Federal traffic vest law

[Plectron 1]

23 CFR Part 634 - Worker Visibility

Full text of law here:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/apr.../23cfr634.1.pdf

Is anyone aware of this law? Have any departments outfitted thier personel with the required ANSI approved equiptment? I'm just looking for input/insight on this. At my company we have a ANSI class 3 vest for every riding position on the apparatus.

[weaselff 6]

23 CFR Part 634 - Worker Visibility

Full text of law here:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/apr.../23cfr634.1.pdf

Is anyone aware of this law? Have any departments outfitted thier personel with the required ANSI approved equiptment? I'm just looking for input/insight on this. At my company we have a ANSI class 3 vest for every riding position on the apparatus.

In Virginia, I think Fairfax county my friend tells me it is not only required but enforced that each member wears a traffic vest whenever they leave the apparatus.

[jack10562 414]

Dennis, thanks for bringing this up, we had a discussion on this topic recently in this thread:

http://www.emtbravo.net/index.php?showtopic=27019

This law regarding vests and worker visibility will be in effect in about two months.

I would hope that everyone has already ordered / obtained the required approved equipment for their personnel.

[TRUCK6018 50]

Plectron, what vests do you have? Last I knew there was no such thing as a true class III "vest".

[FIRECHIEF63 55]

Well Plectron, at least your depart. has something and they have it in all riders seats. Here in my dept. the only ones with Class 2 vests that will meet the standard in Nov., when it becomes the law, are the Fire Police, I guess better than nothing but still non-complaint with the new complete standard.

I think everyone should have these vests, although I do not believe everyone in the the dept. should be issued them. The best case scenario is that every seat on the vehicle should have one and a few extras in a compartment for use by those that the IC deems to be in a position of need.

Remember that the standard does allow for those in active fire supression mode to not need them and anyone with 360 degree coverage of 3" or better width reflective trim on turnout gear to be exempt.

Whatever the decision or anyones personnel beliefs, "Let's all just STAY SAFE AND RETURN HOME after the alarm is over."

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Well Plectron, at least your depart. has something and they have it in all riders seats. Here in my dept. the only ones with Class 2 vests that will meet the standard in Nov., when it becomes the law, are the Fire Police, I guess better than nothing but still non-complaint with the new complete standard.

I think everyone should have these vests, although I do not believe everyone in the the dept. should be issued them. The best case scenario is that every seat on the vehicle should have one and a few extras in a compartment for use by those that the IC deems to be in a position of need.

Remember that the standard does allow for those in active fire supression mode to not need them and anyone with 360 degree coverage of 3" or better width reflective trim on turnout gear to be exempt.

Whatever the decision or anyones personnel beliefs, "Let's all just STAY SAFE AND RETURN HOME after the alarm is over."

FireChief:

Can you post a link to where you found the exemptions you mention. I haven't found them in the standard or explanations of any of the sites I've used including the Federal DOT site. Also I believed that turnout gear does not meet the standard because of the fabric color, but look forward to any additional info you can share. Thanks!

[STAT213 332]

We are RFPing the vests right now to be compliant for the start date.

Funny thing is we just bought day glo jackets for everyone, and now we'll have to wear vests on top of them!!

One of our BC's was mentioning the exception for fire suppression as well. I don't have it, but its not the first I've heard of it.

[markmets415 524]

Our Chief was asking the Fire District to outfit the fire police only!

[JetPhoto 626]

The law currently pertains to emergency personnel who operate on federally funded highways. My opinion is any incident where you have people working on the road.

The law makes an exception that while firefighters are engaged in fire extinguishing operations they do not need the vest. (Duh, all you need is the plastic melting around your turnout coat)

This should have been done a long time ago. How many injuries or deaths would never happened if responders had the extra reflectivity on them. Look at the firefighters in other countries like England, they have used it for years on the fire/police/EMS people and vehicles. Why are we so far advanced in this country in firefighting mythology that only a few departments use it and others don't even try.

Hey folks it's 2008, many people have died or have been critically injured for these safety items to be developed. Lets use them, it just may save your life.

[Goose 188]

highway job, vests go on.

[Danger 160]

This one is a no brainer. Half the time we go on incidents on the highways I have to throw my coat on for no reason other than to have some visibility. I wish we had vests for the last few years.

[Jybehofd 85]

I think its a good law and a shame that it has to become a law to make companies make there employees safer.

[Plectron 1]

Plectron, what vests do you have? Last I knew there was no such thing as a true class III "vest".

We have the 5.11 pullover vests with the side velcro straps. when I'm at the station tomorow I will get the model #.

Remember that the standard does allow for those in active fire supression mode to not need them and anyone with 360 degree coverage of 3" or better width reflective trim on turnout gear to be exempt.

The law makes an exception that while firefighters are engaged in fire extinguishing operations they do not need the vest. (Duh, all you need is the plastic melting around your turnout coat)

I dont know if maybe I'm misreading the law, but the copy of 23 CFR Part 634 that I read says nothing about an exemption for fire suppresion. The law reads:

634.3 Rule.

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.

Does anyone have any information pertaining to the firefighting exemption? If you have any documentation or where to find it written down that woule be great. Thanks

[Bnechis 3,961]

highway job, vests go on.

Since its based on federal funding any road not just highway's. Anything with a route # is probable included.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Does anyone have any information pertaining to the firefighting exemption? If you have any documentation or where to find it written down that woule be great. Thanks

You are correct there is no exemption, there are DOL requlations that say you cant wear non-fire resistant materials when fighting a fire, but the feds are not considering that. The whole issue is laid out on the RKB website https://www.rkb.us/contentdetail.cfm?content_id=200647

[AFS1970 504]

Does anyone know the actual definition of Federal Aid Highway? Would US1, for instance be considered? How about State Routes, which probably every town has a few of? I realize that the proposed changes will likely make this a moot point, but it would be good to know.

I do agree that one should probably err on the side of caution and just wear the vest on all traffic incidents.

[jack10562 414]

According to GAO-05-173 FHWA Oversight, "The 3 million miles of roads that are generally ineligible (for Federal aid) are functionally classified as local roads or rural minor collectors."

So, the way I read it, this applies to any Interstate highway system, State road ( County???) right-of-way that could be considered eligible for federal monies, and while operating on these roads one would fall under the worker visibility requirement.

[x635 4,066]

I'm sure with this new rule, there are a ton of suppliers who will be clammoring to produce a traffic safety vest "just for firefighters" in the coming months.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I'm sure with this new rule, there are a ton of suppliers who will be clammoring to produce a traffic safety vest "just for firefighters" in the coming months.

Let me tell you if I had the money I'd find a place to make them oversized and out of cotton or nomex with the same trim as our turnout gear and keep the price low as possible. But then liberals would tell me I'm supporting slave labor.

I also didn't read into any exemption and I still believe that turnout gear doesn't comply with the fabric color requirement. Black gear with the itty bitty little striping doesn't protect you at all.

[JohnnyOV 2]

I'm pretty sure in order to considered a class III reflective, you need to have the full get up, vest and pants with reflective striping and bright colors

[abaduck 123]

You are correct there is no exemption, there are DOL requlations that say you cant wear non-fire resistant materials when fighting a fire, but the feds are not considering that. The whole issue is laid out on the RKB website https://www.rkb.us/contentdetail.cfm?content_id=200647

The 'exemption' would be that the vests aren't required where you're not exposed to traffic. If you close the road, you're not exposed to traffic...

Mike

[antiquefirelt 994]

Let me tell you if I had the money I'd find a place to make them oversized and out of cotton or nomex with the same trim as our turnout gear and keep the price low as possible. But then liberals would tell me I'm supporting slave labor.

I also didn't read into any exemption and I still believe that turnout gear doesn't comply with the fabric color requirement. Black gear with the itty bitty little striping doesn't protect you at all.

Right on the money as usual ALS. Any exemptions granted will not be by OSHA or DOT from the sound. Our state DOL specifically wrote an exemption for turnout gear, but it in no way accounts for the lime or orange day time color requirement. We're buying the vest because it makes sense. We have had many close calls at MVA's. Of course, the turnout gear exemptions allows our personnel to use common sense when there's a need to wear PPE due fire. Though we would have skipped the vests for a fire and just shut down the road, end of story.

Edited September 23, 2008 by antiquefirelt

[ltmdepas3280 1]

New job opening...Vest police...sign me up

[OoO 24]

Exactly. No one is going to write you a ticket for not wearing your vest. If wearing the vest will put you in harm's way, take it off. You do not need an exemption to practice common sense.

[RDUNC67 1]

Our Chief was asking the Fire District to outfit the fire police only!

Mark,

This is for anyone that will be "working" on a roadway incident.

[markmets415 524]

Mark,

This is for anyone that will be "working" on a roadway incident.

I agree Bob, but as far as I am aware he gave this info to the FP's after the last district meeting, hopefully we order enough to cover all seating positions. Send me a PM.

[mkronick 0]

Buy a vest and wear it, how hard is that.

[markmets415 524]

Buy a vest and wear it, how hard is that.

Yeah agreed, I am still waiting for my bailout kit!!!!!, it's not for a lack of trying

Edited September 23, 2008 by markmets415

[DCJPells 29]

Yeah agreed, I am still waiting for my bailout kit!!!!!, it's not for a lack of trying

I don't know if this was discussed or know.

NFPA 1901

5.8.3* Miscellaneous Equipment. The following additional equipment shall be carried on the apparatus:

(18) One traffic 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

(19) Five fluorescent orange traffic cones not less than 28 in. (711 mm) in height, each equipped with a 6 in. (152 mm) retroreflective white band no more than 4 in. (102 mm) from the top of the cone, and an additional 4 in. (102 mm) retroreflective white band 2 in. (51 mm) below the 6 in. (152 mm) band

[markmets415 524]

Great point Jeff, spelled out in pretty simple terms.