Teeth removed from 2-in/2-out

[dougimfd]

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.

[ccfdblehman]

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.

[dougimfd]

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

[FFFRED]

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

[dougimfd]

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

[FFFRED]

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

[dougimfd]

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.

[DeputyMarshal]

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.)

[Resq14]

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.

[Halligan84]

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.

[Skippy361]

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

[guardo83]

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?

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

So now the truth comes out...

[Batt18]

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.

[Skippy361]

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

[dougimfd]

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.

[dougimfd]

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.

[the1141man]

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?

[DeputyMarshal]

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.)

[FFFRED]

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