1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Iron Mountain, MI
    Posts
    8

    Default Teeth removed from 2-in/2-out

    I just found out today that OSHA has changed the language of the 2-in/2-out portion of 1910.134. Where before it said that nothing in the language was intended to stop a firefighter from performing a rescue of a KNOWN OR CONFIRMED OCCUPANT before an entire team has assembled, it now says that nothing in the section is meant to preclude firefighters from "performing emergency rescue activities" before an entire team has assembled. The biggest problem I see with this change is that there is no official definition of "emergency rescue activities". That leaves broad definition capabilities in the hands of employers, and I know in the case of MY employer, that's dangerous. They will argue that we no longer need to worry about 2-in/2-out because entering with less than 4 people assembled to fight the fire is going to assist with rescuing any POTENTIAL occupants. We're screwed. Thanks, OSHA.

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    2 miles past sane 3 miles before crazy
    Posts
    288

    Default

    I don't recall hearing anything about an enacted change. I know that OSHA is currently accepting comments on proposed rulemaking regarding emergency response.

    On the other hand, if this wording has changed, I am sure a letter of interpretation will be issued rather quickly to determine what "emergency rescue operations" entail.
    The opinions I post to these forums do not represent any entity to which I am affiliated.

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Iron Mountain, MI
    Posts
    8

    Default change date

    It changed effective November 22, 2006. It's a done deal.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    When was language "known" ever included in the OSHA CFR? Are you perhaps looking at your State 2in-2out regulation?

    I started some discussions on the very topic years ago in these forums of the word "known" and why everyone quotes it but it wasn't to be found in the law. Can you cite where this was changed?

    FTM-PTB

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Iron Mountain, MI
    Posts
    8

    Default reply

    Michigan's Part 451 adopts the Federal standard word-for-word. I can't find a copy of the edition that had that language, but I can show you where a MIOSHA investigator quoted it in 2005: http://www.imfd.org/page2.html

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougimfd View Post
    Michigan's Part 451 adopts the Federal standard word-for-word. I can't find a copy of the edition that had that language, but I can show you where a MIOSHA investigator quoted it in 2005: http://www.imfd.org/page2.html

    Your document states "the requirements for CFR1910..etc. are summarized below.

    What you are reading might be an interpretation from whomever wrote that document and not a reflection of the actual technical language contained within the law.

    This is how it is written in OSHA...your state may vary some.


    1910.134(g)(4)
    Procedures for interior structural firefighting. In addition to the requirements set forth under paragraph (g)(3), in interior structural fires, the employer shall ensure that:

    1910.134(g)(4)(i)
    At least two employees enter the IDLH atmosphere and remain in visual or voice contact with one another at all times;

    1910.134(g)(4)(ii)
    At least two employees are located outside the IDLH atmosphere; and

    1910.134(g)(4)(iii)
    All employees engaged in interior structural firefighting use SCBAs.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g): One of the two individuals located outside the IDLH atmosphere may be assigned to an additional role, such as incident commander in charge of the emergency or safety officer, so long as this individual is able to perform assistance or rescue activities without jeopardizing the safety or health of any firefighter working at the incident.

    Note 2 to paragraph (g): Nothing in this section is meant to preclude firefighters from performing emergency rescue activities before an entire team has assembled.

    FTM-PTB

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Iron Mountain, MI
    Posts
    8

    Default nope

    No, sir, Michigan does not have its own language other than the paragraph which adopts the Federal standard. That language you see is what the Federal standard used to say, word for word. I have a copy somewhere, but have been too busy today preparing training to find it. So, just for the sake of argument, let's please stop trying to find ways that I might be mistaken, and consider the consequences of what I'm saying. Maybe this isn't a surprise to other departments, but it is to mine, and can potentially have a serious impact on our safety. I have been in touch with OSHA, and they are trying to find out if a definition of "rescue activities" has been recorded.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    FWIW, I don't recall the language being any different than it is today nor do I find any such change published in recent issues of the Federal Register.

    (Typically these regulatory changes go into effect 30 days after publication. IOW, a change that goes into effect on 11/22 would have been published 10/21. There was no FR published on that date.)
    Last edited by DeputyMarshal; 10-18-2007 at 08:41 PM. Reason: typo
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  9. #9
    dazed and confused
    Resq14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED View Post
    When was language "known" ever included in the OSHA CFR? Are you perhaps looking at your State 2in-2out regulation?

    I started some discussions on the very topic years ago in these forums of the word "known" and why everyone quotes it but it wasn't to be found in the law. Can you cite where this was changed?

    FTM-PTB
    That was one of the most interesting discussions I've been involved in on this site, even if I did take some (probably well-deserved) hits in it.
    The "Known" thread:
    http://forums.firehouse.com/showthre...ght=activities

    Three years later, I still don't know where "known" came from! But let's blame it on e229 (kidding) -- he brings it up on page 3 of FFFRED's scenario below -- an even better discussion than the one above.
    WWYD-Victim at Window
    http://forums.firehouse.com/showthre...highlight=life



    Sidenote: these were back in the days when people could have reasonable discussions here and opinions were respected. There were more than a few eye-opening and thought provoking threads from some great teachers.
    Last edited by Resq14; 10-18-2007 at 07:25 PM.
    God Bless America!Remember all have given some, but some have given all.
    Google Is Your Friend™Helpful forum tip - a "must see" if you're new here
    Click this to search FH Forums!

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Halligan84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Blackwood NJ, USA
    Posts
    816

    Default

    I just took a look at a powerpoint I last edited in January of 2004 where I use the complete text of that section from 1910.134. The words are exactly the same as they are today on the OSHA website. You may have originally learned from someone's interpretation of the standard.

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    CONNECTICUT
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Fred,

    You are correct, the Code of Federal Regulation CFR1910 has not been changed, according to the Federal Register/Vol. 72, No.175/Tuesday, September 11, 2007/ Proposed Rules. Department of Labor OSHA (Docket No. H-010, RIN 1218-AC17.

    No Federal regulation regarding 1910 has been changed, so are friend is incorrect. Comments on the change of the regulation are being accepted until December 10, 2007.

    "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend"

    Have a great day

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Rochester, MN
    Posts
    73

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by dougimfd View Post
    I just found out today that OSHA has changed the language of the 2-in/2-out portion of 1910.134. Where before it said that nothing in the language was intended to stop a firefighter from performing a rescue of a KNOWN OR CONFIRMED OCCUPANT before an entire team has assembled, it now says that nothing in the section is meant to preclude firefighters from "performing emergency rescue activities" before an entire team has assembled. The biggest problem I see with this change is that there is no official definition of "emergency rescue activities". That leaves broad definition capabilities in the hands of employers, and I know in the case of MY employer, that's dangerous. They will argue that we no longer need to worry about 2-in/2-out because entering with less than 4 people assembled to fight the fire is going to assist with rescuing any POTENTIAL occupants. We're screwed. Thanks, OSHA.
    Isn't MIOSHA currently Slapping your department with a hefty fine for not maintaining 2in/2out?

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    KEEPBACK200FEET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    East Carolina University
    Posts
    1,176

    Default

    So now the truth comes out...
    Just know, I chose my own fate. I drove by the fork in the road and went straight.

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi View Post
    Go put your pussy 2 1/2" lines away kiddies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Explorer343

    By the way KEEPBACK200FEET, you're so dramatic!

  14. #14
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Resq14 View Post

    Three years later, I still don't know where "known" came from! But let's blame it on e229 (kidding) -- he brings it up on page 3 of FFFRED's scenario below -- an even better discussion than the one above.
    WWYD-Victim at Window
    http://forums.firehouse.com/showthre...highlight=life

    Sidenote: these were back in the days when people could have reasonable discussions here and opinions were respected. There were more than a few eye-opening and thought provoking threads from some great teachers.
    Soon after the federal Standard was adopted, a joint letter by the IAFF and IAFC was sent to fire agencies across the nation, which attempted to interpret the standard. The IAFF/IAFC interpretation states the following,

    Does OSHA recognize any exceptions to this regulation?

    OSHA regulations recognize deviations to regulations in an emergency operation where immediate action is necessary to save a life. For fire department employers, initial attack operations must be organized to ensure that adequate personnel are at the emergency scene prior to any interior attack at a structural fire. If initial attack personnel find a known life hazard situation where immediate action could prevent the loss of life, deviation from the two-in/two-out standard may be permitted, as an exception to the fire department's organizational plan.

    However, such deviations from the regulations must be exceptions and not de facto standard practices. In fact, OSHA may still issue citations for such deviations from the standard, but the citation will not require monetary penalties or corrective action. The exception is for a known life rescue only, not for standard search and rescue activities. When the exception becomes the practice, OSHA citations are authorized. [29 CFR 1910.134(g)(4)(Note 2)]

    When comparing the respiratory standard and the interpretation by the IAFC/IAFF, there are some marked differences. Especially, in regards to making entry for rescue prior to two-out being established.

    It's no wonder that departments developing policy based on the IAFF/IAFC document have concluded that no one should enter an IDLH atmosphere prior to establishing two out, unless there is a "known" rescue. The term "known" rescue is not found in any OSHA documents.

    In fact, a clarification of the respiratory standard by New Mexico OSHA in response to questions by Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico states

    It also does not prohibit firefighters from entering a burning structure to perform rescue operations when there is a reasonable belief that victims may be inside." There is a big difference between "reasonable belief" and "known" rescue.

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    CONNECTICUT
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Doug,

    Calling Doug, where have you gone. Listen we all make mistakes at some point in our lives. The thing I have most difficulty on the forum pages is people making what they think are "Cast in stone, those are the facts Jack" statements and when proven incorrect they "poof", please return and participate in the debate, we all learn from each other.

    Have an awesome day folks

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Iron Mountain, MI
    Posts
    8

    Default I'm back

    1. Yes, Iron Mountain is facing fines for 2-in/2-out violations that resulted after staffing changes. That's not why I'm here. Read all about it at www.imfd.org if you want.

    2. I don't know where the language came from, or what version of 1910.134 it might have been in - I DO know that the most recent version is dated Nov. 22, 2006. I also know that MIOSHA quoted it in 2005 as I show in the link above, and they quoted it as being 1910.134.

  17. #17
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Iron Mountain, MI
    Posts
    8

    Default Calling Skippy

    Oh, by the way - I'm not proven wrong yet. Show me every edition of 1910.134 that's been issued, and then I'm wrong.

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Foggy California
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougimfd View Post
    Oh, by the way - I'm not proven wrong yet. Show me every edition of 1910.134 that's been issued, and then I'm wrong.
    Doesn't each new edition automatically supercede any previous editions? Therefore, if they show you the most recent edition, as it appears they have done, then there's no need to show you every edition... and then, presto-change-o, you're wrong.
    Don't you love how that logic thingy works?
    My opinions might coincide with someone of importance's POV... I wouldn't know, since I never bothered to ask. My policy is: "Don't ask, don't care."

    IACOJ--West Coast PITA

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougimfd View Post
    Oh, by the way - I'm not proven wrong yet. Show me every edition of 1910.134 that's been issued, and then I'm wrong.
    It doesn't work that way but if it makes you feel better then you just cling to that notion.

    (Let us know when you find your version of 1910.134 in an old edition of the Federal Register. Until then we'll go on assuming that the language has always been exactly the way we remember it which is exactly how it still reads.)
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  20. #20
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougimfd View Post
    1. Yes, Iron Mountain is facing fines for 2-in/2-out violations that resulted after staffing changes. That's not why I'm here. Read all about it at www.imfd.org if you want.

    2. I don't know where the language came from, or what version of 1910.134 it might have been in - I DO know that the most recent version is dated Nov. 22, 2006. I also know that MIOSHA quoted it in 2005 as I show in the link above, and they quoted it as being 1910.134.
    That quote from MIOSHA was a "summary" not a word for word identical copy as I pointed out and if you had followed the links provided earlier you would have seen posted copies of the OSHA standard on these forums in at least as early as 2004 that refute your claim.

    Someone from MI offered their interpretation and you and some others apparently clung to it as gospel. Move on and accept that the CFR was never changed in the regards you claim it was.

    FTM-PTB

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Iron Mountain, MI
    Posts
    8

    Default wow

    "Doesn't each new edition automatically supercede any previous editions? Therefore, if they show you the most recent edition, as it appears they have done, then there's no need to show you every edition... and then, presto-change-o, you're wrong.
    Don't you love how that logic thingy works? "

    Wow. Do you remember what my original point was? That they had CHANGED it at some point? I KNOW that what it says now is what applies, because I'm not stupid.

    You know, I came on here hoping for some discussion and insight into why I'm being shown 2 different versions. OSHA and MIOSHA are both looking into it so that we can have clarification. But most of you responding are so busy picking on me, you're not even able to remember what the point of the thread is. Let me just say - thanks for saying what you had to say. I won't bother you lurkers in the future with any issues that come up (at least not when I'm trying to generate a discussion that results in some answers). If I run across any other concerns that I think could affect your safety, I'll be sure not to present them here until the investigation has run its course, so I don't waste your time with "ideas".

    If and when I get answers, I'll bring them back here. Until then, go ahead and go back to talking to each other.

  22. #22
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougimfd View Post
    Wow. Do you remember what my original point was? That they had CHANGED it at some point? I KNOW that what it says now is what applies, because I'm not stupid.
    If you've been reading the replies you'd see that there is no objective evidence to support your theory that the language has changed. There is, however, substantial evidence that it has not changed and is, in fact, exactly the same language today as it has been for at least several years.

    Maybe there has been a change in MIOSHA's interpretation of the FedOSHA language in 29 CFR 1910.134 but the FedOSHA language in question is the same now as it has always been.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    If you've been reading the replies you'd see that there is no objective evidence to support your theory that the language has changed. There is, however, substantial evidence that it has not changed and is, in fact, exactly the same language today as it has been for at least several years.

    Maybe there has been a change in MIOSHA's interpretation of the FedOSHA language in 29 CFR 1910.134 but the FedOSHA language in question is the same now as it has always been.
    Please don't let your facts get in the way of his good story.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  24. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougimfd View Post
    Wow. Do you remember what my original point was? That they had CHANGED it at some point? I KNOW that what it says now is what applies, because I'm not stupid.
    Yes we do and we are telling you it has NEVER changed in the manner you have described. The language you cite came from a "summary" not a direct copy of the CFR.

    Just because you don't like the answer you were given isn't a reason to get upset.

    FTM-PTB

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Foggy California
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Wow. Do you remember what my original point was? That they had CHANGED it at some point? I KNOW that what it says now is what applies, because I'm not stupid.
    OK, let me break it down for you, because I'm finding that last statement of yours a little hard to swallow at the moment:
    You stipulated (that means "said", basically ) that the language had changed somehow, therefore, O Wise One, the burden of proof is upon you to go look up the previous editions and prove your point, i.e.--back it up with factual evidence.
    The guys here don't have to prove anything to you...you're the one making the argument...
    My opinions might coincide with someone of importance's POV... I wouldn't know, since I never bothered to ask. My policy is: "Don't ask, don't care."

    IACOJ--West Coast PITA

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Teeth and snuff
    By profire1 in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 05-22-2007, 09:32 AM
  2. Lockout/Tagout SOG's
    By Maness in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-28-2005, 02:41 PM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 05-08-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-09-2005, 10:58 AM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 01-23-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-24-2005, 08:28 AM
  5. Local 1619 President Removed by Bush
    By CW7704 in forum Career/Paid Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-01-2002, 01:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register