[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON OSHA'S 
                   PROPOSED RULE TO UPDATE THE FIRE 
                           BRIGADES STANDARD

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE
                               
                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND 
                               TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              JUNE 4, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-68

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
                                     

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                                     

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/
       
                              __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
58-845 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------          

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

                 Mark E. Green, MD, Tennessee, Chairman
Michael T. McCaul, Texas             Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, 
Clay Higgins, Louisiana                  Ranking Member
Michael Guest, Mississippi           Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Dan Bishop, North Carolina           Eric Swalwell, California
Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida           J. Luis Correa, California
August Pfluger, Texas                Troy A. Carter, Louisiana
Andrew R. Garbarino, New York        Shri Thanedar, Michigan
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Seth Magaziner, Rhode Island
Tony Gonzales, Texas                 Glenn Ivey, Maryland
Nick LaLota, New York                Daniel S. Goldman, New York
Mike Ezell, Mississippi              Robert Garcia, California
Anthony D'Esposito, New York         Delia C. Ramirez, Illinois
Laurel M. Lee, Florida               Robert Menendez, New Jersey
Morgan Luttrell, Texas               Thomas R. Suozzi, New York
Dale W. Strong, Alabama              Timothy M. Kennedy, New York
Josh Brecheen, Oklahoma              Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Elijah Crane, Arizona
                      Stephen Siao, Staff Director
                  Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
                       Sean Corcoran, Chief Clerk
                                 ------                                

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

                 Anthony D'Esposito, New York, Chairman
Nick LaLota, New York                Troy A. Carter, Louisiana, Ranking 
Dale W. Strong, Alabama                  Member
Josh Brecheen, Oklahoma              Daniel S. Goldman, New York
Mark E. Green, MD, Tennessee (ex     Timothy M. Kennedy, New York
    officio)                         Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi 
                                         (ex officio)
               Diana Bergwin, Subcommittee Staff Director
          Lauren McClain, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               Statements

The Honorable Anthony D'Esposito, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
  Emergency Management and Technology:
  Oral Statement.................................................     1
  Prepared Statement.............................................     3
The Honorable Troy A. Carter, a Representative in Congress From 
  the State of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
  Emergency Management and Technology:
  Oral Statement.................................................     4
  Prepared Statement.............................................     6
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
  Homeland Security:
  Prepared Statement.............................................     6

                               Witnesses

Mr. David Denniston, Second Vice President, Association of Fire 
  Districts of the State of New York:
  Oral Statement.................................................     8
  Prepared Statement.............................................     9
Mr. Joseph Maruca, Director, National Volunteer Fire Council, 
  Former Fire Chief of West Barnstable Fire Department:
  Oral Statement.................................................    11
  Prepared Statement.............................................    13
Mr. Evan Davis, Director, Government Affairs, International 
  Association of Fire Fighters:
  Oral Statement.................................................    19
  Prepared Statement.............................................    21
Mr. Grant Walker, President, Prince George's County Professional 
  Fire Fighters and Paramedics Association, International 
  Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1619:
  Oral Statement.................................................    28
  Prepared Statement.............................................    30

 
  STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON OSHA'S PROPOSED RULE TO UPDATE THE FIRE 
                           BRIGADES STANDARD

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, June 4, 2024

             U.S. House of Representatives,
                    Committee on Homeland Security,
                      Subcommittee on Emergency Management 
                                            and Technology,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 
room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Anthony D'Esposito 
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives D'Esposito, LaLota, Strong, 
Brecheen, Carter, and Kennedy.
    Also present: Representatives Lawler and Molinaro.
    Mr. D'Esposito. The Committee on Homeland Security, 
Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology, will come 
to order.
    The purpose of this hearing is to hear from fire service 
associations on the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration's proposed rulemaking to 
update and replace the current Fire Brigades Standard.
    Without objection, the gentlemen from New York, Mr. 
Molinaro and Mr. Lawler, are permitted to sit on the dais and 
ask questions to the witnesses.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    First, I'd like to welcome our witnesses and thank you all 
for your commitment to keeping, not only our neighbors and 
residents, but this country safe. I want to thank you all for 
testifying before this Subcommittee on Emergency Management and 
Technology, and, again, thank you for your public service.
    We look forward to hearing your diverse perspectives on the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's proposed rule 
to upgrade the Fire Brigades Standard and its potential impact 
on firefighters throughout the Nation.
    As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Management 
and Technology, and also as a former chief of the Island Park 
Fire Department, I know first-hand that the fire brigades 
selflessly put the safety of their communities first, despite 
experiencing a multitude of risks while serving on the job.
    It is important that we mitigate unnecessary risks posed to 
our Nation's firefighters. We must find a balanced approach 
that promotes firefighter safety and prevents regulatory 
burdens that ultimately make communities less safe.
    The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 gave OSHA 
the authority to create, modify, or revoke work standards for 
private-sector employers, the U.S. Postal Service, and the 
Federal Government.
    While State and local fire departments are excluded from 
OSHA enforcement if their State does not have an OSHA-approved 
plan in place, there are 27 States whose State and local fire 
departments are bound by OSHA's standard for fire brigades.
    The fire brigade standard was created in 1980 to require 
firefighting training, education, and protective gear for fire 
departments. However, there have been no significant updates to 
the rule since it was originally created in 1980.
    The terrorist attacks of 9/11 highlighted the need for 
improved coordination and emergency preparedness and response 
for an updated safety standard for fire brigades.
    Today we have a better understanding of the risks 
firefighters have experienced over the years, and it's common 
sense to consider updating the standard.
    Earlier this year, the subcommittee held a hearing to 
examine lithium-ion batteries and the unique challenges posed 
to fire departments. It makes sense that as threats evolve, 
safety standards should be updated to protect our Nation's 
first responders.
    That's why in 2007, OSHA requested information from 
emergency responders on actions OSHA should take to improve 
emergency response and preparedness across this great Nation.
    Since then, OSHA has continued to take efforts to update 
the safety regulations for fire brigades, and this February, 
OSHA proposed a new rule for an Emergency Response Standard.
    The proposed standard is wider scope and would apply not 
just to firefighting but also emergency medical services and 
technical search and rescue.
    Among the requirements, OSHA's proposed rule would require 
new written emergency response plans, hazard-vulnerability 
assessments, training, personal equipment, medical screenings, 
and behavioral health services for our Nation's fire brigades.
    It also includes provisions to improve cardiovascular 
health and cancer prevention.
    Considering that OSHA started the process over a decade ago 
to develop the proposed standard, I was pleased to see that the 
proposed rule's comment period deadline was extended to June 
21, but I hope that OSHA will consider extending the comment 
period even further so that others have additional time to 
review the 600-page proposal and ensure that their vital input 
is heard.
    As we review the impacts of OSHA and its proposed standard, 
it is important that Federal regulators consider the impact 
that a proposed rule could have on smaller fire departments 
throughout the Nation.
    It is unclear how the proposed standard would impact 
volunteer-run fire departments in States with an OSHA-approved 
plan.
    Would volunteer firefighters be held to the same standard 
as employed firefighters? How will this proposed rule affect 
recruitment and retention? What are the costs associated with 
adopting these new standards? Are additional training or 
fitness requirements achievable, or have they become 
burdensome?
    I appreciate OSHA's efforts to improve firefighters' 
operation environments, but there are concerns that volunteer 
fire departments in smaller municipalities may not have the 
resources to implement the proposed changes in their current 
state.
    It is estimated that over 1 million emergency responders 
fall within the scope of the proposed rule, with over 331,000 
of whom are volunteers.
    Therefore, as I stated in a recent letter to OSHA's 
assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and 
health, I encourage OSHA to consider the unique needs of 
volunteer fire departments and to incorporate their feedback 
into the proposed standard before the comment period ends.
    Each community has different needs and capabilities, and I 
am confident that we can find a balanced approach that 
prioritizes safety without hurting these smaller volunteers 
throughout the country.
    I am committed to supporting our Nation's firefighters, 
both career and volunteer, and ensuring that they have every 
resource necessary to provide the best emergency response 
services to their community.
    I look forward to having a robust conversation to consider 
the potential positive and some negative impacts that this rule 
may have.
    Thank you again to our witnesses for participating in this 
hearing today.
    [The statement of Chairman D'Esposito follows:]
                Statement of Chairman Anthony D'Esposito
                              June 4, 2024
    Welcome to our witnesses. Thank you all for testifying before the 
Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology. Thank you for your 
public service and for providing emergency response services in your 
respective communities. We look forward to hearing your diverse 
perspectives on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA)'s proposed rule to update the Fire Brigades standard and its 
potential impact on firefighters throughout the Nation.
    As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Management and 
Technology and former chief of the Island Park Fire Department, I know 
first-hand that fire brigades selflessly put the safety of their 
communities first despite experiencing a multitude of risks while 
serving on the job. It is important that we mitigate any unnecessary 
risks posed against our Nation's firefighters. However, we must find a 
balanced approach that promotes firefighter safety and prevents 
regulatory burdens that ultimately may make communities less safe.
    The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 gave OSHA the 
authority to create, modify, or revoke work standards for private-
sector employers, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Federal 
Government.\1\ While State and local fire departments are excluded from 
OSHA enforcement if their State does not have an OSHA-approved plan in 
place, there are 27 States whose State and local fire departments are 
bound by OSHA's standard for fire brigades.\2\ The Fire Brigades 
standard was created in 1980 to require firefighting training, 
education, and protective gear for fire departments. However, there 
have been no significant updates to the rule since it was originally 
created in 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ CRS Memorandum.
    \2\ CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The terrorist attacks of 9/11 highlighted the need for improved 
coordination in emergency preparedness and response and for updated 
safety standards for fire brigades. Today we have a better 
understanding of the risks firefighters have experienced over the 
years, and it's common sense to consider updating the standard.
    Earlier this year, this subcommittee held a hearing to examine 
lithium-ion battery fires and the unique challenges posed to fire 
departments. It makes sense that as threats evolve, safety standards 
should be updated to protect our Nation's first responders. That's why 
in 2007, OSHA requested information from emergency responders on 
actions OSHA should take to improve emergency response and preparedness 
across the Nation.
    Since then, OSHA has continued to take efforts to update the safety 
regulations for fire brigades; and this February, OSHA proposed a new 
rule for an Emergency Response Standard. However, the proposed standard 
is wider in scope and would apply not just to firefighting, but also to 
emergency medical services and technical search and rescue. Among the 
requirements, OSHA's proposed rule would require new written emergency 
response plans, hazard vulnerability assessments, training, personal 
equipment, medical screenings, and behavioral health services for our 
Nation's fire brigades. It also includes provisions to improve 
cardiovascular health and cancer prevention.
    Considering that OSHA started the process over a decade ago to 
develop the proposed new standard, I was pleased to see that the 
proposed rule's comment period deadline was extended to June 21, but I 
hope that OSHA will consider extending the comment period even further 
so that fire departments have additional time to review the 600-page 
proposal and ensure that their vital input is heard.
    As we review the impacts of OSHA's proposed standard, it is 
important that Federal regulators consider the disparate impact that a 
proposed rule could have on smaller fire departments throughout the 
Nation. It is unclear how the proposed standard would impact volunteer-
run departments in States with an OSHA-approved plan. Would volunteer 
firefighters be held to the same standard as employed firefighters? How 
will this proposed rule affect recruitment and retention? What are the 
costs associated with adopting these new standards? Are additional 
training or fitness requirements achievable or overly burdensome?
    I appreciate OSHA's efforts to improve firefighters' operating 
environments, but I am concerned that volunteer departments and smaller 
municipalities may not have the resources to implement the proposed 
changes in their current State. It is estimated that over 1 million 
emergency responders fall within the scope of the proposed rule, with 
over 331,000 of whom are volunteer firefighters.\3\ Therefore, as I 
stated in a recent letter to OSHA's assistant secretary of labor for 
occupational safety and health, I encourage OSHA to consider the unique 
needs of volunteer departments and to incorporate their feedback into 
the proposed standard before the comment period ends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ D'esposito Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Each community has different needs and capabilities, and I hope we 
can find a balanced approach that prioritizes safety without hurting 
smaller fire departments throughout the country. I am committed to 
supporting our Nation's firefighters and ensuring that they have all 
the resources they need to provide the best emergency response services 
to their community.
    I look forward to having a robust conversation to consider the 
potential positive and negative impacts of this proposed rule. Thank 
you again to our witnesses for participating in this hearing today.

    Mr. D'Esposito. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the 
Emergency Management and Technology Subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Louisiana, Mr. Carter, for his opening statement.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for being here.
    I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to 
discuss the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's 
proposed rule to update Fire Brigade Standards.
    When I was a young member of the New Orleans City Council 
many years ago, I was successful in creating our first 
responders and firefighters, creating the reality that in most 
cases, not all, firefighters are closest, easiest, and prepared 
to be able to at least be the first on the scene to assess the 
situation before EMTs arrive.
    Somewhere in there, we admittedly neglected a bigger piece 
of that puzzle, is making sure that we duly compensated you for 
that extra work and also provided additional resources.
    So here we are today to hear from you and to make sure that 
we are recognizing the incredible work that you do and the 
countless amount of lives that you have saved and will continue 
to save as first responders, getting on the scene and providing 
much-needed assessment and medical attention to a person in 
need.
    So let me tell you how much I appreciate you and how much I 
fully support first responders and appreciate the witnesses 
being here today before our subcommittee.
    My understanding is that OSHA's proposed rule on Fire 
Brigade Standards is not necessarily a new idea. It has origins 
in some of Government's evaluations after September 11, 2001.
    I understand that the comment period for the proposed rule 
issued by OSHA in February and the deadline for submitting 
comments has been extended.
    I encourage all stakeholders to provide feedback to OSHA on 
this proposed rule so that the Biden administration, in its 
efforts to enhance the work environment for first responders, 
is well-informed with the diverse perspectives that only you 
can bring.
    I'm eager to hear from our witnesses on how to strengthen 
this new proposed rule. Your insights should be valuable in 
ensuring that the standard effectively enhances the safety and 
health of all emergency responders.
    Along the same lines of looking at issues that impact first 
responders, I feel it important to acknowledge that hurricane 
season started on Saturday.
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned 
that the United States could face one of the worst hurricane 
seasons in the last 2 decades.
    I represent New Orleans, a place that is no stranger to 
disasters. The city has been at the forefront of disasters, 
from Hurricane Katrina to Ida, and so many more. The aftermath 
of these hurricanes was nothing short of devastating, and 
climate change will only lead to more frequent and intense 
natural disasters.
    More recently across the United States, we've had an 
increase in tornado activity, with tornadoes touching down in 
all but 2 days between April 25 and May 27, which is 94 percent 
of the days past.
    In fact, last month was the most active month for severe 
weather since 2011. Over the Memorial Day weekend deadly 
tornadoes killed at least 24 people, including children.
    I take this subcommittee's oversight duties very seriously, 
as does our Chairman. As we continue to see evidence of climate 
change, it is important that this subcommittee focus on the 
Nation's preparedness for disaster, and I encourage the 
Chairman and my colleagues to work alongside both sides of the 
aisle to recognize that storms don't recognize, nor appreciate, 
any differences in people, party, or locale, that this, if 
nothing else, is a bipartisan effort that we should always 
swing together to hit to the benches, to make sure that we are 
preparing for storms and giving you, our first responders, 
every protection, tool, and resource that you need in order to 
continue doing the great job that you do.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Carter follows:]
               Statement of Ranking Member Troy A. Carter
                              June 4, 2024
    I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to discuss the 
Occupational Safety Health Administration's (OSHA) proposed rule to 
update the Fire Brigades Standard. I want to say from the outset that I 
fully support first responders and I appreciate the first responder 
witnesses before our subcommittee today.
    My understanding is that OSHA's proposed rule on the fire brigades 
standard is not necessarily a new idea and has its origins in some of 
the Government's evaluations after September 11, 2001. I understand 
that the comment period for the proposed rule was issued by OSHA in 
February and the deadline for submitting comments has been extended. I 
encourage all stakeholders to provide feedback to OSHA on this proposed 
rule so that the Biden administration, in its efforts to enhance the 
work environment for first responders, is well-informed with diverse 
perspectives.
    I am eager to hear from our witnesses on how to strengthen this new 
proposed rule. Your insights will be valuable in ensuring that the 
standard effectively enhances the safety and health of all emergency 
responders. Along the same lines of looking at issues that impact first 
responders, I feel it important to acknowledge that hurricane season 
started on Saturday. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) warned that the United States could face one of 
its worst hurricane seasons in 2 decades.
    I represent New Orleans, a place that is no stranger to disasters. 
The city has been at the forefront of disasters from Hurricane Katrina 
to Hurricane Ida. The aftermath of these hurricanes was nothing short 
of devastating, and climate change will only lead to more frequent and 
intense natural disasters.
    More recently, across the United States, we have had an increase in 
tornado activity with ``tornadoes touching down on all but 2 days 
between April 25 and May 27, which is 94 percent of days.'' In fact, 
last month was the most active month for severe weather since 2011. 
Over the Memorial Day weekend, deadly tornadoes killed at least 24 
people, including children.
    I take this subcommittee's oversight duties very seriously. As we 
continue to see evidence of climate change, it is important for this 
subcommittee to focus on our Nation's preparedness for disasters and I 
would encourage the Chairman and colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to make addressing climate change a priority.
    I, also, think it is important for the subcommittee to confront 
cuts to FEMA's preparedness grants that were pushed by House Republican 
leadership. The 10 percent cut to the grant programs, including the 
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, is a significant hit to our 
first responders. Congress can and should do better to support those 
who help our communities and I hope this subcommittee will do more 
oversight of these grants.

    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
    Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening 
statements may be submitted for the record.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
             Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
                              June 4, 2024
    Good morning.
    I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee 
to discuss the Occupational Safety Health Administration's (OSHA) new 
proposed rule to update the Fire Brigades Standard.
    For 26 years, I served as a volunteer firefighter in my community. 
I know the sacrifices of firefighters, and I applaud our fire service 
witnesses here today for your continued service to your communities. 
Thank you for the sacrifices you and your family make to help those in 
need.
    Given the threats our firefighters face in their daily work, robust 
safety standards are important. The challenges and risks firefighters 
face, especially in volunteer and rural settings, can be immense.
    I commend the Biden administration for seeking to help first 
responders. The new proposed OSHA rule to update the Fire Brigades 
Standard is designed to benefit firefighters by including provisions 
for mental health support and addressing other often-overlooked health 
concerns. This holistic approach ensures that our firefighters receive 
comprehensive care, promoting their physical and psychological well-
being.
    The Biden administration is doing the right thing by extending the 
comment period for proposed rule to ensure that stakeholders have ample 
opportunity to provide input.
    The American first responder community is strong, and it deserves 
the utmost support from Congress. However, under the House Republican 
leadership, a 10 percent cut was implemented to the full suite of FEMA 
grants for fiscal year 2024 appropriations, which included cuts to the 
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG), the Staffing for 
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER), the State Homeland 
Security Grant Program (SHSP), and the Urban Area Security Initiative 
(UASI) for fiscal year 2024.
    While cuts to the grants have been proposed by both Republican and 
Democratic administrations, for nearly a decade Congress has resisted 
cuts to these critically important grant programs. The fiscal year 2024 
cuts were a departure from recent precedent and, more importantly, 
undermine essential support for firefighters, compromising their 
ability to respond effectively to emergencies and exposing them and 
communities to greater risk.
    Reduced funding means fewer resources for critical training, 
equipment, and staffing, which are vital for ensuring safety and 
preparedness during emergencies.
    Last, I want to note that hurricane season started just days ago, 
and it is predicted to be record-breaking. I would like to encourage 
this subcommittee to do more oversight of Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's preparation for hurricane season.
    I yield back.

    Mr. D'Esposito. I am pleased to have a distinguished panel 
of witnesses before us today on this very important topic.
    I ask that our witnesses please rise and raise their right 
hand.
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Mr. D'Esposito. Let the record reflect that the witnesses 
have answered in the affirmative.
    Thank you. You may be seated.
    I would now like to formally introduce our witnesses.
    Mr. David Denniston serves as the second vice president of 
the Association of Fire Districts of the State of New York. He 
has 30-plus years in the fire service and is the past chief of 
the Cortlandville Fire Department.
    Mr. Joe Maruca is the director of the National Volunteer 
Fire Council from Massachusetts and was the chief of the West 
Barnstable Fire Department on Cape Cod for 18 years. Mr. Maruca 
served as a volunteer firefighter from 1977 until becoming 
chief in 2005.
    Mr. Evan Davis currently serves as the director of 
government affairs for the International Association of Fire 
Fighters where he manages the organization's legislative and 
regulatory initiatives to promote firefighter safety and 
community emergency preparedness.
    Mr. Grant Walker serves as president of the Prince George's 
County Professional Fire Fighters and Paramedics Association 
and previously served as a district representative for Howard, 
Montgomery, Prince George's, Charles, Calvert, and St. Mary's 
Counties in the Professional Firefighters of Maryland.
    I thank all the witnesses for being here today, and, most 
importantly, I thank you for your years of dedicated service.
    I now recognize Mr. Denniston for 5 minutes to summarize 
his opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF DAVID DENNISTON, SECOND VICE PRESIDENT, 
     ASSOCIATION OF FIRE DISTRICTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Denniston. Good morning, Chairman D'Esposito, 
distinguished Members of Congress, honored guests. My name is 
David Denniston. I'm the vice president of the Association of 
Fire Districts, State of New York. I also serve as the fire 
commissioner of the Virgil Fire District.
    Virgil is a small rural community in upstate New York, just 
south of Syracuse. There are approximately 2,500 residents with 
an annual household income of $78,000 and an average home value 
of $162,000.
    The Virgil Fire Department is a 100 percent volunteer 
department with 35 active members and an annual budget of 
$280,000. That's a total budget of $280,000.
    We are not the largest department in New York State, but 
we're certainly not the smallest either. We represent an 
average-sized department in the upstate New York region.
    Many of you on this committee either live or represent 
small rural towns just like mine. I would ask you to consider 
the impact this proposed rule would have on the community you 
have been elected to represent.
    What would happen in your community if a citizen dialed 
9-1-1, and there was no emergency services agency to respond 
because they're unable to meet a Federal standard?
    As a fire commissioner, I've been reviewing the proposed 
Emergency Response Rule and exploring the impact it would have 
on my fire district. I'm working with authorities having 
jurisdiction across New York State with the Association of Fire 
Districts.
    I would be remiss if I did not share I'm not alone in my 
feelings that this proposed rule, as currently written, would 
have devastating effects on our ability to operate and provide 
fire protection to our communities.
    The hardest-hit will be the small rural all-volunteer 
departments. While we wholeheartedly agree that changes and 
enhancements are needed to the 40-year-old-plus standard, this 
proposed rule is neither economically or technically feasible 
for our fire district.
    There are two fundamental requirements by OSHA rule. The 
agency has fallen far short in these areas. The proposed rule 
is both arbitrary and capricious as both the process and logic 
used to support these new requirements are severely flawed.
    OSHA neither followed the required full negotiated rule-
making process, nor did it include adequate representation of 
the volunteer fire service, which covers about 65 percent of 
this country.
    Just last week I met with over 40 fire chiefs from the 
State of Indiana. Only 8 of the 40 fire chiefs even knew the 
proposed change existed. OSHA has failed to follow the 
Department of Labor Information Quality Guidelines, and several 
of the data sources cited in the proposed rule change are not 
representative of the documents.
    For example, OSHA references the Firehouse Magazine Annual 
Run Survey. This document is not statistically significant in 
any fashion, and yet has been used as a main source of data 
that will make it nearly impossible for small and rural fire 
departments to function.
    Based on this report, OSHA believes the average volunteer 
or combination fire department budget in the United States is 
$1.7 million.
    We do not have a single all-volunteer department in my 
county that has an annual budget of even a million dollars, let 
alone an average of $1.7 million.
    We compliment OSHA on trying to make first responders 
safer. I, myself, have dedicated my life to this effort and 
currently present fire leadership and safety training courses 
across the United States.
    While I wholeheartedly agree that changes are needed, this 
proposal, as written, is not the answer. I believe that OSHA 
had the best intentions in this process. However, it's fallen 
short in producing an accurate picture of the fire service here 
in the United States.
    OSHA has failed to show the data or significant risk that 
supports many of the changes proposed. Both the fire service 
injuries and deaths are on a decline over the last several 
years, while at the same time the thresholds to be considered a 
line-of-duty death have been lowered.
    The largest hurdle in all of this is the incorporated 22 
NFPA standards to the rule. This takes a somewhat manageable 
rule from over 40 pages to over 3,000. The 1,500 ``shalls'' and 
``musts'' make it overwhelming at best.
    Based on their incorporation, OSHA appears to be under the 
impression that current NFPA standards are being followed by 
agencies across the country. This simply is not the case. I 
work with thousands of departments across the United States and 
have yet to find one that comes close to meeting these in their 
entirety.
    In our opinion, OSHA has failed to follow the procedures 
and rules it is governed by. One could argue that the door has 
been left wide open for legal challenges should this proposed 
rule be adopted as written.
    This is neither our desire, nor our intent. We are simply 
asking that the process be reopened, more transparent, better 
communicated, and the rule be rewritten using reliable data 
with the assistance of equal representation by those that it 
will affect.
    By working together, we can craft a rule that will not only 
be obtainable, but will also do a better job in protecting 
those that risk their lives to save the lives of their 
communities.
    Thank you for allowing me to share a few concerns in this 
brief statement. We're not asking for this effort to go away or 
kicking a can down the road. We are simply asking for an 
appropriate seat at the table as we proceed to make 
firefighting safer for all of us in this country.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Denniston follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of David Denniston
    Distinguished Members of Congress and honored guests, my name is 
David Denniston, and I am vice president of the Association of Fire 
Districts of the State of New York. I also serve as a fire commissioner 
of the Virgil Fire District. Virgil is a small, rural community in 
upstate NY, just south of Syracuse. We have approximately 2,500 
residents with an annual household income of $78,000 and average home 
value of $162,000. The Virgil Fire Department is a 100 percent 
volunteer department with 35 active members and an annual budget of 
$280,000. We are not the largest department in New York State, but we 
certainly are not the smallest either. We represent an average-sized 
department in the upstate NY region. Many of you on this committee 
either live or represent small, rural towns just like ours. I would ask 
you to consider the impact this proposed rule would have on communities 
you have been elected to represent. What would happen in your 
communities if a citizen called 9-1-1 and there was no emergency 
services agency to respond because they were unable to meet a Federal 
standard?
    As a fire commissioner, I have been reviewing the proposed 
Emergency Response Rule and exploring the impact it would have on Fire 
Districts. I am also working with authorities having jurisdiction 
across New York State with the Association of Fire Districts of the 
State of New York. I would be remiss if I did not share that I am not 
alone in my feelings that the proposed rule would have devasting 
effects on our ability to operate and provide fire protection to our 
communities. The hardest-hit will be the small rural all-volunteer 
departments. While we wholeheartedly agree that changes and 
enhancements are needed to the 40-plus-year-old current standard, this 
proposed rule is neither economically nor technically feasible for our 
districts. These are two fundamental requirements of any OSHA rule, and 
the agency has fallen far short in these areas. The proposed rule is 
both arbitrary and capricious as both the process and logic used to 
support these new requirements are severely flawed. OSHA neither 
followed the required full negotiated rule-making process nor did it 
include adequate representation of the volunteer fire service, which 
covers 65 percent of this country.
    Just this week I met with over 40 fire chiefs from the State of 
lndianna. Only 8 of the 40 chiefs even knew this proposed change 
existed. OSHA has also failed to follow the Federal Information Quality 
Act, and several of the data sources cited in the proposed rule change 
are not representative of all departments. For example, OSHA references 
the Firehouse Magazine Annual Run Survey. This document is not 
statistically significant in any fashion, and yet has been used as a 
main source of data that will make it nearly impossible for small and 
rural fire departments to function. Based on this report, OSHA believes 
the average fire department budget in the United States is $1.7 
million. We do not have a single all-volunteer department in my county 
that has an annual budget of $1 million, let alone an average of $1.7 
million.
    We compliment OSHA on trying to make first responders safer. I have 
dedicated my life to this effort, and currently present fire leadership 
and safety training courses across the United States in firehouses, 
conferences, and virtually. I have personally taught over 35,000 
students on these subjects. While we have a lot more work to do, this 
proposed rule is not the answer. I believe that OSHA had the best of 
intensions in this process, it has fallen short of producing an 
accurate picture of the fire service in the United States. OSHA has 
also failed to show data or a significant risk that supports many of 
the changes proposed. Both fire service injuries and deaths are on a 
decline over the past several years, while at the same time the 
thresholds to be considered a line-of-duty injury or death have been 
lowered.
    The largest hurdle of all is the incorporation of 22 different NFPA 
standards into the rule. This takes a somewhat manageable rule from 40 
pages to over 3,000. The 1,500 plus ``Shalls'' and ``Musts'' make it 
overwhelming at best. Based on their incorporation, OSHA appears to be 
under the impression that the current NFPA standards are for being 
followed by agencies across the country. This is not the case. I work 
with thousands of departments across the United States and have yet to 
find one that comes close to meeting these standards entirely.
    In our opinion, OSHA has failed to follow many of the procedures 
and rules it is governed by. One could argue that the door has been 
left wide open for legal challenges should this proposed rule be 
adopted as presented. This is neither our desire nor intent. We are 
simply asking that the process be reopened, more transparent, better 
communicated, and the rule be rewritten using reliable data with the 
assistance of equal representation by those that it will affect. By 
working together, we can craft a new rule that will not only be 
attainable but will also do a better job protecting those that risk 
their own lives to benefit their communities.
    I would offer the following proposals:
    (1) If OSHA is truly interested in having input and working with 
        the fire service, we need to extend the comment period deadline 
        until at least 9/21/24. As I already stated, as have several 
        others in their public comments, the fire service in general is 
        just becoming aware of this process and proposed rule. It has 
        not been communicated well to the department level. The 608-
        page document takes time to read and digest. I personally have 
        hundreds of hours invested at this point and I still am trying 
        to absorb all the details. It took OSHA several years to write 
        this proposal, and yet they want to give only 90 days for 
        others to communicate and understand it. The two short 
        extensions now by OSHA are appreciated, but we simply need more 
        time.
    (2) Remove the incorporated by reference NFPA standards and replace 
        them with the desired and relevant wording in the rule itself. 
        Doing so will produce an understandable, clear document that 
        does not require hours of research, digesting, and trying to 
        sort out where the actual rule conflicts with the incorporated 
        standard as it has currently done.
    (3) Consider tailoring specific requirements within the standard to 
        4 segments of the fire service. This proposed rule places 
        industry fire brigades, career departments, volunteer 
        departments, and EMS agencies all in the same box. We are 4 
        very different disciplines that are funded differently, respond 
        differently, exposed to hazards at different levels, and have 
        different resources to respond. This ``one-size-fits-all'' 
        approach is extremely problematic, and in many cases tries to 
        place a square peg in a round hole.
    (4) Give the Volunteer Fire Service a seat at the table equivalent 
        to the 65 percent of the country that it represents.
    (5) Use relevant data. Much of the data cited by OSHA in the 
        document is outdated, not statistically relevant, or not used 
        in the manner for which it was intended lending to false 
        assumptions.

    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, Mr. Denniston.
    I now recognize Chief Maruca for 5 minutes to summarize his 
opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH MARUCA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL VOLUNTEER FIRE 
 COUNCIL, FORMER FIRE CHIEF OF WEST BARNSTABLE FIRE DEPARTMENT

    Mr. Maruca. Good morning, Chairman D'Esposito, Ranking 
Member Carter, distinguished Members of Congress. My name is 
Joe Maruca. I am a firefighter with over 45 years of 
experience, and I am the director of the National Volunteer 
Fire Council. I recently retired as chief of the West 
Barnstable, Massachusetts, Fire Department, a combination fire 
department with 5 career firefighter/paramedics and 45 
volunteer firefighters on Cape Cod.
    The NVFC is the leading nonprofit membership association, 
representing the interests of the volunteer fire, EMS, and 
rescue services. We serve as the national voice for over 
670,000 volunteer firefighters who comprise 65 percent of the 
Nation's fire service.
    The NVFC appreciates OSHA's efforts to promote our mutual 
goal of ensuring firefighter safety with this proposed 
Emergency Response Standard.
    However, if adopted as written, the standard would be 
economically infeasible for most volunteer fire departments to 
comply with and would cause many of these departments to shut 
down, therefore, compromising the emergency response 
capabilities in many small towns, particularly those in rural 
areas.
    In addition to its economic infeasibility, this proposed 
standard would be problematic due to the incorporation by 
reference of industry standards, uncertainty about volunteer 
coverage, lack of staff expertise and availability to 
facilitate the implementation of these standards, and an 
unrealistic proposed time line for implementation.
    For these reasons, the NVFC believes OSHA should exempt 
volunteer firefighters from the proposed standard. The NVFC is 
concerned that OSHA is unaware of the varied ways that 
volunteer fire departments are organized, and therefore unaware 
of the extent that their proposed Emergency Response Standard 
would impact the volunteer fire service, especially when it 
comes to how volunteer fire departments in many areas of the 
country are organized as nonprofit and are unaffiliated with 
any municipality, and these could fall within the scope of the 
proposed standards regardless of what State they're in.
    Due to the diverse nature of the volunteer fire service, 
the NVFC believes it should not fall within the scope of OSHA's 
proposed Emergency Response Standard.
    When it comes to evaluating the economic feasibility of 
OSHA's proposed standard, it's important to realize that 95 
percent of volunteer firefighters serve populations of less 
than 25,000 people, and about half of volunteers serve in 
communities of fewer than 2,500 people.
    National needs assessments of the Nation's fire service 
consistently show that volunteer fire departments in small and 
rural communities have the most difficulty affording up-to-date 
equipment and operations.
    In an NVFC department budget survey with 1,766 responses, 
28 percent said their Department's budget is less than $75,000 
per year. This happens to be the typical budget for an on-call 
volunteer fire department in a Massachusetts town of 2,500 or 
smaller people.
    Departments with this budget struggle to pay for fuel, 
supplies, and gear, with the average cost of equipping a single 
firefighter with a bunker coat, bunker pants, and boots and a 
helmet being $4,600.
    OSHA estimates the average cost of their proposed standard 
to be about $14,000 per volunteer fire department. When you 
have a $75,000 budget, that's a huge bite.
    It's economically infeasible to have small departments 
adhere to the same standard as a large suburban or urban 
community would.
    The main source of Federal support to supplement these 
local fire departments is the Assistance to Firefighters Grant 
and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response. Though 
AFG and SAFER have been successful, there is not enough funding 
available to address the needs of the fire service, especially 
if we have an economic burden added by OSHA.
    Since 2017, funding for AFG and SAFER has fallen by $81 
million each. Last year, only 13 percent of funding requests 
were funded by AFG and SAFER.
    The NVFC urges Congress to pass the reauthorization of AFG 
and SAFER before their September 30 sunset and increase funding 
for these critically important grant programs.
    Contributing to the economic infeasibility are numbers of 
prohibitive requirements that are contained within the 
Emergency Response Standard, including the incorporation by 
reference of 20 standards.
    I'm out of time, so I'm just going to say thank you very 
much. We thank the subcommittee for holding this important 
hearing and for the opportunity to testify about the needs of 
the volunteer fire service.
    We thank Chair--or should I say Chief--D'Esposito for his 
years of service as a volunteer firefighter, and other Members 
as well, for their leadership on this issue.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Maruca follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Joseph Maruca
                              June 4, 2024
    Good morning, Chair D'Esposito, Ranking Member Carter, and 
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. My name is Joseph Maruca and 
I am a firefighter with 45 years of experience. In April, I retired as 
chief of the West Barnstable Fire Department on Cape Cod, Massachusetts 
and I served as a volunteer firefighter from 1977 until becoming chief 
in 2005. West Barnstable is a combination fire department with 5 career 
firefighters/paramedics and 45 volunteer firefighters.
    Additionally, I represent Massachusetts as a director of the 
National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) and I have represented the NVFC 
as chair of the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) 1917 
Technical Committee, which is the Standard for Automotive Ambulances. 
During my time as a volunteer firefighter, my other career was 
practicing as an attorney concentrating on estate planning. On behalf 
of the NVFC, I'd like to thank the subcommittee for holding this 
important hearing and allowing me to have the opportunity to speak 
about the Occupational Health and Safety Administration's (OSHA) 
proposed Emergency Response Standard.
    The NVFC serves as the national voice for over 670,000 volunteer 
firefighters comprising 65 percent of the Nation's fire service. The 
NVFC formulates this national voice via our Board of Directors, which 
are appointed by State firefighter associations from 47 States. Since 
1976, the NVFC has been the leading nonprofit membership association 
representing the interests of the volunteer fire, EMS, and rescue 
services. The NVFC provides critical resources, programs, education, 
and advocacy to support the interests of volunteer first responders 
across the Nation.
        position on osha's proposed emergency response standard
    On February 5, 2024 the OSHA published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register for a proposed new 
``Emergency Response Standard'' [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0073]. This 
proposed would replace the agency's ``Fire Brigades Standard'' (29 CFR 
1910.156). The public comment period for OSHA's proposed Emergency 
Response standard is currently scheduled to conclude on July 22, 2024. 
The publication of this proposed standard is the latest step in a 
rulemaking process dating back to 2007, which has involved a request 
for information in 2007, a National Advisory Committee on Occupational 
Safety and Health (NACOSH) Emergency Responder Preparedness 
Subcommittee in 2015, and a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel 
in 2021. The NVFC was represented on the NACOSH and SBAR panels.
    The NVFC appreciates OSHA's efforts to promote our mutual goal of 
ensuring firefighter safety by putting forth this proposed Emergency 
Response Standard. We believe the proposed standard contains many 
provisions that would serve the fire service well and protect the well-
being of firefighters. However, if adopted as written, this proposed 
standard would be economically infeasible for volunteer fire 
departments to comply with and could cause many of these departments to 
shut down. This proposed standard could also compromise the safety and 
emergency response capabilities of many small communities, particularly 
small communities in rural areas.
    In addition to its economic infeasibility, this proposed standard 
would be problematic due to a number of other factors including: the 
incorporation by reference of industry consensus standards, numerous 
ambiguities on how volunteers would be covered, the lack of personnel 
expertise and availability to facilitate implementation, and an 
unrealistic proposed time line for implementation. For these reasons, 
the NVFC would like OSHA to exempt volunteer firefighters from this 
proposed standard.
                     scope of the proposed standard
    The new Emergency Response Standard would be broader than OSHA's 
current Fire Brigade Standard. The NPRM for the proposed Emergency 
Response Standard is very unclear on which volunteer fire departments 
and personnel would be covered by the standard.
    The NPRM contains a section that lists the SBAR panel's 
recommendations and OSHA's responses. Some of these recommendations 
include OSHA's need to clearly explain who falls within the scope of 
the standard and determine which States consider volunteer firefighters 
as employees who would be covered by the standard. OSHA responds to 
these recommendations, explaining that both the text of the proposed 
standard and the NPRM address which volunteers would be covered by the 
proposed standard. However, there are many variables like compensations 
level, department structure/funding sources, and location that may 
impact how volunteers fall within the scope of this proposed standard 
that OSHA still doesn't adequately explain.
    Paragraph A of the proposed Emergency Response Standard is supposed 
to address scope. Paragraph A does explain how emergency response 
organizations and the personnel of these organizations would fall 
within the scope of the standard but doesn't delve further into 
specifics and leaves many unanswered questions regarding these 
variables mentioned above.
    The NPRM attempts to shed light on some of these specifics. 
Regarding compensation, it explains that while the Occupational Safety 
and Health (OSH) Act does not apply to volunteers, 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. 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 standard as employees. 
However, the NPRM does not define significant remuneration.
    The NPRM goes on to explain that the OSH Act does not include the 
United States (not including the United States Postal Service) or any 
State or political subdivision of a State. However, there are 29 States 
with OSHA-approved State Plans and there is variability as to whether 
volunteer emergency responders are classified as employees under State 
law within these States.
    In the States with OSHA-approved State Plans, each State determines 
what types of volunteer emergency responders it covers, and to what 
extent they are covered. This determination of coverage is based upon 
the State's definitions of what volunteers are considered employees and 
whether or not volunteer organizations are covered by State legislation 
relating to the OSHA-approved State Plan. Volunteers considered 
employees by States with OSHA-approved State Plans would be covered by 
this proposed Emergency Response Standard, because these States are 
obligated to promulgate a standard that is ``at least as effective'' as 
OSHA's proposed Emergency Response Standard. Additionally, regardless 
of State law, any volunteers who receive ``significant remuneration'' 
in States with OSHA-approved State Plans would also fall within the 
scope of this standard due to the obligation mentioned above. The NPRM 
goes on to explain that 20 of the 29 States with OSHA-approved State 
Plans are assumed to classify volunteers as employees that would be 
covered by the proposed emergency response standard.
    Though the NPRM explains a great deal about how volunteers may be 
covered by the proposed Emergency Response Standard, it leaves a lot of 
ambiguity. For example, OSHA says they believe that volunteer emergency 
responders rarely receive compensation substantial enough to render 
them employees under this ``significant remuneration'' legal test, 
however they do not provide a definition for ``significant 
remuneration.'' However, in 2006 the Department of Labor estimated 30 
percent of all volunteer firefighters are paid a small fee for each 
fire call to which they respond. The NVFC is concerned about the 
accuracy of OSHA's determination that the ``significant remuneration'' 
threshold would rarely be triggered without them defining what 
``significant remuneration'' is.
    While the NVFC strongly believes the best course of action would be 
to exempt volunteer firefighters from this proposed Emergency Response 
Standard, a better metric to define a volunteer based off compensation 
would be ``20 percent rule'' as defined in the Department of Labor's 
August 7, 2006 opinion letter, which extends the application of the 20 
percent rule to volunteer firefighters. The letter explains 
``generally, an amount not exceeding 20 percent of the total 
compensation that the employer would pay to a full-time firefighter for 
performing comparable services would be deemed nominal.'' Due to the 
nature of firefighting and the difficulties faced with recruitment and 
retention we also suggest that this ``20 percent rule'' exclude the 
value of overnight lodging in the firehouse while on call, insurance 
policies that are comparable to those of career firefighters in the 
region, and length of service award programs (LOSAPs).
    Additionally, the NPRM says States with an OSHA-approved State Plan 
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. 
Some State Plans may also 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. There are also 4 
States and territories in which OSHA was unable to determine whether 
volunteers are considered employees under their State Plans.
    The NPRM is also inconsistent with its estimated number of 
volunteers that would be covered by the proposed Emergency Response 
Standard. In one part of the NPRM OSHA says the ``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.'' Later, 
a chart in the NPRM says 187,621 firefighters in volunteer departments 
and 100,417 firefighters in combination or ``mixed'' departments would 
be impacted, a total of 288,038 firefighters in volunteer and 
combination fire departments.
    The NVFC is also concerned that OSHA is unaware of the varied ways 
fire departments are funded and how they are organized. Funding can 
come in the form of local taxes, Federal grants, and/or self-
fundraising and the degree to which each of these funding sources make 
up a fire departments revenue vary greatly. The NVFC is particularly 
concerned about OSHA not being aware of fire departments that are 
organized as nonprofit organizations and are unaffiliated with any 
municipality or political subdivision in States without an OSHA-
approved State Plan. Volunteer firefighters in these departments that 
are compensated in a matter that is consistent with ``significant 
remuneration'' could fall within the scope of this proposed standard 
regardless of the State they work in.
    The NVFC is also very concerned about State-level Departments of 
Labor being pressured into adopting this proposed standard regardless 
of whether the State has an OSHA-approved State Plan. The NVFC has 
heard from our members in States without OSHA-approved State Plans that 
their State Department of Labor have expressed the possibility that 
they could be pressured into adopting the proposed Emergency Response 
Standard if it is adopted by the 20-plus State Plan States. 
Additionally, the NVFC's membership is very concerned that this 
proposed Emergency Response Standard may become the standard of 
compliance for the purpose of seeking municipal/department insurance or 
for civil litigation regardless of the State a municipality and fire 
department are located in.
    In reviewing the NPRM for OSHA's proposed emergency response 
standard, the NVFC believes OSHA does not adequately meet the SBAR 
panel's recommendation of clearly explaining which volunteer 
departments and firefighters would be impacted by this standard. The 
NVFC also believes that OSHA does not have a complete understanding of 
how far-reaching the scope this proposed Emergency Response Standard 
could have on the volunteer fire service. The NVFC therefore recommends 
that the volunteer fire service be excluded from OSHA's proposed 
Emergency Response Standard.
                          economic feasibility
    All- and mostly-volunteer fire departments, protect 82 percent of 
the Nation's communities and 30 percent of the population. Small rural 
communities are almost exclusively protected by volunteers. According 
to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), most volunteer 
firefighters (95 percent) serve in departments that protect fewer than 
25,000 people. Approximately half (48 percent) of volunteer 
firefighters are with small, rural departments that protect fewer than 
2,500 people.
    Many fire departments, especially small volunteer departments, face 
major obstacles such as basic staffing and equipment needs. National 
needs assessments of the Nation's fire service consistently show that 
volunteer departments have difficulty affording up-to-date equipment, 
training, and apparatus. This is primarily for economic reasons. 
Because fire protection services are funded at the local level, the 
resources available to each department are dependent on the local tax 
base, or the capability to fundraise, which can be very restrictive and 
limited in small, rural communities.
    Additionally, some departments are entirely self-funded with 
fundraising efforts like pancake breakfasts, chicken dinners, and bingo 
nights. When a single piece of apparatus can cost $1 million or more, 
these poses a tremendous challenge. These efforts are often labor-
intensive with low yields. The SBAR panel recommended to OSHA that they 
do more to take into account the economic feasibility of this proposed 
Emergency Response standard on departments that self-fundraise. The 
NVFC believes the NPRM still doesn't adequately accomplish this.
    The NVFC conducted a survey of our membership and asked about 
department budgets. Of the 1,766 responses we received 18.5 percent 
said their department's budget was less than $50,000, and an additional 
10 percent said their department's budget is between $51,000 and 
$75,000.
    The profile of a typical call/volunteer fire department in a 
Massachusetts Town of 2,500 people or less is as follows:
   17 Call or Volunteer Firefighters on Staff
   0 Part-Time Firefighters on Staff
   0 Career Firefighters on Staff
   2 Auxiliary or Support Firefighters
   1 Junior Firefighter/Explorer
   2 Dedicated EMS Providers (who are not firefighters)
   Has an annual budget of $74,932
   Spends $2,926 per year on training
   Serves a community with a population of 1,342 people
   Provides EMS First Response/First Aid
   Provides no Ambulance.
    Operating with an average annual budget of about $75,000, these 
fire departments barely subsist and have no financial capacity to do 
anything more. These departments struggle to pay for fuel, maintain 
their trucks and building, and purchase basic replacement gear and 
supplies.
    The 2021 SBAR panel recommend that OSHA make the proposed standard 
less prescriptive and more scalable with performance-based provisions, 
where practical, and where possible tailor the standard for small and 
volunteer fire departments. Though OSHA did make some effort to make 
this proposed emergency response scalable, much more needs to be done. 
It is infeasible to have a department similar to the one described 
above adhere to an Emergency Response Standard that is nearly identical 
to the Emergency Response Standard that a large, well-funded department 
such as Boston has to comply with.
    Massachusetts fire departments cannot grow much beyond 2.5 percent 
per year because State law caps municipal tax levy increases to 2.5 
percent per year, unless the town votes at an election to increase the 
levy beyond 2.5 percent. Many other States have similar caps. This 
means that the typical Massachusetts department sees its budget 
increase no more than about $1,875 per year. Department budgets are not 
keeping up with inflation.
    To make up the difference between income and expenses, these 
departments often have to fundraise or apply for grant funding. This 
becomes increasingly difficult when a department of this size has to 
purchase additional equipment or an apparatus like a fire truck which 
can add thousands to millions of dollars in expense to a department 
budget.
    The Colorado Fire Service recently estimated that the average cost 
to equip a single firefighter with bunker coat, bunker pants, and boots 
is $4,600 and this rises to $16,500 when you include self-contained 
breathing apparatus (SCBA). This financial squeeze on small departments 
has only been made worse by increasing prices. Between 2018 and 2023 
the average cost of turnout gear increased by approximately 35-40 
percent, while the cost of SCBA increased by 32 percent.
    Some of the specific challenges revealed in the most recent NFPA 
Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service include major issues 
providing firefighters with personal protective clothing (PPC) and 
personal protective equipment (PPE). In fact, more than half of all 
fire departments cannot equip all personnel with SCBAs. Departments 
protecting less than 10,000 people have the highest rates of unmet need 
for necessary and life-saving SCBA equipment. When it comes to PPC 
availability in the smallest departments, 75 percent have at least some 
PPC that is older than the 10-year life span recommended by the NFPA 
and 57 percent of all fire departments cannot afford to equip all their 
responders with wildland fire PPC.
    Volunteer fire departments also face major challenges with 
staffing, recruitment, and retention. Between 2010 and 2020 the number 
of volunteer firefighters Nation-wide dropped 12 percent. Since 2000, 
the percentage of firefighters over the age of 50 serving in 
communities with populations of 2,500 or fewer residents has surged 
from 18.9 percent to 34 percent. In some areas around the country, 
there are communities where the entire volunteer fire department is 
over 50 years old.
    Understaffed departments do not have the human resources needed to 
implement broad-sweeping requirements such as those outlined in the 
proposed standard. Doing so would further increase the time burden 
placed on volunteers and exacerbate the recruitment and retention 
problem.
    Some of the largest factors impacting retention and recruitment of 
firefighters are the transformation taking place across rural America, 
along with increased mental and physical fatigue. As jobs leave small 
towns and young people move to the cities and suburbs in search of 
work, there are fewer people available to volunteer as emergency 
responders. As call volumes have risen and the amount of training 
required to serve as a firefighter has increased, it is increasingly 
difficult to convince people to volunteer. Additionally, the COVID-19 
pandemic, increased hazmat incidents caused by lithium-ion batteries, 
increasing wildland fires, and other factors have all made being a 
firefighter more taxing and the need for additional firefighters more 
pressing.
    Federal grants and national organizations like the NVFC have done a 
great deal to assist volunteer departments in receiving the resources 
they need, but as seen in the data provided above there is still a 
large, unfulfilled need for these resources. The most important Federal 
grant programs that assist fire departments in achieving a baseline 
level of readiness are the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) and 
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants which 
are managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA). AFG 
and SAFER are competitive grant programs that provide funds to fire 
departments to help them reach a baseline level of preparedness. 
Through AFG, local departments receive funding to purchase training, 
equipment, and apparatus as well as pay for health and safety programs. 
Through SAFER funds, local departments can pay for hiring career 
firefighters or for recruiting and retaining volunteer firefighters.
    While AFG and SAFER grants have been very successful, there is not 
nearly enough funding available for these programs to adequately 
address the fire service's need for equipment, training, and staffing. 
Since fiscal year 2011, funding for both AFG and SAFER has fallen by 
$81 million for each program going from $405 million to $324 million. 
In fiscal year 2024 alone, each program was cut by $36 million. In 
fiscal year 2022, FEMA received approximately $2.4 billion in AFG grant 
applications for only $324 million in available funding, 10 percent of 
AFG funding is used for Fire Prevention and Safety grants, and 
approximately $2.8 billion in SAFER funding applications for only $360 
million in available funding.
    Additionally, Congress has allowed the authorizations of AFG and 
SAFER lapse as of the end of fiscal year 2023 and still hasn't passed 
reauthorization legislation with the September 30 statutory sunset date 
for these programs less than 4 months away. Regardless of whether this 
standard is adopted as written, the NVFC urges Congress to pass the 
reauthorization of AFG and SAFER grants without delay and to increase 
funding for each of these critically important grant programs.
    The NPRM estimates the average cost of OSHA's proposed Emergency 
Response Standard to be an average approximately $14,000 for each 
volunteer department. Absent a dramatic increase in AFG and SAFER 
funding, volunteer departments would not be able to comply with this 
proposed standard.
    Volunteers still step up to the plate every day to stretch every 
dollar, by paying for gear and training out of their own pocket and 
providing maintenance on trucks just to get them out the door. The NVFC 
has also done its best to assist volunteer departments in receiving the 
resources they need with protective PPE and helmet giveaways, small 
grant programs made possible by our corporate partners, a Mental Health 
Helpline, free training, and numerous guides and resources. Through a 
SAFER grant, the NVFC also established the Make Me a Firefighter 
program (MMAF), the first and only national recruitment and retention 
campaign to help departments maintain or increase staffing levels. 
However, like the Federal funding available, the need for these 
resources is greater than what can be provided.
    With our understanding of the Nation's volunteer fire service and 
the data provided above, the NVFC strongly believes that many volunteer 
fire departments throughout the country will not be able to comply with 
OSHA's proposed emergency response standard. This lack of compliance 
will not be due to inconvenience or a lack of desire. The staffing and 
funding needed to do this just doesn't exist. This standard would not 
meet its goal of improving firefighter safety if it sets impossible 
standards for departments to meet.
    Additionally, the small departments referenced above are often the 
only emergency responders within miles and sometimes hours of response 
time away. More firefighters and communities will be placed at risk if 
they are required to comply with this prohibitively difficult standard 
in order to operate as department resources would be stretched even 
thinner, and some departments would be forced to close.
    The NPRM also argues that this proposed rule is not an unfunded 
mandate on State or local government because the agency's standards do 
not apply directly to State and local governments.
    To make this argument OSHA says that it is only States with 
voluntarily adopted an OSHA-approved State Plan that must adopt a 
standard at least as effective as the Federal standard that applies to 
State and local government agencies. However, it is unrealistic to 
assume that States would be easily able opt out of their OSHA-approved 
State Plans because of this proposed rule. Therefore, the NVFC believes 
this proposed rule would effectively be an unfunded mandate.
    The NPRM does concede that OSHA is concerned with the potential 
``downstream'' economic impact the proposed rule may have on emergency 
response organizations with volunteer responders. Through the NPRM, 
OSHA encourages stakeholders to engage with local and State officials 
about reducing potential impacts of the proposed Emergency Response 
Standard.
    In the NPRM, OSHA says it understands that negative financial 
impacts on volunteer emergency response entities could have undesirable 
public safety implications. OSHA also says that they 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. However, OSHA said they decided not to because 
it was unable to determine any appropriate exclusions in light of their 
obligation to ameliorate significant risks to employees where 
economically feasible. The NVFC believes the data expressed above about 
the economic infeasibility of this proposed standard should make a 
sufficient argument for volunteer firefighters to be excluded from the 
proposed standard.
particularly burdensome requirements contained in the proposed standard
    As mentioned previously in this testimony, the proposed Emergency 
Response Standard contains numerous requirements that would be 
prohibitive and economically infeasible for volunteer departments to 
comply with. Particularly problematic would be the incorporation by 
reference of over 20 NFPA and American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI) industry consensus standards.
    The incorporation of these standards by reference would pose a 
number of issues.
    First, most of these standards are updated every 3 to 5 years and 
if a current standard is incorporated by reference into the proposed 
standard, it will remain fixed and require a Federal Register notice to 
be updated within the Emergency Response Standard. Second, NFPA is in 
the process of consolidating many of its standards and it is not clear 
how these standards would be impacted if they're incorporated by 
reference and are consolidated into other standards afterwards. Third, 
is the lack of access to these standards. NFPA standards are available 
to view for free on-line, but printed copies of these standards are not 
free. This limited access of NFPA standards is particularly problematic 
since many volunteer fire departments in rural areas lack reliable 
internet access.
    Finally, the NVFC believes these industry consensus standards are 
excellent as best practice that departments should strive to comply 
with as much as resources permit them to do so. The NVFC also has great 
respect for the process through which these standards are produced and 
has representatives on over 20 NFPA technical committees that inform 
the content of these standards. However, many volunteer fire 
departments doe not have the economic, staffing, and administrative 
resources to comply with these standards and the NVFC strongly believes 
they should not become law by being completely or partially 
incorporated by reference into OSHA's proposed emergency response 
standard.
    Some standards incorporated by reference that would be particularly 
burdensome include NFPA 1582. NFPA 1582 contains provisions for an 
occupational medical program that is designed to reduce risks and 
provide for the health, safety, and effectiveness of firefighters while 
performing emergency operations. For AFG grant award purposes, the 
estimated cost an NFPA 1582 medical exam between $1,200 and $1,400, 
however many NVFC members have been quoted much higher costs for these 
physical exams for firefighters and per the economic data above, would 
be overwhelming for many departments. Incorporation of this standard is 
an example of where OSHA tried to make the proposed Emergency Response 
Standard scalable, only requiring a full NFPA 1582 medical exam after a 
firefighter is exposed to 15 combustion products exposure events per 
year. However, the NVFC would like more clarity on what the definition 
of a combustion products exposure event.
    Another burdensome standard partially incorporated by reference 
into this proposed standard would be NFPA 1910. NFPA 1910 contains 
requirements for establishing an inspection, maintenance, 
refurbishment, 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. Incorporating this standard by reference would 
require all fire apparatus to be inspected weekly or within 24 hours of 
responding to an emergency. Inspections would have to be conducted by 
staff who are trained in chassis inspection. This would also require 
periodic comprehensive, diagnostic inspections of up to 70 components 
within an apparatus. This could be prohibitive for small departments 
that have a single apparatus and lack the staffing and expertise to 
conduct such an inspection.
    NFPA 1021 would also be incorporated by reference into the proposed 
Emergency Response Standard. This is the standard for fire officer 
professional qualifications and contains the minimum job performance 
requirements including the requisite knowledge and skills to perform 
fire officer duties through 4 progressive levels of qualification. 
Level 1 is a tier for an entry level/first-line supervisor, company 
officer, or team leader. Level 4 is the top level or top tier for the 
chief. Incorporation of this standard by reference would again fall 
into the burdensome one-size-fits-all approach of this Emergency 
Response Standard.
    These courses require hours of training in addition to the hundreds 
of hours of training volunteers have to go through while balancing 
career and family obligations. Additional training requirements can 
severely impact recruitment and retention efforts, therefore much care 
needs to be taken in evaluating what training is essential for officers 
in small volunteer departments. In many cases, the NFPA 1021 courses 
provide training that are not essential to officers in these 
departments. Additionally, availability of training is a particularly 
large obstacle many volunteers face, specifically those in rural areas. 
In speaking with NVFC members and other fire service stakeholders, the 
NVFC has learned that NFPA 1021 Fire Officer 3 training is only offered 
in 26 States. Unfortunately, this lack of availability is not unique to 
Fire Officer 3.
    The NFPA standards mentioned above only address a small portion of 
the burdens small volunteer departments would be faced with if over 20 
industry consensus standards are completely or partially incorporated 
by reference into OSHA's notice of proposed Emergency Response 
Standard. There are also other requirements outside these standards 
included in OSHA's proposed rule that would be extremely burdensome to 
volunteer departments. These include a number of written planning 
requirements and procedures that require administrative staff and 
expertise that small volunteer departments lack. Additionally, such 
expertise may not be available in rural areas and may require expensive 
outside consultants. There would also be a number of on-scene 
requirements like identifying and clearly labeling control zones that 
again would require time and personnel that many small volunteer 
departments would not have when arriving on scene.
    Finally, the implementation time line for the proposed standard 
ranges from 2 months to 2 years depending on the paragraph. Volunteer 
departments, particularly small departments in rural areas would not be 
able to comply with this time line. As previously mentioned, many of 
these departments would not be able to comply with certain provisions 
in this standard at all, while other provisions would require at least 
a decade for volunteer departments to comply with.
                               conclusion
    The NVFC again thanks the Subcommittee on Emergency Management and 
Technology for holding this important hearing and for the opportunity 
to testify. We also thank Chair or Commissioner D'Esposito for his 
years of service as a volunteer firefighter and his leadership in 
ensuring volunteer firefighters can safely perform the duties, while 
not compromising their ability to serve their communities.
    While we appreciate OSHA's commitment to firefighter safety, for 
the reasons explained in this testimony, the NVFC urges OSHA to exempt 
the volunteer fire service from their proposed Emergency Response 
Standard. The NVFC looks forward to working with OSHA on ways we can 
promote firefighter safety without compromising emergency response in 
communities served by volunteer fire departments.

    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, sir.
    I now recognize Mr. Davis for 5 minutes to summarize his 
opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF EVAN DAVIS, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, 
           INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

    Mr. Davis. Good morning, Chairman D'Esposito, Ranking 
Member Carter, and Members of the subcommittee. My name is Evan 
Davis, and I serve as director of government affairs for the 
International Association of Fire Fighters.
    On behalf of General President Ed Kelly and our 345,000 
firefighters and EMS personnel, thank you for holding today's 
hearing to examine OSHA's proposed ERS.
    We can all agree that firefighting is a dangerous 
profession, and much more needs to be done to protect our 
firefighters. Each year, approximately 60,000 firefighters are 
injured on the job and another hundred are killed.
    Together, these incidents have a cost of $3 billion per 
year, and that doesn't account for the life-long pain, 
suffering, and losses in quality of life that accompany these 
injuries.
    Simply put, our reliance on consensus standards with no 
teeth and the good will of city administrators alone to protect 
us is literally killing us.
    Unlike nearly every other industry, firefighters have 
almost no enforceable workplace protections. Before the ERS, 
the best protection we had was a limited standard aimed at 
private fire brigades that hadn't been updated since Jimmy 
Carter was President.
    We applaud OSHA for answering our decades-old call to 
update these protections and doing so in a manner that is 
almost unprecedented in its transparency, its commitment to 
stakeholder input, as evidenced by the repeated delays OSHA's 
already provided in the comment process.
    The ERS looks daunting, that's true, but the fact is it's 
based on common-sense standards that most fire departments are 
already practicing or are well on the way to doing so.
    The backbone of this document is an understanding that 
firefighters must be prepared for known hazards in their 
communities, fully trained and healthy, and equipped with safe 
vehicles and equipment.
    It's horrifically depressing to see how many line-of-duty 
injuries and deaths we have each year due to preventible 
circumstances.
    In 2009, a Boston ladder truck lost its brakes going down a 
hill, striking a building, killing 1 firefighter and severely 
injuring 3 others. The fire truck had 3 prior instances of 
brake failure, including once on the exact same hill.
    Subsequent investigations found that the fire department 
had no preventative maintenance program and no fleet manager.
    If this happened in one of the largest cities in the 
country, what challenges are facing firefighters in your own 
districts?
    It's 2024, and we firmly believe we need to require fire 
trucks to have working brakes.
    Last year, two Newark, New Jersey, firefighters were killed 
on a shipboard fire. Newark often ran two-person firefighter 
crews and provided their firefighters with zero training in 
shipboard fire attack, despite being home to the fourth-busiest 
port in the Nation.
    Again, in the year 2024, how are we not preparing for known 
hazards like the fourth-busiest port in the Nation?
    I could go on about DOD firefighters falling through their 
station floors that are crumbling, firefighters dying from 
ladder trucks that are collapsing because the truck is decades 
old, and 9 South Carolina firefighters dying on a single 
incident because there was no clear incident command and no 
effective standard operating procedures.
    Our industrial members work for private EMS companies and 
are equally at risk. We applaud OSHA for expanding the ERS to 
include those personnel as well.
    We must continue to hold for-profit companies accountable 
when they prioritize profits over the safety and dignity of our 
members.
    The ERS is based on industry consensus standards that 
simply say we should be fully staffed and trained, we should be 
healthy and resourced to prevent our own suicides, and we 
should have safe fire stations.
    These recommendations came from a panel of fire service 
experts in 2014, and all national fire service organizations 
sat at that table and developed those recommendations.
    The full NACOSH committee later adopted those proposals 
unanimously, and that was the backbone and the basis for this 
document.
    Now, we recognize the ERS does have a cost to it, and, 
quite candidly, that challenge is a lot harder since Congress 
has slashed the AFG and SAFER grant programs by 10 percent in 
the fiscal year 2024 appropriations bill, and the continued 
inability to reauthorize these grant programs is an additional 
challenge.
    But let's be clear: Money will be spent one way or the 
other. Agencies can invest in safety on the front end or they 
can pay extra billions of dollars in the back end for 
preventible injuries and deaths.
    For those cities and agencies and companies that say 
they've never had a serious injury and they can't afford to 
make the change, we say the data is clear: They haven't had a 
serious incident yet.
    If cities and municipalities and companies continue to 
ignore safety, their luck will run out, and our members will be 
the ones that are forced to pay the price.
    But it's important to recognize two things can be true at 
the same time: This ERS can advance safety, and some small 
agencies may have trouble implementing it.
    One positive aspect is that OSHA acknowledges genuine 
efforts by employers to improve safety. So jurisdictions simply 
writing off compliance altogether ignore the fact that OSHA 
does recognize good-faith efforts to achieve compliance.
    Slow progress is better than no progress, and we urge 
agencies to begin improving safety today.
    Last, I'd like to make it clear that these investments in 
our safety correlate directly with our ability to serve the 
public. The public rightfully expects that when they call 9-1-
1, we will show up to their house ready and able to work.
    A fire department without healthy, trained, and equipped 
personnel is just giving their community a false sense of 
security that will go up in smoke. This ERS fundamentally 
supports the link between firefighter safety and public safety.
    Thank you again for holding this hearing, and I look 
forward to talking with you more about how we can fix the 
broken status quo.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Evan Davis
                              June 4, 2024
    Chairman D'Esposito, Ranking Member Carter, and Members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today 
about the need to establish legally-enforceable protections that ensure 
fire fighter safety and our ability to serve our communities. My name 
is Evan Davis, and I serve as director of government affairs for the 
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). I am honored to hold 
a leading role in developing our legislative and regulatory strategies 
to ensure IAFF members stay safe on the job and have the tools and 
resources they need to perform their duties effectively. While the IAFF 
is active in many policy areas, none is more important than our efforts 
to advance fire fighter safety. Since the founding of the IAFF in 1918, 
we have stood at the leading edge of nearly every advancement in fire 
fighter safety. OSHA's development of a basic, legally enforceable 
workplace safety standard for our members is one of these watershed 
moments in the history of firefighting.
    The IAFF represents nearly 350,000 professional fire fighters and 
emergency medical services (EMS) personnel serving at the local, State, 
and Federal levels. Our members serve communities in all 50 States and 
protect 70 percent of the United States' population.\1\ Professional 
fire departments protect nearly all communities with populations of 
more than 50,000.\2\ The IAFF's members are our Nation's all-hazards 
emergency responders and protect their communities from a wide range of 
emergencies, including structural fires, wildland fires, building 
collapses, natural disasters, terrorist incidents, and more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ National Fire Protection Association. US Fire Department 
Profile 2020--Table 12. https://www.nfpa.org//-/media/Files/News-and-
Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/emergency-responders/
osFDProfileTables.pdf.
    \2\ Ibid. Table 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the IAFF is active in many policy areas related to our 
members, our top priority is to protect our members' safety on the job 
and ensure their ability to serve their communities. The lack of 
legally enforceable safety standards for fire fighters is a glaring 
omission that must be corrected. Our union applauds the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for proposing a landmark 
standard to usher in a new level of safety for fire fighters and their 
communities. OSHA's commitment to public input and openness in 
developing the standard should be commended.
    Firefighting is a dangerous occupation. The data described below 
and cited throughout the OSHA proposal is confirmation that poorly-
enforced safety standards are killing and injuring emergency responders 
in the line of duty. OSHA's proposed Emergency Response Standard (ERS) 
recognizes that we cannot rely on local and State governments' goodwill 
alone to protect fire fighters. In a race to slash budgets, fire 
fighters and public safety have emerged as the losers. We need the ERS 
to reinforce our safety and affirm safe and efficient operations as the 
backbone of every fire department.
                 overview of the american fire service
    Today's fire service provides an all-hazards response role and 
serves communities of all sizes. The IAFF's nearly 350,000 members 
represent approximately 34 percent of the Nation's 1.1 million fire 
fighters.\3\ These men and women protect their communities from various 
emergencies, including fires, medical emergencies, motor vehicle 
accidents, hazardous materials incidents, technical rescue situations, 
natural disasters, and terrorism. In 2020, American fire departments 
responded to more than 36.4 million calls for service.\4\ More than 
23.8 million of these calls, or roughly 65 percent, were for medical 
emergencies.\5\ Fire fighters cross-trained as EMS personnel are the 
backbone of America's pre-hospital EMS system. Fire departments are the 
most common type of EMS agency and are the providers of EMS care in 
more than 90 percent of communities with populations over 50,000. On a 
national level, 65 percent of communities receive EMS from their fire 
department.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ U.S. Fire Administration. National Fire Department Registry 
Overview. https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/registry/summary.
    \4\ National Fire Protection Association. US Fire Department 
Profile 2020. P. 5. https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-
Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Emergency-responders/
osfdprofile.pdf.
    \5\ National Fire Protection Association. US Fire Department 
Profile 2020. Table 12.
    \6\ Ibid. Table 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fires are still a prevalent danger to communities of all sizes. In 
2022, fire departments responded to approximately 1.5 million fires. 
According to data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 
a residential structure fire occurs somewhere in our Nation every 88 
seconds, and a fatal home fire occurs every 3 hours.\7\ Fire 
suppression is the most dangerous aspect of our jobs. In 2022, 33 
percent of all fire fighter injuries occurred on the fire ground.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ National Fire Protection Association. Fire Loss in the United 
States. https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-
research/fire-statistical-reports/fire-loss-in-the-united-states.
    \8\ National Fire Protection Association. US Firefighter Injuries. 
December 2023. https://www.nfpa.org/en/Education-and-Research/Research/
NFPA-Research/Fire-Statistical-reports/Firefighter-injuries-in-the-
United-States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   limited existing safety standards
    The reason OSHA proposed the ERS, and why Congress is holding 
today's hearing, is because the current approach to fire fighter safety 
has failed. Our brothers and sisters are being killed due to 
complacency, negligence, and balancing municipal budgets on the backs 
of fire fighters.
    Below is a detailed discussion of the unacceptable injuries and 
deaths that plague our industry. Nearly all national fire service 
organizations--labor and management, professional and volunteer--are 
actively involved in developing the NFPA standards, training curricula, 
and best practices that guide our industry. Generally speaking, these 
documents are accepted as the goals for which all fire departments 
strive. However, there are virtually no legal requirements for fire 
departments to adhere to these standards. Requirements for governments 
to ensure proper staffing levels, safe vehicles, and effective 
protective equipment largely exist only in fire departments' liability 
insurance policies and an agency's Insurance Services Office (ISO) 
rating.
    It is unacceptable for nearly every other industry to have OSHA 
protections, yet fire fighters must rely on ISO recommendations to 
ensure their survival. Communities should never be lulled into a false 
sense of security, thinking that they are protected by a fire 
department, when in reality, that agency is ill-prepared due to poor 
staffing levels, outdated equipment, and emergency response vehicles 
that should have been retired decades ago.
                line-of-duty deaths among fire fighters
    As all-hazards response professionals, fire fighters and EMS 
professionals work dangerous jobs fighting fires, providing EMS, or 
mitigating hazardous materials releases. Despite our best efforts to 
reduce occupational hazards, line-of-duty deaths and injuries continue 
to plague the fire service. According to the U.S. Fire Administration, 
our Nation lost 94 fire fighters in the line of duty in 2022.\9\ This 
number has generally held steady when looking at the overall number of 
fire fighters lost each year. These deaths are nearly evenly split 
between professional fire fighters (48 percent) and volunteer fire 
fighters (52 percent).\10\ These death rates are a testament to the 
dangers fire fighters face--regardless of whether they receive a 
paycheck--and the need for us to do better to protect the men and women 
who serve their communities each day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ US Fire Administration. Annual Report on Firefighter Fatalities 
in the United States. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/reports/
firefighters-departments/firefighter-fatalities.html.
    \10\ OSHA Proposed Emergency Response Standard. Table VII-A-2. Pg. 
7779. https://www.Federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/05/2023-28203/
emergency-response-standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, we believe the true number of fire fighters killed in the 
line of duty is significantly higher when considering the toll that 
occupational cancer takes. In September, the IAFF held our annual 
Fallen Fire Fighters ceremony, and we honored 173 IAFF members who 
succumbed in 2022 to occupational cancer.\11\ These deaths must be 
recognized as line-of-duty deaths and included in the statistics that 
guide decision making and policy making for our industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ International Association of Fire Fighters. https://
www.iaff.org/news/iaff-fallen-fire-fighter-memorial-honors-more-than-
500-members/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regardless of which number is recognized, these deaths are too 
common and could have been prevented in many cases. It is especially 
staggering to note that OSHA statistics show that 14 percent of these 
deaths occurred during training activities \12\--a time when risks 
should be most controlled. The failure to prevent such a substantial 
number of fire fighter deaths should stop us in our tracks and force us 
to find a safer way. Industry best practices can only do so much. We 
need a comprehensive safety standard to ensure our brothers and sisters 
go home every day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ OSHA. Table VII-A-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
               staggering rates of occupational injuries
    As troubling as these death rates are, the frequency and severity 
of fire fighter injuries are even more startling. In 2022, an estimated 
65,650 fire fighters were injured on the job. Most were fireground 
injuries such as overexertion, falls, and sprains/strains. However, 
more than 16,000 injuries occurred in circumstances other than active 
fire suppression, such as when traveling to/from an emergency incident 
or during training activities.\13\ Vehicle accidents are also a common 
threat to fire fighters' safety. In 2022, more than 20,000 collisions 
involving fire department apparatus occurred, directly resulting in 
more than 800 injuries.\14\ When looking at the complete picture 
presented by these data, it is clear that current safety precautions 
are not meeting fire fighters' needs. Our industry cannot continue to 
view these injuries as the cost of doing business. America's fire 
fighters and EMS personnel demand for OSHA to help us create a safer 
atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ National Fire Protection Association. US Firefighter Injuries. 
December 2023. https://www.nfpa.org/en/Education-and-Research/Research/
NFPA-Research/Fire-Statistical-reports/Firefighter-injuries-in-the-
United-States.
    \14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These injuries are more than just statistics; they can take 
profound and life-long tolls on individual fire fighters. These 
injuries often force fire fighters to endure life-long effects, such as 
chronic pain, reduced mobility, and even substance abuse. The IAFF 
operates our Center of Excellence, which assists fire fighters who are 
struggling with substance abuse and dependency issues, among other 
behavioral health concerns. Often, these challenges arise for fire 
fighters following a serious line-of-duty injury.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ International Association of Fire Fighters. Substance Abuse. 
https://www.iaffrecoverycenter.com/substance-abuse/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OSHA's ERS takes meaningful steps toward reducing these rates of 
injuries by requiring fire departments to complete written plans 
detailing how they will handle risk management (Paragraph F), pre-
planning incident response (Paragraphs M-N), incident operations and 
management (Paragraphs O-P), and the development of standard operating 
procedures (Paragraph Q). Most importantly, we applaud OSHA for 
ensuring that the front-line emergency responders themselves have a 
voice in developing these plans (Paragraph E) and using post-incident 
analyses to inform these plans (Paragraph R).
    One of the common factors that contribute to so many injuries is 
the lack of planning, effective incident management, and safe staffing 
levels. In 2007, the Charleston (SC) Fire Department suffered an 
unimaginable loss when 9 fire fighters were killed when responding to a 
fire in the Super Sofa furniture store. Post-incident analyses 
identified a lack of pre-planning and failure to adhere to incident 
management protocols as two leading factors for this tragic 
incident.\16\ All of these points would be addressed in the various 
components of the OSHA ERS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ NIOSH. Firefighter Fatality Report F2007-18. February 2009. 
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face200718.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These components of the ERS would also help prevent the far more 
common and non-fatal injuries that hurt fire fighters every day. The 
OSHA ERS will require fire departments to confront the factors that 
prevent their adherence to voluntary consensus standards and industry 
best practices. These pre-planning, staffing, and incident management 
considerations will help ensure fire fighters have the tools, staffing, 
and SOPs to prevent them from being over-stretched, under-resourced, 
and ultimately placed in inherently unsafe positions. Fire fighters in 
major cities and rural communities alike are often forced to operate 
with staffing levels far below what is safe. Studies have clearly shown 
that crew sizes matter. The more fire fighters we can have per crew, 
the safer and more efficient are their operations.\17\ It should be 
unacceptable for local governments to allow companies of just 3, or 
even 2, fire fighters. Our union applauds OSHA for recognizing the 
importance of crew sizes in the ERS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ NIST. Firefighter Staffing Studies. 2010 and 2013. https://
www.nist.gov/el/fire-research-division-73300/firegov-fire-service/
staffing-studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We also strongly support Paragraph L of the ERS, which would force 
fire departments to adopt common-sense vehicle inspection and safety 
protocols. Far too often, municipalities skimp on vehicle safety due to 
budgetary reasons. Fire fighters in professional and volunteer 
departments alike routinely struggle with being forced to use unsafe 
apparatus that should be pulled from service pending repairs. One of 
the most notable incidents in this regard occurred in Boston in 2009 
when a ladder truck lost its brakes when driving down a steep street 
and crashed into a building, killing 1 fire fighter, and injuring 3 
others. Investigations into this incident found that the City's failure 
to adhere to proper vehicle maintenance protocols was a major 
contributing factor.\18\ Sadly, Boston is not unique. Similarly unsafe 
fire trucks are on the road throughout the Nation, and accidents like 
this could easily happen again. The OSHA ERS brings common-sense 
safeguards for fire fighters and their communities by requiring 
jurisdictions to follow basic vehicle inspection, maintenance, and 
repair policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ NIOSH. Firefighter Fatality Report F2009-5. February 2010. 
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face200905.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 mental and behavioral health concerns
    It is important to note that fire fighters and EMS personnel also 
experience significantly increased rates of PTSD and other behavioral 
health conditions because of their service. Studies show that PTSD 
rates among first responders are 3 times higher than the general 
population and are roughly equivalent to military veterans.\19\ Just as 
fire fighters need policies to protect their physical health, they also 
need help carrying the mental burdens of their jobs. Peer support 
programs are one such way to assist fire fighters in monitoring their 
mental health and help them access higher levels of care when the need 
arises. When left unchecked and untreated, PTSD, depression, and other 
common behavioral health conditions can deteriorate into behavioral 
health emergencies such as suicide and dangerous levels of substance 
abuse.\20\ Just as we would never allow fire fighters to be sent to a 
fire without an SCBA, we should also demand local governments ensure 
fire fighters have access to robust programs to monitor and treat any 
behavioral health concerns they may experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ NIST. Technical Note 2078. P. 39. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/
nistpubs/TechnicalNotes/NIST.TN.2078.pdf.
    \20\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The IAFF applauds OSHA for recognizing the importance of mental and 
behavioral health. We firmly support the requirements in Paragraph G 
for agencies to provide their emergency responders with mental and 
behavioral health resources, especially following each traumatic 
emergency incident to which they respond. We are especially grateful 
for Paragraph (G)(4)(iii) of the proposed ERS, which highlights the 
importance of connecting emergency responders with clinically competent 
and informed mental health practitioners who are experienced in 
treating emergency responders. Fire and EMS professionals have unique 
needs compared to the general population, and local and State 
governments must assist them in accessing the most appropriate levels 
and providers of care.
                occupational cancer among fire fighters
    Fire and EMS professionals are exposed to a vast number of toxins 
and biological threats while performing their duties. Carcinogens are a 
pervasive threat that our members are exposed to each day. Fire 
fighters encounter a range of carcinogens in smoke and vehicle exhaust, 
and even our protective gear is manufactured with added PFAS chemicals. 
NIST studies have proven that the amount of PFAS released onto fire 
fighters increases as our turnout gear ages and experiences more wear 
and tear.\21\ Every time fire fighters don and doff our gear, we 
experience yet another exposure to known carcinogens. Cancer is so 
prevalent among fire fighters that the International Agency for 
Research on Cancer has recognized the occupation of firefighting itself 
to be a Category 1 carcinogenic exposure.\22\ Sadly, these exposures to 
carcinogens claim a tremendous number of fire fighters' lives each 
year. According to our data, nearly two-thirds of fire fighters' line-
of-duty deaths each year are due to occupational cancer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ NIST. Wear and Tear May Cause Firefighter Gear to Release More 
Forever Chemicals. January 2024. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/
2024/01/wear-and-tear-may-cause-firefighter-gear-release-more-forever-
chemicals.
    \22\ IARC. Occupational Exposure as a Firefighter https://
publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Monographs-On-The-
Identification-Of-Carcinogenic-Hazards-To-Humans/Occupational-Exposure-
As-A-Firefighter-2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Given the prevalence of cancer, fire fighters must receive annual 
cancer screenings so that they have the best chances of catching 
occurrences of cancer in the earliest stage. The failure of governments 
to provide annual cancer screenings to fire fighters is deplorable. The 
IAFF applauds States like New Jersey and New Hampshire, which are 
aggressively working to provide these much-needed screenings. The 
meager costs of preventative screenings pale in comparison to the costs 
associated with treating cancer at a more advanced stage.
    Paragraphs G and K of the proposed OSHA ERS are essential in 
combatting the cancer epidemic in the fire service by establishing 
requirements for regular medical screenings of fire fighters (Paragraph 
G) and issuing modern, effective personal protective equipment for fire 
fighters. These provisions within the ERS will be critical tools in our 
efforts to stem the growth of occupational cancer rates.
    We also applaud OSHA for recognizing the dangers of continued usage 
of PFAS-laden turnout gear and for asking stakeholders about how this 
should be addressed in the final ERS. While the IAFF is still 
developing our full comments, we anticipate urging OSHA to continue 
investigating the connection between PFAS-laden gear and occurrences of 
occupational cancer for fire fighters. Once PFAS-free gear is 
available, we will urge OSHA to mandate its adoption and use.
    One of the few places where we disagree with the ERS is in 
Paragraph (G) and Question G-2, where OSHA proposed using a benchmark 
of 15 exposures per year as the criteria for needing an annual medical 
examination. The IAFF urges OSHA to require all fire fighters and EMS 
personnel to receive an annual medical examination and cancer 
screening. Our union has fought for presumptive cancer coverage for 
fire and EMS personnel because it is impossible to pinpoint which fire 
caused cancer. Similarly, we feel 15 exposures per year is an arbitrary 
number. A fire fighter may respond to a single fire per year, but 
carcinogens will be present in the smoke, and that fire fighter will be 
at risk for developing cancer. While we plan to yield to local 
collective bargaining agreements to inform the type of medical 
examination and handling of subsequent medical records, we do feel that 
every fire fighter and EMS provider should have some level of annual 
medical examination--even if it is just for the individual's personal 
knowledge.
            costs of occupational injuries for fire fighters
    When looking at these injuries, it is essential to realize that 
their impacts extend beyond just the time and place in which they 
occur. Fire departments across the Nation also incur significant 
monetary costs as a result. In 2019, the National Institute for 
Standards and Technology (NIST) published Technical Note 2078 (TN 
2078), Economics of Firefighter Injuries in the United States. This 
document provides us with a comprehensive analysis of the costs of 
injuries among fire fighters. NIST found that each year, the cost of 
fire fighter injuries ranges from $1.6 billion to $5.9 billion. NIST 
concluded that these costs are the equivalent of approximately $50,000 
to $200,000 per fire department or $1,500 to $5,500 per individual fire 
fighter.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ NIST. P. i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Every time safety advancements have come to the fire service--such 
as closed cab apparatus or mandating the use of self-contained 
breathing apparatus--naysayers have always said that we would break 
fire department budgets and force agencies to close. Yet today, these 
are all commonly-accepted practices and standards for virtually all 
fire departments. We recognize that adhering to the ERS has costs. 
However, as NIST has shown, failure to adhere to safe operating 
procedures also has costs. If the choice is ultimately whether to spend 
funds preventing injuries and deaths or responding to them, the choice 
should be clear.
     considerations to claimed challenges in complying with the ers
    When reviewing the comments shared through the Federal Register, it 
is noteworthy that few commenters argue that the ERS itself will fail 
to make the fire service safer. It is well-established in the fire 
service that long-standing life-safety dangers continue to exist and 
that lives are lost in often preventable situations. The primary 
opposition to the ERS comes from agencies claiming an inability to meet 
these safety standards and private companies and town/city/county 
managers who refuse to invest in the safety of their workforce. Sadly, 
we recognize that economics always plays a role in funding a host of 
public services; we are not ignorant of the realities within which both 
workers and employers live.
    We also understand that there are some rural and volunteer agencies 
serving communities with finite funding from their tax base, and that 
the fire fighters in these communities perform admirable work under 
challenging circumstances. For the first time in the history of our 
organization, the IAFF has collaborated on many of the issues that 
impact all stakeholders in the fire services industry. The stark 
reality we face is that fire fighter safety, whether professional or 
volunteer, and the safety of the communities we serve, must be guided 
by principles and guidelines that place a supreme value on saving lives 
and protecting communities.
    This subcommittee should provide no safe harbor to municipalities 
that risk fire fighter safety, and the safety of their citizenry, 
because they are costly. Countless IAFF locals are forced by municipal 
leadership to make unsafe responses with too few fire fighters, 
outdated apparatus, and ineffective tools and safety equipment. These 
ill-guided policy positions have cost lives. We look forward to OSHA 
using the full force of Federal law to protect fire fighter safety when 
local and State governments fail to do so. Firefighters and communities 
should never again be forced to tolerate intentionally browned-out 
firehouses and fire apparatus without working brakes.
    The IAFF also represents several bargaining units of first 
responders who work for private companies and are considered workplace 
emergency response employees (WEREs) under the ERS. These companies 
must also prioritize safety as a core mission of their corporate 
identity. Enactment and implementation of the ERS will make a dangerous 
job safer and will compel all stakeholders to achieve a never-before-
seen level of interest in the lives of our Nation's fire fighters.
    The nomenclature is immaterial, whatever a fire department calls 
itself, if it is well-enough-resourced to have personnel who receive 
significant remuneration as defined by the Department of Labor, answer 
thousands of emergency calls per year, or provide round-the-clock 
operations in an urban community, it too should be required to meet 
minimum levels of safety for their personnel.
                   proposed congressional assistance
    The IAFF recognizes that some jurisdictions may have challenges in 
meeting the ERS. We urge Congress to increase its investment in the AFG 
and SAFER programs, the Federal Government's primary forms of support 
for all fire departments Nation-wide. Since these programs' inception 
more than 20 years ago, Congress has directed more than $15 billion in 
assistance to fire departments. Sadly, for fiscal year 2024, Congress 
slashed funding for AFG and SAFER by 10 percent--reducing the programs' 
full-year funding level from $370 million each to just $336 million per 
program. The IAFF and all other national fire service organizations 
have repeatedly urged Congress to reverse these cuts and make 
meaningful investments in fire departments by funding these programs at 
no less than $405 million each in fiscal year 2025. Considering the 
pending ERS, funding for these programs is more important than ever.
    We also urge Congress to immediately pass the Fire Grants and 
Safety Act (H.R. 4090/S. 870) and provide a long-term reauthorization 
for these grants. Fire departments need to have long-term assurance 
that these programs will continue beyond the end of this fiscal year. 
This bill has passed both the House and Senate by overwhelming margins. 
However, partisan politics is holding up the bill in the Senate. Every 
Member of this committee ought to be committed to ensuring swift 
passage of the bill.
    The IAFF also recommends Congress increase its funding levels for 
the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) and the State Homeland 
Security Grant Program (SHSGP) grant programs. These grants play a 
critical role in ensuring the preparedness of fire departments in 41 
major metropolitan areas across the Nation. Funding for UASI and SHSGP 
helps these agencies have the personnel, apparatus, resources, and 
training to maintain readiness to respond to acts of terrorism and 
major disasters. In fiscal year 2024, Congress provided $553.5 million 
for UASI and $373.5 million for the SHSGP program. As Congress develops 
its fiscal year 2025 appropriations bills, we urge Congress to provide 
no less than $615 million for UASI and $520 million for SHSGP.
                               conclusion
    Safety standards come with financial costs, but so do line-of-duty 
funerals, PSOB payments, and wrongful death lawsuits. As mentioned 
earlier, even survivable injuries come at a significant economic cost. 
A basic industry minimum safety standard, such as the proposed ERS, 
could significantly reduce these costs. For the IAFF, the choice of 
where we spend money is clear.
    The question for this hearing is not whether the fire service is 
fraught with avoidable injuries and deaths, and whether the ERS 
identifies safer practices to protect fire fighters and communities 
alike. The sole question we are wrestling with is whether this ERS 
should be imposed on local and State governments Nation-wide. The 
answer is a resounding yes. Jurisdictions have failed to keep our 
public servants safe, and it is time for them to be forced to take our 
safety seriously. When municipalities choose to deprioritize our safety 
and dismiss the needs of their communities, OSHA should be fully 
empowered to step in and place safety first. Our fire fighters and the 
communities they serve deserve nothing less than the full support of 
Congress and the Federal Government.

    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
    I now recognize Mr. Walker for 5 minutes to summarize his 
opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF GRANT WALKER, PRESIDENT, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY 
    PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS AND PARAMEDICS ASSOCIATION, 
     INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 1619

    Mr. Walker. Good morning, Chairman D'Esposito, Ranking 
Member Carter, and Members of this esteemed subcommittee. My 
name is Grant Walker. I am the president of the Prince George's 
County Professional Fire Fighters and Paramedics Association, 
IAFF Local 1619, representing the 1,800 active and retired 
members of my association.
    Additionally, I currently serve as the legislative policy 
chair for the Professional Fire Fighters of Maryland, 
representing the 10,000 IAFF members that reside within the 
State of Maryland.
    I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on this 
critically important rule making.
    I started my fire service career shortly after graduating 
high school in 2004, where I moved into the College Park 
Volunteer Fire Department as part of the Prince George's County 
Fire and EMS system.
    While attending college, I worked full-time and had a 
regularly assigned shift at the volunteer firehouse, and I was 
not unique as this program had been in place for many years 
prior to my arrival.
    I completed my undergraduate degree in fire science from 
the University of Maryland in 2009 and began working for the 
Federal Government as a firefighter at the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology.
    I would leave there in 2012 and regain my position in 
Prince George's County as a firefighter under employment. I 
currently hold the rank of lieutenant in that fire department.
    As a recent graduate of the Executive Fire Officer Program 
from the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland, it is 
critically important that we address this issue.
    Our Nation's firefighters are facing a crisis of massive 
proportion. Not a day goes by where a firefighter doesn't 
experience a lack of staffing, aging apparatus, substandard 
working conditions, with no discernible standard to turn to. 
The OSHA standard aims to make significant improvements to that 
problem.
    No firefighter should be concerned about whether the 
working conditions they're subjected to will lead to their 
injury, illness, or even worse, their death. Too often our 
firefighters are reliant on the good will of community or 
elected officials to maintain or update our facilities, 
apparatus, or personal protective equipment.
    Our Nation's firefighters need a standard to point to, a 
place to go when status quo is just not safe.
    While school systems point to test scores, police forces 
point to crime statistics, our metrics are more nuanced and are 
not normally easily converted to the direct impact on a 
person's everyday life.
    We measure our successes by our failures in property loss 
and loss of life. Response times and personnel on the unit are 
rarely reported or compared from department to department, 
region to region.
    In September 2023, Station 820, Upper Marlboro, in my 
department had an ambulance catch fire in its apparatus bay. 
Had it not been for the ambulance siren shorting out and 
causing a loud noise, and then shorting out the electrical 
system for the doorbell of the fire department, Lieutenant 
Michael Carey might not be with us today.
    Fortunately, those things happened, he was able to 
extricate himself from the window, and he is still serving 
proudly in our department.
    Many fire stations across the county are historic or even 
significant in age and not required to meet the applicable 
modern fire safety codes. It seems monthly that a piece of 
apparatus catches fire in a station apparatus bay.
    We have firefighters from all walks of life who answer the 
call to serve. Not all these personnel are medically fit to 
serve. For many, annual medical physicals are the only way 
they've discovered life-threatening diseases and illnesses.
    Lieutenant Jeffrey Chandler from my department went in for 
his annual medical physical and ended up having 2 stints in 
place the next morning.
    On the operating table he would go into cardiac arrest. 
Three weeks later he would have 3 more cardiac stints put in 
place.
    Fortunately, Lieutenant Chandler survived and has been able 
to see his son become a firefighter in Prince George's County 
Fire Department and watch his grandchildren grow up.
    Unfortunately, too many firefighters discover their medical 
illnesses when it's too late. In 2023, 72 percent of all IAFF 
member line-of-duty deaths were caused by occupational cancer. 
In 2022, 33 firefighters died of a heart attack.
    In Prince George's County, annual medical physicals are a 
benefit as part of our collective bargaining agreement. While 
our members are fortunate to be in a State with collective 
bargaining, safety shouldn't be reliant on whether or not 
firefighters have a contract or if appropriate safety standards 
are mandated as part of negotiations.
    Safety should not need to be negotiated. It should be 
required.
    Even with the protections of a collective bargaining 
agreement, aging apparatus and firehouses and substandard 
working conditions plague most fire departments across the 
Nation. When money is involved, the committee will understand 
that there is never enough to go around.
    Too often fire departments across this Nation are vying for 
public grants, community funding, like the UASI, SAFER, and AFG 
grants programs. Not getting one of these grants can mean the 
difference between a safe piece of apparatus or safe 
firefighters.
    We have watched as the prices of apparatus have ballooned, 
sometimes costing nearly $2 million, not to mention the $3 
million to $4 million to take delivery for said apparatus.
    We've watched manufacturers push back on the idea that PFAS 
in firefighter gear is safe, even though the science disagrees.
    We've watched as the IAFF took the lead on developing peer 
support resources so that when our members were in their 
darkest hour, they'd be able to seek treatment without the fear 
of stigma or reprisal.
    Many of these issues would be corrected by putting in place 
a standard, one that's been needed for many years, a standard 
that moves us past the status quo into a realm where every 
firefighter in America is ready to respond with the appropriate 
apparatus, facilities, and health that is needed to do this 
dangerous profession.
    I look forward to talking with you more and answering any 
questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Grant Walker
                              June 4, 2024
    Good morning Chairman D'Esposito, Ranking Member Carter, and 
Members of the subcommittee. My name is Grant Walker, I am the 
president of the Prince George's County Professional Fire Fighters and 
Paramedics Association IAFF Local 1619 representing the 1,800 active 
and retired members of IAFF Local 1619. Additionally, I currently serve 
as the legislative policy chair for the Professional Fire Fighters of 
Maryland, which represents 10,000 active and retired IAFF Members of 
the IAFF that reside in Maryland. I want to thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today on this critically important rule making. 
I started my fire service career shortly after graduating high school 
in 2004, where I would move into the College Park Volunteer Fire 
Department as part of the Prince George's County Fire and EMS system. 
While attending college, I worked full time and had a regular assigned 
schedule at the volunteer firehouse. I was not unique as this program 
had been in place for many years prior to my arrival. I completed my 
undergraduate degree in fire science from the University of Maryland in 
2009 and began employment as a firefighter at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland. In 2012 I left NIST 
and began my employment with the Prince George's County Fire/EMS 
department where I currently hold the rank of Lieutenant. I am a recent 
graduate of the Executive Fire Officer Program from the National Fire 
Academy located in Emmitsburg, Maryland.
    Our Nation's firefighters are facing a crisis of massive 
proportions. Not a day goes by where a firefighter doesn't experience a 
lack of staffing, aging apparatus, substandard working conditions with 
no discernable standard to turn to. This OSHA standard aims to make 
significant improvements to that problem. No firefighter should be 
concerned about whether the working conditions they're subjected to 
will lead to their injury, illness, or even worse, their death.
    Too often our Firefighters are reliant on the goodwill of the 
community or elected officials to maintain or update facilities, 
apparatus, or personal protective equipment. Our Nation's fire fighters 
need a standard to point to, a place to go when status quo is just not 
safe. While school systems point to test scores, and police forces 
point to crime statistics, our metrics are more nuanced and are not 
normally as easily converted to the direct impact on a person's 
everyday life. We measure our successes by our failures in property 
loss and loss of life. Response times and personnel on a unit are 
rarely reported or compared from department to department, region to 
region.
    In September 2023, Station 820, upper Marlboro, had an ambulance 
catch fire in its apparatus bay. Had it not been for the ambulance 
siren shorting out causing a loud noise and the station doorbell going 
off due to the electrical system going haywire Lt. Michael Carey may 
not be with us today. Fortunately, Lt. Carey was able to self-extricate 
out a window and is currently serving alongside my Brothers and Sisters 
just up the road. Many fire stations across the country are historic or 
significant in age, and not required to meet the applicable modern fire 
safety codes. It seems monthly that a piece of apparatus causes a fire 
in a station apparatus bay.
    We have fire fighters from all walks of life who answer the call to 
serve. Not all of these personnel are medically fit to serve. For many 
annual medical physicals are the only way they discovered life-
threatening diseases and illnesses. Lieutenant Jeff Chandler went in 
for his annual medical physical and ended up having 2 stints placed the 
next morning. On the operating table he would go into cardiac arrest. 
Three weeks later he would have 3 more cardiac stints put in place. 
Fortunately, Lieutenant Chandler survived and has been able to see his 
son become a firefighter and watch his grandchildren grown. 
Unfortunately, too many firefighters discover their medical illnesses 
when it is too late. In 2023 72 percent of all IAFF member line-of-duty 
deaths were caused by occupational cancer. In 2022 33 firefighters died 
of a heart attack. In Prince George's County, annual medical physicals 
are a benefit as part of our collective bargaining agreement. While our 
members are fortunate to be in a State with a collective bargaining 
agreement, safety shouldn't be reliant on whether or not firefighters 
have a contract or if appropriate safety standards are mandated as part 
of negotiations. Safety should not need to be negotiated, it should be 
required.
    Even with the protections of a collective bargaining agreement, 
aging apparatus and fire houses, and substandard working conditions 
plague most fire departments across the Nation. When money is involved, 
this committee will understand that there is never enough to go around. 
Too often fire departments across this Nation are vying for public 
grants, community funding like the UASI, SAFER, and AFG Grants 
programs. Not getting one of those grants can mean the difference 
between safe responders and not. We've watched as the prices of fire 
apparatus has ballooned. Sometimes costing nearly $2 million dollars, 
not to mention the 3 to 4 years it will take for delivery of said 
apparatus. We've watched a manufacturer's push back on the idea that 
PFAS in firefighter gear is safe, even though the science disagrees. 
We've watched as the IAFF took the lead on developing Peer Support 
Resources so that when our members were in their darkest hour they 
would be able to seek treatment without the fear of stigma or reprisal. 
Many of these issues would be corrected by putting in place a standard, 
one that has been needed for many years. A standard that moves us past 
the status quo and to a realm where every firefighter in a America is 
ready to respond with the appropriate apparatus, facilities, and health 
that is needed to do this dangerous profession.
    I look forward to talking with you more and answering any questions 
you may have.

    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, sir.
    Without objection, the committee will briefly recess and 
reconvene 10 minutes after the conclusion of the vote series. 
Thank you.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. D'Esposito. We'll return from recess. I want to thank 
you all for your time. I tried to make it across as quick as 
possible after votes.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Just to the witnesses, if we're able to and we have the 
time, I know that Mr. LaLota and I have another Homeland event 
to go to, but we will try to do a second round of questioning, 
depending on who's here.
    So I'm going to start my questioning for Mr. Davis.
    First, I want to thank you for not only being here but for 
the work and the cooperation that you bring to your office. I 
know that we've worked together on not only this but many other 
initiatives.
    So you went through a long list of reasons as to why this 
new standard is so important, and you talked about 60,000 
injured, 100,000 killed, the cost of the issues that we're 
facing in the fire service.
    I know what's most important to all of us is make sure that 
our firefighters are trained, that they're educated, that 
they're prepared, and that they have everything that he or she 
needs to keep themself safe, each other safe, and obviously do 
the job that they're supposed to do.
    So we also talked about the fact that the Fire Brigades 
Standard was established in 1980. I wasn't even born yet. Jimmy 
Carter was President. So obviously there's been no significant 
updates since then.
    I know you went through it in 5 minutes, but if you could 
tell me, what is the most important issue in the 1980 standard 
that needs to be updated?
    Mr. Davis. Yes. Congressman, first and foremost, likewise, 
thank you for all your partnership as well. I can't thank you 
enough for your leadership in helping us address the issue of 
PFAS and turnout gear in particular.
    That is a huge challenge to the health and safety of our 
members, and looking forward to hopefully getting H.R. 4769 
included in a markup in this committee in the near future.
    Phenomenal question about what is most in need of update. 
It really truly is hard to pick just one answer. I think health 
and safety issues are critical to our members.
    I think when you look at the rates of cancer in the fire 
service, the number of firefighters we're losing to cancer, 
particularly ones that would be and could be detected far 
earlier, those health screenings are really critical.
    I think a lot of those details of the health screenings are 
probably best determined at the local level. I think some level 
of health screening is important. So I think that's certainly 
one.
    But I also think recognizing minimum training standards is 
critically important. You know, a common thing we see in a lot 
of our line-of-duty death investigations, be it on the career 
or the volunteer side, are either folks acting beyond their 
skill level, beyond their certification level, and that is just 
such an easy area that we can crack that--and get that training 
to folks.
    Mr. D'Esposito. I don't want to rush you. I just want to 
make sure I get to Mr. Denniston.
    Is there anything in the--and I know that we've had 
conversations about carve-outs, about having conversations 
about removing certain things.
    Is there anything in the proposed standard that you think 
is completely unnecessary?
    Mr. Davis. That's for me?
    Mr. D'Esposito. Yes.
    Mr. Davis. Yes, yes. I mean, I think one of the biggest 
challenges and frustrations we have is kind-of an artificial 
benchmark, that 15 exposure number. It is part of the standard 
that says if you have 15 or more exposures per year, that's the 
benchmark at which you need to get some type of medical 
evaluation.
    I think our research on not only PFAS and turnout gear, 
which is not even a smoke exposure, but certainly other 
products of combustion being what they are, any one exposure 
could be sufficient to cause cancer in our members. Fifteen is 
an arbitrary number. We'd love to see that walked down.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Great.
    Mr. Denniston, the NFPA reported that risks, training 
costs, and unpredictable schedules are a barrier to firefighter 
recruitment.
    I would argue that in places like New York there are other 
concerns that we have to recruitment in the volunteer fire 
service. I mean, people are now working 2 or 3 jobs because 
they can't afford what is probably one of the highest-tax 
States in the country.
    But the supply of volunteer firefighters has decreased from 
an estimated 120,000 in 2000 to 75,000 today.
    In your view, how would the OSHA's proposed rule impact 
firefighter recruitment and retention in order to maintain the 
volunteer fire service across not only New York State, but I 
know very important to both Mr. LaLota and I, across Long 
Island.
    Mr. Denniston. You know, I think when we look at the 
proposed rule as written, we're not opposed to the majority of 
the things that are in there, and we 100 percent agree that a 
lot of that needs to be done.
    Our objections, I guess to this point, are in some of the 
details of that. With the incorporation of those 22 NFPA 
standards you would take--our basic firefighter training in New 
York right now is around 124 hours. We've had the Nassau and 
Suffolk Fire Academies have given us estimates that that would 
raise that number of hours in training up to 260-plus hours.
    Our fear is with that I get a volunteer that's interested, 
they walk in the door, and then I tell them, ``Oh, before you 
can do anything, I've now got to have you sit through 268 
hours' worth of training,'' they're not going to have that time 
to commit to their local organization, and they're going to go 
find another place to volunteer.
    So, again, we firmly believe in training. We think there's 
a lot of things that need to be done. But we would like to see 
that worked into the rule itself instead of the incorporation 
of the standards, which raises to a benchmark that's 
unobtainable.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Mr. Denniston, just one last thing, and my 
time's expired. But I just want to get it on the record that--
and please correct me if I'm wrong--in New York State, the 
volunteer fire departments, those are considered New York 
workplaces?
    Mr. Denniston. That is correct. Because of some court cases 
that have been established, volunteers are considered employees 
in New York State.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Very good.
    With that, I recognize for 5 minutes the Ranking Member, 
Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Walker, you mentioned in your opening comments about 
the health concerns, about finding out about these death-
defying issues quite by accident.
    We know that the country's facing a staffing shortage which 
forces firefighters to work longer hours. It can take a toll on 
their mental health.
    Given these challenges, can you paint a picture of how 
these staffing shortages and extended work hours affect 
firefighters' safety and mental health?
    Mr. Walker. Sure.
    So in Prince George's County last year we had roughly 
32,000 hours of mandatory overtime. That's on top of the 
elected overtime that my members were working.
    It ends up in marital fights, ends up in missed birthdays, 
ends up in changed plans at the last minute, having to find 
child care, having to find someone to put your kid on the bus, 
take them off the bus.
    That's a stressor. Anyone with children, anyone that has 
plans that they've made, having to change them last-minute and 
find emergency care for your family members is extremely 
stressful.
    Our peer support team is the second-largest peer support 
team in the Nation, and there are calls daily directly linked 
to mandatory overtime and forced working conditions due to 
either low staffing or slow hiring practices.
    At the end of the day, that takes an extremely big toll on 
our members' ability to be mentally and physically prepared for 
their workplace.
    Nobody likes to go into work tired, nobody likes to go into 
work overworked, and especially not when you're expected to 
perform at 100 percent all the time.
    When the bells go off, our citizens expect us to be at our 
best. When you're working too many hours, without the approved 
rest periods, it becomes a very burdensome problem, and we see 
the direct correlation between things like substance abuse, 
mental health crises, because of those problems.
    Mr. Carter. Do you think the proposed OSHA rule will help 
retain staff?
    Mr. Walker. I do. I think too often a lot of the safety 
measures that should be put in place have to get overlooked due 
to either funding mechanisms coming short, there being no 
requirement for a lot of these things to be put in place.
    Look, when I started in the fire service 20 years ago, 
mental health and wellness wasn't something we talked about.
    Mr. Carter. Unfortunately, we don't talk about it enough in 
America today.
    Mr. Walker. Agreed.
    Mr. Carter. It's a huge issue, and there's a stigma 
associated with it. We have to do everything in our power to 
stamp out that stigma, because we know that mental health is a 
real issue.
    Like any other issue that plagues us, there's treatment 
available, and people are not alone, and we need to make sure 
that we continue to make a comfortable place for people to 
acknowledge that mental health is not something that is 
insurmountable and that it's not taboo. Our professionals face 
it, and certainly firefighters and professionals do as well.
    Let me ask you real quickly, Mr. Davis, you mentioned in 
your comments suicide. How prevalent is the issue with suicides 
within the organizations?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Congressman. Fantastic question.
    Suicide is a tremendously large problem plaguing fire 
service. Looking at rates of PTSD and other mental and 
behavioral health challenges among first responders compared to 
the average population, I believe the data is around 3 times 
higher occurrence among first responders than the average 
person.
    The IAFF, we're proud to operate the Center for Excellence 
in Maryland, which is an inpatient treatment facility for first 
responders, for firefighters.
    One of the biggest challenges we have is finding bed space 
for folks who are seeking treatment. We're actively working to 
try to expand the availability of that treatment. But I think 
the demand is clearly there, and I'm excited to work with you 
in any way possible to support----
    Mr. Carter. We stand ready to do that also.
    Real quickly, I've got about 50 seconds left, but I'd like 
each of you to just briefly give me a quick answer to this.
    FEMA preparedness grants were pushed to a 10 percent cut. 
Tell me how has that impacted your--the 10 percent cut to 
programs, Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program--how has that 
impacted your operation?
    Mr. Denniston.
    Mr. Denniston. I think the Assistance to Firefighter Grant 
Program is very important for our firefighters, and it gives us 
some additional initial funding to look at a lot of the things 
that have been proposed in this standard. So that it's 
devastating to us when those numbers are cut.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Maruca.
    Mr. Maruca. When the program was, I'll call it, fully 
funded, it didn't cover what we needed it to cover, and now 
that it's less, it's difficult.
    It's difficult on small volunteer organizations that have 
no support staff to write these grants. They're becoming 
discouraged. They're trying to write them, but they're not 
being successful. As the money goes down, they're less 
successful. It's devastating for us.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. I believe the fiscal year 2023 cycle we had 
around $2 billion of unmet applications that were rejected. A 
further 10 percent cut on appropriations for the program just 
drives that even higher.
    That's more aging fire trucks that shouldn't be on the 
road. That's more short-staffed fire departments. Whether it's 
a career or a volunteer operation, I think every community 
suffers from that.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Walker.
    Mr. Walker. We currently have a fiscal year 2023 SAFER 
grant application in for 45 firefighters. I expect that that's 
also going to be the case for the fiscal year 2024 budget.
    Without those firefighters, it means the firefighters that 
you currently have are still working those longer hours, 
filling in spots that we don't have a firefighter to fill in 
because the funding wasn't there or the ability to hire those 
people wasn't there.
    Mr. Carter. So as we're here to listen and to help, I think 
I hear you clearly across the board that the 10 percent cut to 
the Assistance for Firefighters Grant Program is devastating. 
It's something that hurts you and doesn't help you.
    So I'm going to reach over to my colleagues on the other 
aisle and ask that we join forces in working to restore those 
cuts, because we hear, in a bipartisan way, that this is not 
something that's Democrat or Republican, but this is about 
saving lives and preparing, giving you the tools to do your 
job.
    My time is expired, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    Mr. D'Esposito. The gentleman's time is expired.
    I now recognize my good friend and colleague from Long 
Island, Mr. LaLota.
    Mr. LaLota. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it.
    If adopted as currently written, OSHA's proposed rule will 
devastate our Nation's volunteer fire departments, decreasing 
public safety and increasing costs.
    This has been made clear to me after many meetings with 
volunteer firefighters in Nassau and Suffolk Counties back on 
Long Island.
    Small and volunteer firefighters are crucial in ensuring 
community safety, especially in suburban and rural underserved 
communities. These departments often serve as the first line of 
defense in emergencies, providing rapid response times that can 
save life and property.
    Volunteer firefighters demonstrate exceptional dedication, 
often balancing their service with other jobs and 
responsibilities.
    Their presence enhances local resilience, fosters community 
spirit, and ensures that even the most remote areas can access 
essential firefighting and emergency services.
    We all agree, Democrat and Republican, that safety must be 
a top priority, including the rigorous training, adherence to 
safety protocols, and the use of proper equipment.
    But I am increasingly concerned that these new safety 
standards will force small and volunteer fire departments to 
shutter, drastically impacting their work to keep our 
communities safe every day.
    Gentlemen, thanks so much for being with us here today, and 
thank you for your dedication to keeping America's communities 
safe.
    I'd like to ask a few questions of you to get some more 
details of how this proposed rule meets the needs of small and 
volunteer fire departments.
    Mr. Denniston, I'd like to start with you first, sir.
    As it relates to safety standards, and in your position as 
a risk management professional, would it be fair to say that 
most, if not all, fire departments have a mission statement in 
which the safety of the community and its firefighters is 
paramount to their operation?
    Mr. Denniston. Absolutely. I mean, our No. 1 principle is 
the safety of our firefighters. We work very hard to do that. 
We work to the best that we can within the NFPA standards that 
apply to that, and we do everything we can to increase the 
safety of our firefighters.
    We're just concerned with this, as currently written, the 
level of detail that it would go into would be devastating to 
our budgets.
    Mr. LaLota. With that foundation and long-term dedication 
in mind, do you still see a need to improve emergency responder 
safety?
    Mr. Denniston. Absolutely. Again, as we've stated several 
times, we're not opposed to firefighter safety, and we think a 
lot of the things that are in this standard are long overdue.
    We just would like a seat at the table to be able to 
discuss this and work on some of the details so that we have a 
piece that's obtainable by all. If it's not obtainable, no 
one's going to follow it. But if we can work to make it 
obtainable, then we'll do a better job protecting firefighters.
    Mr. LaLota. In a few sentences, though, can you describe 
what's in this rule that you do like and that you do support 
that would enhance the safety of your members?
    Mr. Denniston. I think, as several of the panelists have 
already mentioned here, the physical component of it is very 
important for our firefighters, and we want to make sure that 
our firefighters have the proper screening.
    The problem with the rule as proposed is, by incorporating 
NFPA 1582, we're going to take the average price of a 
firefighter physical in my district from $300 up to about 
$1,300 per firefighter.
    When I look at the amount of documentation that would be 
needed for the preplans and all of that kind of stuff, we don't 
have any paid personnel in my department. So we would have to 
hire somebody to come in and do that.
    When I look at the cost of doing that and I look at the 
cost of the physical increase for my firefighters, I'm taking 
my $280,000 budget and moving it to $400,000. That is a 42 
percent increase in my budget. It's just not obtainable or 
agreeable to my taxpayers.
    Mr. LaLota. From where would those funds come if they had 
to?
    Mr. Denniston. Again, we would either have to raise taxes 
42 percent or, as we mentioned earlier, Congress would have to 
refund some of the grant programs.
    But the problem with a grant program is that's a one-time 
thing. So that may get us through 1 year, it may help us out a 
little bit, but that's not going to help us to continue doing 
the level and provide the services that we need to down the 
road.
    Mr. LaLota. Thanks.
    I only have about a minute left, so I just want to shift 
gears here real quick.
    OSHA has indicated that the incorporated by reference 
standards should not be problematic as fire departments already 
follow them. Can you explain why this would be a problem now?
    Mr. Denniston. I sit on 2 NFPA tech committees, so I've 
helped to write 2 of those NFPA standards. I know that from the 
work on the committee, we build those to be the gold standard. 
We build them to what everybody should aspire to do in a best-
case solution with all the resources available that we want for 
our departments to meet.
    Unfortunately, that's not the world that we live in today, 
and we just don't have the necessary funding.
    If we had all the time and all the resources, we would be 
100 percent in favor of this thing as written. The problem is, 
we don't have all the time, and we don't have all those 
resources.
    Mr. LaLota. Thank you. I appreciate your dedication, you 
coming to Washington to provide testimony to this committee. 
It's going to be very useful for us to help balance the needs 
of ensuring that we have firefighter safety and very awesome 
community service volunteer fire departments for decades, if 
not centuries to come.
    Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, Mr. LaLota.
    I now recognize the newest Member of the subcommittee, from 
New York, Mr. Kennedy.
    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much, Chairman D'Esposito, 
Ranking Member Carter, for holding this hearing, and thank you 
to the witnesses for testifying here today.
    Emergency response workers in America face considerable 
health and safety risks as you all work, and they all work, in 
dynamic and unpredictable environments. It's critically 
important that we ensure the safety of all of our first 
responders, including firefighters who risk their lives every 
day to keep our communities safe.
    Unfortunately, current OSHA standards are outdated and 
incomplete and leave our brave first responders in danger. As 
it stands, they do not address the full range of hazards facing 
emergency responders, lag behind changes in protective 
equipment performance and industry practices, conflict with 
industry consensus standards, and are not aligned with many of 
the current emergency response guidelines provided by other 
Federal agencies.
    Emergency responders, firefighters, and others are entitled 
to OSHA safety standards that nearly every other occupation 
enjoys.
    As the brother-in-law of a Buffalo firefighter and 
representing a community in Buffalo that lost Jason Arno, a 
brave firefighter, in the line of duty just last year, I have 
serious concerns about what we're dealing with. Again, 
appreciate you all being here in Washington today.
    I have a question I'll send to Mr. Davis and Mr. Walker as 
representatives of the International Association of Fire 
Fighters.
    Can you elaborate on the significance of OSHA's proposed 
Emergency Response Standard, particularly for the 345,000 
firefighters and emergency medical workers that you both 
represent?
    Mr. Davis. Yes, absolutely. Fantastic. Appreciate the 
question, Congressman, and thank you so much.
    This really, I think, represents an unprecedented 
advancement in safety for firefighters. Again, we are dealing--
again, speaking specifically for the IAFF membership at least--
we're dealing with unfathomable breakdowns in safety for our 
members, whether it's apparatus failures, whether it's lack of 
equipment, whether it's lack of staffing levels, lack of basic 
health resources being provided to our members.
    It's downright demoralizing when our members look at other 
industries and see that nearly every other industry has some 
form of legally enforceable protection and we don't have those 
basic protections. I think when you do an incredibly dangerous 
job, you deserve to have at least some semblance of enforceable 
safety protections.
    Our EMS personnel also appreciate the extension of this 
onto the EMS realm as well. EMS practitioners equally face 
assaults from patients, face difficult working conditions, and 
to include them in the emergency response proposal was a 
significant step forward by OSHA.
    Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Walker.
    Mr. Walker. I would say that this proposed rulemaking makes 
a good step forward toward making our workplaces safer and more 
accountable to that safety.
    Too often politics comes in between doing what's right, 
because of lack of funding or special interests that have more 
political power, slash, will. Quite frankly, the fire service 
ends up being the forgotten service because we're not flashy, 
we don't create the bad headlines, we create the good 
headlines.
    Too often in politics, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the 
grease. It's the one that creates more work for the group in 
front of me that ends up getting more funding.
    We've seen police forces in the United States, after the 
summer of 2020, have more funding now than ever before for 
training and education. I can't say that that's true in the 
fire service because that money has to come from somewhere.
    In the State of Maryland, we're pouring money into the 
Blueprint for Maryland Education. As a husband of a teacher, I 
support public education, but understand that there's only so 
much money to go around, and without this applicable standard 
to be held accountable, we'll continue to be the forgotten 
service.
    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
    The firefighter community obviously faces a heightened risk 
of exposure to toxins and hazardous materials on a daily basis 
during emergency responses.
    In this context, DHS preparedness grants play a vital role 
in supporting initiatives aimed at mitigating these risks and 
improving the safety and well-being of firefighters.
    Considering the current challenges faced by the firefighter 
community, particularly concerning the increased risk of death 
from exposure to these toxins and other hazardous materials, 
how crucial are these grants in addressing the issues, and what 
specific types of funding and resources are needed to better 
protect those who are serving our communities?
    Mr. Davis. Fantastic question.
    You know, I think there's a couple protections we need. 
Certainly ability to access health screenings, and cancer 
screenings in particular, is critically important to our 
members.
    I think anyone who's had the misfortune of seeing a cancer 
case play out in front of them knows that recognizing and 
detecting that cancer in an earlier stage is far easier to 
treat and far more successful to treat than a more advanced 
stage.
    We're very grateful Congress in the FAA reauthorization 
bill provided a very large sum of money to help transition away 
from PFAS-laden firefighting foams, or AFFF. I think that goes 
a long way in terms of reducing our members' exposures to PFAS.
    I mentioned earlier we've got some legislation out there to 
spur development of next-generation turnout gear. That is of 
critical importance. NIST studies have shown that PFAS is 
there. More wear and tear of gear exposes our members to more 
PFAS, which leads to cancer cases, and would love to crack 
that--and work with you all on getting there.
    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
    Mr. D'Esposito. All right. The gentleman's time is expired.
    I now recognize, from the State of Oklahoma, Mr. Brecheen.
    Mr. Brecheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
witnesses being here in regard to OSHA and this proposed rule.
    Mr. Denniston, you represent, even though you're from New 
York--now, coming from Oklahoma, most people from my State 
would think of New York and think high population density.
    But in reading your bio information, you represent--apart 
from representing rural fire departments with the association 
that you have an official position with, you are involved in a 
2,500 rural fire department. You have a position there.
    I heard you say just a minute ago, if this new OSHA rule 
takes effect, you're looking at a 40 percent budget cut. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Denniston. It would be a 40 percent increase--42. We'd 
have to raise taxes 42 percent.
    Mr. Brecheen. I'm sorry. That's correct. That's what you 
said, a 40 percent. You'd have to find 40 percent more of 
almost a $2 million annual budget? Is that what I remember 
reading, that you have like a----
    Mr. Denniston. Two hundred eighty thousand dollars.
    Mr. Brecheen. OK. I saw 1.7 million----
    Mr. Denniston. One-point-seven is the estimated number in 
the OSHA document that they say is the average budget for 
career and volunteer departments.
    Mr. Brecheen. OK. But yours is 200. I got it.
    Mr. Denniston. Ours is 280,000.
    Mr. Brecheen. OK.
    Mr. Denniston. We're fairly representative of upstate rural 
New York.
    Mr. Brecheen. OK. What's interesting, also part of your 
commentary was that you just went to Indiana and you had only, 
like, 8 out of 20 different fire chiefs that you're presenting 
this information, talking about this 605-page document, that 
you only had just a handful of fire chiefs that knew they had a 
90-day window to read this 600-page document that took OSHA 2 
years to write.
    How many fire departments do you think Nation-wide--I know 
Indiana is an odd sample--but do you think most fire 
departments even today, here we are the first part of June, how 
many fire departments do you think actually know about this?
    Mr. Denniston. I think we're doing a better job 
communicating this to the fire departments and they're starting 
to catch on. We were at FDIC, which is one of the premier fire 
conferences in the country, just a few weeks ago, and couldn't 
believe the number of firefighters that we talked to, when we 
asked them what they were doing about the proposed OSHA 
document, ``What are you talking about? We don't know anything 
about it. We haven't heard about it.''
    It really hasn't garnered the attention in the press and 
the publications, and the smaller rural departments are just 
not aware. That's why we've asked.
    We appreciate the two extensions that have been given so 
far by OSHA for our comments, but we think we've got a long way 
to go. Then, as people digest this 608 pages, they feel like 
they don't have time--enough time--to look at it, digest it, 
and make meaningful comments, so they just kind-of throw their 
hands up and walk away.
    Mr. Brecheen. What do you think the average American, if 
they studied their Constitution and tried to look in Article I 
and find, ``I can't lay my finger on that power that's been 
granted to Congress to get involved in telling rural fire 
departments what they can do''?
    Now, Army, Navy, militia, letters of marque and reprisal, 
that's a little different deal. You can find that in the 
Constitution.
    But is it not just lunacy this Federal Government is 
marching toward a place where we're taking away from State and 
local entities authority over how they run governance?
    Mr. Denniston. You know, it could be argued that this 
certainly borderlines on that or oversteps those bounds.
    But, again, the majority of us are not opposed to what OSHA 
is trying to do. We are not opposed to firefighter safety. We 
have some questions on the way the process was conducted and 
how we've been able to respond to it. We need adequate time, 
and we'd like a seat at the table so that we can express and 
look at each one of these pieces and decide what is feasible 
and make a rule that's obtainable for all.
    Mr. Brecheen. You all represent enforcement, emergency 
response, the broader--people group you in their mind with law 
enforcement and just the images of what you portray in 
protecting and serving communities.
    I think it's also important for this narrative to be built 
among my colleagues that because we do believe in the rule of 
law, if the Tenth Amendment is there and it says the power is 
not delegated by the United States in the Constitution to the 
Congress, it should be left to the States. The Tenth Amendment 
is very plain.
    So I would say to you that in an effort to help you all, I 
think you're the best positioned to determine the safety for 
those that you work with on a day-to-day basis. I think the 
States are the best poised to make these determinations.
    I think the thing that we need to be shouting from the 
rooftops in Washington, DC, is we are headed toward bankruptcy 
as a country because we continue to do things the Constitution 
never gave us permission under the rule of law to do.
    It's because we support law enforcement that we want to 
make sure, operating under the rule of law, that these 
boundaries that our Founders left us, that we empower you to 
protect and serve without Federal interference.
    With that, I appreciate you being here today. I hope that 
we, through the Congressional Review Act, can put a stop to 
this.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield.
    Mr. D'Esposito. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize my friend from New York, Mr. Lawler.
    Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Chairman D'Esposito.
    Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today and 
sharing your knowledge and expertise on this issue.
    I'd like to start by echoing the sentiments of my 
colleagues that we certainly appreciate what OSHA is trying to 
do to improve safety conditions Nation-wide for all of our fire 
service.
    I think certainly in a State like New York, where we have a 
large number of career firefighters, including in New York 
City, many of whom are constituents of mine, and a large 
volunteer base, safety is paramount.
    We want to make sure that all of our firefighters, both 
from a health standpoint and from the ability to effectively do 
their job, have the resources and support that they need.
    The district that I represent, just north of New York City, 
as I said, is home to certainly a very large community of 
active and retired FDNY, but it is also a district where almost 
all of my fire departments are volunteer.
    So I have met with them on numerous occasions now, and I 
know there is great concern about some of the provisions that 
are being proposed for a number of reasons, not the least of 
which is timing and making sure that there's enough time to 
review, to digest, to come back with information for OSHA 
during the comment period.
    It's why, along with Chairman D'Esposito, we fought to get 
an extension for an additional 45 days and fought again to get 
another extension, which was just granted, for an additional 30 
days.
    In your estimation, is that sufficient or should more time 
be granted to review this? You can each answer.
    Mr. Walker. So in the State of Maryland, when this proposed 
rulemaking came out, our State MOSH office, or our State MOSHA 
office, actually put together a broad team of stakeholders, 
brought together our Maryland State Firemen's Association, the 
Maryland State Fire Chiefs, the Metro Chiefs, as well as the 
IAFF, to go line by line through this proposal and review every 
single thing that's in there.
    We're finalizing our document on what we're going to send.
    But, quite frankly, Maryland took a proactive stance, and 
each State is required to meet this standard. I can't speak for 
other States and how they handle business on something like 
this.
    But another 30 days will give, I think, every stakeholder 
enough time to go through this process. I mean, people made 
time for this because it's important.
    Mr. Lawler. Mr. Denniston, has New York taken the same 
proactive approach as Maryland?
    Mr. Denniston. We started back in December trying to get 
the information out and disseminate that amongst the fire 
service agencies. It took a while for the traction to be 
gained, but we've started the process now. We're holding 
informational meetings across the State. We're getting 
concerns.
    We were in your district just last week----
    Mr. Lawler. Yep.
    Mr. Denniston [continuing]. Sharing some of those same 
messages.
    But, again, it still amazed me the number of people in the 
room that were completely unaware of what was going on at this 
point in time.
    So we certainly feel like some more time is needed. We're 
not just trying to kick this can down the road. We're just 
trying to make sure that everybody has a voice as this moves 
forward.
    Mr. Lawler. Yes or no, just because we're running short on 
time, do you all believe there should be an in-person hearing, 
certainly a virtual one, but an in-person hearing hosted by 
OSHA so that they can engage on this with stakeholders?
    Mr. Denniston. We certainly feel that there should. One of 
the problems that we're having at this point is we've got 
questions trying to understand some of what's in the document, 
and OSHA at this point is not willing to answer any questions.
    So we are making statements on things that we don't have 
true answers. We feel that in-person hearing would give us the 
opportunity for some dialog so that we can get some of these 
things worked out.
    Mr. Lawler. Yes or no, Mr. Maruca?
    Mr. Maruca. Yes, it would be useful.
    Mr. Lawler. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. We would actively look forward to defending our 
members' safety.
    Mr. Lawler. Mr. Walker.
    Mr. Walker. I echo the sentiments of the panel.
    Mr. Lawler. OK.
    Chief Maruca, the National Volunteer Fire Council did have 
two seats on the panel as this rule was being written, but do 
you feel that the volunteer fire service was properly 
represented in this process and concerns taken into account?
    Mr. Maruca. We participated in the process. I think we were 
surprised at the scope and the scale of what was proposed 
relative to the process up to that point and its impact on the 
small community departments.
    Particularly, that half of the fire departments in the 
United States are in these towns of fewer than 2,500 people. 
It's an overwhelming burden that's going to fall onto 
departments that have no budgets and no administrative staff at 
all.
    Mr. Lawler. Yes. I think many of the standards that are 
reflected in OSHA certainly have previously been adopted by a 
State like New York, which certainly has been proactive in 
being in favor of safety. But I think it's important that we 
make sure that we get this right and that the input of all the 
stakeholders is taken into account.
    So I certainly would hope that OSHA will hold an in-person 
hearing and ensure that all the feedback is made available to 
everyone so that we can get it right going forward.
    But I also think, from a New York standpoint, we should be 
very proactive, as Maryland has been, to make sure there's a 
coordinated response.
    I yield back.
    Mr. D'Esposito. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize my good friend from New York, Mr. Molinaro.
    Mr. Molinaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and certainly thanks 
for allowing us to waive on to your committee.
    This OSHA standard, of course, could provide real benefit 
to career departments and the need of career departments to 
meet those standards. Certainly, I'm hopeful that we can find 
ways to support that effort.
    As a member of a local volunteer fire company myself, and 
have been since 1994, as you have, Mr. Chairman, I join 
thousands upon thousands of New York volunteer firefighters and 
their families in suggesting--and, by the way, the local 
governments that support them--in suggesting that these 
standards just are not attainable by local volunteer fire 
departments and the support of municipalities.
    I recognize that you've had a series of questions today.
    Mr. Denniston, I'm glad you're with us--full disclosure, 
Mr. Denniston is a constituent--and grateful for your service.
    New York has over 100,000 volunteer firefighters. We like 
to say that that likely results in about a $4 billion savings 
to local property taxpayers. New York State, having the highest 
burden of property taxes of any people in the country, knows 
that in order to transition from volunteer to career is a big 
challenge, and we've seen multiple departments engage in that.
    The standard here would be such--the standards that, as 
suggested, would be such a financial burden that property taxes 
could rise by 27 percent on average State-wide. This could be 
50, 60, 70 percent in small communities of 500 and 600 and 700 
residents who support volunteer fire companies.
    Rather than getting far afield, I'll focus here.
    Mr. Denniston, does the State of New York have enough 
training capacity to get volunteer firefighters up to the 
training standards as suggested by OSHA?
    Mr. Denniston. With the standards the way they're currently 
written, one of the proposed NFPA standards that's incorporated 
by reference would require us to have Fire Officer I for our 
captains and lieutenants, Fire Officer II for our assistant 
chiefs, Fire Officer III for our chief officers. We do not have 
the capacity currently in New York State to offer Fire Officer 
III.
    Office of Fire Prevention and Control is working on that 
now so that we can get that put together, but they're 
estimating between 5 and 7 years to get the corps stood up, to 
get the instructors trained, and to make it available to reach 
the masses that we would have to reach.
    Unfortunately, with the way that this has been proposed by 
OSHA, they're looking at a 2-year time line for us to have that 
done. So they're looking for it in 2 years and it's going to 
take us 5 to 7 years to incorporate that.
    So we would like to get to that point, but we're just not 
there yet.
    Mr. Molinaro. So, Mr. Denniston, you come from a part of 
the State that, obviously, I represent.
    Truly upstate, Mr. Chairman, by definition.
    Do our communities have the medical staff, physicians, to 
meet the physical examination requirements as proposed?
    Mr. Denniston. So the 1582 standard that's been 
incorporated by reference, we're being told by our providers 
that they do not have the capacity to do that, to meet that 
standard.
    Again, we're all for firefighter physicals. We think that 
there should be screenings. We think there should be a lot of 
things. But the 1582 standard is just so detailed in what it 
requires that our providers are telling us they do not have 
that capacity to meet right at this point.
    Mr. Molinaro. Mr. Denniston, how many--you deal with a 
number of volunteer fire departments. Do any of them get direct 
revenue from the Federal Government?
    Mr. Denniston. Most of our fire departments are all 
taxpayered, other than the grant programs which have been cut.
    Mr. Molinaro. Do any of our local volunteer fire 
departments get direct financial assistance from the State of 
New York? No competitive grant, just a check thanking you for 
your service?
    Mr. Denniston. No, sir. It's all the local taxpayers.
    Mr. Molinaro. OK. So all of this, of course, lands on local 
property taxpayers. This is not to suggest that we shouldn't 
have the highest standards; in fact, I think volunteer 
firefighters try to meet those standards.
    Certainly, as a former county executive, I can assert that 
in the State of New York especially county governments through 
the departments of emergency management are required to 
establish training platforms and to engage in mutual aid 
planning and prop up an emergency response system when local 
communities can't shoulder that entire burden.
    Mr. Davis, I have the greatest respect for the career 
firefighters, have a great number in my district that I work 
with. There is little question that these standards could 
provide great value to career departments, and we ought to meet 
the highest standard. I agree with that.
    Do you think, though, right now agencies--would they or 
would they not, once--if this standard were to go into effect, 
don't you think volunteer and career would turn to AFG and 
SAFER grants unlike ever before in order to access dollars to 
meet these standards? Would you suggest that that's probably 
true?
    Mr. Davis. Sure. I mean, I think there's a logical 
assumption that departments will look for those grant 
opportunities. But I think there's also a likelihood it's going 
to drive discussions in the local government itself, as well as 
the State government, for ways we can find, ways to meet these 
requirements.
    I think certainly in places where there are high property 
tax levels could see difficulty in raising taxes. But, again, 
those discussions need to be had. Just because it's costly 
doesn't mean we need to shy away from safety.
    Mr. Molinaro. Without--my concern with the Chairman--I 
won't further the questions, only to assert that that is very--
that's a very thoughtful response.
    I think we all acknowledge, in the State of New York in 
particular, there are 5 separate ways you can create a fire 
department. None of them make any sense. It's a municipal 
department. It's a district. It could be contract, it could be 
501(c)(3), or it could be municipally-owned.
    You and I all know that to bridge that particular 
conversation won't take more than 7 years, it'll take 700 years 
to have that kind of conversation. The State of New York has 
never--has never--put dollars on the ground effectively to 
support volunteer fire departments. I think we all agree that 
we want Federal dollars to get to the men and women on the 
front line, whether they be career or volunteers.
    So I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that OSHA commits to another 
hearing. I hope that we can consider standards that get our 
volunteers to the highest degree practical, but acknowledge the 
reality that we live in.
    We don't have the resources. The taxpayers are already 
overburdened. Municipalities don't have the technical strength 
to engage in this.
    Oh, by the way, thanks to New York being the leader in 
outward migration--more people leave the State of New York to 
other States in this country--we don't even have the human 
beings to engage in the kind of effort that it would take to 
make that sort of transition.
    But I respect you all. I appreciate you all.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, Mr. Molinaro.
    With that, I want to thank all the witnesses for being 
here. I just want to, last, say a couple of comments after this 
hearing.
    I think that this was an opportunity for us to further 
conversation. I want to thank the International Association of 
Fire Fighters. Like was mentioned, this OSHA standard hasn't 
been touched since 1980, and you have been the driving force of 
making firefighters' lives safer throughout this country. It's 
not just career firefighters but volunteers and everybody in 
between. So I want to thank you for that.
    I also want to thank those that have served the volunteer 
fire service for much of their lives for the same thing, for 
being here on Capitol Hill today and traveling from different 
parts of the country in order to speak on behalf of 
firefighters throughout the Nation, people who work their 
regular jobs and get out of their beds and leave their dinner 
tables to respond to alarms because they love their community.
    This is an opportunity that we have here that probably--I 
know it sounds cliche--but they haven't been changed since 
1980. It's probably a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change 
a standard, to make things safer, to make apparatus safer, to 
make sure that firefighters have the resources they need to do 
their jobs.
    I want to thank you all for being here, for speaking out 
and being passionate about the things that matter most. I 
really, truly hope that, as you could see here today, we had 
individuals waive onto this committee from different parts of 
the country, because it matters to everyone. This isn't a 
Republican or a Democrat issue; I think it's an American public 
safety issue and one that we take very seriously.
    So I hope that this is the start of many more conversations 
not only with just the stakeholders in this room but with OSHA 
and others to make sure that everyone is represented and that 
everyone is kept safe, because at the end of the day that is 
exactly what we are here to do and what we're here for.
    So the Members of the subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for witnesses, and I would ask that the witnesses 
respond to those in writing.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule VII(D), the hearing record will 
be open for 10 days.
    Without objection, this subcommittee stands adjourned. I 
ask you all to please remain safe.
    [Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]