH)—Docket ID OSHA–2016– 

0001; and 

• 2015, NACOSH Emergency 

Responder Preparedness 

Subcommittee—Docket ID OSHA–2015– 

0019. 

All of these dockets are available for 

viewing at https://www.regulations.gov, 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal. 

Citations to documents: The docket 

referenced most frequently in this 

document is the docket for this 

rulemaking, docket number OSHA– 

2007–0073, cited as Docket ID OSHA– 

2007–0073. Documents in the docket get 

an individual document identification 

number, for example ‘‘OSHA–2007– 

0073–0044.’’ Because this is the most 

frequently cited docket, the citation is 

shortened to indicate only the document 

number. The example is cited in the 

NPRM as ‘‘Document ID 0044.’’ 

Citations to documents in other 

dockets include the full document 

identification number, cited as, for 

example ‘‘Document ID OSHA–2015– 

0019–0014.’’ The citation may also 

include page numbers. The NACOSH 

subcommittee meetings were 

transcribed. Citations to the transcripts, 

and the referenced page(s), are cited as, 

for example, ‘‘Document ID OSHA– 

2015–0019–0015, Tr. 53.’’ 

Documents cited in this NPRM are 

available in the rulemaking docket 

(Docket ID OSHA–2015–0073) or in the 

dockets OSHA is adopting in this 

rulemaking. They are available to read 

and download by searching the docket 

number or document ID number at 

https://www.regulations.gov. Each 

docket index lists all documents in that 

docket, including public comments, 

supporting materials, meeting 

transcripts, and other documents. 

However, some documents (e.g., 

copyrighted material) in the dockets are 

not available to read or download from 

that website. All documents in the 

dockets are available for inspection at 

the OSHA Docket Office. This 

information can be used to search for a 

supporting document in the docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Contact the OSHA 

Docket Office at (202) 693–2350 (TTY 

number: 877–889–5627) for assistance 

in locating docket submissions. 

Consensus standards: Throughout 

this NPRM, OSHA makes numerous 

references to the consensus standards 

published by the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA). The 

NFPA standards are available to be 

viewed without cost at https://www.

nfpa.org/for-professionals/codes-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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7775 

D. Additional Issues 

V. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed 

Rule 

A. Section 1910.120 Hazardous Waste 

Operations and Emergency Response 

B. Section 1910.134 Respiratory Protection 

C. Section 1910.155 Scope, Application, 

and Definitions Applicable to This 

Subpart 

D. Section 1910.156 Emergency Response 

E. Section 1910.157 Portable Fire 

Extinguishers 

F. Section 1910.158 Standpipe Hose 

Systems 

G. Section 1910.159 Automatic Sprinkler 

Systems 

VI. Technological Feasibility 

VII. Preliminary Economic Analysis 

A. Market Failure and Need for Regulation 

B. Profile of Affected Industries 

C. Costs of Compliance 

D. Benefits 

E. Economic Feasibility Analysis 

F. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

VIII. Additional Requirements 

A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

B. Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments/Executive 

Order 13175 

C. Environmental Impacts/National 

Environmental Policy Act 

D. Consensus Standards 

E. Executive Order 13045 (Protecting 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

F. Federalism 

G. Requirements for States With OSHA 

Approved State Plans 

H. OMB Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

I. Executive Summary 

A ‘‘100-word summary’’ is available 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Elements of emergency responder 

(firefighters, emergency medical service 

providers, and technical search and 

rescuers) health and safety are currently 

regulated by OSHA primarily under a 

patchwork of hazard-specific standards, 

and by state regulations in states with 

OSHA-approved State plan programs. 

(While OSHA standards do not apply to 

volunteers, some volunteers are covered 

in states with OSHA-approved State 

plan programs.) All of the OSHA 

standards referred to above were 

promulgated decades ago, and none was 

designed as a comprehensive emergency 

response standard. Consequently, they 

do not address the full range of hazards 

currently facing emergency responders, 

nor do they reflect major changes in 

performance specifications for 

protective clothing and equipment or 

major improvements in safety and 

health practices that have already been 

accepted by the emergency response 

community and incorporated into 

industry consensus standards. Notably, 

the OSHA standards do not align with 

the Department of Homeland Security’s 

National Incident Management System 

(NIMS), which guides all levels of 

government, nongovernmental 

organizations, and the private sector to 

work together to prevent, protect 

against, mitigate, respond to, and 

recover from emergency incidents. 

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks 

on September 11, 2001, all government 

agencies, including OSHA, were 

directed to strengthen their 

preparedness to respond to terrorist 

attacks, major disasters, and other 

emergencies. In response to this 

direction, the agency reviewed its 

standards applicable to the safe conduct 

of emergency response and disaster 

recovery activities and identified gaps 

in the protections for emergency 

responders and disaster recovery 

workers. The agency subsequently 

published a Request for Information 

(RFI), using the Fire Brigades standard 

(29 CFR 1910.156) as a baseline for 

emergency response activities, to 

determine if it should proceed with 

updating and expanding the standard. 

Responses to the RFI generally 

supported the need for continued 

rulemaking; therefore, the agency 

worked with the National Advisory 

Committee for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NACOSH) to assemble a 

subcommittee of emergency response 

community representatives to develop 

draft regulatory language through a 

process akin to negotiated rulemaking. 

To ensure a draft standard would 

incorporate best practices and the latest 

advances in technology, OSHA invited 

emergency response stakeholder 

organizations to provide subject matter 

experts to consult with and participate 

on the Subcommittee. The 

Subcommittee comprised a balanced 

group of subject matter experts 

representing labor and management, 

career and volunteer emergency service 

management associations, other Federal 

agencies and State plans, a national 

consensus standard organization, and 

general industry skilled support 

workers. NACOSH unanimously 

recommended that OSHA proceed with 

the rulemaking to update its emergency 

response standard and endorsed the 

draft regulatory language developed by 

the Subcommittee. 

In accordance with the requirements 

of the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 

OSHA convened a Small Business 

Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel in the 

fall of 2021. The panel, comprising 

members from the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) Office of 

Advocacy, OSHA, and OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

listened to and reported on what Small 

Entity Representatives (SERs) from 

entities that would potentially be 

affected by the proposed rule had to say. 

OSHA provided SERs with the draft 

regulatory language developed by the 

NACOSH subcommittee for their review 

and comment. The Panel received 

advice and recommendations from the 

SERs and reported its findings and 

recommendations to OSHA. OSHA has 

taken the SERs’ comments and the 

Panel’s findings and recommendations 

into consideration in the development 

of the proposed rule. 

The proposed rule updates by 

replacing the existing Fire Brigades 

standard and would expand the scope of 

OSHA’s standard to include a broad 

range of hazards emergency responders 

encounter during emergency response 

activities and would bring the standard 

in line with the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s (FEMA) National 

Response Framework and modernize 

the standard to align with the current 

industry consensus standards issued by 

the National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) on the safe conduct of 

emergency response activities. 

As noted in the first paragraph above, 

and discussed in detail below, OSHA 

standards do not apply to volunteer 

emergency responders. However, in 

States with OSHA-approved State Plans, 

volunteers may be treated as employees 

under state law. OSHA has no authority 

over how individual states regulate 

volunteers. See section III.B, Pertinent 

Legal Authority, and section VIII.G, 

Requirements for States with 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7776 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1The 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.’’ 

volunteer organizations with limited 

resources. 

Additionally, in accordance with 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), OSHA has prepared 

a Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), 

including an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, for the replacement 

of the existing Fire Brigades standard. 

Supporting materials prepared by OSHA 

are available in the public docket for 

this rulemaking, Docket ID OSHA– 

2007–0073, through 

www.regulations.gov. 

II. Background 

A. Need for the Standard 

I. Fatality and Injury Analysis 

On April 17, 2013, while engaged in 

fire suppression activities at a fertilizer 

plant in West, Texas, ten firefighters 

died after approximately 40 to 60 tons 

of ammonium nitrate unexpectedly 

detonated. Five civilians, two of whom 

were providing support for firefighting 

activities, were also killed, and five 

firefighters were injured. Victims of the 

blast included both volunteer and career 

firefighters, ranging in age from 26 to 52 

years, each with 1 to 31 years of 

firefighting experience. A subsequent 

investigation into the incident 

performed by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) revealed numerous 

contributing factors in the incidents that 

led to the fatalities, including limited 

responder knowledge and recognition of 

the hazards created by ammonium 

nitrate, inadequate pre-incident 

emergency response planning for the 

fertilizer plant, and the fact that 

response personnel performed fire 

suppression activities from a location 

that was within the blast radius of the 

explosion (NIOSH 2014, Document ID 

0331). As part of its investigation report, 

NIOSH made several recommendations 

for how fire departments could prevent 

fatalities and injuries, including the 

development of a written risk 

management plan, the conducting of 

pre-incident planning inspections for 

the buildings located within a fire 

department’s jurisdiction, the 

development and implementation of a 

written incident management system for 

all emergency incident operations, the 

mandated use of turnout clothing and 

other personal protective equipment 

(PPE) that has been determined to be 

appropriate for each task, and a 

minimum standard of training for every 

firefighter. 

Every day, the duties of an emergency 

responder may require making life and 

death decisions. The typical workday of 

an emergency responder could include 

tasks that range from responding to a 

minor medical emergency to addressing 

a more severe incident such as a 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 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7777 

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 

while the rescuer (victim) was engaged 

in activities that were determined to be 

technical search and rescue related. 

Inspection #343188371—At 8:15 p.m. 

on May 28, 2018, an employee was 

working as a firefighter and diver for a 

big city fire department. A man fell into 

the South Branch of the Chicago River. 

The firefighter and a coworker, his 

diving partner, had been deployed from 

a helicopter into the river to conduct 

dive rescue operations. During the 

attempt, the firefighter surfaced with his 

partner. Then he subsequently sank to 

the bottom of the river. At that time, he 

lost communication with the fire 

department. Divers from the 

department’s marine unit searched for 

firefighter. After several minutes, they 

located the firefighter and pulled him 

out of the water with his diving 

equipment intact. Despite resuscitation 

attempts by paramedics on the scene 

and at the hospital, he was pronounced 

dead at 10:02 p.m. that same day. 

Inspection #334815610—At 

approximately 5:00 p.m. on June 21, 

2012, during a mountain rescue, an 

employee was preparing to place rescue 

victim in a stokes litter to be hoisted on 

to a helicopter at approximately 13,800 

foot level of Emmons Glacier on Mt. 

Rainier. The helicopter was lowering a 

litter to the employee. The employee 

reached up and unhooked the litter 

when he apparently lost his footing and 

slid approximately 3,7000 feet down the 

face of the glacier. The employee was 

killed. 

Inspection #315597187—At 

approximately 9:45 p.m. on May 23, 

2011, Employee #1 and a firefighter 

crew were standing in the driveway of 

the fire hall. They had completed a rope 

rescue-training course using a rope and 

pulley system, which was hooked to the 

bucket of a ladder truck. The bucket was 

20 ft above the pavement. Employee #1 

placed his foot in the loop of the rope 

and pulled himself up by pulling down 

on the other end of the rope. When his 

feet were approximately 4.5 ft above the 

ground, the two ends of the rope spread 

apart, so his feet went in one direction 

and his hands went in the other. This 

caused his body to be positioned 

horizontally. He fell backwards to the 

ground and struck his back and head on 

the pavement below. Employee #1 

sustained head trauma that killed him. 

The information in the OIS dataset, 

while limited, supports OSHA’s 

inclusion of technical search and 

rescue-related job activities within the 

scope of the proposed rule. However, as 

fully discussed in section VII.D. 

Benefits, the number of fatalities in the 

OIS dataset is likely a significant 

underestimation of the total emergency 

responder fatalities occurring annually 

in the United States. Moreover, in 

contrast to firefighters, publicly 

available injury and fatality data 

specific to technical search and rescue 

is difficult to obtain, in part because it 

may be included with non-technical 

rescue data, as in this article titled 

‘‘Injuries to Search and Rescue 

Volunteers; A 30-year Study,’’ in which 

there is no differentiation between 

technical and non-technical rescuers. 

https://www.researchgate.net/ 

publication/20566794_Injuries_to_

search_and_rescue_volunteers_A_30- 

year_experience. Similarly, as noted 

above, OSHA believes that many 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.000</GPH>

'I a e bl VII - - A 1 A . nnua num b er o ff' ire fi 1g ht er d ea th s b 1y repor f mg agency. 

Investigatin USFA FEMA NFPA NIOS NWCG OSHA BLS 

2 Entity: H (01S) 

Data Range 1990- 2020 2007- 2007- 2007- 2007- 2007-2021 

2012 2021 2021 2016 2021 

(excludin 

g 2001) 

Average 105.2 102 72.4 99.3 17 18.2 11.3 (Includes 

Number of (Includes (Exclude (Wildlan (Exclude only nonFatalities, 36 s Covid- d s Covid- firefighter 

Annually Covid-19 19 firefighte 19 personnel, 

related related r deaths related excludes Coviddeaths) deaths) only) deaths) 19 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). 
7778 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

associations, other Federal agencies and 

State plans, a national consensus 

standard organization, and general 

industry skilled support workers, 

recommended coverage for technical 

search and rescue activities by 

including it in its proposed draft 

standard (Docket ID OSHA–2015–0019– 

0002, Ex. 5). Similarly, NFPA has 

standards specific to technical search 

and rescue; NFPA 1670, Operations and 

Training for Technical Search and 

Rescue Activities; and NFPA 1006, 

Rescue Technician Professional 

Qualifications. 

Based on the available data and 

industry recognition, OSHA 

preliminarily concludes that technical 

search and rescue emergency response 

activities involve risks to employee 

safety and health comparable to those in 

other types of emergency response such 

as firefighting and EMS. OSHA requests 

comment on this conclusion and 

specifically invites additional data and 

information on the risks posed by 

technical search and rescue activities. 

OSHA believes that the fatalities 

present in the OSHA OIS dataset are 

likely a significant underestimation of 

the fatalities occurring annually within 

the emergency response community. 

This is likely because the OIS database 

contains information about fatality 

investigations performed by OSHA field 

investigators, but does not contain 

information about deaths not reported to 

OSHA, which includes many volunteer 

firefighter deaths. The total number of 

fatalities may also be underestimated as 

there is no blanket mandatory reporting 

requirement for emergency responder 

deaths. This is also likely due in part to 

varying methodology among reporting 

organizations for categorizing a heart 

attack as work-related. The differences 

observed between the OIS dataset and 

the NFPA dataset in these two 

categories of fatalities are summarized 

in Table VII–A–2. Although the NFPA 

dataset contained more victims in each 

of these fatality characteristics, when 

OSHA compared the manner and cause 

of deaths in the OIS dataset with those 

in the NFPA summary reports, 

observable similarities were present 

(Table VII–A–2). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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, nonfirefighter individuals. Additionally, the 

NFPA dataset contains little to no 

information regarding identified 

workplace hazards associated with the 

reported deaths, while the OIS dataset 

includes summary information for 

contributory hazards, as identified by 

the standards cited by the OSHA 

investigator and the information 

contained in each accident’s summary 

abstract. For these reasons, while OSHA 

determined that the overall number of 

firefighter deaths annually is more 

accurately reflected by the NFPA annual 

summary reports, OSHA determined 

that the descriptive information 

available in the OIS dataset regarding 

task at time of death, cause of death, and 

workplace hazards identified by the 

OSHA inspector while investigating an 

individual’s death is a representative 

sample of the characteristics of 

emergency response fatalities across the 

larger dataset. OSHA reviewed all 273 

fatalities in the OIS dataset to identify 

the causes of death and any contributory 

safety or health hazards. Table VII–A–3 

shows a summary of the reported cause 

of death and the assigned task at the 

time of death for each of the fatalities in 

the OIS dataset. 

A review of the available literature 

identifying common causes of death for 

emergency responders supports OSHA’s 

analysis of the fatalities available in the 

OIS dataset. From this review, OSHA 

determined that some of the most 

common safety and health hazards 

encountered by emergency responders 

include vehicle collisions; falls from 

heights to lower levels due to structural 

or building collapses; being struck by, 

caught in between, or crushed by 

vehicles; falling objects or debris; burns; 

and entrapments (FEMA, 2022, 

Document ID 0341; NWCG, 2017, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.001</GPH>

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)-

Overall Rate 72.4 18.2 

AAFR-Paid Employee 35.1 (48%) 16.3 (90%) 

AAFR-Volunteer 37.3 (52%) 1.9 (10%) 

Task at Time of Death 

Fire or Emeq~ency Response 42.1 (58%) 11.3 (62%) 

Other Emer2encies 7.9 (11%) 0.4 (2%) 

Trainin2 Exercise 8.5 (12%) 2.5 (14%) 

On Duty, Other 13.8 (19%) 3.7(21%) 

Cause of Death 

Explosion 2.4 (3%) 0.6 (3%) 

Fall 4.5 (6%) 1.9 (10%) 

Heat Exhaustion 1 (1%) 0.5 (3%) 

Struck By 13.5 (19%) 4.8 (26%) 

Workplace Violence 1.7 (2%) 0.1 (1%) 

Nature of Death 

Asphyxia 7 (10%) 1.9 (10%) 

Burn or Scald 4.8 (7%) 2.6 (14%) 

Drownin2 1.4 (2%) 0.8 (4%) 

Heart Attack 30.9 (43%) 3.8 (20%) 

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 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

Among these 273 fatalities, hazards 

identified by OSHA investigators as 

present on-site at the time of death 

included hazards involving the 

incorrect use of PPE and other 

equipment, inadequate vehicle 

preparedness and operation, lack of 

effective implementation of standard 

operating procedures in various 

emergency scenarios, failure to adhere 

to practices for Immediately Dangerous 

to Life and Health (IDLH) situations, 

failure to meet medical evaluation 

requirements, failure to meet minimum 

training requirements, lack of or 

ineffective implementation of an 

Emergency Response Plan (ERP), and 

the lack of an effective Risk 

Management Plan (RMP). These hazards 

were identified by reviews of the 

citations issued at the time of the 

inspection and of the summary abstracts 

for each investigation. A summary of the 

number of hazards found at each of the 

OIS fatalities can be found in Table VII– 

A–4, below. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.002</GPH>

Table VII-A-3. Summary of nature and cause of deaths in 01S fatality analysis. 

Emergen Emergenc Rescue Training On Duty- Off Duty Total 

Assigned cy y Exercise Other Deaths 

Task Response Response-

-Not Fire Fire 

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

----

Cause of 

Death 

Asphyxia - 28 - - - - 28 

Burn/ - 38 - 1 - - 39 

Scald 

Cancer - - - - 1 - 1 

Chemical - - - - 1 - 1 

Exposure 

Cuti - - - - 1 - 1 

Laceration 

Drownin2 - - 5 5 2 - 12 

Explosion 1 6 - - 2 - 9 

Fall 2 11 2 6 7 - 28 

Heart 3 15 - 15 14 8 55 

Attack 

Heat - 3 - 4 - - 7 

Exhaustion 

Natural - - - 1 1 - 2 

Causes 

Stroke - 1 - - - - 1 

Smoke - 1 - - - - 1 

Exposure 

Striking/ 6 17 - 2 9 - 34 

Crushing/ 

Collision 

Struck By 6 23 - 1 8 - 38 

Suicide - - - - 1 - 1 

Unknown - 6 - 3 4 - 13 

Violence 1 1 - - - - 2 

Total 19 150 7 38 51 8 273 

Source: OSHA's Occupational Safety and Health Information System (OIS). 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7781 

From these 273 fatalities, OSHA 

identified 212 (77.7%) in which at least 

one of the safety hazards addressed by 

the proposed rule was determined to be 

present at the time of the emergency 

responder’s death. 

Heart attacks were identified in both 

the NFPA (43%) and OIS (20%) datasets 

as one of the most commonly occurring 

means by which an emergency 

responder will die while at work. 

Among the 212 fatalities in the OIS 

dataset determined to have at least one 

of the safety hazards addressed by the 

proposed rule present in the workplace 

at the time of death, eight were 

classified as heart attack fatalities, 

approximately 15% of the total number 

of heart attacks observed in the dataset. 

Cardiovascular health and the reduction 

of heart attacks is further discussed in 

the Health Effects of Emergency 

Response Activities section, below. 

B. Nonfatal Injuries 

OSHA reviewed the available 

literature to examine the extent and 

nature of workplace injuries occurring 

among emergency response personnel. 

From this review, OSHA determined 

that, overall, emergency responders are 

at higher risk of injury than the general 

population. Workplace hazards 

identified in the literature as leading to 

injury among emergency response 

personnel include exposure to toxic 

chemicals, falls, environmental hypoxia, 

exposure to excessive noise, 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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.003</GPH>

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%) 

Medical Evaluation 18 (6.6%) 

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). 
7782 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

To determine the number of injuries 

occurring annually among firefighters, 

OSHA reviewed the annual NFPA 

injury summary reports from 2007 to 

2020 (Docket Nos. 0362–0376). These 

reports show that, on average, 67,964 

injuries occurred among firefighters 

annually, with an average of 14,172 of 

those classified as a lost time injury, 

21% of total injuries (see Table VII–A– 

6). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.004</GPH> EP05FE24.005</GPH>

Table VII-A-5. Non-Fatal Injuries to EMTs and Paramedics, All Ownerships, 2007-

2020. 

Event or Exposure Number oflnjuries Percent of Total Average Annual 

Injuries Injuries 

Contact with objects 10,570 9.8 

IFalls, slips, trips 14,700 13.6 

Overexertion and bodily reaction 57,790 53.6 

!Exposure to harmful substance or 

~nvironment 7,010 6.5 

rrransportation incidents 7,540 7.0 

IFires and explosions 260 0.2 

~iolence and other injuries by 

persons or animals 4,720 4.4 

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. 

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 

Record In_iuries Time In_iuries Percent of Total In_iuries 

2007 80,100 16,350 20.4% 

2008 79.700 15.250 19.1% 

2009 78,150 15,150 19.4% 

2010 71,875 15,000 20.9% 

2011 70,090 13,650 19.5% 

2012 69,400 14,350 20.7% 

2013 65,880 10,000 15.2% 

2014 63,350 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% 

2018 58,250 15.500 26.6% 

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. 

755 

1,050 

4,128 

501 

539 

19 

337 

331 

7,694 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7783 

Review of the reported tasks that 

injured firefighters were engaged in at 

the time of injury revealed persistent 

trends, both among the injury task 

categories, and when compared to the 

task categories of the fatality victims 

(Table VII–A–7). Specifically, each year, 

the work associated with firefighting 

activities results in an average of 42.4% 

of all injuries, while non-fire emergency 

tasks result in 20.4% of all injuries. The 

activities associated with responding to 

or returning from an emergency result in 

an average of 6.6% of annual injuries. 

Training activities result in 11.6% of all 

firefighter injuries, and duties not 

associated with emergencies, emergency 

response, or training result in, on 

average, 19% of injuries. Examples of 

injuries in this last category could 

include things like a responder slipping 

on an icy walkway at the fire station, 

dropping an old tire on their foot while 

doing a changeout at the fire station, 

having their foot run over while 

directing a fire truck back into the 

station after a fire, and sliding down the 

fire pole and landing poorly, spraining 

an ankle. The proportion of total 

injuries for each assigned job category 

was similar to the proportions observed 

in each of the fatality categories (see 

Table VII–A–2). 

The most common source of injury 

among firefighters was overexertion or 

strain (27.0% of injuries, on average). 

While overexertion was also the leading 

source of injury among emergency 

response personnel not classified as 

firefighters, the proportion of these 

injuries varied significantly among the 

professional categories, 27.0% of 

firefighter injuries compared to 53.6% 

of injuries for non-firefighter personnel. 

Other significant causes of injury among 

firefighters included fall, jump, slip 

injuries (22.8% of injuries, on average) 

exposure to fire products (11.5% of 

injuries, on average), contact with 

objects (10.8%), and being struck by a 

moving object (6.0%). (see Table VII–A– 

8). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.006</GPH>

'I a e bl VII - - A 7 A . ss12ne • d 'I as k f 0 F" ire fi 121 ht era tth e T" 1meo fTh. e1r n.1urw. I • 

Responding to 

or Returning 

Fireground Non-Fire from an 

Year of Record Operations Emere:encies Emere:encv Trainine: 

2007 47.9% 19.3% 6.2% 9.7% 

2008 45.9% 19.8% 6.2% 10.2% 

2009 41.2% 19.8% 6.4% 10.2% 

2010 45.5% 18.6% 6.1% 10.1% 

2011 43.5% 21.3% 5.5% 10.7% 

2012 45.4% 18.4% 6.0% 10.3% 

2013 45.2% 19.0% 6.1% 11.8% 

2014 42.6% 23.0% 6.6% 10.9% 

2015 42.8% 21.0% 5.6% 11.1% 

2016 39.2% 20.6% 8.4% 13.7% 

2017 41.6% 20.8% 7.7% 14.2% 

2018 39.4% 20.0% 7.1% 14.0% 

2019 39.2% 23.3% 6.7% 13.4% 

2020 34.6% 21.0% 7.7% 11.6% 

Annual Average 42.4% 20.4% 6.6% 11.6% 

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. 

Other 

Duties 

17.1% 

17.9% 

22.5% 

19.7% 

19.0% 

19.9% 

17.9% 

16.9% 

19.5% 

18.2% 

15.6% 

19.4% 

17.4% 

25.1% 

19.0% 
7784 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

II. Health Effects of Emergency 

Response Activities 

In addition to the traumatic injuries 

discussed above, emergency response 

activities are associated with exposure 

to hazards that can cause both chronic 

physical health and adverse 

psychological health effects for 

responders, including but not limited to 

adverse cardiovascular and respiratory 

effects, cancers, post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD), and suicide. Exposure 

to combustion products is a major factor 

behind physical illnesses associated 

with emergency response activities; 

however, factors such as exposure to 

infectious diseases, heat, physical 

exertion, physical stress reactions to 

alarms and sirens, shift work, and other 

exposures also play a role. 

Psychological health effects have been 

attributed to exposure to trauma, 

stressful situations, and threats to life 

and health, including due to workplace 

violence. 

This section presents a summary of 

OSHA’s review of the health effects 

literature for emergency response 

activities, including the workplace 

exposures that contribute to these health 

effects, and the agency’s preliminary 

conclusions based on that review. 

OSHA’s full analysis is contained in the 

background document entitled 

‘‘Emergency Response Health Effects 

Literature Review,’’ which has been 

placed in the rulemaking docket 

(Document ID 0361). 

OSHA conducted a literature search 

to collect relevant information, studies, 

reports, and materials related to the 

occupational safety and health of 

emergency responders such as 

firefighters, search and rescue 

personnel, and emergency medical 

service providers. OSHA sought 

literature that evaluated workplace 

exposures and health effects for 

emergency responders including: 

• Exposures to combustion products, 

other contaminants and substances, and 

infectious diseases 

• Acute and chronic health 

conditions (e.g., cancer, cardiovascular 

disease, respiratory disease) 

• Behavioral health issues (e.g., 

mental health, substance use disorders, 

suicide) 

• Workplace violence 

OSHA searched the National Library 

of Medicine (NLM) (https://pubmed.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) and (https://

www2a.cdc.gov/nioshtic-2/ 

advsearch2.asp) in 2020 and again in 

2022. The search was date limited to 

2010 and included several occupational 

and risk key words to target relevant 

search results. OSHA obtained and 

reviewed the full text of relevant 

articles. OSHA also searched several key 

organizations’ websites for relevant 

reports and information. This section 

summarizes the results of this search. 

A. Exposures 

Emergency responders are exposed to 

a variety of health hazards in the 

workplace. OSHA focused its literature 

review on three areas: combustion 

products, other contaminants and 

substances, and infectious diseases. The 

combustion products review covers 

substances released during fires. The 

other contaminants and substances 

review examines specific situations 

where emergency responders were 

exposed to harmful chemicals (e.g., 

vinyl chloride, phosphine, opioids) 

while responding to emergency 

situations in the field or when 

participating in training exercises that 

involved simulated smoke. It also 

includes studies that assessed 

contaminants inside firehouses and 

substances off-gassing from emergency 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.007</GPH>

'I a e bl VII - - A 8 N . a t ureo f Fire 11 er n_1ury. 0 fi ht I • 

Exposure 

to 

Fall, Contact Struck Exposure chemicals 

Year of Jump, Overexertion, with byan Extreme to fire or 

Record Slip Strain ob_ject ob_ject weather products radiation Other 

2007 27.3% 24.4% 11.9% 8.8% 2.4% 8.8% 1.0% 15.4% 

2008 23.5% 23.1% 13.0% 4.9% 2.9% 12.7% 2.8% 16.9% 

2009 22.7% 25.2% 11.4% 5.8% 2.4% 12.9% 5.0% 14.6% 

2010 22.5% 25.7% 12.4% 6.9% 4.7% 9.0% 0.9% 18.0% 

2011 21.0% 28.4% 11.7% 5.7% 3.7% 8.0% 2.3% 19.1% 

2012 23.2% 27.5% 10.9% 5.5% 3.4% 9.7% 1.8% 17.9% 

2013 22.7% 26.5% 12.0% 4.7% 3.8% 10.4% 2.2% 17.8% 

2014 29.0% 25.0% 11.0% 6.0% 3.0% 9.0% 3.0% 14.0% 

2015 27.2% 27.2% 7.4% 9.0% 1.8% 8.2% 2.6% 16.4% 

2016 21.0% 27.1% 9.7% 5.9% 3.1% 13.6% 3.7% 16.4% 

2017 20.0% 29.0% 11.0% 6.0% 3.0% 11.0% 4.0% 16.0% 

2018 18.0% 29.0% 10.0% 5.0% 3.0% 17.0% 2.0% 16.0% 

2019 20.0% 29.0% 9.0% 5.0% 3.0% 15.0% 5.0% 14.0% 

2020 21.0% 31.0% 10.0% 5.0% 3.0% 15.0% 3.0% 16.0% 

Annual 22.8% 27.0% 10.8% 6.0% 3.1% 11.5% 2.8% 16.3% 

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. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7785 

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 

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 

(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 


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 

which requires protective equipment 

and practices to limit exposure to 

combustion products. In addition, since 

exposure cannot be completely 

eliminated due to the nature of 

firefighting activities, OSHA has 

preliminarily determined that medical 

surveillance is necessary for these 

responders to detect and respond to 

health conditions as soon as possible in 

order to mitigate the long-term health 

impact of such exposures on emergency 

responders. 

(ii) Other Contaminants and Substances 

In addition to the combustion 

products reviewed in section A.(i), 

emergency responders may be exposed 

to varied, unpredictable, and often 

unknown contaminants and substances 

while performing their duties. (Hall et 

al., 2018, Document ID 0220; Melnikova 

et al., 2018, Document ID 0246). Overall, 

OSHA’s literature review found 

evidence of adverse health effects 

among emergency responders who 

encountered contaminants and other 

potentially harmful substances on the 

job, with the most injuries seen among 

firefighters. As an example of the 

sources of these contaminants, in 2022 

the U.S. Department of Transportation’s 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration recorded 23,178 

highway incidents involving hazardous 

materials (hazmat) and 355 railway spill 

hazmat incidents. Additionally, the U.S. 

Chemical Safety Board reported 102 

reportable chemical release events in 

2022. Studies also show that emergency 

responders can be exposed to hazardous 

substances through equipment 

contamination and inside their 

workplaces even when they are not 

responding to emergencies. 

Studies show that emergency 

responders are exposed to a variety of 

chemicals in the field, including vinyl 

chloride, phosphine, ammonia, and 

hydrochloric acid (Hall et al., 2018, 

Document ID 0220; Melnikova et al., 

2018, Document ID 0246; Brinker et al., 

2013, Document ID 0177; Brinker et al., 

2015, Document ID 0175). Examples of 

emergency response activities that can 

involve such exposures include 

attending to drug overdose victims 

(Chiu et al., 2018a, Document ID 0191; 

Chiu et al., 2018b, Document ID 0182; 

Chiu et al., 2018c, Document ID 0186), 

putting out a fire at a chemical 

manufacturing facility (Eisenberg et al., 

2019, Document ID 0203), working with 

chainsaws that released carbon 

monoxide and generate wood dust 

(Ramsey et al., 2019, Document ID 

0256), and participating in training that 

exposed them to a variety of chemicals 

and potential irritants in simulated 

smoke such as mineral oil, diethylene 

glycol, aldehydes, PAHs, VOCs, and 

carbonaceous particles (Fent et al., 2013, 

Document ID 0206). The literature 

review also captured studies that 

examined diesel exhaust particulate 

matter and PAH concentrations inside 

firehouses (Sparer et al., 2018, 

Document ID 0292; Baxter et al., 2014, 

Document ID 0157), as well as 

contaminants associated with 

firefighting gear, including residual 

combustion products that adhere to the 

gear, and substances used to make the 

gear, such as organophosphorus flame 

retardants, per-and polyfluoroalkyl 

substances (PFAS) chemicals, and 

plasticizers (Alexander and Baxter, 

2014, Document ID 0164; Banks et al., 

2021b, Document ID 0168; Fent et al., 

2018, Document ID 0210; Kirk and 

Logan, 2015, Document ID 0232; and 

Muensterman et al., 2022, Document ID 

0282). 

Respiratory effects (e.g., cough, 

asthma-like symptoms) were the most 

frequently reported symptoms among 

the emergency responders who were 

assessed (Melnikova et al., 2018, 

Document ID 0246; Chiu et al., 2018a, 

Document ID 0191, Chiu et al., 2018c, 

Document ID 0186; Fent et al., 2013, 

Document ID 0206; Eisenberg et al., 

2019, Document ID 0203; Brinker et al., 

2013, Document ID 0177; Brinker et al., 

2015, Document ID 0175). Melnikova et 

al. (2018, Document ID 0246) examined 

566 acute chemical exposures among 

1,460 emergency responders and found 

that respiratory system problems were 

the most common adverse health effect, 

constituting 56.3 percent of all adverse 

effects. Other adverse health effects 

included trauma (11.3 percent), eye 

irritation (10.5 percent), headache (9.9 

percent), and dizziness/other non-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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7787 

a 2018 opioid-related exposure, eight of 

nine emergency responders reported 

adverse health effects that were 

consistent with drug exposure: 

weakness, confusion, palpitations, 

lightheadedness, headache, nausea, 

numbness, double vision, chest 

discomfort, and stomach discomfort 

(Chiu et al., 2018a, Document ID 0191; 

Chiu et al., 2018c, Document ID 0186). 

Overall, wearing appropriate PPE during 

responses to drug overdoses was 

deemed important, especially for 

preventing eye and mouth exposure. 

Multiple studies identified 

contaminants inside fire stations and on 

firefighting gear and equipment that 

firefighters may be exposed to. In 

studies that examined separate rooms 

within fire stations, truck bays had the 

highest contaminant concentrations 

(Sparer et al., 2018, Document ID 0292; 

Baxter et al., 2014, Document ID 0157). 

Banks et al. (2021b, Document ID 0168) 

found that off-gassing of SVOCs from 

uniforms stored in private vehicles 

could be a source of dermal or 

inhalation exposure for firefighters. 

Therefore, laundering of firefighters’ 

protective gear (Kirk and Logan, 2015, 

Document ID 0232), field 

decontamination, and dermal wipes 

(Fent et al., 2018, Document ID 0210) 

were recommended methods to prevent 

exposures. PFAS (Muensterman et al., 

2022, Document ID 0282) and di(2- 

ethylhexyl)phthalate (Alexander and 

Baxter, 2014, Document ID 0164) were 

highlighted as contaminants that need 

further research due to their presence in 

and/or persistence on firefighter gear. 

Based on the evidence described 

above, OSHA has preliminarily 

determined that in the course of their 

duties, firefighters, emergency medical 

service providers and technical rescuers 

are exposed to hazardous substances in 

the workplace. OSHA therefore 

preliminarily finds justification to 

promulgate a standard which requires 

protective equipment and practices to 

limit exposure to hazardous substances. 

In addition, since exposure cannot be 

completely eliminated due to the nature 

of emergency response activities, OSHA 

has preliminarily determined that 

medical surveillance is also necessary 

for these responders to detect and 

respond to health conditions as soon as 

possible in order to mitigate long-term 

health impacts. 

(iii) Infectious Diseases 

When responding to community 

needs, emergency responders come in 

direct contact with people who have 

infectious diseases. OSHA’s literature 

review identified multiple infectious 

diseases that firefighters, technical 

rescue responders, and emergency 

medical service providers are exposed 

to, including hepatitis B, Clostridiodes 

difficile, Methicillin-resistant 

Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and 

COVID–19. The studies covered a range 

of topics, such as the incidence rate or 

prevalence of infectious disease among 

emergency responders, the likelihood of 

emergency equipment being 

contaminated, and the impact of other 

variables (e.g., wildfire smoke, social 

vulnerability index) on emergency 

responders’ occupational risks. 

Generally, bloodborne diseases (e.g., 

hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and human 

immunodeficiency virus) pose low risk 

to emergency responders, whereas 

infectious diseases spread through 

airborne pathways (e.g., meningococcal 

meningitis, severe acute respiratory 

syndrome (SARS), influenza, and 

tuberculosis) and direct contact 

transmission (e.g., MRSA) pose higher 

risk (Thomas et al., 2017, Document ID 

0307). However, EMS providers’ 

exposure to infectious diseases declined 

between 1993 and 2011 and remains 

generally low except during pandemics 

(Thomas et al., 2017, Document ID 

0307). 

MRSA and Staphylococcus aureus 

prevalence was generally high among 

emergency responders. Miramonti et al. 

(2012, Document ID 0274) found that 

EMTs and paramedics have a 

significantly higher nasal colonization 

rate of MRSA compared to the general 

population (4.5% vs. 0.084%). 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, 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7788 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

that emergency responders encounter, 

as described above, put them at elevated 

risk for certain acute and chronic health 

conditions. OSHA’s literature review on 

acute and chronic health conditions 

among emergency responders covered 

cancer, cardiovascular disease, and 

respiratory disease. 

(i) Cancer 

Emergency responders, particularly 

firefighters, are exposed to known and 

suspected carcinogens when performing 

their work (see Sections A.(i) and A.(ii) 

above), which places them at a 12–19% 

greater risk of dying from cancer 

(Muegge et al., 2018, Document ID 0269; 

Daniels et al., 2014, Document ID 0187; 

Pinkerton et al., 2020, Document ID 

0245) and a 9% greater risk of 

developing cancer (Daniels et al., 2014, 

Document ID 0187) than the general 

population. Studies show that 

firefighters are at higher risk for 

multiple cancers compared to the 

general U.S. population. In fact, the 

International Association for Research 

on Cancer (IARC) has concluded that 

occupational exposure as a firefighter is 

itself carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) 

(Demers et al. 2022, Document ID 0194; 

IARC 2023, Document ID 0236; NASEM 

2022, Document ID 0395). 

Researchers found that, compared to 

the general population, male firefighters 

are at increased risk for melanoma and 

prostate cancer (Lee et al., 2020, 

Document ID 0250; Tsai et al., 2015, 

Document ID 0311); testicular cancer, 

thyroid cancer, late-stage colon cancer 

(Lee et al., 2020, Document ID 0250); 

multiple myeloma, acute myeloid 

leukemia, esophageal cancer, kidney 

cancer, and brain cancer (Tsai et al., 

2015, Document ID 0311). Researchers 

found that female firefighters are at 

increased risk compared to the general 

population for brain cancer and thyroid 

cancer (Lee et al., 2020, Document ID 

0250) and increased risk of death from 

bladder cancer (Daniels et al., 2014, 

Document ID 0187; Pinkerton et al., 

2020, Document ID 0245). 

For males and females combined, 

researchers found that firefighters are at 

increased risk compared to the general 

population for all-cancer mortality 

(Muegge et al., 2018, Document ID 0269; 

Daniels et al., 2014, Document ID 0187; 

Pinkerton et al., 2020, Document ID 

0245); all-cancer incidence (Daniels et 

al., 2014, Document ID 0187); buccal 

cavity and pharynx cancer mortality 

(Muegge et al., 2018, Document ID 0269; 

Pinkerton et al., 2020, Document ID 

0245); other parts of the buccal cavity 

cancer mortality, pancreatic cancer 

mortality, kidney cancer mortality, 

connective tissues cancer mortality, 

brain and other parts of the nervous 

system cancer mortality (Muegge et al., 

2018, Document ID 0269); digestive 

cancer incidence and mortality (Daniels 

et al., 2014, Document ID 0187); 

respiratory cancer incidence and 

mortality (Daniels et al., 2014, 

Document ID 0187); malignant 

mesothelioma incidence and mortality 

(Daniels et al., 2014, Document ID 0187; 

Pinkerton et al., 2020, Document ID 

0245); non-Hodgkins lymphoma 

mortality; esophageal cancer mortality; 

intestine cancer mortality; rectal cancer 

mortality; lung cancer mortality; biliary, 

liver, and gall bladder cancer; and other 

digestive cancer mortality (Pinkerton et 

al., 2020, Document ID 0245). 

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses 

corroborate many of these results (IARC, 

2023, Document ID 0236; Jalilian et al., 

2019, Document ID 0233; Sritharan et 

al., 2017, Document ID 0299; LeMasters 

et al., 2006, Document ID 0268; Demers 

et al., 2022, Document ID 0194). 

Additionally, researchers have studied 

whether dose-response relationships 

exist between firefighting exposures and 

developing cancer. In these 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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7789 

status and stress or overexertion (Sen et 

al., 2016, Document ID 0300); 

participation in fire suppression 

activities (Smith et al., 2019, Document 

ID 0303); and hypertension, a history of 

cardiovascular disease, and smoking 

(Yang et al., 2013, Document ID 0309). 

Martin et al. (2019, Document ID 0271) 

found that 68 percent of the firefighters 

in one study population had two or 

more cardiovascular risk factors. 

Obesity (Smith et al., 2022, Document 

ID 0294; Khaya et al., 2021, Document 

ID 0242), reduced cardiorespiratory 

fitness (Smith et al., 2022, Document ID 

0294), metabolic syndrome or abnormal 

metabolic syndrome components (Li et 

al., 2017, Document ID 0260), and 

elevated blood pressures and/or 

hypertension (Lan et al., 2021, 

Document ID 0226; Bond et al., 2022, 

Document ID 0176; Khaja et al., 2021, 

Document ID 0242) were highly 

prevalent among firefighters and could 

serve as markers for cardiac 

dysfunction. Observed elevated blood 

pressures and/or hypertension among 

firefighters was attributed to increased 

psychological stress (Lan et al., 2021, 

Document ID 0226; Bond et al., 2022, 

Document ID 0176; Khaja et al., 2021, 

Document ID 0242) and increased 

frequency of work shifts (Choi et al., 

2016, Document ID 0181). 

A few studies examined methods that 

improved cardiovascular health. Horn et 

al. (2013, Document ID 0219) and Mani 

et al. (2013, Document ID 0270) 

measured cardiovascular responses 

during specific workplace tasks and 

activities and found that systolic blood 

pressures were significantly lower 

during rest periods. Cash et al. (2021, 

Document ID 0190) found that 

firefighters who slept for recommended 

durations (seven to nine hours) nearly 

doubled their likelihood of having ideal 

cardiovascular health. OSHA has 

preliminarily determined that 

emergency response activities can 

produce physiological and 

psychological strain that is sufficient to 

trigger a cardiovascular event up to and 

including sudden cardiac death. In 

addition, elevated core body 

temperature, disrupted sleep patterns, 

noise from alarms and sirens, circadian 

rhythm disruptions, overexertion, and 

stress associated with emergency 

response occupations can contribute to 

the development of cardiovascular 

disease. OSHA therefore preliminarily 

finds justification to promulgate a 

standard which requires medical 

screening and prevention programming 

for these responders. OSHA seeks 

additional information and data on how 

emergency response activities 

contribute to cardiovascular disease. 

(iii) Respiratory Diseases and Other 

Respiratory Effects 

Emergency responders, especially 

firefighters, can encounter a wide 

variety of airborne respiratory hazards 

on the job, including gases, fumes, and 

particulates. In addition, many 

emergency responders are regularly 

exposed to diesel exhaust particulates in 

the course of their jobs, both responding 

to emergency incidents and while in 

ESO facilities where vehicle engines are 

started and run, such as in fire stations 

(Sparer et al., 2018, Document ID 0292; 

Couch et al. 2016, Document ID 0324). 

Emergency response equipment is 

commonly powered by diesel fuel, a 

known respiratory irritant and 

carcinogen. Unless adequate protective 

measures are taken, these exposures can 

impair pulmonary function and may 

cause respiratory diseases such as 

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 

(COPD), bronchitis, and asthma 

(Barbosa et al., 2022, Document ID 

0173). OSHA reviewed several studies 

on pulmonary function in firefighter 

populations. The studies identified 

respiratory protection as crucial for 

preventing lung function decline in 

responders. 

First, as explained above, several 

evaluations, reports, and studies that 

looked at emergency responder 

exposures to a variety of hazardous 

chemicals indicated that respiratory 

effects (e.g., cough, asthma-like 

symptoms) were the most frequently 

reported symptoms among the 

emergency responders who were 

assessed (Melnikova et al., 2018, 

Document ID 0246; Chiu et al., 2018a, 

Document ID 0191; Chiu et al., 2018c, 

Document ID 0186; Fent et al., 2013, 

Document ID 0206; Eisenberg et al., 

2019, Document ID 0203; Brinker et al., 

2013, Document ID 0177; Brinker et al., 

2015, Document ID 0175). Melnikova et 

al. (2018, Document ID 0246) examined 

566 acute chemical exposures among 

1,460 emergency responders and found 

that respiratory system problems were 

the most common adverse health effect, 

constituting 56.3 percent of all adverse 

effects. 

Studies also show that firefighters 

experience declines in lung function 

after acute exposure events such as the 

World Trade Center disaster response 

and wildland firefighting activities. Two 

studies, both of which were reviews, 

reported accelerated pulmonary 

function declines after the World Trade 

Center disaster (Slattery et al., 2018, 

Document ID 0301; Rajnoveanu et al., 

2022, Document ID 0273). A metaanalysis 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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. 

C. Behavioral Health 

The intense and stressful (both 

physically and mentally) situations that 

emergency responders encounter on the 

job place them at risk for a range of 

behavioral health impacts. OSHA’s 

review of the literature on behavioral 

health among emergency responders 

covered general mental health issues, 

substance use disorders, and suicide. 

(i) General Mental Health 

Emergency responders are exposed to 

traumatic, emotionally charged events, 

and they may work long shifts, hold 

multiple jobs, and get inadequate rest 

(Alexander and Klein, 2001, Document 

ID 0166; Patterson et al., 2012, 

Document ID 0266; Weaver et al., 2015, 

Document ID 0298). Lack of sleep, long 

working hours, working in isolated 

locations, and repeated exposure to 

stressful scenarios are all risk factors for 

developing mental health problems 

(Carey et al., 2011, Document ID 0183; 

Kshtriya et al., 2020, Document ID 0231; 

Donnelly, 2012, Document ID 0201; 

Cash et al., 2020, Document ID 0193). 

OSHA’s literature review on mental 

health focused on depression, anxiety, 

stress, post-traumatic stress symptoms, 

PTSD, and burnout. 

Compared with the general 

population, emergency responders have 

elevated rates of depression (Petrie et 

al., 2018, Document ID 0275; SAMHSA, 

2018, Document ID 0286; Jahnke et al., 

2012, Document ID 0235), stress 

(SAMHSA, 2018, Document ID 0286), 

PTSD (Jones et al., 2018, Document ID 

0229; Petrie et al., 2018, Document ID 

0275; SAMHSA, 2018, Document ID 

0286), anxiety (Petrie et al., 2018, 

Document ID 0275), and poor sleep 

(Cash et al., 2020, Document ID 0193). 

Some articles found significant 

relationships between emergency 

response activities and PTSD, emotion 

regulation difficulties, and thwarted 

belongingness (Leonard and Vujanovic, 

2021, Document ID 0255); alcohol use 

disorder, PTSD, trauma load, 

depression, and anxiety (Lebeaut et al., 

2021, Document ID 0244; Lebeaut et al., 

2020, Document ID 0276; Zegel et al., 

2021, Document ID 0320); tinnitus and 

occupational stress (Odes et al., 2023, 

Document ID 0267); and stress and 

burnout on diminished safety behaviors 

(Smith et al., 2020, Document ID 0306). 

Multiple articles described healthy 

coping strategies and techniques that 

improve mental health outcomes. These 

included: exercise, having a strong 

interpersonal network, leadership 

support (DeMoulin et al., 2022, 

Document ID 0196), and finding mental 

fulfillment and enjoyment from the 

day’s challenges and recovery activities 

(Hruska and Barduhn, 2021, Document 

ID 0223). Obstacles to improving mental 

health included: lack of resources 

(DeMoulin et al., 2022, Document ID 

0196), an absence of medical 

professionals who understand situations 

unique to emergency responder 

occupations (DeMoulin et al., 2022, 

Document ID 0196), occupational 

stressors (Hruska and Barduhn, 2021, 

Document ID 0223), social conflict 

(Hruska and Barduhn, 2021, Document 

ID 0223), and stigmatization (DeMoulin 

et al., 2022, Document ID 0196). 

Based on this review, OSHA has 

preliminarily determined that 

emergency responders are exposed to 

traumatic events and psychological 

stress that place them at increased risk 

of mental health issues such as PTSD, 

depression, anxiety, and burnout. OSHA 

therefore preliminarily finds 

justification to promulgate a standard 

which requires behavioral health 

screening and prevention programming 

for these responders. 

(ii) Suicide 

According to the Firefighter 

Behavioral Health Alliance (FBHA), at 

least 1,399 suicides occurred between 

2011 and 2022 among firefighters, 

emergency responders, and 

communication specialists (i.e., 

emergency response dispatchers). The 

actual number may well be higher, as 

many suicides are not reported or 

appropriately identified as work-related 

(FBHA, 2023). OSHA found evidence 

that emergency responders are at higher 

risk for suicidal ideation, plans, and 

attempts. One literature review (Stanley 

et al., 2016, Document ID 0310) and 

several studies (Abbott et al., 2015, 

Document ID 0169; Stanley et al., 2015, 

Document ID 0312; Tiesman et al., 2015, 

Document ID 0295; Vigil et al., 2019, 

Document ID 0296; Vigil et al., 2021, 

Document ID 0297) reported 

approximately three and a half times 

higher rates of suicide ideation and 

suicide attempts and approximately five 

times higher rates of suicide plans 

among emergency responders when 

compared to the general public. Stanley 

et al. (2017b, Document ID 0305) found 

that volunteer firefighters reported 

elevated levels of suicide plans and 

attempts compared to career firefighters. 

Hom et al. (2018, Document ID 0323) 

concluded that women firefighters 

exposed to suicide during their careers 

(either in professional or personal 

settings) are themselves at increased 

suicide risk. Stanley et al. (2017a, 

Document ID 0304) reported higher 

rates of suicidal ideation, suicide plans, 

and non-suicidal self-injury among 

women firefighters compared to the 

general U.S. population. Problematic 

alcohol use (Gallyer et al., 2018, 

Document ID 0209), occupational stress 

(Stanley et al., 2018, Document ID 

0316), PTSD (Bing-Canar et al., 2019, 

Document ID 0174; Boffa et al., 2017, 

Document ID 0189; Martin et al., 2017, 

Document ID 0254; Stanley et al., 2019, 

Document ID 0308; Pennington et al., 

2021, Document ID 0263), depression 

(Martin et al., 2017, Document ID 0254), 

and past physical and sexual abuse 

(Hom et al., 2017, Document ID 0217) 

were contributors to suicide risk over 

the course of the responder’s career. 

The issue of suicide in the emergency 

response community has become so 

prevalent that in 2022, Congress passed 

and President Biden signed into law, 

House Resolution 6943, the Public 

Safety Officer Support Act, which 

added death by suicide to the causes of 

death that are eligible for benefits under 

the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau 

of Justice Assistance’s Public Safety 

Officers Benefits Program (PSOB). 

OSHA has preliminarily determined 

that the traumatic events and 

psychological stress that emergency 

responders are exposed to places them 

at increased risk for death by suicide. 

OSHA therefore preliminarily finds 

justification to promulgate a standard 

which requires behavioral health 

resources for these responders. 

(iii) Substance Use Disorders 

Studies suggest that repeated 

exposure to traumatic situations can 

lead to mental health strain and 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7791 

et al., 2018, Document ID 0209; 

Haddock et al., 2012, Document ID 

0214, Haddock et al., 2015, Document 

ID 0215, Haddock et al., 2017, 

Document ID 0218; Meyer et al., 2012, 

Document ID 0272). A few studies 

indicated higher rates of alcohol 

consumption during the first few years 

of fire fighter/EMS service (Haddock et 

al., 2015, Document ID 0215; 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 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7792 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

identified gaps in the protections for 

emergency responders. The agency 

determined that it should proceed in the 

process for potentially updating its 

standard for Fire Brigades and consider 

including other emergency responders. 

In 2007, OSHA published a 41- 

question Request for Information (RFI) 

for the public to evaluate what action, 

if any, the agency should take to further 

address emergency response and 

preparedness (72 FR 51735 (Sept. 11, 

2007)). The RFI encouraged commenters 

to provide input covering the scope of 

emergency response operations, 

personal protective clothing and 

equipment, training and qualifications, 

medical evaluation and health 

monitoring, safety, and economic 

impacts related to potential regulatory 

action. The agency received 85 

responses largely in support of updating 

the existing rule. 

On July 30 and 31, 2014, OSHA 

hosted stakeholder meetings that 

attracted 49 participants and 

approximately the same number of 

observers (Document ID 0087). 

Participants represented a broad range 

of emergency responders as well as 

allied stakeholders such as State plan 

representatives, skilled support workers, 

and law enforcement. Broad support for 

a comprehensive standard was evident 

in both days of stakeholder meetings. 

Participants favored OSHA proceeding 

with comprehensive rulemaking that 

covered a broad scope of emergency 

preparedness and response workers 

rather than the agency’s historical 

perspective covering industrial fire 

brigades. 

In September 2015, OSHA convened 

a NACOSH subcommittee to develop 

recommendations, including regulatory 

text for a proposed rule, for NACOSH to 

consider (Docket ID OSHA–2015–0019– 

0001). To assist the Subcommittee, 

OSHA provided draft regulatory 

language for the purpose of initiating 

and facilitating discussion (Docket ID 

OSHA–2015–0019–0002, Ex. 5). The 

Subcommittee participants were subject 

matter experts from major stakeholder 

entities that represented a broad range 

of emergency response experts, who 

provided balance and a diversity of 

views. The Subcommittee was 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 

developed their recommendations and 

proposed regulatory text. The 

Subcommittee completed its 

recommendations for a proposed rule 

and transmitted the documents to the 

full NACOSH in October 2016 (Docket 

ID OSHA–2015–0019–0035). 

NACOSH met on December 14, 2016, 

and after hearing some public support 

for the project and deliberating over the 

draft document developed by the 

Subcommittee, voted unanimously to 

recommend to the Secretary of Labor 

that OSHA proceed with rulemaking 

using the draft language as the basis for 

developing a proposed rule. 

On October 4, 2021, OSHA convened 

a SBAR Panel for a potential Emergency 

Response draft proposed standard 

(Document ID 0094). OSHA convened 

this panel under section 609(b) of the 

RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended 

by SBREFA. 5 U.S.C. 609(b). 

The panel included representatives 

from OSHA, the Office of Advocacy 

within the SBA, and the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

SERs made oral and written comments 

on the draft regulatory framework and 

submitted them to the panel. The Panel 

received advice and recommendations 

from the SERs and reported its findings 

and recommendations to OSHA. OSHA 

has taken SERs’ comments and the 

Panel’s findings and recommendations 

into consideration in the development 

of the proposed rule. 

The SBREFA Panel issued a report on 

December 2, 2021, which included the 

SERs’ comments. SERs expressed 

concerns about the impact of the 

proposed rule on small and volunteer 

fire departments. Their comments 

addressed potential costs associated 

with compliance with the proposed 

rule’s medical screening, physical 

fitness, and training requirements. In 

addition, many SERs were concerned 

with OSHA’s extensive use of NFPA 

consensus standards in the development 

of the draft regulation. They were 

concerned about the costs associated 

with compliance with the proposed rule 

if OSHA incorporated by reference 

certain NFPA standards (Document ID 

0115). 

I. Preliminary Determination of 

Significant Risk and Material 

Impairment 

As explained in section III, Pertinent 

Legal Authority, the OSH Act and 

Supreme Court precedent require OSHA 

to determine, prior to issuing a safety or 

health standard, that employees are 

being subjected to a significant risk of 

serious injury or material impairment of 

health or functional capacity by the 

hazards being targeted. OSHA has 

reviewed the evidence currently in the 

record, including the data and scientific 

studies discussed above; the comments 

received in response to the 2007 

Emergency Response RFI, from SERs 

during the SBREFA process, and from 

NACOSH; and industry consensus as 

evidenced in the various NFPA 

consensus standards, and preliminarily 

determined that emergency response 

activities place team members and 

responders at significant risk of personal 

injury, several acute and chronic health 

conditions, and death. 

As identified above, the documented 

serious injuries suffered by emergency 

responders are numerous, including 

fractures, sprains, internal bodily 

trauma, dislocations, chemical burns, 

and chemical pneumonia. There can 

also be little doubt that the morbidity 

and mortality risks posed by cancer, 

cardiovascular disease, and lung disease 

represent material impairments of 

health and functional capacity. In 

addition, the adverse mental health 

outcomes resulting from emergency 

response activities, including substance 

use disorder, PTSD, depression, anxiety, 

burnout, and suicidality, can 

significantly impair responders’ quality 

of life and limit their ability to function 

in daily life, can cause or exacerbate 

other physical conditions, and, in the 

worst cases, can lead to death. 

Accordingly, OSHA preliminarily finds 

these behavioral health effects represent 

a serious impairment of health. 

C. National Consensus Standards 

In development of the proposed rule, 

OSHA extensively examined numerous 

relevant consensus standards. The 

NFPA standards are available to be 

viewed without cost at https://www.

nfpa.org/for-professionals/codes-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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7793 

Workplace Emergency Response 

Employers (WEREs) and Emergency 

Service Organizations (ESOs) to provide 

protections at least equivalent to various 

aspects of some of the NFPA standards 

listed below, such as training job 

performance requirements being 

equivalent to those in the consensus 

standard. In the latter case, compliance 

with the NFPA standard would satisfy 

the requirement, but the ESOs and 

WEREs retain flexibility to utilize 

alternative measures, so long as those 

measures provide equivalent protection. 

Below is a list and description of the 

national consensus standards that 

OSHA is proposing to IBR in whole or 

in part. 

NFPA 1001, Standard for Structural 

Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications, 

2019 ed. (Document ID 0138)—This 

standard contains the minimum job 

performance requirements including the 

requisite knowledge and skills to 

perform structural firefighting duties for 

career and volunteer fire fighters 

through two progressive levels of 

qualification. 

NFPA 1002, Standard for Fire 

Apparatus Driver/Operator Professional 

Qualifications, 2017 ed. (Document ID 

0140)—This standard contains the 

minimum job performance requirements 

including the requisite knowledge and 

skills to drive and operate fire apparatus 

for career and volunteer fire fighters and 

fire brigade personnel. The standard 

differentiates requirements based on the 

type of apparatus driven such as 

pumper, aerial, aerial with tiller, water 

tender, and others. 

NFPA 1005, Standard for Professional 

Qualifications for Marine Fire Fighting 

for Land-Based Fire Fighters, 2019 ed. 

(Document ID 0136)—This standard 

contains the minimum job performance 

requirements including the requisite 

knowledge and skills to perform marine 

fire fighting for land-based fire fighters. 

NFPA 1006, Standard for Technical 

Rescue Personnel Professional 

Qualifications, 2021 ed. (Document ID 

0149)—This standard contains the 

minimum job performance requirements 

including the requisite knowledge and 

skills to perform technical rescue 

operations for twenty different rescue 

scenarios for fire service and other 

emergency responders who perform 

these operations. 

NFPA 1021, Standard for Fire Officer 

Professional Qualifications, 2020 ed. 

(Document ID 0144)—This standard 

contains the minimum job performance 

requirements including the requisite 

knowledge and skills to perform fire 

officer duties through four progressive 

levels of qualification. 

NFPA 1081, Standard for Facility Fire 

Brigade Member Professional 

Qualifications, 2018 ed. (Document ID 

0134)—This standard contains the 

minimum job performance requirements 

including the requisite knowledge and 

skills to perform fire brigade operations 

from incipient facility fire brigade 

member through fire brigade leader, and 

also fire brigade training coordinator, 

and support member. 

NFPA 1140, Standard for Wildland 

Fire Protection, 2022 ed. (Document ID 

0153)—This standard contains 

requirements for wildland fire 

management as well as the job 

performance requirements including the 

requisite knowledge and skills to 

perform wildland fire positions. 

Included in the standard are 

requirements for fighting wildland/ 

urban interface fires. 

NFPA 1407, Standard for Training 

Fire Service Rapid Intervention Crews, 

2020 ed. (Document ID 0143)—This 

standard contains requirements for 

training fire service personnel to safely 

perform rapid intervention operations to 

rescue firefighters who become lost, 

injured, trapped, incapacitated, or 

disoriented at an emergency scene or 

during training operations. 

NFPA 1582, Standard on 

Comprehensive Occupational Medical 

Program for Fire Departments, 2022 ed. 

(Document ID 0118)—This standard 

contains provisions for an occupational 

medical program that is designed to 

reduce risks and provide for the health, 

safety, and effectiveness of fire fighters 

while performing emergency operations. 

NFPA 1910, Standard for the 

Inspection, Maintenance, 

Refurbishment, Testing, and Retirement 

of In-Service Emergency Vehicles and 

Marine Firefighting Vessels, 2024 ed. 

(Document ID 0151)—This standard 

contains requirements for establishing 

an inspection, maintenance, 

refurbishment, retirement, and testing 

program for emergency service vehicles 

and marine firefighting vessels and 

provides the minimum job performance 

requirements including the requisite 

knowledge and skills for emergency 

vehicle technicians. 

NFPA 1951, Standard on Protective 

Ensembles for Technical Rescue 

Incidents, 2020 ed. (Document ID 

0347)—This standard specifies the 

minimum design, performance, testing, 

and certification requirements for utility 

technical rescue, rescue and recovery 

technical rescue, and chemical, 

biological, radiological, and nuclear 

(CBRN) technical rescue protective 

ensembles including garments, helmets, 

gloves, footwear, interface, and eye and 

face protection. 

NFPA 1952, Standard on Surface 

Water Operations Protective Clothing 

and Equipment, 2021 ed. (Document ID 

0348)—This standard specifies the 

minimum design, performance, testing, 

and certification requirements for 

protective clothing and equipment 

items, including full body suits, 

helmets, gloves, footwear, and personal 

flotation devices designed to provide 

limited protection from physical, 

environmental, thermal, and certain 

common chemical and biological 

hazards for emergency services 

personnel during surface water, swift 

water, tidal water, surf, and ice 

operations. 

NFPA 1953, Standard on Protective 

Ensembles for Contaminated Water 

Diving, 2021 ed. (Document ID 0349)— 

This standard specifies the minimum 

design, performance, testing, and 

certification requirements for protective 

clothing and protective equipment used 

during operations in contaminated 

water dive operations. 

NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective 

Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting 

and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2018 ed. 

(Document ID 0350)—This standard 

specifies the minimum design, 

performance, testing, and certification 

requirements for structural and 

proximity firefighting protective 

ensembles and ensemble elements. 

NFPA 1977, Standard on Protective 

Clothing and Equipment for Wildland 

Fire Fighting and Urban Interface Fire 

Fighting, 2022 ed. (Document ID 

0351)—This standard specifies the 

minimum design, performance, testing, 

and certification requirements for items 

of wildland fire fighting and 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 


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, 

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, 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7795 

have been taught in the fire service for 

decades and that support changes 

needed in structural fire-fighting 

strategy, tactics, and tasks. 

NFPA 1710, Standard for the 

Organization and Deployment of Fire 

Suppression Operations, Emergency 

Medical Operations, and Special 

Operations to the Public by Career Fire 

Departments, 2020 ed. (Document ID 

0146)—This standard contains 

requirements for the organization and 

deployment of fire suppression 

operations, emergency medical 

operations, and special operations to the 

served community by career fire 

departments. The standard also contains 

system requirements for health and 

safety, incident management, training, 

communications, and pre-incident 

planning. 

NFPA 1720, Standard for the 

Organization and Deployment of Fire 

Suppression Operations, Emergency 

Medical Operations, and Special 

Operations to the Public by Volunteer 

Fire Departments, 2020 ed. (Document 

ID 0142)—This standard contains 

requirements for the organization and 

deployment of fire suppression 

operations, emergency medical 

operations, and special operations to the 

served community by volunteer and 

combination fire departments. The 

standard also contains system 

requirements for health and safety, 

incident management, training, 

communications, and pre-incident 

planning. 

NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection, 

Care, and Maintenance of Protective 

Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting 

and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2020 ed. 

(Document ID 0346)—This standard 

contains requirements for the selection, 

care, and maintenance structural and 

proximity fire fighter protective 

ensembles and the individual ensemble 

elements that include garments, 

helmets, gloves, footwear, and interface 

components. 

NFPA 2500, Standard for Operations 

and Training for Technical Search and 

Rescue Incidents and Life Safety Rope 

and Equipment for Emergency Services, 

2022 ed. (Document ID 0152)—This 

standard contains requirements for 

conducting operations at a wide range of 

technical search and rescue incidents; 

for the design, performance, testing, and 

certification of life safety rope and other 

search and rescue equipment; and for 

the selection, care, and maintenance of 

rope and search and rescue equipment 

for emergency services. 

As noted in the SBAR Panel Report, 

during the teleconferences and in 

written public comments several SERs 

expressed concern with the potential 

expense of time and money in having to 

comply with the provisions in NFPA 

standards (Document ID 0115, pp. 16– 

17/370; 18/370; 21/370; 33/370; 57–58/ 

370). In Question II. C, OSHA is seeking 

input on the potential impacts of 

incorporating by reference of various 

NFPA standards, and how equivalency 

or consistency could be achieved if the 

NFPA standards were not incorporated 

by reference. NFPA makes their 

standards available to be viewed 

without cost at https://www.nfpa.org/ 

Codes-and-Standards/All-Codes-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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7796 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

3Pursuant 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). 

4Under the Act the term ‘‘State’’ includes a State 

of the United States, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, 

and Guam (29 U.S.C. 652(7)). The Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands is also a State 

because the covenant establishing the 

Commonwealth provides that generally applicable 

Federal laws which apply to Guam also apply to the 

Commonwealth as they do to Guam. Article V, 

section 502(a), Covenant to Establish a 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in 

Political Union with the United States of America. 

Public Law 94–24, 90 Stat. 263 (Mar. 24, 1976). 

Thus, because Guam is a State under the OSH Act 

so is the Commonwealth. 

therefore whether the standard would 

apply to that worker’s ESO, does not 

depend on the label assigned by the 

ESO. The following discussion lays out 

the relevant legal principles governing 

employment status under the OSH Act. 

For a more detailed discussion of how 

OSHA expects these principles to apply 

in the context of this proposed standard, 

see the Summary and Explanation for 

paragraph (a), Scope, under the heading 

Coverage for Volunteers. 

The Act defines an ‘‘employee’’ as ‘‘an 

employee of an employer who is 

employed in a business of his employer 

which affects commerce’’ (29 U.S.C. 

652(6)). Because this definition is 

circular, courts apply the test for 

employee status enunciated in 

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 

U.S. 318, 322–23 (1992) (see Quinlan v. 

Secretary, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.3d 

832, 836 (11th Cir. 2016); Slingluff v. 

Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Comm’n, 425 F.3d 861, 867–68 (10th 

Cir. 2005)). In Darden the Supreme 

Court set forth the following test for 

employee status: ‘‘In determining 

whether a hired party is an employee 

under the general common law of 

agency, we consider the hiring party’s 

right to control the manner and means 

by which the product is accomplished’’ 

(Id. at 323) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). The Court went on to list a 

number of factors which relate to the 

right to control (Id.). 

The Darden Court’s use of the phrase 

‘‘hired party’’ indicates that an essential 

prerequisite for employee status is that 

the worker receive some form of 

compensation for services performed 

(see also N.L.R.B. v. Town & Country 

Elec., Inc., 516 U.S. 85, 90 (1995) (‘‘The 

ordinary dictionary definition of 

‘employee’ includes any ‘person who 

works for another in return for financial 

or other compensation.’ American 

Heritage Dictionary 604 (3d ed. 1992).’’) 

(emphasis added). Accordingly, seven 

Federal courts of appeals have adopted 

the so-called threshold remuneration 

test (Acosta v. Cathedral Buffet, Inc., 

887 F.3d 761, 766–67 (6th Cir. 2018); 

Juino v. Livingston Parish Fire Dist. No. 

5, 717 F.3d 431, 435–40 (5th Cir. 2013); 

Pietras v. Bd. of Fire Comm’rs of 

Farmingville Fire Dist., 180 F.3d 468 (2d 

Cir. 1999) (firefighter regarded as 

employee despite being called a 

volunteer because of benefits received); 

McGuinness v. Univ. of N.M. Sch. of 

Med., 170 F.3d 974, 979 (10th Cir. 

1998); Llampallas v. Mini–Circuits Lab, 

Inc., 163 F.3d 1236, 1243–44 (11th Cir. 

1998); Haavistola v. Cmty. Fire Co. of 

Rising Sun, Inc., 6 F.3d 211, 220–21 (4th 

Cir. 1993); Graves v. Women’s Prof’l 

Rodeo Ass’n, Inc., 907 F.2d 71, 73 (8th 

Cir. 1990)). Only one Federal court of 

appeals does not require a showing of 

compensation to find employee status 

(Fichman v. Media Center, 512 F.3d 

1157, 110 (9th Cir. 2008)). 

Remuneration may be direct 

remuneration, i.e., salary or wages, or 

significant indirect benefits that are not 

incidental to the service performed, i.e., 

job-related benefits (Juino, 717 F.3d at 

437; Pietras, 180 F.3d at 473; 

Haavistola, 6 F.3d at 221–22). For 

example, significant indirect benefits 

may consist of a retirement pension, life 

insurance, death benefits, disability 

insurance, and some medical benefits 

(Pietras, 180 F.3d at 471). Similarly, the 

provision of food, clothing, shelter, and 

other in-kind benefits may be significant 

remuneration (see Tony and Susan 

Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of 

Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 292, 299–303 

(interpreting ‘‘employee’’ under the Fair 

Labor Standards Act); but see Fichman, 

512 F.3d at 1160 (travel reimbursements 

and food at board meetings insufficient 

to render board member of nonprofit 

organization an employee under related 

test for determining employee status of 

directors)). Minor incidental benefits do 

not suffice to meet the threshold 

remuneration test (see Juino, 717 F.3d at 

339–440 (receipt of $78 for 39 service 

calls, life insurance, uniform, badge, 

and emergency/first responders training 

do not suffice)). 

In addition to these principles, 

volunteer emergency responders may be 

deemed employees under State law in 

States with occupational safety and 

health plans approved by OSHA under 

section 18 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 667). 

See the Summary and Explanation of 

paragraph (a), Scope, for further 

discussion on this issue. 

II. Private-Sector Coverage 

With the exception of the United 

States Postal Service, occupational 

safety and health standards issued 

under section 6 of the OSH Act apply 

only to private-sector employers.3 They 

do not apply to any ‘‘State or a political 

subdivision of a State’’ 4 (29 U.S.C. 

652(5)). Accordingly, this proposed 

standard would not apply to any State 

or local government entities determined 

to be a political subdivision of a State. 

Note, however, that States with 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7797 

court found that the Society was not a 

political subdivision within the 

meaning of the OSH Act, despite its 

contract with a local forest preserve 

district, a governmental entity. 

Similarly, in Tricil Resources v. Brock, 

842 F.2d 141 (6th Cir. 1988), a private 

for-profit corporation which had a 

contract with a city and none of whose 

board members were appointed or 

subject to removal by the city was not 

a political subdivision within the 

meaning of the Act. Thus, as a general 

rule, if a majority of the board of 

directors of an entity are not subject to 

selection or removal by public officials 

or the general electorate, the entity for 

that reason fails the second test for 

being a political subdivision (see 

StarTran, 608 F.3d at 323). OSHA will 

consider these factors in determining 

whether the proposed standard applies 

to a particular entity. 

C. General Requirements for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Standards 

A safety or health standard is a 

standard which requires conditions, or 

the adoption or use of one or more 

practices, means, methods, operations, 

or processes ‘‘reasonably necessary or 

appropriate’’ to provide safe or healthful 

employment and places of employment 

(29 U.S.C. 652(8)). A standard is 

reasonably necessary or appropriate 

within the meaning of section 652(8) 

when a significant risk of material harm 

exists in the workplace and the standard 

would substantially reduce or eliminate 

that workplace risk (see Indus. Union 

Dep’t, AFL–CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 

448 U.S. 607 (1980) (‘‘Benzene’’)). 

The Supreme Court in Benzene 

clarified that ‘‘[i]t is the agency’s 

responsibility to determine, in the first 

instance, what it considers to be a 

‘significant’ risk’’ (Benzene, 448 U.S. at 

655). The Court declined to ‘‘express 

any opinion on the . . . difficult 

question of what factual determinations 

would warrant a conclusion that 

significant risks are present which make 

promulgation of a new standard 

reasonably necessary or appropriate’’ 

(Id. at 659). The Court stated, however, 

that the substantial evidence standard 

applicable to OSHA’s significant risk 

determination (see 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(f)) 

does not require the agency ‘‘to support 

its finding that a significant risk exists 

with anything approaching scientific 

certainty’’ (Benzene, 448 U.S. at 656). 

Rather, OSHA may rely on ‘‘a body of 

reputable scientific thought’’ to which 

‘‘conservative assumptions in 

interpreting the data’’ may be applied, 

‘‘risking error on the side of 

overprotection’’ (Id.). The D.C. Circuit 

has further explained that OSHA may 

thus act with a pronounced bias towards 

worker safety in making its risk 

determinations (Bldg & Constr. Trades 

Dep’t v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1266 

(D.C. Cir. 1988) (‘‘Asbestos II’’)). 

The Supreme Court further 

recognized that the determination of 

what constitutes ‘‘significant risk’’ is 

‘‘not a mathematical straitjacket’’ and 

will be ‘‘based largely on policy 

considerations’’ (Benzene, 448 U.S. at 

655 & n.62). The Court gave the 

following example: ‘‘If . . . the odds are 

one in a billion that a person will die 

from cancer by taking a drink of 

chlorinated water, the risk clearly could 

not be considered significant. On the 

other hand, if the odds are one in a 

thousand that regular inhalation of 

gasoline vapors that are 2% benzene 

will be fatal, a reasonable person might 

well consider the risk significant[.]’’ (Id. 

at 655). 

In addition to the requirement that 

each standard address a significant risk, 

standards must also be technologically 

feasible (see UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 

665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). A standard is 

technologically feasible when the 

protective measures it requires already 

exist, when available technology can 

bring the protective measures into 

existence, or when that technology is 

reasonably likely to develop (see Am. 

Iron and Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 

975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). 

Finally, a standard must be 

economically feasible (see Forging 

Indus. Ass’n v. Secretary of Labor, 773 

F.2d 1436, 1453 (4th Cir. 1985)). A 

standard is economically feasible if 

industry can absorb or pass on the costs 

of compliance without threatening its 

long-term profitability or competitive 

structure (see American Textile Mfrs. 

Inst., Inc., 452 U.S. 490, 530 n. 55 

(‘‘Cotton Dust’’)). Each of these 

requirements is discussed further below. 

D. Special Considerations for Health 

Standards 

The proposed standard deals in part 

with the exposure of firefighters, 

emergency medical service providers, 

and technical rescuers to toxic 

substances. Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 

provides that in promulgating standards 

dealing with ‘‘toxic materials or harmful 

physical agents,’’ the Secretary ‘‘shall 

set the standard which most adequately 

assures, to the extent feasible, on the 

basis of the best available evidence, that 

no employee will suffer material 

impairment of health or functional 

capacity even if such employee has 

regular exposure to the hazard dealt 

with by such standard for the period of 

his working life’’ (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5)). 

Thus, ‘‘[w]hen Congress passed the 

[OSH] Act in 1970, it chose to place 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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))). 

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 

reasonably be expected to be developed 

(Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272; Amer. Iron & 

Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 

(D.C. Cir. 1991) (‘‘Lead II’’)). Courts have 

also interpreted technological feasibility 

to mean that a typical firm in each 

affected industry or application group 

will reasonably be able to implement 

the requirements of the standard in most 

operations most of the time (see Public 

Citizen v. OSHA, 557 F.3d 165, 170–71 

(3d Cir. 2009); Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272; 

Lead II, 939 F.2d at 990)). OSHA’s 

standards may be ‘‘technology forcing,’’ 

i.e., where the agency gives an industry 

a reasonable amount of time to develop 

new technologies, OSHA is not bound 

by the ‘‘technological status quo’’ (Lead 

I, 647 F.2d at 1264). 

II. Economic Feasibility 

In addition to technological 

feasibility, OSHA is required to 

demonstrate that its standards are 

economically feasible. A reviewing 

court will examine the cost of 

compliance with an OSHA standard ‘‘in 

relation to the financial health and 

profitability of the industry and the 

likely effect of such costs on unit 

consumer prices’’ (Lead I, 647 F.2d at 

1265 (omitting citation)). As articulated 

by the D.C. Circuit in Lead I, ‘‘OSHA 

must construct a reasonable estimate of 

compliance costs and demonstrate a 

reasonable likelihood that these costs 

will not threaten the existence or 

competitive structure of an industry, 

even if it does portend disaster for some 

marginal firms’’ (647 F.2d at 1272). A 

reasonable estimate entails assessing 

‘‘the likely range of costs and the likely 

effects of those costs on the industry’’ 

(Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1266). OSHA 

standards satisfy the economic 

feasibility criterion even if they impose 

significant costs on regulated industries 

so long as they do not cause massive 

economic dislocations within a 

particular industry or imperil the very 

existence of the industry (Lead II, 939 

F.2d at 980; see also Lead I, 647 F.2d at 

1272; Asbestos I, 499 F.2d. at 478). 

IV. Issues and Questions 

OSHA is providing this issues and 

questions section to solicit stakeholder 

input on various issues associated with 

the proposed rule. While OSHA invites 

stakeholders to comment on all aspects 

of this proposal, this section identifies 

specific areas of interest to the agency. 

OSHA is including certain issues and 

questions in this section to assist 

stakeholders as they review the proposal 

and consider the comments they plan to 

submit. However, to fully understand 

the questions, and to provide 

substantive input and feedback in 

response to them, the agency suggests 

commenters review the other sections of 

the preamble that address these issues 

in detail. Some issues and options that 

have cost implications are discussed 

more thoroughly in the Preliminary 

Economic Analysis and Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Section 

VII.). 

It should be noted that the proposed 

regulatory text provided at the end of 

this document would completely 

replace the existing regulatory text for 

29 CFR 1910.156, Fire Brigades. 

Comments addressing more than one 

section or paragraph should include all 

relevant references. Submitting 

comments in an organized manner with 

clear reference to the issue(s) raised will 

enable the agency and all participants to 

better understand the issues the 

commenter addressed and how they 

addressed them. Some commenters may 

confine their interest (and comments) to 

the issues that specifically affect them; 

correspondingly they will benefit from 

being able to quickly identify comments 

on these issues in others’ submissions. 

While the agency welcomes relevant 

comments on any aspect of this 

proposal, OSHA is interested in 

responses, supported by evidence and 

explanations, to the following issues 

and questions, and to other issues and 

questions raised in this document. 

A. Scope 

OSHA recognizes that many 

emergency responders, particularly 

firefighters, emergency medical service 

providers, and technical search and 

rescuers, are referred to as ‘‘volunteers.’’ 

The OSH Act applies to employers, as 

defined in 29 U.S.C. 652(5), who have 

employees, 29 U.S.C. 652(6), and does 

not cover true volunteers. However, 

some workers labeled as volunteers may 

actually be considered employees under 

Federal law because they receive a 

certain level of compensation, which 

may include the direct payment of 

money or other types of remuneration 

(see Pertinent Legal Authority, section 

III of this preamble). Therefore, any 

emergency responders who are referred 

to as volunteers but receive ‘‘significant 

remuneration’’ within the meaning of 

Federal law would be included within 

the scope of this proposed rule as 

employees. OSHA believes that 

volunteer emergency responders rarely 

receive compensation substantial 

enough to render them employees under 

this ‘‘significant remuneration’’ legal 

test and thus OSHA does not expect that 

many emergency responders will fall 

into this category. Additionally, OSHA 

notes that this rulemaking will not in 

any way alter the existing legal 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7799 

requirements under Federal law on this 

issue. Accordingly, all volunteer 

emergency responders who are 

currently excluded from coverage under 

the OSH Act should expect that they 

will continue to be excluded from the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

B. State Plans 

OSHA also recognizes that among the 

States with OSHA-approved State Plans 

there is variability as to whether 

volunteer emergency responders are 

classified as employees under state law. 

Regardless of state law, should there be 

any ‘‘volunteers’’ who receive 

‘‘significant remuneration’’ such that 

they would be considered employees 

under Federal law (see Section III. 

Pertinent Legal Authority, B. Coverage), 

State Plans would be required to cover 

those employees as part of their 

obligation to promulgate a standard that 

is ‘‘at least as effective’’ as the Federal 

standard. 29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2). As noted 

above, OSHA believes this would be 

rare. 

In addition, some States with 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 

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 

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 


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. 

(k)–2. OSHA is seeking input 

regarding whether and how WEREs and 

ESOs currently provide separation and 

distinction of PPE and non-PPE 

equipment that have not undergone 

gross decontamination. 

(k)–3. OSHA is seeking information 

on whether there is evidence of per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in 

PPE causing health issues for team 

members and responders. 

(k)–4. OSHA is seeking input on 

whether the scheduled updates to NFPA 

1971 will address or alleviate 

stakeholder’s concerns about PFAS in 

PPE. 

(l)–1. OSHA is seeking information on 

whether there are any other situations or 

vehicles where OSHA should require, or 

exclude, the use of seat belts and 

vehicle harnesses. If so, please explain. 

(l)–2. OSHA is seeking input on how 

compliance with (l)(2)(iii) would be 

achieved in situations where PPE must 

be donned enroute to an incident. 

Would the team members or responders 

stop enroute or wait until arrival at the 

scene? 

(l)–3. OSHA is seeking input on 

whether it should also require that 

patients be restrained during transport 

to prevent an unrestrained patient from 

being thrown into a team member or 

responder in the event of a vehicle 

collision or an evasive driving 

maneuver. 

(o)–1. OSHA is seeking input about 

WERE and ESO current use of an IMS, 

whether the NIMS and NRF were used 

as guidance for the IMS, and if there are 

any concerns with being compatible 

with NIMS. 

(o)–2. OSHA is seeking input on 

which aspects of an IMS are the most 

effective and the least effective in 

protecting the safety and health of team 

members and responders. Commenters 

should explain how and why certain 

IMS components are or are not effective. 

(p)–1. OSHA is seeking stakeholder 

input on current practices for 

identifying and communicating the 

various control zone boundaries. What 

marking methods are used? How are 

they communicated to team members 

and responders? Do the marking 

methods help or hinder on-scene 

operations? 

(q)–1. OSHA seeks input on whether 

the agency should include requirements 

for Standard Operating Procedures 

(SOPs) regarding protections against 

workplace violence for team members 

and responders, and for any data or 

documentation to support or refute 

potential requirements. OSHA notes 

that its regulatory agenda includes a 

separate rulemaking addressing 

workplace violence against health care 

workers. While OSHA has not 

published a proposed rule in that 

rulemaking, OSHA welcomes comments 

on whether violence against emergency 

responders should be addressed in a 

potential Emergency Response final rule 

in addition to that Workplace Violence 

rulemaking, instead of in that 

rulemaking, or primarily in that other 

rulemaking. 

(r)–1. OSHA is considering adding a 

requirement to permit team members, 

responders, and their representative to 

be involved in the review and 

evaluation of the relevant plans as part 

of the Post-Incident Analysis and would 

like stakeholder input on whether to 

add this requirement. 

D. Additional Issues 

I. Aligned Organizations 

The scope of the proposed rule 

focuses on employers whose employees 

respond to emergency incidents to 

mitigate the incidents. OSHA believes 

that some employees of aligned 

employers face similar hazards to those 

who mitigate incidents. For instance, 

while some jurisdictions have their own 

fire investigators as part of the fire 

department, many more depend on 

State Fire Marshal’s office employees to 

respond to incident scenes to conduct 

fire investigations. However, these 

agencies may not provide a firefighting 

service. Similarly, many jurisdictions 

have instructors and training facilities 

directly within the emergency service 

organization. However, many more 

depend on other organizations for 

training such private entities or 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7801 

workplace, OSHA is proposing to 

update the standard to include Class K 

portable extinguishers and wet chemical 

agents. OSHA is seeking stakeholder 

input and data regarding whether the 

agency should consider updating the 

standard to improve consistency with a 

version of the national consensus 

standard, NFPA 10, Standard for 

Portable Fire Extinguishers, that is 

current when the final rule is being 

developed. 

III. Heat 

OSHA is in the preliminary stages of 

developing a proposed rule for Heat 

Illness Prevention in Outdoor and 

Indoor Work Settings (for additional 

information, see https://www.osha.gov/ 

heat-exposure/rulemaking). OSHA 

recognizes that emergency response 

workers must perform their duties 

regardless of the outdoor environmental 

conditions. However, some activities, 

such as exercising for physical fitness 

and vocational training could be 

modified based on external 

temperatures. OSHA is seeking 

stakeholder input and supporting 

documentation on whether it should 

include requirements for operating in 

external environments with elevated 

temperature in situations that are not 

emergency incidents. 

IV. Consensus Standards 

OSHA is seeking input on the 

potential impacts of incorporating by 

reference of various NFPA standards, 

and how equivalency or consistency 

could be achieved if the NFPA 

standards were not incorporated by 

reference. 

OSHA recognizes that organizations 

such as the National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group (NCWG) develop 

standards applicable to their member 

organizations, and other organizations 

who perform wildland firefighting 

services. OSHA seeks input on whether 

standards such as those developed by 

NWCG should be considered equivalent 

to various provisions in the proposed 

rule; particularly those related to 

policies and procedures, personal 

protective equipment, and medical 

evaluation and surveillance 

requirements. Are there standards for 

other ‘‘specialty or non-structural’’ types 

of firefighting that OSHA should 

consider? Commenters should provide 

supporting data, documents, and 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 

compliance, compliance obligations 

begin on the effective date of a final 

rule: 60 days after publication of the 

final rule. However, OSHA often allows 

regulated parties additional time to 

come into compliance with certain 

provisions of a standard that would 

require additional resources. Many of 

the provisions in the proposed rule are 

based on or consistent with current 

NFPA standards, which are considered 

to be the industry best practices for 

emergency services. As such, OSHA 

believes that most WEREs and ESOs that 

already meet the NFPA standards are 

likely to be close to complying with, or 

already compliant with, many 

provisions of the proposed rule. 

OSHA recognizes that some 

provisions can be implemented quickly, 

while others might take more time to 

phase in. So, the agency is proposing 

the following timelines for compliance 

with the specified paragraphs (the time 

period indicates the number of months 

past the rule’s effective date when 

compliance would be required): 

—(c) and (d)—6 months 

—(e)—2 months 

—(f)—6 months 

—(g)(1), (4)—6 months 

—(g)(2), (3), (5), (6)—12 months 

—(h)(1)—12 months 

—(h)(2) (3)—24 months 

—(i) and (j)—24 months 

—(k)(1)—12 months 

—(k)(2)(i), (vii) through (x), (k)(3)—6 

months 

—(k)(2)(ii) through (vi)—24 months 

—(l) through (q), and (s)—12 months 

—(r)—6 months 

OSHA is open to considering 

alternative compliance dates for the 

proposed standard and seeks input on 

what reasonable implementation 

periods would be for specific provisions 

and why. The agency is also interested 

if extended compliance timelines would 

be particularly helpful to small and/or 

volunteer organizations as a way of 

mitigating the impact of the rulemaking. 

V. Summary and Explanation of the 

Proposed Rule 

The following discussion, which 

tracks the proposed rule paragraph by 

paragraph, summarizes the proposed 

rule’s requirements and explains how 

and why OSHA determined what those 

requirements would be. This section 

covers the comments received in 

response to the 2007 RFI, public input 

from the stakeholder meetings held in 

2014, comments from the NACOSH 

subcommittee members, small entity 

representative comments as part of the 

2021 SBREFA process, and research 

conducted by OSHA. References in 

parentheses are to exhibits in the 

rulemaking record, as noted in the 

Docket paragraph above in ADDRESSES. 

These references are not meant to be 

exhaustive but are examples of sources 

that are relevant to the statements made 

in the preamble discussion. 

As noted in section II., Background, 

earlier in this preamble, section 6(b)(8) 

of the OSH Act requires OSHA to adopt 

existing consensus standards or explain 

why a rule which deviates substantially 

from a pertinent national consensus 

standard better effectuates the purposes 

of the Act. In most cases the proposed 

standard is aligned with the language of 

a national consensus standard, and the 

Summary and Explanation so indicates. 

While OSHA intends to incorporate by 

reference some portions of several 

different consensus standards, it has 

preliminarily determined that in some 

cases deviating from pertinent 

consensus standards will better 

effectuate the purposes of the Act. 

In the RFI, OSHA solicited input 

regarding the types of emergency 

response activities, emergency 

responders (called team members and 

responders in the proposed rule), and 

organizations that should be covered by 

a potential rule. Firefighting, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 Respiratory 

Protection 

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. 

C. Section 1910.155 Scope, 

Application and Definitions Applicable 

to This Subpart 

Definitions for terms in subpart L-Fire 

Protection are provided in 29 CFR 

1910.155. Terms used in the proposed 

rule are defined therein. The new terms 

proposed coincide with the updates to 

other subpart L standards proposed 

herein and are consistent with those 

recognized within the industry. OSHA 

is proposing to add the following 

definitions: 

Class K fire means a fire in a cooking 

appliance involving animal oils, 

vegetable oils, or fats. 

Clean agent means an extinguishing 

agent that is odorless, colorless, 

electrically non-conducive, and leaves 

no residue. 

Halogenated agent means a liquified 

gas extinguishing agent that chemically 

interrupts the combustion reaction 

between the fuel and oxygen to 

extinguish fires. 

Wet chemical means an aqueous 

solution of organic or inorganic salts, or 

a combination thereof, that forms an 

extinguishing agent. 

Wetting agent means a concentrate 

mixed with water that reduces the 

surface tension of the water which 

increases its ability to spread and 

penetrate, thus extending the efficiency 

of the watering extinguishing fires. 

OSHA is also proposing to delete from 

29 CFR 1910.155 definitions needed for 

terms used in the current Fire Brigades 

standard but not used in the proposed 

rule. The definitions proposed to be 

removed are those for Afterflame, 

Buddy-breathing device, Enclosed 

structure, Fire brigade, Flame 

resistance, Helmet, Lining, Outer shell, 

Positive-pressure breathing apparatus, 

Quick disconnect valve, and Vapor 

barrier. These terms are not used in any 

other subpart L standards. 

D. Section 1910.156 Emergency 

Response 

Paragraph (a) Scope 

Proposed paragraph (a) establishes the 

scope of general industry employers that 

would be covered by the proposed rule. 

The proposed rule would not include 

employers engaged in activities and 

operations regulated by OSHA’s 

construction, maritime, and agriculture 

standards. The existing Fire Brigades 

standard, 29 CFR 1910.156, applies to 

employers in general industry that have 

or establish ‘‘fire brigades, industrial fire 

departments, and private or contractual 

type fire departments’’ (29 CFR 

1910.156 (a)(2)). The scope of the 

proposed rule is larger, expanding 

beyond employers who provide only 

firefighting services to include 

employers that provide other emergency 

services, such as pre-hospital EMS and 

technical search and rescue services. In 

addition, the proposed rule would 

impact public and municipal fire 

departments and other emergency 

response employers in States with 

OSHA-approved State Plans, as 

explained in section VIII.G., 

Requirements for States with OSHA 

Approved State Plans. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) provides 

that the proposed rule would apply to 

employers that have a workplace 

emergency response team as defined in 

paragraph (b) of this section. The 

employees on the team, as a collateral 

duty to their regular daily work 

assignments, respond to emergency 

incidents to provide services such as 

firefighting, emergency medical service, 

and technical search and rescue. For the 

purposes of this section, this type of 

employer is called a Workplace 

Emergency Response Employer (WERE), 

the team is called a Workplace 

Emergency Response Team (WERT), and 

the employees assigned to the team are 

called team members. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) provides 

that the proposed rule would also apply 

to employers that are emergency service 

organizations as defined in paragraph 

(b) of this section, namely those that 

provide one or more of the following 

emergency services as a primary 

function: firefighting, EMS, and 

technical search and rescue; or the 

employees perform emergency service(s) 

as a primary duty for the employer. For 

the purposes of this section, this type of 

employer is called an Emergency 

Service Organization (ESO), and the 

employees and members are called 

responders. The term ESO encompasses 

entities who pay their employees, 

entities with volunteers, and entities 

whose members are a combination of 

paid and volunteer. Similarly, OSHA 

uses the term responders to encompass 

both those who are paid employees of 

an ESO and those who are volunteer 

members of an ESO. 

I. Coverage of Volunteers 

OSHA recognizes that many 

emergency responders, particularly 

firefighters and EMTs, are referred to as 

‘‘volunteers.’’ The OSH Act applies to 

employers who have employees, 29 

U.S.C. 652(5), and does not cover true 

volunteers. However, workers who are 

labeled as volunteers actually are 

occasionally considered employees 

under Federal law because they receive 

a certain amount of compensation, 

which may be money or other types of 

remuneration (see Section III. Pertinent 

Legal Authority). Therefore, any 

emergency responders who are referred 

to as volunteers but receive ‘‘significant 

remuneration’’ within the meaning of 

Federal law would be included within 

the scope of this proposed rule as 

employees. OSHA believes that 

volunteer emergency responders rarely 

receive compensation substantial 

enough to render them employees under 

this ‘‘significant remuneration’’ test and 

thus OSHA does not expect that many 

emergency responders will fall into this 

category. Additionally, OSHA notes that 

nothing in this rulemaking will in any 

way alter the existing requirements of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7803 

Federal law on this issue. Accordingly, 

all volunteer emergency responders who 

are currently excluded from coverage 

under the OSH Act should expect that 

they will continue to be excluded from 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

OSHA also recognizes that among the 

States with OSHA-approved State Plans 

there is variability as to whether 

volunteer emergency responders are 

classified as employees under state law. 

Regardless of state law, should there be 

any ‘‘volunteers’’ who receive 

‘‘significant remuneration’’ such that 

they would be considered employees 

under Federal law (see Section III. 

Pertinent Legal Authority, B. Coverage), 

State Plans would be required to cover 

those employees as part of their 

obligation to promulgate a standard ‘‘at 

least as effective’’ as the Federal 

standard. 29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2). 

In addition, some States with 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 

expressly cover volunteer emergency 

responders. In those States, how many 

emergency response organizations have 

workers who are called volunteers but 

who receive substantial benefits, such as 

a retirement pension, life and/or 

disability insurance, death benefits, or 

medical benefits; and as such may be 

considered employees within the 

meaning of Federal law? How many 

such workers do these organizations 

have and of what type(s) (fire, EMS, 

technical rescue)? Additionally, OSHA 

seeks similar input regarding inmate/ 

incarcerated workers. 

II. Coverage of Employees Who Perform 

Emergency Services as a Collateral Duty 

The existing Fire Brigades standard, 

29 CFR 1910.156, does not differentiate 

between employers whose workers 

perform emergency services as their 

primary duty and employers whose 

primary business operation is not an 

emergency service but who have 

workers who perform emergency service 

as a collateral duty, and not as their 

primary duty. Likewise, the existing 

standard does not differentiate between 

primary duty emergency service 

employees and collateral duty 

emergency service employees. 

While they are an important 

component in the overall community of 

emergency and first responders, the 

proposed rule would not apply to 

employees while engaged in law 

enforcement/crime prevention 

activities. The proposed rule would, 

however, apply to employers whose 

employees, in addition to performing 

law enforcement duties, also provide 

services such as firefighting, emergency 

medical service, or technical search and 

rescue. Employees engaged in these 

dual roles are sometimes known as 

Public Safety Officers, and the proposed 

rule would apply only with respect to 

when those employees provide services 

that do not qualify as law enforcement. 

For example, OSHA understands that 

many law enforcement employers have 

employees who are trained in some 

aspects of emergency medical care to 

attend to the public and fellow 

employees. They are excluded from the 

proposed rule when they arrive at an 

emergency scene to provide law 

enforcement duties such as traffic 

control or securing an area, but they 

would be covered by the rule if they 

then transport an injured person to a 

medical facility via a dedicated medical 

transport vehicle such as an ambulance 

or helicopter. Additionally, some 

employers have employees who are 

trained in the use of ropes for law 

enforcement, such as a tactical response 

team using rope for tactical access to 

above- or below-grade locations as part 

of a hostage rescue operation. These 

employees would not be covered by the 

proposed rule during the hostage rescue. 

They would, however, be covered when 

they are designated to provide rope 

rescue during non-law enforcement 

activities, such as helping to secure a 

person who is trapped on a scaffold. 

III. WEREs and ESOs 

During the SBREFA teleconferences, 

SERs commented that the employees of 

employers whose primary business is 

emergency response are exposed to 

more hazards more frequently than the 

employees of employers that are not in 

the business of providing emergency 

services but require their workers to 

perform emergency response activities 

as a collateral duty to their primary 

work assignments. There was consensus 

from the SERs that OSHA should have 

fewer and/or less stringent requirements 

for the latter employers because of the 

less frequent exposure of their 

employees to emergency 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.’’ 


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 

rule, while those who do not provide a 

technical service are not within the 

scope. In Question (a)–4, OSHA is 

seeking input regarding what types and 

levels of search and rescue services and 

technical search and rescue services 

should be included or excluded from 

the rule, and the extent to which those 

inclusions or exclusions should be 

specifically listed. 

V. Skilled Support Workers 

As noted above, proposed paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) and (ii) indicate that this section 

applies to WEREs and ESOs. There are 

no proposed provisions for other 

employers. There are, however, some 

provisions related to skilled support 

workers who work for other employers. 

Proposed paragraph (b) defines skilled 

support worker as an employee of an 

employer whose primary function is not 

as an emergency service provider and 

who is skilled in certain tasks or 

disciplines that can support a WERT or 

ESO. The proposed rule would require 

WEREs and ESOs to provide protection 

for skilled support workers who work 

for other employers but are performing 

duties in support of the WERE and ESO 

activities on the emergency incident 

scene. These skilled support workers 

would operate under the direction of the 

Incident Commander (IC) or the Unified 

Command (UC) as provided in proposed 

paragraph (p)(10) of this section. 

For example, a WERT or ESO needs 

a backhoe and operator to dig through 

the rubble of a collapsed structure to 

complete extinguishment of fire but 

does not have a backhoe or operator. 

The WERT or ESO could arrange to use 

a backhoe and operator belonging to 

another employer. The backhoe operator 

would be considered a skilled support 

worker under the direction of the 

WERT’s or ESO’s IC, and thus within 

the scope of the proposed rule. But once 

the IC or the UC terminates the incident 

or the WERT or ESO leaves the location 

of the incident, the operator’s activities 

would no longer fall under the scope of 

the proposed rule. Note that other 

standards might apply to the operator’s 

work during this period; for example, if 

the operator were operating a crane, the 

crane standard would apply. 

On a larger scale such as a disaster 

site, skilled support workers who 

operated under the direction and 

control of the WERE’s or ESO’s IC or the 

UC might remain at the location to 

participate in disaster site clean-up and 

recovery efforts. Once the emergency 

nature of the incident has ended, 

however, skilled support workers would 

no longer be working under the 

direction of the WERE or ESO and the 

proposed rule would no longer apply to 

them. 

VI. Exclusions 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) ensures that 

employers are aware of activities that 

are not covered by the proposed rule. 

Paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the proposed rule 

explains that employers performing 

disaster site clean-up or recovery duties 

following natural disasters such as 

earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, and 

floods and human-made disasters such 

as explosions and transportation 

incidents would be excluded from the 

requirements of this section after 

emergency response activities have 

terminated. OSHA intends it to be clear 

that the proposed rule would not apply 

to clean-up and recovery operations 

once the emergency nature of an 

incident has ended. OSHA is seeking 

input in Question (a)–5 whether or not 

the agency should consider developing 

a separate rule for protecting workers 

involved in the clean-up of disaster 

sites, and associated recovery efforts? 

Why or why not? 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would 

specifically exclude activities covered 

by 29 CFR 1910.120 (Hazardous Waste 

Operations and Emergency Response 

(HAZWOPER)) and 29 CFR 1910.146 

(Permit-Required Confined Spaces in 

General Industry). In addition, OSHA 

notes that there are a number of other 

general industry OSHA standards that 

impose requirements on employers 

concerning emergency-type or related 

services. These include 29 CFR 1910.38, 

Emergency action plans; 29 CFR 

1910.157, Portable fire extinguishers; 29 

CFR 1910.151, Medical services and 

first aid; 29 CFR 1910.119, Process 

safety management of highly hazardous 

chemicals; and 29 CFR 1910.272, Grain 

handling facilities. While employees are 

engaged solely in activities subject to 

one or more of these other OSHA 

standards, OSHA intends that the 

protections of those standards apply 

instead of the protections of the 

proposed rule. So, if an emergency 

response employer limits its activities 

exclusively to activities covered by 

those other standards, it may not be 

subject to any provisions of this 

proposed rule. OSHA notes, however, 

that most employers engaged in 

activities covered by those other 

standards are likely to also engage in 

other emergency response activities and 

would therefore need to comply with 

the proposed standard in order to 

prepare for and respond to covered 

emergency incidents. 

OSHA’s intent is to avoid additional 

burden or inflicting overlapping or 

conflicting requirements on an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7805 

employer who only performs the 

activities identified in this proposed 

provision. In Question (a)–6, OSHA is 

seeking input on whether the agency 

should consider excluding other 

activities besides those listed in 

paragraph (a)(2)(ii). 

Paragraph (b) Definitions 

Proposed paragraph (b) defines terms 

that are applicable to proposed 29 CFR 

1910.156. OSHA drew from or based 

these definitions on other OSHA 

standards (e.g., 29 CFR 1910.120 and 

1910.134), FEMA’s guidance ‘‘National 

Incident Management System’’ (NIMS), 

and NFPA national consensus 

standards. To facilitate compliance, 

OSHA is using terms that are familiar to 

the emergency response community, 

and thus relies heavily on definitions 

already in use in the community. 

However, some terms currently in use 

have multiple interpretations. OSHA is 

providing definitions in its proposed 

rule to clearly provide the agency’s 

intended meaning of these terms. 

Additionally, OSHA is proposing to 

delete some definitions from existing 29 

CFR 1910.155 because the terms are 

only used in existing 29 CFR 1910.156, 

which would be replaced by the 

proposed rule. Specific changes to 29 

CFR 1910.155 are listed in the Proposed 

Amendments. 

OSHA based several definitions in 

this paragraph on the following NFPA 

standards: 

• NFPA 600, Standard on Facility Fire 

Brigades. 2020 Ed. (NFPA 600) 

• NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire 

Department Occupational Safety, 

Health, and Wellness Program. 2021 

Ed. (NFPA 1500) 

• NFPA 1561, Standard on Emergency 

Service Incident Management System 

and Command Safety. 2020 Ed. 

(NFPA 1561) 

• NFPA 1660, Standard for Emergency, 

Continuity, and Crisis Management: 

Preparedness, Response, and 

Recovery. 2024 Ed. (NFPA 1660) 

• NFPA 2500, Standard on Operations 

and Training for Technical Search 

and Rescue Incidents and Life Safety 

Rope and Equipment for Emergency 

Services. 2022 Ed. (NFPA 2500) 

• NFPA 1700, Guide for Structural Fire 

Fighting. 2021 Ed. (NFPA 1700) 

• NFPA 1710, Standard for the 

Organization and Deployment of Fire 

Suppression Operations, Emergency 

Medical Operations, and Special 

Operations to the Public by Career 

Fire Departments. 2020 Ed. (NFPA 

1710). 

The following definitions apply to 29 

CFR 1910.156: 

Combustion product. The proposed 

rule defines this term as the heat, 

volatized liquids and solids, particulate 

matter (microscopic and small 

unburned particles), ash, and toxic gases 

released as a result of combustion (fire). 

OSHA based the definition on the term 

in NFPA 1700. Smoke is a visible 

indicator of the presence of combustion 

products; however, combustion 

products may be present without visible 

smoke. OSHA believes exposure to 

combustion products is a leading cause 

for many illnesses among team members 

and responders. Exposure to 

combustion products is a significant 

factor for Workplace Emergency 

Response Employers (WEREs) and 

Emergency Service Organizations 

(ESOs) in developing their Risk 

Management Plan and when 

determining what medical evaluation 

and surveillance is needed for team 

members and responders. 

Community. The proposed rule 

defines this term as a state, region, 

municipality or portion thereof, such as 

a village, town, township, borough, city, 

county, or parish. This term and 

definition are used in conjunction with 

the term community vulnerability 

assessment. Community is a general 

term that is meant to encompass the 

geographic area where the ESO has a 

primary responsibility to provide 

emergency service(s); sometimes 

referred to as the first due area. OSHA 

recognizes that many ESOs are not 

limited by specific political boundaries 

to define their service community and 

that the community boundary between 

ESO facilities is often determined as the 

geographic midpoint between the ESO 

facilities, based on response times. 

Community vulnerability assessment. 

The proposed rule defines this term as 

the process of identifying, quantifying, 

and prioritizing the potential and 

known vulnerabilities of the overall 

community that may require emergency 

service from the ESO, including the 

community’s structures, inhabitants, 

infrastructure, organizations, and 

hazardous conditions or processes. The 

definition also indicates that the 

assessment is intended to include both 

human-created vulnerabilities and 

natural disasters. OSHA intends the 

assessment to be a systematic evaluation 

of the community to determine the 

impact that could be caused by potential 

emergency incidents, the severity of the 

impact, and the available or needed 

resources for mitigation. It would 

include risks and vulnerabilities 

associated with the prevailing 

residential structures and principal 

structures such as schools, colleges, and 

universities; hospitals and medical 

centers; large residential structures and 

hotels; transportation, manufacturing, 

processing, and warehousing facilities; 

and retail. It would also include an 

assessment of the community’s critical 

infrastructure such as available water 

supply, electric power generation and 

transmission, routine and emergency 

communication, and highways and 

railways. 

Control zone. The proposed rule 

defines this term as an area at an 

incident that is designated based upon 

safety and the degree of hazard to team 

members and responders. The definition 

also states that a control zone may be 

designated as cold, warm, hot, or 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 


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, 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7807 

incident objectives, strategy, and tactics 

necessary to manage an incident. The 

definition further states that the IAP is 

developed at the incident site and 

provides essential information for 

actionable incident organization, work 

assignments, management of resources, 

risk management, and team member or 

responder safety when operating at an 

incident. This definition is consistent 

with NFPA 1500 and NIMS. The IAP is 

developed by the Incident Commander 

(IC) and updated as needed throughout 

the incident. Because the IAP includes 

the information ‘‘necessary to manage 

the incident,’’ the form and level of 

detail of the IAP is dependent on the 

needs of the situation. In the initial 

stage of an incident, the IAP may be a 

simple plan, based on incomplete 

situational information, and 

communicated orally to team members 

and responders. Small-scale incidents 

may not need a written IAP or may only 

need to use something such as a fillable 

form, a white/wipe-off board, or a 

magnetic incident board. For a larger, 

complex, or long-duration incident, a 

more comprehensive IAP would likely 

need to be developed. 

Incident Commander (IC). The 

proposed rule defines this term as the 

team member or responder who fulfills 

the incident command function of the 

Incident Management System (IMS); 

who is responsible for the overall 

management of an incident and the 

safety of all team members or 

responders involved in the response; 

and who is responsible for all incident 

activities, including the development of 

strategies and tactics, the direction and 

control of all team members and 

responders at the incident, and the 

ordering and release of resources. This 

definition is consistent with NFPA 1710 

and NIMS. Proposed paragraph (o)(3) 

provides further clarification of the 

responsibilities of the IC, including 

front line management of the incident, 

overall incident safety, and planning 

and execution of intended tactics, and 

proposed paragraph (p)(2) contains 

additional specific requirements related 

to emergency incident operations. 

Depending on the WERE’s or ESO’s 

IMS, the team member or responder 

who serves in the role of the IC may 

vary. For instance, in a single unit 

response, the senior or ranking team 

member or responder would typically 

fulfill the role of IC. In a multiple unit 

response, often the senior or ranking 

team member or responder on the first 

arriving unit might serve at the initial IC 

until a higher-ranking team member or 

responder assumes the role. 

Incident Management System (IMS). 

The proposed rule defines this term as 

a system used for managing and 

directing incident scene operations and 

activities. The definition further states 

that the IMS includes establishing 

functions for managing incidents, 

describes the roles and responsibilities 

to be assumed by team members and 

responders, and standard operating 

procedures to be utilized. Incident 

command is a function of the IMS. The 

IMS would provide core concepts, 

principles, and terminology used by 

WEREs or ESOs, and provides for 

structure and coordination with other 

WEREs and ESOs for safely managing 

incidents. 

Incident Safety Officer (ISO). The 

proposed rule defines this term as the 

team member or responder at an 

incident scene who is responsible for 

monitoring and assessing safety hazards 

and unsafe situations and for 

developing measures for ensuring team 

member and responder safety. This term 

is based on NFPA 1521 and is consistent 

with the definition of safety officer in 

NIMS and other NFPA standards. The 

ISO is typically a member of the 

command staff responsible for advising 

the IC or Unified Command (UC) on 

matters related to operational safety, 

and the health and safety of team 

members and responders. The ISO 

monitors incident operations and 

modifies or stops the action(s) being 

performed to prevent unsafe acts. 

Incident scene. The proposed rule 

defines this term as the physical 

location where activities related to a 

specific incident are conducted. The 

definition goes on to state it includes 

nearby areas that are subject to 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 

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 


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 

complexity. OSHA expects that PLHCPs 

would only perform services within 

their area of expertise, as well as their 

license or certification, and would make 

referrals to a higher level or different 

area of expertise, as appropriate. 

Pre-incident plan (PIP). The proposed 

rule defines this term as a written 

document developed by gathering 

general and detailed data about a 

particular facility or location that is 

used by team members or responders in 

effectively and safely managing an 

emergency incident there. Specific 

requirements for WERE and ESO PIPs 

are set forth in paragraphs (m) and (n), 

respectively. A PIP is developed before 

an incident occurs and is intended to be 

used in the development of an IAP 

during an incident to aid in the safe 

mitigation of the incident. The term is 

consistent with NFPA 1660. The PIP 

provides crucial information to prepare 

WEREs and ESOs for emergency 

incidents and assists the IC with making 

informed decisions at the time of an 

emergency. 

Rapid intervention crew (RIC). The 

proposed rule defines this term as a 

group of at least two (2) team members 

or responders dedicated solely to serve 

as a stand-by rescue team available for 

the immediate search and rescue of any 

missing, trapped, injured or 

unaccounted-for team member(s) or 

responder(s). This crew must be fully 

equipped with the appropriate PPE and 

rescue equipment needed based on the 

specifics of the operation that is 

underway as required by paragraph 

(q)(2)(viii) of the proposed rule. OSHA 

based the definition on NFPA 1500. 

Responder. The proposed rule defines 

this term as an employee or member of 

an ESO who is, or will be, assigned to 

perform duties at emergency incidents. 

Some ESOs, especially those with 

volunteers, use the term member when 

referring to the people in their 

organizations. OSHA intends that the 

term responder in the proposed 

standard to be inclusive of both terms. 

Also, the term responder, as defined, 

excludes employees or volunteers who 

do not have emergency response duties, 

such as administrative staff who do not 

perform duties at emergency incident 

scenes. The proposed rule would not 

cover activities of these employees. 

Employees and members of public 

sector emergency response employers in 

states with OSHA-approved State Plans, 

who are regulated as employees by the 

State, are considered responders under 

this rulemaking. 

Size-up. The proposed rule defines 

this term as the observation and 

evaluation of the influencing factors at 

an incident used to determine the scope 

of the incident and to develop strategic 

goals and tactical objectives. The 

definition is consistent with NFPA 

1700. Many factors are involved in a 

size-up, beginning with the emergency 

dispatch center’s receipt of information 

and the need for emergency service, the 

dispatch of the appropriate service(s) to 

an incident, to the relay of information 

received. Factors involved in a size-up 

vary depending on the type of incident 

(fire, EMS, technical rescue), but as 

discussed in the Summary and 

Explanation of paragraph (p), all 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7809 

situation, training room with cots set up 

during inclement weather events, or a 

TV room with couches. 

Standard operating procedure (SOP). 

The proposed rule defines this term as 

a written directive that establishes a 

course of action or administrative 

method to be followed routinely and 

explains what is expected of team 

members or responders in performing 

the prescribed action, duty, or task. 

OSHA based the definition on NFPA 

1710. The definition is similar in 

concept with NIMS. Proposed paragraph 

(q) addresses requirements regarding 

SOPs. 

Team member. The proposed rule 

defines this term as an employee of the 

WERE whose primary job duties are 

typically associated with the business of 

the WERE (e.g., production, 

manufacturing, processing, 

warehousing, administration) and who 

is assigned to the WERT to perform 

certain designated duties at emergency 

incidents at the WERE facility. The 

definition further clarifies that 

emergency response is a collateral duty 

for team members. The term team 

member encompasses all employees 

who serve roles as part of the WERT in 

emergency operations, from the 

firefighter holding a hose to the facility 

engineer who, for example, closes a 

sprinkler valve at the direction of the IC, 

ensures the fire pump is operating 

properly, or adjusts the control switches 

for the heating/ventilating/air 

conditioning system to provide full 

exhaust of smoke. 

Technical search and rescue/ 

Technical rescue. The proposed rule 

defines this term as a type of service 

that utilizes special knowledge and 

skills and specialized equipment to 

resolve complex search and rescue 

situations, such as rope, confined space, 

vehicle/machinery, structural collapse, 

trench, or technical water rescue. The 

definition is based on NFPA 2500. With 

respect to water rescue, OSHA 

specifically uses the term technical to 

specify that non-technical water rescue 

would be excluded from the proposed 

rule. Examples of non-technical water 

rescue include services such as pool and 

water-amusement park lifeguard 

services, lake and beach lifeguard 

services that only use non-mechanized 

equipment such as rescue boards, rescue 

buoys, rescue tubes and cans, and 

snorkeling equipment. Proposed 

paragraph (h)(2)(vii) addresses the 

required qualifications for technical 

search and rescue team members and 

responders. 

Unified Command (UC). The 

proposed rule defines this term as a 

structure for managing an incident that 

allows for all agencies with 

jurisdictional responsibility for an 

incident, either geographical or 

functional, to manage an incident by 

establishing a common set of incident 

objectives and strategies. The definition 

is consistent with NFPA 1561 and 

NIMS. A UC is typically utilized when 

an incident is large and complex and 

involves multiple ESOs and agencies, 

such as a large-scale wildland fire or 

flash flood; a derailed passenger train or 

aircraft crash; or the collapse of a large, 

occupied structure. Other agencies 

involved may vary depending on the 

type, size, and location of the incident 

and could include agencies such as law 

enforcement, public works, utilities, 

Federal agencies such as FEMA and 

OSHA, non-governmental organizations, 

and others. 

Workplace Emergency Response 

Employer (WERE). The proposed rule 

defines this term as an employer who 

has a workplace emergency response 

team; and whose employees on the 

team, as a collateral duty to their regular 

daily work assignments, respond to 

emergency incidents to provide service 

such as firefighting, emergency medical 

service, or technical search and rescue. 

WEREs are typically for-profit entities 

engaged in industries such as 

manufacturing, processing, and 

warehousing. They have a workplace 

emergency response team to respond to 

emergency incidents at the facility. 

Workers on the employer’s emergency 

response team meet the definition of 

team member under this proposed rule. 

However, if an employer has workers 

who meet the definition of responder 

(providing emergency service(s) is their 

primary duty for the employer), then the 

employer is an ESO, not a WERE. 

Workplace Emergency Response 

Team (WERT). The proposed rule 

defines this term as a group of 

employees (known as team members) 

who, as a collateral duty, prepare for 

and respond to emergency incidents in 

the WERE’s workplace. This term, and 

variations of it, are currently in use in 

multiple industries, with varying 

degrees of application. OSHA is 

providing this proposed definition to 

clearly identify what it means by the 

term WERT. In the proposed rule, team 

members are workers who would 

typically be engaged in an activity 

related to the employer’s primary 

business function and leave that 

position when alerted to an emergency 

requiring the worker’s service as a 

WERT team member. OSHA believes 

that various terms previously used, such 

as industrial or facility fire brigade or 

fire department; emergency response 

team; fire team; and plant emergency 

organization are confusing to many 

employers. The terms have often been 

used interchangeably by various 

entities. In the proposed rule, OSHA 

clearly differentiates the types of 

emergency response entities by using 

and defining the terms WERE, WERT, 

and ESO. OSHA recognizes that WEREs 

may also be called upon to perform 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, 


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 

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 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7811 

For technical rescue type of 

operations, examples of levels of service 

could be rope rescue, vehicle/machinery 

rescue, structural collapse, trench 

rescue, and technical water rescue. Tiers 

of team members could be trainee, 

awareness, operation, technician, team 

leader/officer, team manager/chief, or 

support. 

For EMS, level(s) of service could be, 

for example, Basic Life Support or 

Advanced Life Support, or another level 

of pre-hospital care such as aeronautical 

medical evacuation. As noted above, the 

proposed rule would not apply to 

employers who only provide first aid 

and first aid kits in accordance with 29 

CFR 1910.151, Medical services and 

first aid. For tiers, positions such as 

trainee, Emergency Medical Responder 

(EMR), Emergency Medical Technician 

(EMT), Advanced EMT, Paramedic, 

Nurse, Physician, or support. 

For the example support tier 

identified in proposed paragraph (c)(7), 

OSHA envisions that a team member in 

this tier would not perform any 

mitigation duties. Instead, this could be 

a building engineer who checks to make 

sure the fire pump is functioning 

properly while sprinklers are flowing, 

ensures that the smoke exhaust system 

is effectively exhausting smoke, or 

ensures sources of energy are locked out 

and tagged out during a technical rescue 

of an employee trapped in a machine. It 

could also be a cafeteria worker-team 

member designated to deliver and 

provide water and other refreshments at 

the incident scene, or an employee-team 

member designated to meet mutual aid 

WERTs or ESOs at the entrance gate and 

direct them to the location of the 

incident. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(8) would 

require the WERE to identify, and 

document in the ERP, what emergency 

service(s) the WERE itself is unable to 

provide, and develop mutual aid 

agreements with other WEREs and 

ESOs, as necessary, or contract with an 

ESO(s), to ensure adequate resources are 

available to mitigate foreseeable 

incidents. For example, if a WERE 

identifies that its facility has tall 

structures that need an aerial ladder or 

elevated platform vehicle for firefighting 

or rescue, but its WERT does not have 

such a vehicle, the WERE would need 

to establish a mutual aid agreement with 

a neighboring WERE or ESO with an 

aerial ladder or elevated platform 

vehicle to provide it when needed. 

Another example is where a WERE has 

a permit-required confined space, but its 

WERT only performs firefighting. The 

WERE would need to establish a mutual 

aid agreement with a neighboring WERE 

or ESO, or contract an ESO, that 

provides confined space rescue services. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(9) and (10) 

would require the WERE to keep for a 

minimum of five (5) years previous 

editions of ERP documents required by 

the proposed rule; notify team members 

of any changes to the ERP; and make the 

current ERP and previous editions 

available for inspection by team 

members, their representatives, and 

OSHA personnel. Ensuring that team 

members have knowledge of and access 

to the most up-to-date ERP documents 

is essential to ensuring those documents 

serve their purpose. The proposed 

retention and access requirements will 

also aid OSHA’s enforcement and 

compliance activities. Availability of 

OSHA required documents is a 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 

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, 


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 

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, 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7813 

Proposed paragraph (d)(9) and (10) 

would require the ESO to keep for a 

minimum of five (5) years previous 

editions of ERP documents required by 

the proposed rule; notify responders of 

any changes to the ERP; and make the 

current ERP, as well as previous 

editions, available for inspection by 

responders, their representatives, and 

OSHA personnel. Ensuring that 

responders have knowledge of and 

access to the most up-to-date ERP 

documents is essential to ensuring those 

documents serve their purpose. The 

proposed retention and access 

requirements will also aid OSHA’s 

enforcement and compliance activities. 

Availability of OSHA required 

documents is a long-standing 

requirement imposed by the agency in 

its standards and is carried forward 

from existing 29 CFR 1910.156(b)(1). 

Paragraph (e) Team Member and 

Responder Participation 

To be effective, any safety and health 

program needs the meaningful 

participation of workers and their 

representatives. Similarly, for the 

Emergency Response Program (ERP) to 

be effective, team members and 

responders need to be involved in 

establishing, operating, evaluating, and 

improving the ERP. 

Proposed paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) 

would require that the WERE and ESO 

establish and implement a process to 

involve team members and responders 

in developing and updating the ERP, in 

implementing and evaluating the ERP, 

and in the review and change process. 

Team members and responders have 

much to gain from a successful program 

and the most to lose if the program fails. 

They are often the most knowledgeable 

about potential hazards associated with 

their jobs. Participation by team 

members and responders allows them to 

identify steps to protect themselves. In 

addition, participation both enhances 

understanding and awareness of the 

ERP and increases the likelihood that 

team members and responders will 

consistently adhere to its requirements 

by creating a sense of ownership. In 

Question (e)–1, OSHA is considering 

adding to both paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) 

a requirement to permit employee 

representatives to be involved in the 

development and implementation of an 

ERP, and to paragraph (e)(4) a 

requirement to allow employee 

representatives to participate in 

walkaround inspections conducted by 

the WERT or ESO, along with team 

members and responders, and is seeking 

input from stakeholders on whether 

employee representative involvement 

should be added to this paragraph. 

Under proposed paragraph (e)(3), the 

WERE and ESO would need to request 

input from team members and 

responders regarding modifications 

proposed by the WERE or ESO to their 

own facility(ies). Just as in the case of 

paragraphs (e)(1) and (2), team members 

and responders who routinely work in 

the facility are typically most familiar 

with the location where potential 

modifications are proposed and 

potentially in a good position to 

recognize how modifications could 

affect their health and safety in 

responding to emergencies. It could be 

that the modification is being proposed 

as a result of a complaint or a suggestion 

from those familiar with the area, so 

including them could help determine if 

the modification will improve 

protections during an incident. 

Paragraph (e)(4) of the proposed rule 

would require the WERE and ESO to 

establish and implement a process to 

involve team members and responders 

in walkaround inspections conducted 

by the WERE or ESO, inspections 

conducted in response to health and 

safety concern(s) raised, and incident 

investigations at the WERE and ESO’s 

own facility(ies). The inspections to 

which this paragraph refers include the 

safety and health inspections conducted 

to protect the workforce in general, and 

those conducted when a health or safety 

concern is identified, or in response to 

a complaint. The agency believes that 

inspections and incident investigations 

are most effective when they include 

managers and employees working 

together, since each bring different 

knowledge, understanding and 

perspectives to the inspection or 

investigation. 

Proposed paragraphs (e)(5) and (6) 

would require the WERE and ESO to 

establish and implement a process to 

encourage team members and 

responders to report safety and health 

concerns, such as hazards, injuries, 

illnesses, near misses, and deficiencies 

in the ERP, and to respond to such 

reports in a reasonable period. Team 

members and responders are often best 

positioned to identify safety and health 

concerns and program shortcomings, 

such as emerging workplace hazards, 

close calls/near misses, and actual 

incidents. By encouraging reporting and 

following up promptly on all reports, 

WEREs and ESOs can address issues 

before an illness, injury, or fatality 

occurs. Examples of how the WERE and 

ESO can encourage team members and 

responders to report safety issues 

include making the reporting process as 

easy as possible, giving the option of 

reporting anonymously, assuring team 

members and responders that they will 

not face retaliation for reporting 

concerns and ensuring that no 

retaliation occurs, addressing concerns 

quickly, and seeking input from all team 

members and responders. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(7) would 

require the WERE and ESO to establish 

and implement a process to post 

procedures for reporting safety and 

health concerns under paragraph (e)(5) 

of this section in a conspicuous place or 

places where notices to team members 

and responders are customarily posted. 

Examples of such places are bulletin 

boards and internal web pages. This 

requirement ensures that team members 

and responders know how to raise 

safety and health concerns and further 

serves to encourage involvement in the 

safety and health of the workplace. 

Paragraph (f) WERE and ESO Risk 

Management Plan 

Paragraph (f)(1) of this proposed rule 

would require WEREs and ESOs to 

develop and implement a written 

comprehensive risk management plan 

based on the type and level of service(s) 

that would be established in proposed 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of the proposed 

rule. The purpose of the proposed risk 

management plan is to ensure that risks 

to the team members’ and responders’ 

health and safety have been identified 

and evaluated, and a control plan has 

been developed and implemented by 

the WERE and ESO in a manner that 

mitigates or reduces the risk to a level 

that is as low as reasonably practicable. 

The minimum proposed provisions of 

the risk management plan are based on 

NFPA 1500, as recommended by several 

commenters in response to the RFI 

(Document ID 0072; 0074; 0078), and by 

SERs (Document ID 0115). 

Proposed paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) 

through (F) provides further detail and 

would require the comprehensive risk 

management plan to cover, at a 

minimum, risks to team members and 

responders associated with activities at 

WERE and ESO facilities; training; 

vehicle operations (both emergency and 

non-emergency); operations at 

emergency incidents; non-emergency 

services and activities (e.g., community 

outreach activities); and activities that 

lead to exposure to combustion 

products, carcinogens, and other 

incident-related health hazards. While 

these are the minimum areas to be 

covered, WEREs and ESOs would need 

to ensure all reasonably anticipated 

hazards are addressed in the risk 

management plan, regardless of whether 

it falls under a covered area identified 

in (f)(1)(i). In Question (f)-1, OSHA 

seeks input on whether other activities 

or subjects should be specifically 


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 

will give WEREs and ESOs the 

flexibility to design an infection control 

program that is tailored to their 

operations and facilities. WEREs and 

ESOs can reference consensus 

standards, such as NFPA 1581, 2022 ed., 

and OSHA, CDC, or other state and local 

guidance documents when creating and 

implementing the infection control 

program. In Question (f)–2, OSHA seeks 

comment on this approach including 

whether a final standard should 

incorporate a particular consensus 

standard or other guidance, or otherwise 

include specific requirements regarding 

infection control. 

OSHA recognizes that there are 

extraordinary instances where a team 

member or responder would need to 

deviate from the ordinary procedures set 

out in the risk management plan to 

rescue a person in imminent peril. To 

accommodate these situations, proposed 

paragraph (f)(2) would require the 

WERE and ESO to include in the risk 

management plan a policy for 

extraordinary situations when a team 

member or responder, after making a 

risk assessment determination based on 

the team member or responder’s training 

and experience, is permitted to attempt 

to rescue a person in imminent peril, 

potentially without benefit of, for 

example, PPE, tools, or equipment. A 

team member’s or responder’s decision 

to not use a risk control technique that 

has been identified in the risk 

management plan is to be made on a 

case-by-case basis and must have been 

prompted by legitimate and truly 

extenuating circumstances. These 

circumstances typically have a time 

constraint that would make it infeasible 

to implement the risk control technique 

and rescue a person in imminent peril. 

This proposed provision could allow, 

for example, an ambulance crew, 

without benefit of firefighting PPE, to 

perform a rescue of a person endangered 

by fire who would potentially sustain 

significant injury or death if they did 

not take immediate action. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(3) would 

require the WERE and ESO to review 

the risk management plan when 

required by paragraph (r) or (s) of this 

section, but no less than annually, and 

update it as needed. Risks are dynamic 

and uncertain. Previously known risks 

may change, and new risks may develop 

that need to be addressed in the risk 

management plan. An annual review 

and update would ensure the risk 

management plan reflects the current 

situation for managing risks effectively, 

while proposed paragraphs (r) and (s) 

ensure that this review and update takes 

place upon occurrence of significant 

events or the discovery of deficiencies. 

Paragraph (g) Medical and Physical 

Requirements 

Emergency response is a physically 

demanding occupation. As discussed in 

section II.A., Need for the Standard, 

approximately half of all firefighter 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7815 

departments. Mental health issues may 

be worsened by perceived stigma 

regarding use of mental health services. 

Proposed paragraph (g) includes 

medical and physical requirements to 

address these hazards. The physical 

fitness and physical and mental medical 

requirements in paragraph (g) serve two 

purposes: (1) ensuring that responders 

are physically and mentally capable of 

performing their duties without injury 

to themselves or their fellow 

responders, and (2) identifying and 

addressing physical and mental health 

effects resulting from emergency 

response activities. 

Most major emergency response 

organizations support medical 

evaluation of emergency responders. 

The International Association of Fire 

Fighters (IAFF) and International 

Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) 

include medical evaluation consistent 

with NFPA 1582 in their Joint 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 

(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 

proposed baseline medical examination 

focuses on health hazards that are 

common to all team members and 

responders, with potential additional 

requirements based on the particular 

type and level of service(s) performed, 

while the proposed medical 

surveillance requiring a full NFPA 1582- 

compliant physical is reserved for those 

team members and responders exposed 

to combustion products above a specific 

action level. As explained in section 

VII.C., Costs of Compliance, OSHA 

expects that only structural and 

wildland firefighters will meet the 

threshold for the full NFPA 1582 

requirements. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i) would 

require that each WERE and ESO 

establish minimum medical 

requirements based on the type and 

level of service(s) established in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. 

The medical requirements in proposed 

paragraph (g) would differ based on the 

tiers of team members and responders 

established by each WERE or ESO in 

accordance with paragraphs (c)(7) and 

(d)(7), except for those in a support tier 

(see examples in the Summary and 

Explanation for paragraphs (c) and (d)) 

who are excluded from the requirements 

in paragraph (g) of this section. By tying 

the medical requirements to the type 

and level of service(s), proposed 

paragraph (g)(1)(i) requires the WERE or 

ESO to establish those requirements, 

and only those requirements, necessary 

to ensure the health and safety of team 

members or responders based on the 

duties they are expected to perform. 

This proposed provision allows the 

WERE and ESO flexibility so that team 

members and responders with less 

physically demanding duties or who are 

exposed to fewer hazards may be subject 

to less stringent medical requirements 

than team members and responders 

expected to perform more physically 

demanding duties or who are exposed to 

more or more frequent hazards during 

emergency response incidents. 

Paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the proposed 

rule would require that each WERE and 

ESO maintain confidential records for 

each team member and responder that 

includes duty restrictions based on 

medical evaluations; occupational 

illnesses and injuries; and exposures to 

combustion products, known or 

suspected toxic substances, infectious 

diseases, and other dangerous 

substances. OSHA is sensitive to 

concerns that the medical evaluation 

may divulge confidential information 

regarding a responder’s medical 

condition or may otherwise divulge 

information that may adversely affect 

the responder. The proposed 


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 

PPE appropriate to their designated 

duties. As one commenter to the 2007 

Emergency Response RFI stated, 

‘‘[r]equirements should vary based upon 

the level of physical and mental activity 

required that must be performed’’ 

(Document ID 0024, p. 4). Furthermore, 

another commenter stated that ‘‘NFPA 

1582 is not the appropriate standard for 

use by general industry’’ since it was 

‘‘designed for municipal fire fighters’’ 

(Document ID 0039, p. 15). Hence, as 

stated above, this proposed provision 

would allow the WERE and ESO 

flexibility to tailor its medical 

evaluation program so that team 

members and responders with less 

physically demanding duties or who are 

exposed to fewer hazards during 

emergency responses may have less 

stringent medical requirements than 

team members and responders expected 

to perform more physically demanding 

duties who are exposed to more or more 

frequent hazards. Additionally, each 

responder routinely exposed to 

combustion products at or above the 

threshold set forth in proposed 

paragraph (g)(3) would be afforded 

additional medical surveillance as 

described in that paragraph. 

Paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of the proposed 

rule would require WEREs and ESOs to 

ensure that, prior to performing 

emergency response duties, each team 

member and responder is medically 

evaluated to determine fitness for duty 

by a physician or other licensed health 

care professional (PLHCP) at no cost to 

the team member or responder, in 

accordance with proposed paragraphs 

(g)(2)(iii) through (vi) of this section. 

Each responder who is exposed to 

combustion products above the action 

level would also need to be evaluated in 

accordance with proposed paragraph 

(g)(3) of this section. The proposed rule 

would require that medical 

examinations be made available by the 

WERE and ESO without cost to team 

members and responders (as required by 

section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act), and at 

a reasonable time and place. 

Paragraph (g)(2)(ii) and the related 

fitness for duty requirements in 

proposed paragraph (g)(5), discussed 

below, ensure each team member and 

responder is capable of performing their 

assigned job duties without injury to 

themselves or their fellow team 

members or responders. These 

requirements are consistent with 

OSHA’s existing Fire Brigades standard, 

which requires employers to ensure that 

employees expected to perform interior 

structural firefighting ‘‘are physically 

capable of performing duties which may 

be assigned to them during 

emergencies’’ (29 CFR 1910.156(b)(2)). 

Current § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7817 

5For ACC/AHA Class IIb medical conditions, the 

recommended procedure or treatment may be 

considered. 

6For ACC/AHA Class IIa medical conditions, 

ACC/AHA considers it reasonable to perform the 

procedure or administer treatment. 

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 10- 

year atherosclerotic cardiovascular 

disease risk. Risk enhancers, such as 

metabolic syndrome and chronic kidney 

disease, and coronary artery calcium 

(CAC) measurement, are additional 

considerations for those whose risk 

remains uncertain. Risk-enhancing 

factors are reasonable to use to guide 

PLHCP screening decisions and 

preventive interventions. 

As discussed in section II.A., Need for 

the Standard, emergency responders are 

routinely exposed to a wide variety of 

airborne respiratory hazards including 

gases, fumes, particulates, and 

infectious diseases. In addition, many 

emergency responders are routinely 

exposed to diesel exhaust both 

responding to emergency incidents and 

while in WERE and ESO facilities where 

vehicles are located. 

The risks for musculoskeletal issues 

are further discussed in section II.A., 

Need for the Standard, which notes that 

the increased risk for musculoskeletal 

injury rates for emergency responders 

compared to all private industries 

varied by the type of emergency service 

provided, ranging from 1.7 times the 

reportable injury rates for private 

ambulance drivers to 4 times the 

reportable injury rates for EMS workers, 

with comparable rates among 

firefighters. Increased musculoskeletal 

injury rates for emergency responders is 

attributed to overexertion and strain 

associated with emergency response 

activities. 

Due to the risk of sudden 

cardiovascular death from strenuous 

emergency response activities, 

paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of the proposed rule 

would require that each WERE and ESO 

provide additional screening of team 

members and responders as deemed 

appropriate by the PLHCP and at no cost 

to the team member or responder. The 

PLHCP has the option of ordering 

additional testing they deem 

appropriate based on individual signs or 

symptoms and clinical judgment. OSHA 

recognizes that this may result in 

increased cardiovascular screening of 

team members and responders beyond 

those recommended for the general 

population. This is consistent with 

NFPA 1582, sections 7.7.7.3.1 through 

7.7.7.3.2, which recommends additional 

cardiovascular assessment at certain risk 

levels beyond authoritative guidance for 

general population screening 

recommended by the ACC/AHA and the 

United States Preventative Services 

Task Force (USPSTF) (USPSTF 2018, 

Document ID 0163, p. 2311; Arnett et 

al., 2019, Document ID 0124, p. e602). 

The cardiovascular risk assessment of 

team members and responders allows 

the medical provider the ability to focus 

further screening on only those team 

members and responders at highest risk 

of suffering a cardiac event while 

performing emergency response duties. 

OSHA has preliminarily determined 

that compliance with the proposed 

provision would reduce the risk of 

sudden death in team members and 

responders brought on by the stress of 

their emergency response duties. 

These additional screenings may 

include a symptom-limiting exercise 

stress test with imaging of at least 12 

Metabolic Equivalents (METs) as 

recommended in NFPA 1582, section 

7.7.7.3.1.1, for the evaluation of those at 

intermediate risk of atherosclerotic 

cardiovascular disease (10 to < 20% 

calculated risk over the next 10 years), 

and those with metabolic syndrome, 

diabetes, or history of coronary artery 

disease. This is noted as a consideration 

for intermediate risk asymptomatic 

adults (class IIb) 5 by AHA/ACC as well 

(Greenland et al., 2010, Document ID 

0125, p. e66). ACC/AHA also 

specifically addressed occupational 

screening in their 2002 Guideline 

Update for Exercise Testing in which 

exercise testing is a class IIb 

recommendation in asymptomatic 

individuals who work in occupations in 

which impairment might impact public 

safety (Gibbons et al., 2002, Document 

ID 0126, p. 1538). 

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 


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 

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 

required them to enter an IDLH 

environment to be the responders 

subject to the full medical requirements 

(Document ID OSHA–2015–0019–0006, 

Tr. 108–111). OSHA received no other 

suggestions for a threshold to require 

additional medical requirements. 

Although the NACOSH subcommittee 

focused on emergency responders who 

must enter IDLH environments, some 

exposures to combustion products may 

occur outside of such environments. 

Because the health risks posed by 

combustion products are not limited to 

exposures in IDLH environments, the 

proposed standard would require ESO’s 

to consider all exposures to combustion 

products, not just those that occur in an 

IDLH environment. At the same time, 

given the apparent dose-response 

relationship between exposures and 

health effects (see Need for the 

Standard), OSHA does not believe that 

a single exposure to combustion 

products would necessitate increased 

medical requirements beyond what 

would be required by proposed 

paragraph (g)(2). 

In considering what level of exposure 

(i.e., action level) should trigger 

additional medical surveillance, OSHA 

reviewed its existing standards that 

require medical surveillance triggered 

by a specified action level. Most OSHA 

standards that have an action level that 

triggers medical surveillance use 30 

days of exposure at or above a specified 

action level: Arsenic (29 CFR 

1910.1018); Benzene (29 CFR 

1910.1028); 1,3 Butadiene (29 CFR 

1910.1051); Cadmium (29 CFR 

1910.1027); Hexavalent Chromium (29 

CFR 1910.1026); Ethylene Oxide (29 

CFR 1910.1047); HAZWOPER (29 CFR 

1910.120); Lead (29 CFR 1910.1025); 

Methylene Chloride (29 CFR 

1910.1052); and Methylenedianiline (29 

CFR 1910.1050). 

Several OSHA standards use exposure 

above the established permissible 

exposure level (PEL) or short-term 

exposure limit (STEL) for 10 days to 

trigger medical surveillance: Benzene 

(29 CFR 1910.1028); 1,3 Butadiene (29 

CFR 1910.1051); and Methylene 

Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052). Other 

OSHA standards use any exposure or 

exposure at or above an action level, 

PEL, or while working in a regulated 

area to trigger medical surveillance: 

Acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045); 

Asbestos (29 CFR 1910.1001); 

Compressed Air Environments (29 CFR 

1926.803); Cotton Dust (29 CFR 

1910.1043); Formaldehyde (29 CFR 

1910.1048); Suspected Carcinogens (29 

CFR 1910.1003); Vinyl Chloride (29 CFR 

1910.1017); and 1,2-dibromo-3- 

chloropropane (29 CFR 1910.1044). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7819 

The proposed rule’s action level for 

medical surveillance of 15 or more 

exposures per year is modeled after 29 

CFR 1910.1050, Methylenedianiline 

(MDA), which requires that employees 

who are subject to dermal exposure to 

MDA for 15 or more days per year 

receive medical surveillance. 29 CFR 

1910.1050(m)(1)(i)(B). Similar to MDA, 

dermal exposure is a particular concern 

for responders exposed to combustion 

products. Research by NIOSH and other 

scientific experts supports that dermal 

exposure is a significant exposure 

pathway for responders. Exposures 

occur as the combustion products enter 

the PPE through the interface areas (coat 

to gloves, coat to pants, pants to boots, 

neck to hood), as well as permeating 

directly through PPE (Hwang et al., 

2022, Document ID 0156, p. 10; Baxter 

et al., 2014, Document ID 0157, p. D89; 

Hwang et al., 2021, Document ID 0155, 

p. 12; Pleil et al., 2014, Document ID 

0158, p. 16). 

For purposes of proposed paragraph 

(g)(3)(i)(A), an exposure incident to 

combustion products is any exposure to 

materials that are on fire or smoldering 

regardless of the use of PPE or 

respiratory protection. PPE, such as 

respiratory protection, is considered the 

lowest level of protection in the 

hierarchy of exposure controls and 

cannot be 100% effective as the 

exposure has not been eliminated. 

Moreover, elimination of exposure is 

not an option for emergency response 

activities. Examples of exposure 

incidents include fires in residential 

homes, cars, dumpsters, kitchens, and 

training scenarios, among other similar 

incidents. In the event of a large fire or 

a training fire that requires multiple 

entries into the IDLH environment for 

extinguishment or training purposes, 

the multiple entries would be 

considered one exposure incident. 

Exposure incidents occur only for those 

responders who enter the hot zone of 

the incident, as defined in proposed 

paragraph (b) of this rule. If a responder 

is exposed to multiple incidents during 

one shift, the incidents would each be 

considered one individual exposure 

incident. For example, if a responder on 

a 24-hour shift responds to a house fire 

in the morning, then a car fire in the 

afternoon, and then a kitchen fire in the 

evening and entered the hot zone at 

each incident, that responder was 

exposed to combustion products on 

three separate incidents during that 

shift. For wildland firefighting, an 

exposure incident to toxic combustion 

products is the number of days the 

responder was exposed to combustion 

products while working on the fire line. 

OSHA is aware that not all exposure 

incidents are equal and that some of the 

exposure incidents described above 

involve a low level of exposure while 

others involve a higher level of 

exposure. While some of the individual 

components in combustion products 

have PELs, there are no PELs for 

combined combustion products. The 

nature of combustion products, being a 

combination of any number of 

potentially hazardous substances, often 

unknown and changing with each 

emergency incident, as well as the 

difficulty in measuring such exposures 

in the emergency response context, 

would make establishing any such PEL 

very difficult. Nonetheless, OSHA has 

determined that despite the varying 

levels of exposure, both low and high 

exposure incidents contribute in the 

aggregate to a responder’s overall 

exposure to toxic combustion products. 

Thus, on balance, OSHA has 

determined that any incident resulting 

in exposure to toxic combustion 

products while in the incident hot zone, 

regardless of the level of exposure, 

should be counted towards the total 

number of exposure incidents triggering 

the action level in this proposed 

paragraph. 

To determine if their responders 

exceed the action level requiring 

medical surveillance for exposure, ESOs 

should review their incident response 

history. If the average number of 

exposure incidents is 15 or more a year 

for an individual responder or a 

particular tier of responders, then those 

responders would need the additional 

medical surveillance. 

OSHA has preliminarily determined 

that an action level of 15 or more 

exposures per year is an appropriate 

threshold for triggering medical 

surveillance to detect and prevent 

adverse health effects from combustion 

products. In Question (g)–2, OSHA is 

seeking input on whether this number 

of exposures is too high, too low, or an 

appropriate threshold. OSHA is also 

considering action levels of 5, 10, or 30 

exposures a year as alternatives and is 

seeking public input on what action 

level would be appropriate. Provide 

supporting documentation and data that 

would help with identifying an 

appropriate action level. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(i)(B) would 

require ESOs to provide medical 

consultation and ongoing surveillance 

to responders who, either immediately 

or subsequently, exhibit signs and 

symptoms which may have resulted 

from exposure to combustion products. 

Examples include shortness of breath, 

coughing, or wheezing after an exposure 

incident. Demonstration of exposure 

signs and symptoms may indicate a 

significant exposure event, failure of 

PPE, a catastrophic event, or some 

combination thereof and warrants 

exposure monitoring and medical 

surveillance. The extension of medical 

surveillance to responders who 

demonstrate signs and symptoms of 

exposure would be required regardless 

of whether the responder was exposed 

above the action level. The PLHCP 

would determine the necessary medical 

surveillance following the significant 

exposure event. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii) would 

require the ESO to document each 

exposure to combustion products for 

each responder, for the purpose of 

determining the need for the medical 

surveillance as specified in (g)(3)(i)(A), 

and for inclusion in the responder’s 

confidential record, as required in 

(g)(1)(ii). ESOs would review previous 

incident reports to determine a 

responder’s exposures for the preceding 

12 months or from the date when ESOs 

began keeping such records up to the 

preceding 12 months. This proposed 

requirement would ensure the ESO 

documents exposures in order to 

comply with the requirements of the 

proposed rule. OSHA notes, however, 

that the ESO would not need 12 months 

of records for a particular responder to 

determine whether that responder may 

be exposed above the action level. If the 

ESO knows, based on experience, that 

responders in the same tier may be 

exposed 15 or more times per year, 

medical surveillance pursuant to 

paragraph (g)(3) would be required for 

that responder. As stated previously, 

proposed paragraph (g)(3) applies only 

to ESOs. OSHA is seeking input in 

Question (g)–3 on whether the 

additional medical surveillance 

proposed in paragraph (g)(3) should be 

extended to include WEREs and team 

members. 

In paragraph (g)(4)(i) of the proposed 

rule, the WERE and ESO would be 

required to provide behavioral health 

and wellness resources at no cost to the 

team member or responder or identify 

where resources are available at no cost 

in their community. As discussed in 

section II.A., Need for the Standard, 

emergency response activities expose 

team members and responders to 

traumatic, emotionally charged events, 

and they frequently work long shifts, get 

inadequate rest and are repeatedly 

exposed to stressful scenarios that 

contribute to mental health issues. The 

physical and psychological stressors 

associated with emergency response 

activities puts team members and 

responders at increased risk of PTSD, 

depression, anxiety, burnout, suicide, 


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. 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7821 

fitness program needs an individual 

identified to provide guidance and 

assistance to responders with the health 

and fitness program and maintain 

accountability. 

Paragraph (g)(6)(ii)(B) of the proposed 

rule would require a periodic fitness 

assessment for all responders, not to 

exceed every three years. The purpose 

of the fitness assessment is to inform the 

responder on their fitness status and 

whether their fitness has improved, 

maintained, or decreased. This physical 

fitness assessment is different from the 

fitness for duty evaluation described in 

proposed paragraph (g)(5) in that it is 

solely a physical fitness-related 

evaluation and is indirectly related to 

the evaluation of a responder’s ability to 

perform essential job tasks. The physical 

fitness assessment should evaluate 

physical parameters such as responder 

muscular strength, muscular endurance, 

cardiovascular endurance, and mobility/ 

flexibility. A physical fitness assessment 

can flag fitness conditions that may 

make a responder particularly 

vulnerable to a negative cardiovascular 

event. Maintaining fitness is important 

as responders with higher fitness levels 

perform essential job tasks at a lower 

exertion level as a percent of their 

maximum exertion. Performing essential 

job tasks at a lower exertion level 

reduces the responder’s risk of suffering 

a negative cardiovascular event while 

performing those job tasks. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(6)(ii)(C) 

would require exercise training that is 

available to all responders during 

working hours. This provision would 

not mandate a particular exercise 

regimen nor require the ESO to 

purchase or utilize any specific fitness 

equipment. Effective exercise training 

could be accomplished using common 

emergency response tools to provide the 

resistance necessary to achieve 

muscular overload. A program of body 

weight exercises, which use the 

responder’s own body weight to provide 

resistance, would also satisfy the 

requirement. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(6)(ii)(D) 

would require health promotion 

education and counseling for all 

responders. Health promotion education 

and counseling aims to provide 

responders with the knowledge 

necessary to ensure fitness for duty and 

is another avenue to address the risk 

factors and adverse health effects 

associated with emergency response 

activities. Responder health promotion 

can be accomplished with educational 

resources available in the community or 

on the internet. Topics that may be 

covered by the health promotion 

program could include heart disease 

risk reduction, smoking-vaping and 

tobacco cessation, healthy blood 

pressure, physical fitness, safer personal 

training methods and other ways to 

minimize risk of muscle breakdown 

(rhabdomyolysis), nutrition, weight 

management, the amount and quality of 

sleep, infectious disease prevention, and 

behavioral health topics such as stress 

management. OSHA emphasizes that 

these education and counseling 

resources are one element in the broader 

health and fitness program with the 

ultimate goal of ensuring the safe 

performance of emergency response 

activities. 

OSHA is seeking input in Question 

(g)–5 whether the health and fitness 

program in proposed paragraph (g)(6) 

should be extended to include WEREs 

and team members. OSHA Question (g)– 

6 asks for input whether every three 

years is an appropriate length of time for 

fitness re-evaluation, and if not, what 

period of time would be appropriate. 

The agency is seeking any available data 

to support an alternative length of time 

between evaluations. 

Paragraph (h) Training 

Training is the backbone of WERTs 

and ESOs. Effective training produces 

team members and responders with the 

skills, knowledge, and confidence to 

safely perform their duties in the face of 

various hazards at emergency incidents. 

Paragraph (h) of the proposed rule 

contains requirements for initial and 

follow-up training for responders and 

team members, as well as requirements 

for maintaining proficiency in the 

necessary skills and knowledge through 

regular—at least annual—skills checks. 

These provisions ensure that team 

members and responders become and 

remain prepared and capable of 

performing their duties safely. Many of 

the provisions in proposed paragraph 

(h) are based on, or consistent with, 

provisions in NFPA 600, NFPA 1500, 

and other NFPA standards. 

To ensure team members and 

responders are prepared to participate 

safely in emergency operations, WEREs 

and ESOs need to establish 

comprehensive training programs. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(1) addresses 

minimum training requirements for 

team members and responders. 

Paragraph (h)(1)(i) would require 

WEREs and ESOs to establish the 

minimum knowledge and skills 

required for each team member and 

responder to participate safely in 

emergency operations, based on the type 

and level of service(s), and tiers of team 

members and responders established in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. 

These minimum requirements will vary 

based on the type of emergency 

response being performed; for example, 

firefighters will have different training 

requirements than technical rescuers. 

Paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of the proposed 

rule would require the WERE and ESO 

to ensure each team member and 

responder is provided with initial 

training, ongoing training, refresher 

training, and professional development 

commensurate with the safe 

performance of their expected duties 

and functions based on the tiers of team 

members and responders, and the type 

and level of service(s) established in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. 

Training is important at all stages of a 

team member’s or responder’s career. 

Initial training teaches team members 

and responders how to properly and 

safely perform their duties; and ongoing 

and refresher training ensures that these 

skills stay sharp over time. As they 

progress through their careers providing 

emergency service(s), team members 

and responders learn more about 

protecting their fellow team members 

and responders, particularly if they 

become team leaders, officers, or chiefs. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iii) would 

require the WERE and ESO to restrict 

the activities of each new team member 

and responder during emergency 

operations until the team member or 

responder has demonstrated to a trainer/ 

instructor, supervisor/team leader/ 

officer, the skills and abilities to safely 

complete the tasks expected. Team 

members and responders performing 

tasks for which they are not 

appropriately trained pose a hazard not 

only to themselves, but also to other 

team members and responders. The 

proposed provision would ensure that 

team members and responders who are 

new to their jobs are properly trained 

before performing emergency service 

tasks. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iv) would 

require the WERE and ESO to ensure 

that each instructor/trainer has the 

knowledge, skills, and abilities to teach 

the subject matter being presented. It is 

intuitive that those teaching should be 

more knowledgeable in the subject 

matter than those being taught, and 

when physical skills are required it can 

be important for the instructor/trainer to 

have the ability to demonstrate the skills 

or address a problem when it arises. 

This provision ensures that the training 

is conducted by competent individuals 

who can provide accurate and valuable 

instruction, leading to a higher level of 

understanding and proficiency among 

the trainees. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(1)(v) of the 

proposed rule would require WEREs 

and ESOs to ensure that training is 


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 

also need to include the PPE hazard 

assessment, the respiratory protection 

program, the infection control program, 

and the bloodborne pathogens exposure 

control plan required by paragraph 

(f)(1)(iii). Note that the training 

requirements of this standard are in 

addition to the training requirements of 

other standards such as the bloodborne 

pathogens standard (29 CFR 

1910.1030(g)(2)). 

Proposed paragraph (h)(1)(vii) would 

require the WERE and ESO to train each 

team member and responder about the 

safety and health policy established in 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section and the 

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) 

established in paragraph (q) of this 

section. Proposed paragraph (f)(2) 

would require the WERE and ESO to 

establish a policy for extraordinary 

situations when a team member or 

responder, after making a risk 

assessment determination based on the 

team member or responder’s training 

and experience, is permitted to attempt 

to rescue a person in imminent peril, 

potentially without benefit of, for 

example, PPE and other equipment. As 

explained above, proposed paragraph 

(f)(2) is important because there might 

be times when team members or 

responders come across emergency 

incidents while they are not fully 

equipped with PPE or other equipment 

but could, for example, potentially save 

a life. 

Team members and responders need 

to be trained so that they understand the 

policy established by the WERE or ESO 

for these extraordinary situations. SOPs 

form the foundation of how WEREs and 

ESOs expect team members and 

responders to perform at various types 

of incidents, where they will face a 

variety of hazards. The SOPs provide 

procedures intended to facilitate 

incident operations and keep team 

members and responders safe. 

Paragraph (h)(1)(viii) of the proposed 

rule would require the WERE and ESO 

to provide each team member and 

responder with training that covers the 

selection, use, limitations, maintenance, 

and retirement criteria for all PPE used 

by the team member or responder based 

on the type and level of service(s), and 

tiers of team members and responders 

established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section. This training would 

provide team members and responders 

with the necessary knowledge and skills 

to effectively utilize the PPE they are 

required to wear on the basis of their 

duties. It would need to include various 

aspects, including selecting appropriate 

equipment, use including proper 

donning and doffing techniques, 

understanding the limitations of PPE, 

performing proper maintenance, and 

knowing when to retire and replace 

worn-out or damaged equipment. By 

providing this comprehensive training, 

WEREs and ESOs can enhance safety 

and ensure that team members and 

responders are well-prepared to utilize 

PPE effectively. 

Paragraph (h)(1)(ix) proposes to 

require the WERE and ESO to train each 

team member and responder in the 

selection, proper use, and limitations of 

portable fire extinguishers provided for 

employee use in the WERE or ESO’s 

facility and vehicles, in accordance with 

29 CFR 1910.157. It is important for all 

team members and responders 

(firefighters, EMS providers, and 

technical rescuers) to be trained to use 

portable fire extinguishers. Most fires 

start out small enough that they can be 

easily controlled or extinguished by a 

portable fire extinguisher. Portable fire 

extinguishers are readily found in most 

workplaces and on many vehicles that 

team members and responders use, and 

it is important for team members and 

responders be trained about how to use 

them and what their limitations are. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(1)(x) would 

require the WERE and ESO to train each 

team member and responder in the 

incident management system (IMS) 

established under paragraph (o) of this 

section, in order to operate safely within 

the scope of the IMS. Because the IMS 

is required to be used at all emergency 

incidents (see proposed paragraph 

(p)(1)(i)), everyone on every incident 

scene would be operating within it. The 

training should focus on team member 

and responder roles and responsibilities 

within the IMS, including incident 

scene assessment for hazards, incident 

safety oversight, means for reporting 

unsafe conditions, and interactive 

components for clear communication 

and effective operations. 

Paragraph (h)(1)(xi) of the proposed 

rule would require the WERE and ESO 

to ensure that training for each team 

member and responder engaged in 

emergency activities includes 

procedures for the safe exit and 

accountability of team members and 

responders during orderly evacuations, 

rapid evacuations, equipment failure, or 

other dangerous situations and events. 

Development of the procedures is 

required by proposed paragraph 

(q)(2)(vii) of this section. Team members 

and responders need to be trained to 

know their roles in the accountability 

system. They need to be trained in the 

actions to take during an orderly 

evacuation, such as taking all their 

equipment with them as they back out 

to regroup their efforts, versus during a 

rapid evacuation, such as when a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7823 

structural collapse seems imminent, 

when the appropriate action may be to 

‘‘drop and run.’’ PPE or equipment 

failure often occurs without warning. 

Team members and responders need to 

be trained in the proper procedures for 

evacuating safely and maintaining 

accountability should such a situation 

occur. 

Paragraph (h)(1)(xii) proposes to 

require the WERE and ESO to ensure 

that each team member and responder is 

trained to meet the requirements of 29 

CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(i) (HAZWOPER), 

First Responder Awareness Level. While 

all team members and responders who 

take part in actual emergency operations 

are already subject to these 

requirements per the requirements of 

the HAZWOPER standard, this training 

is also important for other responders 

and team members. Team members and 

responders who are not part of a 

hazardous materials (hazmat) team need 

to be aware of the precautions and 

actions to be taken at hazmat incidents 

because they are usually the first to 

arrive. This training focuses on 

equipping team members and 

responders with the necessary 

knowledge and skills to respond 

effectively to hazardous materials 

incidents and take appropriate actions, 

such as maintaining a safe distance 

away, evacuating other people, 

cordoning off the area, and summoning 

the appropriate resources. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(1)(xiii) would 

require the WERE and ESO to ensure 

that each team member and responder 

who is not trained and authorized to 

enter specific hazardous locations (e.g., 

confined spaces, trenches, and moving 

water) is trained to an awareness level 

(similar to the requirements in 29 CFR 

1910.120(q)(6)(i)) to recognize such 

locations and their hazards and avoid 

entry. Similar to the requirements of 

proposed paragraph (h)(1)(xii) with 

respect to hazmat incidents, this 

training would provide team members 

and responders with an understanding 

of the potential risks and dangers posed 

by specific hazardous locations, 

enabling them to identify such 

locations, exercise caution, not enter the 

hazardous area, and request assistance 

from those trained to enter such areas. 

Paragraph (h)(1)(xiv) of the proposed 

rule would require WEREs and ESOs to 

train each team member and responder 

to perform cardiopulmonary 

resuscitation (CPR) and use an 

automatic external defibrillator (AED). It 

is important that every team member 

and responder be able to perform CPR 

and use an AED as they may be nearby, 

or the first to arrive, when someone is 

experiencing a cardiac emergency. 

Proper training allows team members 

and responders to confidently respond 

to cardiac emergencies and perform 

potentially life-saving interventions. 

Furthermore, team members and 

responders need to know how to 

perform these procedures safely. For 

example, they need to know how to 

avoid electric shocks from an AED. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(2) specifies 

vocational training that would be 

required for designated team members 

and responders to perform their duties 

safely. Paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (viii) 

each reference a specific NFPA standard 

and require that team members and 

responders be trained to a level that is 

at least equivalent to the job 

performance requirements (JPR) of the 

identified standard, for the duties to 

which they are assigned. The particular 

editions of the NFPA standards noted in 

the proposed rule are the ones in 

existence at the time of the publication 

of this proposal. OSHA expects that in 

the final rule it will incorporate the 

particular edition most recently 

approved by the NFPA before the public 

comment period for this NPRM closes. 

Paragraph (h)(2)(i) of the proposed 

rule would require each WERT team 

member who is designated to perform 

firefighting duties to be trained to safely 

perform the duties assigned, to a level 

that is at least equivalent to the job 

performance requirements of NFPA 

1081, Standard for Facility Fire Brigade 

Member Professional Qualifications, 

2018 ed. NFPA 1081 sets the 

professional qualifications for 

firefighting team members and specifies 

the essential competencies and 

performance standards required for 

effective firefighting. This training 

equips team members with necessary 

skills in fire suppression techniques, 

fire behavior, incident command, and 

other topics related to firefighting, 

ensuring their ability to perform their 

duties safely. As explained above, each 

individual team member need be 

trained only with respect to the specific 

job duties they are assigned to perform. 

For example, a WERT team member 

designated at the incipient stage tier 

would need to be trained to a level 

equivalent to the NFPA 1081 JPRs for 

that tier only, and not the JPRs for 

interior structural firefighting. 

Paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of the proposed 

rule would require each ESO responder 

who is designated to perform interior 

structural firefighting duties to be 

trained to safely perform the duties 

assigned, to a level that is at least 

equivalent to the job performance 

requirements of NFPA 1001, Structural 

Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications, 

2019 ed. NFPA 1001 sets the 

professional qualifications for structural 

firefighters and outlines the essential 

competencies and performance 

standards required for effective 

firefighting in interior structural 

environments. This training covers 

critical areas such as fire behavior, 

ventilation techniques, search and 

rescue operations, and incident 

command systems, ensuring that 

responders possess the necessary skills 

to perform their duties safely within 

interior structural firefighting scenarios. 

Paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of the proposed 

rule would require each team member 

and responder who is designated to 

perform interior structural firefighting 

duties to be trained to safely perform 

search and rescue operational 

capabilities at least equivalent to the job 

performance requirements of NFPA 

1407, Standard for Rapid Intervention 

Team Training, 2020 ed. NFPA 1407 

sets the standards for rapid intervention 

team (RIT) training, specifically 

focusing on the operational capabilities 

required for effective search and rescue 

in hazardous environments. The 

training covers critical areas, such as 

search techniques, victim extrication, 

firefighter self-rescue, and effective 

communication strategies during rescue 

operations. This ensures that team 

members and responders possess the 

necessary skills to perform search and 

rescue operations safely and effectively 

within interior structural firefighting 

incidents. 

Paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of the proposed 

rule would require each team member 

and responder who is a vehicle operator 

to be trained to safely operate that 

vehicle at a level that is at least 

equivalent to the job performance 

requirements of NFPA 1002, Standard 

for Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator 

Professional Qualifications, 2017 ed., or 

similar Emergency Vehicle Operator 

qualifications based on the type of 

vehicle the team member or responder 

operates. NFPA 1002 establishes the 

professional qualifications for fire 

apparatus driver/operators and outlines 

the essential competencies and 

performance standards required for safe 

and effective vehicle operation. The 

training covers critical areas such as 

vehicle handling, emergency vehicle 

operations, driving techniques, and 

knowledge of vehicle systems. This 

training will help ensure that team 

members and responders are capable of 

safely operating vehicles within the 

scope of their assigned responsibilities. 

Again, each individual team member or 

responder need be trained only with 

respect to the specific job duties they 

are assigned to perform. For example, a 

firefighter designated to only operate a 


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, 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7825 

action plans’’ for purposes of 29 CFR 

1910.38. This proposed provision is not 

a new requirement because WEREs are 

already required to comply with subpart 

E. It is included here to reinforce the 

concept that compliant means of egress, 

emergency lightning, exit marking, etc., 

are of the utmost importance during 

emergency situations, for all workers, 

but especially for team members 

because they spend more time in the 

dangerous situation. For instance, an 

obstructed aisle or hallway could 

interfere with removing a sick or injured 

non-team-member employee by means 

of a wheelchair or ambulance cot. That 

same obstructed aisle or hallway could 

delay firefighting team members in 

reaching a fire, thus allowing the fire to 

grow, further endangering the team 

members, or block their escape path if 

they need to evacuate due to 

deteriorating conditions. 

Proposed paragraph (i)(1)(ii) would 

require WEREs to provide facilities for 

the decontamination, disinfection, 

cleaning, and storage of PPE and 

equipment. Cleaning and 

decontamination of PPE and equipment 

is an important step in reducing or 

preventing exposure to bloodborne 

pathogens, carcinogens, and other 

contaminants which can cause cancer 

and other illnesses in team members 

and responders. The proposed 

requirement would ensure that team 

members have a means to 

decontaminate, disinfect, and clean 

their PPE and equipment as needed and 

as required by proposed paragraph (k). 

These requirements are based on NFPA 

1581, Standard on Fire Department 

Infection Control Program, 2022 ed., and 

NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection, 

Care, and Maintenance of Protective 

Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting 

and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2020 ed. In 

Question (i)–1, OSHA seeks input 

regarding what WEREs are currently 

doing for decontamination, disinfection, 

cleaning, and storage of PPE and 

equipment, and whether OSHA should 

include any additional requirements for 

these processes in a final standard. 

The manner of compliance with this 

provision could vary depending on a 

WERE’s facility, the activities of the 

WERT, and the manufacturer’s 

instructions for particular PPE and 

equipment. Some WEREs may provide a 

dedicated room or area with commercial 

style washing machines or extractors for 

PPE. Others may only provide facilities 

for basic cleaning and gross 

decontamination using a utility hose 

and brushes, a large sink with spray 

nozzle, appropriate cleaning chemicals 

and disinfectants, and drying racks. 

Alternatively, if PPE is to be 

decontaminated or disinfected at 

another location, such as an off-site 

commercial launderer, WEREs would 

need to provide for bagging and storage 

of contaminated PPE while it is still at 

the WERE facility, to prevent exposure 

to employees and team members, and 

prevent cross contamination with clean 

PPE. 

Proposed paragraph (i)(1)(iii) would 

require the WERE to ensure that fire 

detection, suppression, and alarm 

systems, and occupant notification 

systems are installed, tested, and 

maintained in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instructions and 29 CFR 

part 1910, subpart L—Fire Protection. 

WEREs are already required to comply 

with subpart L. Cross-referencing this 

provision in the proposed rule serves as 

a reminder to WEREs and reinforces the 

importance of these requirements in the 

context of a WERT, where proper 

operation of these systems during a fire 

emergency could affect the safety of 

team members. 

Proposed paragraph (i)(2) would 

require the WERE to ensure fire hose 

connections and fittings are compatible 

with, or adapters are provided for, 

firefighting infrastructure such as fire 

hydrants, sprinkler system and 

standpipe system inlet connections, and 

fire hose valves (FHV), to facilitate 

prompt firefighting support from mutual 

aid WERTs and ESOs. A majority of fire 

hose fittings and connections, with 

varying diameters, use a standard hose 

screw thread dimension. However, there 

are other screw thread dimensions that 

are available and used for fire hose 

connections and fittings, including 

nonthreaded connections. While OSHA 

believes it would be advantageous to 

have uniformity of all screw threads, it 

is more important that the fitting 

diameters, screw threads, and 

nonthreaded connections at the facility 

are compatible with those used by the 

WERT(s) and ESO(s) who would 

potentially provide firefighting support. 

Any delay in providing needed fire 

suppression water to a sprinkler system 

or standpipe system could result in a 

fire spreading and thus endangering or 

further endangering team members (as 

well as other employees at the facility). 

Inability to connect hoses from a fire 

engine to the inlet connections due to 

noncompatible screw treads or fitting 

diameter would certainly cause a delay 

in providing needed fire suppression 

water. 

OSHA’s existing standard for 

standpipe and hose systems, 29 CFR 

1910.158, requires standardized screw 

threads or adapters for hose connections 

(29 CFR 1910.158(c)(2)(ii)) for quick 

connection of fire hoses. The existing 

provision applies within the employer’s 

facility but fails to take into 

consideration the need for potential 

support from mutual aid WERTs or 

ESOs. Additionally, the existing 

provision predates the development of 

nonthreaded connections for large 

diameter fire hoses, which are 

sometimes used for sprinkler and 

standpipe inlet connections and fire 

hydrant fittings. The proposed provision 

would ensure mutual aid WERTs and 

ESOs, as required by proposed 

paragraph (c)(8) of this section, could 

provide needed water supply without 

delay, thus reducing the potential risk to 

team members, non-team member 

employees, and responders. 

To provide added clarity and as noted 

elsewhere in this preamble, OSHA 

proposes in this rulemaking to revise 29 

CFR 1910.158, Standpipe and hose 

systems and 1910.159, Automatic 

sprinkler systems, to add a provision for 

system inlet fitting compatibility with, 

or adapters provided for, mutual aid 

WERTs and ESOs, consistent with 

paragraph (i)(2) of this proposed rule. 

Proposed paragraph (i)(3) would 

require WEREs to identify the location 

of each fire hose valve (FHV) in a 

manner suitable to the location, such as 

with a sign, painted wall, or painted 

column, to ensure prompt access to 

FHVs. The proposed provision excludes 

FHVs that are clearly visible on 

standpipes in enclosed stairways. 

Compliance with this provision could 

be achieved by various methods 

including marking the location of each 

FHV with a sign, painted wall, painted 

column, or other suitable means that 

would ensure that each FHV is clearly 

visible, thus making the FHV easier to 

locate during an emergency. This 

approach is particularly important in 

facilities with large open areas, such as 

parking garages, plant manufacturing 

areas, and storage rack areas, where 

FHVs may otherwise be difficult to 

locate, especially during an emergency. 

Paragraph (j) ESO Facility Preparedness 

Many responders spend a significant 

amount of time in the workplace, often 

sleeping and eating meals there, because 

they are required to be at the ESO 

facility to respond to emergency 

incidents quickly. While responders 

expect to encounter hazards at an 

emergency incident, they may also 

become injured or ill from hazards they 

are exposed to in ESO facilities. 

Proposed paragraph (j) provides 

requirements to ensure that ESO 

facilities are safe for responders. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i) states that 

the ESO must ensure each ESO facility 

complies with 29 CFR part 1910, 


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 

speed while descending the pole. 

Ensuring the responder does not hold 

anything while using the pole would 

help them focus on the importance of 

gripping the pole and would avoid 

potential distraction such as spilling a 

cup of coffee or dropping a handful of 

papers. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(iii)(B) 

would require the ESO to ensure that 

each fire pole has a landing cushion that 

is at least 30 inches in diameter, has a 

contrasting color to the surrounding 

floor, and has impact absorption to 

reduce the likelihood and severity of 

injury. The minimum diameter 

requirement is meant to accommodate 

responders of varying shapes and sizes. 

The contrasting color would enhance 

visibility to the potential tripping 

hazard on the floor. The landing 

cushion would also need to be made of 

a material with sufficient thickness to 

reduce the impact of a responder 

landing on the cushion. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(iii)(C) 

would require ESOs to ensure that each 

floor hole with a fire pole, chute, or 

slide that provides rapid access to a 

lower level is secured or protected in 

accordance with 29 CFR part 1910, 

subpart D—Walking-Working Surfaces 

to prevent unintended falls through the 

floor hole. Given the importance of 

these requirements in addressing the 

hazard posed by these floor openings in 

ESO facilities, OSHA believes it is 

important to remind ESOs of their 

obligations under subpart D to reinforce 

compliance. 

The trend in the design and 

construction of new ESO facilities is to 

install slides, chutes, and stairs as an 

alternative to installing new fire poles. 

In Question (j)–1, OSHA seeks input 

whether the agency should consider 

prohibiting the installation of fire poles 

in new ESO facilities. In addition to 

supporting data, the agency seeks input 

on a potential phase-in period should a 

prohibition against new poles is 

included in the final rule. 

Paragraph (j)(1)(iv) of the proposed 

rule would require the ESO to ensure 

that fire detection, suppression, and 

alarm systems, and occupant 

notification systems are installed, 

tested, and maintained in accordance 

with manufacturer’s instructions and 29 

part CFR 1910, subpart L—Fire 

Protection. Fire protection systems are 

important for protecting responders 

from the danger of fire in ESO facilities. 

They must function properly to provide 

protection. Following the 

manufacturer’s instructions for 

installing, testing, and maintaining this 

equipment will help to provide this 

protection because the instructions are 

tailored to deal with the unique features 

of a particular manufacturer’s 

equipment. The last part of this 

provision serves as a reminder to 

comply with subpart L, which contains 

specific requirements to ensure the 

effectiveness of various types of fire 

detection, suppression, and alarm 

systems. 

Paragraph (j)(2) proposes 

requirements for protective measures for 

sleeping and living areas of ESO 

facilities, as defined in proposed 

paragraph (b) of this section. Proposed 

paragraph (j)(2)(i) would require the 

ESO to ensure that interconnected 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7827 

to the presence of the poisonous gas, 

thus allowing them to evacuate before 

they become incapacitated. The risk of 

carbon monoxide exposure may be high 

for responders because ESO vehicle 

engines are started and run inside of 

ESO facilities. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(iv) would 

require the ESO to prevent responder 

exposure to, and contamination of 

sleeping and living areas by, exhaust 

emissions. OSHA believes that 

compliance with this provision can be 

achieved by any of several means, 

including direct or source capture 

systems attached to vehicle exhaust 

pipes, automatic ventilation systems, 

positive air pressure in sleeping and 

living areas, self-closing doors with 

weather seals, and others. 

Paragraph (j)(2)(v) of the proposed 

rule would require the ESO to ensure 

that contaminated PPE is not worn or 

stored in sleeping and living areas. This 

provision, in conjunction with proposed 

paragraphs (j)(1)(ii) (decontamination, 

disinfection, cleaning, and storage 

facilities) and (k)(2)(viii) 

(decontamination and cleaning of PPE), 

would ensure that responders are not 

unnecessarily exposed to contaminants 

in sleeping and living areas. 

Paragraph (k) Equipment and PPE 

Proposed paragraph (k) contains 

requirements related to the provision, 

maintenance, and use of equipment and 

PPE. Team members and responders 

rely on PPE to provide protection from 

and minimize exposure to various 

hazards they may encounter during 

emergency response activities that may 

cause injuries, illnesses, or fatalities. 

Team members and responders are 

routinely exposed to hazards such as 

sharp edges, falling and flying objects, 

extreme temperatures, bodily fluids, 

combustion products, and a broad range 

of other potential contaminants. They 

depend on PPE because many of the 

hazards they are exposed to cannot be 

abated by administrative or engineering 

controls (see, e.g., § 1910.1000(e)). 

To train for and perform their duties 

properly and safely, team members and 

responders depend on a wide variety of 

equipment, such as hoses and nozzles; 

ladders; saws; hand tools; hydraulic, 

pneumatic, and electric rescue tools; 

rope access and fall protection 

equipment; ambulance cots; 

stethoscopes and blood pressure cuffs; 

and oxygen delivery systems. In the 

proposed rule, OSHA uses the general 

term equipment to be inclusive. (Note: 

Vehicles used in emergency response 

are addressed in proposed paragraph 

(l)). Malfunctioning or inoperable 

equipment may cause injuries or delays 

in performing emergency services which 

could escalate the seriousness of the 

incident, posing a greater hazard to team 

members and responders. 

Equipment and PPE are routinely 

exposed to various contaminants and 

combustion products on emergency 

incident scenes. Decontamination 

reduces exposure of team members and 

responders to the detrimental health 

effects related to contaminants and 

combustion products. Many of the 

provisions in proposed paragraph (k) are 

based on, or consistent with, NFPA 

1500. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(1)(i) would 

require that each WERE and ESO 

provide or otherwise ensure access to 

the equipment that team members and 

responders need to train for and safely 

perform emergency services, based on 

the type and level of service(s) that the 

individual WERE or ESO has 

established in accordance with 

proposed paragraphs (c) and (d). The 

equipment must be provided at no cost 

to team members or responders. The 

provision states ‘‘provide . . . or ensure 

access to’’ because WEREs and ESOs 

may have their own training equipment 

for tasks they frequently perform, but 

may depend on a centralized cache of 

equipment, other WEREs or ESOs, or a 

training facility for other equipment. For 

example, all team members and 

responders would need to be trained to 

perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation 

(CPR) and in the use of an automatic 

external defibrillator (AED) as proposed 

in paragraph (h). The training for these 

skills typically uses a CPR manikin and 

a training model AED. Since this 

equipment is not frequently used, 

OSHA believes that instead of 

purchasing their own training 

equipment, some WEREs and ESOs 

would ensure team members and 

responders have access to the 

equipment from another source. 

Employers are already required to 

provide necessary PPE at no cost to 

employees under OSHA’s general PPE 

requirements, 29 CFR 1910.134(h). 

Proposed paragraph (k)(1)(i) reiterates 

this requirement and makes clear that 

non-PPE equipment needed to train for 

and safely perform emergency services 

must also be provided at no cost to team 

members and responders. This 

requirement is consistent with OSHA’s 

longstanding position that ‘‘[t]he OSH 

Act requires employers to pay for the 

means necessary to create a safe and 

healthful work environment’’ (Employer 

Payment for Personal Protective 

Equipment, 72 FR 64342, 64344 (Nov. 

15, 2007)). 

Paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of the proposed 

rule would require that each WERE and 

ESO ensure that newly purchased or 

acquired equipment is safe for use in the 

manner the WERE or ESO intends to use 

it. ‘‘Newly purchased or acquired’’ 

means purchased or acquired after the 

effective date of any final rule that 

would result from this rulemaking. 

Often, when WEREs and ESOs purchase 

or obtain new(er) equipment, they 

donate or sell their older equipment to 

other WEREs or ESOs. This provision 

would require the receiving WERE and 

ESO to ensure that the equipment 

received is safe for use prior to utilizing 

the equipment. Under proposed 

paragraphs (k)(1)(iii), each WERE and 

ESO would be required to inspect, 

maintain, functionally test, and service 

test equipment at least annually, in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions and industry practices, and 

as necessary to ensure equipment is in 

safe working order. Functional testing 

and service testing are different in that 

functional testing is performed by using 

and observing the equipment as it 

would normally be used. Service testing 

involves following specific procedures 

and evaluating test criteria, such as 

hydrostatic testing of SCBA air 

cylinders and flow testing SCBA 

regulators. Proper inspection, 

maintenance, and testing are necessary 

to ensure equipment is in proper, safe, 

working order and ready for use by team 

members and responders. Many pieces 

of equipment, such as hand tools, 

ladders, and rope rescue equipment, 

would be inspected after each use, and 

some would only require annual service 

testing. The manufacturer’s instructions 

are the best source of information about 

inspection frequency and appropriate 

maintenance and testing. However, if a 

WERE or ESO has reason to believe a 

piece of equipment may not be in safe 

working order, that equipment would 

need to be inspected and tested 

immediately or removed from service, 

regardless of the inspection frequency 

recommended by the manufacturer. 

Paragraph (k)(1)(iv) of the proposed rule 

would require that each WERE and ESO 

immediately remove from service any 

equipment found to be defective or in 

an unserviceable condition. Equipment 

that is defective or that is not ready or 

able to be used safely poses a hazard to 

team members and responders. The 

equipment would need to be 

immediately removed from service to 

prevent potential injuries to team 

members and responders. Once repaired 

to a safe operational condition, the 

equipment could be returned to service 

for use. 

In proposed paragraph (k)(2)(i), each 

WERE and ESO would be required to 


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 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7829 

Maintenance of Protective Ensembles 

for Structural Fire Fighting and 

Proximity Fire Fighting (Document ID 

0115, pp. 13–14), which calls for PPE to 

be retired ten years after the date of 

manufacture. OSHA recognizes that 

there are users with concerns that there 

may be a gap in the scientific evidence 

on whether PPE aged beyond the 

retirement schedule published in NFPA 

1851 is incapable of providing the 

designed protection level, regardless of 

the amount of use. Additionally, OSHA 

recognizes that older PPE may still be of 

use for activities where the primary 

protective properties of the PPE are not 

needed, for example for some exterior 

activities on fire scenes, during some 

training scenarios, and firefighting PPE 

used for identification and for 

protection against sharp edges at vehicle 

accident scenes. However, there is 

concern that older PPE could be used in 

situations where it is no longer able to 

provide the needed protection. In the 

proposed rule, OSHA is not proposing 

specific retirement age criteria for any 

PPE, and instead requires that PPE be 

cared for and maintained in accordance 

with manufacturer’s instructions. OSHA 

is seeking input in Question (k)–1 on 

whether the agency should specify 

retirement age(s) for PPE. 

Paragraph (k)(2)(ix) of the proposed 

rule would require each WERE and ESO 

to immediately remove from service any 

defective or damaged protective 

ensembles, ensemble elements, or 

protective equipment. Defective or 

damaged PPE is not protective and 

could expose team members and 

responders to the hazards that the PPE 

is supposed to be protecting against. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(x) would 

require that when a WERE or ESO 

permits a team member or responder to 

provide their own protective ensemble, 

ensemble element, or other protective 

equipment for personal use, the 

requirements of paragraphs (k)(2)(iii) 

through (ix) of this section are met. 

Some WEREs and ESOs permit their 

team members and responders to 

provide and use their own protective 

equipment. The proposed provision 

would require that, to ensure safety and 

health protections, team member or 

responder-provided PPE meet the same 

requirements as that provided by the 

WERE and ESO. OSHA emphasizes that 

the use of team member or 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. 

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 

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, 


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 

responders that can affect the safe 

working life of a particular vehicle and 

firm deadlines for retiring vehicles may 

result in costly and unwarranted 

replacement. Given this variability, 

OSHA is not proposing particular 

timeframes for vehicle replacement. 

Instead, the proposed rule requires that 

vehicles be inspected, maintained, and 

repaired as specified by the 

manufacturer and that any vehicle with 

a safety-related deficiency be 

immediately removed from service. 

Paragraph (l)(1)(iii) of the proposed 

rule would require the WERE or ESO to 

ensure that each vehicle is provided 

with a seat for each riding position, and 

each riding position is provided with a 

functioning seat belt or vehicle safety 

harness that is designed to 

accommodate a team member or 

responder with and without heavy 

clothing, unless the vehicle is designed, 

built, and intended for use without seat 

belts or vehicle safety harnesses. The 

seat belts and vehicle safety harnesses 

would need to accommodate a team 

member or responder wearing a duty 

uniform or other daily apparel or heavy 

clothing, such as a winter coat or 

firefighting PPE. The benefits of 

seatbelts and vehicle safety harnesses in 

preventing and reducing injuries and 

fatalities are well known. A vehicle 

safety harness would be used in place 

of a seatbelt, typically in a patient 

transport vehicle where the EMS 

provider needs access to treat a patient 

that would not be possible while using 

a seatbelt. Team members and 

responders would be required to use the 

seats, seatbelts, and vehicle safety 

harnesses as specified in proposed 

paragraph (l)(2) of this section. 

OSHA realizes that many types of 

vehicles used by team members and 

responders are designed, built, and 

intended for use without seatbelts or 

vehicle safety harnesses. Examples 

include some All-Terrain Vehicles, 

passenger seats in buses, bicycles, 

motorcycles, snowmobiles, boats, and 

personal watercraft. Such vehicles are 

exempted from the requirements in 

paragraph (1)(1)(iii). 

Proposed paragraphs (l)(1)(iv) and (v) 

would require the WERE or ESO to 

ensure that vehicles with aerial devices 

and vehicles with vehicle-mounted 

water pumps be inspected, maintained, 

and service tested in accordance with 

the manufacturer’s instructions or in a 

manner at least equivalent to the criteria 

specified in NFPA 1910, 2024 ed. The 

testing and maintenance program 

specified in the manufacturer’s 

instructions and the consensus standard 

are recognized as the most effective 

programs to ensure the safety of these 

devices. Failure to inspect and maintain 

an aerial device could result in serious 

injuries or fatalities should a 

catastrophic failure occur when the 

device is elevated or extended. Water 

provided through vehicle mounted 

pumps is needed for fire suppression. 

Team members and responders depend 

on the water to protect them when they 

are in close proximity to a fire. They 

could be injured or killed if a pump 

were to malfunction or breakdown due 

to inadequate maintenance. Service 

testing ensures that aerial devices and 

pumps are functioning properly. 

Proposed paragraph (l)(2) would 

ensure vehicles are driven and operated 

in a manner that would keep team 

members and responders safe. While the 

primary focus of this provision is for the 

safety of team members and responders, 

it would also have the effect of 

protecting the public such as other 

drivers on the road and their passengers, 

bystanders, and patients being 

transported by EMS providers. 

Proposed paragraph (l)(2)(i) would 

require the WERE and ESO to ensure 

that each vehicle is operated by a team 

member or responder who has 

successfully completed an operator 

training program commensurate with 

the type of vehicle the team member or 

responder will operate, or by a trainee 

operator who is under the supervision 

of a qualified operator. Operators of 

vehicles would have to be adequately 

trained, or in the process of being 

trained, to operate the vehicle. An 

untrained or inadequately trained 

operator poses a safety hazard to team 

members and responders riding in the 

vehicle, to operators of other vehicles, 

and to bystanders. 

Proposed paragraph (l)(2)(ii) would 

require the WERE or ESO to ensure that 

each vehicle is driven or operated in 

accordance with the standard operating 

procedures (SOP) developed in 

proposed paragraph (q)(2)(iv) (see the 

Summary and Explanation for 

paragraph (q)). The proposed SOP 

provision includes several safety-related 

topics that are key to safe vehicle 

operation. Paragraph (l)(2)(ii) requires 

the WERE or ESO to ensure that these 

important procedures are not only 

established but that they are understood 

and followed by team members and 

responders. 

Paragraphs (l)(2)(iii) and (iv) are 

aimed at protecting team members and 

responders both during the normal 

operation of the vehicle and in the event 

of an accident. Paragraph (l)(2)(iii) 

would require that the WERE or ESO 

ensure the team member or responder 

operating the vehicle does not move the 

vehicle until all team members or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7831 

responders in or on the vehicle are 

seated and secured with seat belts or 

vehicle safety harnesses in approved 

riding positions, except for vehicles 

without seat belts and vehicle safety 

harnesses as noted in proposed 

paragraph (l)(1)(iii), or as provided in 

proposed paragraph (l)(2)(viii). The 

proposed provision anticipates that the 

driver or operator would verify with 

team members and responders that they 

are safely secured in an appropriate 

position or are otherwise prepared for 

vehicle movement. In Question (l)–1 

OSHA is interested in getting 

information on whether there are any 

other situations or vehicles where 

OSHA should require, or exclude, the 

use of seat belts and vehicle harnesses? 

If so, please explain. 

Whereas proposed paragraph (l)(2)(iii) 

would ensure team members and 

responders are ready for the vehicle to 

move, proposed paragraph (l)(2)(iv) 

would require the WERE or ESO to 

ensure they remain seated and secured 

any time that the vehicle is in motion 

and ensure seat belts and vehicle safety 

harnesses are not released or loosened 

for any purpose while the vehicle is in 

motion, including the donning (putting 

on) or doffing (taking off) of PPE. 

When dispatched to an incident from 

the WERE or ESO facility, OSHA 

anticipates team members and 

responders would don PPE before being 

seated and secured, as required by 

proposed paragraph (l)(2)(iii). However, 

there are often occurrences when team 

members and responders are not 

wearing PPE while the vehicle is 

moving, such as for driver training, 

community assessment and familiarity, 

and other non-response driving 

situations, and they are dispatched to 

respond to an incident that requires 

donning PPE. The proposed provision 

requires that they not release or loosen 

seat belts or vehicle safety harnesses to 

don PPE when the vehicle is moving. 

Conversely, if the PPE has already been 

donned, the proposed provision 

prohibits the loosening of seat belts or 

vehicle safety harnesses to doff the PPE 

when the PPE is no longer needed, such 

as when the response is terminated. 

Question (l)–2 asks how would 

compliance be achieved? Would the 

team members or responders stop 

enroute or wait until arrival at the 

scene? 

Paragraph (l)(2)(v) of the proposed 

rule would require the WERE or ESO to 

ensure that team members and 

responders actively performing 

necessary emergency medical care while 

the vehicle is in motion are secured to 

the vehicle by a seat belt, or by a vehicle 

safety harness designed for occupant 

restraint, to the extent consistent with 

the effective provision of such 

emergency medical care. Restraining 

EMS providers who are providing care 

during transport reduces the likelihood 

of serious injury or death, should the 

vehicle make abrupt turns, stops, or 

starts; or become involved in a collision 

or rollover. In Question (l)–(3), OSHA is 

seeking input on whether it should also 

require that the patient be restrained to 

prevent an unrestrained patient from 

being thrown into a team member or 

responder in the event of a vehicle 

collision or an evasive driving 

maneuver? 

Proposed paragraph (l)(2)(vi) would 

require the WERE or ESO to ensure that 

the establishment and implementation 

of a procedure for driver training on 

vehicles with tiller steering that ensures 

when the instructor and trainee are both 

located at the tiller position, they are 

both adequately secured to the vehicle 

whenever it is in motion. 

Tractor-drawn aerial (TDA) ladder 

trucks, and tractor-drawn heavy duty 

and technical rescue vehicles, are 

unique in that they are required to have 

two operators; the main driver in the 

front, similar to other tractor-trailer 

trucks, and a second (tiller) operator 

who steers the wheels at the rear end of 

the trailer. They are also unique in that 

there is no passenger seat for the tiller 

instructor to sit in, as there would be 

when training the main driver at the 

front of the truck. 

Some manufacturers provide a 

detachable seat with a seat belt for the 

instructor to use. There are other 

options for compliance including the 

use of a vehicle safety harness with a 

designated anchor point that has 

sufficient strength to support a fallen 

team member or responder and is not 

just an ordinary handhold/grab rail. 

OSHA recognizes that boats are 

vehicles subject to the proposed 

standard, and some boats have tiller 

steering. However, this proposed 

provision would not apply to boats with 

tiller steering because they are designed, 

built, and intended for use without seat 

belts or vehicle safety harnesses, as 

noted in the discussion above regarding 

proposed paragraph (l)(1)(iii) of this 

section. 

Paragraph (l)(2)(vii) of the proposed 

rule would require the WERE or ESO to 

ensure that a vehicle safety harness 

designed for occupant restraint is 

provided to secure the team member or 

responder in a designated stand-up 

position during pump-and-roll 

operations. While manufacturers have 

typically phased out stand-up positions 

on newer models, many older model 

vehicles used for wildland or wildland 

urban interface firefighting have 

designated stand-up positions for 

operating the water delivery systems. 

Stand-up positions pose a fall hazard to 

team members and responders if they 

are not restrained. 

Proposed paragraph (l)(2)(viii) would 

require the WERE or ESO to ensure that 

policies and procedures are established 

and implemented for ensuring the safety 

of team members and responders when 

it is determined that it is not feasible for 

each team member, responder, or person 

to be belted in a seat. Examples include 

when moving the vehicle while 

reloading long lays of hose, standing as 

honor guards during a funeral 

procession, transporting people acting 

as holiday figures or other characters or 

mascots (e.g., Santa Claus, Easter 

Bunny, Smokey Bear, Superman, etc.), 

during parades, and for vehicles without 

seatbelts as noted in proposed 

paragraph (l)(1)(iii) of this section. The 

policies and procedures would differ 

depending upon the type of vehicle and 

activity taking place. OSHA anticipates 

a variety of alternatives for compliance 

such as the use of ladder belts, 

harnesses, or other fall protection, and 

limitations on the speed vehicles may 

travel. 

When an emergency incident occurs, 

some WEREs and many ESOs depend 

on team members or responders driving 

to their facilities to provide staffing for 

emergency response vehicles, or to 

respond directly to the incident scene to 

provide emergency services. In these 

instances, as noted in section VII., 

Preliminary Economic Analysis and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 

some team members and responders are 

injured and killed while responding in 

privately owned vehicles (POVs). OSHA 

is including requirements in the 

proposed rule to address this hazard. 

Proposed paragraph (l)(2)(ix) would 

require the WERE or ESO to ensure that 

policies and procedures are established 

and implemented for team members and 

responders who, when alerted of an 

emergency incident, are authorized by 

the WERE or ESO to respond in vehicles 

not under the direct control of the 

WERE or ESO to the emergency incident 

scene or to the WERE facility. Such 

vehicles are those that are, for example, 

privately owned, leased, rented, or 

otherwise under the control of the team 

member or responder (including on-loan 

from a friend or family member). 

Some WEREs and ESOs depend on 

‘‘home response’’ by team members and 

responders. In other words, team 

members are at home or otherwise on 

personal time, and directly respond in 

their POV to the incident location or to 

the WERE or ESO facility when alerted 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7832 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

of an emergency incident. This response 

is typically time-sensitive, requiring the 

team member or responder to travel 

with haste, often while communicating 

and coordinating with the WERE, ESO, 

or other team members or responders. 

This scenario presents hazards that are 

directly related to emergency response 

activities. As such, OSHA does not 

consider this sort of home response to 

be a commute to the workplace as 

described in 29 CFR 1904.5(b)(2)(vii), 

which is not treated as work-related for 

purposes of recordkeeping and injury 

and illness reporting requirements 

under 29 CFR part 1904. Rather, OSHA 

intends to cover these types of home 

responses under the proposed standard. 

Under the proposal, the WERE’s or 

ESO’s procedures for use of POV 

vehicles in these circumstances would 

need to include the same elements as 

those for driving their emergency 

vehicles, including requirements for 

wearing seatbelts, speed limits, stopping 

and proceeding at traffic control 

devices, passing other vehicles, and the 

use of warning lights and signals. 

Paragraph (l)(2)(x) proposes to require 

the WERE or ESO to ensure that, where 

tools, equipment, and respiratory 

equipment are carried within enclosed 

seating areas of vehicles, each is secured 

either by an effective mechanical means 

of holding the item in its stowed 

position or by placement in a 

compartment with an effective latching 

mechanism. This would ensure that 

these items do not become flying 

projectiles that could injure team 

members and responders should the 

vehicle be involved in a collision or 

roll-over. 

Paragraph (m) WERE Pre-Incident 

Planning 

Pre-incident plans (PIPs) help team 

members effectively manage incidents 

and maximize the protection of team 

members as well as facility employees 

and the facility. PIPs provide critical 

information to team members that can 

guide their response to an emergency 

incident. PIPs typically include maps of 

the facility and diagrams and drawings, 

along with the designation of 

predetermined locations for emergency 

vehicle positioning during an incident. 

An accurate, up-to-date PIP is a valuable 

tool for assisting team members with 

safe and effective mitigation of 

incidents. 

Under paragraph (m)(1) of the 

proposed rule, the WERE would be 

required to develop PIPs for locations 

within the facility where team members 

may be called to provide service. The 

PIPS are based on the facility 

vulnerability assessment and the type(s) 

and level(s) of service(s) established in 

paragraph (c) of this section. The facility 

and vulnerability assessment would 

identify the locations and processes in 

the facility where WERT services are 

likely to be needed. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(2) would 

require the WERE to include in the 

PIP(s) the locations of unusual hazards 

that team members may encounter, such 

as storage and use of flammable liquids 

and gases, explosives, toxic and 

biological agents, radioactive sources, 

water-reactive substances, 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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7833 

vulnerability assessment and the type(s) 

and level(s) of service(s) established in 

paragraph (d), and develop PIPs for 

facilities, locations, and infrastructure 

where emergency incidents may occur. 

The proposed rule does not require a 

PIP for every incident imaginable. 

Rather, through the community or 

facility vulnerability assessment, the 

ESO must identify structures, facilities, 

and other locations where a PIP would 

help the ESO prepare for an incident, 

and then assist the IC with the 

development of the IAP in paragraph 

(p)(2)(vi). 

ESOs should prioritize PIP 

development according to the type and 

magnitude of the potential incident. 

Hazards to life and health are of the 

utmost importance and would have the 

highest priority in creating PIPs. 

Likewise, the larger or more complex a 

structure or facility is, the greater the 

risk in mitigating an emergency incident 

at these places and therefore the need 

for a PIP would also be greater. 

Proposed paragraph (n)(3) would 

require the ESO to prepare a PIP for 

each facility within the ESO’s primary 

response area that is subject to reporting 

requirements under 40 CFR part 355 

pursuant to the Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Act 

(EPCRA) (also referred to as the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)), 42 

U.S.C. 11001 et seq. These types of 

facilities are particularly hazardous 

because they involve hazardous 

chemicals, and PIPs are necessary to 

ensure ESOs are sufficiently prepared to 

respond to incidents at these facilities. 

Additionally, these facilities may not 

have a WERT organized to mitigate 

emergencies, or the size and scope of 

the emergency may be beyond the 

WERT’s capabilities. 

Under proposed paragraph (n)(4), the 

ESO would need to ensure that, when 

preparing a PIP for a facility, the facility 

personnel the ESO consults are 

knowledgeable about the facility’s use, 

contents, processes, hazards, and 

occupants. It is important that all 

potential hazards are identified to 

responders preparing PIPs, so it is 

important that the facility personnel 

assisting with the PIP development have 

thorough knowledge of the facility. It 

may be necessary to consult with more 

than one facility representative to 

ensure that all the necessary 

information needed for the PIP is 

accurately conveyed. While preparing 

the PIP, the responder may be provided 

access to information, materials, or 

processes that are considered 

proprietary business information. A 

note to proposed paragraph (n)(4) 

recommends that the ESO develop a 

policy for protecting this information. 

Paragraph (n)(5) of the proposed rule 

would require that the ESO ensure that 

the responders responsible for PIP 

preparation know how to identify the 

information to be collected and 

included in the PIP. The PIP is only as 

good as the information contained in it. 

For instance, all necessary facility 

information must be recorded, items of 

concern must be noted, and accurate 

sketches or diagrams must be prepared. 

Proposed paragraph (n)(6) would 

require the ESO to ensure that PIPs have 

a level of detail commensurate with the 

facility’s complexity and hazards. PIPs 

for facilities which are not complex can 

be developed with minimal amounts of 

data. However, additional data are 

required for more complex facilities 

with more hazards. For example, the PIP 

for a multi-story high school would be 

expected to be more complex than the 

PIP for a fast-food restaurant. Regardless 

of facility complexity, the PIP details 

should be presented as concisely as 

possible to make them easily 

understandable to the appropriate 

responders. 

Paragraph (n)(7) of the proposed rule 

would require the ESO to ensure that 

PIPs include actions to be taken by 

responders if the scope of an incident is 

beyond the capacity of the ESO. The PIP 

would be developed with an 

understanding of the ESO’s response 

capability based on the type(s) and 

level(s) of service established in 

paragraph (d), and this provision would 

require planning for what to do if the 

ESO encounters an incident that 

exceeds that response capability. For 

example, the PIP might include what 

mutual aid ESO or skilled support 

resources would be needed. The PIP 

would also describe action(s) the ESO 

would take, such as establishing 

defensive firefighting positions, 

establishing no-entry zones, ensuring 

surrounding areas are evacuated, etc. In 

some situations, the appropriate action 

might be simply to pull back all 

responders to a safe distance away from 

the hazard. 

Under proposed paragraph (n)(8), the 

ESO must ensure that the most recent 

PIPs are disseminated as needed and are 

accessible and available to responders 

operating at emergency incidents. 

OSHA is aware that some ESOs use 

electronic versions of PIPs in a database, 

while others use hardcopies kept in 

binders in response vehicles. Any 

method that ensures the PIPs are 

accessible and available would comply 

with the provision. PIPs can only be 

useful if they are available at the 

incident site and accessible to 

responders operating at emergency 

incidents. Also, they should be easy for 

responders to understand. PIPs are 

particularly important for the IC’s use 

during an incident. 

Paragraph (n)(9) of the proposed rule 

would require the ESO to ensure that 

PIPs be reviewed annually and updated 

as needed. For example, during the 

course of their daily routines, 

responders might observe facilities 

being renovated, additions being built, 

or a change of occupancy. Observations 

such as these might prompt a PIP 

update. Other information on PIPs 

might not be easily observed, such as 

names and phone numbers for 

responsible parties, access codes for 

doors and gates, etc. This type of 

information would be gathered during 

an annual review. 

Paragraph (o) Incident Management 

System 

WERTs and ESOs respond to a wide 

variety of incidents; most of which are 

considered routine and involve a small 

commitment of resources. Some 

incidents are more complex and involve 

larger commitments of resources, and 

potentially higher-risk operations. It is 

important for the WERE and ESO to 

develop an incident management 

system (IMS) that accommodates all 

types and sizes of incidents and 

provides for a systematic process of 

escalation from the arrival of the first 

units at a routine incident, to an 

appropriate response to larger and more 

complex incidents. 

As discussed in the Summary and 

Explanation of proposed paragraph (b), 

the proposed rule defines an IMS as ‘‘a 

system used for managing and directing 

incident scene operations and activities. 

It includes establishing functions for 

managing incidents, describes the roles 

and responsibilities to be assumed by 

team members and responders, and 

standard operating procedures to be 

utilized.’’ Because OSHA is aware that 

some WERTs and ESOs use the terms 

IMS and Incident Command System 

(ICS) synonymously, the definition also 

indicates that incident command is a 

functional component of the IMS. 

An IMS provides for the safety and 

health of team members and responders 

by establishing structure and 

coordination for the management of 

emergency incident operations. Several 

commenters responding to OSHA’s 2007 

RFI indicated that an IMS is appropriate 

for managing all types of emergency 

incidents and is effective in reducing 

injuries and illnesses to team members 

and responders (Document ID 0018; 

0022; 0024; 0030; 0032; 0036; 0037; 

0039; 0041; 0044; 0046; 0047; 0048; 


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 

working effectively together at 

emergency incidents. In Question (o)-1, 

OSHA asks for stakeholder input about 

their current use of an IMS, whether the 

NIMS and NRF were used as guidance 

for the IMS, and if there are any 

concerns with being compatible with 

NIMS. 

Paragraph (o)(2)(ii) of the proposed 

rule would require that each WERE and 

ESO ensure that, in the absence of a 

dedicated ISO, the IC assesses the 

incident scene for existing and potential 

hazards and oversees incident safety. 

Many incidents have an ISO whose 

primary responsibilities are to assess the 

incident scene for existing and potential 

hazards and oversee incident safety. 

Small-scale incident scenes, however, 

may not have a team member or 

responder who is designated as the ISO. 

In these circumstances, the IC would 

need to oversee incident safety. 

Paragraph (o)(2)(iii) of the proposed 

rule would require that each WERE and 

ESO ensure that the IMS includes a 

means for team members or responders 

to notify the IC or Unified Command 

(UC) of unsafe conditions and actions 

on the incident scene. Unsafe 

conditions or actions may become 

evident to team members and 

responders while they are performing 

their duties. It is important that they be 

able to alert the ISO, IC or UC as soon 

as possible, by means of portable radio, 

cell phone, face-to-face communication, 

or another method designated in the 

IMS, so that actions can be taken by the 

IC or UC to address the hazard. 

Paragraph (o)(2)(iv) of the proposed 

rule would require that each WERE and 

ESO ensure that the IMS consists of 

collaborative components that provide 

the basis for clear communication and 

effective operations. Components, such 

as those identified in the NIMS— 

resource management, command and 

coordination, and communications and 

information management—would 

provide structure and coordination for 

ICs and UCs to manage emergency 

incident operations, which would 

provide for the safety and health of team 

members and responders. 

Proposed paragraphs (o)(3)(i) through 

(iii) would require that each WERE and 

ESO designate the responsibilities of the 

IC that at least include front-line 

management of the incident, overall 

incident safety, and tactical planning 

and execution. The front-line 

management of the incident could 

include activities such as establishing a 

command post, conducting size-ups of 

the incident, and controlling incident 

communications. The overall incident 

safety responsibility of the IC could 

cover activities such as including team 

member and responder safety in the 

IAP, and continuously assessing the risk 

to the safety and health of team 

members and responders. The tactical 

planning and execution could include 

activities such as developing an overall 

strategy and an IAP, assigning duties 

and tasks to team members and 

responders, establishing hazard control 

zones, maintaining resource and team 

member or responder accountability, 

and updating the IAP as needed. 

Under proposed paragraph (o)(3)(iv), 

the WERE and ESO would also 

designate to the IC the responsibility of 

determining if additional assistance is 

needed, and relaying requests for 

internal resources, mutual aid, and 

skilled support assistance through the 

emergency communications and 

dispatch center. The IC is in the best 

position to know what and when 

additional assistance is needed. 

Assistance is requested by the IC 

through the dispatch center which 

would contact the requested internal 

resources, mutual aid WERT or ESO, or 

the employer who can provide the 

requested skilled support. 

Paragraph (o)(4) of the proposed rule 

would require that each WERE and ESO 

ensure that the IC has the training and 

authority to perform IC duties. Training 

would vary depending on the team 

member’s or responder’s tier of duty. 

For example, NFPA 1021, Standard for 

Fire Officer Professional Qualifications, 

2020 ed., identifies four levels for 

minimum requirements for leadership 

and supervision over others and 

operations, which includes incident 

management. Level 1 is a tier for an 

entry level/first-line supervisor, ESO 

‘‘company officer,’’ or team leader. 

Level 4 is the top level or top tier for 

the chief of the ESO. On a single unit 

response incident, typically the senior 

team member or responder would be the 

IC. On a multi-unit response incident, 

the senior team member or responder 

could be the initial IC, but the role of 

IC would pass up the chain of command 

as more senior/higher tier team 

members or responders arrive on the 

scene. Additionally, as part of the IMS, 

the WERE and ESO would need to 

authorize the appropriate team members 

and responders to serve as an IC. 

Many of the provisions in this section 

are based on, or are consistent with, 

NFPA 1500, and NFPA 1561, Standard 

on Emergency Services Incident 

Management System and Command 

Safety, 2024 ed. OSHA has 

preliminarily determined that 

development and use of an IMS would 

make incident scenes safer and prevent 

injuries and fatalities. In Question (o)-2, 

OSHA is seeking input on which 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7835 

aspects of an IMS are the most effective 

and the least effective in protecting the 

safety and health of team members and 

responders. Commenters should explain 

how and why certain IMS components 

are or are not effective. 

Paragraph (p) Emergency Incident 

Operations 

During emergency incident 

operations, team members and 

responders face the most challenging 

aspects, both physically and 

psychologically, of their vocation. 

Ensuring safe operations at incidents 

can reduce team member and responder 

injuries and fatalities, and limit 

exposure to health hazards. Paragraph 

(p) of the proposed rule is based on 

current industry practices, as reflected 

by NFPA consensus standards and 

FEMA’s ‘‘National Incident 

Management System,’’ and would not 

present new requirements for most 

ESOs and WEREs. 

Proposed paragraph (p)(1) would 

establish requirements for incident 

command and management. Paragraphs 

(p)(1)(i) and (ii) would require the 

WERE and ESO to ensure that the IMS 

developed in accordance with 

paragraph (o) of this section is used at 

every emergency incident and that every 

incident has an Incident Commander 

(IC) or a Unified Command (UC). For an 

IMS to be effective on large scale 

incidents, it needs to be used on small 

scale incidents so that all involved are 

familiar with it and experienced with 

working within its scope. Also, it is 

important that every incident, no matter 

how large or how small, has a person 

designated to be in charge. For a simple 

EMS response for a sick person laying 

in the yard with two EMS providers on 

the ambulance, one provider would be 

designated the leader, or IC, and in 

charge of response activities for the 

incident. 

Under proposed paragraph (p)(1)(iii), 

the WERE and ESO would need to 

ensure that the task of overseeing 

incident safety is addressed, or an ISO 

is assigned and designated to monitor 

and assess the incident scene for safety 

hazards and unsafe situations and 

develop measures for ensuring team 

member and responder safety. The task 

of overseeing incident safety is 

sometimes referred to as the ‘‘safety’’ 

role. Typically, the IC would oversee the 

safety role on small(er) incidents. For 

larger or more complex incidents, where 

division of labor is appropriate so that 

the IC is not overwhelmed, a team 

member or responder (usually with 

seniority or in a higher tier) can be 

designated to fill the safety role as the 

ISO. Whoever fulfills the safety role 

needs to be mindful of observed and 

anticipated safety hazards and develop 

measures to stop or correct them to 

prevent injuries or fatalities. 

Proposed paragraph (p)(1)(iv) would 

require the WERE and ESO to ensure 

that if an incident escalates in size and 

complexity, the IC divides the incident 

into strategic or tactical level 

management components. Dividing 

complex incidents into manageable 

components allows for an appropriate 

span of control for team members and 

responders managing the components 

and reduces the likelihood that the IC or 

component managers will be 

overwhelmed. For example, a derailed 

and overturned passenger train is a 

large-scale incident that involves 

multiple WERTs or ESOs spread apart 

by distance, due to the length of the 

train, and also by the train itself being 

a large obstruction physically separating 

one side of the incident from the other. 

In this situation, the ESO could separate 

the incident into geographic areas, 

separating each side of the tracks (north/ 

south, east/west) into individual 

divisions (as described in NIMS), with 

an overall IC, and a senior team member 

or responder designated as the division 

leader. 

Under proposed paragraph (p)(1)(v), 

the WERE and ESO would need to 

ensure that a Unified Command (UC) 

structure is utilized on incidents where 

the complexity requires a shared 

responsibility among two or more 

WEREs, ESOs, or other agencies. For 

example, a common situation requiring 

a UC could be during a large-scale 

wildfire that crosses jurisdictional 

boundaries, such as town/city, county, 

state, and Federal lands (such as 

national parks). The UC would likely be 

comprised of individuals who would be 

the IC in their own jurisdiction, to 

coordinate efforts and operate together 

to achieve a common goal to mitigate 

the incident and prevent injuries and 

fatalities. 

Proposed paragraph (p)(1)(vi) would 

require the WERE and ESO ensure that 

IC(s), team members, and responders are 

rotated or replaced during complex or 

extended operations, as determined by 

the WERE or ESO. Emergency response 

activities can be physically and 

mentally challenging, resulting in 

fatigue that can impair the team member 

or responder’s ability to safely and 

effectively perform their duties. It is 

important that team members and 

responders receive adequate rest breaks 

and the opportunity to mentally 

decompress. 

Proposed paragraph (p)(2) would 

establish requirements for the incident 

commander. Paragraph (p)(2)(i) would 

require the WERE and ESO to ensure a 

team member or responder is assigned 

as the IC. Each incident needs someone 

to be in charge, who would serve as the 

IC. However, the team member or 

responder designated to fill the role of 

IC may change as the incident 

progresses and more senior tier team 

members or responders arrive at the 

scene, or as the incident escalates in 

size or complexity. 

Paragraph (p)(2)(ii) would require 

each WERE and ESO to ensure that the 

identity of the IC and the location of the 

command post are communicated to the 

team members or responders who are on 

the incident scene or responding to it. 

The IC should announce via radio the 

specific location of the command post. 

For communications via radio between 

the sender and receiver, the command 

post could be anywhere within range of 

the radio. However, most often incident 

scene communication occurs face-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 


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 

incident are communicated to all team 

members and responders on the scene. 

For control zones to serve their intended 

purpose, team members and responders 

need to be notified of the zone 

perimeters. As an incident escalates or 

de-escalates the boundaries of the zones 

are likely to expand or contract. For 

example, when a fire extends from one 

attached dwelling (i.e., townhouse, 

rowhouse) to another the zones would 

expand to include the additional 

dwelling on fire. As the fire is brought 

under control, the zones would contract. 

Team members and responders would 

need to be notified of these changes via 

radio or visually by the relocation of the 

marking method required by proposed 

paragraph (p)(3)(iv)(B). 

Under proposed paragraphs 

(p)(3)(iv)(A) through (C), the WERE and 

ESO would need to ensure that control 

zones are established as no-entry, hot, 

warm, and cold, as defined in proposed 

paragraph (b); marked in a conspicuous 

manner, with colored tape, signage, or 

other appropriate means, unless such 

marking is not possible; and 

communicated to all team members and 

responders attending the incident before 

the team member or responder is 

assigned to a control zone. These 

proposed provisions elaborate on the 

general requirements in the preceding 

provisions. The individual zones are 

defined in proposed paragraph (b), and 

further explained in the Summary and 

Explanation for paragraph (b). In 

Question (p)–1, OSHA is seeking 

stakeholder input on current practices 

for identifying and communicating the 

various zone boundaries. What marking 

methods are used? How are they 

communicated to team members and 

responders? Do the marking methods 

help or hinder on-scene operations? 

Proposed paragraph (p)(3)(v) would 

require the WERE and ESO to ensure 

that only team members and responders 

with an assigned task are permitted in 

the hot zone. The hot zone is the area 

with the greatest potential for risk of 

injury or exposure to hazards. Team 

members or responders entering the hot 

zone without an assigned task would be 

considered to be freelancing, thus 

operating outside the scope of the IMS, 

and therefore placing themselves at risk, 

and potentially increasing the risk to 

those designated to operate within the 

zone. Freelancing team members and 

responders are also likely to be difficult 

to track in the personnel accountability 

system established in proposed 

paragraph (p)(2)(vi). 

Paragraph (p)(3)(vi) of the proposed 

rule would require the WERE and ESO 

ensure that where a no-entry zone is 

designated, team members and 

responders are prohibited from entering 

the area. A no-entry zone can be 

established for any number of reasons. 

The most important reason is to protect 

team members and responders from 

injury or death. For example, during a 

structure fire, there is the danger of a 

wall or other part of a structure 

collapsing. The area where the 

collapsing structural components are 

likely to fall would be designated as a 

no-entry zone, and team members and 

responders would be prohibited from 

entering that area. While not a hazard to 

team members and responders, a 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7837 

incident scene would need to be limited 

to those that can be safely conducted by 

the team members or responders on the 

scene. 

Proposed paragraphs (p)(4)(iii) 

through (v) are essentially carried 

forward into the proposed rule from the 

existing requirements in 29 CFR 

1910.134(g)(4), Respiratory Protection; 

Procedures for interior structural 

firefighting. The existing provisions are 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘2-in, 2- 

out’’ rule. As part of this rulemaking, 

OSHA intends to delete existing 

paragraph (g)(4) from 29 CFR 1910.134 

and insert a note there referring readers 

to this rule for the requirements on 

interior structural firefighting. WEREs 

and ESOs are required to continue to 

comply with the remaining provisions 

of 29 CFR 1910.134. In addition, under 

proposed paragraphs (p)(4)(iii) through 

(v), the coverage is expanded to include 

all IDLH atmospheres that team 

members and responders enter, not just 

interior structural firefighting. Team 

members and responders performing 

other duties, such as technical rescue in 

an IDLH, face many of the same hazards 

as those performing interior structural 

firefighting, and need to be afforded the 

same protective measures. 

Paragraph (p)(4)(iii) of the proposed 

rule would require the WERE and ESO 

to ensure that at least four team 

members or responders are assembled 

before operations are initiated in an 

IDLH atmosphere in a structure or 

enclosed area, unless upon arrival at an 

emergency scene, the initial team 

member(s) or responder(s) find an 

imminent life-threatening situation 

where immediate action could prevent 

the loss of life or serious injury, in 

which case such action would be 

permitted with fewer than four team 

members or responders present. The 

requirement in this provision of a 

minimum of four team members or 

responders is consistent with existing 

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(4), which requires 

at least two team members or 

responders to enter the IDLH 

environment and at least two team 

members or responders located outside 

the IDLH environment. 

This provision includes an exception 

to the 2-in, 2-out requirement and 

coincides with proposed provision (f)(2) 

of this section. OSHA’s intent is that 

this exception is for the rescue of a 

person in imminent peril only, where 

team members or responders observe, or 

are informed by a witness of the 

imminent life hazard. The traditional 

emergency services adage may be 

relevant when considering whether an 

exception to the 2-in, 2-out requirement 

would be appropriate: ‘‘Risk a lot to 

save a lot, risk little to save little; risk 

nothing to save nothing.’’ This proposed 

provision is not intended to be used as 

a loophole for non-compliance with 

proposed paragraph (p)(4)(iii). Some 

organizations have tried to use the 

existing 2-in, 2-out requirement to 

justify minimum staffing levels on 

emergency response vehicles, which is 

a mischaracterization of the 

requirement. The four team members or 

responders need not arrive on the same 

vehicle and could arrive at the incident 

scene separately to be in compliance 

with the proposed provision. 

Under proposed paragraph (p)(4)(iv), 

the WERE and ESO would need to 

ensure that at least two team members 

or responders enter the structure or 

enclosed area with an IDLH atmosphere 

as a team and remain in visual or voice 

contact with one another at all times, 

unless there is insufficient space for two 

team members or responders, such as 

for example, in a confined space or 

collapsed structure. Two team members 

or responders are needed to work 

together as a team in case one has an 

issue that requires the assistance of the 

other one. Often visible contact is not 

possible in dark or smoke-filled 

locations. Voice contact is person-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. 

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 


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 

accountability system is intended to 

keep track of team members and 

responders operating on the incident 

scene. Its primary purpose is to identify 

any missing team member or responder. 

For instance, if a WERE or ESO 

establishes that personnel 

accountability check be conducted at a 

certain time interval and at that time 

interval it is determined that someone is 

missing, the personnel accountability 

system should be able to identify the 

individual and where they were 

expected to be operating on the incident 

scene. Many WEREs and ESOs are 

accustomed to using some form of 

personnel accountability system. The 

proposed provision would require that a 

personnel accountability system be used 

at every incident. 

Paragraph (p)(7) of the proposed rule 

would require the WERE and ESO to 

implement a Rapid Intervention Crew 

(RIC) at each structure fire incident 

where team members or responders are 

operating in an IDLH atmosphere, in 

accordance with the SOP established in 

paragraph (q)(2)(viii) of this section. 

Rescuing a team member or responder 

who is in trouble and in need of rescue 

is a difficult process. It is important that 

a properly staffed and equipped RIC be 

established at incidents where team 

members and responders are operating 

in IDLH atmospheres so that they can be 

deployed quickly when needed as team 

members and responders operating in 

an IDLH have a limited supply of air 

available in their SCBA. 

Proposed paragraph (p)(8) would 

require the WERE and ESO ensure that 

medical monitoring and rehabilitation 

procedures are implemented, as needed, 

in accordance with the SOP established 

in paragraph (q)(2)(ix) of this section. 

The IC would need to consider the 

circumstances of each incident and 

make provisions for rest, medical 

monitoring, and rehabilitation of team 

members or responders operating at the 

scene. Requirements for on-scene 

rehabilitation were considered 

appropriate by several commenters to 

the 2007 RFI (Document ID 0022; 0032; 

0037; 0041; 0044; 0046; 0047; 0049; 

0051; 0052; 0060; 0063; 0071; 0072; 

0083). Having preplanned medical 

monitoring and rehabilitation 

procedures that can be applied to a 

variety of incident types is essential for 

the health and safety of team members 

and responders. 

Paragraph (p)(9) of the proposed rule 

would require that the WERE and ESO 

implement the traffic safety procedures, 

as needed, in accordance with the SOP 

established in paragraph (q)(2)(x) of this 

section. As noted in section II.A., Need 

for the Standard, many responders are 

injured and killed while operating at 

incidents on roadways and highways. 

To reduce the likelihood of injuries and 

fatalities, WEREs and ESOs would need 

to establish traffic safety procedures that 

could include using a large vehicle to 

block traffic lanes and the wearing of 

reflective PPE. Also, WEREs and ESO 

should consult with the appropriate 

authorities regarding procedures for the 

complete shutdown of traffic movement 

on the roadway or highway to protect 

team members and responders from 

moving vehicles on the scene of an 

emergency incident. 

Some emergency incidents may 

necessitate the WERE and ESO to call 

upon the services of employers who do 

not typically provide emergency 

services. One example would be to call 

upon the services of a heavy-duty 

wrecker-rotator and operator to lift a 

tractor-trailer truck that has overturned 

unto a car with people trapped inside or 

calling a construction company to 

provide a bulldozer and operator to cut 

a fire line or access road for a wildland 

fire. Another example is calling a 

plumber with a sewer camera to search 

for trapped victims in a collapsed 

structure. These workers would provide 

their skills and equipment, when 

needed, to support team members and 

responders operating at an emergency 

incident. Known in the proposed rule as 

skilled support workers (SSW), they 

would potentially be exposed to some of 

the same hazards as team workers and 

responders. 

Proposed paragraphs (p)(10)(i) 

through (v) would require the WERE 

and ESO to ensure that prior to 

participation at an incident scene, each 

SSW has and utilizes PPE appropriate to 

the task(s) to be performed; an initial 

briefing is provided to each SSW that 

includes, at a minimum, what hazards 

are involved, what safety precautions 

are to be taken, and what duties are to 

be performed by the SSW; an effective 

means of communication between the 

IC and each SSW is provided; where 

appropriate, a team member or 

responder is designated and escorts the 

SSW at the emergency incident scene; 

and all other appropriate on-scene 

safety and health precautions provided 

to team members and responders are 

used to ensure the safety and health of 

each SSW. 

The SERs participating in the 2021 

SBREFA panel generally agreed that 

SSWs did not need additional 

emergency response-specific PPE when 

responding to emergency incidents 

(Document ID 0115, p. 10). The SERs 

indicated that, even at emergency 

incidents, SSWs generally would need 

only the PPE they normally would use 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7839 

on any job. Any additional PPE that the 

SSW would need to be protected at the 

incident scene would need to be 

provided by the WERE or ESO. 

Paragraph (q) Standard Operating 

Procedures 

Use of Standard Operating Procedures 

(SOPs) helps to reduce the risk of 

injuries and fatalities by providing 

written guidance to team members and 

responders with established safe 

procedures for actions to be taken 

during a wide variety of incident 

responses. They provide direction for 

team members and responders on what 

they need to do to safely perform job 

tasks that are routine and predictable. 

SOPs ensure consistent work 

performance, contribute to a safe work 

environment, and create a template for 

how to resolve issues and overcome 

obstacles. NIOSH, in its firefighter 

fatality investigation and prevention 

program, frequently cites a lack of, or 

inadequacy of, standard operating 

procedures as a contributing factor in 

firefighter fatalities (Document ID 0326; 

0327; 0328; 0329; 0330). 

Paragraph (q)(1) of the proposed rule 

would require that WEREs and ESOs 

develop and implement SOPs for 

emergency events they are likely to 

encounter, based on the type(s) and 

level(s) of service(s) established in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 

and the community or facility 

vulnerability assessment developed in 

accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) 

of this section. For example, many 

communities have single family 

dwellings. An appropriate SOP for 

firefighting ESOs might include the 

location for response vehicles to be 

positioned as they arrive at a house on 

fire, and the duties of responders 

arriving on the scene. 

Paragraph (q)(2)(i) of the proposed 

rule would require that WEREs and 

ESOs establish SOPs that describe the 

actions to be taken by team members 

and responders in situations involving 

unusual hazards. Examples of unusual 

hazards include downed power lines, 

natural gas or propane leaks, flammable 

liquid spills, bomb threats, derailments 

of railroad and subway systems, 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 

responders in the appropriate action(s) 

to be taken in each of these scenarios to 

protect themselves and other responders 

from those hazards. 

Proposed paragraph (q)(2)(ii) would 

require that each WERE and ESO 

establish SOPs that address how team 

members and responders are to operate 

at incidents that are beyond the 

capability of the WERT or ESO, as 

specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section. Typically, this would 

include actions to preserve lives, 

stabilize the scene, and summon mutual 

aid resources to help resolve the 

situation or perform duties that the 

WERT or ESO is unable to perform, 

such as technical rescue. 

Under paragraphs (q)(2)(iii) of the 

proposed rule, each WERE and ESO 

would be required to establish SOPs to 

provide a systemic approach for 

protecting team members and 

responders from contaminants and for 

decontamination of team members, 

responders, PPE, and equipment. The 

SOPs would need to include at a 

minimum: proper techniques for doffing 

contaminated PPE; on-scene gross 

decontamination and decontamination 

at the WERE’s or ESO’s facility of PPE, 

equipment, and team members and 

responders; encouraging team members 

and responders to shower with soap and 

water, as soon as reasonably practicable, 

and change into clean clothing; and 

protecting team members and 

responders from contaminated PPE after 

an incident. On-scene gross 

decontamination helps to remove 

combustion products which helps 

prevent further contamination of team 

members and responders and reduces 

cross-contamination of the transport 

vehicle. 

Proposed paragraph (q)(2)(iv) would 

require that each WERE and ESO 

establish SOPs for vehicle operations 

that meet the requirements of paragraph 

(l)(2) of this section, and include 

procedures for safely driving vehicles 

during both non-emergency travel and 

emergency response; criteria for actions 

to be taken at stop signs and signal 

lights; vehicle speed; crossing 

intersections; driving on the opposite 

side of the road with oncoming traffic; 

use of cross-over/turnaround areas on 

divided highways; traversing railroad 

grade crossings; the use of emergency 

warning devices; and the backing of 

vehicles. For backing vehicles with 

obstructed views to the rear, the SOP 

would need to include the use of at least 

one of the following: a spotter, a 360- 

degree walk-around of the vehicle by 

the operator, or a back-up camera. Other 

than for backing vehicles with 

obstructed views to the rear, OSHA is 

not specifying the particular content of 

the vehicle-related SOPs. The agency is 

aware that State vehicle laws often 

permit exceptions for emergency 

vehicles which should be included in 

the SOPs; for example, an allowance to 

exceed the posted speed limit by a 

certain amount. WEREs and ESOs 

should consult the appropriate State 

laws when considering development of 

their SOPs. While OSHA intends to 

provide discretion to WEREs and ESOs 

in the crafting of most provisions of the 

SOPs, it does not intend to allow 

WEREs and ESOs to avoid the 

mandatory requirements in this 

proposal even if similar requirements 

are exempted at the state or local level. 

For example, if a state or local law 

exempts emergency vehicles from 

requirements related to addressing 

obstructed views to the rear, OSHA’s 

requirement in proposed paragraph 

(q)(2)(iv) would still apply. 

Under proposed paragraph (q)(2)(v), 

WEREs and ESOs would be required to 

establish SOPs to provide for the use of 

standard protocols and terminology for 

radio communications at all types of 

incidents. Standard protocols should 

include instructions on, for example: 

the operation of portable and mobile 

radios, with a preference for identifying 

the unit being called first (receiver), 

then identifying the sender; and the 

need for speaking in a calm voice and 

as clearly, concisely, and precisely as 

possible. Protocols should also include 

instructions on use of dispatch and 

incident scene/tactical radio 

frequencies, use of the emergency alert 

button, ‘‘Mayday’’ situations, and other 

special situations. The NIMS 

recommends, and OSHA agrees, that 

acronyms, unique jargon, and codes 

should not be used in radio 

communication (Document ID 0344, p. 

57). NIMS and OSHA recommend, but 

do not require, the use of common 

terms, plain language, and clear text to 

help ensure all team members and 

responders can transmit and understand 

all information being communicated. 

This would be particularly helpful 

during incidents where multiple 

entities, such as mutual aid WERTs and 

ESOs, are participating. 

Paragraph (q)(2)(vi) of the proposed 

rule would require that WEREs and 

ESOs establish procedures for operating 

at structures and locations that are 

identified as, or determined to be, 

vacant, structurally unsound, or 

otherwise unsafe for entry by team 

members or responders. Structures such 

as these are typically unsafe to enter 

under normal circumstances and are 

even more dangerous during an 

emergency incident, particularly when 


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 

missing, disoriented, injured, ill, lost, 

unaccounted-for, or trapped team 

members or responders. The 

establishment of a RIC is required by 

proposed paragraph (p)(7) of this section 

at each structural fire incident where 

team members or responders are 

operating in an IDLH atmosphere. The 

SOP would need to specify the 

minimum number of team members or 

responders needed for the RIC, based on 

the size and complexity of potential 

incidents; and a standard list of 

equipment to be assembled by the RIC, 

for foreseeable incidents. 

Proposed paragraph (q)(2)(ix) would 

require that each WERE and ESO 

establish SOPs for a systematic 

approach to provide team members and 

responders with medical monitoring 

and rehabilitation at emergency 

incidents as needed, such as rest, 

medical treatment, rehydration (fluid 

replacement), active warming or 

cooling, and protection from extreme 

elements. While most emergency 

incidents are handled without the need 

for medical monitoring and 

rehabilitation, when it is needed 

procedures need to be in place to 

implement it quickly. 

Provisions in proposed paragraph 

(q)(3) apply to ESOs only. Proposed 

paragraph (q)(3)(i) would require that 

each ESO establish SOPs for operating 

at an emergency incident on, or adjacent 

to, roadways and highways. The SOP 

would need to cover setting up a safe 

work zone beginning with proper 

placement of the first arriving ESO 

vehicle and subsequent ESO vehicles, a 

means of coordination with law 

enforcement and mutual aid WERTs or 

ESOs, and use of safety vests that have 

high visibility and are reflective. 

Consideration should be given to using 

a large vehicle, such as a fire engine/ 

pumper or ladder truck, to position as 

a blocker to prevent vehicles from 

driving into or through an incident 

scene where team members or 

responders are operating. ESOs should 

coordinate with law enforcement 

regarding authority over closing travel 

lanes or the entire roadway or highway 

for the protection of team members and 

responders. High-visibility and 

reflective vests help drivers see team 

members and responders during 

daylight and at night, thus reducing the 

risk of striking those operating on an 

incident. 

Proposed paragraph (q)(3)(ii) would 

require the ESO to establish SOPs for 

operating at incident scenes that are 

primarily related to law enforcement, 

such as crime scenes, active shooters, 

and civil disturbances. ESOs may be 

called upon to stand by at these types 

of incidents in case they are needed, 

and as such the SOP should provide 

direction for staging so that responders 

will not interfere with the law 

enforcement activities or be in harm’s 

way. Paragraph (q)(3)(ii) identifies 

subjects that must each be addressed in 

the SOPs, but this is not a 

comprehensive list of everything that an 

employer could address in an SOP. For 

example, a typical SOP will prohibit 

team members and responders from 

approaching or entering an incident 

scene where there is ongoing violence, 

and require them to wait until law 

enforcement has secured the scene and 

indicated that it is safe for team 

members and responders to enter. 

Typical SOPs for these types of incident 

scenes will also address whether team 

members and responders need to be 

wearing identifying uniforms, ballistic 

vests, PPE, reflective vests or other 

apparel to differentiate team members 

and responders from law enforcement 

officers, bystanders and other citizens. 

Under proposed paragraph (q)(3)(iii), 

ESOs would be required to establish a 

baseline set of procedures for 

conducting non-emergency services. 

Rather than just requiring the ESO to 

address certain subjects, these would be 

mandatory SOPs with specific 

minimum requirements that could then 

be supplemented with additional detail 

at the ESO’s discretion: responders must 

present themselves in uniforms, PPE, 

vests, or other apparel that clearly 

identifies them as fire/rescue/EMS 

responders and must wear ballistic vests 

if they are provided by the ESO and 

appropriate for the type of incident. In 

non-emergency situations, team 

members and responders might not 

wear their usual, identifiable PPE. 

However, it is important for them to be 

identifiable by some means so as not to 

be confused with bystanders, appear to 

be trespassers or intruders, or be 

mistaken for law enforcement officers. 

Often, when family members or friends 

are unable to contact an individual, they 

call 911 and ask for assistance in 

checking on the well-being of the 

individual. These situations can pose a 

risk to the responders because if they 

are not wearing something that 

identifies them as responders, they may 

appear to be trespassers or intruders. In 

these situations, the same concerns 

would dictate that the SOP would need 

to require the wearing of ballistic vests 

if they are provided by the ESO. 

OSHA is also concerned with 

workplace violence experienced by 

workers in various aspects of providing 

health care, both facility-based and 

home-based. In Question (q)–1, OSHA 

seeks input on whether the agency 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7841 

should include requirements for SOPs 

regarding protections against workplace 

violence for team members and 

responders, and for any data or 

documentation to support or refute 

potential requirements. OSHA notes 

that its regulatory agenda includes a 

separate rulemaking addressing 

Workplace Violence against health care 

workers. While OSHA has not 

published a proposed rule in that 

rulemaking, OSHA welcomes comments 

on whether violence against health care 

emergency responders should be 

addressed in this emergency response 

proposal in addition to that Workplace 

Violence rulemaking, instead of in that 

rulemaking, or primarily in that other 

rulemaking. 

Paragraph (r) Post-Incident Analysis 

Paragraph (r) of the proposed rule 

contains requirements for Post-Incident 

Analysis (PIA). A PIA serves as a 

systematic review of incident operations 

and activities, and determines whether 

programs, plans, and procedures 

developed by the WERE or ESO perform 

as intended. The PIA should be 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 

available information and resources 

relating to the significant event. It 

would include a basic review of the 

conditions present upon arrival at the 

incident scene and any changes during 

the incident, the actions taken by team 

members and responders, and any effect 

of the conditions and actions on the 

safety and health of team members or 

responders. The RMP would be 

evaluated for its effectiveness regarding 

anticipated outcomes and to identify 

flaws or shortcomings that need to be 

corrected. The IMS would be evaluated 

to determine if it functioned as 

intended. While proposed paragraphs 

(m) and (n) of this section would require 

the development of PIPs for certain 

types of locations, there are many 

locations where incidents occur where 

PIPs would not be required, and so 

would be non-existent. If a PIP was 

developed, it would be evaluated to 

ensure it is up to date and accurate, and 

if it functioned as intended or if 

revisions are needed. The PIA may also 

indicate that a PIP is needed for a 

particular type of location where one 

was not previously developed. SOPs 

would be reviewed to determine if they 

were followed and effective, or if 

changes are needed. IAPs are typically 

developed on the incident scene and 

may be documented. A review of the 

IAP would determine its effectiveness 

and whether different actions should be 

taken at future similar incidents. OSHA 

anticipates that during a post-incident 

analysis conducted under paragraph (r), 

WEREs and ESOs will involve team 

members and responders. In Question 

(r)–1, OSHA is considering adding to 

(r)(2) a requirement to permit team 

members, responders, and their 

representative to be involved in the 

review and evaluation of the relevant 

plans as part of the PIA and would like 

stakeholder input on whether to add 

this requirement. 

Proposed paragraph (r)(3) would 

require the WERE and ESO to promptly 

identify and implement changes needed 

to the RMP, IMS, PIPs, IAPs, and SOPs 

based on the lessons learned as a result 

of the PIA; or if the recommended 

changes cannot be promptly 

implemented, the WERE or ESO would 

need to develop a written timeline for 

implementation. Where implementation 

cannot be done promptly, the proposed 

rule requires that any needed changes 

be implemented as soon as feasible. The 

purpose of the PIA is to determine what 

improvements are needed to the 

systems, plans, and procedures for 

future success, and not for finding fault 

with or to blame individuals. Changes 

and improvements would need to be 

implemented in a timely manner so that 

such changes are in place before the 

next significant incident. If prompt 

implementation is not possible, a 

timeline for implementation as soon as 

feasible must be followed to ensure 

protective measures for team members 

and responders are put into place. 

Paragraph (s) Program Evaluation 

The ERP is intended to be a dynamic 

program, with components that are 

periodically reviewed and updated. 

Periodic review and evaluation are key 

to ensure that the program functions 

appropriately, adapts to changing 

circumstances or new information as 

needed, and protects the health and 

safety of team members or responders. 

Paragraphs (s)(1) through (3) of the 

proposed rule would require the WERE 

and ESO to evaluate the adequacy and 

effectiveness of the ERP at least 

annually, and upon discovery of 

deficiencies, and document when the 

evaluation(s) are conducted; determine 

if it was implemented as designed or if 

modifications are necessary to correct 

deficiencies; and identify and 

implement recommended changes to the 

ERP and provide a written timeline for 

correcting identified deficiencies as 

soon as feasible based on the program 

review, giving priority to 

recommendations that most 

significantly affect team member or 

responder safety and health. The agency 

recommends that all safety and health 

programs, such as the ERP, be reviewed 

at least annually to evaluate the program 

to ensure that it functions as intended, 

is effective in controlling identified 

hazards, and makes progress toward 

established safety and health goals and 

objectives (https://www.osha.gov/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. 


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 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7843 

guidelines for industry and are generally 

compatible with current industry 

practices and technology. OSHA did not 

find any barriers to technological 

feasibility with regard to the protective 

measures, equipment, or facilities 

required to comply with these 

provisions. This subsection presents the 

details of this conclusion with regard to 

specific requirements for equipment and 

facilities. 

The proposed rule contains 

requirements for ensuring that team 

members and responders who respond 

to emergency incidents are prepared for 

the wide variety of situations where 

they may be called upon to provide 

service. The provisions of the proposed 

rule are largely programmatic and 

require employers to implement a 

written Emergency Response Program 

(ERP) that describes the employer’s 

basic organizational structure and 

outlines how the employer is addressing 

the provisions of the rule. As part of the 

ERP, the proposed rule requires 

employers to develop a Risk 

Management Plan (paragraph (f)), 

conduct pre-incident planning 

(paragraphs (m) and (n)), and develop 

standard operating procedures 

(paragraph (q)). Other provisions require 

employers to involve employees in 

various phases of the program 

(paragraph (e)), conduct a post-incident 

analysis after major incidents 

(paragraph (r)), and evaluate the 

program periodically (paragraph (s); or 

outline the requirements for medical 

and physical fitness (paragraph (g)). 

These provisions do not include 

protective measures requiring the use of 

specific equipment or technology and 

therefore do not pose a technological 

feasibility concern. 

Paragraph (h) of the proposed rule 

requires that team members and 

responders receive training to establish 

the minimum knowledge and skills 

necessary to participate in emergency 

operations, based on the tiers of team 

members and responders and the type 

and level of service(s) established in 

paragraphs (c) and (d), including 

training on a number of specific topics. 

It also requires the employer to provide 

initial training, on-going training, 

refresher training, and professional 

development for each team member and 

responder, including periodic skills 

checks to verify the minimum 

proficiency of team members and 

responders. Proposed paragraph (h) 

does not mandate a particular form of 

training nor require the use of particular 

technology. Moreover, the proposed 

requirements are not substantially 

different from the requirements of 

existing NFPA consensus standards 

(NFPA 1001, NFPA 1002, NFPA 1005, 

NFPA 1006, NFPA 1021, NFPA 1081, 

NFPA 1140, NFPA 1407, NFPA 1500, 

NFPA 1581), demonstrating that the 

training required under the proposed 

standard has widespread acceptance 

throughout the industry. Accordingly, 

OSHA has preliminarily determined 

that such training will not present 

technological feasibility concerns. 

Paragraph (i) of the proposed rule 

requires WEREs to ensure that their 

facilities comply with 29 CFR part 1910, 

subpart E—Exit Routes and Emergency 

Planning, provide facilities for 

decontamination, disinfection, cleaning 

and storage of PPE and equipment, and 

ensure that facilities are protected with 

fire protection systems in accordance 

with 29 CFR part 1910, subpart L—Fire 

Protection. This paragraph also contains 

requirements related to fire hose 

connections and fire hose valves. The 

majority of these provisions are already 

addressed by NFPA 1581 or required by 

existing OSHA standards. With regard 

to paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (iii), and 

(i)(2), the proposed rule does not 

substantially modify existing 

requirements or create new 

requirements; compliance with the 

existing standards under subpart E and 

subpart L would generally also meet the 

requirements of the proposed standard. 

Paragraph (i)(1)(ii) requires facilities for 

decontamination, disinfection, cleaning, 

and storage of PPE and equipment. 

Similar requirements exist under the 

HAZWOPER standard (29 CFR 

1910.120(k)(8)) and the sanitation 

standard (29 CFR 1910.141(e)). The 

latter requires employers to provide 

change rooms equipped with storage 

facilities whenever employees are 

required to wear protective clothing 

because of possible contamination with 

toxic materials. Employer compliance 

with these existing provisions 

demonstrates that this kind of facility is 

feasible for employers to provide. 

Furthermore, the proposed rule does not 

mandate which of a wide variety of 

currently used and readily available 

materials must be used to meet the 

performance-oriented criteria for 

decontamination and storage. Based on 

these considerations, OSHA has 

preliminary determined that the 

proposed requirements in paragraph (i) 

are technologically feasible. 

Paragraph (j)(1) of the proposed rule 

similarly requires ESOs to provide 

facilities for decontamination, 

disinfection, cleaning, and storage of 

PPE and equipment, and to comply with 

29 CFR part 1910, subpart E—Exit 

Routes and Emergency Planning and 

subpart L—Fire Protection. Paragraph 

(j)(1)(iii) also requires employers to 

ensure employees are protected from 

hazards associated with the use of slide 

poles. The requirements related to slide 

poles are based on NFPA 1500 section 

10.1.8, which requires that openings 

around slide poles be secured by a 

cover, enclosure or other means to 

prevent someone from accidentally 

falling through the hole. As discussed 

above regarding paragraph (i), the 

majority of these provisions are already 

addressed in existing NFPA standards 

or required by existing OSHA standards. 

Paragraph (j)(2) addresses sleeping 

and living areas of the ESO’s facility and 

requires the use of interconnected 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7844 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

7While 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. 

decontaminated, cleaned, cared for, 

inspected and maintained, in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions; and ensure air-purifying 

respirators are not used in IDLH 

atmospheres and are only used for those 

contaminants that NIOSH certifies them 

against. Paragraph (k)(3) requires 

decontamination or containment of 

contaminated PPE and equipment 

before leaving an incident scene, where 

feasible, as well as ensuring employees 

are not exposed to contaminated PPE in 

passenger compartments of vehicles. 

The proposed rule’s PPE requirements 

expand on existing OSHA requirements, 

incorporate widely accepted consensus 

standards and, as with the equipment 

requirements discussed above, do not 

require changes in current technology. 

The proposed rule allows the employer 

to choose any of a wide variety of 

currently used and readily available 

properly fitting equipment designs to 

meet the performance-oriented criteria, 

based on the hazards their team 

members and responders may 

encounter. With respect to the 

decontamination and cleaning 

requirements, the PPE must be 

decontaminated and cleaned according 

to the manufacturer’s instructions. Such 

instructions are presumptively 

technologically feasible. 

Decontamination and cleaning typically 

involve methods such as rinsing with a 

hose to reduce or dilute liquid 

contaminants or rinsing and brushing to 

displace solid particulate matter. In any 

situation where PPE and equipment 

cannot be appropriately cleaned, it can 

be replaced. Based on these 

considerations, OSHA preliminarily 

concludes that the proposed 

requirements for equipment and PPE are 

technologically feasible. 

Paragraph (l) includes requirements 

for the inspection, repair, and 

maintenance of vehicles in paragraph 

(l)(1) and operation of vehicles in 

paragraph (l)(2). All provisions 

contained in proposed paragraph (l) 

establish program elements with the 

exception of paragraph (l)(1)(iii), which 

requires the use of seats, and seatbelts 

or a vehicle safety harness where 

equipped; paragraph (l)(2)(vii), which 

requires the use of a safety harness 

when riding in a standing position; and 

paragraph (l)(2)(x), which requires a 

positive latching enclosure for storage of 

tools, equipment, or respiratory 

protection carried within enclosed 

seating areas of vehicles. OSHA drew 

the requirements for seats, seat belts, 

safety harnesses, and the securing of 

tools and equipment from NFPA 1500, 

1901 and 1911; indicating that industry 

already adopted the requirements as a 

feasible industry practice using existing 

technology. The proposed requirements 

for use of seats and safety belts reflect 

basic safety considerations already 

adopted by manufacturers of equipment 

and by employers. Readily available and 

currently used technology is capable of 

meeting these requirements. Where 

vehicles are designed, built, and 

intended for use without seat belts or 

vehicle safety harnesses, the employer is 

not required to comply with the 

requirement in paragraph (l)(1)(iii). 

Paragraph (p) of the proposed rule 

contains requirements for Emergency 

Incident Operations. In addition to 

outlining various roles and 

responsibilities, paragraph (p) requires 

employers to establish hazard control 

zones, implement traffic safety 

procedures, establish site 

communications, and establish incident 

safety procedures such as the use of 

protective equipment and minimum 

staffing levels for certain operations. 

Most of the provisions in paragraph (p) 

establish program and/or policy 

elements and procedures and 

compliance with these provisions does 

not require any additional or new 

technology. 

Paragraph (p)(5) contains 

requirements for the use of effective 

communication equipment, which can 

be satisfied with currently available 

compatible communication devices or 

radio technology. Moreover, the 

requirements in paragraph (p) are 

similar to existing OSHA requirements 

for certain hazardous chemical response 

activities in the HAZWOPER standard 

(29 CFR 1910.120) and to NFPA 

consensus codes, indicating that 

industry has already adopted the 

requirements as an industry practice 

using existing technology. Therefore, 

OSHA has preliminarily determined 

that the requirements of paragraph (p) 

can be met with existing technology. 

In conclusion, the proposed rule is 

largely programmatic and allows the 

employer to choose any of a wide 

variety of currently used and readily 

available materials, equipment, and 

procedures to meet the 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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7845 

8OSHA 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. 

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. 

A. Market Failure and Need for 

Regulation 

I. Introduction 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 

(September 30, 1993)) and Executive 

Order 13563 (76 FR 3821 (January 18, 

2011)) direct regulatory agencies to 

assess whether, from a legal or an 

economic view, a Federal regulation is 

needed to the extent it is not ‘‘required 

by law.’’ Executive Order 12866 states: 

‘‘Federal agencies should promulgate 

only such regulations as are required by 

law, are necessary to interpret the law, 

or are made necessary by compelling 

public need, such as material failures of 

private markets to protect or improve 

the health and safety of the public, the 

environment, or the well-being of the 

American people.’’ This Executive order 

further requires that each agency 

‘‘identify the problem that it intends to 

address (including, where applicable, 

the failures of private markets or public 

institutions that warrant new agency 

action)’’ and instructs agencies to 

‘‘identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation.’’ (58 FR 

51735 (September 30, 1993)). This 

section addresses those issues of market 

failure and alternatives to regulation as 

directed by the Executive order. 

OSHA is proposing to replace its 

existing Fire Brigades standard, 29 CFR 

1910.156, with a new standard to fully 

address the workplace hazards faced by 

firefighters and other emergency 

responders because, based on the 

evidence in the record, there is a 

compelling public need for a stricter, 

comprehensive standard under OSH Act 

legal standards. OSHA presents the legal 

standards governing this rule and its 

preliminary findings and conclusions 

supporting the proposed rule in section 

II. of the Preamble, Pertinent Legal 

Authority, and throughout other 

sections of the Preamble. Even a 

perfectly functioning market maximizes 

efficient allocation of goods and services 

at the expense of other important social 

values to which the market (as reflected 

in the collective actions of its 

participants) is indifferent or 

undervalues. In such cases, government 

intervention might be justified to 

address a compelling public need. The 

history and enactment of the OSH Act 

indicate a Congressional view that 

American markets undervalued 

occupational safety and health when it 

set forth the Act’s protective purposes 

and authorized the Secretary of Labor to 

promulgate occupational safety and 

health standards. 

OSHA has preliminarily determined 

that emergency responders are exposed 

to occupational hazards that place them 

at a significant risk of serious injury, 

material impairment of health and 

functional capacity, and death. 

Emergency responders suffer higher 

incidence and death rates of heart 

attacks and some types of cancers than 

the general population, high rates of 

fatal and nonfatal injuries, and high 

rates of suicide and other adverse 

behavioral health outcomes. OSHA’s 

proposed rule would reduce the number 

of fatalities from certain types of cancer, 

fatal injuries, and suicide by an 

estimated 61 deaths per year and would 

prevent approximately 11,015 nonfatal 

injuries per year. These benefits show 

the need to protect emergency 

responders from the hazards faced while 

on duty. 

OSHA has preliminarily determined 

that the standard is technologically and 

economically feasible (see Section V of 

the preamble and Chapter VI of this 

PEA) and not only finds that this 

proposed rule is necessary and 

appropriate to ensure the safety and 

health of emergency responders, as 

required by the OSH Act, but also 

demonstrates, in this section, that this 

rulemaking corrects a market failure in 

which private and public labor markets 

fail to adequately protect human health. 

Although a majority of emergency 

responders are employed in the public 

sector, many are not, and OSHA is 

mandated to ensure, so far as possible, 

a critical minimum level of safety for 

these workers. In addition, as discussed, 

most of these issues pertain to the 

public sector labor market as well 

which, left unchecked, could 

undermine the efficiency of even the 

labor market as it affects government 

jobs. Further, in passing section 18 of 

the OSH Act, Congress determined that 

public sector employees in states with 

OSHA-approved State Plans should 

receive the same protections as private 

sector employees under those State 

Plans who, in turn, must receive 

protections at least as effective as those 

provided by Federal standards (29 

U.S.C. 667(c)(2), (6)). In doing so, 

Congress determined that protections 

for these public sector workers should 

not be left solely to the public sector 

labor market. 

As discussed in this chapter, OSHA 

concludes there is a demonstrable 

failure of labor markets to protect 

workers from exposure to unnecessary 

risks from emergency response activity. 

In making this statement, the agency 

recognizes that many firms and 

governments have responded to the 

risks to emergency responders by 

implementing control programs for their 

workers. In fact, some existing control 

programs go beyond the requirements of 

the proposed rule, and information that 

OSHA has collected suggests that a 

significant percentage of all employees 

in workplaces where emergency 

responder risks are present are currently 

receiving at least some level of 

protection against the risks posed by 

emergency response activities. For these 

organizations and these workers, the 

economic incentives provided by the 

current labor market appears to be 

working effectively. Nevertheless, the 

effectiveness of labor markets in 

providing the level of worker health and 

safety required by the OSH Act is not 

universal, as many other employers in 

the same sectors fail to provide their 

workers with equivalent levels of 

protection against emergency response 

hazards, as evidenced by the 

documented injuries, illnesses, and 

deaths discussed throughout this 

preamble. Accordingly, the general 

availability of adequate protections 

speaks to the feasibility of the standard, 

not necessarily to the lack of need. 

In this case, OSHA has preliminarily 

determined that, despite existing OSHA 

standards, new protections are needed 

to ensure the safety and health of 

emergency responders. If markets 

worked efficiently there would be no 

need for either the existing standards or 

a new one. This section is devoted to 

showing that markets fail with respect 

to optimal risk for occupational 

exposure to emergency response 

hazards. Other sections of this preamble 

address whether, given that markets fail, 

a new regulation is needed to replace 

the existing regulation. 

The discussion below considers why 

labor markets, as well as information 

dissemination programs, workers’ 

compensation systems, and tort liability 

options, each may fail to protect 

workers from emergency response 

hazards, resulting in the need for a more 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7846 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

9The 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. 

10The section on workers’ compensation 

insurance later in this chapter identifies and 

discusses other related market imperfections. 

11Other 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. 

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. 

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 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7847 

13The 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. 

14Workers’ 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. 

16This depends on the individual state law and 

how the ESO is organized. See https://workinjury

source.com/workers-compensation-for-volunteerfirefighters/. 

17The original classic reference on public goods 

is ‘‘The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure,’’ 

Samuelson, Paul A., The Review of Economics and 

Continued 

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 

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’ 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7848 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Statistics, Nov. 1954. For related ‘‘club theory,’’ the 

original reference is ‘‘An Economic Theory of 

Clubs,’’ Buchanan, James M., Economica, Feb., 

1965. 

18See, 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. 19See 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. 

20For 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. 

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. 

(C) Imperfect Competition 

In the idealized job market, the 

actions of large numbers of buyers and 

sellers of labor services establish the 

market-clearing, risk-compensated 

wage, so that individual employers and 

workers effectively take that wage as 

given. In reality, however, the job 

market is not one market but many 

markets differentiated by location, 

occupation, and other factors; entrants 

in the labor market face search frictions 

because of limited information on 

employment options; and, furthermore, 

in wage negotiations with their own 

workers, employers are typically in an 

advantageous position relative to all 

other potential employers. In these 

situations, discussed below, employers 

may have sufficient power to influence 

or to determine the wage their workers 

receive. This may undermine the 

conditions necessary for perfect 

competition and can result in 

inadequate compensation for workers 

exposed to workplace hazards. 

Significant unemployment levels, local 

or national, may also undermine the 

conditions necessary for adequate 

compensation for exposure to workplace 

hazards. 

Beyond the classic—but relatively 

rare—example of a town dominated by 

a single company, there is significant 

evidence that some employers 

throughout the economy are not 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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7849 

21Recall from the earlier discussion of 

externalities that the failure to internalize costs 

leads to allocative distortions and inefficiencies in 

the market. 

22Only the largest firms, constituting 

approximately 1 percent of employers and 

representing approximately 15 percent of workers, 

Continued 

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 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7850 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7851 

24The 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. 

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. 

IV. Summary 

OSHA’s primary reasons for 

proposing this rule are based on the 

requirements of the OSH Act and are 

discussed in section II of the preamble, 

Pertinent Legal Authority. As shown in 

the preamble to the proposed rule and 

this PEA, OSHA has determined that 

emergency responders are exposed to 

numerous safety and health hazards in 

the workplace. This section has shown 

that labor markets—even when 

augmented by information 

dissemination programs, workers’ 

compensation systems, and tort liability 

options—appear to still operate at a 

level of risk for these workers that is 

higher than socially optimal due to a 

lack of information about safety and 

health risks, the presence of 

externalities or imperfect competition, 

and other factors discussed above. 

The following sections present 

OSHA’s estimates of the costs, benefits, 

and other impacts anticipated to result 

from the proposed rule. The estimated 

costs are based on employers achieving 

full compliance with the requirements 

of the proposed rule. They do not 

include prior costs associated with firms 

whose current practices are already in 

compliance with the proposed rule 

requirements. The purposes of this 

analysis are to: 

• Identify the establishments and 

industries affected by the proposed rule; 

• Estimate and evaluate the costs and 

economic impacts that regulated 

establishments will incur to achieve 

compliance with the proposed rule; 

• Evaluate the economic feasibility of 

the proposed rule for affected 

industries; 

• Estimate the benefits resulting from 

employers coming into compliance with 

the proposed rule in terms of reductions 

in injuries and fatalities; and 

• Assess the impact of the proposed 

rule on small entities through an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 

which includes an evaluation of 

significant regulatory alternatives to the 

proposed rule that OSHA has 

considered. 

B. Profile of Affected Industries 

I. Introduction 

This chapter presents a profile of the 

entities and employees within the 

emergency response service sectors that 

would be affected by OSHA’s proposed 

Emergency Response Standard. OSHA 

first identifies the types of organizations 

that provide emergency response 

services that would be subject to the 

standard. Next, OSHA provides 

summary statistics for the affected 

entities, including the number of 

affected entities and the number of 

affected workers. This information is 

provided for each affected emergency 

response service sector in total as well 

as for small entities as defined by the 

RFA and by the SBA. 

II. Affected Industries and Responders 

The proposed rule would apply to 

employers that provide one or more of 

the following emergency response 

services as a primary function: 

firefighting, emergency medical service, 

and technical search and rescue; or the 

employees perform the emergency 

service(s) as a primary duty for the 

employer. OSHA refers to these 

employers as Emergency Service 

Organizations (ESOs) and their 

employees as responders. The proposed 

rule also would apply to Workplace 

Emergency Response Employers 

(WEREs), which are defined as 

employers that have an emergency 

response team where employees, as a 

collateral duty to their regular daily 

work assignments, respond to 

emergency incidents to provide services 

such as fire suppression, emergency 

medical care, and technical search and 

rescue. The team is called a Workplace 

Emergency Response Team (WERT), and 

the employees assigned to the team are 

called team members. 

The proposed rule would directly 

cover private ESOs and WERTs but 

would also impact a significant number 

of state and local government entities, as 

well as Federal Government entities 

under the Departments of Defense, 

Agriculture, and the Interior. 

Firefighting services, as well as 

technical search and rescue groups, are 

often part of state and local 

governments. These emergency 

response services are also prominent 

functions of the Federal Government. 

Emergency medical services (e.g., 

ambulance services) are more 

commonly provided by private entities 

but may also be provided by state or 

local governments. While state and local 

government employees are not directly 

covered by Federal OSHA, they are 

covered by states with OSHA-approved 

State Plans because the OSH Act 

requires State Plans to cover 

government employees. Under 

Executive Order 12866, agencies must 

consider the likely effects of their 

rulemakings on state and local 

governments in their regulatory 

analyses. For this analysis, OSHA is 

assuming that State Plan states would 

adopt the requirements in this proposed 

rule as written. Emergency response 

activities undertaken by WERT 

members at private worksites are fully 

covered by Federal OSHA. 

Another issue in determining the 

entities that would be affected by the 

proposed rule is that many emergency 

responders are volunteers. OSHA does 

not regulate volunteers, but some State 

Plan states, listed below, have laws that 

treat volunteers as employees for 

occupational safety and health 

purposes. Therefore, in those situations, 

State Plans would have to cover those 

volunteers. 

The proposed rule would not cover 

employers performing disaster site 

clean-up or recovery duties following 

natural disasters such as earthquakes, 

hurricanes, tornados, and floods; and 

human-made disasters such as 

explosions and transportation incidents. 

The specific types of organizations 

that would be covered by the proposed 

rule are as follows: 

• Firefighting Services—These 

organizations include private and public 

entities engaged in structural, wildland, 

proximity, marine, and aerial 

firefighting. Employees of these entities 

may be volunteer or career team 

members or responders. This group 

represents the vast majority of entities, 

team members and responders 

potentially affected by the proposed 

rule. 

• Emergency Medical Services 

(EMS)—These organizations include 

private and public entities engaged in 

provision of pre-hospital emergency 

medical service. Employees of these 

entities may be volunteer or career team 

members and responders, emergency 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7852 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

25Seven 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. 

26There 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. 

27The 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/. 

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, 

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. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7853 

28Note that not all private firefighting 

organizations reported in the NFPA data are 

WEREs. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

IV. Affected WEREs, ESOs, and 

Responders 

Emergency response services 

provided by WEREs and ESOs can 

overlap (e.g., firefighters may also be 

trained to provide medical assistance 

and technical search and rescue). 

Additionally, OSHA assumes that 

WERTs will likely provide all 

emergency response services within 

each facility. Given the overlap among 

these groups, OSHA first profiles 

WEREs as one group (vs. separately for 

each emergency response activity) and 

then profiles each type of ESO 

(firefighter, EMS, technical search and 

rescue). 

A. WEREs 

OSHA’s estimate of the number of 

WEREs was derived using data from the 

U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) 

registry on the number of ‘‘private or 

industrial fire brigades.’’ These entities 

include private companies that have 

indicated they have employees (team 

members) who, collateral to their 

normal duties, provide firefighting and 

other emergency response services at 

the workplace.28 Upon examination, 

OSHA found that unlike ESOs, WEREs 

typically do not appear in the registry. 

OSHA asked the USFA how 

representative the National Fire Registry 

data is, with USFA stating that the 

number of fire departments in the 

Registry accounted for about 92% of 

U.S. fire departments. The National Fire 

Registry indicates there are 27,091 

organizations in the fire registry with 

available counts on employees. 

Multiplying 27,091 by 1/0.92 yields an 

estimate of 29,447 total emergency 

response organizations overall in the 

United States. The agency made an 

additional adjustment for an undercount 

of private ESOs, estimating that there 

are 788 private ESOs in the U.S. (twice 

the official count of 394). This leaves a 

residual of approximately 1,582 

emergency response teams unaccounted 

for. Based in part on this, the agency 

estimates that approximately 1,500 

emergency response teams are 

unaccounted for and exist in the form of 

WEREs. Based on communications with 

SERs, OSHA believes these WEREs to be 

within larger establishments across a 

number of industries such as refineries, 

auto assembly plants, paper mills, 

chemical plants, hospitals, and airports, 

among others. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.008</GPH>

Table VII-B-1. Volunteer ESOs & Responders in State Plan States that 

Cover and Do Not Cover Volunteers 

Type of State Plan Number Percentage 

ESOs Responders ESOs Responders 

Fire Deoartments 

Volunteers Covered 5216 174.895 67.5% 71.6% 

Volunteers not Covered 2,517 69,290 32.5% 28.4% 

Total 7,733 244,183 100.0% 100.0% 

Wildland Fire Services ral 

Volunteers Covered 7 3,737 58.3% 82.1% 

Volunteers not Covered 5 815 41.7% 17.9% 

Total 12 4,552 100.0% 100.0% 

Emergency Medical Services 

Volunteers Covered 221 15,379 69.5% 88.0% 

Volunteers not Covered 97 2,092 30.5% 12.0% 

Total 318 17,471 100.0% 100.0% 

Technical Search and Rescue 

Volunteers Covered 1,572 60,106 43.7% 43.7% 

Volunteers not Covered 2,028 77,570 56.3% 56.3% 

Total 3,600 137,676 100.0% 100.0% 

All Groups 

Volunteers Covered 7,015 254,117 60.2% 62.9% 

Volunteers not Covered 4,467 149,766 39.8% 37.1% 

Total 11,662 403,883 100.0% 100.0% 

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 USF A 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 

29These statistics are based on the USFA registry 

database as of May 17, 2022. Registry data are 

voluntarily reported by fire departments. 

30The 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.’’ 

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

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–4 shows the interplay 

between department and personnel 

types (including all departments and 

personnel, whether or not they would 

be covered by the proposed rule). As 

noted above, the numbers below have 

been adjusted so that the ‘‘volunteer’’ 

department type includes data for those 

departments comprising only volunteer 

firefighters. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.009</GPH> EP05FE24.010</GPH>

Table VII-B-2. Summary Statistics by Fire Department Type 

Department Type ESOs Percenta2e 

Career 6,844 25% 

Volunteer 16,541 61% 

Mixed 3,759 14% 

Total Fire Departments 27,144 100% 

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. 

Table VII-B-3. Summary Statistics by Personnel Type 

Firefi2hter Type Number Percenta2e 

Active Firefighters - Career 365,311 30% 

Active Firefighters - Volunteer 578,565 47% 

Active Firefighters - Paid per Call 131177 11% 

Non-Firefighting Personnel 157,927 13% 

Total Firefi2hters 1,232,980 100% 

Source: OSHA derived from USF A (2022). 

Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7855 

31There are 90 fire departments with no reported 

active firefighting personnel in the 2022 USFA 

Registry. 

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 

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 

USFA (2022) registry data. Further, the 

analysis excludes public fire 

departments in non-State Plan states, 

volunteers in State Plan states where 

volunteers are not covered by the State 

Plan, and all-volunteer fire departments 

in State Plan states that do not cover 

volunteers. OSHA thus limits the fire 

department profile to include all private 

fire departments, all public fire 

departments in State Plan states that 

cover volunteers, all public fire 

departments in State Plan states that do 

not cover volunteers except those 

departments that are 100 percent 

volunteer, and all Federal fire 

departments. In addition to removing 

some fire departments and responders 

that are not covered, OSHA checked to 

ensure that all fire departments operated 

by tribal governments were removed 

from this analysis for being out-ofVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:19 Feb 02, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05FEP2.SGM 05FEP2

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.011</GPH> EP05FE24.012</GPH>

Table VII-B-4. Summary Statistics by Department and Personnel Type 

Department Number Active Active Active Nonof Firefighters - Firefighters - Firefighters - Firefighting Type 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 

Total 52,177 365,311 578,565 131,177 157,927 

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. 

Table VII-B-5. Summary Statistics by Fire Department Operator for All Fire 

Department 

Organization Type Departments Responders 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Local Government (includes career, mixed, and 25,973 95.7% 1,019,599 94.8% volunteer) 

State Government 188 0.7% 15,951 1.5% 

Transportation Authority or Airport Fire 85 0.3% 1,936 0.2% Department 

Tribal Government 64 0.2% 2,595 0.2% 

Other 183 0.7% 6,775 0.6% 

Federal Government (Department of Defense) 190 0.7% 10,476 1.0% 

Federal Government (Executive Branch) 63 0.2% 3,946 0.4% 

Contract Fire Department 254 0.9% 8,939 0.8% 

Private or Industrial Fire Brigade 144 0.5% 4,836 0.4% 

Non-Federal Public (Local, State, Tribal, 

Transportation Authority/Airport, and 26,493 97.6% 1,046,856 97.4% 

Other) 

Federal Government 253 0.9% 14,422 1.3% 

Private (Contract, Private or Industrial Fire 398 1.5% 13,775 1.3% Bri2ade)1 

Total 27,144 100.0% 1,075,053 100.0% 

While OSHA is not using the term "Industrial Fire Brigade" in this standard, this term is used in the NFPA 

database which is being summarized here. 

Source: OSHA derived from USF A (2022). 

Note: Figures inay not add to totals due to rounding. 
7856 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

32This industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in performing particular support 

activities related to timber production, wood 

technology, forestry economics and marketing, and 

forest protection. These establishments may provide 

support activities for forestry, such as estimating 

timber, forest firefighting, forest pest control, 

treating burned forests from the air for reforestation 

or on an emergency basis, and consulting on wood 

attributes and reforestation. (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2021). 

scope. After these adjustments, OSHA 

estimates that there are 12,096 fire 

departments and 534,599 responders 

(see Table VII–B–6) that would be 

affected by the proposed rule. 

C. Wildland Firefighting Services 

In addition to fire departments, many 

private-sector fire suppression 

organizations provide wildland 

firefighting and other emergency 

services, primarily to Federal, State, and 

local agencies. These services include 

direct firefighting as well as support 

services and are assumed to fall into 

NAICS 115310 Support Activities for 

Forestry.32 The total number of such 

organizations and the associated 

personnel is unknown. However, the 

National Wildfire Suppression 

Association (NWSA) states that it 

represents 348 private wildland 

firefighting services contractors with 

24,000 employees who operate on an 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 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.013</GPH>

Table VII-B-6. Fire Departments and Firefi2hters in Scope by Department Type 

Department Type Departments % Departments Responders % Responders 

Career 4,266 35.3% 246,561 46.1% 

Volunteer 5,674 46.9% 187,621 35.1% 

Mixed 2,156 17.8% 100,417 18.8% 

Total 12,096 100.0% 534,599 100.0% 

Source: OSHA derived from USF A (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 

The Federal Government also 

employs wildland firefighters within the 

Forest Service. There are approximately 

18,700 dedicated wildland firefighters 

(GAO, 2022) and an additional 50,000 

reserve wildland firefighters (USDA, 

2023). 

D. Emergency Medical Services 

The proposed rule, or its State Plan 

equivalent, would cover public and 

private ESOs that provide emergency 

medical services (EMS). However, 

detailed data for EMS providers similar 

to those for fire departments are not 

available. Available data on EMS 

providers are not captured adequately in 

the data sources typically used by 

OSHA that allow the agency to delineate 

affected entities by NAICS industry. 

OSHA combined data from several 

sources to construct a profile with 

similar parameters to the firefighter 

profile. OSHA welcomes information on 

additional or alternate data sources that 

would allow the agency to better 

estimate the universe of EMS providers. 

First, statistics reported by the 

National Association of Emergency 

Medical Technicians (NAEMT, 2014) 

based on 2008 data suggest that there 

are an estimated 15,276 ambulance 

services ESOs in the United States, 

which NAEMT breaks down into 

detailed categories (see Table VII–B–8). 

NAEMT reported that an estimated 49 

percent of EMS providers are fire 

departments with either cross-trained or 

separate EMS responders. Other 

‘‘government or third party’’ providers 

represent an estimated 15 percent of the 

total, while private EMS providers 

account for 18 percent, and 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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.014</GPH>

State 

Arizona 

California 

Indiana 

Nevada 

New York 

Oregon 

Washington 

Total 

Table VII-B-7. State Wildland Firefighting Programs and Inmate 

Firefighters Affected 

Inmate Firefighters % Inmate Firefighters 

720 19.3% 

1,600 42.8% 

17 0.5% 

720 19.3% 

5 0.1% 

345 9.2% 

330 8.8% 

3,737 100.0% 

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. 
7858 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

NAEMT (2014) estimates that 

ambulance services employ 840,669 

responders, which includes first 

responders, EMTs, paramedics, and 

registered nurses. This analysis assumes 

that those responders are distributed 

proportionately among the ambulance 

services of each type, which yields an 

estimate of 360,957 responders at 

affected ESOs, with 66,723 of these 

responders at public ESOs in State Plan 

states and 294,234 responders at private 

ESOs nationwide. 

NAEMT (2014) estimates that 

approximately 39 percent of ambulance 

service entities are staffed by career 

responders, 21 percent by volunteers, 

and 41 percent by both. Unlike the 

USFA (2022) data used for the 

firefighter profile, NAEMT does not 

specify responder types at ‘‘mixed’’ 

ambulance services (e.g., how many 

career responders are at ESOs that are 

primarily staffed with volunteers). For 

the fire departments and firefighters 

analysis, OSHA identified different 

types of staffing arrangements for fire 

departments, including where 

departments were mostly, but not 

completely, staffed by volunteers and 

vice versa. Lacking any data to make 

similar determinations, this analysis of 

ambulance ESOs assumes that entities 

reported as staffed by career responders 

are staffed entirely by career responders, 

entities reported as volunteer services 

are staffed entirely by volunteers, and 

an unknown mix of career and 

volunteer responders staff services in 

the ‘‘mixed’’ category. The estimates of 

career, volunteer, and ‘‘mixed’’ services 

and responders are shown in Table VII– 

B–9. 

As with fire departments and 

firefighters, volunteer responders and 

ESOs where 100 percent of responders 

are volunteers are excluded in OSHA 

State Plan states where the State Plan 

does not cover volunteers. Since the 

NAEMT and BLS data are not granular 

enough to allow an exact calculation of 

the percentage of volunteers in State 

Plan states that cover or do not cover 

volunteers, OSHA assumes that the 

percentage of volunteer emergency 

medical service ESOs and responders 

located in these states is the same as for 

firefighters. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.015</GPH>

Table VII-B-8. Ambulance Services by Detailed Type of Provider 

Total U.S. 

Fire Department with Cross-Trained EMS Personnel 

Fire Department with Separate EMS Personnel 

Private Company 

Other 

Hospital-Based Service 

Public Utility Model (Private Contractor) 

Government or Third Party 

Police Department with Cross-Trained EMS Personnel 

Police Department with Separate EMS Personnel 

Total Ambulance Services 

Total Excludine Fire Departments 

Private ral 

Public, State Plan State rb l r Cl 

Public, Non-State Plan State rbl rel 

Total Ambulance Services 

Total Affected 

Private ral 

Public State Plan State rb l r cl 

Total Ambulance Services 

Sources: OSHA derived from NAEMT (2014) and BLS (2023). 

Notes: 

Ambulance ESOs 

Percentaee r dl Total rdl 

40.0% 6,110 

9.0% 1,375 

18.0% 2,750 

8.0% 1,222 

7.0% 1,069 

2.0% 306 

14.5% 2,215 

0.5% 76 

1.0% 153 

100% 15,276 

68.6% 5,347 

18.5% 1,443 

12.9% 1,001 

100% 7,791 

79.9% 5,347 

20.1% 1,346 

100% 6,693 

[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. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7859 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

E. Technical Search and Rescue 

The proposed rule covers technical 

search and rescue organizations using 

special knowledge, skills, and 

specialized equipment to resolve 

complex search and rescue situations, 

such as rope, vehicle/machinery, 

structural collapse, trench, and 

technical water rescue. The term covers 

a variety of activities and operations 

that may be performed by different 

types of team members and responders. 

(The proposed rule does not include 

technical search and rescue activities 

specifically covered by other OSHA 

standards, such as permit-required 

confined spaces covered by 29 CFR 

1910.146.) OSHA specifically uses the 

term ‘‘technical’’ to limit the proposed 

rule’s coverage to search and rescue 

activities that utilize special knowledge 

and skills and specialized equipment to 

resolve complex search and rescue 

situations because these activities are 

particularly hazardous for emergency 

responders. There are activities with the 

same or similar names that would not be 

covered by the proposed rule because 

they do not use specialized knowledge, 

skills, or equipment. For example, the 

term ‘‘wilderness search and rescue’’ 

could apply to both technical and 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 

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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.016</GPH>

Table VII-B-9. Estimated Number of Ambulance Services and PersonnelCareer, Volunteer, and Mixed 

Private ral Public, State Plan State rbl rel 

Ambulance ESOs 

Number 

Career 2,032 548 

Volunteer 1,176 221 

Mixed 2,139 577 

Total 5,347 1,346 

Percent of Total Affected 

Career 30% 8% 

Volunteer 18% 3% 

Mixed 32% 9% 

Total 80% 20% 

Personnel 

Number 

Career 111,809 30,177 

Volunteer 64,732 15,379 

Mixed 117,694 21,166 

Total 294,234 66,723 

Percent of Total Affected 

Career 31% 8% 

Volunteer 18% 4% 

Mixed 33% 6% 

Total 82% 18% 

Sources: OSHA derived from NAEMT (2014), USFA (2022), and BLS (2023). 

Notes: 

Total Affected rdl 

2,580 

1,397 

2,716 

6,693 

39% 

21% 

41% 

100% 

141,986 

80,111 

138,860 

360,957 

39% 

22% 

38% 

100% 

[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. 
7860 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

33OSHA assumes that there are at least 2 

volunteer responders per technical search and 

rescue group. 

34https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/ 

national-preparedness/frameworks/urban-searchrescue/task-force-locations. 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7861 

35USLA defines rescue vehicles as lifeguard 

emergency vehicles described as four-wheel-drive 

motor vehicles which are legally permitted to drive 

on streets and highways. 

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 

public groups in State Plan States and 

all private entities, OSHA estimates a 

total of 134 additional affected technical 

water rescue entities. 

OSHA used the same approach as 

used for the other technical search and 

rescue organizations to distribute public 

and private agencies among each 

employee class size for technical water 

rescue organizations. Partial data on the 

number of full-time and part-time 

employees at each lifeguard agency by 

year was available from USLA. 

However, employment data for some 

currently certified lifeguard agencies 

was unavailable. To fill in these gaps, 

OSHA calculated the average number of 

full-time and part-time employees 

among the currently certified lifeguard 

agencies with recorded employment 

data. OSHA then calculated the average 

number of full-time and part-time 

employees per agency in each state. 

These estimates were then multiplied by 

the number of public and private 

entities in each state to estimate total 

full-time and part-time employees 

within public and private entities. 

OSHA then used USLA data on 

ownership of rescue vehicles by 

lifeguard agency to determine how 

many of these employees might use 

rescue vehicles and therefore be 

providing specialized equipment and 

skills. OSHA calculated the average 

number of employees per rescue vehicle 

across currently USLA-certified 

lifeguard entities and multiplied it by 

the number of rescue vehicles per entity 

to estimate the number of employees 

potentially operating rescue vehicles per 

entity. Next, OSHA took the difference 

between total employment at each entity 

and the expected number of employees 

given the number of rescue vehicles to 

determine ‘‘excess’’ employees, or the 

employees at an entity that may not 

operate a rescue vehicle. OSHA divided 

the total number of ‘‘excess’’ employees 

by total employment to determine the 

percentage of all employees that do not 

use rescue vehicles. Then the 

percentage of employees that do use 

rescue vehicles was multiplied by total 

public and private employment within 

each employee class size to determine 

the number of affected employees 

within each state. As a final step, OSHA 

used the same approach as outlined 

above for the search and rescue 

organizations, capping the number of 

entities at half the number of employees 

estimated given the number of entities 

originally estimated exceeded the 

number of employees. The number of 

entities and employees was then scaled 

back up so that the total number of 

entities estimated matched the original 

estimate. As shown in Table VII–B–10, 

there are an estimated 8,275 affected 

technical water rescuers. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7862 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

In summary, the total number of 

affected technical search and rescue 

organizations and responders is 

presented in Table VII–B–11. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.017</GPH> EP05FE24.018</GPH>

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 

Public - Non-State Plan State 83 38.2% 3,699 

Private 11 5.1% 599 

Total 217 100.0% 11,974 

Total Affected 

Public - State Plan State 123 91.8% 7.676 

Public - Non-State Plan State 0 0.0% 0 

Private 11 8.2% 599 

Total 134 100.0% 8,275 

Source: OSHA derived from Brewster (2022), USLA (2022b), and U.S. Census Bureau (2017a). 

Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. 

64.1% 

30.9% 

5.0% 

100.0% 

92.8% 

0.0% 

7.2% 

100.0% 

Table VII-B-11. Estimated Number of Technical Search and Rescue 

Oreanizations and Responders - Career and Volunteer 

Private Public, State Plan Federal Total in Scope 

State ral 

Technical Search and Rescue Or2anizations 

Number 

Career 28 0 1 29 

Volunteer 0 1 572 0 1,572 

Total 28 1,572 1 1,601 

Percent of Total in Scope 

Career 2% 0% 0% 2% 

Volunteer 0% 98% 0% 98% 

Total 2% 98% 0% 100% 

Technical Search and Rescue Responders 

Number 

Career L304 0 5.000 6,304 

Volunteer 0 60 106 0 60,106 

Total 1,304 60,106 5,000 66,409 

Percent of Total in 

Scope 

Career 2% 0% 8% 9% 

Volunteer 0% 91% 0% 91% 

Total 2% 91% 8% 100% 

Technical Water Rescue Organizations 

Number 

Career 11 123 0 134 

Volunteer 0 0 0 0 

Total 11 123 0 134 

Percent of Total in Scope 

Career 8% 92% 0% 100% 

Volunteer 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Total 8% 92% 0% 100% 

Technical Water Rescue Responders 

Number 

Career 599 7,676 0 8,275 

Volunteer 0 0 0 0 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7863 

F. Summary of Affected WEREs, ESOs, 

Responders, and Team Members 

Table VII–B–12 summarizes the total 

estimated number of organizations and 

responders affected by the proposed 

rule, drawing from the profiles for 

WEREs, firefighters (Table VII–B–6), 

wildland firefighters, emergency 

medical services (Table III–9), and 

technical search and rescue groups 

(Table VII–B–11). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.019</GPH>

Private Public, State Plan Federal Total in Scope 

State ral 

Total 599 7,676 0 8,275 

Percent of Total in Scope 

Career 7% 93% 0% 100% 

Volunteer 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Total 7% 93% 0% 100% 

Total Technical Search and Rescue Or2anizations 

Number 

Career 39 123 1 163 

Volunteer 0 1,572 0 1,572 

Total 39 1,695 1 1,735 

Percent of Total in Scope 

Career 2% 7% 0% 9% 

Volunteer 0% 91% 0% 91% 

Total 2% 98% 0% 100% 

Technical Search and Rescue Responders 

Number 

Career 1,902 7,676 5,000 14,579 

Volunteer 0 60,106 0 60,106 

Total 1,902 67,782 5,000 74,685 

Percent of Total in Scope 

Career 3% 10% 7% 20% 

Volunteer 0% 80% 0% 80% 

Total 3% 91% 7% 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. 
7864 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

V. Potentially Affected Small Entities 

A. Determining Entity Size 

Under the RFA, small governmental 

jurisdictions (sometimes referred to as 

‘‘small governments’’ in this analysis) 

are defined as ‘‘governments of cities, 

counties, towns, townships, villages, 

school districts, or special districts, with 

a population of less than fifty 

thousand.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(5). For this 

PEA, fire departments, EMS providers, 

and technical search and rescue groups 

that are part of state and local 

governments are referred to as small 

entities if the government they are part 

of meets this definition of a small 

governmental jurisdiction. For private 

entities, the RFA uses the definition of 

‘‘small business’’ found in the Small 

Business Act, which authorizes the SBA 

to define ‘‘small business’’ by 

regulation. This analysis uses the SBA’s 

definition of a small business for each 

industry sector (according to NAICS 

code) as defined in the SBA table of size 

standards (SBA, 2019). 

The available data on small 

governmental jurisdictions does not 

allow OSHA to identify the number of 

fire departments or EMS providers that 

serve these jurisdictions, or the number 

of firefighters and EMS providers 

employed by small governments. To 

derive these estimates, OSHA estimated 

the median population served per fire 

department employee and used that to 

estimate how many workers a 

department would need to employ to 

serve a population greater than 50,000. 

OSHA used data from multiple 

Firehouse Magazine surveys to 

determine the median population 

served per employee for career, 

volunteer, and mixed fire departments 

at various employment size classes to 

extrapolate to the entire universe of fire 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.020</GPH>

Table VII-B-12. Combined Profile of WEREs, Fire Departments, Emergency 

Medical Services, and Technical Search and Rescue Entities - Summary 

Group Type Total in Scope 

On:i:anizations Responders 

WEREs 

Career 1,500 64,500 

Total 1,500 64,500 

Fire Departments 

Career 4,266 246,561 

Volunteer 5,674 187,621 

Mixed 2,156 100,417 

Total 12,096 534,599 

Wildland Fire Services ral 

Career 521 54,256 

Volunteer 8 53 737 

Total 529 107,993 

Emergency Medical Services 

Career 2,580 141,986 

Volunteer 1,397 80,111 

Mixed 2,716 138 860 

Total 6,693 360,957 

Technical Search and Rescue 

Career 163 14,579 

Volunteer 1,572 60,106 

Total 1,735 74,685 

All Groups 

Career 9,030 521,881 

Volunteer 8,650 381,574 

Mixed 4,872 239,277 

Total 22,552 1,142,733 

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. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7865 

36Some information on the NAICS distribution of 

private firefighting services is available from the 

BLS employment data, but these are not at the 6- 

digit NAICS level needed to determine small entity 

status using the SBA definitions. 

37This 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. 

38This 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. 

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 

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 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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–14 shows the number of 

firefighters estimated to serve a 

population of 50,000 people or fewer. 

D. Wildland Firefighting Services 

As mentioned in section VII.B.V.A, 

OSHA used the proportion of firms in 

NAICS 115310 that are small from the 

Census Bureau’s SUSB dataset (2021) 

based on that NAICS’ SBA definition 

($8,000,000 in receipts, which OSHA 

converted to 100 employees) to 

determine the number of small wildland 

firefighting entities. Table VII–B–15 

shows the number of wildland 

firefighting entities that are small based 

on the SBA definition, as well as the 

responders at those small entities. 

E. Emergency Medical Services 

As outlined in section VII.B.V.A, 

small entity determinations for private 

EMS entities are based on the SBA 

definition for NAICS 621910 

Ambulance Services ($16.5 million or 

less in revenue, which OSHA converted 

to 500 employees or less). Public EMS 

entities are small if they serve a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.021</GPH> EP05FE24.022</GPH> EP05FE24.023</GPH>

Table VII-B-13. Small Fire Departments Affected 

SBA/RF A Definition Small 

Private Public Total 

Career 218 3,297 3,515 

Volunteer 450 5,199 5,649 

Mixed 118 1,839 1,957 

Total 786 10,335 11,121 

Source: OSHA derived from USFA (2022) and Firehouse Magazine (2022). 

Table VII-B-14. Affected Firefi2hters at Small Fire Departments 

SBA/RFA Definition Small 

Private Public Total 

Career 8,252 100,612 108,864 

Volunteer 12.624 169 019 181.643 

Mixed 5J40 56 096 6L436 

Total 26,216 325,727 351,943 

Source: OSHA derived from USF A (2022) and Firehouse Magazine (2022). 

Table VII-B-15. Small Wildfire Fi2htin2 Entities and Responders Affected 

I SBA Definition Small 

ESOs 

Career I 507 

Responders 

Career I 25,816 

Source: OSHA derived from Miley (2022), Wildland Fire Jobs (2022), and U.S. Census Bureau (2021). 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7867 

population of fewer than 50,000 people. 

Table VII–B–16 presents the number of 

small EMS entities based on both 

definitions. Table VII–B–16 also shows the number of responders at these small 

EMS entities. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

F. Technical Search and Rescue 

As described above, OSHA’s method 

for estimating the technical search and 

rescue universe included data from 

wilderness and urban search and rescue 

organizations, lifeguard agencies, and 

private companies. Table VII–B–17 

presents the estimated number of 

affected small technical search and 

rescue groups, as well as the number of 

responders among those affected 

entities. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.024</GPH>

Table VII-B-16. Small Emergency Medical Service Entities and Responders 

Affected 

SBA/RFA Definition Small 

Private 

ESOs 

Career 1,971 

Volunteer 1,141 

Mixed 2,075 

Total 5,186 

Responders 

Career 99,185 

Volunteer 57,423 

Mixed 104,405 

Total 261,013 

Sources: OSHA derived from NAEMT (2014) and BLS (2023). 

Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Public 

524 

211 

552 

1,287 

28,843 

14,699 

20,231 

63,773 

Total 

2,495 

1,352 

2,626 

6,473 

128,028 

72,122 

124,636 

324,786 
7868 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

39See section V for a discussion of how entity 

size was determined. 

G. Summary of Affected Small Entities 

Table VII–B–18 summarizes the 

number of small organizations and 

responders according to either RFA 

definitions (for public ESOs) or SBA 

definitions (for private ESOs and 

WEREs).39


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.025</GPH>

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 

Career 1 151 7,337 8,488 

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. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7869 

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-2018- 

statistical-tables. (Accessed November 

16, 2022) 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2022a). 

Occupational Employment and Wage 

Statistics—May 2021 (Released April 4, 

2022). Available at https://www.bls.gov/ 

oes/#data. (Accessed April 8, 2022) 

California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR). (2023). 

Conservation (Fire) Camps Program. 

Available at https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/ 

facility-locator/conservation-camps/. 

(Accessed May 29, 2023) 

Firehouse Magazine. (2022). 2021 Volunteer 

Fire Department Run Survey. Available 

at https://www.firehouse.com/careerseducation/document/21278671/2021- 

volunteer-fire-department-run-survey. 

(Accessed November 17, 2022) 

Maddux, S. (2020). Prisoner Firefighters 

Giving Back to Society. Available at 

https://hometownnewsnow.com/localnews/515917. (Accessed May 29, 2023) 

Miley, D. (2022). Personal communication 

with National Wildfire Suppression 

Association (NWSA). 

Miraglia, M. (2022). Personal communication 

with Mountain Rescue Association 

(MRA). 

Mountain Rescue Association (MRA). (2022). 

MRA Mission Data Dashboard. Available 

at https://experience.arcgis.com/ 

experience/6b84b11fc6eb495ea

518ee964b79f712/. (Accessed October 

21, 2022) 

National Association of Emergency Medical 

Technicians (NAEMT). (2014). EMS 

statistics. Available at http://

www.naemt.org/about_ems/ 

statistics.aspx. (Accessed October 27, 

2014) 

National Wildfire Suppression Association 

(NWSA). (2022). National Wildfire 

Suppression Association Member List. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.026</GPH>

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 1,500 64,500 

Subtotal 1,500 64,500 

Fire Departments 

Career 3,515 108,864 

Volunteer 5,649 181,643 

Mixed 1,957 61,436 

Subtotal 11,121 351,943 

Wildland Fire Services 

Career 507 25,816 

Subtotal 507 25,816 

Emen?:encv Medical Services 

Career 2,495 128,028 

Volunteer 1,352 72,122 

Mixed 2,626 124,636 

Subtotal 6,473 324,786 

Technical Search and Rescue 

Career 152 8,488 

Volunteer 1,502 57,448 

Subtotal 1,655 65,937 

All Groups 

Career 8,169 335,696 

Volunteer 8,503 311,214 

Mixed 4,583 186,072 

Total 21,256 832,982 

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. 
7870 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

40Any adjustments to the price year reflect the 

use of the GDP Deflator (https://www.bea.gov/data/ 

prices-inflation/gdp-price-deflator). 

41Table VII–C–16 provides estimated costs using 

a 7% discount rate, while Table VII–C–17 provides 

undiscounted costs. 

42To 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. 

Available at http://www.nwsa.us/. 

(Accessed October 4, 2022) 

Nevada Division of Forestry. (2023). 

Conservation Camps. Available at http:// 

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 

at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23- 

105517. (Accessed December 1, 2023) 

United States Lifesaving Association (USLA). 

(2022a). American Lifeguard Rescue and 

Drowning Statistics for Beaches. 

Available at https://www.usla.org/page/ 

Statistics. (Accessed November 16, 2022) 

United States Lifesaving Association (USLA). 

(2022b). USLA Certified Programs. 

Available at https://www.usla.org/page/ 

CERTIFIEDAGENCIES. (Accessed 

November 16, 2022) 

Washington State Department of Corrections 

(WA DOC). (2023). Work Crews. 

Available at https://www.doc.wa.gov/ 

corrections/programs/work-crews.htm. 

(Accessed May 29, 2023) 

Wildland Fire Jobs. (2022). List of Wildland 

Fire Contractors. Available at https://

wildlandfirejobs.com/list-of-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 10- 

year 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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7871 

type in which firefighters serve (career, 

volunteer, or mixed). These estimates 

are derived from a 2016 survey 

conducted by the IAFC’s Safety, Health 

and Survival Section (LeDuc, 2018). The 

non-compliance rate for professional 

wildland firefighters is assumed to be 

the same as for career firefighters, while 

the non-compliance rate for inmate 

firefighters is assumed to be the same as 

for volunteer firefighters. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.027</GPH>

Table VII-C-1. Baseline Non-Compliance Rate by Provision of the Proposed Rule 

and Organization Size 

Provision of the On?:anization Size bv Number of Responders 

Proposed Rule <25 25-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ 

Rule Familiarization 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Organization of the 

WERT and Establishment 93% 88% 75% 63% 50% 38% 

of ERP, Paragraph (c) 
7872 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.028</GPH>

Provision of the Or2anization Size by Number of Responders 

Proposed Rule <25 25-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ 

ESO Establishment of 

ERP and Emergency 93% 88% 75% 63% 50% 38% Service(s) Capability, 

Paragraph (d) 

Team Member and 

Responder Participation, 19% 18% 15% 13% 10% 8% 

Parrui:raoh (e) 

WERT and ESO Risk 

Management Plan, 93% 88% 75% 63% 50% 38% 

Parrui:raph ffl 

Medical and Physical 

Requirements, Paragraph 93% 88% 75% 63% 50% 38% 

fo) 

Additional ESQ 

Surveillance (Full NFP A 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Medical Exam) - Career, 

Parauraph fo)(3) f al 

Additional ESO 

Surveillance (Full NFP A 

Medical Exam) - 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 

Vohmteer, Paragraph 

fo)(3) f al 

Additional ESO 

Surveillance (Full NFP A 36% 36% 36% 36% 36% 36% Medical Exam) - Mixed, 

Paragraph fo)(3) fbl 

Training, ParaQraph (h) 9% 9% 8% 6% 5% 4% 

WERE Facility 

Preparedness, Paragraph 37% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 

(i) 

ESQ Facility 

Preparedness, Paragraph 37% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 

(j) 

Equipment and PPE, 37% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% Paragraph (k) 

Vehicle Preparedness and 28% 26% 23% 19% 15% 11% Operation. PafllQraph (l) 

WERE Pre-Incident 100% 100% 100% 88% 70% 53% Planning_ Para2:ranh (m) 

ESQ Pre-Incident 100% 100% 100% 88% 70% 53% Planning, Paragraoh (n) 

Incident Management 

System Development, 28% 26% 23% 19% 15% 11% 

Paragraph ( o) 

Emergency Incident 19% 18% 15% 13% 10% 8% Operations, Paragraph ( p) 

Standard Operating 100% 100% 100% 88% 70% 53% Procedures, Paragraph (q) 

Post Incident Analysis, 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 60% Parrui:raph (r) 

Program Evaluation, 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 68% Parauraph (s) 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7873 

43Le 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. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

B. Type and Frequency of Medical 

Exams 

(i) Exposure Threshold Adjustments 

The proposed rule requires all team 

members and responders, except those 

in a support tier, to receive a basic 

medical exam, with additional 

screening required in certain 

circumstances. This exam must be given 

once initially and repeated at least 

biennially. In addition, team members 

and responders who are, or based on 

experience may be, exposed to 

combustion products 15 or more times 

a year without regard to the use of 

respiratory protection must be provided 

an expanded medical exam that is at 

least equivalent to the criteria specified 

in a national consensus standard (like 

NFPA 1582). Therefore, OSHA made 

additional adjustments to the 

population of responders for which 

ESOs would incur the cost of each 

medical exam based on how many times 

per year responders are exposed to 

combustion products. Table VII–C–2 

presents the percentage of responders 

within each responder group that would 

be required to undergo each type of 

medical exam. WERT members are all 

expected to undergo the minimum 

medical exam, with 12.5 percent of 

those team members estimated to also 

require additional heart screening 

tests.43 OSHA assumes that no WERT 

members will reach the 15-times-a-year 

exposure threshold for expanded 

medical exams. 

For responders at EMS and technical 

search and rescue ESOs, OSHA assumed 

that no responders would meet the 15- 

combustion product exposure event 

threshold that would require an 

expanded medical exam. Therefore, 

responders in these groups all undergo 

the minimum medical evaluation, with 

12.5 percent estimated to undergo 

further heart screening tests. In order to 

estimate the percentage of firefighters 

that would meet the 15-combustion 

product exposure event threshold, 

OSHA obtained data from the NFPA on 

the number of firefighters and fire calls 

responded to categorized by department 

type (all-career, mostly career, mostly 

volunteer, and all-volunteer) and 

population served size brackets. OSHA 

extrapolated the NFPA data to represent 

a national estimation of firefighters and 

fire calls by each department type and 

population served bracket. Assuming 

that an average of eight firefighters 

respond to a single fire call, OSHA 

determined that 96.4 percent of 

firefighters at career fire departments 

within the 250–499 employee class size, 

21.9 percent at mixed fire departments, 

and 0.2 percent at volunteer fire 

departments would meet the 15- 

combustion product exposure event 

threshold. OSHA scaled these 

percentages to reflect an assumption 

that the percentage of firefighters 

meeting the exposure threshold would 

decrease as the department size 

decreased. Firefighters with more than 

15 exposures, plus a subset of 

firefighters that do not exceed the 

threshold but have medically indicated 

health risks warranting more medical 

evaluation (assumed to be 2 percent of 

firefighters within each department 

type), are estimated to undergo an 

expanded medical exam (referred to as 

additional ESO surveillance in the 

proposed rule and in Table VII–C–2). 

Firefighters who do not meet the event 

threshold would undergo the minimum 

medical exam, with 12.5 percent of 

those firefighters also undergoing the 

additional heart screening. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.029</GPH>

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. 
7874 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.030</GPH>

Table VII-C-2. Percentage of Responders and Team Members by Employment Size 

Class N eedine Medical Exams 

Emolovment Size Class 

50-99 100- 250- <25 25-49 500+ 249 499 

WEREs 

Minimum Medical Surveillance - 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Career 

Minimum Medical Surveillance - 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Volunteer 

Minimum Medical Surveillance - 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mixed 

Additional Heart Screening - 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% Career 

Additional Heart Screening - 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% Volunteer 

Additional Heart Screening - 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% Mixed 

Additional ESO Surveillance 

(Full NFPA Medical Exam) - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Career 

Additional ESO Surveillance 

(Full NFPA Medical Exam) - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Volunteer 

Additional ESO Surveillance 

(Full NFPA Medical Exam) - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Mixed 

Fire Departments and Firetfahters 

Minimum Medical Surveillance - 51.8% 42.2% 42.2% 27.7% 3.6% 0.0% Career fal 

Minimum Medical Surveillance - 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 99.8% 99.7% Volunteer f al 

Minimum Medical Surveillance - 89.0% 86.9% 86.9% 83.6% 78.1% 67.1% Mixed fal 

Additional Heart Screening - 6.5% 5.3% 5.3% 3.5% 0.5% 0.0% Career 

Additional Heart Screening - 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% Volunteer 

Additional Heart Screening - 11.1% 10.9% 10.9% 10.5% 9.8% 8.4% Mixed 

Additional ESO Surveillance 

(Full NFPA Medical Exam) - 50.2% 59.8% 59.8% 74.3% 98.4% 100.0% 

Career fal 

Additional ESO Surveillance 

(Full NFPA Medical Exam) - 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 

Volunteer [a] 

Additional ESO Surveillance 

(Full NFPA Medical Exam) - 13.0% 15.1% 15.1% 18.4% 23.9% 34.9% 

Mixed [a] 

Wildland Firefo?htin2 Services 

Minimum Medical Surveillance - 51.8% 42.2% 42.2% 27.7% 3.6% 0.0% Career [a] 

Minimum Medical Surveillance - 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 99.8% 99.7% Volunteer fal 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7875 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.031</GPH>

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ 249 499 

Additional Heart Screening - 6.5% 5.3% 5.3% 3.5% 0.5% 0.0% Career 

Additional Heart Screening - 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% Volunteer 

Additional ESQ Surveillance 

(Full NFPA Medical Exam) - 50.2% 59.8% 59.8% 74.3% 98.4% 100.0% 

Career ral 

Additional ESQ Surveillance 

(Full NFPA Medical Exam) - 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 

Volunteer ral 

Emer2ency Medical Services 

Minimum Medical Surveillance - 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Career 

Minimum Medical Surveillance - 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Volunteer 

Minimum Medical Surveillance - 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mixed 

Additional Heart Screening - 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% Career 

Additional Heart Screening - 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% Volunteer 

Additional Heart Screening - 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% Mixed 

Additional ESQ Surveillance 

(Full NFPA Medical Exam) - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Career 

Additional ESQ Surveillance 

(Full NFPA Medical Exam) - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Volunteer 

Additional ESQ Surveillance 

(Full NFPA Medical Exam) - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Mixed 

Technical Search and Rescue Groups 

Minimum Medical Surveillance - 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Career 

Minimum Medical Surveillance - 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Volunteer 

Additional Heart Screening - 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% Career 

Additional Heart Screening - 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% Volunteer 

Additional ESQ Surveillance 

(Full NFPA Medical Exam) - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Career 

Additional ESQ Surveillance 

(Full NFPA Medical Exam) - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Volunteer 

Sources: OSHA based on ERG estimate; LeDuc, 2018; NFP A, 2022; NFP A, 2023a; and NFP A, 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. 
7876 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

44https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/ 

wages/. 

45For the purposes of this PEA, inmate 

firefighters are treated the same as volunteer 

responders. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

(ii) Frequency of Medical Exams 

Unlike most provisions of the 

proposed rule, the number of 

responders undergoing each medical 

exam type changes each year due to new 

hires needing a medical exam. Other 

established employees may need to be 

reexamined, since the minimum 

medical exam is required every other 

year. OSHA calculated the number of 

responders and team members expected 

to undergo each medical exam based on 

the hire rates for each responder group, 

the percentage of responders needing 

each medical exam based on the event 

threshold of 15 or more combustion 

product exposure events per year, and 

how often the exam is required under 

this standard. 

OSHA derived a formula (shown 

below in Equation 1) for the number of 

responders requiring a medical exam nt

in a given year t. Initially, a very large 

cohort would receive their first medical 

exam together in the first year after 

implementation of the proposed rule. In 

subsequent years, new hires would 

require their initial exam, and those 

who are not new hires would be 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 

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. 

Where: 

• nt is the number of responders requiring a 

medical exam in year t. 

• N is the total number of responders. 

• p is the retention rate, which could 

alternatively be defined as 1 minus the 

hire rate. 

• nequil is the long-run number of medical 

exams per year. 

• nt¥1 is the number of exams given in the 

preceding year t¥1. 

The long-run number of medical 

exams per year nequil is calculated in the 

following way and depends on the time 

between exams k. For example, if an 

exam is required every 5 years, then k 

= 5. 

Based on the hiring rates for similar 

jobs with EMS providers reported in 

Patterson et al., 2010 and BLS job 

growth projections, OSHA estimated 

that the annual hire rate for fire 

departments is 10 percent. For EMS 

providers, the annual hire rate is 

estimated to be 10.7 percent (Patterson 

et al., 2010). OSHA assumed wildland 

fire services, search and rescue groups, 

and technical water rescue entities have 

a similar hire rate to firefighters for this 

analysis. 

III. Wage Estimates Used in the Analysis 

Labor costs associated with the 

proposed rule were derived using wage 

data from BLS’ cross-industry OEWS for 

May 2022 (BLS, 2023). Table VII–C–3 

shows the loaded hourly wages used in 

the analysis. To the extent possible, 

OSHA employed the relevant 

occupational wage category. As 

discussed below, for example, OSHA 

used SOC code 33–2011 Firefighters to 

estimate the wage for career firefighters. 

Volunteer firefighters, volunteer EMS 

providers, and volunteer technical 

search and rescue group members, 

however, do not receive wages for their 

services, and the career emergency 

responder wages may not be an accurate 

characterization of the opportunity cost 

of volunteers’ time. The same is true for 

inmate firefighters, who are typically 

paid very little or nothing for their 

work.44 Therefore, OSHA is not using 

career responder wages to estimate 

compliance costs for volunteer 

responders and inmate firefighters. For 

these responders, OSHA believes it is 

more appropriate to use the overall 

private industry median hourly wage, 

$21.42, because volunteers come from a 

broad spectrum of the workforce; their 

primary occupational wage is a proxy 

for the opportunity cost of their time. 

OSHA recognizes that compliance costs 

related to inmate firefighters are likely 

an overestimate since the opportunity 

cost of their time is different from the 

average non-incarcerated individual. 

Accordingly, OSHA created a weighted 

average for responders of all types using 

the number of volunteer 45 and 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.032</GPH> EP05FE24.033</GPH>

nequil + (N - nequii)Pt-l 

nequil + (N(1 - p) + nequn)(pt-Z) 

if re-examination year for initial cohort, 

if initial cohort was re-examined 

in the preceding year, (1) 

if initial is not being re-examined 

that year or in the preceding year 

1-p H 

nequil = N 1- pk= N 1-(1- H)k (2) 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7877 

46See 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.16488- 

16492.). The methodology was modeled after an 

approach used by the Environmental Protection 

Agency. More information on this approach can be 

found at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

‘‘Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics 

Release Inventory Program,’’ June 10, 2002 (Ex. 

2066). This analysis itself was based on a survey of 

several large chemical manufacturing plants: 

Heiden Associates, Final Report: A Study of 

Industry Compliance Costs Under the Final 

Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, 

Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers 

Association, December 14, 1989, Ex. 2065. 

47This 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). 

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 

responders, the weighted average is 

calculated with 1,304 responders in 

career ESOs making the BLS OEWS 

median hourly wage for SOC 33–9092 

Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other 

Recreational Protective Service Workers 

($13.11) and 60,106 responders in 

volunteer ESOs making the private 

industry median hourly wage ($21.42), 

for a weighted average base hourly wage 

of $21.24. There are no volunteer 

technical water rescuers in the industry 

profile, so the BLS OEWS median 

hourly wage for SOC code 33–9092 

Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other 

Recreational Protective Service Workers 

($13.11) is used in this analysis for 

technical water rescuers. 

OSHA applied a fringe benefits rate of 

31.0 percent to the base wages, drawn 

from BLS’ Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation for December 2022 (BLS, 

2023) to account for the value of fringe 

benefits provided by the employer. 

OSHA then calculated total 

compensation as wages plus benefits. 

There are also indirect expenses that 

cannot be tied to producing a specific 

product or service, called overhead 

costs. Common examples include rent, 

utilities, and office equipment. There is 

no general consensus on the cost 

elements that fit this definition and the 

lack of a common definition has led to 

a wide range of overhead estimates. 

Consequently, the treatment of overhead 

costs needs to be case-specific. In this 

analysis, OSHA used an overhead rate 

of 17 percent of base wages (EPA, 2002; 

Rice, 2002). This 17 percent rate is 

based on an estimate of overhead costs 

for safety and health professionals in 

large private organizations. This 

overhead rate is consistent with, for 

example, the overhead rate used for 

sensitivity analyses in the Final 

Economic Analysis (FEA) in support of 

the 2017 final rule delaying the deadline 

for electronic submission of certain 

injury and illness data (82 FR 55761) 

and the FEA in support of OSHA’s 2016 

final standard on Occupational 

Exposure to Respirable Crystalline 

Silica 46 (83 FR at 36501). OSHA expects 

that this rate may be an overestimate in 

this context, as this reflects a 

component of average overhead; in this 

case, however, the agency anticipates 

that, for example, emergency responders 

will be able to work within the general 

physical infrastructure they currently 

operate in. A rate of 17 percent of base 

wages is equivalent to 11.73 percent of 

the hourly wage rate with fringe 

applied.47 To calculate the fully loaded 

hourly labor cost, OSHA added the 

three components together: base wages 

+ fringe benefits (31.0 percent of base 

wages) + applicable overhead (17 

percent of base wages). 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

EP05FE24.034</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-3. Wa2e Rates Used in the Analysis 

Labor Category soc Occupation 

Private Industrv Median 00-0000 All Occupations 

WERE Leader ll-l021 General and Operations Managers 

WERT Member 00-0000 All Occupations 

Fire Chief 33-I021 First-Line Supervisors of Firefighting and Prevention Workers 

Firefighter (OEWS) 33-2011 Firefighters Firefighter (Weighted 00-0000/33- All Occupations/Firefighters Average) 2011 

EMD 11-9160 Emergencv Management Directors 

EMT/Paramedic (OEWS) 29-2040 Emergencv Medical Technicians and Paramedics EMT/Paramedic (Weighted 00-0000/29- All Occupations/Emergency Medical Technicians 

Average) 2040 and Paramedics 

Search and Rescue 33-I012 First-Line Supervisors of Police and Detectives Supervisor 

Search and Rescue Worker 33-9092 Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other Recreational (OEWS) Protective Service Workers 

Search and Rescue Worker 00-0000/33- All Occupations/Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other 

(Weighted Average) 9092 Recreational Protective Service Workers 

Technical Water Rescue 33-I099 First-Line Supervisors of Protective Service Supervisor Workers, All Other 

Technical Water Rescuer 33-9092 Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other Recreational (OEWS) Protective Service Workers 

Technical Water Rescuer 00-0000/33- All Occupations/Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other 

(Weighted Average) 9092 Recreational Protective Service Workers 

Sources: OSHA derived from BLS (2023), BLS (2023), EPA (2002) and Rice (2002). 

Note: All dollar figures are presented in 2022$. 

Median 

Hourly Wage 

ral 

$21.42 $46.65 

$21.42 $38.53 

$24.85 $23.61 $38.07 $18.95 

$19.50 

$46.29 

$13.11 $21.24 $29.34 $13.11 $13.11 

Fringe 

[b] 

31.0% 

31.0% 

31.0% 

31.0% 

31.0% 

31.0% 

31.0% 

31.0% 

31.0% 

31.0% 

31.0% 

31.0% 

31.0% 

31.0% 

31.0% 

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 indu

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. 

r cl 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 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7879 

48Note that in this analysis, the seven State Plan 

states with inmates potentially engaged in wildfire 

fighting are assumed to incur the costs of the 

proposed rule. This approach means that state 

governments would be the organization and would 

incur organization level costs once. It may be 

possible that organization level costs are incurred 

for each conservation camp (the minimum-security 

camps that house inmates serving as firefighters) 

that has inmates potentially engaged in wildfire 

fighting. OSHA welcomes comment on this issue. 

49For 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. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

IV. Estimated Compliance Costs 

This section presents the unit and 

total costs of the proposed rule by 

emergency services sector and 

provision. First, the components of each 

provision as they pertain to fire 

departments and wildland fire services 

are detailed, followed by a description 

of any differences in requirements or 

approaches to deriving estimates for 

WEREs, emergency medical services 

ESOs, and technical search and rescue 

ESOs. Where appropriate, to account for 

variations in unit costs by size of entity, 

OSHA first estimated the labor hours 

per provision for establishments in the 

250–499 employee size class. Using that 

estimate as the base, OSHA scaled the 

estimates proportionally for the unit 

time estimates for establishments in the 

other size classes. Generally, where an 

activity is estimated to take less than an 

hour, the same estimate is used across 

organization sizes since scaling down 

very small time estimates would result 

in unreasonably low time estimates for 

smaller establishments. 

Unless otherwise noted in this 

section, the time estimates for 

complying with proposed provisions are 

based on OSHA’s professional expertise, 

considering what the proposed rule 

requires and estimates of the hours 

necessary to comply with similar 

requirements in other OSHA rules. 

A. Firefighting 

As described in the Profile of Affected 

Industries, these organizations include 

private and public entities engaged in 

structural and wildland firefighting. 

Responders at these entities may be 

volunteer or career. This group 

represents the vast majority of entities 

and responders who would be affected 

by the proposed rule. 

Wildland firefighting services 

providers include private sector ESOs 

that provide less common types of 

firefighting services, primarily to state 

and Federal agencies. These services 

typically support wildland fire 

suppression and include direct 

firefighting as well as support services 

such as transportation and food supply 

services. There are also some states that 

utilize prison labor as supplementary 

personnel for state wildfire fighting 

programs.48

(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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7880 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

during downtime (see Poston, et al. 

(2013), which found that between 80 

and 95 percent of firefighters surveyed 

reported engaging in exercise at least 

‘‘some days’’ while at the fire station). 

The agency welcomes comment on this 

aspect of the analysis. Table VII–C–5 

presents estimates of the labor hours 

incurred for each activity at ESOs by 

employment size class. Table VII–C–6 

presents the associated unit costs. 

The proposed rule would require that 

responders receive, at a minimum, a 

medical evaluation every two years that 

includes a medical and work history, 

physical examination, spirometry, and 

assessment of heart disease risk 

(includes assessment of blood pressure, 

cholesterol levels, and relevant heart 

disease risk factors such as blood 

glucose). Note that OSHA’s estimated 

cost of these services accounts for the 

fact that some individuals may already 

be receiving them (see Section C.II.A on 

Baseline Non-Compliance Rates). 

Responders who show signs of heart 

disease risk or who are, or may be, 

exposed to combustion products 15 or 

more times a year will require 

additional screening. To estimate the 

percentage of responders needing each 

type of exam, OSHA relied on the 

frequencies in the 2018 NFPA 1582 

standard’s recommendations for 

occupational medical programs. In 

addition, since some tests are only 

recommended or needed for firefighters 

of certain ages or sex, OSHA also used 

NFPA’s (2022) estimate of the number of 

firefighters by age and sex. The 

percentage of firefighters needing each 

exam is multiplied by the unit cost for 

each exam to derive a weighted average 

unit cost for initial and periodic medical 

surveillance (for example, if only half of 

all firefighters needed a given test, the 

weighted average per firefighter for all 

firefighters would be 50 percent of the 

cost of the test). Table VII–C–4 presents 

the derivation of the weighted average 

unit costs for medical surveillance. 

The proposed rule would require 

additional medical screening for 

responders if determined by the ESO or 

WERE to be appropriate for the 

particular type and level of service 

provided or if deemed appropriate by 

the PLHCP conducting the baseline 

screening. OSHA assumed that this 

additional screening would include an 

electrocardiogram (EKG), a coronary 

artery calcium (CAC) score test, and an 

exercise stress test (EST). 

The proposed rule would also require 

that responders who are either exposed 

to combustion products 15 times or 

more a year or show signs or symptoms 

that may have resulted from exposure to 

combustion products receive a medical 

evaluation that is at least equivalent to 

the criteria outlined by a national 

consensus standard. For this PEA, 

OSHA uses the NFPA 1582 medical 

exam to represent the estimated costs of 

this additional medical evaluation. As 

outlined above, not every responder 

would need every component of the 

NFPA 1582 exam since certain medical 

components are age- and/or sex-specific. 

The unit costs and percentages of 

responders undergoing each medical 

component are presented in Table VII– 

C–4. 

The unit costs for medical 

surveillance are drawn from the Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS, 

2022a) Physician Fee Schedule data for 

2022, CMS (2022b) Clinical Laboratory 

Fee Schedule data for 2022, the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC, 2023) Adult Vaccine Price List, 

GoodRx’s (Khan, 2023) estimate of the 

cost of a colonoscopy, 

HealthInsurance.com’s (2022) estimate 

of the cost to receive a vision test, and 

Tatar et al.’s (2020) estimate of the cost 

of Hepatitis C screening. The unit costs 

are applied per exam per employee. The 

cost of the exam is added to the per 

hour cost for the employee to undergo 

the exam. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7881 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.035</GPH>

Table VII-C-4. Medical Surveillance Unit Costs - Structural and Wildland 

Fire Services and Firefighters 

Percent/ Unit Frequency Cost 

Minimum Medical Surveillance 

% Receiving Each Exam 

Office Visit [a] 100.0% Biennial 

Spirometrv 100.0% Biennial 

Blood Cholesterol Test 100.0% Biennial 

Blood Glucose Test 100.0% Biennial 

Blood Pressure 100.0% Biennial 

Unit Medical Costs 

Office Visit [a] $84 Biennial 

Spirometrv $27 Biennial 

Blood Cholesterol Test $4 Biennial 

Blood Glucose Test $3 Biennial 

Blood Pressure $15 Biennial 

Weighted Average Unit Cost - Minimum Medical $135 Biennial Surveillance 

Additional Heart Screening 

% Receiving Each Exam 

EKG 100.0% Biennial 

CAC 100.0% Biennial 

EST 100.0% Biennial 

Unit Medical Costs 

EKG $15 Biennial 

CAC $266 Biennial 

EST $348 Biennial 

Wei2:hted Avera2:e Unit Cost - Additional Heart Screenin2: $629 Biennial 

Additional ESO Surveillance (Full NFPA Medical Exam) 

% Receiving Each Exam 

Office Visit 100.0% Annual 
7882 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.036</GPH>

Percent/ Unit Frequency Cost 

Audiogram 100.0% Annual 

ChestX-Ray 100.0% Annual 

Vision Test 100.0% Annual 

Misc. Testing 0.0% Annual 

EKG 50.0% Annual 

Mammography 3.3% Annual 

Colonoscopy 2.7% Annual 

Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT 1.3% Annual 

Blood Tests 66.7% Annual 

Urinalysis 100.0% Annual 

PSA Testing 24.4% Annual 

HIV Screening 25.0% Annual 

Hepatitis C screening 100.0% Annual 

Heavy Metal Screening 100.0% Annual 

Immunization - Influenza 80.0% Annual 

Immunization -TDAP 10.0% Annual 

Immunization - MMR 5.0% Annual 

Immunization - V aricella 5.0% Annual 

Immunization - Hepatitis A/Hepatitis B 5.0% Annual 

Immunization - Polio 100.0% Annual 

Immunization -Administration 10.0% Annual 

Unit Medical Costs 

Office Visit $84 Annual 

Audiogram $38 Annual 

ChestX-Ray $48 Annual 

Vision Test $95 Annual 

Misc. Testing $0 Annual 

EKG $15 Annual 

Mammography $133 Annual 

Colonoscopy $2 750 Annual 

Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT $147 Annual 

Blood Tests $62 Annual 

Urinalysis $4 Annual 

PSA Testing $18 Annual 

HIV Screening $18 Annual 

Hepatitis C screenin_g $140 Annual 

Heavy Metal Screening $43 Annual 

Immunization - Influenza $18 Annual 

Immunization - TDAP $52 Annual 

Immunization - MMR $90 Annual 

Immunization - V aricella $160 Annual 

Immunization - Hepatitis A/Hepatitis B $121 Annual 

Immunization - Polio $41 Annual 

Immunization -Administration $17 Annual 

Weighted Average Unit Cost - Additional ESO Surveillance $670 Annual (Full NFPA Medical Exam) 

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. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7883 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

(vi) Training 

Under paragraph (h) of the proposed 

rule, ESOs would be required to 

establish the minimum knowledge and 

skills required for each responder to 

perform emergency response operation 

activities. ESOs would be required to 

provide initial, ongoing, and refresher 

trainings, as well as professional 

development for each responder. The 

hours necessary to complete trainings 

can vary significantly by state and by 

type of firefighter (career, volunteer, or 

paid per call). 

While most emergency responders 

already receive vocational training for 

their duties, the PEA estimates the cost 

of bringing the remainder up to 

minimum requirements. OSHA used the 

time needed to complete an 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 

responders need, which OSHA 

estimated was three (NREMT, 2018). 

This calculation yields six hours every 

two years, or three hours every year. 

OSHA determined that the use of EMT 

re-certification estimates was also 

appropriate for firefighters given that 

most career firefighters are also EMTs 

(Unitek EMT, 2022). OSHA assumes 

that other training required by the 

proposed rule, including that on various 

policies developed under this standard, 

training on PPE, training to an 

awareness level on confined spaces, and 

others, are either costed under another 

OSHA standard (i.e., the PPE standard) 

or are included in the training times 

estimated here. 

ESOs would also be required to 

ensure each responder maintains 

proficiency in the skills commensurate 

with their respective emergency 

response activities. Organization leaders 

would need to document responders’ 

professional qualifications to ensure 

proficiency. 

Aside from the requirement to 

establish minimum knowledge and 

skills, which occurs once, all other 

training labor hours would be incurred 

annually. OSHA expects an organization 

leader to establish minimum knowledge 

and skills and document professional 

qualifications, while firefighters would 

need labor hours to be trained. Of note, 

initial training would only apply to new 

hires, so the unit cost is only multiplied 

by a percentage (the hire rate) of the 

number of firefighters in the estimation 

of total costs for this provision. See 

Table VII–C–5 for the specific labor 

hours OSHA estimates would be 

incurred for each activity at ESOs by 

employment size class. Table VII–C–6 

presents the associated unit costs. 

(vii) ESO Facility Preparedness 

Under paragraph (j) of the proposed 

rule, ESOs would be required to ensure 

that each facility complies with 29 CFR 

part 1910, subpart E—Exit Routes and 

Emergency Planning; provide facilities 

for the decontamination, disinfection, 

cleaning, and storage of PPE and 

equipment; and ensure that fire 

detection, suppression, and alarm 

systems, and occupant notification 

systems are installed, tested, and 

maintained. Additional requirements 

are directed at ensuring the safety of 

firehouse slide poles and sleeping and 

living areas, including requirements for 

smoke alarms, sprinkler systems, carbon 

monoxide detectors, vehicle exhaust 

emissions, and properly handling 

contaminated PPE. These activities 

would be conducted annually by an 

organization leader. See Table VII–C–5 

for the specific labor hours OSHA 

estimates would be incurred for each 

activity at ESOs in all employment size 

classes. Table VII–C–6 presents the 

associated unit costs. 

(viii) Equipment and PPE 

Under paragraph (k) of the proposed 

rule, ESOs would be required to provide 

access to equipment that is compliant 

with applicable existing standards as 

well as to inspect, maintain, and test 

equipment at prescribed intervals. 

Additionally, ESOs would be required 

to conduct a hazard assessment to select 

appropriate PPE; provide PPE to 

responders that is compliant with 29 

CFR part 1910, subpart I, Personal 

Protective Equipment; and ensure SCBA 

meet applicable requirements, and 

maintain all PPE. OSHA expects that 

equipment and PPE inspection and 

maintenance would be conducted by 

firefighters annually. Organization 

leaders are expected to expend labor 

hours annually to ensure new 

equipment meets design and 

manufacturing requirements, as well as 

on a one-time basis to conduct the 

hazard assessment and provide the PPE. 

Firefighters would be expected to 

annually inspect, maintain, and test 

equipment, as well as perform 

maintenance of PPE. See Table VII–C– 

5 for the specific labor hours OSHA 

estimates would be incurred for each 

activity at ESOs by employment size 

class. Table VII–C–6 presents the 

associated unit costs. 

(ix) Vehicle Preparedness and Operation 

Under paragraph (l) of the proposed 

rule, ESOs would be required to ensure 

that vehicles are prepared for safe use 

by inspecting, maintaining, and 

repairing their vehicles and associated 

parts (e.g., aerial devices, water pumps). 

ESOs would be required to develop 

written SOPs for operating their own 

and other vehicles as necessary. OSHA 

assumes that an organization leader 

would perform these activities with the 

development of the SOPs being a 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7884 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Additionally, ESOs would have to 

prepare a PIP for any facility in their 

response area that is subject to the 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). OSHA 

expects that organization leaders will 

conduct these one-time activities. See 

Table VII–C–5 for the specific labor 

hours OSHA estimates would be 

incurred each activity at ESOs by 

employment size class. Table VII–C–6 

presents the associated unit costs. 

(xi) Incident Management System 

Development 

Under paragraph (o) of the proposed 

rule, ESOs would be required to develop 

and implement an Incident Management 

System (IMS) to manage all emergency 

incidents. OSHA expects that 

organization leaders would establish a 

procedural template for such activities 

one time initially. See Table VII–C–5 for 

the specific labor hours OSHA estimates 

would be incurred at ESOs by 

employment size class. Table VII–C–6 

presents the associated unit costs. 

(xii) Emergency Incident Operations 

Under paragraph (p) of the proposed 

rule, ESOs would be required to ensure 

that the IMS is employed at each 

emergency incident. OSHA expects that 

organization leaders would conduct this 

activity, including developing an 

Incident Action Plan (IAP) for every 

incident. While overseeing responder 

operations at an emergency incident is 

underlying job duty for organization 

leaders, the PEA nonetheless assumes a 

limited incremental amount of time at 

each incident for implementing the 

requirements set forth in paragraph (p) 

of the proposal. See Table VII–C–5 for 

the specific labor hours OSHA estimates 

would be incurred at WEREs and ESOs 

by employment size class. Table VII–C– 

6 presents the associated unit costs. 

(xiii) Standard Operating Procedures 

Under paragraph (q) of the proposed 

rule, ESOs would be required to develop 

and implement SOPs for emergency 

events that they are likely to encounter, 

based on the community or facility 

vulnerability assessments they have 

developed as well as SOPs for unusual 

hazards, responder protection from 

contaminants and for decontamination, 

vehicle operations, radio 

communication, Mayday situations, and 

others. OSHA expects that organization 

leaders would conduct this one-time 

activity. See Table VII–C–5 for the 

specific labor hours OSHA estimates 

would be incurred at ESOs by 

employment size class. Table VII–C–6 

presents the associated unit costs. 

(xiv) Post Incident Analysis 

Under paragraph (r) of the proposed 

rule, ESOs would be required to 

conduct a Post-Incident Analysis (PIA) 

to determine the effectiveness of the 

ESO’s response to an incident after any 

significant event such as, for example, a 

large-scale incident, significant nearmiss incident, serious injury, or 

responder fatality. ESOs would be 

required to implement changes to the 

RMP, IMS, PIPs, IAPs, and SOPs based 

on lessons learned. OSHA estimates that 

organization leaders would spend five 

minutes per incident to conduct these 

activities. OSHA recognizes that the 

number of significant events is less than 

the number of incidents and adjusted 

the per-incident time estimate 

accordingly. OSHA estimated the 

number of incidents an organization 

would respond to based on whether the 

organization is composed of career 

responders, volunteer responders, or a 

mix of career and volunteer responders, 

as well as the employment class size of 

the organization. See Table VII–C–5 for 

the specific labor hours OSHA estimates 

would be incurred for each activity at 

ESOs by employment size class. Table 

VII–C–6 presents the associated unit 

costs. 

(xv) Program Evaluation 

Under paragraph (s) of the proposed 

rule, ESOs would be required to 

conduct annual evaluations of the 

adequacy and effectiveness of their ERP. 

They must also identify and implement 

changes to the ERP based on the review 

of the program. OSHA expects that 

organization leaders would conduct 

these annual activities. See Table VII– 

C–5 for the specific labor hours OSHA 

estimates would be incurred for each 

activity at ESOs in all employment size 

classes. Table VII–C–6 presents the 

associated unit costs. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

EP05FE24.037</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-5. Unit Labor Hours for Labor-Based Costs by Employment Size Class- Structural and W

and Firefighters 

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis 

249 499 

Rule Familiarization 

Rule Familiarization 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Organization F

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emer2ency Service(s) Ca Jability ESO Develop ERP 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Or.ganization F

ESO Update and Revise ERP 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 12.00 Organization F

ESO Establishment of Service(s) 12.00 14.00 14.00 18.00 24.00 36.00 Organization F

Capability 

ESO Community or Facility 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization F

Vulnerability and Risk Assessment 

ESO Develop Mutual Aid Agreements 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization F

Team Member and Responder Participation 

Responder Participation-Meetings 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization F

Responder Participation-Post Sign 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Organization F

WERT and ESO Risk Mana2ement Plan 

Prepare Written RMP 12.00 14.00 14.00 18.00 24.00 36.00 Organization F

Update Written RMP 5.00 6.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 15.00 Organization F

Medical and Physical Requirements 

Minimum Medical Requirement - 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization F

Statement 

Confidential Records System 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 Responder F

Establish Health and Fitness Program - 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization F

Written Plan 

Minimum Medical Surveillance 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Responder F

Additional Heart Screening 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Responder F

Additional ESO Surveillance (Full NFPA 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Responder F

Medical Exam) 

Implement Fitness Assessment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Responder F

Undergo Fitness Assessment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Responder F

Behavioral Health & Wellness Program 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 Organization F

Document Combustion Product 3.59 4.31 4.31 5.39 7.18 10.77 Organization F

Exposures - Career Fire Departments fal 

Document Combustion Product 

Exposures - Volunteer Fire Departments 0.31 0.38 0.38 0.47 0.63 0.94 Organization F

fal 

EP05FE24.038</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis 

249 499 

Document Combustion Product 1.74 2.08 2.08 2.61 3.47 5.21 Organization F

Exposures - Mixed Fire Departments ral 

Document Combustion Product 

Exposures - All Wildland Fire Services 0.42 0.08 0.28 1.06 7.35 10.27 Organization F

fal 

Trainin2 

Establish Minimum Knowledge and 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization F

Skills 

Initial New Responder Training - Career 308.00 308.00 308.00 308.00 308.00 308.00 Responder F

Initial New Responder Training - 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 Responder F

Volunteer 

Initial New Responder Training - Mixed 192.00 198.87 212.76 207.67 245.46 282.04 Responder F

Ongoing Responder Training 24.00 29.00 29.00 36.00 48.00 72.00 Responder F

Refresher Responder Training 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 Responder F

Professional Development 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Responder F

Document Professional Qualifications 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization F

ESO Facility Preparedness ESO Facility Preparedness 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization FEquipment and PPE Eauipment Preparedness 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization F

Inspect, Maintain, and Test Equipment 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization F

PPE Hazard Assessment 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization F

PPE Provision 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization F

PPE Maintenance 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization F

Vehicle Preoaredness and Ooeration 

Written SOPs - Vehicle Preparedness and 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization F

Operation 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization F

ESO Pre-Incident Plannin2 ESO Pre-Incident Planning 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization F

ESO PIP Annual Review 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 12.00 Organization F

Incident Mana2:ement Svstem Development 

Incident Management System 12.00 14.00 14.00 18.00 24.00 36.00 Organization F

Development 

Emer2:encv Incident Operations Emergency Incident Operations - Career 8.98 10.77 10.77 13.46 17.95 26.93 Organization F

Fire Departments ral 

EP05FE24.039</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Emplo_yment Size Class 

100- 250- 

500+ Basis <25 25-49 50-99 

249 499 

Emergency Incident Operations - 0.79 0.94 0.94 1.18 1.57 2.36 Organization F

Volunteer Fire Departments [a] 

Emergency Incident Operations - Mixed 4.34 5.21 5.21 6.52 8.69 13.03 Organization F

Fire Departments r al 

Emergency Incident Operations - All 1.04 0.21 0.69 2.65 18.38 25.68 Organization F

Wildland Fire Services [a] 

Standard Operatin2 Procedures 

SOPs 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization F

Post Incident Analysis 

Post Incident Analysis - Career Fire 8.98 10.77 10.77 13.46 17.95 26.93 Organization F

Departments f al 

Post Incident Analysis - Volunteer Fire 0.79 0.94 0.94 1.18 1.57 2.36 Organization F

Departments [al Post Incident Analysis - Mixed Fire 4.34 5.21 5.21 6.52 8.69 13.03 Organization FDepartments fa l 

Post Incident Analysis - All Wildland 1.04 0.21 0.69 2.65 18.38 25.68 Organization F

Fire Services [al 

ID/Implement Changes to Pre-Incident 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization F

Plan 

Pro2ram Evaluation 

ERP Program Evaluation 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization F

ID and Implement Changes to ERP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization F

More Frequent ID and Implement 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization F

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 cla

of events/incidents does not always follow the expected pattern of smaller employment class sizes incurring lower numbers of even

unit labor hour estimates do not go in order from smallest to largest by employee class size. 

EP05FE24.040</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-6. Labor-Based Unit Costs by Employment Size Class - Structural and Wildland Fire Ser

<25 25-49 

Rule Familiarization 

Emolovment Size Class 

100- I 250-

249 499 500+ Basis 

Rule Familiarization I $125 I $125 I $125 I $125 I $125 I $125 I Or.ganization I F

ESO Establishment of ERP and Erner ESO Develop ERP I $1,248 I $1,497 I $1,497 I $1,872 I $2,496 I $3,744 I Or.ganization I F

EP05FE24.041</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis 

249 499 

ESO Update and Revise ERP $250 $312 $312 $374 $499 $749 Organization F

ESO Establishment of Service(s) $749 $874 $874 $1,123 $1,497 $2,246 Organization F

Capability 

ESO Community or Facility $2,496 $2,995 $2,995 $3,744 $4,991 $7,487 Organization F

Vulnerability and Risk Assessment 

ESO Develop Mutual Aid $62 $62 $62 $62 $62 $125 Organization F

Agreements 

Team Member and Resoonder Particioation 

Responder Participation-Meetings $306 $382 $382 $459 $612 $918 Organization F

Responder Participation-Post Sign $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 Organization F

WERT and ESO Risk Manae:ement Plan 

Prepare Written RMP $749 $874 $874 $1,123 $1,497 $2,246 Organization F

Update Written RMP $312 $374 $374 $499 $624 $936 Organization F

Medical and Physical Requirements 

Minimum Medical Requirement - $499 $624 $624 $749 $998 $1,497 Organization F

Statement 

Confidential Records Svstem $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 Responder F

Establish Health and Fitness $499 $624 $624 $749 $998 $1,497 Organization F

Program - Written Plan Minimum Medical Surveillance fal $96 $96 $96 $96 $96 $96 Responder F

Additional Heart Screening f al $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 Responder FAdditional ESO Surveillance (Full $96 $96 $96 $96 $96 $96 Responder F

NFPA Medical Exam) fal 

Implement Fitness Assessment $62 $62 $62 $62 $62 $62 Responder F

Undergo Fitness Assessment $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 Responder F

Behavioral Health & Wellness $62 $62 $62 $125 $125 $187 Organization F

Program Document Combustion Product 

Exposures - Career Fire $224 $269 $269 $336 $448 $672 Organization F

Departments Document Combustion Product 

Exposures - Volunteer Fire $20 $24 $24 $29 $39 $59 Organization F

Departments Document Combustion Product 

Exposures - Mixed Fire $108 $130 $130 $163 $217 $325 Organization F

Departments 

EP05FE24.042</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis 

249 499 

Document Combustion Product Exposures - All Wildland Fire $26 $5 $17 $66 $459 $641 Organization F

Services 

Training 

Establish Minimum Knowledge and $499 $624 $624 $749 $998 $1,497 Organization F

Skills 

Initial New Responder Training - $11,777 $11,777 $11,777 $11,777 $11,777 $11,777 Responder F

Career 

Initial New Responder Training - $4,206 $4,206 $4,206 $4,206 $4,206 $4,206 Responder F

Volunteer 

Initial New Responder Training - $7,342 $7,604 $8,135 $7,941 $9,386 $10,785 Responder F

Mixed 

Ongoing Responder Training $918 $1,109 $1,109 $1,377 $1,835 $2,753 Responder F

Refresher Responder Training $76 $76 $76 $76 $115 $191 Responder F

Professional Development $765 $918 $918 $1,147 $1,530 $2,294 Responder FDocument Professional $1,248 $1,497 $1,497 $1,872 $2,496 $3,744 Organization F

Qualifications 

ESO Facility Preparedness ESO Facility Preparedness $2,496 $2,995 $2,995 $3,744 $4,991 $7,487 Organization F

Equipment and PPE 

Equipment Preparedness $2,496 $2,995 $2,995 $3,744 $4,991 $7,487 Organization F

Inspect, Maintain, and Test $1,530 $1,835 $1,835 $2,294 $3,059 $4,589 Organization F

Equipment 

PPE Hazard Assessment $499 $624 $624 $749 $998 $1,497 Organization F

PPE Provision $499 $624 $624 $749 $998 $1,497 Organization F

PPE Maintenance $1,530 $1,835 $1,835 $2,294 $3,059 $4,589 Organization F

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation 

Written SOPs - Vehicle $499 $624 $624 $749 $998 $1,497 Organization F

Preparedness and Operation 

Vehicle Inspection and $2,496 $2,995 $2,995 $3,744 $4,991 $7,487 Organization F

Maintenance 

ESO Pre-Incident Planning 

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $1,248 $1,497 $1,497 $1,872 $2,496 $3,744 Organization F

ESO PIP Annual Review $250 $312 $312 $374 $499 $749 Organization F

Incident Management System Development Incident Management System $749 $874 $874 $1,123 $1,497 $2,246 Organization F

Development 

EP05FE24.043</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

100- 250- 

500+ Basis <25 25-49 50-99 

249 499 

Emergency Incident Operations 

Emergency Incident Operations - $560 $672 $672 $840 $1,120 $1,680 Organization F

Career Fire Departments 

Emergency Incident Operations - $49 $59 $59 $74 $98 $147 Organization F

Volunteer Fire Departments 

Emergency Incident Operations - $271 $325 $325 $406 $542 $813 Organization F

Mixed Fire Departments 

Emergency Incident Operations - $65 $13 $43 $166 $1,147 $1,602 Organization F

All Wildland Fire Services 

Standard O_Q_erating Procedures 

SOPs $1,248 $1,497 $1,497 $1,872 $2,496 $3,744 Organization F

Post Incident Analysis 

Post Incident Analysis - Career Fire $560 $672 $672 $840 $1,120 $1,680 Organization F

Departments Post Incident Analysis - Volunteer $49 $59 $59 $74 $98 $147 Organization F

Fire Departments 

Post Incident Analysis - Mixed Fire $271 $325 $325 $406 $542 $813 Organization F

Departments Post Incident Analysis - All $65 $13 $43 $166 $1,147 $1,602 Organization F

Wildland Fire Services 

ID/Implement Changes to Pre- $62 $62 $62 $62 $62 $125 Organization F

Incident Plan 

Program Evaluation 

ERP Program Evaluation $1,248 $1,497 $1,497 $1,872 $2,496 $3,744 Organization F

ID and Implement Changes to ERP $62 $62 $62 $62 $62 $125 Organization F

More Frequent ID and Implement $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $12 Organization F

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 th

[a] These costs to undergo medical exams are only inclusive of the labor costs. The cost of the medical exam components are presen
7892 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

50Le 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. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

B. WEREs 

WEREs potentially affected by the 

proposed rule are private organizations 

whose employees, as a collateral duty to 

their regular daily work assignments, 

are part of a workplace emergency 

response team (WERT) and respond to 

emergency incidents to provide services 

such as fire suppression, emergency 

medical care, and technical search and 

rescue. These organizations would be 

required to comply with many 

provisions of the proposed rule, with 

some requirements taking less time for 

WEREs compared to ESOs. OSHA’s 

methods for estimating labor hours and 

costs by provision and employee size 

class are the same as for firefighters for 

the following provisions: 

• Rule Familiarization; 

• Team Member and Responder 

Participation; 

• WERT and ESO Risk Management 

Plan; 

• Equipment and PPE; 

• Vehicle Preparedness and 

Operation; 

• Incident Management System 

Development; 

• Standard Operating Procedures; and 

• Program Evaluation. 

There are two provisions that, while 

specific to WEREs, have the same labor 

hour estimates as the corresponding 

ESO-specific provisions: 

• Organization of the WERT and 

Establishment of the ERP and 

Emergency Service(s) Capability (this 

provision has the same labor hour 

estimates as the ESO Establishment of 

ERP and Emergency Service(s) 

Capability provision); and 

• WERE Pre-Incident Planning (this 

provision has the same labor hour 

estimates as the ESO Pre-Incident 

Planning provision). 

Estimation methods differ for the 

following provisions: 

• Medical and Physical 

Requirements; 

• Training; 

• WERE Facility Preparedness; 

• Emergency Incident Operations; 

and 

• Post-Incident Analysis. 

The methods specific to WEREs are 

described below. 

(i) Medical and Physical Requirements 

Under paragraph (g) of the proposed 

rule, WEREs are not required to 

establish or implement a health and 

fitness program, whereas ESOs are. 

Team members must receive the same 

minimum medical evaluation that 

responders receive and must also 

receive any additional screening 

determined to be appropriate by the 

WERE or the PLHCP. Team members are 

not required to receive the full NFPA 

1582 screening required for responders 

exposed to combustion materials. OSHA 

assumes that all WERT members would 

undergo each component of the 

minimum medical exam, and all WERT 

members that exhibit signs and 

symptoms warranting additional heart 

screening (12.5 percent of all WERT 

members, as shown in Table VII–C–2) 

would undergo all components of the 

additional heart screening.50 The 

percentage needing each exam is 

multiplied by the unit cost for each 

exam to derive a weighted average unit 

cost for the minimum medical 

evaluation and additional heart 

screening. Table VII–C–7 shows the 

derivation of the weighted average unit 

cost for medical surveillance. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7893 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

(ii) Training 

The time estimate used to determine 

initial team member training for WEREs 

is assumed to be equal to the time 

estimate for responders in volunteer fire 

departments (110 hours). All other 

training-related items are the same as for 

fire departments. 

(iii) WERE Facility Preparedness 

WEREs are assumed to take less time 

than ESOs to meet facility preparedness 

requirements, since these facilities 

would not have to account for elements 

such as firepoles or sleeping areas. 

However, under paragraph (i) of the 

proposed rule, WEREs have some 

additional requirements that ESOs do 

not have, such as ensuring readiness for 

prompt support from mutual aid groups 

and identifying fire hose valves. WEREs 

are estimated to take half the time of fire 

departments to prepare their facilities. 

(iv) Emergency Incident Operation 

OSHA assumes that WEREs would 

spend the same amount of time (five 

minutes) as all other ESOs performing 

emergency incident operations. OSHA 

further assumes that the number of 

incidents that WERT members would 

respond to in a given year equals the 

number of incidents to which volunteer 

fire departments respond. 

(v) Post-Incident Analysis 

Similar to emergency incident 

operations, OSHA assumes that WEREs 

would spend the same amount of time 

(five minutes) as all other ESOs 

conducting a post-incident analysis after 

each incident. OSHA has adjusted this 

time estimate to be based on the number 

of incidents, as the expectation is that 

organizations would need to conduct a 

post-incident analysis only when a 

significant event occurs. OSHA further 

assumes that the number of incidents 

for which WERT members conduct 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.044</GPH>

Table VII-C-7. Medical Surveillance Unit Costs - WEREs 

Percent / Unit Cost Frequency 

Minimum Medical Surveillance 

% Receiving Each Exam 

Office Visit f al 100.0% Biennial 

Soirometrv 100.0% Biennial 

Blood Cholesterol Test 100.0% Biennial 

Blood Glucose Test 100.0% Biennial 

Blood Pressure 100.0% Biennial 

Unit Medical Costs 

Office Visit f al $84 Biennial 

Soirometrv $27 Biennial 

Blood Cholesterol Test $4 Biennial 

Blood Glucose Test $3 Biennial 

Blood Pressure $15 Biennial 

Weie:hted Averae:e Unit Cost - Minimum Medical Surveillance $135 Biennial 

Additional Heart Screenine: 

% Receiving Each Exam 

EKG 100.0% Biennial 

CAC 100.0% Biennial 

EST 100.0% Biennial 

Unit Medical Costs 

EKG $15 Biennial 

CAC $266 Biennial 

EST $348 Biennial 

Weighted Average Unit Cost -Additional Heart Screening $629 Biennial 

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. 

EP05FE24.045</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-8. Unit Labor Hours for Labor-Based Costs by Employment Size Class-W

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 50o+ Basis 

249 499 

Rule Familiarization Rule Familiarization 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Organization W

L

On?:anization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emere:ency Service(s) Capability 

WERE Develop ERP 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization W

L

WERE Update and Revise ERP 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 12.00 Organization W

L

WERE Establishment of Service(s) 12.00 14.00 14.00 18.00 24.00 36.00 Organization W

Capability L

WERE Community or Facility 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization W

Vulnerability and Risk Assessment L

WERE Develop Mutual Aid Agreements 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization W

L

Team Member and Responder Participation 

Responder Participation-Meetings 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization W

M

Responder Participation-Post Sign 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Organization W

L

WERT and ESQ Risk Manae:ement Plan 

Prepare Written RMP 12.00 14.00 14.00 18.00 24.00 36.00 Organization W

L

Update Written RMP 5.00 6.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 15.00 Organization W

L

Medical and Physical Requirements 

Minimum Medical Requirement - 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization W

Statement L

Confidential Records System 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 Responder W

L

Minimum Medical Surveillance 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Responder W

M

Additional Heart Screening 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Responder W

M

Additional ESO Surveillance (Full NFPA 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Responder W

Medical Exam) M

EP05FE24.046</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 50o+ Basis 

249 499 

Behavioral Health & Wellness Program 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 Organization W

L

Document Combustion Product 0.31 0.38 0.38 0.47 0.63 0.94 Organization W

Exposures L

Training 

Establish Minimum Knowledge and 8.00 l0.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization W

Skills L

Initial New Responder Training 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 Responder W

M

Ongoing Responder Training 24.00 29.00 29.00 36.00 48.00 72.00 Responder W

M

Refresher Responder Training 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 Responder W

M

Professional Development 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Responder W

M

Document Professional Qualifications 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization W

L

WERE Facility Preparedness 

WERE Facility Preparedness 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization W

L

Eauioment and PPE Equipment Preparedness 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization W

L

Inspect, Maintain, and Test Equipment 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization W

M

PPE Hazard Assessment 8.00 l0.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization W

L

PPE Provision 8.00 l0.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization W

L

PPE Maintenance 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization W

M

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation 

Written SOPs - Vehicle Preparedness and 8.00 l0.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization W

Operation L

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization W

L

WERE Pre-Incident Plannine: 

EP05FE24.047</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 50o+ Basis 

249 499 

WERE Pre-Incident Planning 10.00 12.00 12.00 15.00 20.00 30.00 Organization W

L

WERE PIP Annual Review 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 6.00 Organization W

L

Incident Mana2ement Svstem Development Incident Management System 12.00 14.00 14.00 18.00 24.00 36.00 Organization W

Development L

Emer2encv Incident Ooerations 

Emergency Incident Operations 0.79 0.94 0.94 1.18 1.57 2.36 Organization W

L

Standard Operating Procedures 

SOPs 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization W

L

Post Incident Analysis 

Post Incident Analysis 0.79 0.94 0.94 1.18 1.57 2.36 Organization W

L

ID/Implement Changes to Pre-Incident 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization W

Plan L

Program Evaluation 

ERP Program Evaluation 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization W

L

ID and Implement Changes to ERP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization W

L

More Frequent ID and Implement 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization W

Changes to ERP L

Source: OSHA, unless otherwise noted in text. 

EP05FE24.048</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-9. Labor-Based Unit Costs by Employment Size Class - WEREs 

Employment Size Class 

I <25 I 25-49 I 50-99 I I I 500+ I Basis I 

Rule Familiarization Rule Familiarization $151 $151 $151 $151 $151 $151 Organization W

On?:anization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emer2encv Service(s) Capabili 

EP05FE24.049</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis 

249 499 

WERE Develop ERP $1,511 $1,813 $1,813 $2,266 $3,022 $4,533 Organization W

L

WERE Update and Revise ERP $302 $378 $378 $453 $604 $907 Organization W

L

WERE Establishment of Service(s) $907 $1,058 $1,058 $1,360 $1,813 $2,720 Organization W

Capability L

WERE Community or Facility $3,022 $3,626 $3,626 $4,533 $6,043 $9,065 Organization W

Vulnerabilitv and Risk Assessment L

WERE Develop Mutual Aid Agreements $76 $76 $76 $76 $76 $151 Organization W

L

Team Member and Responder Participation 

Responder Participation-Meetings $277 $347 $347 $416 $555 $832 Organization W

M

Responder Participation-Post Sign $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 Organization W

L

WERT and ESO Risk Manae:ement Plan 

Prepare Written RMP $907 $1,058 $1,058 $1,360 $1,813 $2,720 Organization W

L

Update Written RMP $378 $453 $453 $604 $755 $1,133 Organization W

L

Medical and Physical Requirements 

Minimum Medical Requirement - $604 $755 $755 $907 $1,209 $1,813 Organization W

Statement L

Confidential Records System $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 Responder W

L

Minimum Medical Surveillance [a] $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 Responder W

M

Additional Heart Screening [a] $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 Responder W

M

Additional ESO Surveillance (Full NFP A $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 Responder W

Medical Exam) ral M

Behavioral Health & Wellness Program $76 $76 $76 $151 $151 $227 Organization W

L

Document Combustion Product $24 $29 $29 $36 $47 $71 Organization W

Exposures L

Trainin2 

EP05FE24.050</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis 

249 499 

Establish Minimum Knowledge and $604 $755 $755 $907 $1,209 $1,813 Organization W

Skills L

Initial New Responder Training $3,815 $3,815 $3,815 $3,815 $3,815 $3,815 Responder W

M

Ongoing Responder Training $832 $1,006 $1,006 $1,249 $1,665 $2,497 Responder W

M

Refresher Responder Training $69 $69 $69 $69 $104 $173 Responder W

M

Professional Development $694 $832 $832 $1,041 $1,387 $2,081 Responder W

M

Document Professional Qualifications $1,511 $1,813 $1,813 $2,266 $3,022 $4,533 Organization W

L

WERE Facilitv Preparedness 

WERE Facility Preparedness $1,511 $1,813 $1,813 $2,266 $3,022 $4,533 Organization W

L

Eauioment and PPE Equipment Preparedness $3,022 $3,626 $3,626 $4,533 $6,043 $9,065 Organization W

L

Inspect, Maintain, and Test Equipment $1,387 $1,665 $1,665 $2,081 $2,775 $4,162 Organization W

M

PPE Hazard Assessment $604 $755 $755 $907 $1,209 $1,813 Organization W

L

PPE Provision $604 $755 $755 $907 $1,209 $1,813 Organization W

L

PPE Maintenance $1,387 $1,665 $1,665 $2,081 $2,775 $4,162 Organization W

M

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation 

Written SOPs - Vehicle Preparedness and $604 $755 $755 $907 $1,209 $1,813 Organization W

Operation L

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance $3,022 $3,626 $3,626 $4,533 $6,043 $9,065 Organization W

L

WERE Pre-Incident Plannin2 

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $755 $907 $907 $1,133 $1,511 $2,266 Organization W

L

WERE PIP Annual Review $151 $151 $151 $227 $302 $453 Organization W

L

Incident Manae:ement System Development 

EP05FE24.051</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis 

249 499 

Incident Management System $907 $1,058 $1,058 $1,360 $1,813 $2,720 Organization W

Development L

Emergency Incident Operations Emergency Incident Operations $59 $71 $71 $89 $119 $178 Organization W

L

Standard Operating Procedures 

SOPs $1,511 $1,813 $1,813 $2,266 $3,022 $4,533 Organization W

L

Post Incident Analysis 

Post Incident Analysis $59 $71 $71 $89 $119 $178 Organization W

L

ID/Implement Changes to Pre-Incident $76 $76 $76 $76 $76 $151 Organization W

Plan L

Program Evaluation 

ERP Program Evaluation $1,511 $1,813 $1,813 $2,266 $3,022 $4,533 Organization W

L

ID and Implement Changes to ERP $76 $76 $76 $76 $76 $151 Organization W

L

More Frequent ID and Implement $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $15 Organization W

Changes to ERP L

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 th

l aj These costs to undergo medical exams are only inclusive of the labor costs. The cost of the medical exam components are presen
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7901 

51Le 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. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

C. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 

Emergency medical services subject to 

the proposed rule, or its State Plan 

equivalent, include private and public 

entities engaged in first response and 

provision of emergency medicine. 

Employees of EMS ESOs may be 

volunteer or career and include first 

responders, emergency medical 

technicians (EMTs), paramedics, and 

registered nurses. These organizations 

would be required to comply with all 

provisions of the proposed rule, as 

described in section D.IV.A. OSHA’s 

methods for estimating labor hours and 

costs by provision and employee size 

class are the same as for firefighters for 

the following provisions: 

• Rule Familiarization; 

• ESO Establishment of the ERP and 

Emergency Service(s) Capability; 

• Team Member and Responder 

Participation; 

• WERT and ESO Risk Management 

Plan; 

• Vehicle Preparedness and 

Operation; 

• ESO Pre-Incident Planning; 

• Incident Management System 

Development; 

• Standard Operating Procedures; and 

• Program Evaluation. 

Estimation methods differ for the 

following provisions: 

• Medical and Physical 

Requirements; 

• Training; 

• ESO Facility Preparedness; 

• Equipment and PPE; and 

• Post-Incident Analysis. 

The methods specific to EMS are 

described below. 

(i) Medical and Physical Requirements 

EMS providers typically have a lower 

risk of exposure to hazardous 

environments or materials relative to 

firefighters and therefore EMS providers 

have fewer medical exam requirements. 

Specifically, EMS providers are not 

expected to undergo a full NFPA 1582 

medical exam since they are not 

anticipated to reach the 15-times-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 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7902 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

treatment, or incidents involving a 

responder fatality). Based on this 

assumption, OSHA estimates that EMS 

organizations would spend one minute 

per incident to meet this requirement. 

See Table VII–C–10 for the specific 

labor hours OSHA estimates that would 

be incurred annually for this activity at 

EMS ESOs by employment size class. 

Table VII–C–11 shows the estimated 

unit costs for each requirement in the 

proposed rule for emergency medical 

services by employee class size. Note 

that where unit labor hours are the same 

as for firefighters, unit costs differ due 

to the application of wage rates for EMS 

providers rather than firefighters. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

EP05FE24.052</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-10. Unit Burden for Labor-Based Costs by Employment Size Class - Emergency Medical Servic

Res_l!_onders 

Employment Size Class Basis 

<25 25-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ 

Rule Familiarization 

Rule Familiarization 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Organization E

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergenc~ Service(s) Capabilit" 

ESO Develop ERP 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization E

ESO Update and Revise ERP 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 12.00 Organization EESO Establishment of Service(s) Capability 12.00 14.00 14.00 18.00 24.00 36.00 Organization E

ESO Community or Facility Vulnerability 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization E

and Risk Assessment 

ESO Develop Mutual Aid Agreements 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization E

Team Member and Responder Participation 

Responder Participation-Meetings 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization EResponder Participation-Post Sign 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Organization E

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan 

Prepare Written RMP 12.00 14.00 14.00 18.00 24.00 36.00 Organization E

Update Written RMP 5.00 6.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 15.00 Organization E

Medical and Physical Requirements 

Minimum Medical Requirement - Statement 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization E

Confidential Records Svstem 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 Responder E

Establish Health and Fitness Program - 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization E

Written Plan 

Minimum Medical Surveillance 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Responder E

Additional Heart Screening 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Responder EAdditional ESO Surveillance (Full NFP A 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Responder E

Medical Exam) 

Implement Fitness Assessment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Responder E

Undergo Fitness Assessment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Responder E

Behavioral Health & Wellness Program 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 Organization E

Train in 2: 

Establish Minimum Knowledge and Skills 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization E

initial New Responder Trainin_g 513.32 513.32 776.23 776.23 776.23 776.23 Responder E

EMR 48.00 48.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 Responder EEMT 120.00 120.00 190.00 190.00 190.00 190.00 Responder E

Advanced EMT (AEMT) 270.00 270.00 440.00 440.00 440.00 440.00 Responder E

Paramedic 1,200.00 1,200.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 Responder E

Ongoing Responder Training 45.67 45.67 45.67 45.67 45.67 45.67 Responder E

EP05FE24.053</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class Basis 

<25 25-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ 

EMR 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 Responder E

FMT 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Responder E

Advanced EMT (AEMT) 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Responder E

Paramedic 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 Responder E

Refresher Responder Training 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 Responder E

Professional Development 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Responder EDocument Professional Qualifications 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization E

ESO Facility Preparedness ESO Facility Preparedness 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization EEauioment and PPE Equipment Preparedness 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization E

Inspect, Maintain, and Test Equipment 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization E

PPE Hazard Assessment 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 6.00 Organization E

PPE Provision 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.60 2.00 Organization E

PPE Maintenance 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 12.00 Organization E

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation 

Written SOPs - Vehicle Preparedness and 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization E

Operation 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization E

ESO Pre-Incident Plannine: ESO Pre-Incident Planning 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization E

ESO PIP Ammal Review 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 12.00 Organization E

Incident Manae:ement System Development Incident Management Svstem Develooment 12.00 14.00 14.00 18.00 24.00 36.00 Organization E

Emergency Incident Operations Emcrgencv Incident Operations 48.33 188.47 389.63 844.92 2,723.62 2,980.78 Organization E

Standard Operatine Procedures 

SOPs 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization E

Post Incident Analysis 

Post Incident Analysis 9.67 37.69 77.93 168.98 544.72 596.16 Organization E

ID/Implement Changes to Pre-Incident Plan 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization E

Program Evaluation 

ERP Program Evaluation 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization E

ID and Implement Changes to ERP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Omanization E

More Frequent ID and Implement Changes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization E

to ERP 

Source: OSHA 

EP05FE24.054</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

[a] These estimates are calculated using the expected number of events/incidents for a given responder group type and employee class size. Th

events/incidents does not always follow the expected pattern of smaller employment class sizes incurring lower numbers of events/incidents. 

estimates do not go in order from smallest to largest by employee class size. 

EP05FE24.055</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-11. Labor-Based Unit Costs by Employment Size Class - Emer2ency Medical Service Or2anizati

Emplovment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250-499 500+ Basis 

249 

Rule Familiarization 

Rule Familiarization $123 $123 $123 $123 $123 $123 Organization E

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emereencv Service(s) Capabilitv ESO Develop ERP $1,233 $1,480 $1,480 $1,849 $2,466 $3,699 Organization E

ESO Update and Revise ERP $247 $308 $308 $370 $493 $740 Organization E

ESO Establishment of Service(s) Capability $740 $863 $863 $1,110 $1,480 $2,219 Organization E

ESO Community or Facility Vulnerability $2,466 $2,959 $2,959 $3,699 $4,932 $7,398 Organization E

and Risk Assessment 

ESO Develop Mutual Aid Agreements $62 $62 $62 $62 $62 $123 Organization E

Team Member and Responder Participation 

Responder Participation-Meetings $253 $316 $316 $379 $505 $758 Organization E

Responder Participation-Post Sign $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 Organization E

WERT and ESQ Risk Manaeement Plan 

Prepare Written RMP $740 $863 $863 $1,110 $1,480 $2,219 Organization E

Update Written RMP $308 $370 $370 $493 $616 $925 Organization E

Medical and Physical Requirements 

Minimum Medical Requirement - Statement $493 $616 $616 $740 $986 $1,480 Organization E

Confidential Records Svstem $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 Responder E

Establish Health and Fitness Program - $493 $616 $616 $740 $986 $1,480 Organization E

Written Plan 

Minimum Medical Surveillance fal $79 $79 $79 $79 $79 $79 Responder E

Additional Heart Screenin_g f al $39 $39 $39 $39 $39 $39 Responder EAdditional ESO Surveillance (Full NFPA $79 $79 $79 $79 $79 $79 Responder E

Medical Exam) lal 

Implement Fitness Assessment $62 $62 $62 $62 $62 $62 Responder E

Undergo Fitness Assessment $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 Responder E

Behavioral Health & Wellness Program $62 $62 $62 $123 $123 $185 Organization E

Training 

Establish Minimum Knowledge and Skills $493 $616 $616 $740 $986 $1480 Organization E

Initial New Responder Training $16207 $16 207 $24 509 $24,509 $24 509 $24 509 Responder E

Ongoing Responder Training $1,442 $1,442 $1,442 $1,442 $1,442 $1,442 Responder E

Refresher Responder Training $63 $63 $63 $63 $95 $158 Responder E

Professional Development $631 $758 $758 $947 $1,263 $1,894 Responder EDocument Professional Qualifications $L233 $1480 $1480 $1.849 $2466 $3 699 Organization E

ESQ Facility Preparedness 

EP05FE24.056</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Emplovment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250-499 500+ Basis 

249 

ESO Facility Preparedness $493 $616 $616 $740 $986 $1,480 Organization E

Equipment and PPE Equipment Preparedness $2A66 $2 959 $2 959 $3,699 $4 932 $7 398 Organization E

Inspect Maintain, and Test Eauipment $L263 $1 516 $1 516 $L894 $2 526 $3 789 Organization E

PPE Hazard Assessment $123 $123 $123 $185 $247 $370 Organization E

PPE Provision $62 $62 $62 $62 $99 $123 Organization EPPE Maintenance $126 $158 $158 $189 $253 $379 Organization E

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation 

Written SOPs - Vehicle Preparedness and $493 $616 $616 $740 $986 $1,480 Organization E

Operation 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance $2,466 $2,959 $2,959 $3,699 $4,932 $7,398 Organization E

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning ESO Pre-Incident Planning $L233 $1480 $1480 $L849 $2466 $3 699 Organization EESO PIP Annual Review $247 $308 $308 $370 $493 $740 Organization E

Incident Management System Development 

Incident Management Svstem Development $740 $863 $863 $1,110 $1,480 $2,219 Organization E

Emeni:ency Incident Operations Emergencv Incident Operations $2,980 $11 619 $24,020 $52,088 $167 906 $183 760 Organization E

Standard Ooeratine Procedures 

SOPs $1,233 $1,480 $1,480 $1,849 $2,466 $3,699 Organization E

Post Incident Analysis 

Post Incident Analvsis $596 $2,324 $4,804 $10,418 $33,581 $36,752 Organization E

ID/Implement Changes to Pre-Incident Plan $62 $62 $62 $62 $62 $123 Organization EPro2ram Evaluation 

ERP Program Evaluation $L233 $1480 $1480 $L849 $2 466 $3 699 Organization E

TD and Tmolement Changes to ERP $62 $62 $62 $62 $62 $123 Organization E

More Frequent ID and Implement Changes to $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $12 Organization E

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 c

[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 V
7908 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

D. Technical Search and Rescue Groups 

Technical search and rescue groups 

are involved in wilderness and urban 

search and rescue using technical skills 

and equipment. These organizations 

would be required to comply with all 

provisions of the proposed rule, as 

described in section IV.I.. Technical 

search and rescue groups are assumed to 

incur the same labor hours and medical 

costs as EMS organizations for most 

provisions, as described in section 

IV.III., with three exceptions. First, for 

initial and ongoing training OSHA 

assumes that technical search and 

rescue employees would expend 200 

hours on initial training and would 

spend the same amount of time as 

firefighters on ongoing training. Second, 

in the case of emergency incident 

operations, the per incident time 

estimate is the same for both EMS and 

technical search and rescue; however, 

the number of incidents that these 

groups respond to each year differs, 

which results in different annual time 

spent responding to all incidents. Third, 

the time per incident for technical 

search and rescue groups to conduct a 

post-incident analysis is five minutes 

instead of one minute as estimated for 

EMS. 

As described in the Industry Profile, 

to fully capture the universe of technical 

search and rescue organizations, OSHA 

obtained data from multiple sources, 

which, for the purposes of estimating 

unit costs, requires the derivation of 

separate wage rates. The unit costs are 

provided for both subgroups of 

technical search and rescue in sections 

VII.D(i) and VII.D(ii) 

(i) Wilderness and Urban Search and 

Rescue 

Wilderness and urban search and 

rescue groups are involved in and use 

special Vknowledge, skills, and 

specialized equipment to resolve 

complex search and rescue situations, 

such as rope, vehicle/machinery, 

structural collapse, trench, and 

technical water rescue. Table VII–C–12 

and Table VII–C–13 show the estimated 

unit labor hours and costs, respectively, 

for each requirement in the proposed 

rule for wilderness and urban search 

and rescue groups by employee class 

size. Note that while the unit labor 

hours are largely the same as for EMS 

organizations, unit costs differ due to 

the application of wage rates for 

wilderness and urban search and rescue 

responders rather than EMS responders. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

EP05FE24.057</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-12. Unit Burden for Labor-Based Costs by Employment Size Class - Wilderness and Urb

Groups and Responders 

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis Labo

249 499 

Rule Familiarization 

Rule Familiarization 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Organization Search 

Superv

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emere:ency Service(s) Capability ESO Develop ERP 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization Search 

Superv

ESO Update and Revise ERP 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 12.00 Organization Search 

Superv

ESO Establishment of Service(s) 12.00 14.00 14.00 18.00 24.00 36.00 Organization Search 

Capability Superv

ESO Community or Facility 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization Search 

Vulnerabilitv and Risk Assessment Superv

ESO Develop Mutual Aid 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization Search 

Agreements Superv

Team Member and Responder Participation 

Responder Participation-Meetings 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization Search 

Worke

Responder Participation-Post Sign 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Organization Search 

Superv

WERT and ESO Risk Manaeement Plan 

Prepare Written RMP 12.00 14.00 14.00 18.00 24.00 36.00 Organization Search 

Superv

Update Written RMP 5.00 6.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 15.00 Organization Search 

Superv

Medical and Physical Requirements 

Minimum Medical Requirement - 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization Search 

Statement Superv

Confidential Records System 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 Responder Search 

Superv

Establish Health and Fitness 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization Search Program - Written Plan SupervMinimum Medical Surveillance 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Responder Search 

Worke

Additional Heart Screening 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Responder Search 

Worke

EP05FE24.058</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis Labo

249 499 

Additional ESO Surveillance (Full 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Responder Search 

NFPA Medical Exam) Worke

Implement Fitness Assessment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Responder Search 

Superv

Undergo Fitness Assessment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Responder Search 

Worke

Behavioral Health & Wellness 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 Organization Search 

Program Superv

Trainin2 

Establish Minimum Knowledge and 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization Search 

Skills Superv

Initial New Responder Training 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 Responder Search 

Worke

Ongoing Responder Training 24.00 29.00 29.00 36.00 48.00 72.00 Responder Search 

Worke

Refresher Responder Training 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 Responder Search 

Worke

Professional Development 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Responder Search 

Worke

Document Professional 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization Search 

Qualifications Superv

ESO Facility Preparedness ESO Facility Preparedness 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization Search 

Superv

Equipment and PPE Equipment Preparedness 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization Search 

Superv

Inspect, Maintain, and Test 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization Search 

Equipment Worke

PPE Hazard Assessment 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 6.00 Organization Search 

Superv

PPE Provision 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.60 2.00 Organization Search 

Superv

PPE Maintenance 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 12.00 Organization Search 

Worke

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation 

EP05FE24.059</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis Labo

249 499 

Written SOPs - Vehicle 8.00 l0.00 l0.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 Organization Search 

Preparedness and Operation Superv

Vehicle Inspection and 40.00 48.00 48.00 60.00 80.00 120.00 Organization Search 

Maintenance Superv

ESO Pre-Incident Plannine: ESO Pre-Incident Planning 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization Search 

Superv

ESO PIP Annual Review 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 12.00 Organization Search 

Superv

Incident Management System Development Incident Management System 12.00 14.00 14.00 18.00 24.00 36.00 Organization Search 

Development Superv

Emergency Incident Operations Emergency Incident Operations 2.77 1.68 1.54 1.66 3.27 2.49 Organization Search 

Superv

Standard Operating Procedures 

SOPs 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization Search 

Superv

Post Incident Analysis 

Post Incident Analysis 2.77 1.68 1.54 1.66 3.27 2.49 Organization Search 

Superv

ID/Implement Changes to Pre- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization Search 

Incident Plan Superv

Proe:ram Evaluation 

ERP Program Evaluation 20.00 24.00 24.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Organization Search 

Superv

TD and Implement Changes to ERP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization Search 

Superv

More Frequent ID and Implement 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Organization Search 

Changes to ERP Superv

Source: OSHA. 

[a] These estimates are calculated using the expected number of events/incidents for a given responder group type and employee cla

of events/incidents does not always follow the expected pattern of smaller employment class sizes incurring lower numbers of even

unit labor hour estimates do not go in order from smallest to largest by employee class size. 

EP05FE24.060</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-13. Labor-Based Unit Costs by Employment Size Class - Wilderness and Urban Search a

Responders 

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis Labo

249 499 

Rule Familiarization 

Rule Familiarization $150 $150 $150 $150 $150 $150 Organization Search 

Superv

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emere:encv Service(s) Caoabilitv 

ESQ Develop ERP $1,499 $1,799 $1,799 $2,249 $2,998 $4,498 Organization Search 

Superv

ESQ Update and Revise ERP $300 $375 $375 $450 $600 $900 Organization Search 

Suoerv

ESQ Establishment of Service(s) $900 $1,049 $1,049 $1,349 $1,799 $2,699 Organization Search 

Capability Superv

ESO Community or Facility $2,998 $3,598 $3,598 $4,498 $5,997 $8,995 Organization Search 

Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Superv

ESQ Develop Mutual Aid $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $150 Organization Search 

Agreements Superv

Team Member and Responder Participation 

Responder Participation-Meetings $275 $344 $344 $413 $550 $826 Organization Search 

Worke

Responder Participation-Post Sign $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 Organization Search 

Superv

WERT and ESQ Risk Manae:ement Plan 

Prepare Written RMP $900 $1,049 $1,049 $1,349 $1,799 $2,699 Organization Search 

Superv

Update Written RMP $375 $450 $450 $600 $750 $1,124 Organization Search 

Superv

Medical and Physical Requirements 

Minimum Medical Requirement - $600 $750 $750 $900 $1,199 $1,799 Organization Search 

Statement Suoerv

Confidential Records System $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 Responder Search 

Superv

Establish Health and Fitness $600 $750 $750 $900 $1,199 $1,799 Organization Search 

Program - Written Plan Superv

Minimum Medical Surveillance [a] $86 $86 $86 $86 $86 $86 Responder Search 

Worke

EP05FE24.061</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis Labo

249 499 

Additional Heart Screening [a] $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 Responder Search 

Worke

Additional ESQ Surveillance (Full $86 $86 $86 $86 $86 $86 Responder Search 

NFP A Medical Exam) f al Worke

Implement Fitness Assessment $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 Responder Search 

Superv

Undergo Fitness Assessment $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 Responder Search 

Worke

Behavioral Health & Wellness $75 $75 $75 $150 $150 $225 Organization Search 

Program Superv

Trainin2 

Establish Minimum Knowledge and $600 $750 $750 $900 $1,199 $1,799 Organization Search 

Skills Superv

Initial New Responder Training $6,880 $6,880 $6,880 $6,880 $6,880 $6,880 Responder Search 

Worke

Ongoing Responder Training $826 $998 $998 $1,238 $1,651 $2,477 Responder Search 

Worke

Refresher Responder Training $69 $69 $69 $69 $103 $172 Responder Search 

Worke

Professional Development $688 $826 $826 $1,032 $1,376 $2,064 Responder Search 

Worke

Document Professional $1,499 $1,799 $1,799 $2,249 $2,998 $4,498 Organization Search 

Qualifications Superv

ESQ Facility Preparedness 

ESQ Facility Preparedness $600 $750 $750 $900 $1,199 $1,799 Organization Search 

Superv

Equipment and PPE 

Equipment Preparedness $2,998 $3,598 $3,598 $4,498 $5,997 $8,995 Organization Search 

Superv

Inspect, Maintain, and Test $1,376 $1,651 $1,651 $2,064 $2,752 $4,128 Organization Search 

Equipment Worke

PPE Hazard Assessment $150 $150 $150 $225 $300 $450 Organization Search 

Superv

PPE Provision $75 $75 $75 $75 $120 $150 Organization Search 

Superv

PPE Maintenance $138 $172 $172 $206 $275 $413 Organization Search 

Worke

EP05FE24.062</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis Labo

249 499 

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation 

Written SOPs - Vehicle $600 $750 $750 $900 $1,199 $1,799 Organization Search 

Preparedness and Operation Superv

Vehicle Inspection and $2,998 $3,598 $3,598 $4,498 $5,997 $8,995 Organization Search 

Maintenance Superv

ESO Pre-Incident Plannin2 ESO Pre-Incident Planning $1,499 $1,799 $1,799 $2,249 $2,998 $4,498 Organization Search 

Superv

ESO PIP Annual Review $300 $375 $375 $450 $600 $900 Organization Search 

Superv

Incident Management System Development Incident Management System $900 $1,049 $1,049 $1,349 $1,799 $2,699 Organization Search 

Development Superv

Emergency Incident Operations Emergency Incident Operations $208 $126 $116 $124 $245 $187 Organization Search 

Superv

Standard Operatine: Procedures 

SOPs $1,499 $1,799 $1,799 $2,249 $2,998 $4,498 Organization Search 

Superv

Post Incident Analysis 

Post Incident Analysis $208 $126 $116 $124 $245 $187 Organization Search 

Superv

ID/Implement Changes to Pre- $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $150 Organization Search Incident Plan Superv

Proe:ram Evaluation 

ERP Program Evaluation $1,499 $1,799 $1,799 $2,249 $2,998 $4,498 Organization Search 

Superv

ID and Implement Changes to ERP $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $150 Organization Search 

Superv

More Frequent ID and Implement $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $15 Organization Search 

Changes to ERP Superv

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 th

l aj These costs to undergo medical exams are only inclusive of the labor costs. The cost of the medical exam components are presen
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7915 

(ii) Additional Technical Water Rescue 

Entities 

This additional group of technical 

search and rescue entities includes 

lifeguarding where specialty skills or 

equipment is employed during search 

and/or rescue. This group is in addition 

to technical water rescue activities 

undertaken by wilderness and urban 

search and rescue. These organizations 

would be required to comply with all 

provisions of the proposed rule, as 

described in section IV.I. Additional 

technical water rescue entities would 

incur the same labor hours and medical 

costs as wilderness and urban search 

and rescue groups, as described in 

section IV.A. Table VII–C–14 shows the 

estimated unit costs associated with the 

proposed rule for additional technical 

water rescue groups by employment size 

class. Note that while the unit labor 

hours are the same as for wilderness and 

urban search and rescue groups, unit 

costs vary due to the different wage 

rates for technical water rescue 

professionals compared to wilderness 

and urban search and rescue 

responders, as outlined in section III. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

EP05FE24.063</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-14. Labor-Based Unit Costs by Employment Size Class -Additional Technical Water 

Employees 

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis Labor 

249 499 

Rule Familiarization 

Rule Familiarization $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 Organization Technica

Rescue S

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emere:encv Service(s) Capability ESO Develop ERP $950 $1,140 $1,140 $1,425 $1,900 $2,851 Organization Technica

Rescue S

ESO Update and Revise ERP $190 $238 $238 $285 $380 $570 Organization Technica

Rescue S

ESO Establishment of Service(s) $570 $665 $665 $855 $1,140 $1,710 Organization Technica

Capability Rescue S

ESO Community or Facility Technica

Vulnerability and Risk $1,900 $2,281 $2,281 $2,851 $3,801 $5,701 Organization Rescue S

Assessment 

ESO Develop Mutual Aid $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $95 Organization Technica

Agreements Rescue S

Team Member and Responder Participation 

Responder Participation-Meetings $170 $212 $212 $255 $340 $510 Organization Technica

Rescuer 

Responder Participation-Post Sign $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 Organization Technica

Rescue S

WERT and ESO Risk Mana2ement Plan 

Prepare Written RMP $570 $665 $665 $855 $1,140 $1,710 Organization Technica

Rescue S

Update Written RMP $238 $285 $285 $380 $475 $713 Organization Technica

Rescue S

Medical and Physical Requirements 

Minimum Medical Requirement - $380 $475 $475 $570 $760 $1,140 Organization Technica

Statement Rescue S

Confidential Records System $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 Responder Technica

Rescue S

Establish Health and Fitness $380 $475 $475 $570 $760 $1,140 Organization Technica

Program - Written Plan Rescue SMinimum Medical Surveillance $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 Responder Technica

ral Rescuer 

EP05FE24.064</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis Labor 

249 499 

Additional Heart Screening [a] $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 Responder Technica

Rescuer 

Additional ESO Surveillance (Full $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 Responder Technica

NFPA Medical Exam) fal Rescuer 

Implement Fitness Assessment $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 Responder Technica

Rescue S

Undergo Fitness Assessment $21 $21 $21 $21 $21 $21 Responder Technica

Rescuer 

Behavioral Health & Wellness $48 $48 $48 $95 $95 $143 Organization Technica

Program Rescue S

Training 

Establish Minimum Knowledge $380 $475 $475 $570 $760 $1,140 Organization Technica

and Skills Rescue S

Initial New Responder Training $4,246 $4,246 $4,246 $4,246 $4,246 $4,246 Responder Technica

Rescuer 

Ongoing Responder Training $510 $616 $616 $764 $1,019 $1,529 Responder Technica

Rescuer 

Refresher Responder Training $42 $42 $42 $42 $64 $106 Responder Technica

Rescuer 

Professional Development $425 $510 $510 $637 $849 $1,274 Responder Technica

Rescuer 

Document Professional $950 $1,140 $1,140 $1,425 $1,900 $2,851 Organization Technica

Qualifications Rescue S

ESO Facility Preparedness ESO Facility Preparedness $380 $475 $475 $570 $760 $1,140 Organization Technica

Rescue S

Equipment and PPE Equipment Preparedness $1,900 $2,281 $2,281 $2,851 $3,801 $5,701 Organization Technica

Rescue S

Inspect, Maintain, and Test $849 $1,019 $1,019 $1,274 $1,698 $2,548 Organization Technica

Equipment Rescuer 

PPE Hazard Assessment $95 $95 $95 $143 $190 $285 Organization Technica

Rescue S

PPE Provision $48 $48 $48 $48 $76 $95 Organization Technica

Rescue S

PPE Maintenance $85 $106 $106 $127 $170 $255 Organization Technica

Rescuer 

EP05FE24.065</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Employment Size Class 

<25 25-49 50-99 100- 250- 500+ Basis Labor 

249 499 

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation 

Written SOPs - Vehicle $380 $475 $475 $570 $760 $1,140 Organization Technica

Preparedness and Operation Rescue S

Vehicle Inspection and $1,900 $2,281 $2,281 $2,851 $3,801 $5,701 Organization Technica

Maintenance Rescue S

ESO Pre-Incident Plannin2 ESO Pre-Incident Planning $950 $1,140 $1,140 $1,425 $1,900 $2,851 Organization Technica

Rescue S

ESO PIP Annual Review $190 $238 $238 $285 $380 $570 Organization Technica

Rescue S

Incident Mana2ement System Development 

Incident Management System $570 $665 $665 $855 $1,140 $1,710 Organization Technica

Development Rescue S

Emer2encv Incident Operations Emergency Incident Operations $132 $80 $73 $79 $156 $119 Organization Technica

Rescue S

Standard Operatin2: Procedures 

SOPs $950 $1,140 $1,140 $1,425 $1,900 $2,851 Organization Technica

Rescue S

Post Incident Analysis 

Post Incident Analysis $132 $80 $73 $79 $156 $119 Organization Technica

Rescue S

ID/Implement Changes to Pre- $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $95 Organization Technica

Incident Plan Rescue S

Pro2:ram Evaluation 

ERP Program Evaluation $950 $1,140 $1,140 $1,425 $1,900 $2,851 Organization Technica

Rescue S

ID and Implement Changes to $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $95 Organization Technica

ERP Rescue S

More Frequent ID and Implement $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $10 Organization Technica

Changes to ERP Rescue S

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 th

[a] These costs to undergo medical exams are only inclusive of the labor costs. The cost of the medical exam components are presen
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7919 

E. Total Costs 

(i) Total Costs of the Proposed Rule 

OSHA estimated the total cost of the 

proposed rule by multiplying the 

numbers of affected emergency services 

entities and responders estimated in the 

industry profile, as summarized in 

Table VII–B–12, by the unit labor costs 

shown in Table VII–C–6 (for fire 

departments), Table VII–C–11 (for 

emergency medical services), Table VII– 

C–13 (for technical search and rescue 

groups), and Table VII–C–14 (for 

additional technical water rescue 

entities), and adding the unit medical 

costs shown in Table VII–C–4 

(structural fire departments and 

wildland fire services) and Table VII–C– 

7 (WEREs, emergency medical services, 

and technical search and rescue groups). 

Table VII–C–15, Table VII–C–16, and 

Table VII–C–17 show the total costs 

(including labor and non-labor costs) for 

all organizations affected by the 

proposed rule at three, seven, and zero 

percent discount rates, respectively. 

Table VII–C–18 shows the costs for 

organizations considered small by either 

the RFA definition (for public ESOs) or 

SBA definition (for private 

organizations) using a three percent 

discount rate. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

EP05FE24.066</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-15. Total Cost Summary by Provision - All Organizations,_ 3 Percent Discou

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

WEREs 

Rule Familiarization $26,567 

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency $951,248 $456,8

Service(s) Capability 

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $86,6

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $154,630 $562,1

Medical and Phvsical Reauirements $8 586.477 $140 4

Training $10,716 $12 139,0

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 $888,2

Equipment and PPE $85,223 $3,407,9

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $32,006 $1,334,5

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $151.582 $234 6

Incident Management Svstem Development $46,220 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $17,9

Standard Operating Procedures $303,164 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $216,7

Program Evaluation $0 $2 756.0

Total $10,347,833 $22,241,1

Fire Departments 

Career Fire Departments 

Rule Familiarization $62,406 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $2,223,682 $1 069,9

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $269,6

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $361,117 $1,310 0

Medical and Physical Requirements $17,367,275 $28,938,1

Training $25,295 $64 936.8

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $4 155,9

Equipment and PPE $199,717 $9,250,0

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $75,084 $3,125,1

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $715,138 $1,250,7

Incident Management Svstem Development $108.099 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $477,6

Standard Operating Procedures $715,138 

Post Incident Analvsis $0 $3,041,2

Program Evaluation $0 $6,504,4

Total $21,852,951 $124,329,9

EP05FE24.067</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

Volunteer Fire Departments 

Rule Familiarization $83,003 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $2,950,132 $1,414,9

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $356,9

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $479,587 $1,733 6

Medical and Physical Requirements $33,808,879 $2 106,3

Training $33,243 $39,699,6

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $5,509,0

Equipment and PPE $264,082 $12,261,5

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $99,267 $4 142,1

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $923,982 $1,612,5

Incident Management System Development $143,526 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $55,4

Standard Operating Procedures $923,982 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $665 2Program Evaluation $0 $8,318,3

Total $39,709,683 $77,876,0

Mixed Fire Departments 

Rule Familiarization $31,540 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $1,133,189 $548,7

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $138,1

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $183,516 $669,1

Medical and Physical Requirements $13,435,208 $5,800,5

Training $13,091 $24 049.8

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $2 120.4

Equipment and PPE $102,451 $4,719,4

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $38,485 $1,593,1

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $372,351 $654,5

Incident Management System Development $54,899 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $117.8

Standard Operating Procedures $372,351 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $835,5

Program Evaluation $0 $3,391,2

Total $15,737,080 $44,638,6

Fire Departments Total Rule Familiarization $176,949 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $6,307,003 $3,033,6

EP05FE24.068</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $764 8

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $1,024,219 $3,712,8

Medical and Physical Requirements $64,611,361 $36,845,1

Training $71,629 $128,686,3

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $11 785,4

Equipment and PPE $566.250 $26 231.0

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $212,836 $8,860,4

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $2,011,471 $3,517,8

Incident Management System Development $306,524 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $650,9

Standard Operating Procedures $2,011,471 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $4,542,0

Program Evaluation $0 $18,213,9

Total $77,299,714 $246,844,6

Wildland Firefh?:htin2: Services 

Career Wildland Firefi2htin2 ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $7,615 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $260,466 $122,1

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $30,8

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $42,768 $152 3

Medical and Physical Requirements $3,573,693 $6,393,2

Training $2,787 $14,122,2

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $484,6

Equipment and PPE $22,782 $1 078,6

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $8,611 $366,3

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $77,959 $133,3

Incident Management System Development $12,862 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $7,2

Standard Operating Procedures $77,959 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $73 8

Program Evaluation $0 $706,9

Total $4,087,501 $23,671,8

Volunteer Wildland Firefi2htin2 ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $117 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capabilitv $4,847 $2,2

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $5

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $800 $2,8

EP05FE24.069</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

Medical and Physical Requirements $4 394,919 $525 1

Training $56 $12,165,6

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $8,9

Equipment and PPE $421 $19,9

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $154 $6,5

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $1,861 $3.1

Incident Management System Development $232 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $1,0

Standard Operating Procedures $1,861 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $8,2

Program Evaluation $0 $21,1

Total $4,405,269 $12,765,6

Wildland Firefighting Total 

Rule Familiarization $7,732 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $265,313 $124,3

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $31,4

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $43,568 $155,1

Medical and Physical Requirements $7,968,612 $6,918,3

Training $2,843 $26,287,9

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $493,5

Equipment and PPE $23,204 $1,098,5

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $8,765 $372,9

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $79,820 $136,5

Incident Management Svstem Development $13.094 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $8 2

Standard Operating Procedures $79,820 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $82,0

Program Evaluation $0 $728,0

Total $8,492,770 $36,437,4

Emen?:encv Medical Services 

Career Emergency Medical Services ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $37,292 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $1,302,959 $618,0

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $130 6

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $212,983 $765,8

Medical and Physical Requirements $16,822,891 $147,8

Training $14,363 $41,880,5

EP05FE24.070</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $491,8

Equipment and PPE $20,073 $3,799,7

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $43,468 $1,831,5

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $409,984 $708,3

Incident Management System Development $63,892 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $5.769 0

Standard Operating Procedures $409,984 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $8,002,1

Program Evaluation $0 $3,774,4

Total $19,337,888 $67,920,2

Volunteer Emere:encv Medical Services ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $20,189 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $705,515 $334,6

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $70,7

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $115,326 $414 7

Medical and Physical Requirements $9,387,879 $80,0

Training $7,780 $23,516,4

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $266,3Equipment and PPE $10,862 $2,057,4

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $23,537 $991,7

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $222,442 $384,3

Incident Management System Development $34,596 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $3,210,8

Standard Ooerating Procedures $222.442 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $4 468.5Program Evaluation $0 $2,050,4

Total $10,750,570 $37,846,5

Mixed Emergency Medical Services ESOs Rule Familiarization $39,255 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $1.371.536 $650.5

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $137,5

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $224,192 $806,1

Medical and Physical Requirements $16,581,615 $155,5

Training $15,119 $41113,3

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $517,7

Equipment and PPE $21,130 $3,999,7

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $45,755 $1,927,9

EP05FE24.071</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $431,562 $745 6

Incident Management System Development $67,254 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $6,072,7

Standard Operating Procedures $431,562 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $8 423,3

Program Evaluation $0 $3 973.0

Total $19,228,981 $68,523,5

Emer2encv Medical Services Total 

Rule Familiarization $96,736 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $3,380,010 $1 603,3

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $338,9

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $552,501 $1,986,8

Medical and Physical Requirements $42,792,385 $383,4

Training $37,263 $106,510,3

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $1275,9

Equipment and PPE $52,066 $9,856,9

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $112,760 $4,751,3

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $1,063,988 $1,838,3

Incident Management System Development $165,742 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $15 052,6

Standard Operating Procedures $1,063,988 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $20,894,0

Program Evaluation $0 $9,798,0

Total $49,317,439 $174,290,2

Technical Search and Rescue Groups 

Career Technical Search and Rescue ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $2,002 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $72,491 $34,5

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $6,4

WERT and ESQ Risk Manruzement Plan $11.860 $43 0

Medical and Physical Requirements $1,228,014 $8,4

Training $821 $2,453,6

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $27,4

Equipment and PPE $1,063 $202,3

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $2,416 $101,5

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $25,622 $44,3

Incident Management System Development $3,538 

EP05FE24.072</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $2 5

Standard Operating Procedures $25,622 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $25,0

Program Evaluation $0 $255,5

Total $1,373,449 $3,204,8

Volunteer Technical Search and Rescue ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $27,622 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Caoabilitv $1,015,690 $483,5

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $91,8

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $166,384 $603 9

Medical and Phvsical Requirements $5,441,734 $120,4

Training $11,549 $13,069,6

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $384,2

Equipment and PPE $14,755 $2,854,6

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $33,729 $1419,7

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $369,978 $638,8

Incident Management System Development $49,493 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $31,3

Standard Operating Procedures $369,978 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $334 4Program Evaluation $0 $3,789,1

Total $7,500,912 $23,821,9

Technical Search and Rescue Total 

Rule Familiarization $29.625 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Caoabilitv $1.088.181 $518.0

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $98,2

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $178,244 $646,9

Medical and Physical Requirements $6,669,748 $128,9

Training $12,370 $15 523,2

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $411.6

Equipment and PPE $15,818 $3,057,0

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $36,145 $1,521,3

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $395,600 $683,1

Incident Management System Development $53,031 

Emergencv Incident Operations $0 $33,8

Standard Operating Procedures $395,600 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $359,4

EP05FE24.073</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

Program Evaluation $0 $4,044,7

Total $8,874,361 $27,026,8

Total for All Responder Groups 

Rule Familiarization $337,609 

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency $951,248 $456,8

Service(s) Capability 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $11,040,506 $5,279,4

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $1,320,2

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $1,953,163 $7,063,9

Medical and Physical Requirements $130,628,583 $44,416,3

Training $134,821 $289,146,8

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 $888,2

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $13,966,6

Equipment and PPE $742,560 $43,651,5

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $402,512 $16,840,7

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $151,582 $234,6

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $3,550,878 $6,175,9

Incident Management System Development $584,610 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $15,763,7

Standard Operating Procedures $3,854,042 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $26,094,3

Program Evaluation $0 $35,540,7

Total $154,332,116 $506,840,3

Source: OSHA. 

Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding. 

EP05FE24.074</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-16. Total Cost Summary by Provision -All Organizations,_ 7 Percent Discou

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

7% 

WEREs 

Rule Familiarization $32,266 

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency $1,155,299 $456,8

Service(s) Capability 

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $86,6

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $187,800 $562,1

Medical and Phvsical Reauirements $8 722.884 $140 4

Training $13,014 $12 139,0

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 $888,2

Equipment and PPE $103,504 $3,407,9

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $38,872 $1,334,5

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $184.098 $234 6

Incident Management Svstem Development $56,135 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $17,9

Standard Operating Procedures $368,196 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $216,7

Program Evaluation $0 $2 756.0

Total $10,862,067 $22,241,1

Fire Departments 

Career Fire Departments 

Rule Familiarization $75,793 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $2,700,681 $1 069,9

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $269,6

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $438,579 $1,310 0

Medical and Physical Requirements $17,716,105 $28,938,1

Training $30,721 $64 936.8

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $4 155,9

Equipment and PPE $242,559 $9,250,0

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $91,190 $3,125,1

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $868,542 $1,250,7

Incident Management Svstem Development $131.287 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $477,6

Standard Operating Procedures $868,542 

Post Incident Analvsis $0 $3,041,2

Program Evaluation $0 $6,504,4

Total $23,163,999 $124,329,9

EP05FE24.075</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

7% 

Volunteer Fire Departments 

Rule Familiarization $100,808 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $3,582,962 $1,414,9

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $356,9

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $582,462 $1,733 6

Medical and Physical Requirements $34,394,053 $2 106,3

Training $40,374 $39,699,6

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $5,509,0

Equipment and PPE $320,730 $12,261,5

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $120,561 $4 142,1

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $1,122,184 $1,612,5

Incident Management System Development $174,314 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $55,4

Standard Operating Procedures $1,122,184 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $665 2Program Evaluation $0 $8,318,3

Total $41,560,633 $77,876,0

Mixed Fire Departments 

Rule Familiarization $38,305 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $1,376,268 $548,7

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $138,1

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $222,882 $669,1

Medical and Physical Requirements $13,668,041 $5,800,5

Training $15,900 $24 049.8

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $2 120,4

Equipment and PPE $124,428 $4,719,4

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $46,741 $1,593,1

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $452,223 $654,5

Incident Management System Development $66,675 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $117.8

Standard Operating Procedures $452,223 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $835,5

Program Evaluation $0 $3,391,2

Total $16,463,685 $44,638,6

Fire Departments Total 

Rule Familiarization $214,906 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $7,659,911 $3,033,6

EP05FE24.076</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

7% 

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $764 8

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $1,243,924 $3,712,8

Medical and Physical Requirements $65,778,199 $36,845,1

Training $86,995 $128,686,3

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $11 785,4

Equipment and PPE $687.716 $26 231.0

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $258,491 $8,860,4

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $2,442,949 $3,517,8

Incident Management System Development $372,277 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $650,9

Standard Operating Procedures $2,442,949 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $4,542,0

Program Evaluation $0 $18,213,9

Total $81,188,318 $246,844,6

Wildland Firefh?:htin2: Services 

Career Wildland Firefi2htin2 ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $9,249 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $316,338 $122,1

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $30,8

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $51,942 $152 3

Medical and Physical Requirements $3,636,332 $6,393,2

Training $3,385 $14,122,2

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $484,6Equipment and PPE $27.669 $1 078.6

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $10,458 $366.3

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $94,682 $133,3

Incident Management System Development $15,621 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $7,2

Standard Operating Procedures $94,682 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $73 8

Program Evaluation $0 $706,9

Total $4,260,357 $23,671,8

Volunteer Wildland Firefi2htin2 ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $142 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capabilitv $5,887 $2,2

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $5

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $972 $2,8

EP05FE24.077</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

7% 

Medical and Physical Requirements $4 453,858 $525 1

Training $68 $12,165,6

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $8,9

Equipment and PPE $512 $19,9

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $188 $6,5

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $2,260 $3,1

Incident Management System Development $281 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $1,0

Standard Operating Procedures $2,260 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $8,2

Program Evaluation $0 $21,1

Total $4,466,428 $12,765,6

Wildland Firefighting Total 

Rule Familiarization $9,391 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $322,225 $124,3

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $31,4

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $52,914 $155,1

Medical and Physical Requirements $8,090,190 $6,918,3

Training $3,453 $26,287,9

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $493,5

Equipment and PPE $28,181 $1,098,5

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $10,645 $372,9

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $96,942 $136,5

Incident Management Svstem Development $15.902 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $8 2

Standard Operating Procedures $96,942 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $82,0

Program Evaluation $0 $728,0

Total $8,726,785 $36,437,4

Emen?:encv Medical Services 

Career Emergency Medical Services ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $45,292 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $1,582,455 $618,0

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $130 6

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $258,670 $765,8

Medical and Physical Requirements $17,103,833 $147,8

Training $17,444 $41,880,5

EP05FE24.078</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

7% 

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $491,8

Equipment and PPE $24,379 $3,799,7

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $52,792 $1,831,5

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $497,929 $708,3

Incident Management System Development $77,597 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $5.769 0

Standard Operating Procedures $497,929 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $8,002,1

Program Evaluation $0 $3,774,4

Total $20,158,320 $67,920,2

Volunteer Emere:encv Medical Services ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $24,520 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $856,854 $334,6

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $70,7

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $140,065 $414 7

Medical and Physical Requirements $9,543,692 $80,0

Training $9,449 $23,516,4

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $266,3

Equipment and PPE $13,192 $2,057,4

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $28,586 $991,7

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $270,158 $384,3

Incident Management System Development $42,017 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $3,210,8

Standard Ooerating Procedures $270.158 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $4 468.5

Program Evaluation $0 $2,050,4

Total $11,198,692 $37,846,5

Mixed Emergency Medical Services ESOs Rule Familiarization $47,676 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $1.665.742 $650.5

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $137,5

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $272,284 $806,1

Medical and Physical Requirements $16,862,435 $155,5

Training $18,362 $41113,3

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $517,7

Equipment and PPE $25,663 $3,999,7

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $55,570 $1,927,9

EP05FE24.079</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

7% 

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $524,136 $745 6

Incident Management System Development $81,681 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $6,072,7

Standard Operating Procedures $524,136 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $8 423,3

Program Evaluation $0 $3 973.0

Total $20,077,685 $68,523,5

Emer2encv Medical Services Total 

Rule Familiarization $117,487 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $4,105,052 $1 603,3

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $338,9

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $671,018 $1,986,8

Medical and Physical Requirements $43,509,961 $383,4

Training $45,256 $106,510,3

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $1275,9

Equipment and PPE $63,234 $9,856,9

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $136,949 $4,751,3

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $1,292,223 $1,838,3

Incident Management System Development $201,295 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $15 052,6

Standard Operating Procedures $1,292,223 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $20,894,0

Program Evaluation $0 $9,798,0

Total $51,434,697 $174,290,2

Technical Search and Rescue Groups 

Career Technical Search and Rescue ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $2,432 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $88,040 $34,5

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $6,4

WERT and ESQ Risk Manruzement Plan $14.404 $43 0

Medical and Physical Requirements $1,247,713 $8,4

Training $997 $2,453,6

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $27,4

Equipment and PPE $1,291 $202,3

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $2,934 $101,5

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $31,118 $44,3

Incident Management System Development $4,297 

EP05FE24.080</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

7% 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $2 5

Standard Operating Procedures $31,118 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $25,0

Program Evaluation $0 $255,5

Total $1,424,345 $3,204,8

Volunteer Technical Search and Rescue ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $33,547 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Caoabilitv $1,233,565 $483,5

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $91,8

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $202,075 $603 9

Medical and Phvsical Requirements $5,560,787 $120,4

Training $14,027 $13,069,6

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $384,2

Equipment and PPE $17,920 $2,854,6

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $40,964 $1419,7

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $449,341 $638,8

Incident Management System Development $60,109 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $31,3

Standard Operating Procedures $449,341 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $334 4Program Evaluation $0 $3,789,1

Total $8,061,677 $23,821,9

Technical Search and Rescue Total 

Rule Familiarization $35.979 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Caoabilitv $1.321.605 $518.0

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $98,2

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $216,479 $646,9

Medical and Physical Requirements $6,808,500 $128,9

Training $15,023 $15 523,2

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $411.6

Equipment and PPE $19,211 $3,057,0

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $43,898 $1,521,3

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $480,460 $683,1

Incident Management System Development $64,406 

Emergencv Incident Operations $0 $33,8

Standard Operating Procedures $480,460 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $359,4

EP05FE24.081</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

7% 

Program Evaluation $0 $4,044,7

Total $9,486,022 $27,026,8

Total for All Responder Groups 

Rule Familiarization $410,030 

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency $1,155,299 $456,8

Service(s) Capability 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $13,408,794 $5,279,4

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $1,320,2

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $2,372,134 $7,063,9

Medical and Physical Requirements $132,909,734 $44,416,3

Training $163,741 $289,146,8

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 $888,2

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $13,966,6

Eauioment and PPE $901,846 $43,651,5

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $488,855 $16,840,7

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $184,098 $234,6

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $4,312,573 $6,175,9

Incident Management System Development $710,014 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $15,763,7

Standard Operating Procedures $4,680,769 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $26,094,3

Program Evaluation $0 $35,540,7

Total $161,697,888 $506,840,3

Source: OSHA. 

Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding. 

EP05FE24.082</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-17. Total Cost Summary by Provision -All Organizations,_ 0 Percent Discou

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

0% 

WEREs 

Rule Familiarization $22,663 

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency $811,434 $456,8

Service(s) Capability 

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $86,6

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $131,903 $562,1

Medical and Phvsical Reauirements $8 487.315 $140 4

Training $9,141 $12 139,0

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 $888,2

Equipment and PPE $72,697 $3,407,9

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $27,302 $1,334,5

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $129.303 $234 6

Incident Management Svstem Development $39,427 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $17,9

Standard Operating Procedures $258,605 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $216,7

Program Evaluation $0 $2 756.0

Total $9,989,788 $22,241,1

Fire Departments 

Career Fire Departments 

Rule Familiarization $53,234 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $1,896,846 $1 069,9

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $269,6

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $308,040 $1,310 0

Medical and Physical Requirements $17,125,735 $28,938,1

Training $21,577 $64 936.8

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $4 155,9

Equipment and PPE $170,363 $9,250,0

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $64,048 $3,125,1

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $610,027 $1,250,7

Incident Management Svstem Development $92.211 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $477,6

Standard Operating Procedures $610,027 

Post Incident Analvsis $0 $3,041,2

Program Evaluation $0 $6,504,4

Total $20,952,108 $124,329,9

EP05FE24.083</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

0% 

Volunteer Fire Departments 

Rule Familiarization $70,804 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $2,516,523 $1,414,9

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $356,9

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $409,097 $1,733 6

Medical and Physical Requirements $33,393,743 $2 106,3

Training $28,357 $39,699,6

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $5,509,0

Equipment and PPE $225,267 $12,261,5

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $84,677 $4 142,1

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $788,175 $1,612,5

Incident Management System Development $122,431 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $55,4

Standard Operating Procedures $788,175 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $665 2Program Evaluation $0 $8,318,3

Total $38,427,249 $77,876,0

Mixed Fire Departments 

Rule Familiarization $26,904 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $966,633 $548,7

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $138,1

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $156,543 $669,1

Medical and Physical Requirements $13,270,499 $5,800,5

Training $11,167 $24 049.8

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $2 120.4

Equipment and PPE $87,393 $4,719,4

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $32,829 $1,593,1

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $317,623 $654,5

Incident Management System Development $46,830 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $117.8

Standard Operating Procedures $317,623 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $835,5Program Evaluation $0 $3,391,2

Total $15,234,043 $44,638,6

Fire Departments Total 

Rule Familiarization $150,941 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $5,380,001 $3,033,6

EP05FE24.084</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

0% 

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $764 8

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $873,680 $3,712,8

Medical and Physical Requirements $63,789,977 $36,845,1

Training $61,101 $128,686,3

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $11 785,4

Equipment and PPE $483,023 $26 231.0

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $181,553 $8,860,4

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $1,715,825 $3,517,8

Incident Management System Development $261,471 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $650,9

Standard Operating Procedures $1,715,825 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $4,542,0

Program Evaluation $0 $18,213,9

Total $74,613,399 $246,844,6

Wildland Firefh?:htin2: Services 

Career Wildland Firefi2htin2 ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $6,496 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $222,183 $122,1

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $30,8

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $36,482 $152 3

Medical and Physical Requirements $3,530,266 $6,393,2

Training $2,378 $14,122,2

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $484,6

Equipment and PPE $19,434 $1 078,6

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $7,345 $366,3

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $66,500 $133,3

Incident Management System Development $10,971 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $7,2

Standard Operating Procedures $66,500 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $73 8

Program Evaluation $0 $706,9

Total $3,968,554 $23,671,8

Volunteer Wildland Firefi2htin2 ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $100 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capabilitv $4,135 $2,2

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $5

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $683 $2,8

EP05FE24.085</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

0% 

Medical and Physical Requirements $4 352,656 $525 1

Training $48 $12,165,6

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $8,9

Equipment and PPE $359 $19,9

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $132 $6,5

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $1,587 $3.1

Incident Management System Development $198 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $1,0

Standard Operating Procedures $1,587 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $8,2

Program Evaluation $0 $21,1

Total $4,361,485 $12,765,6

Wildland Firefighting Total 

Rule Familiarization $6,596 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $226,317 $124,3

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $31,4

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $37,165 $155,1

Medical and Physical Requirements $7,882,922 $6,918,3

Training $2,426 $26,287,9

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $493,5

Equipment and PPE $19,793 $1,098,5

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $7,477 $372,9

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $68,088 $136,5

Incident Management Svstem Development $11,169 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $8 2

Standard Operating Procedures $68,088 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $82,0

Program Evaluation $0 $728,0

Total $8,330,040 $36,437,4

Emen?:encv Medical Services 

Career Emergency Medical Services ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $31,811 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $1,111,450 $618,0

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $130 6

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $181,679 $765,8

Medical and Physical Requirements $16,623,534 $147,8

Training $12,252 $41,880,5

EP05FE24.086</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

0% 

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $491,8

Equipment and PPE $17,123 $3,799,7

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $37,079 $1,831,5

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $349,724 $708,3

Incident Management System Development $54,501 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $5.769 0

Standard Operating Procedures $349,724 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $8,002,1

Program Evaluation $0 $3,774,4

Total $18,768,878 $67,920,2

Volunteer Emere:encv Medical Services ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $17,222 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $601,819 $334,6

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $70,7

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $98,376 $414 7

Medical and Physical Requirements $9,277,290 $80,0

Training $6,637 $23,516,4

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $266,3

Equipment and PPE $9,266 $2,057,4

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $20,078 $991,7

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $189,748 $384,3

Incident Management System Development $29,511 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $3,210,8

Standard Ooerating Procedures $189.748 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $4 468.5

Program Evaluation $0 $2,050,4

Total $10,439,692 $37,846,5

Mixed Emergency Medical Services ESOs Rule Familiarization $33,485 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $1.169.948 $650.5

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $137,5

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $191,241 $806,1

Medical and Physical Requirements $16,382,449 $155,5

Training $12,897 $41113,3

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $517,7Equipment and PPE $18,024 $3,999,7

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $39,030 $1,927,9

EP05FE24.087</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

0% 

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $368,131 $745 6

Incident Management System Development $57,369 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $6,072,7

Standard Operating Procedures $368,131 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $8 423,3

Program Evaluation $0 $3 973.0

Total $18,640,705 $68,523,5

Emer2encv Medical Services Total 

Rule Familiarization $82,518 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $2,883,217 $1 603,3

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $338,9

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $471,295 $1,986,8

Medical and Physical Requirements $42,283,272 $383,4

Training $31,786 $106,510,3

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $1275,9

Equipment and PPE $44,413 $9,856,9

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $96,187 $4,751,3

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $907,603 $1,838,3

Incident Management System Development $141,381 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $15 052,6

Standard Operating Procedures $907,603 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $20,894,0

Program Evaluation $0 $9,798,0

Total $47,849,276 $174,290,2

Technical Search and Rescue Groups 

Career Technical Search and Rescue ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $1,708 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $61,836 $34,5

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $6,4

WERT and ESQ Risk Manruzement Plan $10.117 $43 0

Medical and Physical Requirements $1,213,988 $8,4

Training $700 $2,453,6

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $27,4

Equipment and PPE $907 $202,3

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $2,061 $101,5

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $21,856 $44,3

Incident Management System Development $3,018 

EP05FE24.088</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

0% 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $2 5

Standard Operating Procedures $21,856 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $25,0

Program Evaluation $0 $255,5

Total $1,338,047 $3,204,8

Volunteer Technical Search and Rescue ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $23,562 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $866,404 $483,5

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $91,8

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $141.929 $603 9

Medical and Physical Requirements $5,358,052 $120,4

Training $9,852 $13,069,6

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $384,2

Equipment and PPE $12,586 $2,854,6

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $28,771 $1419,7

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $315,599 $638,8

Incident Management System Development $42,218 

Emergency Incident Ooerations $0 $31,3

Standard Operating Procedures $315,599 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $334 4Program Evaluation $0 $3,789,1

Total $7,114,572 $23,821,9

Technical Search and Rescue Total 

Rule Familiarization $25,270 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $928,240 $518,0

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $98,2

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $152,046 $646,9

Medical and Physical Requirements $6,572,040 $128,9

Training $10.552 $15 523.2

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $411,6

Equipment and PPE $13,493 $3,057,0

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $30,832 $1,521,3

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $337,455 $683,1

Incident Management Svstem Development $45.236 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $33,8

Standard Operating Procedures $337,455 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $359,4

EP05FE24.089</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

0% 

Pro.gram Evaluation $0 $4,044,7

Total $8,452,619 $27,026,8

Total for All Responder Groups 

Rule Familiarization $287,988 

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency $811,434 $456,8

Service(s) Capability 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $9,417,776 $5,279,4

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $1,320,2

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $1,666,088 $7,063,9

Medical and Physical Requirements $129,015,527 $44,416,3

Training $115,005 $289,146,8

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 $888,2

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $13,966,6

Eauioment and PPE $633,419 $43,651,5

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $343,351 $16,840,7

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $129,303 $234,6

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $3,028,971 $6,175,9

Incident Management System Development $498,684 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $15,763,7

Standard Operating Procedures $3,287,576 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $26,094,3

Program Evaluation $0 $35,540,7

Total $149,235,122 $506,840,3

Source: OSHA. 

Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding. 

EP05FE24.090</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-18. Total Cost Summary by Provision - Organizations Considered Small by SBA/RFA D

Discount Rate 

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

WEREs 

Rule Familiarization $26,567 

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency $951,248 $456,8

Service(s) Capability 

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $86 6

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $154,630 $562,1

Medical and Physical Requirements $142,874 $8,689,7

Training $10,716 $12,139,0

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 $888,2

Eauipment and PPE $85.223 $3 407.9

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $32,006 $1,334,5

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $151,582 $234,6

Incident Management System Development $46,220 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $17 9

Standard Operating Procedures $303.164 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $216,7Program Evaluation $0 $2,756,0

Total $1,904,231 $30,790,4

Fire Departments 

Career Fire Departments 

Rule Familiarization $51,420 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $1,842,835 $887,5

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $223 8

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $298.958 $1.0814

Medical and Physical Requirements $470,617 $21,865,0

Training $20,973 $30,810,4

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $3,443,2

Equipment and PPE $165,668 $7,663,8

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $62J89 $2 585.3

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $576,629 $1,010,1

Incident Management System Development $89,355 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $395,8

Standard Operating Procedures $576,629 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $2 427.9

Program Evaluation $0 $5,162,7

EP05FE24.091</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

Total $4,155,273 $77,557,7

Volunteer Fire Departments 

Rule Familiarization $82,638 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $2,936,930 $1,408,7

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $355 4

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $477.408 $1.725 8

Medical and Physical Requirements $748,927 $34,900,6

Training $33,097 $38,490,4

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $5,484,2

Equipment and PPE $262,920 $12 206 5

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $98,831 $4,123,6

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $919,245 $1,604,4

Incident Management System Development $142,875 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $55,2

Standard Operating Procedures $919,245 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $662,1

Program Evaluation $0 $8,267,6

Total $6,622,117 $109,285,0

Mixed Fire Departments 

Rule Familiarization $28,628 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $1,030,014 $500,2

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $125,8

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $166,480 $605,8

Medical and Phvsical Requirements $264.085 $12 727 4

Training $11.983 $15 127.5

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $1,927,9

Equipment and PPE $93,421 $4,291,1

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $35,077 $1,447,9

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $332,885 $587 1

Incident Management System Development $49.793 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $106,9

Standard Operating Procedures $332,885 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $740,3Program Evaluation $0 $2 981,3

Total $2,345,252 $41,169,7

Fire Departments Total 

Rule Familiarization $162,686 

EP05FE24.092</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $5,809,779 $2 796,6

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $705,1

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $942,846 $3,413,1

Medical and Physical Requirements $1,483,629 $69,493,1

Training $66,053 $84 428,3

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $10 855.5

Equipment and PPE $522,010 $24,161,4

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $196,098 $8,156,9

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $1,828,759 $3,201,7

Incident Management System Development $282,022 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $558,1

Standard Operating Procedures $1,828,759 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $3,830,4

Program Evaluation $0 $16,411,7

Total $13,122,642 $228,012,5

Wildland Firefighting Services 

Career Wildland Firefi2htin2 ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $7,417 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $252,859 $118,5

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $29 9

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $41,511 $147,7

Medical and Physical Requirements $68,854 $5,069,7

Training $2,702 $7,058,4

ESO Facilitv Preparedness $0 $470.4

Equipment and PPE $22.119 $1 047.1

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $8,364 $355,8

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $75,035 $128,3

Incident Management System Development $12,492 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $6 0

Standard Operating Procedures $75.035 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $63,3

Program Evaluation $0 $674,8

Total $566,387 $15,170,4

Wildland Firefie:hting Total 

Rule Familiarization $7,417 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $252,859 $118,5

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $29,9

EP05FE24.093</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $41,511 $147 7

Medical and Physical Requirements $68,854 $5,069,7

Training $2,702 $7,058,4

ESO Facility Preparedness $0 $470,4Equipment and PPE $22,119 $1 047,1

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $8,364 $355,8

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $75,035 $128,3

Incident Management Svstem Development $12,492 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $6,0

Standard Operating Procedures $75,035 

Post Incident Analvsis $0 $63,3

Program Evaluation $0 $674,8

Total $566,387 $15,170,4

Emer2ency Medical Services 

Career Emer2ency Medical Services ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $36,062 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $1,254,284 $595,1

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $125,7

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $204,965 $737,2

Medical and Physical Requirements $330,454 $18 428 3

Training $13,806 $41,735,0

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $473,7

Equipment and PPE $19,357 $3,658,4

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $41,898 $1 764.8

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $392.149 $677 8

Incident Management System Development $61,550 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $4,821,1

Standard Operating Procedures $392,149 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $6 581,8

Program Evaluation $0 $3 580.3

Total $2,746,675 $83,179,8

Volunteer Emergency Medical Services ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $19,539 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $679,494 $322,4

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $68,1

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $111,037 $399,4

Medical and Physical Requirements $180,017 $10,334,8

EP05FE24.094</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

Training $7,481 $23 464,4

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $256,6Equipment and PPE $10,481 $1,981,9

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $22,701 $956,1

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $212,776 $367 8

Incident Management System Development $33.346 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $2,667,7

Standard Operating Procedures $212,776 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $3,653,5

Program Evaluation $0 $1 944,0

Total $1,489,648 $46,417,3

Mixed Emer2ency Medical Services ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $37,960 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $1,320,299 $626,4

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $132 3

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $215,753 $776,0

Medical and Physical Requirements $344,791 $18,310,8

Training $14,533 $41,091,5

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $498,6

Equipment and PPE $20,376 $3 850,9

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $44,103 $1,857,7

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $412,789 $713,5

Incident Management System Development $64,789 

Emergency Incident Ooerations $0 $5.074 8

Standard Operating Procedures $412.789 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $6,928,2

Program Evaluation $0 $3,768,7

Total $2,888,181 $83,630,2

Emer2ency Medical Services Total 

Rule Familiarization $93.561 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $3,254,077 $1,544,0

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $326,2

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $531,756 $1,912,8

Medical and Physical Requirements $855,261 $47 074 1

Training $35,820 $106,291,0

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $1,229,0

Equipment and PPE $50,214 $9,491,4

EP05FE24.095</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $108,702 $4 578,7

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $1,017,714 $1,759,2

Incident Management System Development $159,685 Emergency Incident Operations $0 $12,563,7

Standard Operating Procedures $1 017,714 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $17.163 6

Program Evaluation $0 $9,293,2

Total $7,124,505 $213,227,4

Technical Search and Rescue Groups 

Career Technical Search and Rescue ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $1,855 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $67,132 $32,0

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $5,9

WERT and ESQ Risk Mana2ement Plan $10,978 $39,7

Medical and Physical Requirements $16,908 $721 6

Training $762 $1,210,3

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $25,4

Equipment and PPE $985 $187,4

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $2,239 $94,0

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $23,615 $40 8

Incident Management System Development $3,275 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $2,4

Standard Operating Procedures $23,615 

Post Incident Analvsis $0 $23 2

Program Evaluation $0 $234.7

Total $151,364 $2,617,9

Volunteer Technical Search and Rescue ESOs 

Rule Familiarization $26,401 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $970,789 $462,1

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $87 8

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $159,029 $577,2

Medical and Physical Requirements $233,081 $5,146,9

Training $11,039 $12,491,8

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $367,2

Eauipment and PPE $14,102 $2,728,4

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $32,238 $1,357,0

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $353,622 $610,6

EP05FE24.096</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

Incident Management Svstem Development $47.305 

Emergencv Incident Operations $0 $29,9

Standard Operating Procedures $353,622 

Post Incident Analvsis $0 $319,6

Program Evaluation $0 $3 62L6

Total $2,201,227 $27,800,7

Technical Search and Rescue Total 

Rule Familiarization $28,256 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $1,037,920 $494,1

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $93 7

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $170,007 $617,0

Medical and Physical Requirements $249,989 $5,868,6

Training $11,800 $13,702,2

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 $392,6Equipment and PPE $15.088 $2 915.8

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $34,477 $1,451,1

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $377,237 $651,5

Incident Management Svstem Development $50,580 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $32,3

Standard Operating Procedures $377.237 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $342,9Program Evaluation $0 $3,856,4

Total $2,352,590 $30,418,6

Total for All Responder Groups 

Rule Familiarization $318.488 

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency $951,248 $456,8

Service(s) Capabilitv 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $10,354,636 $4,953,3

Team Member and Responder Participation $0 $124L7

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $1,840,749 $6,652,9

Medical and Physical Requirements $2,800,607 $136,195,4

Training $127,092 $223,619,1

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 $888,2

ESQ Faeilitv Preparedness $0 $12 947.7

Equipment and PPE $694,652 $41,023,7

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $379,647 $15,877,1

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $151,582 $234,6

EP05FE24.097</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

One-Time Annualized, Annual 

3% 

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $3,298,745 $5,740,8

Incident Management System Development $550,999 

Emergency Incident Operations $0 $13,178,1

Standard Operating Procedures $3,601,910 

Post Incident Analysis $0 $21,617,1Program Evaluation $0 $32,992,3

Total $25,070,355 $517,619,6

Source: OSHA. 

Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding. 
7952 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Insurance Adjustments for Medical 

Exam Costs 

OSHA acknowledges that insurance 

companies likely cover a portion of the 

medical costs required by the proposed 

rule. For this analysis, OSHA assumed 

that all career responders would be 

covered under an employer-sponsored 

medical insurance plan. To determine 

the percentage of responders at 

volunteer and mixed departments with 

medical insurance coverage, OSHA used 

data from BLS’s (2023) National 

Compensation Survey—Benefits 

program, which suggests that 66 percent 

of private industry workers with access 

to employer-sponsored medical 

insurance plans choose to participate. 

Costs were adjusted for minimum 

medical exams (for both WERT 

members and ESO responders), 

additional heart screenings (for both 

WERT members and ESO responders) 

and expanded medical exams (only 

required for ESO responders). These 

costs are used in Chapter VI: Economic 

Feasibility Analysis to better reflect the 

costs that will actually be borne directly 

by affected entities. Insurance-adjusted 

costs for the medical and physical 

requirements provision are presented in 

Table VII–C–19. Total costs with the 

insurance-adjusted medical and 

physical requirements costs are shown 

in Table VII–C–20. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

EP05FE24.098</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-19. Insurance-Adjusted Medical and Physical Requirements Costs -All Organizations, 3 P

Emen?:ency Response Service Sector One-Time Annualized, 3% Annual 

WEREs $142,874 $140,416 

Career Fire Departments $7.707 602 $1.177.334 

Volunteer Fire Departments $16,327,508 $998,272 

Mixed Fire Departments $6,734,327 $2,204,320 

Total Fire Departments $30,769,437 $4,379,926 

Career Wildland Fire Services $1,575,064 $44,402 

Volunteer Wildland Fire Services $2.078 413 $180.211 

Total Wildland Fire Services $3,653,477 $224,613 

Career Emergency Medical Services $3,562,892 $147,807 

Volunteer Emergency Medical Services $4,501,581 $80,085 

Mixed Emergency Medical Services $7 965 807 $155,586 

Total Emergency Medical Services $16,030,280 $383,479 

Career Technical Search and Rescue Groups $251,438 $8,489 

Volunteer Technical Search and Rescue Groups $2,757,816 $120,445 

Total Technical Search and Rescue Groups $3,009,254 $128,935 

All Responder Groups $53,605.322 $5,257.368 

Sources: OSHA based on BLS, 2023. 

Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding. 

EP05FE24.099</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-C-20. Total Costs with Insurance-Adjusted Medical and Physical Requirements Costs -All O

Discount Rate 

Emergency Response Service Sector One-Time Annualized, 3% Annual 

WEREs $1,904,231 $22,241,138 

Career Fire Departments $12.193 278 $96.569.115 

Volunteer Fire Departments $22,228,312 $76,767,966 

Mixed Fire Departments $9.036 199 $41.042.325 

Total Fire Departments $43,457,789 $214,379,407 

Career Wildland Fire Services $2,088,872 $17,322,954 

Volunteer Wildland Fire Services $2.088.763 $12.420.739 

Total Wildland Fire Services $4,177,635 $29,743,693 

Career Emergency Medical Services $6,077,889 $67,920,210 

Volunteer Emergency Medical Services $5,864,272 $37,846,526 

Mixed Emergency Medical Services $10,613,173 $68,523,520 

Total Emereencv Medical Services $22.555.334 $174.290.256 

Career Technical Search and Rescue Groups $396,873 $3,204,897 

Volunteer Technical Search and Rescue Groups $4,816,994 $23,821,962 

Total Technical Search and Rescue Groups $5,213,867 $27,026,859 

All Responder Groups $77,308,855 $467,681,352 

Sources: OSHA based on BLS, 2023. 

Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7955 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

References 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2023). 

Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation—December 2022 

(Released March 17, 2023). Available at 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

ecec.htm#:∼:text=

Total%20employer%20compensation

%20costs%20for,and%20

accounted%20for%2029.5%20percent. 

(Accessed June 10, 2023) 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2023). 

Occupational Employment and Wage 

Statistics—May 2022 (Released April 27, 

2023). Available at https://www.bls.gov/ 

oes/#data. (Accessed May 16, 2023) 

California Office of the State Fire Marshal 

(CA OSFM). (2019a). Fire Fighter 1. 

Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/ 

divisions/state-fire-training/cfstesprofessional-certification/fire-fighter-1- 

2019/. (Accessed September 6, 2023) 

California Office of the State Fire Marshal 

(CA OSFM). (2019b). Fire Fighter 2. 

Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/ 

divisions/state-fire-training/cfstesprofessional-certification/fire-fighter-2- 

2019/. (Accessed September 6, 2023) 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC). (2023). CDC Adult Vaccine Price 

List. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/ 

vaccines/programs/vfc/awardees/ 

vaccine-management/price-list/ 

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 http://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) 

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 http://

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7956 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

52U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration. Fatality and 

Catastrophe Investigation Summaries. Available at: 

https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/ 

accidentsearch.html. 

stem from reductions in the number of 

fatal and nonfatal injuries and incidents 

that occur on duty, work-related 

suicides that would be prevented by the 

standard, and reductions in the 

incidence of illnesses and subsequent 

mortality among affected employees. In 

this benefits analysis, OSHA estimated 

and quantified the benefits associated 

with the avoidance of certain fatal and 

nonfatal incidents involving emergency 

responders if the safety requirements of 

this standard were to be implemented. 

OSHA also estimated and quantified the 

benefits of reducing the number of 

deaths by suicide among responders 

when the behavioral health and 

wellness components of the proposed 

standard are applied. In addition, OSHA 

estimated and quantified the benefits 

from the reduction in deaths from 

certain cancers due to increased 

screening for lung, colorectal, and breast 

cancers. Although incidence and death 

for other types of cancer may be reduced 

due to the more general medical 

evaluation and surveillance provisions 

of this standard, OSHA was unable find 

data to support a specific quantitative 

impact on the incidence or mortality of 

these other types of cancer for 

responders. 

As discussed below, OSHA estimates 

that the proposed Emergency Response 

standard would reduce fatal and 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. 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7957 

Each Fatality and Investigation 

Summary provides a narrative of the 

fatal incident and includes information 

such as the characteristics of the 

worksite; the employee task or activity 

performed at the time of the incident; 

the equipment used; a brief description 

of the injuries sustained by those 

involved in the accident; and other 

pertinent information surrounding the 

incident, including any worksite 

hazards present at the time of an 

individual’s death. OSHA used these 

data to develop an informed 

understanding of the workplace 

fatalities frequently occurring among the 

emergency response professions, to 

identify common hazards present in 

worksites at which an emergency 

responder fatality has occurred, and to 

develop an estimate of the number of 

fatalities that would be addressed by at 

least one provision of the proposed 

Emergency Response standard. 

To identify those fatalities that would 

be within the scope of the proposed 

rule, OSHA performed a query of the 

OIS database over a 15-year period 

(2007 through 2021), using keywords 

associated with emergency response 

activities (examples of relevant 

keywords include ‘‘fire,’’ ‘‘emergency,’’ 

‘‘respond’’). From this initial dataset of 

several thousand fatalities, the summary 

abstracts of each accident were 

individually reviewed to determine if 

the death could be classified as relevant 

to the scope of the proposed rule. For 

each fatality determined to fall within 

the scope of the proposed rule, OSHA 

collected descriptive information 

relating to the manner of death, the 

assigned task at the time of death, the 

cause of death, and any workplace 

hazards present at the time of death, as 

identified by OSHA inspectors during 

the fatality investigation. OSHA 

identified 273 fatal incidents in the OIS 

database that involved responders or 

team members as defined in the 

proposed standard and emergency 

response activities that are within the 

scope of the proposed rule. 

As shown in Table VII–1, the leading 

cause of death among emergency 

responders was attributed to struck by/ 

crushing/collision injuries, 26 percent 

of all fatalities in the OIS database. 

Sixty-one percent of all struck by, 

crushing, and collision incidents were 

due to vehicle accidents. The most 

common contributory factor of these 

accidents was the unsafe operation of 

emergency response vehicles and 

equipment. Heart attacks accounted for 

an additional 20 percent of all fatalities 

in the OIS database, followed by burns, 

asphyxiations, and falls. Fatal accidents 

related to burns, falls and asphyxiations 

mainly occurred at the scene of an 

emergency during participation in 

response activities. 

OSHA did a further analysis of the 

273 emergency response-related 

fatalities in the OIS database to develop 

an estimate of how many might have 

been prevented if at least one of the 

provisions of the proposed standard had 

been followed. The details surrounding 

the fatalities were carefully examined 

and compared with the requirements of 

each provision of the proposed 

standard. Contributory hazards, as 

identified by the investigating OSHA 

inspector in both an accident’s 

descriptive summary abstract and cited 

safety standards, were reviewed to 

determine the number and frequency of 

workplace hazards present at emergency 

response-related fatalities. If the 

identified workplace hazards present at 

the time of a fatality were determined to 

be addressed by the safety requirements 

of one or more of the emergency 

response provisions, then that fatality 

was classified as preventable. On the 

other hand, if the circumstances 

surrounding a fatality could not be 

matched with any requirements of the 

proposed standard, then that incident 

was categorized as not preventable by 

the standard. Of the 273 emergencyresponse-related fatalities in the OIS 

database, 77.7 percent or 212 were 

identified as being preventable if at least 

one of the provisions of the proposed 

standard had been followed. See 

example below. 

Example: 

Inspection Nr: 310966023 

Event: 06/18/2007 

Fire Department Employees Die of 

Smoke Inhalation 

On June 18, 2007, nine employees of 

the City of Charleston Fire Department 

were engaged in interior structural 

firefighting in a furniture store at Sofa 

Super Store, 1807 Savannah Highway, 

Charleston, SC. The store had been 

converted from a 1960s era grocery store 

with a metal truss roof system. The fire 

and smoke spread rapidly, and they 

became lost and separated from their 

hoses. With air in air-packing running 

out, they could not find their way out. 

They died of smoke inhalation. 

From the investigation report, OSHA 

inspectors identified four hazards 

present at the workplace, including 

inadequate inspection or maintenance 

of the workplace or equipment, 

inadequate training, and inadequate or 

incorrect use of personal protective 

equipment (PPE). OSHA determined 

that the requirements in proposed 

paragraphs (c), (d), (h), and (k) could 

have prevented this fatal incident. 

Next, OSHA further developed 

estimates to determine what percentage 

of preventable incidents related to 

emergency response activities (for 

example, the 77.7 percent or 212 out of 

273 identified in the OIS database) 

would actually be avoided by the 

standard, treating non-heart attacks and 

heart attacks differently. Table VII–2 

shows the number of fatalities in the 

OIS database the agency estimates could 

have been addressed by each major 

provision category (a fatal incident may 

be covered by more than one safety 

provision of the proposed standard). 

Because emergency response operations 

are highly unpredictable and dangerous 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7958 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

53Natural 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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.100</GPH>

Table VII-1. Estimated Number of Fatal Incidents in O1S Database by Nature of 

Fatality, 2007-2021 

Number of Percent of Average Annual 

Nature of Fatality Fatalities Total Fatalities Fatalities 

Asphvxia 28 10.3 1.9 

Bum/Scald (Heat) 39 14.3 2.6 

Cancer 1 0.4 0.1 

Chemical Exposure 1 0.4 0.1 

Cut/Laceration 1 0.4 0.1 

Drowning 12 4.4 0.8 

Explosion 9 3.3 0.6 

Fall 28 10.3 1.9 

Heart Attack 55 20.1 3.7 

Heat Exhaustion 7 2.6 0.5 

Natural Causes53 2 0.7 0.1 

Smoke Exposure 1 0.4 0.1 

Struck Bv /Crushing/Collision 72 26.4 4.8 

Stroke 1 0.4 0.1 

Suicide 1 0.4 0.1 

Unknown/Unspecified 54 13 4.8 0.9 

Violence 2 0.7 0.1 

Total Fatalities 273 100 18.2 

Source: OSHA's Occupational Safety and Health Information System (OIS). Note: Totals may not equal 

sums due to rounding. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7959 

55See https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ 

nutritionsource/disease-prevention/cardiovasculardisease/preventing-cvd/ based on Chiuve, SE, 

Rexrode, K.M., D.S, Logroscino, G., Manson, J.E., 

Rimm, E.B. (2008). Primary prevention of stroke by 

healthy lifestyle. Circulation. 118:947–54 and 

Chiuve, SE, Fung, T.T., Rexrode, K.M., et al. (2011). 

Adherence to a low-risk, healthy lifestyle and risk 

of sudden cardiac death among women. JAMA. 

306:62–9. The Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention’s ‘‘Prevent Heart Disease.’’ Available at 

https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/prevention.htm. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

OSHA treats heart attack prevention 

differently. As mentioned earlier, heart 

attacks made up 20 percent or 55 of the 

273 emergency response-related 

fatalities in the OIS database. Thirty-one 

percent of the 55 heart attack fatalities 

occurred on worksites of an emergency 

(See Table VII–3). Twenty-seven percent 

occurred onsite while participating in 

training exercises. Another 15 percent 

occurred on-site during non-emergency 

activities such as maintenance work, 

and 15 percent of heart attacks 

happened less than 24 hours after 

participating in a work-related activity. 

The remainder were unspecified. 

Many studies show that following a 

healthy lifestyle including getting 

regular physical activity, maintaining a 

healthy weight, and healthy sleep habits 

may prevent many cases of sudden 

cardiac death.55 A number of provisions 

in the proposed rule—the medical and 

physical, fitness for duty, and health 

and fitness program requirements— 

focus on components of a healthy 

lifestyle for emergency responders as 

well as fitness for duty requirements 

and medical monitoring that would be 

expected to prevent some fatal heart 

attacks. While the proposed standard 

would not prevent all fatal heart attacks, 

based on a review of the circumstances 

surrounding the deaths caused by heart 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.101</GPH> EP05FE24.102</GPH>

Table VII-2: Fatalities in O1S Database Addressed by Provisions of the Proposed 

Rule (Excluding Heart Attacks) 

Emergency Response Number of 

Provision Provision Description Fatalities 

Establishment of the ERP and Emergency 

1910.156 (c/d) Services Capability 56 

1910.156 (e) Team Member and Responder Participation - 1910.156 (f) Risk Management Plan 43 

1910.156 (h) Training 41 

1910.156 (i/i) Facility Preparedness - 1910.156(k) Equipment and PPE 59 

1910.156 (1) Vehicle Preparedness and Operation 29 

1910.156(m)/(n) Pre-Incident Planning 1 

1910.156 (o) Incident Management System Development - 1910.156(p) Emergency Incident Operations 11 

1910.156(q) Standard Operating Procedures 47 

Total Number of Instances a Provision was Aoolicable 287 

Total Number of Fatalities: 2007 to 2021 273 

Total Number of Fatalities with at Least One Provision Applied (77.7%) 212 

Table VII-3. Estimated Number of Fatal Heart Attacks in O1S Database by Activity, 

2007-2021 

Number of 

Activity Fatalities 

Accident Response, Onsite of an Emergency 1 

Emergency Response, Onsite of an Emergency 2 

Fire Fighting, Onsite of an Emergency 14 

Fire Fighting, Onsite, Non-Emergency 1 

Maintenance Work- Onsite, Non-Emergency 2 

Off Duty, Less than 24 Hours of Work-Related Activities 8 

On Dutv, Onsite, Non-Emergency 5 

Training Exercise, Onsite, Non-Emergency 15 

Unspecified 7 

Total Fatal Heart Attacks 55 

Source: OSHA, OIS 
7960 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

56https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/ 

Data-research-and-tools/Emergency-Responders/ 

Firefighter-fatalities-in-the-United-States. 

57https://data.bls.gov/gqt/ProfileData. 

58Hegg-Deloye, S., Brassard, P., Prairie, J., 

Larouche, D., Jauvin, N., Poirier, P., Tremblay, A., 

Corbeil, P. (2015). Prevalence of risk factors for 

cardiovascular disease in paramedics. International 

archives of occupational and environmental health, 

88(7), 973–980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-015- 

1028-z. 

59As 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). 

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 

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 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7961 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.103</GPH> EP05FE24.104</GPH>

Table VII-4. Leading Causes of Non-Fatal Injuries to Firefighters with Lost Time 

from Work, 2007-2021 

Average Percent Estimated Estimated 

of Total Lost Injuries by Injuries, Annual 

Time Injuries Average Average 

Cause of Injury Percent of Lost 

Time In iuries 

Falls, iumps slips 22.8 49 025 3,268 

Overexertion, strains 27.0 58,056 3,870 

Contact with object 10.8 23,222 1,548 

Struck bv an obiect 6.0 12,901 860 

Extreme weather 3.1 6 451 430 

Exposure to fire products 11.5 24 728 1,649 

Exposure to chemicals or 9.2 19,782 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. 

Table VII-5. Non-Fatal Injuries to EMTs and Paramedics, All Ownerships, 2007-

2020 

Event or Exposure Number of Percent of Total Average Annual 

Injuries Injuries Injuries 

Contact with objects 10,570 9.8 755 

Falls, slips, trips 14,700 13.6 1,050 

Overexertion and bodily reaction 57,790 53.6 4,128 

Exposure to harmful substance or 

environment 7,010 6.5 501 

Transportation incidents 7,540 7.0 539 

Fires and explosions 260 0.2 19 

Violence and other injuries by 

persons or animals 4,720 4.4 337 

Other 4,640 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. 
7962 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

61Available at: https://www.ffbha.org/ff-emssuicide-deaths-by-year-type/. Validated and verified 

by Firefighter Behavioral Health Alliance. 

62OSHA communication with an FBHA 

representative on May 1, 2023. 

63OSHA 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. 

64A 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. 

65U.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. 

66Lee, 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). 

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. 

IV. Benefits From Preventing Some 

Firefighter and EMT Suicides 

OSHA preliminarily finds that the 

behavioral health and wellness 

resources provisions in the proposed 

standard would benefit responders by 

reducing the number of deaths by 

suicide. Based on Firefighter Behavioral 

Health Alliance (FBHA) data, 1,348 

firefighters and EMTs died by suicide 

between 2007 and 2020, which is an 

average of 96 deaths per year.61 FBHA 

estimates that about 17 percent of these 

deaths occurred during retirement, so 83 

percent, or approximately 77, of the 

annual deaths by suicide occurred 

among active duty responders (64 

firefighters and 13 EMTs).62 63 This 

estimate is adjusted to account only for 

the proportion of firefighters and EMTs 

covered by the proposed rule, yielding 

an estimated 43 annual deaths among 

covered responders (31 firefighters and 

12 EMTs). OSHA was unable to find 

definitive evidence to support a specific 

reduction to these figures resulting from 

the implementation of the provisions of 

this proposed standard; however, based 

on available evidence the agency 

estimates that a 20 percent reduction is 

a realistic, even arguably low estimate.64

The expected number of avoided deaths 

by suicide is therefore estimated to be 

8.5 per year. Based on the value of a 

statistical life (VSL) developed by 

DOT,65 the VSL estimate for 2022 is 

$12.5 million, which translates to an 

annual benefit from the reduction in 

deaths by suicide in Year 1 of $106.8 

million. OSHA expects, but could not 

quantify, additional benefits from the 

reduction in adverse behavioral health 

outcomes identified in health effects 

(stress, depression, PTSD, anxiety, etc.). 

V. Cancer Cases in Firefighters 

Several studies have found evidence 

that firefighters are more likely to 

develop certain types of cancer 

compared to the general population. 

OSHA did not estimate benefits related 

to avoided cancer cases or fatalities 

among other types of responders due to 

insufficient data for other types of 

emergency responders. To the extent 

that medical evaluations and physical 

fitness requirements prevent cancer 

cases or fatalities in other types of 

responders, the estimated benefits of 

this proposed standard may be 

underestimated. Researchers have 

investigated whether firefighters have 

higher or lower rates of incidences or 

mortality for various types of cancer 

compared to the general population. 

Commonly considered cancers are those 

for which firefighters may have greater 

risks due to occupational exposures to 

carcinogenic substances. In order to 

estimate the benefits of reduced cancer 

fatalities other than those being 

screened for and discussed previously, 

OSHA primarily used the estimates of 

the incidence rates of cancer for 

firefighters relative to the general 

population from Lee et al. (2020).66 Lee 

et al. provided estimates for firefighters 

for melanoma, thyroid, prostate, and 

testicular cancers. OSHA estimated 

cases of buccal cavity and pharynx 

cancer based on Daniels et al. (2014, 

Document ID 0187) estimates of 

incidence.67

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7963 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.105</GPH>

Table VII-6. Estimated Annual Incidents of Cancer in Firefighters, by Type of 

Cancer 

Public, State Plan, and Private Fire Departments [a] 

Cancer Type Career Paid per Call Volunteer Total 

Breast fbl 6.4 2.4 0.2 8.9 

Colorectal r Cl 26.2 9.8 0.6 36.7 

Lung (using ACS 

w/adiustment) f dl 27.7 10.4 0.7 38.7 

Prostate f el 80.4 30.1 84.8 195.3 

Testicular ffl 19.0 7.1 20.1 46.2 

Buccal cavity and pharynx 

f _g l 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 

Total 351.3 131.7 308.7 791.7 

[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 

69Nishihara, 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. 

70de 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. 

71Seely, 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. 

72See section VI.2.2.1 for more detail. 73 Inmate firefighters were included only in state 

plan states that cover volunteer firefighters. Due to 

lack of more appropriate data, OSHA assumed the 

same demographic distribution as the firefighters 

for the inmate firefighters. In the benefits 

estimations, OSHA used the lower estimate of 

inmate firefighters when numbers varied by source. 74U.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). 

BILLING CODE 4150–26–C 

VI. Benefits From Reducing Cancer

Fatalities of Firefighters Through

Screening

OSHA preliminarily finds that the 

proposed rule would result in benefits 

in the form of avoided firefighter 

fatalities due to increased screening for 

lung, colorectal, and breast cancers. 

Three recent articles provided estimates 

of the effects of screening on fatalities 

due to certain types of cancer. Nishihara 

et al. (2013) followed almost 89,000 

participants over 22 years and measured 

a 53 percent reduction in mortality from 

proximal colon cancer with regular 

colonoscopies.69 Among men, de 

Koning et al. (2020) found that 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 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.106</GPH>

incidence and mortality among firefighters." International Journal of Cancer. 145:2639-2646. 

http://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. 

http://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. 63:285-

299. https://doi.org/10. 1002/ajim.23086 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7965 

75While 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. 76See Lee S J, Boscardin W J, Stijacic-Cenzer I, 

Conell-Price J, O’Brien S, Walter L C et al. Time lag 

to benefit after screening for breast and colorectal 

cancer: meta-analysis of survival data from the 

United States, Sweden, United Kingdom, and 

Denmark BMJ 2013; 346:e8441 doi:10.1136/ 

bmj.e8441 as an example of research findings that 

may be applicable. 

77National Cancer Institute. August 2023. Breast 

Cancer Screening. Available at https://progress

report.cancer.gov/detection/breast_cancer. 

Accessed October 19, 2023. 

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

For lung cancer, OSHA additionally 

restricted the subpopulation of 

firefighters to males due to the lack of 

a statistically significant difference 

found in de Koning et al. (2020) for 

females (de Koning 2020, Docket No. 

0377). Because the results were 

expressed in terms of deaths per 1,000 

person-years, OSHA could directly 

apply the difference in the findings of 

0.8, the difference between 2.5 deaths 

per 1,000 person-years for patients who 

get CT scans and 3.3 deaths per 1,000 

person-years for patients who do not get 

screenings, to the current number of 

cases, 22.9 (Table VII–9). Thus, OSHA 

estimates that 9.7 fatalities from lung 

cancer would be avoided annually 

starting in Year 10 by the proposed rule. 

For breast cancer, in addition to 

restricting the subpopulation of 

firefighters to females ages 50 and older, 

OSHA also assumed that these women 

would already be getting mammograms 

at the same rate as the general 

population. According to the National 

Cancer Institute, about 76 percent of 

women aged 50–74 years had a 

mammogram within the past 2 years.77

The high rates of screening already 

being performed likely contributed to 

the reduced benefits observed for this 

screening activity. Seely and Alhasan 

(2018) conclude that breast cancer 

mortality is reduced by 40 percent in 

women 40–74 years of age who get 

screened (Seely (2018), Docket No. 

0379). This result seems to be strongly 

driven by a study that followed women 

from 1990 to 2009, so OSHA 

approximated an annual reduction in 

deaths of 2.1 percent (0.40/19 years). 

Table VII–9 also contains the value of 

these avoided fatalities expected to 

begin in Year 10. 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.107</GPH>

Table VII-9. Benefits of Firefighter Cancer Fatalities Prevented 

b S 1y creen1n • •, M·n I IOnS • 2022$ 

Current Cases Current Annual Value of 

Source Cases Prevented Annual Cases Annual Cases 

Cases Prevented Prevented 

50 Year Period Year 10 and later [a] 

Cancer fatalities-firefighters 

Colo rectal 792 19 15.8 0.4 $4.8 

Lung 1,143 487 22.9 9.7 $121.8 

Breast 16 0.3 0.3 0.0 $0.1 

Total Fatalities 1,952 507 39.0 10.1 $126.7 

Average annualized value over 50 years 

3 percent discount rate $138.98 

7 percent discount rate $97.04 

[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 

78Muegge, 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. 

79Pinkerton, 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. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2019-105962. 

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). 

81U.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). 

82U.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. 

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 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7967 

83 Viscusi, K. and E.P Gentry. (2015). ‘‘The value 

of a statistical life for transportation regulations: A 

test of the benefits transfer methodology.’’ Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 51:53–77. https://doi.org/ 

10.1007/s11166-015-9219-2. 

VIII. Summary of Quantified Benefits 

Table VII–11 presents a summary of 

the quantified benefits of the proposed 

standard in reducing emergency 

responder fatalities on the job, 

firefighter and EMT suicides, and 

firefighter fatalities from certain types of 

cancer. The monetization of the 

reduction in these fatalities is based on 

the VSL developed by DOT. OSHA 

applied the estimates of the cost of 

injuries from the Viscusi and Gentry 

(2015).83 In total, OSHA estimated that 

the proposed standard would prevent an 

average of approximately 54 fatalities 

and 11,015 nonfatal injuries per year, 

with an associated value of $1,864.9 

million in 2022 dollars. Assuming these 

annual benefits would continue for 50 

years, the average annualized value of 

the benefits would be $2,628.5 million 

using a 3 percent discount rate and 

$2,262.3 million using a 7 percent 

discount rate. 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.108</GPH>

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 

Year 20 

Prostate 

Fatalities prevented 2.3 0.8 2.4 5.5 

Value (millions $2022) $28.3 $10.6 $29.9 $68.8 

Testicular 

Fatalities prevented 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 

Value (millions $2022) $1.7 $0.6 $1.8 $4.1 

Buccal cavity and pharynx 

Fatalities prevented 2.8 1.1 3.0 6.9 

Value (millions $2022) $35.5 $13.3 $37.4 $86.2 

Thyroid 

Fatalities prevented 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.6 

Value (millions $2022) $3.1 $1.2 $3.3 $7.5 

Melanoma 

Fatalities prevented 1.5 0.5 1.5 3.5 

Value (millions $2022) $18.1 $6.8 $19.1 $44.1 

Total 

Fatalities prevented 6.9 2.6 7.3 16.9 

Value (millions $2022) $86.7 $32.5 $91.5 $210.6 

A vera2e Annualized Over 50 Years (Millions $2022) 

3 percent discount rate $67.3 $25.2 $71.1 $163.6 

7 percent discount rate $36.3 $13.6 $38.3 $88.3 

Note: Totals may not match the sums due to rounding. 
7968 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

84The 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, 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

IX. Non-Quantified Benefits for 

Emergency Responders 

(i) Reduction in the Incidence of Cancer 

OSHA believes that the proposed 

standard would reduce both the number 

of fatalities due to cancer and the 

incidence of cancer among firefighters. 

As previously explained, OSHA 

believes that research exists that can be 

used to estimate the reduction in 

fatalities but an estimate of the 

reduction in the number of total cancer 

cases would be more speculative. 

Additionally, OSHA was unable to 

develop a monetary value of avoided 

cases of non-fatal cancer as empirically 

validated as that for the fatal cases. 

Nonetheless, the agency welcomes 

comment on this issue for potential 

inclusion of these benefits in the Final 

Economic Analysis. 

As previously noted, several studies 

have found evidence that firefighters are 

more likely to develop certain types of 

cancer compared to the general 

population. Based on general 

population incidence rates from the 

ACS with adjustments as determined in 

the studies referenced above, OSHA 

estimated the number of cancer cases in 

firefighters. (Table VII–6).84 OSHA 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.109</GPH>

Table VII-11. Summary of Benefits, Millions 2022$ 

Average 

Annualized 

Source Current Cases Value, 3 

Cases Prevented Percent 

Discount 

Rate 

50 Year Period 

Suicides-firefighters and EMTs 2,179 436 $154.8 

Safety-Related fatal injuries-firefighters and 

EMTs 2,049 1,025 $363.9 

Health-Related fatal injuries-firefighters 1,546 309 $109.8 

Cancer fatalities-firefighters 

Colorectal 792 15 $5.2 

Lung 1,143 390 $133.7 

Breast 16 0.277 $0.1 

Prostate 1,376 165 $53.4 

Testicular 82 10 $3.2 

Buccal cavity and pharvnx 1,724 207 $67.0 

Thyroid 150 18 $5.8 

Melanoma 882 106 $34.3 

Total Fatalities 11,939 2,681 $931.2 

Nonfatal in.iuries-EMTs and paramedics [al 384,700 192,350 $592.8 

Nonfatal in.iuries-firefi2hters [al 716,750 358,375 $1,104.5 

Avera2e annualized value over 50 years 

3 oercent discount rate $2.628.5 

7 oercent discount rate $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 166-015-

9219-2, inflated to 2022 dollars using the GDP deflator. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7969 

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). 

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 

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. http:// 

dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.907. 

Chiuve, S.E., Rexrode, K.M., D. S, 

Logroscino, G., Manson, J.E., Rimm, E.B. 

(2008). Primary prevention of stroke by 

healthy lifestyle. Circulation. 118:947– 

54. http://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. http://

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/s00420-015- 

1028-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. http://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). 

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. 

http://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/s11166-015- 

9219-2. 

Witt, K. et al. (2017). Effectiveness of suicide 

prevention programs for emergency and 

protective services employees: A 

systematic review and meta-analysis. 

American Journal of Industrial Medicine 

60(4):394–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 

ajim.22676. 

Appendix A. NIOSH Firefighter 

Fatalities 

While OSHA is relying on data from the 

OIS and from NFPA to estimate the safety 

benefits of the rule, NIOSH has also 

conducted extensive analyses of firefighter 

injuries that parallel OSHA’s analysis and 

OSHA believes these merit summarizing 

here. The agency finds these largely parallel 

the analysis of the OIS and NFPA data in 

terms of the distribution of the cause and 

nature of the fatal injuries. However, OSHA 

decided against using the NIOSH data to 

estimate the number of firefighter fatalities 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7970 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

85https://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/. 

due to issues in identifying volunteers and 

which fatalities occurred in States with 

OSHA-approved State Plans. 

Between 2007 and 2021, NIOSH reported 

a total of 1,490 firefighter on-duty fatalities, 

an average of 99.33 firefighter fatalities per 

year.85 The definition used by NIOSH to 

categorize a fatality as ‘‘on-duty’’ was 

provided by the USFA. The USFA defines 

‘‘on duty’’ as ‘‘being at the scene of an alarm, 

whether a fire or non-fire incident; being 

enroute while responding to or returning 

from an alarm; performing other assigned 

duties such as training, maintenance, public 

education, inspection, investigations, court 

testimony and fundraising; and being on call, 

under orders or on standby duty other than 

at home or at the individual’s place of 

business.’’ The USFA also states that 

‘‘fatalities that occur at a firefighter’s home 

may be counted if the actions of the 

firefighter at the time of injury involved 

firefighting or rescue’’ (USFA 2022). 

During this 15-year period, the leading 

cause of injury was stress/over-exertion, 

making up nearly 50 percent of total 

fatalities. The USFA places all firefighter 

fatalities that are cardiac or cerebrovascular 

in nature in this category due to the 

strenuous and physical demands of the work. 

Of the 741 stress and over-exertion fatalities, 

665 were heart attacks. NIOSH cites 

undiagnosed medical conditions such as 

cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, and 

obesity as contributing factors to these 

fatalities. 

Vehicle accidents were the second leading 

cause of firefighter deaths in the NIOSH data, 

accounting for 14 percent of total fatalities. 

More than 50 percent of the 209 vehicle 

accident fatalities reported occurred when 

firefighters were responding to an emergency. 

In many of these cases, firefighters were 

fatally injured when fire apparatus collided 

with roadway objects or overturned from 

traveling at speeds unsafe for vehicle 

maneuvering, especially during unfavorable 

weather and road conditions. In addition, 

firefighters’ failure to wear seatbelts and lack 

of experience operating fire apparatus were 

also frequently contributors to these fatal 

incidents. 

The leading nature of these fatal injuries or 

the primary physical characteristic that 

resulted in the death of these firefighters was 

heart attacks, accounting for 45 percent of 

total fatalities, followed by bodily trauma and 

asphyxiation, at 24 and 7 percent, 

respectively. 

Appendix B 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

EP05FE24.110</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table B-1. Summary of Benefits Sensitivity Analysis, Millions $2022 

20 Percent Reduction 35 Percent Reduction 

Current Average Value of Average Value of 

Source Annual Annual Average Annual Average 

Cases Cases Annual Cases Annual 

Prevented Cases Prevented Cases 

Prevented Prevented 

Year 1 

Suicides-firefighters and EMTs 43.6 8.7 $109.0 15.3 $190.7 

Safety-Related fatal incidents-firefighters and 

EMTs 41.0 8.2 $102.5 14.3 $179.3 

Health-Related fatal incidents-firefighters 30.9 6.2 $77.3 10.8 $135.3 

Cancer fatalities-firefighters 

Colorectal 15.8 2.5 $31.7 4.4 $55.5 

Lung 22.9 3.7 $45.7 6.4 $80.0 

Breast 0.3 0.1 $0.7 0.1 $1.2 

Prostate 27.5 3.3 $41.3 5.8 $72.2 

Testicular 1.6 0.2 $2.5 0.3 $4.3 

Buccal cavity and pharvnx 34.5 4.1 $51.7 7.2 $90.5 

Thyroid 3.0 0.4 $4.5 0.6 $7.9 

Melanoma 17.6 2.1 $26.5 3.7 $46.3 

Total Fatalities 238.8 39.5 $493.2 69.0 $863.0 

Nonfatal incidents-EMTs and paramedics 7,694 1,539 $166.9 2,693 $292.1 Non fatal incidents-firefie:hters 14,335 2,867 $311.0 5,017 $544.2 

Avera2e annualized value over 50 years 

3 percent discount rate $1,359.8 $2,379.7 

7 percent discount rate $1,138.3 $1,992.0 

Note: Totals may not match the sums due to rounding. 
7972 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

86As 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)). 

87The 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. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

E. Economic Feasibility Analysis 

I. Introduction 

This section estimates the economic 

impacts of the proposed rule on affected 

employers in the three emergency 

response service sectors: firefighting, 

emergency medical service, and 

technical search and rescue. The 

purpose of this analysis is twofold. 

First, it is used to determine whether 

the proposed rule is economically 

feasible for all entities in the affected 

emergency response service sectors, and 

second, OSHA will use the results to 

determine whether the agency can 

certify that the proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

II. Analytical Approach 

To determine whether a rule is 

economically feasible, OSHA typically 

begins by using two screening tests to 

determine whether the costs of the rule 

are beneath the threshold level at which 

the economic viability of an affected 

industry might be threatened. As noted 

in the Industry Profile, the proposed 

rule will impact private entities in all 

states and state and local government 

entities in States with OSHA-approved 

State Plans.86 Because a significant 

proportion of affected entities are 

expected to be state and local 

government ESOs, the determination of 

economic feasibility discussed in this 

chapter is expanded to include both 

private and public (state and local 

government) entities. 

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). 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7973 

88The 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. 

89At the time of this analysis, this source was the 

most recent publicly available dataset on industrywide profit rates at the NAICS level. 

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. 

Emergency Medical Services (EMS): 

Emergency medical service revenue 

were estimated using revenue data from 

the U.S. Census Bureau’s (2021) 2017 

Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) for 

detailed employment size classes in 

NAICS 621910 Ambulance Services, 

inflating those data to 2022 dollars 

using the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ 

(BEA, 2023) implicit price deflators for 

gross domestic product. 

Technical Search and Rescue: 

Derivation of technical search and 

rescue revenues involves 

characterization of wilderness and 

urban search and rescue entities as well 

as additional technical water rescue 

entities. For the former, OSHA used 

police department expenditures data 

from the U.S. Census Bureau’s (2022) 

2017 Annual Survey of State and Local 

Government Finances, as well as 

employment data from the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics (2022) Census of State 

and Local Law Enforcement Agencies 

for 2018. Using these two sources, 

OSHA calculated the average 

expenditure per employee and 

multiplied this estimate by the number 

of public wilderness and urban search 

and rescue group members derived in 

section V (Industry Profile) for each 

employee class size. These estimates are 

then inflated to 2022 dollars using the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis’ (BEA, 

2023) implicit price deflators for gross 

domestic product. OSHA also estimated 

revenues for private wilderness and 

urban search and rescue groups by 

identifying a subset of these entities and 

obtaining annual sales for them in 

DemographicsNow. OSHA then 

extrapolated the revenues of this subset 

of entities to the full profile of private 

wilderness and urban search and groups 

identified in section V. 

To estimate technical water rescue 

entity revenue, OSHA used the median 

budget of all career fire departments 

from the Firehouse Magazine’s (2022) 

2021 National Run Survey, inflated to 

2022 dollars using the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis’s (BEA, 2023) 

implicit price deflators for gross 

domestic product. OSHA’s rationale for 

using career fire departments budgets to 

estimate technical water rescue entity 

revenue is explained in the Industry 

Profile. This estimate was multiplied by 

the number of employees within each 

employee class size as shown in section 

V (Industry Profile). 

OSHA estimated profits and locality 

revenues for these emergency response 

service sectors as follows: 

OSHA estimated before-tax profit 

rates using corporate balance sheet data 

from the Internal Revenue Service’s 

Corporation Source Book (IRS, 2016).89

For each of the years 2000 through 2013, 

OSHA calculated profit rates as the ratio 

of total receipts to net income by NAICS 

code and averaged profit rates across the 

fourteen-year (2000–2013) period. Since 

some data provided by the IRS were not 

available at disaggregated levels for all 

industries and profit rates, data at more 

highly aggregated levels were used as 

proxy for such industries—that is, 

where data were not available for each 

six-digit NAICS code, corresponding 4- 

and 5-digit NAICS codes were used as 

appropriate. Table VII–E–1 presents the 

NAICS codes and profit rates used for 

each emergency response service sector. 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7974 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

As previously discussed, OSHA has 

established a minimum threshold level 

of annualized costs equal to one percent 

of annual revenues—and, secondarily, 

annualized costs equal to ten percent of 

annual profits—below which the agency 

has concluded that costs are unlikely to 

threaten the economic viability of an 

affected sector. Table VII–E–2 shows 

that costs as a percent of locality 

revenues for public organizations 

generally range from less than 0.01 

percent to 0.16 percent. Public 

volunteer fire departments are the only 

emergency response service group with 

costs as a percent of revenues estimated 

to exceed the one percent revenue test, 

at an estimated 4.99% of revenues. In 

most situations, OSHA expects that the 

affected community would be able to 

allocate the very small additional share 

of the locality revenues necessary to 

permit the fire department to comply 

with the standard. However, the agency 

welcomes comments, information, and 

data on the feasibility of compliance for 

these entities. 

Table VII–E–3 shows that all private 

emergency response service sectors have 

costs that are less than one percent of 

revenues and ten percent of profits. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.111</GPH>

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. 

EP05FE24.112</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-E-2. Economic Impacts Experienced by Organizations Affected by the Proposed Rule 

Using a 3 Percent Discount Rate - All Public State-Plan State Organization

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. 

Total Average Costs as Av

Annualized Cost Average Revenue Organizations Annualized per Organization %of Reve

Costs [a] per Revenue Lo

On?:anization 

Fire Departments 

Career 3,807 $76,468,238 $20,086 $8,539,522 0.24% $2

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% $

Total 11,055 $190,673,112 $17,248 $3,054,294 0.56% $

Wildland Fire Services 

Volunteer 7 $784,787 $112,112 $98,229,775,991 0.00% $98,2

lbl 

Total 7 $784,787 $112,112 $98,229,775,991 0.00% $98,2

Emer2enc, Medical Services 

Career 548 $13,427,932 $24,488 $6 070 423 0.40% $1

Volunteer 221 $6,751,172 $30,616 $6,070,423 0.50% $1

Mixed 577 $12,335,922 $21,371 $6,070,423 0.35% $1

Total 1,346 $32,515,027 $24,155 $6,070,423 0.40% $1

Technical Search and Rescue Groups 

Career 123 $1,755,945 $14,255 $15,079,160 0.09% $4

Volunteer 1,572 $14,184,107 $9,025 $4,229,050 0.21% $1

Total 1,695 $15,940,052 $9,405 $4,834,888 0.19% $1

Total 

Career 4,479 $91,652,116 $20,465 $8,417,071 0.24% $2

Volunteer 7,015 $97,616,228 $13,915 $117,467,842 0.01% $1

Mixed 2,609 $50,644,634 $19,410 $3,905,818 0.50% $1

Total 14,103 $239,912,978 $17,012 $72,552,496 0.02% $1

[ a] These annualized costs reflect lower costs than presented in the Costs chapter because they are adjusted to reflect the pe

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 l

revenues shown here represent the average revenues of the applicable State Plan states. 
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

Screening Analysis—Small Entities 

B. Impacts and Regulatory Flexibility 

The discussion in the preceding 

section focused on the economic agencies to consider the economic 

organizations. The RFA requires Federal 

the proposed rule specifically on small 

section considers the potential impact of 

viability of each sector overall. This 


EP05FE24.113</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-E-3. Economic Impacts Experienced by Organizations Affected by the Proposed Rule 

U sine a 3 Percent Discount Rate - All Private Oreanizaf 

Total Average Average Costs as% Organizations Annualized Annualized Cost Revenue per of Revenue Costs [al per Organization Organization 

WEREs 

Career 1,500 $24,145,368 $16,097 $16,664,010 0.10% 

Total 1,500 $24,145,368 $16,097 $16,664,010 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% 

Total 788 $12,119,158 $15,380 $16,664,010 0.09% 

Wildland Fire Services 

Career 516 $10,869,070 $21,082 $12,575,542 0.17% 

Total 516 $10,869,070 $21,082 $12,575,542 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% 

Total 5,347 $136,448,447 $25,521 $6,092,267 0.42% 

Technical Search and Rescue Groups 

Career 39 $371,702 $9,573 $10,915,200 0.09% 

Total 39 $371,702 $9,573 $10,915,200 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% 

Total 8,189 $183,953,745 $22,464 $9,528,799 0.24% 

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. 

Av

O

[ a] These annualized costs reflect lower costs than presented in the costs chapter because they are adjusted to reflect the per

costs that will be covered by insurance companies 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7977 

impact that a proposed rulemaking will 

have on small entities. The RFA states 

that whenever a Federal agency is 

required to publish a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking for any proposed 

rule, the agency must prepare and make 

available for public comment an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). 5 

U.S.C. 603(a). Pursuant to section 

605(b), in lieu of an IRFA, the head of 

an agency may certify that the proposed 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The agency 

performed the following screening 

analysis to determine whether it can 

certify that the proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Again, OSHA used a minimum 

threshold level of annualized costs 

equal to one percent of annual 

revenues—and, secondarily, annualized 

costs equal to ten percent of annual 

profits—below which the agency has 

concluded that the costs are unlikely to 

threaten the survival of small 

organizations. Compliance costs for 

organizations meeting the RFA or SBA 

definition of a small entity were 

calculated using compliance cost 

estimates for each provision of the 

proposed rule for each emergency 

response service sector. 

Table VII–E–4 and Table VII–E–5 

show economic impacts for 

organizations considered small by RFA 

(public organizations) and SBA (private 

organizations) definitions, respectively, 

where total costs include one-time and 

annual costs annualized using a 3 

percent discount rate. The estimated 

average annualized cost per small 

public organization is $15,027, while 

the estimated average annualized cost 

per small private organization is 

$22,073. These average costs vary by 

emergency sector and organization type 

(career, volunteer, and mixed). For 

small public organizations, the 

estimated average cost ranges from 

$9,040 for volunteer technical search 

and rescue groups to $30,660 for 

volunteer emergency medical services. 

Small volunteer and mixed public fire 

departments are estimated to experience 

costs that exceed one percent of 

revenues. Costs as a percentage of 

locality revenues are estimated to vary 

from 0.01 percent or less for several 

public emergency response 

organizations to 0.17 percent for 

volunteer public fire departments. For 

private organizations, the estimated 

average cost per organization varies 

from $7,956 for technical search and 

rescue groups to $26,090 for both 

volunteer and mixed responder 

emergency medical services. All groups 

are estimated to incur costs that are less 

than one percent of revenues. Small 

private emergency medical services are 

estimated to experience costs that 

exceed ten percent of profits. 

Based on these findings, OSHA is 

unable to certify that the proposed rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities and has therefore prepared an 

IRFA, to further examine issues related 

to small entities and the proposed rule. 

The IRFA is presented in Chapter F of 

this PEA. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

EP05FE24.114</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-E-4. Economic Impacts Experienced by Organizations Affected by the Proposed Rule with C

3 Percent Discount Rate - RF A Small Organizations 

Total Average Average Revenue Costs as% Organizations Annualized Annualized Cost 

Costs ral per Organization per Organization of Revenue 

Fire Departments 

Career 3,297 $49,459,098 $15,001 $4,353,689 0.34% 

Volunteer 5,199 $74,848,077 $14,397 $278,588 5.17% 

Mixed 1,839 $28,300,040 $15,389 $1,476,936 1.04% 

Total 10,335 $152,607,215 $14,766 $1,495,659 0.99% 

Wildland Fire Services 

Emergenc v Medical Services 

Career 524 $12,842,892 $24,504 $6,070,423 0.40% 

Volunteer 211 $6,461,895 $30,660 $6,070,423 0.51% 

Mixed 552 $11,804,516 $21,397 $6,070,423 0.35% 

Total 1,287 $31,109,302 $24,180 $6,070,423 0.40% 

Technical Search and Rescue Groups 

Career 118 $1,679,532 $14,266 $15,079,160 0.09% 

Volunteer 1,502 $13,579,128 $9,040 $4,229,050 0.21% 

Total 1,620 $15,258,660 $9,419 $4,834,888 0.19% Total 

Career 3.939 $63.981.521 $16.244 $4 902 708 0.33% 

Volunteer 6,912 $94,889,100 $13,728 $1,795,450 0.76% 

Mixed 2,391 $40,104,555 $16,775 $2,536,967 0.66% 

Total 13,241 $198,975,177 $15,027 $2,936,793 0.51% 

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. 

Ave

Reven

Loc

$131

$8

$44

$45

$183

$183$183

$183

$455

$127

$146

$148

$54$76

$88

[ a] These annualized costs reflect lower costs than presented in the Costs chapter because they are adjusted to reflect the percentage 

will be covered by insurance companies. 

EP05FE24.115</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-E-5. Economic Impacts Experienced by Organizations Affected by the Proposed Rule with C

3 Percent Discount Rate - SBA Small Or_g_anizations 

Total Average Annualized Average Revenue Costs as% Organizations Annualized Cost per 

Costs ral Or2anization per Organization of Revenue 

WEREs 

Career 1,500 $24,145,368 $16,097 $16,664,010 

Total 1,500 $24,145,368 $16,097 $16,664,010 

Fire Departments 

Career 218 $3,499,760 $16,054 $16,664,010 

Volunteer 450 $6,165,972 $13,702 $16,664,010 

Mixed 118 $2,203,011 $18,670 $16,664,010 

Total 786 $11,868,743 $15,100 $16,664,010 

Wildland Fire Services 

Career 507 $9,080,060 $17,909 $9,284,797 

Total 507 $9,080,060 $17,909 $9,284,797 

Emere:enc v Medical Services 

Career 1,971 $47,628,769 $24,167 $2,863,241 

Volunteer 1,141 $29,769,590 $26,090 $2,863,241 

Mixed 2,075 $54,126,527 $26,090 $2,863,241 

Total 5,186 $131,524,886 $25,359 $2,863,241 Technical Search and Rescue Groups 

Career 35 $275,941 $7,956 $10,113,051 

Total 35 $275,941 $7,956 $10,113,051 Total 

Career 4,231 $84,629,898 $20,005 $9,296,695 

Volunteer 1,591 $35,935,562 $22,587 $6,766,629 

Mixed 2,193 $56,329,538 $25,691 $3,605,972 

Total 8,014 $176,894,999 $22,073 $7,281,257 

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. 

0.10% 

0.10% 

0.10% 0.08% 0.11% 

0.09% 

0.19% 

0.19% 

0.84% 0.91% 0.91% 

0.89% 

0.08% 

0.08% 

0.22% 0.33% 0.71% 

0.30% 

Aver

per O

[ a] These annualized costs reflect lower costs than presented in the Costs chapter because they are adjusted to reflect the percentage 

will be covered by insurance companies. 
7980 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

F. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

I. Introduction 

The RFA requires Federal agencies to 

consider the economic impact that a 

proposed rulemaking will have on small 

entities. The RFA states that whenever 

a Federal agency is required to publish 

a general notice of proposed rulemaking 

for any proposed rule, the agency must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA). 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

Pursuant to section 605(b), in lieu of an 

IRFA, the head of an agency may certify 

that the proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. A 

certification must be supported by a 

factual basis. If the head of an agency 

makes a certification, the agency shall 

publish such certification in the Federal 

Register at the time of publication of a 

general notice of proposed rulemaking 

or at the time of publication of the final 

rule. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

To determine whether OSHA can 

certify that the proposed emergency 

response rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, the agency has 

developed screening tests to consider 

minimum threshold effects of the 

proposed rule on small entities. These 

screening tests are similar in concept to 

the revenue and profit tests described in 

Preliminary Economic Analysis and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 

section VII.E., to identify minimum 

threshold effects for purposes of 

demonstrating economic feasibility. For 

private entities, there are two 

differences. First, for each affected 

industry, the screening tests are applied, 

not to all establishments, but to small 

entities (called ‘‘small business 

concerns’’ by SBA). Second, although 

OSHA’s regulatory flexibility screening 

test for revenues also uses a minimum 

threshold level of annualized costs 

equal to one percent of annual revenues, 

OSHA has established a minimum 

threshold level of annualized costs 

equal to five percent of annual profits 

for the average small entity. The agency 

has chosen a lower minimum threshold 

level for the profitability screening 

analysis and has applied its screening 

tests to small entities to ensure that 

certification will be made, and an IRFA 

will not be prepared, only if OSHA can 

be highly confident that a proposed rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities in any affected industry. 

As stated in Chapter VI, OSHA is not 

able to certify that the proposed rule 

will not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, thus triggering the need for an 

IRFA. Under the provisions of the RFA, 

as amended in 1996, each such analysis 

shall contain: 

1. A description of the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities; 

2. A description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered; 

3. A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

4. A description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

5. A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities which will 

be subject to the requirements and the 

type of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; 

6. An identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

which may duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule; and 

7. A description and discussion of any 

significant alternatives to the proposed 

rule which accomplish the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes and 

which minimize any significant 

economic impact of the proposed rule 

on small entities, such as: 

(a) The establishment of differing 

compliance or reporting requirements or 

timetables that take into account the 

resources available to small entities; 

(b) The clarification, consolidation, or 

simplification of compliance and 

reporting requirements under the rule 

for such small entities; 

(c) The use of performance rather than 

design standards; and 

(d) An exemption from coverage of 

the rule, or any part thereof, for such 

small entities. 

5 U.S.C. 603, 607. The RFA further 

states that the required elements of the 

IRFA may be performed in conjunction 

with or as part of any other agenda or 

analysis required by any other law if 

such other analysis satisfies the 

provisions of the IRFA. 5 U.S.C. 605. 

The remaining sections of this chapter 

address each of the components listed 

above. 

II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

A. Description of the Impact of the 

Proposed Rule on Small Entities 

The potential small entity impacts of 

the proposed rule were derived and 

presented in Chapter VI. Table VII–E–4 

of that chapter shows that small public 

volunteer and mixed fire departments 

are estimated to experience costs that 

exceed one percent of revenues. Costs as 

a percentage of locality revenues are 

estimated to vary from 0.01 percent or 

less for several types of public 

emergency response organizations to 

0.17 percent for volunteer public fire 

departments. Additionally, Table VII–E– 

5 shows that small private wildland fire 

service and emergency medical service 

organizations, are estimated to 

experience costs that exceed five 

percent of profits. Note that the costs in 

these tables were annualized using a 3 

percent discount rate. 

B. Description of the Reasons Why 

Action by the Agency Is Being 

Considered 

Emergency response workers in 

America face considerable occupational 

health and safety hazards in dynamic 

and often unpredictable work 

environments. Current OSHA 

emergency response and preparedness 

standards are outdated and incomplete. 

Specifically, the standards do not 

address the full range of hazards facing 

emergency responders, lag behind 

changes in protective equipment 

performance and industry practices, and 

conflict with current industry consensus 

standards. OSHA’s current fire brigade 

standard, 29 CFR 1910.156, was 

promulgated in 1980 and has only had 

minor revisions since then. 

Every day, the duties of an emergency 

responder may require making life and 

death decisions. A typical workday of 

an emergency responder could range 

from responding to a mild medical 

emergency to a more severe incident 

such as a multi-building fire. In doing 

their jobs of protecting the public, 

personal and real property, and the 

environment, emergency responders 

risk exposing themselves to safety and 

health hazards that may lead to injuries, 

illnesses, and death. 

Some of the most common hazards 

emergency responders may face include: 

• vehicle collisions while traveling to 

or from emergency incidents; 

• falls from heights due to structural 

or building collapses; 

• being struck by, caught in between, 

or crushed by falling objects and debris; 

• burns and other injuries from 

flashovers and backdrafts; 

• exposure to extreme temperatures, 

both hot and cold; 

• excessive noise exposure; 

• exposure to carbon monoxide and 

other toxic chemicals; 

• oxygen depletion and inadequate 

fresh air to breathe; and 

• over-exertion due to lifting heavy 

objects, wearing heavy protective 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7981 

equipment, repetitive motion, and other 

similar activities. 

Long-term exposure to the various 

hazards found at emergency incidents 

may lead not only to physical ailments 

among responders, but to mental health 

issues as well. Some longer-term 

adverse health effects may potentially 

be associated with the duties of 

emergency responders include: 

• infectious diseases; 

• cardiovascular diseases due to 

environmental stressors and exposures; 

• cancer due to exposure to 

combustion products, asbestos, 

carcinogens, and other chemicals; and 

• stress, PTSD, depression, anxiety, 

and suicidality resulting from exposure 

to traumatic events including workplace 

violence. 

As described in the benefits analysis 

in Chapter VII (see Table VII–10), OSHA 

estimates that approximately 250 

fatalities and approximately 22,000 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 

the protective measures it requires 

already exist, can be brought into 

existence with available technology, or 

can be created with technology that can 

reasonably be expected to be developed. 

United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 

647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In 

determining economic feasibility, OSHA 

must consider the cost of compliance on 

an industry rather than on individual 

employers. In the preliminary and final 

economic analyses, OSHA follows the 

advice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the D.C. Circuit to ‘‘construct a 

reasonable estimate of compliance costs 

and demonstrate a reasonable likelihood 

that these costs will not threaten the 

existence or competitive structure of an 

industry.’’ Id. 

D. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rule Will Apply 

As described above, Chapter VI of this 

PEA presents OSHA’s preliminary 

analysis of the impacts associated with 

this proposed rule, including an 

analysis of the type and number of small 

entities to which the proposed rule 

would apply. To estimate the number of 

small entities potentially affected by 

this rulemaking, OSHA used definitions 

developed by SBA for each emergency 

services sector as well as the definition 

of a small government according to the 

RFA. OSHA estimates that 

approximately 21,000 small entities 

would be affected by the proposed rule. 

Across these small entities, roughly 

833,000 emergency responders would 

be protected by the proposed rule. 

E. Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the 

Proposed Rule 

Table VII–F–1 shows the average costs 

per small entity for each provision of 

the rule by organization type for public 

entities. Across all provisions of the 

proposed rule, the average public fire 

department is estimated to incur costs of 

$14,766 annually. The costs differ 

slightly across department type, ranging 

from $14,397 annually for all-volunteer 

departments to $15,389 annually for 

mixed fire departments. The average 

public emergency medical service 

organization is estimated to incur costs 

of $24,180 annually. Among emergency 

medical services ESO types, the average 

annual cost varies from $21,397 for 

mixed organizations to $30,660 for 

volunteer organizations. Technical 

search and rescue groups are estimated 

to incur costs of $9,419 on average 

annually, with career organizations 

incurring costs of $14,266 annually and 

volunteer organizations incurring costs 

of $9,040 annually. Training is the most 

expensive provision for fire departments 

and emergency medical services, 

accounting for 35 and 46 percent of 

costs overall, respectively. The program 

evaluation provision is the most 

expensive provision for technical search 

and rescue groups, accounting for 25 

percent of their overall costs on average. 

The second most expensive provision 

for fire departments and technical 

search and rescue groups is the medical 

and physical requirements provision, 

which accounts for 16 and 14 percent of 

costs overall, respectively. For 

emergency medical services, the second 

most expensive provision is the post 

incident analysis provision, which 

accounts for 13 percent of their overall 

costs under the proposed rule. 

Table VII–F–2 presents the average 

costs per small entity for each provision 

of the rule by organization type for 

private entities. WEREs are estimated to 

incur costs of $16,097 on average 

annually. Private fire departments are 

expected to spend $15,100 on average 

annually to comply with the proposed 

standard, with a range of $13,702 

annually for volunteer fire departments 

to $18,670 annually for mixed 

departments. Private wildland fire 

services are estimated to incur 

compliance costs of $17,909 annually. 

Emergency medical service 

organizations are expected to spend 

$25,359 on average annually to comply 

with the proposed rule, with career EMS 

entities estimated to spend $24,167 on 

average and both volunteer and mixed 

emergency medical services entities 

expected to spend $26,090. The average 

technical search and rescue group 

would spend an estimated $7,956 

annually. Training is the costliest 

provision of the proposed rule for all 

private emergency response service 

sector entities except for technical 

search and rescue groups, with costs 

ranging from 36 to 52 percent in total 

costs, depending on the ESO or WERE 

type and sector (excluding technical 

search and rescue; this group’s training 

costs are estimated to account for 12 

percent of their overall costs). For 

technical search and rescue groups, the 

most expensive provision of the 

proposed rule is the program evaluation 

provision, accounting for 21 percent of 

overall costs. The second most 

expensive provision for all private 

emergency response service sector 

entities except WEREs is the medical 

and physical requirements provision, 

accounting for 11 to 16 percent of costs 

overall, depending on the sector. For 

WEREs, the second most expensive 

provision is the equipment and PPE 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7982 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

provision, which accounts for 14 

percent of the average WERE’s costs. 

OSHA welcomes comment on this 

analysis and these findings. While the 

RFA requires OSHA to show impacts on 

small entities and defines small 

government entities as those serving 

populations of less than 50,000, it is 

possible that, given the unique 

circumstances of volunteer fire 

departments, some other approach may 

be more useful for purposes of OSHA’s 

analysis. Are there additional analyses 

that the agency should develop to 

demonstrate economic feasibility and 

illustrate economic impacts on small 

entities? If so, what analyses would be 

most useful for understanding the 

potential impacts on small entities? In 

addition, there appear to be limitations 

on the systematic data available to 

develop such analyses, particularly as 

they might focus on smaller 

governmental jurisdictions. The agency 

would welcome any suggestions in this 

area. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

EP05FE24.116</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-F-1. Average Costs for Small Public State-Plan State Entities Affected by the Proposed Eme

by Emergency Response Service Sector and Organization Type 

Career Volunt

Fire Departments 

Rule Familiarization $15 

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s) $0 Capability 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $778 $7

Team Member and Responder Participation $43 

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $393 $3

Medical and Physical Requirements $1,405 $2,7

Training $5,885 $4,6

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 

ESQ Facility Preparedness $980 $9Equipment and PPE $1,837 $1,8

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $754 $7

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $0 

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $451 $4

Incident Management System Development $25 

Emergency Incident Operations $113 $

Standard Operating Procedures $164 $

Post Incident Analysis $690 $Program Evaluation $1,468 $1,4

Total $15,001 $14,3

Emer2ency Medical Services 

Rule Familiarization $14 

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s) $0 Capability 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $745 $7

Team Member and Responder Participation $38 

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $379 $3

Medical and Physical Requirements $1,351 $3,5

Training $12,309 $15,2

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 

ESQ Facility Preparedness $191 $Equipment and PPE $1,351 $1,3

EP05FE24.117</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Career Volunt

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $727 $7

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $0 

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $433 $4

Incident Management System Development $25 

Emergency Incident Operations $2 229 $26

Standard Operating Procedures $159 $

Post Incident Analysis $3 090 $3 7Program Evaluation $1,462 $1,4

Total $24,504 $30,6

Technical Search and Rescue Groups 

Rule Familiarization $11 $

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s) $0 Capability 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capabilitv $602 $9

Team Member and Responder Participation $36 

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $309 $4

Medical and Physical Requirements $898 $13

Training $8,309 $2

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 

ESQ Facility Preparedness $154 $2Equipment and PPE $1 142 $12

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $584 $9

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $0 

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $401 $6

Incident Management System Development $20 $

Emergency Incident Operations $13 $

Standard Operating Procedures $147 $2

Post Incident Analysis $137 $2Program Evaluation $1 501 $2 4

Total $14,266 $9,0

Sources: OSHA derived from USFA, 2022; BLS, 2023; BLS, 2023; EPA, 2002; Rice, 2002; U.S. Census, 2021. 

EP05FE24.118</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-F-2. Average Costs for Small Private Entities Affected by the Proposed Emergency Respon

Response Service Sector and Organization Type 

Career Volunt

WEREs 

Rule Familiarization $18 N

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $939 N

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capabilitv $0 N

Team Member and Responder Participation $58 N

WERT and ESQ Risk Man:mement Plan $478 N

Medical and Physical Requirements $189 N

Training $8,100 N

WERE Facility Preparedness $592 N

ESQ Facility Preparedness $0 NEquipment and PPE $2,329 N

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $911 N

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $258 N

ESQ Pre-Incident Planning $0 N

Incident Management System Development $31 N

Emergency Incident Operations $12 N

Standard Operating Procedures $202 N

Post Incident Analysis $144 NProgram Evaluation $1,837 N

Total $16,097 N

Fire Departments Rule Familiarization $15 

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $0 

ESQ Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $765 $7

Team Member and Responder Participation $42 

WERT and ESQ Risk Management Plan $388 $

Medical and Physical Requirements $1,528 $2,5

Training $6,864 $4,

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 

ESQ Facility Preparedness $966 $9Equipment and PPE $1,809 $1,8

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $745 $7

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $0 

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $452 $4

Incident Management System Development $25 

Emergency Incident Operations $111 

EP05FE24.119</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Career Volunt

Standard Operating Procedures $164 $

Post Incident Analysis $696 $Program Evaluation $1,484 $1,4

Total $16,054 $13,7

Wildland Fire Services 

Rule Familiarization $15 N

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $0 N

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $733 N

Team Member and Responder Participation $40 N

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $373 N

Medical and Physical Requirements $1,912 N

Training $9 412 N

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 N

ESO Facility Preparedness $928 NEquipment and PPE $1,737 N

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $718 N

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $0 N

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $401 N

Incident Manauement System Development $25 N

Emergency Incident Operations $12 N

Standard Operating Procedures $148 N

Post Incident Analysis $125 NProgram Evaluation $1,331 N

Total $17,909 N

Emer2ency Medical Services 

Rule Familiarization $14 

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $0 

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $740 $7

Team Member and Responder Participation $38 

WERT and ESO Risk Management Plan $377 $

Medical and Physical Requirements $1,549 $3,4

Training $12,783 $12,7

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 

ESO Facility Preparedness $190 $Equipment and PPE $1,344 $1,3

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $723 $7

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $0 

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $428 $4

EP05FE24.120</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Career Volunt

Incident Management System Development $25 $

Emergency Incident Operations $1,853 $1,8

Standard Operating Procedures $157 $

Post Incident Analysis $2,518 $2,5Program Evaluation $1,428 $1,4

Total $24,167 $26,0Technical Search and Rescue Groups 

Rule Familiarization $16 N

Organization of the WERT and Establishment of the ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $0 N

ESO Establishment of ERP and Emergency Service(s) Capability $815 N

Team Member and Responder Participation $11 N

WERT and ESQ Risk Manruzement Plan $414 N

Medical and Physical Requirements $991 N

Training $944 N

WERE Facility Preparedness $0 N

ESO Facility Preparedness $211 NEquipment and PPE $1,153 N

Vehicle Preparedness and Operation $795 N

WERE Pre-Incident Planning $0 N

ESO Pre-Incident Planning $497 N

Incident Management System Development $27 N

Emergency Incident Operations $24 N

Standard Operating Procedures $181 N

Post Incident Analysis $205 NProgram Evaluation $1,672 N

Total $7,956 N

Sources: OSHA derived from USFA, 2022; BLS, 2023; BLS, 2023; EPA, 2002; Rice, 2002; U.S. Census, 2021. 
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 

OSHA has identified several Federal 

rules and guidelines that address 

emergency responders. Below, the 

agency discusses whether these rules 

and guidelines would duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with the proposed 

regulatory language. 

The first set of Federal rules or 

guidelines that OSHA identified are 

regulations promulgated by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC). NRC fire 

protection regulations specify 

requirements for fire brigades at nuclear 

reactor facilities. See 10 CFR 50.48 and 

appendix R.III(H) and (I). 

OSHA and the NRC have a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

pursuant to which the NRC has 

authority and responsibility for hazards 

related to radioactive materials, 

including facility conditions that could 

affect the safety of radioactive materials 

by, for example, causing a fire. Under 

the MOU, OSHA has authority and 

responsibility for industrial safety and 

health hazards not related to the use of 

radioactive materials. MOU (Sept. 6, 

2013). Thus, pursuant to the MOU, the 

proposed standard would apply at 

nuclear reactor facilities to the extent it 

covers hazards not related to the use of 

radioactive materials. 

The second set of Federal rules or 

guidelines that OSHA identified are 

regulations promulgated by the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA). The 

FAA establishes requirements for 

aircraft rescue and firefighting. (14 CFR 

139.315, 139.317, 139.319) 

Pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the OSH 

Act, 29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1), and the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Chao v. 

Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 534 U.S. 235 

(2002), OSHA’s regulations are 

preempted if they conflict with an 

exercise of authority by another Federal 

agency to address working conditions 

under that agency’s jurisdiction. 

Therefore, to the extent the FAA has 

exercised authority to regulate 

emergency response activities covered 

by the proposed standard that fall under 

FAA jurisdiction, the proposed standard 

would be preempted. 

The third set of Federal rules or 

guidelines that OSHA identified are 

standards and a practice model put out 

by the National Highway Transportation 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), part of 

the Department of Transportation 

(DOT). NHTSA establishes standards for 

EMS providers and EMS training 

curriculums. 

There would be no conflict between 

OSHA’s proposed standard and the 

NHTSA standards and practice model 

because the NHTSA standards and 

practice model recommend practices 

but do not carry the force of law. Such 

non-mandatory guidelines do not 

constitute rules that would duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with a rule as 

outlined in the proposed standard. Cf. 

Ensign-Bickford Co. v. OSHRC, 717 F.2d 

1419, 1421 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (agency 

regulates working conditions only if it 

‘‘implements [a] regulatory apparatus’’); 

Marshall v. Northwest Orient Airlines, 

Inc., 574 F.2d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1978) 

(‘‘sister agency must actually be 

exercising a power to regulate safety 

conditions’’). There would also be no 

conflict because OSHA’s proposed 

standard would be performance-based 

and is intended to ensure that 

employers adopt and implement 

practices and training requirements that 

are consistent with the NHTSA 

standards. 

The fourth set of Federal rules or 

guidelines that OSHA identified apply 

to the mining industry which is 

regulated by the Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA). MSHA 

regulations have extensive provisions 

for emergency incidents in mines 

including the enhanced emergency 

response and rescue requirements 

established by the Mine Improvement 

and New Emergency Response Act of 

2006 (MINER Act). 

Upon the creation of MSHA in 1977, 

OSHA and MSHA entered into an 

interagency agreement to delineate 

authority between them. The agreement 

stipulates that OSHA does not have 

jurisdiction where MSHA regulations 

apply. As such, there is no conflict 

between OSHA’s proposed standard and 

MSHA’s emergency response 

regulations. 

The final set of Federal rules or 

guidelines that OSHA identified are 

existing OSHA standards that cover 

emergency response activities. OSHA 

has reviewed existing standards and 

determined that no standard conflicts or 

overlaps with the proposed Emergency 

Response standard. To the extent other 

standards are applicable, they are 

complementary of the proposed 

standard. 

G. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 

This section first presents OSHA’s 

responses to recommendations made by 

the SBREFA panel in response to 

comments made by SERs to potentially 

alleviate impacts on small entities. Next, 

the agency presents four regulatory 

alternatives to the proposed OSHA 

emergency response rule. 

(i) SBREFA Panel Recommendations 

Table VII–F–3 lists the SBAR Panel 

recommendations and OSHA’s 

responses to these recommendations. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

EP05FE24.121</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table VII-F-3. SBAR Panel Recommendations and OSHA Responses 

Recommendation OSHA's Response 

The Scope paragraph clearly identifies which 

The Panel recommends that OSHA thoroughly review and clearly covered by the rule. In the preamble, OSHA i

present who is and who is not in the scope of this standard. not under Federal jurisdiction could be cover

requirements. 

OSHA should conduct a thorough review to determine which states A thorough explanation is provided in the pre

consider volunteers to be employees who would be covered by this discussed in Industry Profile section of the PE

standard and present this analysis as part of the proposed rule. 

The Panel further recommends that OSHA thoroughly consider OSHA believes that volunteers could be nega

whether volunteers currently covered as employees would be excluded from parts of the proposal. Howeve

negatively impacted by inclusion in all the provisions of this rule. as discussed in the preamble, the agency has 

to the specific needs of the affected responde

The agency has drafted a proposed standard t

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider the feasibility of an appropriate level of protection for the haza

implementation for small and volunteer ESOs and review whether encountered, has examined the economic imp

departments, and has preliminarily determine

exemption from some or all parts of the standard would be appropriate is feasible. However, the agency is also seeki

for some or all small or volunteer ESOs. 

on many issues and potential alternatives as w

feasibilitv analysis. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA continue working to identify The agency drafted the proposal with this in m

additional areas where burdens could be reduced or eliminated for proposed rule's preamble contains multiple s

small and volunteer ESOs. from the regulated community. 

EP05FE24.122</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Recommendation 

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 Panel recommends that OSHA not include skilled support 

employers in the scope of a proposed Emergency Response standard. 

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. 

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. 

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's Resp_onse 

The agency has attempted to minimize feasib

standard. It has also examined the potential e

proposal in the PEA and IRF A. Nonetheless, 

comment on this issue. 

OSHA has not included skilled support emplo

proposed rule. 

OSHA developed some requirements for WE

the health and safety of skilled support worke

scenes. 

OSHA drafted the proposed rule to clearly di

requirements for WEREs and ESOs based on 

hazards encountered. 

OSHA drafted the proposed rule to clearly di

requirements for WEREs and ESOs based on 

hazards encountered. 

EP05FE24.123</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Recommendation OSHA's Response 

OSHA's draft regulatory text does not specify the number of hours of 

training that responders would need to complete. The Panel The proposed rule would require the WERE o

recommends that OSHA clarify that the draft standard does not require all responders to complete any set number of hours of training amount of training needed, based on the emer

but rather that responders would be trained to a level appropriate for and duties performed. 

the complexity and requirements of their job duties or activities. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA closely evaluate the various The agency believes the proposed standard in

planning requirements and eliminate or reduce those requirements planning requirements that are necessary and 

where possible. OSHA should look closely at the labor costs emergency responder safety. The labor costs 

associated with written planning requirements. included in the PEA. 

If OSHA's analysis determines that some planning requirements are As indicated, OSHA believes unnecessary or 

unnecessary or infeasible, the Panel recommends that OSHA remove requirements were not included in the propos

those entirely. 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 Plan requirements would be based on individ

requirements to the extent feasible and to make model plans, each WERE or ESO. Model plans, checklists

checklists, and other assistance available to small entities where with or subsequent to the final rule. 

possible. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA clarify, reduce, or eliminate the The proposed rule does not include a requirem

fitness coordinator. The rule would require an 

requirement for a health and fitness coordinator since the duties of this oversee the health and fitness program, but th

individual and the benefits they would provide are not clear. from within the ESQ. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA reconsider the necessity of OSHA believes it is important to maintain he

recordkeeping of health and fitness data. 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 The proposed rule requires the WERE or ESQ 

improve responder safety with the necessity to allow volunteer ESOs that the team member or responder can safely 

and small ES Os of all types to adequately staff their ESQ and to functions expected of them. 

provide the necessary services to their constituent communities. 

EP05FE24.124</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Recommendation OSHA's Response 

The proposed rule allows the WERE or ESO 

The Panel acknowledges the importance of mental health support for behavioral health resources or identify those 

emergency responders. The Panel recommends that OSHA examine community. OSHA reviewed the available lit

the costs and benefits associated with behavioral health and wellness support for emergency responders and identif

programs as part of its assessment of whether to maintain the demonstrate the effectiveness of these progra

requirements for these programs. discussed in the Benefits section of the PEA 

explanation of paragraph (g). 

Maintaining record confidentiality is a requir

The Panel further recommends that OSHA ensure that responder rule. 

confidentiality is not compromised, and that the agency provide OSHA has discussed the requirements of the 

additional guidance and clarification on how ESOs can meet any health section and how employers can compl

behavioral health and wellness requirements. in the summary and explanation. Additional g

provided with or subsequent to a final standar

The Panel recommends that, unless the agency finds evidence 

showing that Good Samaritans and Spontaneous Unaffiliated As recommended, Good Samaritans and SUV 

Volunteers (SUVs) arc exposing responders to an increased risk, proposed standard. OSHA remove the requirements related to Good Samaritans and 

SUVs. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA clarify the use of NFP A provisions Specific references to NFPA standards are ex

in the proposed rule and consider how incorporation by reference The agency has only incorporated the NFPA 

the extent necessary for responder safety. Rel

could affect small and volunteer ESOs. in the PEA and the economic impact has been 

The agency should look closely at the feasibility of NFP A's 

recommendations for sun setting/retirement of PPE, vehicles, and Sunset provisions are not included in the prop

equipment. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA conduct further research on the The proposed standard's medical requiremen

necessity and cost effectiveness of the NFP A recommended medical 

screenings, exams, and evaluations, and the appropriateness of response to input from small entity panelists 

requiring those screenings for responders with various levels of The preamble discusses the various potential 

exposure and risk based on their duties and designated tasks. assesses the attendant costs and effectiveness
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 


EP05FE24.125</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Recommendation OSHA's Response 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider replacing prescriptive The agency believes it has made the proposed 

provisions with performance-based provisions, where practical, and performance-oriented as reasonably possible. 

tailor, to the extent possible, certain requirements of this standard for comment from the public on specific provisio

small and volunteer ESOs. believe could be enhanced in this regard. 

OSHA should consider scaling the various analysis, planning, and The agency believes the proposal is sufficien

written plans required by this standard to the size and complexity of to accomplish this objective. the ESO and their operations. 
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–5 presents the estimated 

number and monetized benefits of 

fatalities and non-fatal injuries avoided 

by each of the four alternatives, 

compared to the proposed rule. As 

shown in the table, the alternatives only 

affect the number of fatalities that 

would be avoided by the proposed rule. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.126</GPH>

Table VII-F-4. Costs for Re~ulatory Alternatives (2022$) 

Alternative Total Annualized Difference from Draft 

Costs Rule 

Draft Rule $661,172,447 $0 

1. Exposure threshold equals 1 event per $743,674,761 $82,502,314 

vear 

2. Exposure threshold equals 10 events $668,851,082 $7,678,634 

per vear 

3. Exposure threshold equals 30 events $647,950,873 -$13,221,575 

per vear 

4. All responders receive the full NFPA $825,678,832 $164,506,384 

1582 exam 

Source: OSHA 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7995 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.127</GPH>

Table VII-5. Summary of Benefits for Re2ulatorv Alternatives 

Average Value of Average 

Alternative Current Annual Annual Cases 

Annual Cases Cases Prevented, Millions of 

Prevented Dollars (2022$) 

Proposed Rule 

Total Fatalities 239 54 $670 

Nonfatal injuries-EMTs and 7,694 3,847 $417 paramedics 

Nonfatal injuries-firefighters 14,335 7,168 $778 

Average annualized value over 50 years, 3 percent discount rate $2,628.5 

1. Exposure threshold equals 1 event per year 

Total Fatalities 264 66 $825 

Nonfatal injuries-EMTs and 7,694 3,847 $417 paramedics 

Nonfatal injuries-firefighters 14,335 7,168 $778 

Average annualized value over 50 years, 3 percent discount rate $2,841.6 

Difference from Draft Rule $213.0 

2. Exposure threshold equals 10 events per year 

Total Fatalities 234 54 $676 

Nonfatal injuries-EMTs and 7,694 3,847 $417 paramedics 

Nonfatal injuries-firefighters 14,335 7,168 $778 

Average annualized value over 50 years, 3 percent discount rate $2,637.2 

Difference from Draft Rule $8.7 

3. Exposure threshold equals 30 events per year 

Total Fatalities 202 46 $574 

Nonfatal injuries-EMTs and 7,694 3,847 $417 paramedics 

Nonfatal injuries-firefighters 14,335 7,168 $778 

Average annualized value over 50 years, 3 percent discount rate $2,496.6 

Difference from Draft Rule -$131.9 

4. All responders receive the full NFPA 1582 exam 

Total Fatalities 264 66 $825 

Nonfatal injuries-EMTs and 7,694 3,847 $417 paramedics 

Nonfatal injuries-firefighters 14,335 7,168 $778 

Average annualized value over 50 years, 3 percent discount rate $2,841.6 

Difference from Draft Rule $213.0 
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. 

OSHA has also estimated the 

unannualized stream of benefits and 

costs over the next 50 years, as shown 

in Table VII–F–7. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.128</GPH> EP05FE24.129</GPH>

Table VII-F-6. Annualized Net Benefits of Proposed Emergency Response 

Standard 

Discount Rate Annualized Benefits Annualized Costs Annualized Net Benefits 

3% $2,628,500,000 $661,172,447 $1,967,327,553 

7% $2,262,300,000 $668,538,219 $1,593,761,781 

Table VII-F-7. Unannualized Benefits and Costs by Year for a 50-Year Time Horizon 

Year 1 $1,637,153,750 $832,711,890 

Year2 $1,665,803,941 $506,763,028 

Year3 $1,694,955,510 $654,055,969 

Year4 $1,724,617,232 $570,377,723 

Year5 $1,754,798,033 $643,824,865 

Year6 $1,785,506,999 $539,942,918 

Year7 $1,816,753,371 $668,350,844 

Year8 $1,848,546,555 $551,872,341 

Year9 $1,880,896,120 $628,947,752 

Year 10 $2,061,898,074 $585,219,491 

Yearll $2,097,981,290 $832,711,890 

Year 12 $2,134,695,963 $506,763,028 

Yearl3 $2,172,053,142 $654,055,969 

Year 14 $2,210,064,072 $570,377,723 

Year 15 $2,248,740,193 $643,824,865 

Year 16 $2,288,093,147 $539,942,918 

Year 17 $2,328,134,777 $668,350,844 

Year 18 $2,368,877,135 $551,872,341 

Year 19 $2,410,332,485 $628,947,752 

Year20 $2,745,388,364 $585,219,491 

Year21 $2,793,432,661 $832,711,890 

Year22 $2,842,317,732 $506,763,028 

Year23 $2,892,058,293 $654,055,969 

Year24 $2,942,669,313 $570,377,723 

Year25 $2,994,166,026 $643,824,865 

Year26 $3,046,563,931 $539,942,918 

Year27 $3,099,878,800 $668,350,844 

Year28 $3,154,126,679 $551,872,341 

Year29 $3,209,323,896 $628,947,752 

Year30 $3,265,487,064 $585,219,491 

Year 31 $3,322,633,088 $832,711,890 

Year32 $3,380,779,167 $506,763,028 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7997 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

VIII. Additional Requirements 

A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

OSHA reviewed this proposed rule 

according to the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq. Section 202 of the UMRA, 

2 U.S.C. 1532(a), requires agencies to 

assess the anticipated costs and benefits 

of a rule before issuing ‘‘any general 

notice of proposed rulemaking’’ that 

includes a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures in any one year 

by State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or by the private sector, 

of at least $100 million, adjusted 

annually for inflation. In 2023, that 

threshold is $177 million. 

This proposed rule does not place a 

mandate on State or local government, 

for purposes of the UMRA, because the 

agency’s standards do not apply to State 

and local governments (29 U.S.C. 

652(5)). States that have elected 

voluntarily to adopt a State Plan 

approved by the agency must adopt a 

standard at least as effective as the 

Federal standard, which must apply to 

State and local government agencies (29 

U.S.C. 667(b), (c)(2) and (6)). 

The OSH Act does not cover tribal 

governments in the performance of 

traditional governmental functions, 

such as firefighting, EMS, and search 

and rescue for the tribe in general. Reich 

v. Mashantucket Sand & Gravel, 95 F.3d 

174, 180 (2nd Cir. 1996) (traditionally 

governmental activities are excepted 

from the rule that general Federal 

statutes apply to tribes); cf. Snyder v. 

Navajo Nation, 382 F.3d 892, 895 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (Fair Labor Standards Act 

does not apply to tribal police because 

the maintenance of law and order is a 

traditional governmental function). 

However, when tribes engage in 

activities of a commercial or service 

character, such as firefighting, EMS, and 

search and rescue for particular 

commercial enterprises, like casinos and 

sawmills, they are subject to general 

Federal statutes, including the OSH Act. 

Menominee Tribal Enters. v. Solis, 601 

F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2010) (OSH Act 

applies to tribal sawmill); Mashantucket 

Sand & Gravel, 95 F.3d at 180; Smart v. 

State Farm Ins. Co., 868 F.2d 929 (7th 

Cir. 1989) (original version of 

Employment Retirement Income 

Security Act applied to tribal health 

center). However, this proposed rule 

would not require tribal governments to 

expend, in the aggregate, $100 million 

or more in any one year for these 

activities. As noted below, OSHA also 

reviewed this rulemaking in accordance 

with Executive Order 13175 on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249 (November 9, 2000)) and 

determined that it does not have ‘‘tribal 

implications’’ as defined in that 

Executive order. 

Based on the analysis presented in the 

Preliminary Economic Analysis and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 

section VII. of this preamble, OSHA 

concludes that the proposed rule would 

impose a Federal mandate on the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

annually, adjusted for inflation. The 

Preliminary Economic Analysis 

constitutes the written statement 

containing a qualitative and quantitative 

assessment of the anticipated costs and 

benefits required under section 202(a) of 

the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532). 

B. Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments/Executive 

Order 13175 

OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in 

accordance with Executive Order 13175 

(E.O. 13175), Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 

2000), and determined that it does not 

have ‘‘tribal implications’’ as defined in 

that order. Section 5 of the Executive 

order requires agencies to consult with 

tribal officials early in the process of 

developing regulations that: (1) have 

tribal implications, impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on Indian 

governments, and are not required by 

statute; or (2) have tribal implications 

and preempt tribal law (E.O. 13175 

section 5(b), (c)). The Executive order 

requires that such consultation occur to 

the extent practicable. 

As explained above, the OSH Act 

does not cover tribal governments in the 

performance of traditional governmental 

functions, so the proposed rule would 

not have substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes in their 

sovereign capacity, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes 

(see E.O. 13175 section 1(a)). However, 

employees performing, for example, 

firefighting and search and rescue for 

particular tribal commercial enterprises, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.130</GPH>

Year 33 $3,439,942,802 $654,055,969 

Year 34 $3,500,141,801 $570,377,723 

Year 35 $3,561,394,283 $643,824,865 

Year 36 $3,623,718,683 $539,942,918 

Year 37 $3,687,133,760 $668,350,844 

Year 38 $3,751,658,600 $551,872,341 

Year 39 $3,817,312,626 $628,947,752 

Year40 $3,884,115,597 $585,219,491 

Year41 $3,952,087,620 $832,711,890 

Year42 $4,021,249,153 $506,763,028 

Year43 $4,091,621,013 $654,055,969 

Year44 $4,163,224,381 $570,377,723 

Year45 $4,236,080,808 $643,824,865 

Year46 $4,310,212,222 $539,942,918 

Year47 $4,385,640,936 $668,350,844 

Year48 $4,462,389,652 $551,872,341 

Year49 $4,540,481,471 $628,947,752 

Year 50 $4,619,939,897 $585,219,491 
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. 

D. Consensus Standards 

OSHA must consider adopting 

existing national consensus standards 

that differ substantially from OSHA’s 

proposed standard if the consensus 

standard would better effectuate the 

purposes of the Act (see National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–113, 

section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 Note; see 

also 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)). Whenever an 

OSHA rule differs substantially from a 

national consensus standard, OSHA 

must publish in the Federal Register a 

statement of the reasons why the rule 

will better effectuate the purposes of the 

Act than the national consensus 

standard (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)). In the 

development of the proposed rule, 

OSHA relied heavily on NFPA national 

consensus standards. Many of the 

proposed provisions are based on or 

consistent with NFPA standards. Where 

a proposed provision does deviate 

substantially from the relevant 

consensus standard, OSHA has 

explained the departure in the Summary 

and Explanation of the Proposed Rule 

for that provision (see Section V. of this 

preamble). 

E. Executive Order 13045 (Protecting 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

Executive Order 13045 (E.O. 13045), 

on Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks, as amended by Executive Orders 

13229 and 13296, requires that Federal 

agencies provide additional evaluation 

of economically significant regulatory 

actions that concern an environmental 

health or safety risk that an agency has 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children. This 

proposed rule is intended to protect 

emergency responders from 

occupational hazards. OSHA has 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed rule will not 

disproportionately affect children or 

have any adverse impact on children. 

Accordingly, E.O. 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks, requires no 

further agency action or analysis. 

F. Federalism 

The agency reviewed this proposed 

rule in accordance with Executive Order 

13132 (E.O. 13132) on Federalism, 

which requires that Federal agencies, to 

the extent possible, refrain from limiting 

State policy options, consult with States 

before taking actions that would restrict 

States’ policy options, and take such 

actions only when required by statute or 

when clear constitutional authority 

exists and the problem is of national 

scope (64 FR 43255, (August 10, 1999)). 

The Executive Order generally allows 

Federal agencies to preempt State law 

only as provided by Congress or where 

State law conflicts with Federal law. In 

such cases, Federal agencies must limit 

preemption of State law to the extent 

possible. 

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Act is an exercise of Congress’s 

Commerce Clause authority, and under 

section 18 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 667, 

Congress expressly provided that States 

may adopt, with Federal approval, a 

plan for the development and 

enforcement of occupational safety and 

health standards. OSHA refers to the 

occupational safety and health plans 

that have been submitted by States and 

approved by OSHA as ‘‘State Plans.’’ 

Occupational safety and health 

standards developed by State Plans 

must be at least as effective in providing 

safe and healthful employment and 

places of employment as the Federal 

standards. Subject to these 

requirements, State Plans are free to 

develop and enforce their own 

occupational safety and health 

standards. 

This proposed rule complies with 

E.O. 13132. The hazards addressed by 

this proposed rule and its goal of 

protecting firefighters and other 

emergency responders are national in 

scope. As explained in the Need for the 

Standard (Section II.A of this preamble), 

firefighters and other emergency 

responders face a significant risk of 

harm, and a national standard is 

necessary to ensure that a uniform, 

baseline approach is taken to protect 

them. Accordingly, the rulemaking 

establishes minimum requirements for 

employers in every State to protect these 

workers. 

In States without OSHA-approved 

State Plans, Congress provided for 

OSHA standards to preempt State 

occupational safety and health 

standards for issues addressed by the 

Federal standards. In these States, this 

rulemaking limits State policy options 

in the same manner as every standard 

promulgated by the agency. 

Furthermore, public-sector fire 

departments and other public-sector 

emergency response providers in these 

States are not subject to the OSH Act. 

29 U.S.C. 652(5). The following section 

addresses the effect of the proposed rule 

on States with OSHA-approved State 

Plans. 

G. Requirements for States With 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7999 

permit a longer time period if the State 

timely demonstrates that good cause 

exists for extending the time limitation 

(29 CFR 1953.5(a)). 

As with all non-identical State Plan 

standards, State Plans must submit to 

Federal OSHA for approval standards 

that differ from Federal standards 

addressing the same issues for such 

standards to become part of the State 

Plan. OSHA will review such 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. 

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 

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 a physician’s certificate of 

certain employees’ fitness to participate 

in fire brigade emergency activities; and 

(3) remove the existing language 

currently approved under 

§ 1910.156(c)(4) that requires the 

employer to inform fire brigade 

members about special hazards such as 

storage and use of flammable liquids 

and gases, toxic chemicals, radioactive 

sources, and water reactive substances, 

to which they may be exposed during 

fire and other emergencies. In place of 

these collection of information 

requirements, the agency is proposing to 

add new collections contained in the 

proposed Emergency Response 

standard. See Table V–1. 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
8000 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

90Full details of the burden and cost estimates for 

each provision are available in the ICR’s supporting 

statement at reginfo.gov. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.131</GPH>

Table V-1 -- Collection of Information Requirements Being Revised in the 

Fire Bri2ades Standard90 

Section number and Currently approved collection of Proposed collection of information 

title information requirements requirements 

§ 1910.156 (b)(l) (1) Organizational statement. The NIA 

employer shall prepare and maintain a 

statement or written policy which 

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 fire brigade; 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8001 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.132</GPH>

Section number and Currently approved collection of Proposed collection of information 

title information reauirements reauirements 

and the functions that the fire brigade is 

to perfom1 at the workplace. The 

organizational statement shall be 

available for inspection by the Assistant 

Secretary and by employees or their 

designated representatives. 

§ 1910.156 (b)(2) (2) Personnel. 111e employer shall NIA 

ensure that employees who are expected 

to do interior structural firefighting are 

physically capable ofpetforming duties 

which may be assigned to them during 

emergencies. 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. For 

employees assigned to fire brigades 

before September 15, 1980, this 

paragraph is effective on September 15, 

1990. For employees assigned to fire 

brigades on or after September 15, 1980, 

this paragraph is effective December 15, 

1980. 

§ 1910.156 (c)(l) [none] (c) Organization of the WERT, and 

Establishment of the ERP and 

Emergency Service(s) Capability (I) The 

WERE shall develop and implement a 

written ERP to provide protection for each 

of its employees (team members) who is 

designated to provide services at an 

emergencv incident. 

§ 1910.156 (c)(3) fnonel (c) Organization of the WERT, and 

Establishment of the ERP and 

Emergency Service(s) Capability (3) The 

WERE shall conduct a facility vulnerability 

assessment for the purpose of establishing 

its emergency response capabilities and 

determining its ability to match the 

facility's vulnerabilities with available 

resources. 

§ 1910.156 (c)(4) (c)Training and education ... (4) 111e NIA 

employer shall inform fire brigade 

members about special hazards such as 

storage and use of flammable liquids and 

gases, toxic chemicals, radioactive 

sources, and water reactive substances, 

to which they may be exposed during 

fire and other emergencies. The fire 

brigade members shall also be advised of 

any changes that occur in relation to the 

special hazards. The employer shall 
8002 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.133</GPH>

Section number and Currently approved collection of Proposed collection of information 

title information requirements reauirem ents 

develop and make available for 

inspection by fire brigade members, 

written procedures that describe the 

actions to be taken in situations 

involving the special hazards and shall 

include these in the training and 

education program. 

§ 1910.156 (c)(8) [none] (8) The WERE shall define, and document 

in the ERP, the service(s) needed, based on 

paragraph (c)(3) ofthis section, that the 

WERE is unable to provide, and develop 

mutual aid agreements with other WEREs 

and ESOs as necessary to ensure adequate 

resources are available to safely mitigate 

foreseeable incidents. 

§ 1910.156 (c)(9) [none] (9) Previous editions of documentation 

required by this section shall be maintained 

by the WERE for a minimum of five (5) 

years. 

§ 1910.156 (c)(lO) [none] (10) The WERE shall notify team members 

of any changes to the ERP and make the 

ERP and documents maintained in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(9) of this 

section available for inspection by team 

members, their representatives, and OSHA 

representatives. 

§ 1910.156 (d)(l) [none] (d) ESO Establishment of ERP and 

Emergency Service(s) Capability. (1) The 

ESO shall develop and implement a written 

ERP to provide protection for each of its 

responders who is designated to operate at 

an emergency incident. 

§ 1910.156 (d)(3) [none] (d) ESO Establishment of ERP and 

Emergency Service(s) Capability (3) The 

ESO shall perform a community or facility 

vulnerability assessment of hazards within 

the primary response area where the 

emergency service(s) it provides is/are 

expected to be performed. 

§ 1910.156 (d)(8) [none] (8) In the ERP the ESO shall define the 

service(s) needed, based on paragraph 

(d)(4) ofthis section, that the ESO is unable 

to provide, and develop mutual aid 

agreements with \VEREs or other ESOs as 

necessary to ensure adequate resources are 

available to safely mitigate foreseeable 

incidents. 

§ 1910.156 (d)(9) [none] (9) Previous editions of documentation 

required by this section shall be maintained 

by the ESO for a minimum of five (5) 

years. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8003 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.134</GPH>

Section number and Currently approved collection of Proposed collection of information 

title information reauirements reauirements 

§ 1910.156 (d)(lO) lnoneJ (10) The ESO shall notify responders of 

any changes to the ERP and make the ERP 

and documents maintained in accordance 

with paragraph (d)(9) ofthis section 

available for inspection by responders, their 

representatives and OSHA representatives. 

§ 1910.156 (e)(5) [none] (e) Team Member and Responder 

Participation (5) Encourage team members 

and responders to report safety and health 

concerns, such as hazards, injuries, 

illnesses, near-misses, and deficiencies in 

the ERP; 

§ 1910.156 (e)(7) [none] (e) Team Member and Responder 

Participation (7) Post procedures for 

reporting safety and health concerns under 

paragraph (e)(5) of this section in a 

conspicuous place or places where notices 

to team members and responders are 

customarily posted. 

§ 1910.156(f)(l) [none] (f) WERT and ESO Risk Management 

Plan (1) The WERE and the ESO shall 

develop and implement a written 

comprehensive risk management plan 

(RMP), based on the type and level of 

service(s) established in paragraphs (c) and 

(d) of this sectionf.l 

§ 1910.156(g)(l) [none] (g) Medical and Physical Requirements 

(1) WERE and ESO medical requirements. 

(i) The WERE and ESO shall establish the 

minimum medical requirements for team 

members and responders, based on the type 

and level of service(s) established in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) ofthis section. The 

medical requirements will differ based on 

the tiers of team members and responders in 

accordance with paragraphs (c)(7) and 

(d)(7) of this section, except that team 

members and responders in a support tier 

are excluded from the requirements in 

paragraph (g) of this section; and 

(ii) The WERE and ESO shall maintain a 

confidential record for each team member 

and responder that records, at a minimum, 

duty restrictions based on medical 

evaluations; occupational illnesses and 

injuries; and exposures to combustion 

products, known or suspected toxic 

products, contagious diseases, and 

dangerous substances. 
8004 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.135</GPH>

Section number and Currently approved collection of Proposed collection of information 

title information requirements reauirem ents 

§ 1910.156(g)(2) [none] (g)(2) WERE and ESQ medical evaluation 

and surveillance. 

(i) The WERE and ESQ shall establish a 

medical evaluation program for team 

members and responders, except for those 

in a support tier, based on the type and level 

ofservice(s) and tiers of team members and 

responders established in paragraphs (c) 

and ( d) of this section; 

§ 1910.156(g)(3) [none] (g)(3) Additional ESQ medical evaluation 

and surveillance. 

(i) For ESQs whose responders are exposed 

to combustion products, medical evaluation 

and surveillance shall include a component 

based on the frequency and intensity of 

expected exposure to combustion products 

established in the risk management plan in 

paragraph (f) of this section. 

(ii) The ESQ shall document each exposure 

to combustion products for each responder, 

for the purpose of determining the need for 

the medical surveillance specified in 

(g)(3)(i)(A) of this section, and for 

inclusion in the responder's confidential 

record, as required in (g)(l )(ii) of this 

section. 

§ 1910.156(g)(4) [none] (i) The WERE and ESQ shall provide, at no 

cost to the team member or responder, 

behavioral health and wellness resources 

for team members and responders, or 

identify where such resources are available 

at no cost in the community; 

(ii) The resources shall include, at 

minimum: 

(A) Diagnostic assessment; 

(B) Short-term counseling; 

(C) Crisis intervention; and 

(D) Referral services for behavioral health 

and personal problems that could affect the 

team member or responder's performance 

of emergency response duties. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8005 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.136</GPH>

Section number and Currently approved collection of Proposed collection of information 

title information reauirements reauirements 

(iii) The WERE and ESO shall inform each 

team member and responder of the 

resources available; and 

§ 1910.156(g)(6) [none] (g)( 6) ESO health and fitness for duty: 

(i) The ESO shall establish and implement a 

health and fitness program that enables 

responders to develop and maintain a level 

of physical fitness that allows them to 

safely perform their assigned functions, 

based on the type and level(s) of service(s) 

and tier of team members and responders 

established in para!!:ranh (d) of this section; 

§ 1910.156(i)(3) [none] (i) WERE Facility Preparedness -

(1) General requirements. The WERE shall: 

... 

(3) Identify the location of each FHV, 

except for those clearly visible on 

standpipes in enclosed stairways, in a 

manner suitable to the location, such as 

with a sign, painted wall, or painted 

column. to ensure oromot access to FHVs. 

§ 1910.156(k.)(2) [none] (k) Equipment and PPE ... (2) Personal 

protective equipment (PPE). The WERE 

and the ESO shall: 

(i) Conduct a PPE hazard assessment for 

the selection of the protective ensemble, 

ensemble elements, and other protective 

equipment for team members and 

responders, based on the type and level of 

scrvicc(s) established in paragraphs (c) and 

(d) of this section-

§ 1910.156(1)(2) [none] (2) To ensure vehicles are operated in a 

manner that will keep team members and 

responders safe, the WERE and ESO shall: 

... 

(vi) Establish and implement a procedure 

for operator training on vehicles with tiller 

steering that ensures when the instructor 

and trainee are both located at the tiller 

position, they arc adequately secured to the 

vehicle whenever it is in motion; 

(viii) Establish and implement policies and 

procedures that provide alternative means 
8006 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.137</GPH>

Section number and Currently approved collection of Proposed collection of information 

title information reauirements reauirements 

for ensuring the safety of team members 

and responders when the WERE or ESQ 

determines it is not feasible for each team 

member, responder, or person to be belted 

in a seat, such as when reloading long lays 

of hose, standing as honor guards during a 

funeral procession, transporting people 

acting as holiday figures or other characters 

or mascots, parades, and for vehicles 

without seat belts; 

(ix) Establish and implement policies and 

procedures for operating vehicles not 

directly under the control of the WERE or 

ESQ (i.e., privately owned/leased/operated 

by team members and responders), when 

the WERE or ESQ authorizes team 

members or responders to respond directly 

to emergency incident scenes or to WERE 

or ESQ facilities when alerted for an 

emer.gencv incident response· and 

§ 1910.156(m)(l) [none] (m) WERE Pre-Incident Planning (1) 

The WERE shall develop PTPs for locations 

within the facility where team members 

may be called to provide service, based on 

the facility vulnerability assessment and the 

type(s) and level(s) of service(s) established 

in paragraph ( c) of this section. 

§ 1910.156(n)(2) & (3) [none] (n) ESO Pre-Incident Planning 

(2) The ESO shall develop PIPs for 

facilities, locations, and infrastructure 

where emergency incidents may occur 

(3) The ESO shall prepare a PIP for each 

facility within the ESO's primary response 

area that is subject to reporting 

requirements under 40 CFR part 355 

pursuant to the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) 

(also referred to as the Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 

1986 (SARA), 42 U.S.C. ll00l et seq.). 

§ 1910.156(n)(8) [none] (8) The ESO shall ensure that the most 

recent version of PIPs are disseminated as 

needed and are accessible and available to 

responders operating at emergency 

incidents. 

§ 1910.156(p)(2) [none] (p) Emergency Incident Operations 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8007 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.138</GPH>

Section number and Currently approved collection of Proposed collection of information 

title information reauirements reauirements 

... 

(2) Incident Commander. The WERE and 

the ESQ shall ensure that: 

(iii) The IC conducts a comprehensive and 

ongoing size-up of the incident scene that 

places life safety as the highest priority; 

(iv) The IC conducts a risk assessment 

based on the size-up before actively 

engaging the incident; 

... 

(vi) The TC develops an Incident Action 

Plan (IAP) that prioritizes life safety for 

each incident, updates it as needed during 

the incident, and utilizes the infonnation 

contained in the PIP. 

§ 1910.156(p)(3) [none] (3) Control zones. The WERE and the ESQ 

shall ensure that: 

... 

(iii) Any changes to the perimeters during 

the incident are communicated to all team 

members and responders on the scene; (iv) 

Control zones are established as follows: 

(A) Designated as no-entry, hot, warm, or 

cold; 

(B) Marked in a conspicuous manner, with 

colored tape, signage, or other appropriate 

means, unless such marking is not possible; 

and 

(C) Communicated to all team members 

and responders attending the incident 

before the team member or responder is 

assigned to a control zone; 

§ 1910.156(q)(l) [none] (q) Standard Operating Procedures (I) 

The WERE and the ESQ shall develop and 

implement SOPs for emergency events that 

the WERE or ESQ is reasonably likely to 

encounter, based on the community or 

facility vulnerability assessment developed 

in accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) 

of this section. 
8008 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C 

4. OMB Control Number: 1218–0075. 

5. Affected Public: Business or other 

for-profit and not for profit entities. 

6. Number of Respondents: 22,551. 

7. Frequency of Responses: On 

occasion. 

8. Number of Reponses: 28,305,800. 

9. Average Time per Response: Varies. 

10. Estimated Annual Total Burden 

Hours: 3,896,763. 

11. Estimated Annual Total Cost 

(Operation and maintenance): 

$104,682,854. 

IV. Submitting Comments 

Members of the public who wish to 

comment on the revisions to the 

paperwork requirements in this 

proposal must send their written 

comments to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk 

Officer for the Department of Labor, 

OSHA (RIN: 1218–AD91), Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503, email: OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov. The agency 

encourages commenters also to submit 

their comments on these paperwork 

requirements to the rulemaking docket 

(Docket Number OSHA–2007–0073) 

along with comments on other parts of 

the proposed rule. For instructions on 

submitting these comments to the 

rulemaking docket, see the sections of 

this Federal Register notice titled DATES

and ADDRESSES. Comments submitted in 

response to this document are public 

records; therefore, OSHA cautions 

commenters about submitting personal 

information such as Social Security 

numbers and dates of birth. 

V. Docket and Inquiries 

To access the docket to read or 

download comments and other 

materials related to this paperwork 

determination, including the complete 

ICR (containing the Supporting 

Statement with attachments describing 

the paperwork determinations in detail), 

use the procedures described under the 

section of this document titled 

ADDRESSES. 

You also may obtain an electronic 

copy of the complete ICR by visiting the 

web page at: http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain. Scroll under 

‘‘Currently Under Review’’ to 

‘‘Department of Labor (DOL)’’ to view 

all of the DOL’s ICRs, including those 

ICRs submitted for proposed 

rulemakings. To make inquiries, or to 

request other information, contact Ms. 

Seleda Perryman, Directorate of 

Standards and Guidance, telephone 

(202) 693–2222. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910 

Emergency response, Emergency 

responder, Emergency medical service, 

Firefighter, Incorporation by reference, 

Search and rescue personal protective 

equipment, Occupational safety and 

health. 

Authority and Signature 

This document was prepared under 

the direction of Douglas L. Parker, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210. It is 

issued under the authority of sections 4, 

6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 

657); 5 U.S.C. 553, Secretary of Labor’s 

Order No. 8–2020 (85 FR 58383), and 29 

CFR part 1911. 

Signed at Washington, DC. 

Douglas L. Parker, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

Proposed Amendments 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, OSHA proposes to amend 29 

CFR part 1910 to read as follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP05FE24.139</GPH>

Section number and Currently approved collection of Proposed collection of information 

title information reauirements reauirements 

§ 1910.156(r)(l) & (2) [none] (r) Post-Incident Analysis (1) The WERE 

or ESO shall promptly conduct a PostIncident Analysis (PIA) to determine the 

effectiveness of the WERT's or ESO's 

response to an incident after a significant 

event such as a large-scale incident; a 

significant near-miss incident; a team 

member, responder or SSW injury or illness 

requiring off-scene treatment; or a team 

member, responder, or SSW fatality. 

(2) The PIA shall include, but not be 

limited to, a review and evaluation of the 

RMP, IMS, PIPs, SOPs, and IAPs for 

accuracy and adequacy. 

§ 1910.156(s)(l) [none] (s) Program Evaluation (1) The WERE 

and ESO shall evaluate the adequacy and 

effectiveness of the ERP at least annually, 

and upon discovering deficiencies, and 

document when the evaluation(s) are 

conducted. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8009 

PART 1910—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY 

AND HEALTH STANDARDS 

Subpart A—General 

■ 1. The authority citation for subpart A 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 

Secretary of Labor’s Order Numbers 12–71 

(36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 

FR 35736), n1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 

111), 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), 5–2002 (67 FR 

65008), 5–2007 (72 FR 31159), 4–2010 (75 FR 

55355), or 1–2012 (77 FR 3912), as 

applicable. Sections 1910.6, 1910.7, 1910.8 

and 1910.9 also issued under 29 CFR 1911. 

Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 

9701; 29 U.S.C. 9a; 5 U.S.C. 553; Public Law 

106–113 (113 Stat. 1501A–222); Public Law 

11–8 and 111–317; and OMB Circular A–25 

(dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 

1993). 

■ 2. Amend § 1910.6 by: 

■ a. Throughout the section, 

■ i. Removing the text ‘‘The following 

material is available for purchase from 

the’’; 

■ ii. Removing the text ‘‘The following 

materials are available for purchase 

from the’’; 

■ iii. Removing the text ‘‘The following 

material is available from the’’; and 

■ iv. Removing the text ‘‘The following 

materials are available from the’’; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a) and the 

introductory text of paragraph (e); 

■ c. In paragraph (e), 

■ i. Removing the second sentence of 

paragraphs (e)(59) and (65); 

■ ii. Revising paragraphs (e)(66), (67), 

and (69) through (71); and 

■ iii. Adding paragraph (e)(80); 

■ d. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (h); 

■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(k); 

■ f. Adding introductory text to 

paragraph (r) and removing and 

reserving paragraphs (r)(1) and (2); 

■ g. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (t); 

■ h. Redesignating paragraphs (t)(2) 

through (37) as set forth in the following 

table: 

Old paragraph New paragraph 

paragraphs (t)(2) through (8) .................................................................... paragraphs (t)(3) through (9) 

paragraphs (t)(9) through (15) .................................................................. paragraphs (t)(12) through (18)

paragraphs (t)(17) through (33) ................................................................ paragraphs (t)(19) through (35) 

paragraph (t)(34) ...................................................................................... paragraph (t)(49) 

paragraphs (t)(35) through (36) ................................................................ paragraphs (t)(10) through (11) 

paragraph (t)(37) ...................................................................................... paragraph (t)(2) 

■ i. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(t)(10), removing the second sentence; 

■ j. Adding new paragraphs (t)(36) and 

(37) and adding paragraphs (t)(38) 

through (48); 

■ k. Revising newly-redesignated 

paragraph (t)(49); 

■ l. Adding paragraphs (t)(50) through 

(57); and 

■ m. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(v)(2). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 1910.6 Incorporation by reference. 

(a)(1) The standards of agencies of the 

U.S. Government and of organizations 

which are not agencies of the U.S. 

Government, which are incorporated by 

reference in this part, have the same 

force and effect as other standards in 

this part. The Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) adopts 

only the mandatory provisions (i.e., 

provisions containing the word ‘‘shall’’ 

or other mandatory language) of 

material incorporated by reference as 

standards under the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act. 

(2) Any changes in the material 

incorporated by reference in this part 

and an official historic file of such 

changes are available for inspection in 

the Docket Office at the national office 

of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Washington, DC 20210; phone: 

202–693–2350 (TTY: 877–889–5627). 

(3) The material listed in this section 

are incorporated by reference into this 

part with the approval of the Director of 

the Federal Register in accordance with 

5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To 

enforce any edition other than that 

specified in this section, OSHA must 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register and the material must be 

available to the public. All approved 

incorporation by reference (IBR) 

material is available for inspection at 

OSHA and at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). 

Contact OSHA at: any OSHA Regional 

Office or at the OSHA Docket Office, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW, Room N– 

3508, Washington, DC 20210; phone: 

202–693–2350 (TTY: 877–889–5627); 

email: technicaldatacenter@dol.gov; 

website: www.osha.gov/contactus/ 

byoffice/dtsem/technical-data-center. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at NARA, visit 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@

nara.gov. The material may be obtained 

from the source(s) in the following 

paragraph(s) of this section or through a 

document reseller, including: 

(i) Document Center Inc., 111 

Industrial Road, Suite 9, Belmont, 

94002; phone: 650–591–7600; fax: 650– 

591–7617; email: info@documentcenter.com; website: www.documentcenter.com. 

(ii) Global Engineering Documents, 15 

Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 

80112; phone: 800–854–7179 or 303– 

397–7956; fax: 303–397–2740; email: 

global@ihs.com; website: https://

global.ihs.com; 

(iii) Techstreet, a business of 

Thomson Reuters, 3916 Ranchero Drive, 

Ann Arbor, MI 48108; phone: 800–699– 

9277 or 734–780–8000; fax: 734–780– 

2046; email: techstreet.service@

thomsonreuters.com; website: 

www.Techstreet.com. 

(iv) Linda Hall Library, 5109 Cherry 

Street, Kansas City, Missouri, 64110– 

2498; phone: 816–363–4600; email: 

requests@lindahall.org; website: https:// 

www.lindahall.org/. 

* * * * * 

(e) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 

4th Floor, New York, NY 10036; phone: 

212–642–4900; fax: 212–398–0023; 

website: www.ansi.org. 

* * * * * 

(66) ANSI Z535.1–2006 (R2011), 

Safety Colors, reaffirmed July 19, 2011; 

IBR approved for §§ 1910.97(a) and 

1910.145(d). 

(67) ANSI Z535.2–2011, 

Environmental and Facility Safety 

Signs, published September 15, 2011; 

IBR approved for § 1910.261(c). 

* * * * * 

(69) ANSI/ISEA Z87.1–2010, 

Occupational and Educational Personal 

Eye and Face Protection Devices, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
8010 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Approved April 13, 2010; IBR approved 

for § 1910.133(b). 

(70) ANSI Z87.1–2003, Occupational 

and Educational Eye and Face Personal 

Protection Devices Approved June 19, 

2003; IBR approved for § 1910.133(b). 

(71) ANSI Z87.1–1989 (R–1998), 

Practice for Occupational and 

Educational Eye and Face Protection, 

Reaffirmation approved January 4, 1999; 

IBR approved for § 1910.133(b). 

* * * * * 

(80) ANSI/ISEA 207–2011, American 

National Standard for High-Visibility 

Safety Vests [2011 ed]; IBR approved for 

§ 1910.156(k). 

* * * * * 

(h) ASTM International, 100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959; phone: 

610–832–9585; fax: 610–832–9555; 

email: sevice@astm.org; website: 

www.astm.org. 

* * * * * 

(r) International Standards 

Organization (ISO) through ANSI, 25 

West 43rd Street, Fourth Floor, New 

York, NY 10036–7417; phone: 212–642– 

4980; fax: 212–302–1286; email: info@

ansi.org; website: www.ansi.org. 

* * * * * 

(t) National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch 

Park, Quincy, MA 02269; phone: 800– 

344–3555 or 617–770–3000; fax: 800– 

593–6372 or 508–895–8301; email: 

custserv@nfpa.org; website: 

www.nfpa.org. 

* * * * * 

(36) NFPA 1001, Standard for 

Structural Fire Fighter Professional 

Qualifications, [2019 edition]; IBR 

approved for § 1910.156(h). 

(37) NFPA 1002, Standard for Fire 

Apparatus Driver/Operator Professional 

Qualifications, [2017 edition]; IBR 

approved for § 1910.156(h). 

(38) NFPA 1005, Standard for 

Professional Qualifications for Marine 

Fire Fighting for Land-Based Fire 

Fighters, [2019 edition]; IBR approved 

for § 1910.156(h). 

(39) NFPA 1006, Standard for 

Technical Rescue Personnel 

Professional Qualifications, [2021 

edition]; IBR approved for 

§ 1910.156(h). 

(40) NFPA 1021, Standard for Fire 

Officer Professional Qualifications, 

[2020 edition]; IBR approved for 

§ 1910.156(h). 

(41) NFPA 1081, Standard for Facility 

Fire Brigade Member Professional 

Qualifications, [2018 edition]; IBR 

approved for § 1910.156(h). 

(42) NFPA 1140, Standard for 

Wildland Fire Protection, [2022 

edition]; IBR approved for 

§ 1910.156(h). 

(43) NFPA 1407, Standard for 

Training Fire Service Rapid Intervention 

Crews, [2020 edition]; IBR approved for 

§ 1910.156(h). 

(44) NFPA 1582, Standard on 

Comprehensive Occupational Medical 

Program for Fire Departments, [2022 

edition]; IBR approved for § 1910.156(g). 

(45) NFPA 1910, Standard for the 

Inspection, Maintenance, 

Refurbishment, Testing, and Retirement 

of In-Service Emergency Vehicles and 

Marine Firefighting Vessels, [2024 

edition]; IBR approved for § 1910.156(l). 

(46) NFPA 1951, Standard on 

Protective Ensembles for Technical 

Rescue Incidents, [2020 edition]; IBR 

approved for § 1910.156(k). 

(47) NFPA 1952, Standard on Surface 

Water Operations Protective Clothing 

and Equipment, [2021 edition]; IBR 

approved for § 1910.156(k). 

(48) NFPA 1953, Standard on 

Protective Ensembles for Contaminated 

Water Diving, [2021 edition]; IBR 

approved for § 1910.156(k). 

(49) NFPA 1971, Standard on 

Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire 

Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 

[2018 edition]; IBR approved for 

§ 1910.156(k). 

(50) NFPA 1977, Standard on 

Protective Clothing and Equipment for 

Wildland Fire Fighting and Urban 

Interface Fire Fighting, [2022 edition]; 

IBR approved for § 1910.156(k). 

(51) NFPA 1981, Standard on OpenCircuit Self-Contained Breathing 

Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency 

Services, [2019 edition]; IBR approved 

for § 1910.156(k). 

(52) NFPA 1982, Standard on 

Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS), 

[2018 edition]; IBR approved for 

§ 1910.156(k). 

(53) NFPA 1984, Standards on 

Respirators for Wildland Fire-Fighting 

Operations and Wildland Urban 

Interface Operations, [2022 edition]; IBR 

approved for § 1910.156(k). 

(54) NFPA 1986, Standard on 

Respiratory Protection for Tactical and 

technical Operations, [2023 edition]; 

IBR approved for § 1910.156(k). 

(55) NFPA 1987, Standard on 

Combination Unit Respirator Systems 

for Tactical and Technical Operations, 

[2023 edition]; IBR approved for 

§ 1910.156(k). 

(56) NFPA 1990, Standard on 

Protective Ensembles for Hazardous 

Materials and CBRN Operations, [2022 

edition]; IBR approved for § 1910.156(k). 

(57) NFPA 1999, Standard on 

Protective Clothing and Ensembles for 

Emergency Medical Operations, [2018 

edition]; IBR approved for § 1910.156(k). 

* * * * * 

Subpart H—Hazardous Materials 

■ 3. The authority citation for subpart H 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s 

Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 

25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 

9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR 

50017), or 5–2007 (72 FR 31159), 4–2010 (75 

FR 55355) or 1–2012 (77 FR 3912), as 

applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. 

Sections 1910.103, 1910.106 through 

1910.111, and 1910.119, 1910.120, and 

1910.122 through 1910.126 also issued under 

29 CFR part 1911. 

Section 1910.119 also issued under Section 

304, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

(Pub. L. 101–549), reprinted at 29 U.S.C.A. 

655 Note. 

Section 1910.120 also issued under Section 

126, Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 as amended (29 

U.S.C.A. 655 Note), and 5 U.S.C. 553. 

■ 4. Amend § 1910.120 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), removing 

the text ‘‘appendix B’’ and adding in its 

place the text ‘‘appendix D to this 

subpart’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (f)(4)(ii), removing the 

text ‘‘appendix D’’ and adding in its 

place the text ‘‘appendix D to this 

subpart’’; 

■ c. In paragraphs (g)(3)(iv) and (v). 

removing the text ‘‘appendix B’’ and 

adding in its place the text ‘‘appendix 

B to this subpart’’; 

■ d. In paragraphs (g)(4)(ii) and (iii), 

removing the text ‘‘appendix A’’ and 

adding in its place the text ‘‘appendix 

A to this subpart’’; 

■ e. Revising paragraph (q)(3)(iii); 

■ f. Redesignating the note immediately 

following the undesignated heading 

‘‘Appendices to § 1910.120’’ as 

paragraph (r); 

■ g. Removing the undesignated 

heading ‘‘Appendices to § 1910.120’’; 

and 

■ h. Redesignating appendices A 

through E to § 1910.120 as appendices A 

through E to subpart H of part 29. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 1910.120 Hazardous waste operations 

and emergency response. 

* * * * * 

(q) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) Based on the hazardous 

substances and/or conditions present, 

the individual in charge of the ICS shall 

implement appropriate emergency 

operations, and ensure that the personal 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8011 

protective equipment worn is 

appropriate for the hazards to be 

encountered. However, personal 

protective equipment shall meet, at a 

minimum, the criteria contained in 

§ 1910.156(k) when worn while 

performing firefighting operations 

beyond the incipient stage for any 

incident. 

(r) Appendices to this subpart— 

Hazardous Waste Operations and 

Emergency Response. Appendices A 

through E to this subpart serve as nonmandatory guidelines to assist 

employees and employers in complying 

with the appropriate requirements of 

this section. However, paragraph (g) of 

this section makes mandatory in certain 

circumstances the use of Level A and 

Level B PPE protection set forth in the 

appendices. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend newly redesignated 

appendix B to subpart H by revising Part 

B.IV to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart H of Part 1910— 

General Description and Discussion of 

the Levels of Protection and Protective 

Gear 

* * * * * 

Part B * * * 

IV. Level D—Level D protection should be 

used when: 

1. The atmosphere contains no known 

hazard; and 

2. Work functions preclude splashes, 

immersion, or the potential for unexpected 

inhalation of or contact with hazardous 

levels of any chemicals. 

Note: As stated before, combinations of 

personal protective equipment other than 

those described for Levels A, B, C, and D 

protection may be more appropriate and may 

be used to provide the proper level of 

protection. 

As an aid in selecting suitable chemical 

protective clothing, it should be noted that 

the NFPA has developed standards on 

chemical protective clothing. The standards 

that have been adopted include: 

NFPA 1990, Standard on Protective 

Ensembles for Hazardous Materials and 

CBRN Operations, [2022 ed]. (as incorporated 

by reference, see § 1910.6). 

This standard applies documentation and 

performance requirements to the 

manufacture of chemical protective suits. 

Chemical protective suits meeting these 

requirements are labelled as compliant with 

the appropriate standard. It is recommended 

that chemical protective suits that meet these 

standards be used. 

Appendix C to Subpart H [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend newly redesignated 

appendix C to subpart H by: 

■ a. In section 2., removing the text 

‘‘appendix D’’ and adding in its place 

the text ‘‘appendix D to this subpart’’; 

and 

■ b. In section 5., removing the text 

‘‘appendix B’’ and adding in its place 

the text ‘‘appendix B to this subpart’’. 

Appendix E to Subpart H [Amended] 

■ 7. Amend newly redesignated 

appendix E to subpart H by: 

■ a. In paragraph B.1.(m), removing the 

text ‘‘appendices to 29 CFR 1910.120’’ 

and adding, in its place, the text 

‘‘appendices to this subpart’’; and 

■ b. In section 5., removing the text 

‘‘appendix B’’ and adding, in its place, 

the text ‘‘appendix B to this subpart’’. 

Subpart I—Personal Protective 

Equipment 

■ 8. The authority citation for subpart I 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 

Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 

8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 

35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 

3–2000 (65 FR 50017), 5–2002 (67 FR 65008 

preview citation details), 5–2007 (72 FR 

31160), 4–2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1–2012 (77 

FR 3912), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 

1911. 

■ 9. Amend § 1910.134 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b), removing the 

definition for ‘‘Interior structural 

firefighting’’; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (g)(4); and 

■ c. Removing Notes 1 and 2 to 

paragraph (g). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 1910.134 Respiratory protection. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(4) Procedures for interior structural 

firefighting. (Refer to § 1910.156) 

* * * * * 

Subpart L—Fire Protection 

■ 10. The authority citation for subpart 

L continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 

(41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 

FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR 

50017), 5–2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5–2007 (72 

FR 31160), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 

1911. 

■ 11. Amend § 1910.155 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1910.155 Scope, application and 

definitions applicable to this subpart. 

(a) Scope. This subpart contains 

requirements for Workplace Emergency 

Response Employers and Emergency 

Service Organizations (as defined in 

§ 1910.156), and all portable and fixed 

fire suppression equipment, fire 

detection systems, and fire or employee 

alarm systems installed to meet the fire 

protection requirements of this part. 

* * * * * 

(c) Definitions applicable to this 

subpart— 

Aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) 

means a fluorinated surfactant with a 

foam stabilizer which is diluted with 

water to act as a temporary barrier to 

exclude air from mixing with the fuel 

vapor by developing an aqueous film on 

the fuel surface of some hydrocarbons 

which is capable of suppressing the 

generation of fuel vapors. 

Approved means acceptable to the 

Assistant Secretary under the following 

criteria: 

(i) If it is accepted, or certified, or 

listed, or labeled or otherwise 

determined to be safe by a nationally 

recognized testing laboratory; or 

(ii) With respect to an installation or 

equipment of a kind which no 

nationally recognized testing laboratory 

accepts, certifies, lists, labels, or 

determines to be safe, if it is inspected 

or tested by another Federal agency and 

found in compliance with the 

provisions of the applicable National 

Fire Protection Association Fire Code; 

or 

(iii) With respect to custom-made 

equipment or related installations 

which are designed, fabricated for, and 

intended for use by its manufacturer on 

the basis of test data which the 

employer keeps and makes available for 

inspection to the Assistant Secretary. 

(iv) For the purposes of paragraph 

(c)(3) of this section: 

(A) Equipment is listed if it is of a 

kind mentioned in a list which is 

published by a nationally recognized 

testing laboratory which makes periodic 

inspections of the production of such 

equipment and which states that such 

equipment meets nationally recognized 

standards or has been tested and found 

safe for use in a specified manner; 

(B) Equipment is labeled if there is 

attached to it a label, symbol, or other 

identifying mark of a nationally 

recognized testing laboratory which 

makes periodic inspections of the 

production of such equipment, and 

whose labeling indicates compliance 

with nationally recognized standards or 

tests to determine safe use in a specified 

manner; 

(C) Equipment is accepted if it has 

been inspected and found by a 

nationally recognized testing laboratory 

to conform to specified plans or to 

procedures of applicable codes; and 

(D) Equipment is certified if it has 

been tested and found by a nationally 

recognized testing laboratory to meet 

nationally recognized standards or to be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
8012 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

safe for use in a specified manner or is 

of a kind whose production is 

periodically inspected by a nationally 

recognized testing laboratory, and if it 

bears a label, tag, or other record of 

certification. 

(E) Refer to § 1910.7 for definition of 

nationally recognized testing laboratory. 

Assistant Secretary means the 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health or 

designee. 

Automatic fire detection device means 

a device designed to automatically 

detect the presence of fire by heat, 

flame, light, smoke or other products of 

combustion. 

Carbon dioxide means a colorless, 

odorless, electrically nonconductive 

inert gas (chemical formula CO2) that is 

a medium for extinguishing fires by 

reducing the concentration of oxygen or 

fuel vapor in the air to the point where 

combustion is impossible. 

Class A fire means a fire involving 

ordinary combustible materials such as 

paper, wood, cloth, and some rubber 

and plastic materials. 

Class B fire means a fire involving 

flammable or combustible liquids, 

flammable gases, greases and similar 

materials, and some rubber and plastic 

materials. 

Class C fire means a fire involving 

energized electrical equipment where 

safety to the employee requires the use 

of electrically nonconductive 

extinguishing media. 

Class D fire means a fire involving 

combustible metals such as magnesium, 

titanium, zirconium, sodium, lithium 

and potassium. 

Class K fire means a fire in a cooking 

appliance involving animal oils, 

vegetable oils, or fats. 

Clean agent means an extinguishing 

agent that is odorless, colorless, 

electrically non-conducive, and leaves 

no residue. 

Dry chemical means an extinguishing 

agent composed of very small particles 

of chemicals such as, but not limited to, 

sodium bicarbonate, potassium 

bicarbonate, urea-based potassium 

bicarbonate, potassium chloride, or 

monoammonium phosphate 

supplemented by special treatment to 

provide resistance to packing and 

moisture absorption (caking) as well as 

to provide proper flow capabilities. Dry 

chemical does not include dry powders. 

Dry powder means a compound used 

to extinguish or control Class D fires. 

Education means the process of 

imparting knowledge or skill through 

systematic instruction. It does not 

require formal classroom instruction. 

Extinguisher classification means the 

letter classification given an 

extinguisher to designate the class or 

classes of fire on which an extinguisher 

will be effective. 

Extinguisher rating means the 

numerical rating given to an 

extinguisher which indicates the 

extinguishing potential of the unit based 

on standardized tests developed by 

Underwriters’ Laboratories, Inc. 

Fixed extinguishing system means a 

permanently installed system that either 

extinguishes or controls a fire at the 

location of the system. 

Foam means a stable aggregation of 

small bubbles which flow freely over a 

burning liquid surface and form a 

coherent blanket which seals 

combustible vapors and thereby 

extinguishes the fire. 

Gaseous agent is a fire extinguishing 

agent which is in the gaseous state at 

normal room temperature and pressure. 

It has low viscosity, can expand or 

contract with changes in pressure and 

temperature, and has the ability to 

diffuse readily and to distribute itself 

uniformly throughout an enclosure. 

Halogenated agent means a liquified 

gas extinguishing agent that chemically 

interrupts the combustion reaction 

between the fuel and oxygen to 

extinguish fires. 

Halon 1211 means a colorless, faintly 

sweet smelling, electrically 

nonconductive liquefied gas (chemical 

formula CBrC1F2) which is a medium 

for extinguishing fires by inhibiting the 

chemical chain reaction of fuel and 

oxygen. It is also known as 

bromochlorodifluoromethane. 

Halon 1301 means a colorless, 

odorless, electrically nonconductive gas 

(chemical formula CBrF3) which is a 

medium for extinguishing fires by 

inhibiting the chemical chain reaction 

of fuel and oxygen. It is also known as 

bromotrifluoromethane. 

Incipient stage fire means a fire which 

is in the initial or beginning stage and 

which can be controlled or extinguished 

by portable fire extinguishers, Class II 

standpipe or small hose systems 

without the need for protective clothing 

or breathing apparatus. 

Inspection means a visual check of 

fire protection systems and equipment 

to ensure that they are in place, charged, 

and ready for use in the event of a fire. 

Interior structural firefighting means 

the physical activity of fire suppression, 

rescue or both, inside of buildings or 

enclosed structures which are involved 

in a fire situation beyond the incipient 

stage. 

Local application system means a 

fixed fire suppression system which has 

a supply of extinguishing agent, with 

nozzles arranged to automatically 

discharge extinguishing agent directly 

on the burning material to extinguish or 

control a fire. 

Maintenance means the performance 

of services on fire protection equipment 

and systems to assure that they will 

perform as expected in the event of a 

fire. Maintenance differs from 

inspection in that maintenance requires 

the checking of internal fittings, devices 

and agent supplies. 

Multipurpose dry chemical means a 

dry chemical which is approved for use 

on Class A, Class B and Class C fires. 

Pre-discharge employee alarm means 

an alarm which will sound at a set time 

prior to actual discharge of an 

extinguishing system so that employees 

may evacuate the discharge area prior to 

system discharge. 

Sprinkler alarm means an approved 

device installed so that any waterflow 

from a sprinkler system equal to or 

greater than that from single automatic 

sprinkler will result in an audible alarm 

signal on the premises. 

Sprinkler system means a system of 

piping designed in accordance with fire 

protection engineering standards and 

installed to control or extinguish fires. 

The system includes an adequate and 

reliable water supply, and a network of 

specially sized piping and sprinklers 

which are interconnected. The system 

also includes a control valve and a 

device for actuating an alarm when the 

system is in operation. 

Standpipe systems. (i) Class I 

standpipe system means a 21/2′′ (6.3 

cm) hose connection for use by fire 

departments and those trained in 

handling heavy fire streams. 

(ii) Class II standpipe system means a 

11/2′′ (3.8 cm) hose system which 

provides a means for the control or 

extinguishment of incipient stage fires. 

(iii) Class III standpipe system means 

a combined system of hose which is for 

the use of employees trained in the use 

of hose operations and which is capable 

of furnishing effective water discharge 

during the more advanced stages of fire 

(beyond the incipient stage) in the 

interior of workplaces. Hose outlets are 

available for both 11/2′′ (3.8 cm) and 21/ 

2′′ (6.3 cm) hose. 

(iv) Small hose system means a 

system of hose ranging in diameter from 

5/8′′ (1.6 cm up to 11/2′′ (3.8 cm) which 

is for the use of employees and which 

provides a means for the control and 

extinguishment of incipient stage fires. 

Training means the process of making 

proficient through instruction and 

hands-on practice in the operation of 

equipment, including respiratory 

protection equipment, that is expected 

to be used and in the performance of 

assigned duties. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8013 

Total flooding system means a fixed 

suppression system which is arranged to 

automatically discharge a 

predetermined concentration of agent 

into an enclosed space for the purpose 

of fire extinguishment or control. 

Wet chemical means an aqueous 

solution of organic or inorganic salts, or 

a combination thereof, that forms an 

extinguishing agent. 

Wetting agent means a concentrate 

mixed with water that reduces the 

surface tension of the water which 

increases its ability to spread and 

penetrate, thus extending the efficiency 

of the watering extinguishing fires. 

■ 12. Revise § 1910.156 to read as 

follows: 

§ 1910.156 Emergency response. 

(a) Scope. (1) This section applies to: 

(i) Employers that have a workplace 

emergency response team, as defined in 

paragraph (b) of this section. The 

employees on the team, as a collateral 

duty to their regular daily work 

assignments, respond to emergency 

incidents to provide service such as 

firefighting, emergency medical service, 

and technical search and rescue. For the 

purposes of this section, this type of 

employer is called a Workplace 

Emergency Response Employer (WERE), 

the team is called a Workplace 

Emergency Response Team (WERT), and 

the employees assigned to the team are 

called team members; and 

(ii) Employers that are emergency 

service organizations as defined in 

paragraph (b) of this section, that 

provide one or more of the following 

emergency response services as a 

primary function; or the employees 

perform the emergency service(s) as a 

primary duty for the employer: 

firefighting, emergency medical service, 

and technical search and rescue. For the 

purposes of this section, this type of 

employer is called an Emergency 

Service Organization (ESO), and the 

employees are called responders. 

(2) This section does not apply to: 

(i) Employers performing disaster site 

clean-up or recovery duties following 

natural disasters such as earthquakes, 

hurricanes, tornados, and floods; and 

human-made disasters such as 

explosions and transportation incidents. 

(ii) Activities covered by § 1910.120 

(Hazardous Waste Operations and 

Emergency Response (HAZWOPER)), 

§ 1910.146 (Permit-Required Confined 

Spaces in General Industry). 

(b) Definitions. 

Combustion product means the heat, 

volatized liquids and solids, particulate 

matter (microscopic and small 

unburned particles), ash, and toxic gases 

released as a result of combustion (fire). 

Community means a state, region, 

municipality or portion thereof, such as 

a village, town, township, borough, city, 

county, or parish. 

Community vulnerability assessment 

means the process of identifying, 

quantifying, and prioritizing the 

potential and known vulnerabilities of 

the overall community that may require 

emergency service from the ESO, 

including the community’s structures, 

inhabitants, infrastructure, 

organizations, and hazardous conditions 

or processes. The assessment is 

intended to include both human-created 

vulnerabilities and natural disasters. 

Control zone means an area at an 

incident that is designated based upon 

safety and the degree of hazard to team 

members and responders. A control 

zone may be designated as cold, warm, 

hot, or no-entry. 

(i) Cold zone means the area 

immediately outside the boundary of 

the established warm zone where team 

members and responders are not 

exposed to dangerous areas or 

contaminants from fire, toxic chemicals, 

or carcinogens. The cold zone typically 

contains the command post and such 

other support functions as are deemed 

necessary to control the incident. It may 

also be known as the support zone. 

(ii) Warm zone means the area 

immediately outside the boundary of 

the hot zone that serves to transition to 

the cold zone. The warm zone typically 

is where team member and responder 

and equipment decontamination and 

hot zone support take place. It may also 

be known as the contamination 

reduction zone. 

(iii) Hot zone means the area 

including and immediately surrounding 

the physical location of a fire or other 

hazardous area, having a boundary that 

extends far enough away to protect team 

members and responders outside the hot 

zone from being directly exposed to the 

hazards present in the hot zone. 

(iv) No-entry zone means an area 

designated to keep out team members 

and responders, due to the presence of 

dangers such as imminent hazard(s), 

potential collapse, or the need to 

preserve the scene. 

Emergency Medical Service (EMS) 

means the provision of patient 

treatment, such as basic life support, 

advanced life support, and other prehospital procedures, and may include 

transportation to a medical facility. It 

does not include the provision of first 

aid within the scope of § 1910.151. 

Emergency Response Program (ERP) 

means a written program, developed by 

the WERE or ESO, to ensure that the 

WERE or ESO is prepared to safely 

respond to and operate at emergency 

incidents and non-emergency service 

situations, and to provide for the 

occupational safety and health of team 

members and responders. The ERP shall 

be composed of at least the information 

and documents required in this section. 

Emergency Service Organization 

(ESO) means an organization that 

provides one or more of the following 

emergency response services as a 

primary function: firefighting, 

emergency medical service, and 

technical search and rescue; or the 

employees perform the emergency 

service(s) as a primary duty for the 

employer. Personnel (called responders 

in this section), as part of their regularly 

assigned duties, respond to emergency 

incidents to provide service such as 

firefighting, emergency medical service, 

and technical search and rescue. It does 

not include organizations solely 

engaged in law enforcement, crime 

prevention, facility security, or similar 

activities. 

Facility means a structure or 

structures and surrounding locations, 

including industrial, commercial, 

mercantile, warehouse, power plant 

(utility), assembly occupancy, 

institutional or similar occupancy; and 

public and private as well as for-profit, 

not-for-profit, and governmental 

location, campus, compound, base, or 

similar establishment. 

Facility vulnerability assessment 

means the process of identifying, 

quantifying, and prioritizing the 

potential and known vulnerabilities of 

the entire facility, including the 

facility’s structures and surrounding 

locations, inhabitants, infrastructure, 

and hazardous conditions or processes. 

Gross decontamination means the 

initial phase of the decontamination 

process, during which the surface 

contaminants and foreign materials on a 

team member’s or responder’s skin, 

clothing, personal protective equipment 

(PPE), and equipment are removed or 

significantly reduced, such as by 

brushing, rinsing, wiping, use of 

detergents, and use of personal hygiene 

wipes. 

Immediately dangerous to life or 

health (IDLH) means an atmosphere that 

poses an immediate threat to life, would 

cause irreversible adverse health effects, 

or would impair an individual’s ability 

to escape from a dangerous atmosphere. 

Incident means any situation to which 

a WERE or an ESO responds to perform 

services, such as firefighting; emergency 

medical service; technical search and 

rescue; other situations such as 

responses to downed electrical power 

lines, and outside propane or natural 

gas leaks. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
8014 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Incident action plan (IAP) means the 

incident objectives, strategy, and tactics 

necessary to manage an incident. The 

IAP is developed at the incident site and 

provides essential information for 

actionable incident organization, work 

assignments, management of resources, 

risk management, and team member or 

responder safety when operating at an 

incident. 

Incident Commander (IC) means the 

team member or responder who fulfills 

the incident command function of the 

Incident Management System; who is 

responsible for the overall management 

of an incident and the safety of all team 

members or responders involved in the 

response; and who is responsible for all 

incident activities, including the 

development of strategies and tactics, 

the direction and control of all team 

members and responders at the 

incident, and the ordering and release of 

resources. 

Incident Management System (IMS) 

means a system used for managing and 

directing incident scene operations and 

activities. It includes establishing 

functions for managing incidents, 

describes the roles and responsibilities 

to be assumed by team members and 

responders, and standard operating 

procedures to be utilized. Incident 

command is a function of the IMS. 

Incident Safety Officer (ISO) means 

the team member or responder at an 

incident scene who is responsible for 

monitoring and assessing safety hazards 

and unsafe situations and for 

developing measures for ensuring team 

member and responder safety. 

Incident scene means the physical 

location where activities related to a 

specific incident are conducted. It 

includes nearby areas that are subject to 

incident-related hazards or used by the 

WERE or ESO for team members, 

responders, and equipment. 

Living area means the room(s) or 

area(s) of the ESO’s facility where 

responders may cook, eat, relax, read, 

study, watch television, complete 

paperwork or data entry, and similar 

daily living activities. Examples include 

day room, kitchen/dining area, 

classroom, office, and TV room. Areas 

such as maintenance shops, utility and 

storage areas, and interior vehicle 

parking bays are not considered living 

areas. 

Mayday means an emergency 

procedure term used to signal that a 

team member or responder is in distress, 

needs assistance and is unable to selfrescue; it is typically used when safety 

or life is in jeopardy. 

Mutual aid agreement means a 

written agreement or contract between 

WEREs and ESOs, or between ESOs, 

that they will assist one another upon 

request by furnishing personnel, 

equipment, materials, expertise, or other 

associated services as specified. 

Non-emergency service means a 

situation where a WERT or ESO is 

called upon to provide a service that 

does not involve an immediate threat to 

health, life, or property, such as 

assisting law enforcement with 

equipment and scene lighting; removing 

people from a stuck elevator; resetting 

an accidentally activated fire alarm 

system; or assisting a mobilitychallenged person downstairs during an 

elevator outage. 

Personal protective equipment (PPE) 

means the clothing and equipment worn 

and utilized to prevent or minimize 

exposure to serious workplace injuries 

and illnesses. Examples include gloves, 

safety glasses and goggles, safety shoes 

and boots, earplugs and muffs, hard hats 

and helmets, respirators and SelfContained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), 

protective coats and pants, hoods, 

coveralls, vests, and full body suits. 

Physician or other licensed health 

care professional (PLHCP) means an 

individual whose legally permitted 

scope of practice (i.e., license, 

registration, or certification) allows the 

individual to independently provide, or 

be delegated the responsibility to 

provide, some or all of the health care 

services required by paragraph (g) of 

this section. 

Pre-incident plan (PIP) means a 

written document developed by 

gathering general and detailed data 

about a particular facility or other 

location that is used by team members 

or responders in effectively and safely 

managing an emergency incident there. 

It is developed before an incident occurs 

and is intended to be used during an 

incident to aid in the safe mitigation of 

hazards. 

Rapid intervention crew (RIC) means 

a group of team members or responders 

dedicated solely to serve as a stand-by 

rescue team available for the immediate 

search and rescue of any missing, 

trapped, injured or unaccounted-for 

team member(s) or responder(s). 

Responder means an employee or 

member of an ESO who is, or will be, 

assigned to perform duties at emergency 

incidents. 

Size-up means the observation and 

evaluation of the influencing factors at 

an incident used to determine the scope 

of the incident and to develop strategic 

goals and tactical objectives. 

Skilled support worker (SSW) means 

an employee of an employer whose 

primary function is not as an emergency 

service provider and who is skilled in 

certain tasks or disciplines that can 

support a WERT or ESO. Examples 

include operators of heavy-duty 

wrecker/rotator tow vehicles, 

mechanized earth moving or digging 

equipment, or crane and hoisting 

equipment; utility service employees 

(gas, water, electricity); public works 

employees; and technical experts. 

Sleeping area means designated 

room(s) or area(s) of the ESO’s facility 

where responders sleep in beds. 

Standard operating procedure (SOP) 

means a written directive that 

establishes a course of action or 

administrative method to be followed 

routinely and explains what is expected 

of team members or responders in 

performing the prescribed action, duty, 

or task. 

Team member means an employee of 

the WERE whose primary job duties are 

typically associated with the business of 

the WERE (e.g., production, 

manufacturing, processing, 

warehousing, administration) and who 

is assigned to the WERT to perform 

certain designated duties at emergency 

incidents at the WERE facility. 

Emergency response is a collateral duty 

for team members. 

Technical search and rescue/ 

Technical rescue means a type of 

service that utilizes special knowledge 

and skills and specialized equipment to 

resolve complex search and rescue 

situations, such as rope, vehicle/ 

machinery, structural collapse, trench, 

and technical water rescue. 

Unified command (UC) means a 

structure for managing an incident that 

allows for all agencies with 

jurisdictional responsibility for an 

incident, either geographical or 

functional, to manage an incident by 

establishing a common set of incident 

objectives and strategies. 

Workplace Emergency Response 

Employer (WERE) means an employer 

who has a workplace emergency 

response team; and whose employees on 

the team, as a collateral duty to their 

regular daily work assignments, respond 

to emergency incidents to provide 

service such as firefighting, emergency 

medical service, and technical search 

and rescue. 

Workplace Emergency Response 

Team (WERT) means a group of WERE 

employees (known as team members) 

who, as a collateral duty, prepare for 

and respond to emergency incidents in 

the WERE workplace. 

(c) Organization of the WERT, and 

Establishment of the ERP and 

Emergency Service(s) Capability. (1) The 

WERE shall develop and implement a 

written ERP that provides protection for 

each of its employees (team members) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8015 

who is designated to provide services at 

an emergency incident. 

(2) In the ERP, the WERE shall 

establish the existence of a WERT; 

describe the basic organizational 

structure of the WERT; and include how 

the WERE is addressing the provisions 

in the following paragraphs of this 

section: (c), (e) through (i), (k) through 

(m), and (o) through (s). The ERP must 

include an up-to-date copy of all written 

plans and procedures, except for PIPs, 

required by this section. 

(3) The WERE shall conduct a facility 

vulnerability assessment for the purpose 

of establishing its emergency response 

capabilities and determining its ability 

to match the facility’s vulnerabilities 

with available resources. 

(4) The assessment required by 

paragraph (c)(3) of this section shall 

identify structures, facilities, and other 

locations where PIPs are needed. 

(i) The assessment shall identify each 

vacant structure and location at the 

facility that is unsafe for team members 

to enter due to conditions such as 

previous fire damage, damage from 

natural disasters, and deterioration due 

to age and lack of upkeep. 

(ii) The WERE shall provide a means 

for notifying team members of the 

vacant structures and locations 

identified in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this 

section. 

(5) The WERE shall specify the 

resources needed, including personnel 

and equipment, for mitigation of 

emergency incidents identified in the 

facility vulnerability assessment. 

(6) The WERE shall establish, and 

document in the ERP, the type(s) and 

level(s) of emergency service(s) that it 

intends for the WERT to perform. 

(7) The WERE shall establish, and 

document in the ERP, tiers of team 

members based on responsibilities, 

qualifications, and capabilities for the 

type(s) and level(s) of service it intends 

to perform. 

Examples of tiers include, but are not 

limited to: 

(i) For firefighting types of operations, 

tiers such as: trainee, incipient stage, 

advanced exterior, interior structural, 

both advanced exterior and interior 

firefighter, support. 

(ii) For technical search and rescue 

types of operations, tiers such as: 

trainee, awareness, operation, 

technician, support. 

(iii) For emergency medical types of 

services, tiers such as: trainee, 

Emergency Medical Responder (EMR), 

Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), 

advanced EMT (EMT–A), paramedic, 

nurse, physician, support. 

(8) The WERE shall define, and 

document in the ERP, the service(s) 

needed, based on paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section, that the WERE is unable to 

provide, and develop mutual aid 

agreements with other WEREs and ESOs 

as necessary, or contract with an ESO(s), 

to ensure adequate resources are 

available to safely mitigate foreseeable 

incidents. 

(9) Previous editions of ERP 

documents required by this section shall 

be maintained by the WERE for a 

minimum of five (5) years. 

(10) The WERE shall notify team 

members of any changes to the ERP and 

make the ERP and documents 

maintained in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(9) of this section available 

for inspection by team members, their 

representatives, and OSHA 

representatives. 

(d) ESO Establishment of ERP and 

Emergency Service(s) Capability. (1) The 

ESO shall develop and implement a 

written ERP that provides protection for 

each of its responders who is designated 

to operate at an emergency incident. 

(2) In the ERP the ESO shall include 

how the ESO is addressing the 

provisions in the following paragraphs 

of this section: (d) through (h), (j) 

through (l), and (n) through (s). The ERP 

must include an up-to-date copy of all 

written plans and procedures, except for 

PIPs, required by this section. 

(3) The ESO shall perform a 

community or facility vulnerability 

assessment of hazards within the 

primary response area where the 

emergency service(s) it provides is/are 

expected to be performed. 

Note 1 to paragraph (d)(3): An ESO whose 

primary response area is a community would 

assess the community it serves. An ESO 

whose primary response area is, for example: 

a manufacturing facility, a military facility, a 

research and development facility, or similar 

occupational facility or workplace, would 

assess that facility. 

(4) The assessment required by 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall 

identify structures, facilities, and other 

locations where PIPs are needed. 

(i) The assessment shall identify each 

vacant structure and location that is 

unsafe for responders to enter due to 

conditions such as previous fire 

damage, damage from natural disasters, 

and deterioration due to age and lack of 

upkeep. 

(ii) The ESO shall provide a means for 

notifying responders of the vacant 

structures and locations identified in 

paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section. 

(5) All facilities within the ESO’s 

service area that are subject to reporting 

requirements under 40 CFR part 355 

pursuant to the Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Act 

(EPCRA) (also referred to as the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 42 

U.S.C. 11001 et seq.), shall be included 

in the ESO’s community vulnerability 

assessment. 

(6) The ESO shall evaluate the 

resources needed, including personnel 

and equipment, for mitigation of 

emergency incidents identified in the 

community or facility vulnerability 

assessment, and establish in the ERP the 

type(s) and level(s) of emergency 

service(s) it intends to perform. 

(7) In the ERP the ESO shall establish 

tiers of responders based on 

responsibilities, qualifications and 

capabilities for the type(s) and level(s) 

of service it intends to perform. 

Examples of tiers include, but are not 

limited to: 

(i) For firefighting types of operations, 

tiers such as: trainee, basic firefighter, 

advanced firefighter, officer/crew 

leader, command officer, pilot, support. 

(ii) For technical search and rescue 

types of operations, tiers such as: 

awareness, operation, technician, 

support. 

(iii) For emergency medical types of 

services, tiers such as: EMR, EMT, 

advanced EMT (EMT–A), paramedic, 

nurse, pilot, support. 

(8) In the ERP the ESO shall define 

the service(s) needed, based on 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section, that the 

ESO is unable to provide, and develop 

mutual aid agreements with WEREs or 

other ESOs as necessary to ensure 

adequate resources are available to 

safely mitigate foreseeable incidents. 

(9) Previous editions of 

documentation required by this section 

shall be maintained by the ESO for a 

minimum of five (5) years. 

(10) The ESO shall notify responders 

of any changes to the ERP and make the 

ERP and documents maintained in 

accordance with paragraph (d)(9) of this 

section available for inspection by 

responders, their representatives, and 

OSHA representatives. 

(e) Team Member and Responder 

Participation. Each WERE and ESO 

shall establish and implement a process 

to: 

(1) Involve team members and 

responders in developing and updating 

the ERP; 

(2) Involve team members and 

responders in implementing and 

evaluating the ERP, and in the review 

and change process; 

(3) Request input from team members 

and responders regarding modifications 

to the WERE’s or ESO’s own 

facility(ies); 

(4) Involve team members and 

responders in walkaround inspections, 

inspections conducted in response to a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
8016 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

health or safety concern raised, and 

incident investigations at the WERE and 

ESO’s own facility(ies); 

(5) Encourage team members and 

responders to report safety and health 

concerns, such as hazards, injuries, 

illnesses, near misses, and deficiencies 

in the ERP; 

(6) Respond to reports made in 

accordance with paragraph (e)(5) of this 

section in a reasonable period; and 

(7) Post procedures for reporting 

safety and health concerns under 

paragraph (e)(5) of this section in a 

conspicuous place or places where 

notices to team members and 

responders are customarily posted. 

(f) WERT and ESO Risk Management 

Plan. (1) The WERE and the ESO shall 

develop and implement a written 

comprehensive risk management plan 

(RMP), based on the type and level of 

service(s) established in paragraphs (c) 

and (d) of this section, that: 

(i) Covers, at a minimum, risks to 

team members and responders 

associated with the following: 

(A) Activities at WERE and ESO 

facilities; 

(B) Training; 

(C) Vehicle operations; 

(D) Operations at emergency 

incidents; 

(E) Non-emergency services and 

activities; and 

(F) Activities that lead to exposure to 

combustion products, carcinogens, and 

other incident-related health hazards. 

(ii) Includes, at a minimum, the 

following components with respect to 

hazards faced by team members and 

responders operating at incidents: 

(A) Identification of actual and 

reasonably anticipated hazards; 

(B) Evaluation of the likelihood of 

occurrence of a given hazard and the 

severity of its potential consequences; 

(C) Establishment of priorities for 

action based upon a particular hazard’s 

severity and likelihood of occurrence; 

(D) Risk control techniques for 

elimination or mitigation of potential 

hazards, and a plan for implementation 

of the most effective solutions; and 

(E) A plan for post-incident 

evaluation of effectiveness of risk 

control techniques. 

(iii) Includes, at a minimum, the 

following: 

(A) A personal protective equipment 

(PPE) hazard assessment that meets the 

requirements of § 1910.132(d); 

(B) A respiratory protection program 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 1910.134; 

(C) An infection control program that 

identifies and limits or prevents the 

exposure of team members and 

responders to infectious and contagious 

diseases; and 

(D) A bloodborne pathogens exposure 

control plan that meets the requirements 

of § 1910.1030. 

(2) The RMP shall include a policy for 

extraordinary situations when a team 

member or responder, after making a 

risk assessment determination based on 

the team member or responder’s training 

and experience, is permitted to attempt 

to rescue a person in imminent peril, 

potentially without benefit of, for 

example, PPE or equipment. 

(3) The WERE and ESO shall review 

the RMP when review is required by 

paragraph (r) or (s) of this section, but 

not less than annually, and update it as 

needed. 

(g) Medical and Physical 

Requirements—(1) WERE and ESO 

medical requirements. (i) The WERE 

and ESO shall establish the minimum 

medical requirements for team members 

and responders, based on the type and 

level of service(s) established in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. 

The medical requirements will differ 

based on the tiers of team members and 

responders in accordance with 

paragraphs (c)(7) and (d)(7) of this 

section, except that team members and 

responders in a support tier are 

excluded from the requirements in 

paragraph (g) of this section; and 

(ii) The WERE and ESO shall 

maintain a confidential record for each 

team member and responder that 

records, at a minimum, duty restrictions 

based on medical evaluations; 

occupational illnesses and injuries; and 

exposures to combustion products, 

known or suspected toxic products, 

contagious diseases, and dangerous 

substances. 

(iii) The WERE and ESO shall ensure 

that medical records are maintained and 

made available in accordance with 

§ 1910.1020, Access to employee 

exposure and medical records. 

(iv) Medical evaluations, tests, and 

laboratory analysis required to comply 

with paragraph (g) of this section shall 

be provided at no cost to team members 

or responders and without loss of pay. 

(2) WERE and ESO medical 

evaluation and surveillance. (i) The 

WERE and ESO shall establish a 

medical evaluation program for team 

members and responders, except for 

those in a support tier, based on the 

type and level of service(s), and tiers of 

team members and responders 

established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section; 

(ii) Prior to performing emergency 

response duties, each team member and 

responder shall be medically evaluated 

to determine fitness for duty by a 

physician or other licensed health care 

professional (PLHCP), in accordance 

with paragraphs (g)(2)(iii) through (vi) of 

this section, and each responder shall 

also be evaluated in accordance with 

paragraph (g)(3) of this section. The 

WERE and ESO must make medical 

surveillance required by this paragraph 

(g) available at no cost to the team 

members and responders, and at a 

reasonable time and place, to each team 

member and responder; 

(iii) All medical evaluations must 

include the following to detect any 

physical or medical condition(s) that 

could adversely affect the team member 

or responder’s ability to safely perform 

the essential job functions: 

(A) Medical and work history with 

emphasis on symptoms of cardiac and 

respiratory disease; 

(B) Physical examination with 

emphasis on the cardiac, respiratory, 

and musculoskeletal systems; 

(C) Spirometry; and 

(D) An assessment of heart disease 

risk including blood pressure, 

cholesterol levels, and relevant heart 

disease risk factors. 

(iv) Additional screening shall be 

provided as deemed appropriate by the 

PLHCP; 

(v) The medical evaluation shall be 

repeated biennially (every two years) 

thereafter unless the PLHCP deems 

more frequent evaluations are necessary 

with the exception of spirometry which 

will be repeated when deemed 

appropriate by the PLHC; and 

(vi) The WERE and ESO shall 

establish protocols regarding the length 

of time that absence from duty due to 

injury or illness requires a team member 

or responder to have a return-to-duty 

medical evaluation by a PLHCP. 

(3) Additional ESO surveillance. (i) 

For ESOs whose responders are exposed 

to combustion products, medical 

surveillance shall include a component 

based on the frequency and intensity of 

expected exposure to combustion 

products established in the risk 

management plan in paragraph (f) of 

this section. The surveillance 

component shall include: 

(A) For responders who are, or based 

on experience may be, exposed to 

combustion products 15 times or more 

a year without regard to the use of 

respiratory protection, medical 

surveillance shall be provided, at least 

as effective as the occupational medical 

examination criteria specified in a 

national consensus standard, such as 

NFPA 1582 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 1910.6); and 

(B) For responders who, either 

immediately or subsequently, exhibit 

signs or symptoms which may have 

resulted from exposure to combustion 

products, medical consultation shall be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8017 

provided and, if medically indicated, 

ongoing medical surveillance. 

(ii) The ESO shall document each 

exposure to combustion products for 

each responder, for the purpose of 

determining the need for the medical 

surveillance specified in paragraph 

(g)(3)(i)(A) of this section, and for 

inclusion in the responder’s 

confidential record, as required in 

paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(4) WERE and ESO behavioral health 

and wellness. (i) The WERE and ESO 

shall provide, at no cost to the team 

member or responder, behavioral health 

and wellness resources for team 

members and responders, or identify 

where such resources are available at no 

cost in the community; 

(ii) The resources shall include, at 

minimum: 

(A) Diagnostic assessment; 

(B) Short-term counseling; 

(C) Crisis intervention; and 

(D) Referral services for behavioral 

health and personal problems that could 

affect the team member or responder’s 

performance of emergency response 

duties. 

(iii) The WERE and ESO shall inform 

each team member and responder, on a 

regular and recurring basis, and 

following each potentially traumatic 

event, of the resources available; and 

(iv) The WERE and ESO shall ensure 

that if there are any records of team 

member or responder use of these 

resources in possession of the WERE or 

ESO, the records are kept confidential. 

(5) WERE and ESO fitness for duty. 

The WERE and ESO shall establish and 

implement a process to evaluate and reevaluate annually the ability of team 

members and responders to perform 

essential job functions, based on the 

type and level of service(s), and tiers of 

team members and responders 

established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section. 

(6) ESO health and fitness program. 

(i) The ESO shall establish and 

implement a health and fitness program 

that enables responders to develop and 

maintain a level of physical fitness that 

allows them to safely perform their 

assigned functions, based on the type 

and level of service(s), and tiers of 

responders established in paragraph (d) 

of this section; and 

(ii) The program shall include the 

following components: 

(A) An individual designated to 

oversee the responder health and fitness 

program; 

(B) A periodic (not to exceed 3 years) 

fitness assessment for all responders; 

(C) Exercise training that is available 

to all responders during working hours; 

and 

(D) Education and counseling 

regarding health promotion for all 

responders. 

(h) Training—(1) Minimum training. 

The WERE and the ESO shall: 

(i) Establish the minimum knowledge 

and skills required for each team 

member and responder to participate 

safely in emergency operations, based 

on the type and level of service(s), and 

tiers of team members and responders 

established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section; 

(ii) Provide initial training, ongoing 

training, refresher training, and 

professional development for each team 

member and responder commensurate 

with the safe performance of expected 

duties and functions based on the tiers 

of team members and responders and 

the type and level of service(s) 

established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section; 

(iii) Restrict the activities of each new 

team member and responder during 

emergency operations until the team 

member or responder has demonstrated 

to a trainer/instructor, supervisor/team 

leader/officer, the skills and abilities to 

safely complete the tasks expected; 

(iv) Ensure each instructor/trainer has 

the knowledge, skills, and abilities to 

teach the subject matter being 

presented. 

(v) Ensure training is provided in a 

language and at a literacy level that 

team members and responders 

understand, and that the training 

provides an opportunity for interactive 

questions and answers with the 

instructor/trainer. 

(vi) Provide each team member and 

responder with training on the RMP 

established in paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section; 

(vii) Train each team member and 

responder about the safety and health 

policy established in paragraph (f)(2) of 

this section and the Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOPs) established in 

paragraph (q) of this section; 

(viii) Provide each team member and 

responder with training that covers the 

selection, use, limitations, maintenance, 

and retirement criteria for all PPE used 

by the team member or responder based 

on the type and level of service(s), and 

tiers of team members and responders 

established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section; 

(ix) Train each team member and 

responder in the selection, proper use, 

and limitations of portable fire 

extinguishers provided for employee 

use in the WERE or ESO’s facility and 

vehicles, in accordance with § 1910.157; 

(x) Train each team member and 

responder in the incident management 

system (IMS) established in paragraph 

(o) of this section, in order to operate 

safely within the scope of the IMS. 

(xi) Ensure training for each team 

member and responder engaged in 

emergency activities includes 

procedures for the safe exit and 

accountability of team members and 

responders during orderly evacuations, 

rapid evacuations, equipment failure, or 

other dangerous situations and events. 

(xii) Ensure each team member and 

responder is trained to meet the 

requirements of § 1910.120(q)(6)(i) 

(HAZWOPER), First Responder 

Awareness Level. 

(xiii) Ensure each team member and 

responder who is not trained and 

authorized to enter specific hazardous 

locations (e.g., confined spaces, 

trenches, and moving water) is trained 

to an awareness level (similar to the 

requirements in § 1910.120(q)(6)(i)) to 

recognize such locations and their 

hazards and avoid entry; 

(xiv) Train each team member and 

responder to perform cardiopulmonary 

resuscitation (CPR) and use an 

automatic external defibrillator (AED). 

(2) Vocational training. The WERE 

and ESO shall: 

(i) Ensure each WERT team member 

who is designated to perform 

firefighting duties is trained to safely 

perform the duties assigned, to a level 

that is at least equivalent to the job 

performance requirements of NFPA 

1081(incorporated by reference see 

§ 1910.6); 

(ii) Ensure each ESO responder who 

is designated to perform interior 

structural firefighting duties is trained 

to safely perform the duties assigned, to 

a level that is at least equivalent to the 

job performance requirements of NFPA 

1001 (incorporated by reference see 

§ 1910.6); 

(iii) Ensure each team member and 

responder who is designated to perform 

interior structural firefighting duties is 

trained to safely perform search and 

rescue operational capabilities at least 

equivalent to the job performance 

requirements of NFPA 1407 

(incorporated by reference see § 1910.6); 

(iv) Ensure each team member and 

responder who is a vehicle operator is 

trained to safely operate the vehicle at 

a level that is at least equivalent to the 

job performance requirements of NFPA 

1002 (incorporated by reference see 

§ 1910.6), or similar Emergency Vehicle 

Operator qualifications based on the 

type of vehicle the team member or 

responder operates; 

(v) Ensure each team member and 

responder who is a manager/supervisor 

(crew leader/officer) is trained to safely 

perform at a level that is at least 

equivalent to the job performance 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
8018 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

requirements of NFPA 1021 

(incorporated by reference see § 1910.6); 

(vi) Ensure each wildland ESO 

responder is trained to safely perform at 

a level that is at least equivalent to the 

job performance requirements of NFPA 

1140 (incorporated by reference see 

§ 1910.6), or has a ‘‘Red Card’’ in 

accordance with the National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group—Interagency Fire 

Qualifications; 

(vii) Ensure each technical search and 

rescue team member and responder who 

is designated to perform a technical 

rescue is trained to safely perform at a 

level that is at least equivalent to the 

technician capabilities of the job 

performance requirements of NFPA 

1006 (incorporated by reference see 

§ 1910.6); 

(viii) Ensure each firefighting team 

member and responder who operates in 

a marine environment is trained to 

safely perform at a level that is at least 

equivalent to the job performance 

requirements of NFPA 1005 

(incorporated by reference see § 1910.6); 

and 

(ix) Ensure, based on the type and 

level of service(s) established in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 

that each EMS team member and 

responder possesses the relevant 

professional qualification, certification, 

or license required in the WERE’s and 

ESO’s jurisdiction. 

(3) Proficiency. The WERE and ESO 

shall provide annual skills checks to 

ensure each team member and 

responder maintains proficiency in the 

skills and knowledge commensurate 

with the safe performance of expected 

duties and functions, based on the type 

and level of service(s) established in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. 

(i) WERE Facility Preparedness. (1) 

The WERE shall: 

(i) Ensure the facility complies with 

subpart E of this part; 

(ii) Provide facilities for the 

decontamination, disinfection, cleaning, 

and storage of PPE and equipment. If 

PPE is to be decontaminated off-site, the 

WERE must provide for bagging and 

storage of contaminated PPE while it is 

still at the WERE facility; and 

(iii) Ensure that fire detection, 

suppression, and alarm systems, and 

occupant notification systems are 

installed, tested, and maintained in 

accordance with manufacturer’s 

instructions and subpart L of this part. 

(2) Ensure that, for prompt firefighting 

support from mutual aid WERTs and 

ESOs, fire hose connections and fittings 

are compatible with, or adapters are 

provided for, firefighting infrastructure 

such as fire hydrants, sprinkler system 

and standpipe system inlet connections, 

and fire hose valves (FHV); and 

(3) Identify the location of each FHV, 

except for those clearly visible on 

standpipes in enclosed stairways, in a 

manner suitable to the location, such as 

with a sign, painted wall, or painted 

column, to ensure prompt access to 

FHVs. 

(j) ESO Facility Preparedness—(1) 

General requirements. The ESO shall: 

(i) Ensure each ESO facility complies 

with subpart E of this part; 

(ii) Provide facilities for the 

decontamination, disinfection, cleaning, 

and storage of PPE and equipment. If 

PPE is to be decontaminated off-site, the 

ESO must provide for bagging and 

storage of contaminated PPE while it is 

still at the ESO facility; 

(iii) For fire poles, slides and chutes; 

(A) Ensure each responder using a fire 

pole maintains contact with the pole 

using all four extremities and does not 

hold anything other than the pole; 

(B) Ensure each fire pole has a landing 

cushion that is at least 30 inches in 

diameter, has a contrasting color to the 

surrounding floor, and has impact 

absorption to reduce the likelihood and 

severity of injury; 

(C) Ensure each floor hole with a fire 

pole, chute, or slide that provides rapid 

access to a lower level is secured or 

protected in accordance with subpart D 

of this part to prevent unintended falls 

through the floor hole; and 

(iv) Ensure fire detection, 

suppression, and alarm systems, and 

occupant notification systems are 

installed, tested, and maintained in 

accordance with manufacturer’s 

instructions and subpart L of this part. 

(2) Sleeping and living areas. The 

ESO shall: 

(i) Ensure interconnected hard-wired 

smoke alarms with battery back-up are 

installed inside each sleeping area, and 

outside in the immediate vicinity of 

each opening (door) to a sleeping area, 

and on all levels of the facility, 

including basements; 

(ii) Ensure each new ESO facility with 

one or more sleeping area(s) (approved 

for construction, as determined by 

building permit, after [2 years after date 

of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register]) is protected 

throughout by an automatic sprinkler 

system, installed in accordance with 

§ 1910.159; 

(iii) Ensure each sleeping and living 

area has functioning carbon monoxide 

alarms installed; 

(iv) Prevent responder exposure to, 

and contamination of sleeping and 

living areas by, vehicle exhaust 

emissions; and 

(v) Ensure that contaminated PPE is 

not worn or stored in sleeping and 

living areas. 

(k) Equipment and PPE—(1) 

Equipment needed for emergency 

operations. The WERE and the ESO 

shall: 

(i) Provide or ensure access to the 

equipment needed to train for and safely 

perform emergency services, at no cost 

to team members and responders, based 

on the type and level of service(s) 

established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section; 

(ii) Ensure newly purchased or 

acquired equipment is safe for use in the 

manner the WERE or ESO intends to use 

it; 

(iii) Inspect, maintain, functionally 

test, and service test equipment as 

follows: 

(A) At least annually; 

(B) In accordance with manufacturer’s 

instructions and industry practices; and 

(C) As necessary to ensure equipment 

is in safe working order; and 

(iv) Immediately remove from service 

equipment found to be defective or in 

an unserviceable condition. 

(2) Personal protective equipment 

(PPE). The WERE and the ESO shall: 

(i) Conduct a PPE hazard assessment 

for the selection of the protective 

ensemble, ensemble elements, and other 

protective equipment for team members 

and responders, based on the type and 

level of service(s) established in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section; 

(ii) Provide, at no cost to team 

members and responders, protective 

ensembles, ensemble elements, and 

protective equipment designed to 

provide protection from the hazards to 

which the team members and 

responders are likely to be exposed and 

suitable for the task the team members 

and responders are expected to perform, 

as determined by the PPE hazard 

assessment in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of this 

section; 

(iii) Ensure PPE complies with 

subpart I of this part; 

(iv) Ensure existing PPE complies 

with the requirements of the edition of 

the respective standard, listed in 

paragraph (k)(2)(v) of this section, that 

was current when it was manufactured; 

(v) Ensure new PPE complies with the 

appropriate following standard(s): 

(A) NFPA 1951 (incorporated by 

reference see § 1910.6); 

(B) NFPA 1952 (incorporated by 

reference see § 1910.6); 

(C) NFPA 1953 (incorporated by 

reference see § 1910.6); 

(D) NFPA 1971 (incorporated by 

reference see § 1910.6); 

(E) NFPA 1977, (incorporated by 

reference see § 1910.6); 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8019 

(F) NFPA 1981 (incorporated by 

reference see § 1910.6); 

(G) NFPA 1982 (incorporated by 

reference see § 1910.6); 

(H) NFPA 1984 (incorporated by 

reference see § 1910.6); 

(I) NFPA 1986 (incorporated by 

reference see § 1910.6); 

(J) NFPA 1987 (incorporated by 

reference see § 1910.6); 

(K) NFPA 1990 (incorporated by 

reference see § 1910.6); 

(L) NFPA 1999 (incorporated by 

reference see § 1910.6); and 

(M) ANSI/ISEA 207–2011 

(incorporated by reference see § 1910.6). 

(vi) Ensure air-purifying respirators 

are not used in IDLH atmospheres and 

are only used for those contaminants 

that NIOSH certifies them against; 

(vii) Ensure each team member and 

responder properly uses or wears the 

protective ensemble, ensemble 

elements, and protective equipment 

whenever the team member or 

responder is exposed, or potentially 

exposed, to the hazards for which it is 

provided; 

(viii) Ensure protective ensembles, 

ensemble elements, and protective 

equipment are decontaminated, cleaned, 

cared for, inspected and maintained in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions; 

(ix) Immediately remove from service 

any defective or damaged protective 

ensembles, ensemble elements, or 

protective equipment; 

(x) Ensure, when a WERE or an ESO 

permits a team member or responder to 

provide their own protective ensemble, 

ensemble element, or other protective 

equipment for personal use, the 

requirements of paragraphs (k)(2)(iii) 

through (ix) of this section are met; 

(3) Protection from contaminants. To 

the extent feasible, the WERE and ESO 

shall: 

(i) Ensure contaminated PPE and nonPPE equipment undergo gross 

decontamination or are separately 

contained before leaving the incident 

scene; and 

(ii) Ensure team members and 

responders are not exposed to 

contaminated PPE and non-PPE 

equipment in the passenger 

compartment(s) of vehicles. 

(l) Vehicle preparedness and 

operation. (1) To ensure vehicles are 

prepared for safe use by team members 

and responders, the WERE and the ESO 

shall: 

(i) Inspect, maintain, and repair each 

WERE and ESO provided vehicle 

operated by team members and 

responders, as specified by the 

manufacturer; 

(ii) Immediately remove from service 

any vehicle with safety-related 

deficiencies; (iii) Ensure each riding 

position is provided with a seat and 

functioning seat belt or vehicle safety 

harness that is designed to 

accommodate a team member or 

responder with and without heavy 

clothing, unless the vehicle is designed, 

built, and intended for use without seat 

belts or vehicle safety harnesses; 

(iv) Inspect, maintain, and service test 

aerial devices on vehicles, to ensure 

they are safe for use, as specified by the 

manufacturer, or to a standard at least 

equivalent to NFPA 1910 (incorporated 

by reference see § 1910.6); and 

(v) Inspect, maintain, and service test 

vehicle-mounted water pumps as 

specified by the manufacturer, or to a 

standard at least equivalent to NFPA 

1910 (incorporated by reference see 

§ 1910.6). 

(2) To ensure vehicles are operated in 

a manner that will keep team members 

and responders safe, the WERE and ESO 

shall: 

(i) Ensure each vehicle is operated by 

a team member or responder who has 

successfully completed a training 

program commensurate with the type of 

vehicle the team member or responder 

will operate, or by a trainee operator 

who is under the supervision of a 

qualified operator; 

(ii) Ensure each vehicle is operated in 

accordance with SOP developed in 

paragraph (q)(2)(iv) of this section; 

(iii) Ensure the team member or 

responder operating the vehicle does 

not move the vehicle until all team 

members or responders in or on the 

vehicle are seated and secured with seat 

belts or vehicle safety harnesses in 

approved riding positions, other than as 

specifically excepted in paragraph 

(l)(1)(iii) of this section or as provided 

in paragraph (l)(2)(viii) of this section; 

(iv) Ensure team members and 

responders remain seated and secured 

any time that the vehicle is in motion, 

except when standing as permitted in 

paragraphs (l)(2)(vii) and (viii) of this 

section, and that seat belts and vehicle 

safety harnesses are not released or 

loosened for any purpose while the 

vehicle is in motion, including the 

donning or doffing of PPE; 

(v) Ensure team members and 

responders actively performing 

necessary emergency medical care while 

the vehicle is in motion are secured to 

the vehicle by a seat belt, or by a vehicle 

safety harness designed for occupant 

restraint, to the extent consistent with 

the effective provision of such 

emergency medical care; 

(vi) Establish and implement a 

procedure for operator training on 

vehicles with tiller steering that ensures 

when the instructor and trainee are both 

located at the tiller position, they are 

adequately secured to the vehicle 

whenever it is in motion; 

(vii) Provide a vehicle safety harness 

designed for occupant restraint to secure 

the team member or responder in a 

designated stand-up position during 

pump-and-roll operations; 

(viii) Establish and implement 

policies and procedures that provide 

alternative means for ensuring the safety 

of team members and responders when 

the WERE or ESO determines it is not 

feasible for each team member, 

responder, or person to be belted in a 

seat, such as when reloading long lays 

of hose, standing as honor guards during 

a funeral procession, transporting 

people acting as holiday figures or other 

characters or mascots, parades, and for 

vehicles without seat belts; 

(ix) Establish and implement policies 

and procedures for operating vehicles 

not directly under the control of the 

WERE or ESO (i.e., privately owned/ 

leased/operated by team members and 

responders), when the WERE or ESO 

authorizes team members or responders 

to respond directly to emergency 

incident scenes or to WERE or ESO 

facilities when alerted for an emergency 

incident response; and 

(x) Ensure, where equipment or 

respiratory protection are carried within 

enclosed seating areas of vehicles, each 

is secured either by a positive 

mechanical means of holding the item 

in its stowed position or by placement 

in a compartment with an effective 

latching closure. 

(m) WERE Pre-Incident Planning. (1) 

The WERE shall develop PIPs for 

locations within the facility where team 

members may be called to provide 

service, based on the facility 

vulnerability assessment and the type(s) 

and level(s) of service(s) established in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(2) PIPs shall include locations of 

unusual hazards that team members 

may encounter, such as storage and use 

of flammable liquids and gases, 

explosives, toxic and biological agents, 

radioactive sources, water-reactive 

substances, permit-required confined 

spaces, and hazardous processes. 

(3) PIPs shall include locations of fire 

pumps, fire hose valves, control valves, 

control panels, and other equipment for 

fire suppression systems, fire detection 

and alarm systems, and smoke control 

and evacuation systems. 

(4) The WERE shall ensure that the 

most recent versions of PIPs are 

provided to the WERT and are 

accessible and available to team 

members operating at emergency 

incidents. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
8020 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(5) To the extent feasible, PIPs shall 

include actions to be taken by team 

members if the scope of the incident is 

beyond the capability of the WERT. 

(6) PIPs shall be reviewed annually 

and when conditions or hazards change 

at the facility. They shall be updated as 

needed. 

(n) ESO Pre-Incident Planning. (1) 

The ESO shall determine the locations 

and facilities where responders may be 

called to provide service that need a 

PIP, based on the community or facility 

vulnerability assessment and the type(s) 

and level(s) of service(s) established in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(2) The ESO shall develop PIPs for 

facilities, locations, and infrastructure 

where emergency incidents may occur. 

(3) The ESO shall prepare a PIP for 

each facility within the ESO’s primary 

response area that is subject to reporting 

requirements under 40 CFR part 355 

pursuant to the Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Act 

(EPCRA) (also referred to as the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 42 

U.S.C. 11001 et seq.). 

(4) The ESO shall ensure facility 

personnel consulted are knowledgeable 

about the facility’s use, contents, 

processes, hazards, and occupants. 

Note 2 to paragraph (n)(4): The ESO 

should develop and implement a written 

policy to protect proprietary business 

information. 

(5) The ESO shall ensure the 

responder(s) responsible for PIP 

preparation are knowledgeable in 

identifying the information to be 

collected and included in the PIP. 

(6) The PIP shall have a level of detail 

commensurate with the facility’s 

complexity and hazards. 

(7) PIPs shall include actions to be 

taken by responders if the scope of the 

incident is beyond the capability of the 

ESO. 

(8) The ESO shall ensure that the most 

recent versions of PIPs are disseminated 

as needed and are accessible and 

available to responders operating at 

emergency incidents. 

(9) PIPs shall be reviewed annually 

and updated as needed. 

(o) Incident Management System 

Development. (1) The WERE and the 

ESO shall develop and implement an 

Incident Management System (IMS) to 

manage all emergency incidents, based 

on: 

(i) The type and level of service(s) 

established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section; 

(ii) The facility or community 

vulnerability assessment conducted in 

accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) 

of this section; and 

(iii) The PIPs developed in 

accordance with paragraphs (m) and (n) 

of this section. 

(2) To provide structure and 

coordination to the management of 

emergency incident operations, for the 

safety and health of team members and 

responders involved in those activities, 

the IMS shall: 

(i) Include flexible and scalable 

components that are adaptable to any 

situation; 

Note 3 to paragraph (o)(2)(i): 

Standardization of the IMS, such as provided 

in the National Incident Management System 

and the National Response Framework, 

developed by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, an agency of the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security; is 

essential to the successful coordination and 

function of WERTs and ESOs in incident 

response. 

(ii) Ensure that, in the absence of a 

dedicated Incident Safety Officer (ISO), 

the Incident Commander (IC) assesses 

the incident scene for existing and 

potential hazards and oversees incident 

safety; 

(iii) Include a means for team 

members and responders to notify the 

ISO, IC or Unified Command (UC) of 

unsafe conditions and unsafe actions on 

the incident scene; and 

(iv) Consist of collaborative 

components that provide the basis for 

clear communication and effective 

operations. 

(3) The WERE and the ESO shall 

designate the responsibilities of the IC. 

The IC shall be responsible for, at least: 

(i) Front-line management of the 

incident; 

(ii) Overall incident safety; 

(iii) Tactical planning and execution; 

and 

(iv) Determining whether additional 

assistance is needed and relaying 

requests for internal resources, mutual 

aid, and skilled support assistance 

through the communications or 

emergency operations center, as 

appropriate. 

(4) The WERE and ESO shall ensure 

the IC has the training and authority to 

perform the assigned duties. 

(p) Emergency incident operations— 

(1) Incident command and 

management. The WERE and the ESO 

shall ensure that: 

(i) The IMS, developed in accordance 

with paragraph (o) of this section, is 

utilized at each emergency incident; 

(ii) Each emergency incident has an IC 

or a UC; 

(iii) The task of overseeing incident 

safety is addressed, or an ISO is 

assigned and designated to monitor and 

assess the incident scene for safety 

hazards and unsafe situations and 

develop measures for ensuring team 

member and responder safety; 

(iv) If an incident escalates in size and 

complexity, the IC divides the incident 

into strategic or tactical-level 

management components; 

(v) A UC structure is utilized on 

incidents where the complexity requires 

a shared responsibility among two or 

more WEREs, ESOs, or other agencies; 

and 

(vi) The IC(s), team members, and 

responders are rotated or replaced 

during complex or extended operations, 

as determined by the WERE or ESO. 

(2) Incident Commander. The WERE 

and the ESO shall ensure that: 

(i) A team member or responder is 

assigned as the IC; 

(ii) The identity of the IC and the 

location of command post are 

communicated to other team members 

or responders who are on the incident 

scene or responding to it; 

(iii) The IC conducts a comprehensive 

and ongoing size-up of the incident 

scene that places life safety as the 

highest priority; 

(iv) The IC conducts a risk assessment 

based on the size-up before actively 

engaging the incident; 

(v) The IC coordinates and directs all 

activities for the duration of the 

incident; and 

(vi) The IC develops an Incident 

Action Plan (IAP) that prioritizes life 

safety for each incident, updates it as 

needed during the incident, and utilizes 

the information contained in the PIP. 

(3) Control zones. The WERE and the 

ESO shall ensure that: 

(i) Control zones are established at 

every emergency incident to identify the 

level of risk to team members and 

responders and the appropriate 

protective measures needed, including 

PPE; 

(ii) The perimeters of the control 

zones are designated by the IC; 

(iii) Any changes to the perimeters 

during the incident are communicated 

to all team members and responders on 

the scene; 

(iv) Control zones are established as 

follows: 

(A) Designated as no-entry, hot, warm, 

or cold; 

(B) Marked in a conspicuous manner, 

with colored tape, signage, or other 

appropriate means, unless such marking 

is not possible; and 

(C) Communicated to all team 

members and responders attending the 

incident before the team member or 

responder is assigned to a control zone; 

(v) Only team members and 

responders with an assigned task are 

permitted in the hot zone; 

(vi) Where a no-entry zone is 

designated, team members and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8021 

responders are prohibited from entering 

the zone; and 

(vii) The designation of appropriate 

protective measures, including PPE, is 

commensurate with the hazards in the 

zone the team member and responder 

will be operating in, and that each team 

member and responder appropriately 

uses the protective measures for that 

zone. 

(4) On-scene safety and health 

measures. The WERE and the ESO shall: 

(i) Identify minimum staffing 

requirements needed to ensure 

incidents are mitigated safely and 

effectively; 

(ii) Ensure operations are limited to 

those that can be safely performed by 

the team members and responders 

available on the scene; 

(iii) Ensure that at least four team 

members or responders are assembled 

before operations are initiated in an 

IDLH atmosphere in a structure or 

enclosed area, unless upon arrival at an 

emergency scene, the initial team 

member(s) or responder(s) find an 

imminent life-threatening situation 

where immediate action could prevent 

the loss of life or serious injury, in 

which case such action is permitted 

with fewer than four team members or 

responders present; 

(iv) Ensure at least two team members 

or responders enter the structure or 

enclosed area with an IDLH atmosphere 

as a team and remain in visual or voice 

contact with one another at all times, 

unless there is insufficient space for 

more than one team member or 

responder, such as for example, in a 

confined space or collapsed structure; 

(v) Ensure that outside the structure 

or enclosed area with the IDLH 

atmosphere, a minimum of two team 

members or responders are present to 

provide assistance to, or rescue of, the 

team operating in the IDLH atmosphere. 

One of the two team members or 

responders located outside the IDLH 

atmosphere may be assigned to an 

additional role, such as IC, so long as 

this team member or responder is able 

to perform assistance or rescue activities 

without jeopardizing the safety or health 

of other team members or responders 

operating at the incident; 

(vi) Ensure each team member and 

responder in the IDLH atmosphere uses 

positive-pressure SCBA or a suppliedair respirator in accordance with the 

respiratory protection program specified 

in paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(B) of this section; 

(vii) Ensure each supplied-air 

respirator used in an IDLH atmosphere 

is equipped with a NIOSH-certified 

emergency escape air cylinder and 

pressure-demand facepiece; and 

(viii) Ensure each team member and 

responder uses NIOSH-certified 

respiratory protection during post–fire 

extinguishment activities, such as 

overhaul and investigation. 

(5) Communication. The WERE and 

the ESO shall: 

(i) Ensure, to the extent feasible, 

adequate dispatch and monitoring of onscene radio transmissions by an 

emergency communications and 

dispatch center; 

(ii) Ensure effective communication 

capability between team members or 

responders and the IC; and 

(iii) Ensure that communications 

equipment allows mutual aid team 

members and responders to 

communicate with the IC and other 

team members and responders. 

(6) The WERE and the ESO shall 

ensure the personnel accountability 

system established in paragraph 

(q)(2)(vii) of this section is utilized at 

each emergency incident. 

(7) The WERE and the ESO shall 

implement a Rapid Intervention Crew 

(RIC) at each structural fire incident 

where team members or responders are 

operating in an IDLH atmosphere, in 

accordance with the SOP established in 

paragraph (q)(2)(viii) of this section. 

(8) The WERE and the ESO shall 

implement the medical monitoring and 

rehabilitation procedures, as needed, in 

accordance with the SOP established in 

paragraph (q)(2)(ix) of this section. 

(9) The WERE and the ESO shall 

implement the traffic safety procedures, 

as needed, in accordance with the SOP 

established in paragraph (q)(2)(x) of this 

section. 

(10) Use of skilled support workers 

(SSW). Prior to participation by SSWs at 

an emergency incident, the WERE or the 

ESO shall ensure that: 

(i) Each SSW has and utilizes PPE 

appropriate to the task(s) to be 

performed; 

(ii) An initial briefing is provided to 

each SSW that includes, at a minimum, 

what hazards are involved, what safety 

precautions are to be taken, and what 

duties are to be performed by the SSW; 

(iii) An effective means of 

communication between the IC and 

each SSW is provided; 

(iv) Where appropriate, a team 

member or responder is designated and 

escorts the SSW at the emergency 

incident scene; and 

(v) All other appropriate on-scene 

safety and health precautions provided 

to team members and responders are 

used to ensure the safety and health of 

each SSW. 

(q) Standard Operating Procedures. 

(1) The WERE and the ESO shall 

develop and implement SOPs for 

emergency events that the WERE or ESO 

is reasonably likely to encounter, based 

on the type(s) and level(s) of service(s) 

established in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section, and the community or 

facility vulnerability assessment 

developed in accordance with 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. 

(2) The WERE and ESO shall establish 

SOPs that: 

(i) Describe the actions to be taken by 

team members and responders in 

situations involving unusual hazards, 

such as downed power lines, natural gas 

or propane leaks, flammable liquid 

spills, and bomb threats; 

(ii) Address how team members and 

responders are to operate at incidents 

that are beyond the capability of the 

WERT or ESO, as specified in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section; 

(iii) Provide a systematic approach to 

team member and responder protection 

from contaminants, and for 

decontamination of team members, 

responders, PPE, and equipment, 

including at a minimum: 

(A) Proper techniques for doffing 

(removing) contaminated PPE; 

(B) On-scene gross decontamination, 

and decontamination at the WERE’s or 

ESO’s facility, of PPE, equipment, and 

team members and responders; 

(C) Encouraging team members and 

responders to shower with soap and 

water, as soon as reasonably practicable, 

and change into clean clothing; and 

(D) Protecting team members and 

responders from contaminated PPE after 

an incident; 

(iv) Meet the requirements for vehicle 

operation found in paragraph (l)(2) of 

this section and include procedures for 

safely driving vehicles during both nonemergency travel and emergency 

response; criteria for actions to be taken 

at stop signs and signal lights; vehicle 

speed; crossing intersections; driving on 

the opposite side of the road with 

oncoming traffic; use of cross-over/ 

turnaround areas on divided highways; 

traversing railroad grade crossings; the 

use of emergency warning devices; and 

the backing of vehicles. For backing 

vehicles with obstructed views to the 

rear, the SOP shall require use of at least 

one of the following: a spotter, a 360- 

degree walk-around of the vehicle by 

the operator, or a back-up camera; 

(v) Provide for the use of standard 

protocols and terminology for radio 

communication at all types of incidents; 

(vi) Establish procedures for operating 

at structures and locations that are 

identified as, or determined to be 

vacant, structurally unsound, or 

otherwise unsafe for entry by team 

members and responders; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
8022 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(vii) Establish a system for 

maintaining personnel accountability 

and coordinating evacuation of all team 

members and responders operating at an 

incident that includes periodic 

accountability checks and reports; 

procedures for orderly evacuation of 

team members and responders; and 

procedures for rapid evacuation of team 

members and responders from 

escalating situations, such as rapid 

growth of fire, impending collapse, 

impending explosion; in case of PPE or 

equipment failure; and acts of active 

violence against team members and 

responders; 

(viii) Establish procedures for Mayday 

situations, such as when a team member 

or responder becomes lost, trapped, 

injured, or ill, including the use of the 

radio’s emergency alert button and 

implementation of a RIC for immediate 

deployment to search and rescue any 

missing, disoriented, injured, ill, lost, 

unaccounted-for, or trapped team 

members or responders. The SOP shall 

specify the minimum number of team 

members or responders needed for the 

RIC, based on the size and complexity 

of potential incidents; and a standard 

list of equipment to be assembled by the 

RIC, for foreseeable incidents; and 

(ix) Establish a systematic approach to 

provide team members and responders 

with medical monitoring and 

rehabilitation at emergency incidents as 

needed, such as rest, medical treatment, 

rehydration (fluid replacement), active 

warming or cooling, and protection from 

extreme elements. 

(3) The ESO shall establish SOPs that: 

(i) Establish procedures for protecting 

responders from vehicular traffic while 

operating at an emergency incident on, 

or adjacent to, roadways and highways, 

including setting up a safe work zone 

beginning with proper placement of the 

first arriving ESO vehicle and 

subsequent ESO vehicles, a means of 

coordination with law enforcement and 

mutual aid WERTs or ESOs, and use of 

safety vests that have high visibility and 

are reflective; 

(ii) Establish procedures for operating 

at incident scenes that are primarily 

related to law enforcement, such as 

crime scenes, active shooters, and civil 

disturbances; and 

(iii) Establish procedures for incidents 

where responders are called upon to 

conduct non-emergency services, 

including a requirement for responders 

to present themselves in uniforms, PPE, 

vests, or other apparel that clearly 

identifies them as fire/rescue/EMS 

responders and a requirement that 

responders wear ballistic vests, if 

provided by the ESO and appropriate 

for the type of incident. 

(r) Post-Incident Analysis. (1) The 

WERE or ESO shall promptly conduct a 

Post-Incident Analysis (PIA) to 

determine the effectiveness of the 

WERT’s or ESO’s response to an 

incident after a significant event such as 

a large-scale incident; a significant nearmiss incident; a team member, 

responder or SSW injury or illness 

requiring off-scene treatment; or a team 

member, responder, or SSW fatality. 

(2) The PIA shall include, but not be 

limited to, a review and evaluation of 

the RMP, IMS, PIPs, SOPs, and IAPs for 

accuracy and adequacy. 

(3) The WERE or ESO shall promptly 

identify and implement changes needed 

to the RMP, IMS, PIPs, IAPs, and SOPs 

based on the lessons learned as a result 

of the PIA; or if the changes cannot be 

promptly implemented, the WERE or 

ESO shall develop a written timeline for 

implementation as soon as feasible. 

(s) Program Evaluation. (1) The WERE 

and ESO shall evaluate the adequacy 

and effectiveness of the ERP at least 

annually, and upon discovering 

deficiencies, and document when the 

evaluation(s) are conducted. 

(2) Review of the ERP shall include 

determining whether the ERP was 

implemented as designed and whether 

modifications are necessary to correct 

deficiencies. 

(3) The WERE and ESO shall identify 

and implement recommended changes 

to the ERP, with written timelines for 

correcting identified deficiencies as 

soon as feasible, based on the review of 

the program, giving priority to 

recommendations that most 

significantly affect team member or 

responder safety and health. 

(t) Severability. Each section of this 

standard, and each provision within 

those sections, is separate and severable 

from the other sections and provisions. 

If any provision of this standard is held 

to be invalid or unenforceable on its 

face, or as applied to any person, entity, 

or circumstance, or is stayed or 

enjoined, that provision shall be 

construed so as to continue to give the 

maximum effect to the provision 

permitted by law, unless such holding 

shall be one of utter invalidity or 

unenforceability, in which event the 

provision shall be severable from this 

standard and shall not affect the 

remainder of the standard. 

■ 13. Amend § 1910.157 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (c)(3); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (d)(7); and 

■ c. In paragraph (f): 

■ i. Redesignating Table L–1 as table 1 

to paragraph (f)(3); 

■ ii. Removing the text ‘‘Table L–1’’ 

wherever it appears, and adding in its 

place the text ‘‘table 1 to paragraph 

(f)(3)’’; and 

■ iii. Revising newly redesignated table 

1 to paragraph (f)(3). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 1910.157 Portable fire extinguishers. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) The employer shall not provide or 

make available in the workplace 

portable fire extinguishers using carbon 

tetrachloride, chlorobromomethane, or 

methyl bromide extinguishing agents. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(7) The employer shall distribute 

portable fire extinguishers of Class K 

extinguishing agent for use by 

employees so that the travel distance 

from the Class K hazard area to any 

extinguisher is 30 feet (9.15 m) or less. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(3) 

Type of extinguisher Test interval 

(years) 

AFFF (aqueous film-forming 

foam) ................................. 5 

Carbon dioxide ..................... 5 

Dry chemical with stainless 

steel shells ........................ 5 

FFFP (film-forming 

fluoroprotein foam ............. 5 

Wet chemical ........................ 5 

Wetting agent ....................... 5 

Stored-pressure water, water 

mist, loaded steam, and/or 

antifreeze .......................... 5 

Dry chemical, cartridge- or 

cylinder-operated, with 

mild steel shells ................ 12 

Dry chemical, stored-pressure, with mild steel shells, 

brazed brass shells, or 

aluminum shells ................ 12 

Dry powder, stored-pressure, 

cartridge- or cylinder-operated, with mild steel shells 12 

Halogenated agents ............. 12 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Amend § 1910.158 by adding 

paragraph (c)(2)(iii) to read as follows: 

§ 1910.158 Standpipe and hose systems. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) The employer shall ensure that 

standpipe system inlet connections and 

fittings are compatible with, or adapters 

are provided for, the fire hose couplings 

used by the fire department(s) or 

Workplace Emergency Response 

Team(s) that pump water into the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8023 

standpipe system through the 

connections or fittings. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 1910.159 by adding 

paragraph (c)(12) to read as follows: 

§ 1910.159 Automatic sprinkler systems. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(12) Inlet connections. The employer 

shall ensure that sprinkler system inlet 

connections and fittings are compatible 

with, or adapters are provided for, the 

fire hose couplings used by the fire 

department(s) or Workplace Emergency 

Response Team(s) that pump water into 

the sprinkler system through the 

connections or fittings. 

[FR Doc. 2023–28203 Filed 2–2–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2