New mandate coming in November

[hooknladder]

Well - this article addresses my first concern with this mandate -adding a layer of potentially flammable material directly to turnout gear... read on...


Website of article: https://www.rkb.us/contentdetail.cfm?content_id=200647

Federal Government Begins Mandating High-Visibility Vests for Emergency Responders

On November 24, 2008, a new federal regulation (23 CFR 634) goes into effect mandating that anyone working in the right-of-way of a federal-aid highway must be wearing high-visibility clothing that meets the requirements of ANSI / ISEA 107; 2004 edition class 2 or 3. This requirement will apply to all emergency responders.

The Code of Federal Regulations Title 23 (Highways) Part 634 was originally published in the Federal Register Vol 71, No 226, pp 67792 - 67800. The Rule itself (634.3) simply states that:

"All workers within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway who are exposed either to traffic (vehicles using the highway for purposes of travel) or to construction equipment within the work area shall wear high-visibility safety apparel."

Definitions (634.2) within Part 634 cover what is meant by "Workers" and "high-visibility safety apparel". Emergency responders are included in this definition anytime they are working "within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway" with some exceptions for law enforcement officers working on an incident involving criminal activity (see below).

"High-Visibility Safety Apparel" is defined to mean "personal protective safety clothing that is intended to provide conspicuity during both daytime and nighttime usage, and that meets the Performance Class 2 or 3 requirements of the ANSI/ISEA 107–2004".


ANSI 207, Public Safety Vests
After 23 CFR 634 was finalized, a new standard for Public Safety Vests was published as ANSI / ISEA 207; 2006 edition. Because ANSI 207 was not published until after 23 CFR 634 was finalized, the federal regulation could only reference ANSI 107.

ANSI 107 requires that class 2 garments (vests) have at least 775 square inches of high-visibility, fluorescent background material and at least 201 square inches of reflective material. While the ANSI 207 requirement for reflective material is the same (201 in2), it requires only 450 square inches of background material. Therefore, ANSI 207 vests do not meet the requirements of ANSI 107 and therefore do not currently meet the requirements of 23 CFR 634.

The DOT Federal Highway Administration’s Associate Administrator for Operations has written a letter to the Emergency Responder Safety Institute that is being circulated in discussions about this issue. (Click here to download a copy of the letter.) The letter acknowledges that they have reviewed ANSI 207 and “found this standard compatible with the ANSI/ISEA [107] Class II requirements for night-time visibility.” Those affected by 23 CFR 634 should understand that the high-visibility clothing must be worn day and night, so this statement by the FHWA does not officially validate the use of ANSI 207 vests in place of ANSI 107 where legally mandated.


Proposed Changes to the Rule
The DOT/FHWA has proposed a number of changes that will affect 23 CFR 634. Of the most immediate concern is that they propose allowing ANSI 207 vests for emergency responders. This change cannot go into effect in time for the November 24 deadline and is not likely to go into effect until the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2009. In a much more comprehensive change, the current proposals would incorporate 23 CFR 634 into the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). This would make high-visibility garments (under the proposal, either 107 or 207 certified) mandatory for anyone working on “all roads open to public travel in accordance with 23 CFR Part 655, not just Federal-aid highways.”

The proposed changes concerning 23 CFR 634 can be read by downloading a pdf document of the proposed changes for the MUTCD. The items already mentioned are:

362 (page 317) – incorporation into the MUTCD and extending high-visibility clothing mandate to all roads
375 & 376 (page 318) – allowing ANSI 207 vests for first responders and law enforcement personnel.
The proposed changes are open for public review and comment until July 31, 2008. If you would like to comment on proposed changes to the MUTCD you are encouraged to do so at www.regulations.gov. You can also mail your comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,SE., Washington, DC 20590, or fax them to (202) 493–2251. Be sure to include the docket number no matter which method you chose for submitting comments.
The docket number for the MUTCD Notice of proposed Amendments (NPA) is FHWA-2007-28977.


Exceptions for Emergency Responders
Due to "comments from State and local police, national police organizations, and State DOTs" the original publishment in the federal register includes exceptions for law enforcement officers working in potentially adversarial or confrontational roles. This includes traffic stops and searches. Officers are still required under 23 CFR 634 to wear high-visibility clothing during other times, such as "directing traffic, investigating crashes, and handling lane closures, obstructed roadways, and disasters within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway." (The language for this exception can be found in the 2nd column of page 67797 of the publication in the Federal Register Vol. 71, No 226 which can be downloaded using the link below)

Currently no such exception exists for firefighters. Some fire service personnel have expressed concern about the idea of adding a layer of potentially flammable material between their turnout gear and SCBA while battling car fires or during an extrication. Because those views were not expressed during the comment period of 23 CFR 634 no exceptions or interpretations for fire service operations were published along with the rule. Further, all fire department personnel should be aware that turnout gear alone does not meet the visibility requirement. No turnout gear currently manufactured meets the color requirement for the fluorescent background material of these high-visibility garments. Even if turnout gear could be dyed to meet the color standard when manufactured, it would no longer be compliant after the first exposure to fire, smoke, and soot. Fire departments should consider fire resistance of materials (and their limitations) as part of their criteria for selecting vests and writing department protocols and procedures.

NFPA 1901
Complicating the issue further, the National Fire Protection Association is set to release the 2009 edition of NFPA 1901: Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus. This edition (as written) will apply to all fire apparatus "contracted for on or after January 1, 2009" and will require "one traffic safety vest for each seating position, each vest to comply with ANSI/ISEA 207, Standard for High-Visibility Public Safety Vests, and have a five-point breakaway feature that includes two at the shoulders, two at the sides and one at the front." This requirement is included for each type of fire apparatus, for example see sections 5.8.3 (18), 6.7.3 (15), 7.7.3.1 (14), etc.

Although some vests can be purchased that are certified to meet the requirements of both ANSI 107 and 207, vests compliant only with ANSI 207 may not meet a strict legal interpretation of the 23 CFR 634 requirements scheduled to take effect in November. This is a potentially confusing liability issue that deserves close attention by all departments as the deadline approaches.

Summary
Part of the RKB mission is to try to keep our users informed of equipment-related issues, and we hope that this mission critical hint has accomplished that. The timing of 23 CFR 634 and ANSI / ISEA 207 was unfortunate, but the complications are being addressed by the MUTCD proposed changes. The difficulty and confusion will be in the short term, between the effective date of 23 CFR 634 on November 24th and the time the proposed changes are implemented. Every source contacted by the RKB staff has made it clear that the eventual intent is for either the ANSI 107 or 207 vests to be used. However, no one has been able to say with certainty what will happen if there is a serious injury or fatality to a responder wearing a 207-compliant vest while the unchanged 23 CFR 634 is in effect. That may be decided in court. Departments should consider getting an opinion from their counsel to assist in deciding their compliance strategy.

We hope that every department will plan now for this new requirement under 23 CFR 634, and also plan ahead with funding and training for the later changes that will likely extend the safety-vest requirements to all public roads.

[utfd701]

Word on the street around here is that OSHA and for us, MIOSHA will be watching for use of these very carefully.
A nearby department just went ahead and bought one for every member of the department. Their SOP on them was something to the effect of; the vest will be stored on your turnout coat at all times. Should you be responding to a structure fire and in a seated postion that would dictate fire attack, you will remove the vest and leave it in the cab of the truck.

[Daywalker]

make all of us wear floresent jumpsuits with white strobes flasing on the tops of our helmets and we'll still see people getting hit by motorists. Some of it is us not being carefull enough, but a lot it is stupid drivers that dont pay attention.

We can keep adding high visibilty or reflective doo-dads onto everything, but soon people just adjust and it becomes part of the "background noise".

[sc_flametamer]

Well - this article addresses my first concern with this mandate -adding a layer of potentially flammable material directly to turnout gear...

That's been a concern of mine as well. Granted, it's not a lot of flammable material....but it doesn't take much.

I doubt that any of the current materials we use in turnout gear would hold the florescent dye very well since florescent colors tend to fade faster than others, and those fabrics tend to be limited in what colors they can be dyed.
The fire service failing to step up during the public comment period and being left out of consideration is no big surprise.

A nearby department just went ahead and bought one for every member of the department. Their SOP on them was something to the effect of; the vest will be stored on your turnout coat at all times. Should you be responding to a structure fire and in a seated postion that would dictate fire attack, you will remove the vest and leave it in the cab of the truck.

That's a little overboard IMO.

Of course that will likely be the policy that my county adopts.

We can keep adding high visibilty or reflective doo-dads onto everything, but soon people just adjust and it becomes part of the "background noise".

Yep. Especially since it's going to be required for anybody working along the highway.

[utfd701]

Of course the simple solution to this problem is to just close the roadway anytime your working an incident. This would eliminate the need for addition reflective and hi-vis vests.
No Traffic = No Traffic Related Injuries

[Lucky 13]

Of course that works great if you can get away with doing so. (We can around my way, but I know there are other areas where that's not so easy).

[utfd701]

We can usually get away with it due to the fact that all of our roads out here are 2 lanes or gravel, and we dont really care if someone is delayed or has to take a short detour, not my problem.
Last year we closed a state road for some flood controll and the next day one of the HMFIC's from MDOT was on the horn raising a fuss telling the Chief he could not do that, our Chiefs reply was; "I did do it and will do it again. Now if you want me to give you a heads up next time, give me a number that I can reach you at 24/7/365 and I will be happy to call."

[jester1965]

Somebody please give these people something productive to do to keep them busy so they will stop dreaming up these things to "help" us out.

The fact that firefighting wasn't brought as a consideration so we aren't gonna worry about it at this time mentality is typical government mumbo-jumbo. I'm gonna look sweet in my newly designed breakaway vest. I hope we can find something to highlight my eyes.

Geeez.

[Daywalker]

why take them off if your position dictates fire attack? The engine/truck/rescue will be parked in the road. So for safety we should keep the vest on while dismounting the apparatus and gathering tools and equipment. Then at the front door we should take off our high visibilty vests, and neatly fold them for quick retrivel when we exit the realitive safety of the fire structure.

[cwl3gemt]

ill have to see if i can get one of the pit security vests we have to wear when doing corner worker at the track. that'll throw people off...

[ncff07]

Originally Posted by Daywalker

why take them off if your position dictates fire attack? The engine/truck/rescue will be parked in the road. So for safety we should keep the vest on while dismounting the apparatus and gathering tools and equipment. Then at the front door we should take off our high visibilty vests, and neatly fold them for quick retrivel when we exit the realitive safety of the fire structure.

did you read the first sentence in this thread? if not allow me to repost if for you....

Originally Posted by hooknladder

Well - this article addresses my first concern with this mandate -adding a layer of potentially flammable material directly to turnout gear... read on...

neatly fold them for quick retrieval when you exit? sure just hang them on them on the coat rack inside the door and pick them up when you exit. and dont forget to pack your tools neatly on the ground at the door to allow you to remove it and fold it neatly then pick your gear back up and proceed with the attack!

[94onair]

Originally Posted by Daywalker

why take them off if your position dictates fire attack? The engine/truck/rescue will be parked in the road. So for safety we should keep the vest on while dismounting the apparatus and gathering tools and equipment. Then at the front door we should take off our high visibilty vests, and neatly fold them for quick retrivel when we exit the realitive safety of the fire structure.

Haha yeah. i could definatly see something stupid like that being a SOP.

We will probably just do what we always do. wear the vests we have when we need to until somebody throws the red flag at us.

[craighyde]

i realise that there may be practicality issues for some of the smaller and or volunteer departments but what we have been using in toronto is a second apparatus as a "blocker truck".
even at that a 60 000 pound vehicle with flashing lights still does not guarantee firefighter safety. so far there have been at least two incidents in the last 12 months in my run area,where drivers have plowed into trucks due to lack of awareness. perhaps a safety vest for the apparatus is in order.
in fact current thinking within our department has crews dismounting the blocker truck as an advisable course of action. but as a firefighter if i am in the role of blocker truck i think that remaining in the truck is safest....but that is just me.
i'm curious to read any thoughts the membership may have on this.
cheers

[ncff07]

Originally Posted by craighyde

perhaps a safety vest for the apparatus is in order.

its called a chevron...

[Daywalker]

maybe we should wear them inside, people sometimes run into buildings with vehicles. What if some driver drives into the fire building while we are inside, those vests could help him avoid us.

[LdrClmr]

The problem is this, irreguardless of the amount of efforts put forth to insure OUR safety we are still sadly at the mercy of the complete and utter morons out there who have little reguard for anything but themselves, stupidity abounds at the best of times, and you add something like an emergency scene into the equasion and all bets are off.

The issue at hand is trying to educate the "complete and utter morons" out there into practicing common sense, curtousy and take the much needed and very necessary precautions required to prevent them from adding to an already chaotic situation, however in reflection of all the practices we have implimented in recent years to safeguard ourselves, I have come upon but one solution being as whatever it is we utelize currently shows its weaknesses, and that would be to issue a high powered rifle to every apparatus operator in every department world wide, and when those same "complete and utter morons" show up on our scenes...

WE THIN THE BLOODY HERD!!!!!!!!!!!

[FloridaFireLt.]

I'm sure I've posted a similar response to a similar thread somewhere else but what the heck, I'll say it again... Our standard operating procedure (Unwritten but adhered to by all) is to completely block all traffic in all directions with fire apparatus until the incidet is completely mitigated. With rare exceptions we have never had a problem w/ L.E.O. cooperation.
On a side note....if people won't stop, or at least slow to a reasonable speed, for a rather large red vehicle with all kinds of flashing lights on them, I kinda doubt a little neon green or orange vest is going to stop them. Of course it might aid the others trying to find your broken body in the brush on the side of the road.
Kinda like putting a band-aid on an amputation.

[utfd701]

The powers that be seem to have the right train of thought, offering us better protection from the public at large. However, as with any bureaucracy they have a serious deficiency in implementing practical solutions. One dam-near sure fire way to help prevent traffic related injuries is training, training, training. Train on establishing “safe” work zones, spotting apparatus in fend off position or even using the blocker approach mentioned by Craig. You also need to train with your law enforcement agency; they can be of great benefit when working on a roadway. People seem to be oblivious to the big red flash thing, but for some reason can spot a cop a mile out. Shutting down the road is a privilege and convenience that we enjoy in rural areas, but we do not abuse nearly enough and is certainly not a regular option to those with larger roadways in more congested areas. What we do abuse is a strong working relationship with our police agencies. They help us; we help them. It’s not that hard.
In the mean time instead of the ramrod approach used by ‘safety’ agencies, perhaps this should be placed squarely in the hands of lawmakers. Here in Michigan they have set a pretty high standard when it comes to construction workers. Fart in their general direction and you will get 90 days and a suspended license. The fines and prison sentences are strictly enforced. Care to hazard a guess as to what happened with the rate of traffic related construction worker injuries/fatalities?

[stouty1]

In the engineering world we always try to "Idiot proof" evrything! However, from my experience, a better "idiot" always comes along!

[hooknladder]

I am not overall against the idea of the vest. I saw a neighboring department using them while cleaning up an accident scene on the highway - there was clearly no danger of fire at that point and the vest seemed like a more comfortable solution on the 95 degree day when the primary job at hand was sweeping glass and car parts off to the side of the road.
My issue as I said from the beginning is the idea of having a mostly plastic vest between my turnout coat and my scba while fighting a car fire / tractor trailer fire or whatever delights that I-80 can throw at us.
Rather than mandate that we keep them on or penalize us for not wearing them, the better idea is to mandate that we have them on the apparatus and let IC determine if they should be worn based on what activities are going on at the time.
As far as shutting down the roadway... we actually had an issue last year where a neighboring chief ( a friend of mine, actually) got into an argument with the state trooper over vehicle placement on the highway. Trooper wanted the road open, chief wanted to keep the lane closed for safety. The whole thing turned into a big ordeal and a big piddling match between fire service and state troopers. In the end, we drafted a feasible guideline for emergency vehicle response on highways that the troopers were happy with, as well as the firematic authorities involved in it's creation.