Tagged with 'OSHA'

As we move forward from year to year, we continually see changes develop in the world around us. New people come into our lives, we face new challenges, and new opportunities continue to present themselves. As interesting as it can be to watch the world transform in front of our very eyes, it's also somewhat time consuming to keep up with everything. Busy schedules and seemingly ever-increasing obligations often hamper our ability to stay on the leading edge of developments around us, leaving us wondering where the time went or how certain occurrences slipped right under our radar.
 
Although much of our time is spent at work, the main focus of that time is usually production and completion of tasks, causing us to miss out on certain things like safety regulations, industry advancements, new technology and the like. In order to provide you with a heads-up for workplace safety in 2015, we've decided to write a little bit about what you can expect from OSHA in the next 365 days, just in case you haven't had the time to look into it yourself.
 

OSHA is Introducing New Regulations

For many people, news about new OSHA regulations is never good news. It usually means increased training, additional expense, and an increased risk for citation. But overall, these standards are put into place to coincide with the changes occurring in the workplace and the world around us. For the most part, these new and additional regulations only come into play for one reason only - to improve safety.
 
In 2015, OSHA has prepared 3 final rulings that will be issued. The first is Confined Spaces for Construction, which unlike other industries doesn't have its own rules. It will lend additional protections specifically to workers in construction. The second is Walking Working Surfaces and Personal Fall Protection Systems. This standard has been stuck in limbo since 1990 and will ensure better protections against slips, trips and falls. The third ruling will be to Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses, which is more geared towards employers but in an effort to promote safety through increased availability of companies safety records to the public.
 
There are also some new proposals out there, but nothing is set in stone as of yet. These ideas include: 1.) Chemical Management and Permissible Exposure Limits 2.) Process Safety Management and Prevention of Major Chemical Accidents 3.) Communication Tower Safety 4.) Exposure to Crystalline Silica, and 5.) Exposure to Beryllium
 

New Standards for Injury Reporting

This one has already begun, and it's in an effort to provide better transparency and accuracy for companies safety records - both officially and for the public.
 
As of January 1st, 2015 employers must report all work-related fatalities to OSHA within 8 hours and all work-related hospitalizations, amputations and eye loss within 24 hours. Reporting can be done by calling OSHA at 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) or by filling out the new online reporting form available on OSHA's website.
 

Now Exempt from OSHA?

There has also been a dramatic change in certain industries in regards to their requirement to keep OSHA records in any form. Previously, the standards were based on data from 1996 through 1998. But with the influx of new data (from 2007-2009) they have determined that there are 82 industries that are now exempt. On the other side of things, there are now 25 more industries that are now required to begin keeping records.
 
As a note, we'd like to mention that the new rulings on record keeping still allow the exemption for any business or employer who has 10 employees or less, regardless of the industry.
 

In a Nutshell

There are many other aspects that will be changing in the workplace due to new and ongoing regulation. While it's not always possible to stay informed on a daily basis, know that the information IS out there. For up-to-date information, visit and bookmark the OSHA website where all industry information and new regulatory standards are available.
 
Remember, you spend a lot of time at work, therefor, you might as well be safe out there! Here's to a year of improved safety and working conditions for the employees of all industries. 

If you haven't heard or been told, OSHA has recently made some changes to the nearly 40 year old regulations for FR safety gear. These regulations exist under code CFR 1910.269 (Operation and Maintenance).
 
Apparently, these changes in regulatory standards regarding flame resistant protection have been a controversial subject for quite a few years now. Regardless, they've been published and have went into effect on July 11, 2014. Although there are some changes being made to this revision, there are some new regulations dealing specifically with fire and electrical arc safety. So what do the new regulations say?
 
Basically, OSHA has stated that flame resistant protection (or FR safety gear) is going to be considered as a normal part of PPE for employees working in areas with exposure to certain levels of fire, flame, sparks, electrical voltage, etc. This also means that it's generally the employer's responsibility to assess the work environment and purchase FR safety garments that meet the standard requirements for employee use within that working environment. Employers will also be responsible to provide training for the proper use & care of the FR PPE garments.
 
Before this update was made, FR regulations were generally hard to translate. With the new revisions, it is specifically mentioned that clothing worn by employees MUST NOT MELT and MUST NOT IGNITE AND CONTINUE TO BURN when exposed to flame and/or electrical arcs. Additionally, the regulations mention that any clothing made with fabrics containing any amount of acetate, nylon, polyester, rayon, or polypropylene are strictly prohibited unless said fabrics have been properly FR treated and can be proven to comply with the new standards or can be worn in a way that does not pose a threat.
 
What does it all mean? Well, technically, even with your PPE or FR safety gear, there will be restrictions on certain fabrics that can be worn, which means the pants or shirt you wear under your PPE might not meet the new regulations. This is one reason that there's been scrutiny surrounding these new regulations. However, it seems as if the regulations truly work toward a decrease in injury and death - especially when you look at the statistics regarding incidents occurring in environments where fire resistant PPE wasn't being utilized properly.
 
The new regulations allow for cotton and wool to still be worn since they don't melt, however, the material must be thick enough to resist from igniting and continuing to burn. Remember, these new standard only apply to environments where fire & electrical arc pose a risk.
 
One other new standard that comes with these regulations for heat energy that could possibly exceed 2.0 cal/cm2. This standard calls for a flame resistant outer layer that covers upper and lower body parts - from head to toe - as well as head protection which adheres to certain levels of flame resistance.
 
Although the new regulations have gone into effect in July, OSHA has given employers until January 1, 2015 to assess the work environment of employees and make an estimates for incident energy. Then, employers have until April 1, 2015 to purchase & implement the use of the proper fire resistant PPE equipment that meets new standard requirements.
 
The details of the new OSHA regulations can be read here, in OSHA 1910.269.
 
The new regulations are expected to make a large impact on employers as well as FR safety gear manufacturers. While January and April seem a ways away, it's going to be critical for employers to determine their specific needs immediately. In other words, to avoid OSHA penalties, Flame Resistant safety gear should be acquired as soon as possible to avoid the low product availability that's expected due to the newly increased demand.
 
 

On April 17, 2013 a massive explosion rocked the otherwise quiet community of West, Texas. The town was Home to West Fertilizer Company, a distribution center where fertilizer and fertilizer components were stored on-site in large quantities. Among the chemicals at West Fertilizer was highly volatile Ammonium Nitrate - a major contributor to the ferocity of the explosion that occurred as the direct result of an out of control fire at the facility.
 
The intensity and shockwave of the blast killed 15, injured 300 and damaged at least 150 surrounding buildings, completely destroying many structures that were in close proximity, several of which were apartment buildings and homes.
 
Nearly 6 months later, many are raising valid questions in regards to workplace safety, as well as the safety of residents who are located near similar facilities. Time and time again, many want to know why a facility with such destructive potential in the circumstance of an accident could be permitted to operate so closely to residential areas. Furthermore, many residents and relatives of those injured or killed in the blast are downright angry with one thing in particular - OSHA.
 
Two weeks ago, OSHA proposed $118,300 in fines towards the owner of the West Fertilizer Company, citing 24 serious safety violations. As none of the violations were found as willful, the maximum penalty for each instance is $7,000. Had the safety violations found by OSHA to be willful, the company would face a maximum penalty of $70,000 per violation.
 
While the OSHA procedure for determining fines seems to be quite cut and dry, the question being raised by many is with 24 'serious violations' discovered, how is it possible that none of those were willful? Especially considering that OSHA determined the violations to be a direct cause of the explosion? For a scenario where there was a large loss of life, hundreds of injuries and unprecedented property damage, how could these safety violations be seen as non-willful?
 
When safety standards are set for a facility to operate by, that facility is expected to live up to those standards as an assurance of best practices to prevent and/or reduce accidents such as the explosion at West Fertilizer Company. Therefor, it's hard for many to swallow the idea that 24 serious offenses (violations of safety code) could be issued without a single violation being considered willful. And it makes sense.
 
Let's consider, for example, if a person were driving to work in a busy area and a pedestrian jumped out in front of their vehicle. The driver may have not had a chance to stop in time, and since the situation was out of the driver's control they couldn't possibly be at fault. But let's just say that the driver had bad brakes on the car… They knew the brakes were bad, failed to fix them and willingly continued to drive with a compromised vehicle. Could that driver had stopped in time if the brakes were operating safely? Even more so, lets just assume that the road conditions were wet, their wiper blades were worn and not functioning correctly, plus their tires completely lacked tread necessary to stop quickly. Is the accident still out of the driver's control, or could the fact that the driver neglected to have repairs made be a legitimate factor that contributed to the fatality of the pedestrian?
 
At some point, a line has to be drawn. The idea that 24 serious safety offenses were identified which were directly responsible for a deadly explosion, yet not 'willful', is a very hard story to swallow for the families of the victims and the residents located nearby who lost their homes. At which point do these violations reach the level where they're considered willful neglect?
 
Recently, OSHA fined a general contractor and sub-contractors $280,000 for violations at a job site in new Hampshire where a power plant was being constructed, yet there were no injuries or fatalities. In fact, the site was only inspected due to complaints filed by workers.
 
While it's clear that OSHA's system for fines is not relevant to the number of injuries or deaths and is instead determined by the number and character of the violations themselves, you have to wonder if a numerous safety violations resulting in such destruction should ever be able to be labeled as non-willful. In this case, many are finding it as a slap in the face and a complete lack of justice.
 

It's all too common these days, and the media does the issue no justice to make light of it by attaching a funny or ironic headline. A 27-year-old highway construction worker was killed when police say he was trying to put up road safety signs for an expansion of a Texas highway.

 

No mention was made as to whether he was wearing the proper hi-visibility attire, including hi-vis vest, high visibility apparel or garments, reflectors or any other hi visibility gear - which usually means that he was. otherwise, they'd be having a field day with that fact also. As of yet, the only good news seems to be that there was no error of his own - just a fatal accident.

 

The accident happened around 8:30 in the morning in Conroe, Texas on Saturday, October 27th, off of the I-45 feeder road near State Highway 105. Police say a Williams Brothers construction truck was pulling an 18-foot trailer loaded with highway safety signs. The truck was stopped in the left lane just south of the exit ramp from I-45. A highway road worker, Joel Vega, was putting temporary caution signs along the roadside for drivers before their work began. But Kimberly Vick, 39, traveling southbound on the feeder, also on the left lane, struck the trailer, flipping it.

 

Investigators believe Vega was between the truck and trailer when the accident happened. Unfortunately, Vega was pronounced dead on the scene by police. They're now trying to figure out if the driver was able to see the caution arrows on top of the truck.

 

As of yet, no cause of the accident has been determined. Vick was transported to Conroe Regional Medical Center. It is “too early to tell” if charges will be filed against Vick, Conroe Police Sgt. Joe Smart said, and the case is under investigation. No citations have been issued in the wreck.

 

OSHA has opened an investigation with Williams Brothers, which on its website counts TxDOT as its principal client, OSHA spokesman Juan Rodriguez said Monday. The investigation is ongoing.

 

Officials with Williams Brothers were unavailable for comment.
Brilliant Series Breakaway
Class 2 Vest
The Brilliant Series breakaway vests, from ML Kishigo, offer both increased visibility and protection from entanglement. In addition to the 5-point breakaway design, high visibility background material and the 2" wide reflective tape, the vest also utilizes Brilliant Trim reflective edging which considerably improves the vest's low light visibility. The reflective piping improves recognition of the wearer by distinguishing their silhouette from the other stationary objects around them in a work zone. The vest is constructed of a durable and breathable, Ultra-Cool 100% polyester mesh. Vest features include: zipper closure; mic tabs on chest; inside 2-tier, 4-division pencil pocket; flapped radio pocket; and inside left patch pocket.

 

ANSI/ISEA 107 Class 2 compliant.

The accumulation of combustible materials in coal mines leads all violations in the last 90 days with 2,197 violations, or 11.52% of all violations.

From the Mine Safety and Health Administration, www.msha.gov, 30 CFR § 75.400:

Coal dust, including float coal dust deposited on rock-dusted surfaces, loose coal, and other combustible materials, shall be cleaned up and not be permitted to accumulate in active workings, or on diesel- powered and electric equipment therein.

[61 FR 55527, Oct. 25, 1996]

For an explosion to occur, there are five necessary elements which must occur simultaneously: fuel, heat, oxygen, suspension, and confinement. These form the five sides of the Explosion Pentagon. Like the fire triangle, removing any one of these requirements would prevent an explosion from propagating. For example, if fuel, heat, oxygen, and confinement occurred together in proper quantities, an explosion would still not be possible without the suspension of the fuel. However, in this case, a fire could occur. If the burning fuel were then placed in suspension by a sudden blast of air, all five sides of the explosion pentagon would be satisfied and an explosion would be imminent.

HiVis Supply is proud to offer high visibility apparel for a variety of job duties like roadside construction, manufacturing and mining. We offer great savings and product selection for helping you maintain a safe and OSHA/ANSI compliant work environment.

3. January 22, 2018: Overhead and Street Name signs must meet retroreflectivity requirements. If street name signs meet retroreflectivity requirements and are all CAPITAL letters, they may remain in service for the remainder of their useful life. They never have to be changed out only because of the capital letter/mixed case issue.

FHWA estimated the cost for making these retroreflectivity improvements throughout the entire United States to be $37 million dollars over a 10 year period. The reason that this figure is lower than some estimates reported in the media is that the implementation timetable detailed above was designed to roughly coincide with the useful life of existing signs. Thus, it is likely that most of them would have been replaced anyway.

For more information, check out the Sign Retroreflectivity Toolkit.


Fleece Lined Bomber Jacket

The US Department of Labor (DOL) has produced a series of prevention videos regarding safety in industry and on the jobsite.

In the U.S., more than 800 construction workers die every year while on the job. Being struck by vehicles, heavy equipment, and other objects is the top cause of injuries and the second cause of death for construction workers, killing more than 150 workers in 2009. But these injuries and deaths can be prevented.

Employers have a responsibility to provide a safe workplace and required protective equipment. You'll see that taking the right protective steps saves lives.

All scenes are based on true stories. A surveyor was spray painting the ground to outline the area for a new building pad. At the same time, the driver of a wheel tractor scraper was moving forward to get the ground ready for pad construction. There was no spotter at the site, and there was no internal traffic control plan in place. Before backing up to go over the ground again, the driver checked his rearview and side mirrors. He didn't see anyone in his mirrors, so he  up. The driver's back-up alarm didn't work, so the surveyor did not hear the scraper coming towards her. As the driver backed up, he ran over the surveyor. She died from the injuries.

Let's look at the events leading up to this tragic incident, and see how it could have been prevented. When a vehicle on a construction site has an obstructed view to the rear OSHA's standard requires employers to provide that vehicle with a working back-up alarm, or a spotter on site to tell the driver when it is safe to back up. Now let's see what happens when protective measures are in place. Although there is now a working back-up alarm, it is barely audible over the background noise, so as an added safety measure there is also a spotter on site wearing a reflective vest. There is also an internal traffic control plan in place. This plan helps protect workers because it tells the drivers of moving vehicles and equipment the safest way to move around the work site. So this time, before backing up, the scraper's driver waits for the spotter's signal so he knows the area is clear to enter. Now as the driver reverses, the back-up alarm can be heard and no workers are near the scraper.

This example shows the importance of employers following OSHA's vehicle safety standards for construction sites to ensure that workers are provided with a safe workplace.

These types of construction worker deaths are preventable.

The protection measures shown here save workers' lives. Please follow OSHA's safety standards at worksites: it could be the difference between life and death. If you would like more information, contact OSHA at www.osha.gov or 1-800-321-OSHA.

High visibility clothing and apparel are regulated by standards which help to define minimum requirements to ensure worker safety. Selecting the appropriate high visibility garment depends upon having knowledge of the applicable standards and properly matching up the guidelines with the wearer’s needs (i.e., work environment, job duty, desired level of visibility, etc.). Listed below is a brief overview of the regulating bodies and their standards which dictate the appropriate level of visibility, in relation to worker safety.
MUTCD In December 2003 the Federal Highway Administration published the most recent Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (The MUTCD). For the first time, the MUTCD specified the ANSI-ISEA 107-1999 “or subsequent revisions” as the standard for High Visibility Apparel in work zones that include traffic, and gave all states a 3-year period from December 2003 to December 2006 to “codify” the Standard into State Law. Specifically, the MUTCD section 6E and 6D deals with High Visibility Safety Apparel use for Workers exposed to Roadway and Construction Hazards. Flaggers are to wear a minimum of a Class 2 garment at all times, and “should” wear Class 3 for night time and inclement conditions. The General Worker Safety Provisions covers all workers exposed to traffic of any kind. This section references the ANSI standard by name as Best Practices, with a Competent Person assigned to determine the minimum ANSI Class 1, 2, or 3 garment that is most appropriate as part of the Employers Hazard Assessment and Worker Safety Plan. The ANSI standard is now used to provide guidance to employers to determine the Best Practices in high visibility apparel.
OSHA General Duty Clause Under Section 5 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, all companies are required to provide a safe and healthy work environment. The employer is responsible for identifying hazards and for implementing appropriate (Best Practices) remedies such as Personal Protective Equipment (including ANSI Class 1, 2, or 3 High Visibility Apparel). Like the MUTCD, OSHA General Safety and Health Provisions 29CFR requires employers to conduct a Hazard Assessment each year to identify and mitigate Hazards. Since 1999, the first year of the ANSI standard for High Visibility Apparel, OSHA inspectors have begun referencing the ANSI standard as Best Practices, and under OSHA regulation 1926.28, fines as high as $7000 per incident have been issued. Taken together, The MUTCD and the OSHA General Duty Clause both now use ANSI 107-2004 or ANSI Public Safety 207-2006 High Visibility Class 1, 2, and 3 as the standard.
ANSI 107-2004 Standard In late 2004, the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) updated the High Visibility Safety Apparel standards for the first time in 5 years. Based on recommendations presented by the International Safety Equipment Standards Association (ISEA), the new ANSI Standard maintained minimum background material and reflective tape, but strengthened design and test requirements for Class 1, 2, and 3 garments. Independent 3rd party fabric and reflective tests must now be conducted by USA accredited test labs to avoid mis-representation as “ANSI”. Apparel Manufacturers must then verify ANSI Class 1, 2, or 3 design requirements are met.
ANSI Class 1 garments are suited for workers well separated from traffic and therefore have lower visibility requirements (Material Requirements: background – 217 sq. in.; retroreflective – 155 sq. in.). ANSI Class 1 garments are to be utilized in work areas where vehicle and equipment speeds are under 25 mph. ANSI Class 1 garments must have reflective which completely encircle the body to meet the clarified encirclement requirement.

Examples of workers who use ANSI Class 1 apparel: parking lot attendants, people retrieving shopping carts from parking lots, workers exposed to warehouse equipment traffic, roadside “right of way” or sidewalk maintenance workers.
ANSI Class 2 garments are intended for use in activities where greater visibility is necessary during inclement weather conditions or in work environments with risks that exceed those for Class 1 (Material Requirements: background – 775 sq. in.; retroreflective – 201 sq. in.). Garments in this class also cover workers who perform tasks that divert their attention from approaching traffic, or that put in close proximity to passing vehicles traveling at 25 miles per hour of higher. ANSI Class 2 garments have the option of any combination of yellow or orange fabrics; combined with yellow, orange, white, or silver reflectives. Class 2 allows the greatest flexibility in design. As the MUTCD and OSHA General Duty clause suggests, most employers will use ANSI Class 2 as the “Best Practices” minimum, and select fabrics, reflective, and pocket configurations designed specifically for their work requirements.

Examples of workers who use Class 2 apparel: Forestry operations, ship cargo-loading operations, roadway construction, utility and railway workers, survey crews, school crossing guards, high-volume parking and/or toll gate personnel, airport baggage handlers/ground crew, emergency response and law enforcement personnel, trash collection and recycling operations, accident site investigators, railroad inspection and maintenance crews.
ANSI Class 3 garments are designed to offer greater visibility to the wearer in complex backgrounds and through and full range of body motions. Class 3 visibility is enhanced beyond Class 2 by the addition of background and retro-reflective reflective material to the arms and/or legs. ANSI Class 3 garments now require both background fabric and reflective on arms or legs to fully define the body (Material Requirements: background – 1,280 sq. in.; retroreflective – 310 sq. in.). This new ANSI Class 3 standard defining body requirement is in support of the MUTCD definition of night time and inclement conditions. Anyone who has suddenly come upon a pedestrian at night knows the importance of increased response time. To meet the new defined body requirement, there are 2 options for customers to choose from as follows: First, ANSI Class 2 vests may be combined with ANSI Class E (Ensemble) shorts or pants to obtain ANSI Class 3 combination. This option allows employers and their workers to choose ANSI Class 2 for their normal hazards, and add pants or shorts for ANSI Class 3 compliance in the night time or inclement weather conditions per the MUTCD. As a second option, where a Competent Person has identified an ANSI Class 3 garment is needed at all times, a standalone ANSI Class 3 vest with short sleeve shirt design meets the new standard.

Examples of workers who use ANSI Class 3 apparel: Roadway construction personnel and flaggers, utility workers, survey crews, emergency response personnel.
ANSI 207-2006 Standard

In January 2006, The Federal Highway Administration published the most recent Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (The MUTCD). This MUTCD revision accepted and coded into law for the first time the ANSI 107-1999 High Visibility Apparel Standard “or subsequent revisions”. The acceptance of the ANSI 107-2004 Standard (the current revision) in the MUTCD was a distinct advancement for highway workers. However for “Public Safety Workers” such as Police, Fire, State Patrol, Emergency Personnel, and other “First Responders” the circumstances and use of High Visibility Apparel on the job was unclear. Many Public Safety workers were exempted from using high visibility apparel, and/or were only partially covered by the ANSI 107 standard and the MUTCD.

In 2006 the Federal Highway Administration announced in a written statement that effective November 2008; all workers working on any highway that received federal funds must wear high visibility ANSI apparel. The new rule now included all public safety personnel; such as law enforcement, emergency workers, fire, EMS, public maintenance, utility crews, and “first responders”. This new requirement applied when performing duties of directing traffic, investigating crashes, handling lane closures, clearing obstructed roadways, and all other disasters within the right of way of federal highways. For practical purposes, any public safety workers on any highway that received federal funds are required to use either ANSI 107 or ANSI 207 high visibility apparel.

Public safety workers acknowledged the risks of on-the-job traffic accidents related to visibility. However, there was also an understanding that competing hazards such as heat/flame exposure for Fire Departments, use of stealth and/or weapons by law enforcement, and fire/chemical/electrical exposure in emergencies required judgment in the use of high visibility apparel. In addition, nontraditional colors were needed such as Police Blue, EMS White, Fire Red, to differentiate public safety personnel from highway workers. The ISEA, working in conjunction with select ‘Public Safety” organizations, began work on a new consensus standard. The result was the publication of the ANSI 207 Public Safety High Visibility Standard, a consensus approved by the canvas method and published in late 2006. The ANSI 207-2006 accepted as “Best Practices” much of the high visibility apparel criteria as defined by the already published ANSI 107-2004 standard for workers exposed to traffic. ANSI 107-2004 definitions of fluorescent fabrics, retro-reflective tapes, 3rd party independent tests of both fabrics and reflectives for color fastness, cleaning, tear, abrasion, flexing, temperature variation, care labels, marking, labels, bursting strength, reflective photometric and physical performance requirements apply to the ANSI 207-2006 standard as well. In all the technical requirements, the ANSI 107-2004 American National Standard for High Visibility Safety Apparel; and ANSI 207-2006, American National Standard for High Visibility Public Safety are nearly identical.

The major difference between the ANSI 107 Highway Workers Standard and the ANSI 207 Public Safety Standard is garment design; ANSI 207 Class 2 has less (450 sq inches) of background fabric and recommends a 5 point break-away design. Law enforcement could now combine Police Blue fabrics with fluorescent orange or yellow fabrics. Fire Service could use traditional orange, red or yellow fabrics; but may also need “Fire Resistant” fabrics per the (NFPA 701) and or (ASTM F-1506) standards as the primary danger may be fire. EMS personnel traditionally used white. Finally the National Incident Management System (NIMS) encouraged the use of color coding response personnel and/or the use of ID panels. The result is new vest designs that combine non-traditional color fabrics with traditional fluorescent fabrics to create entirely new designs for “Public Safety” and “First Responders”. Some of these designs are “One Size Fits Most” to allow for variation in personnel likely to wear these vests in an emergency. Clear and Velcro removable ID panels allow for fast changes in assignments during Incident Management. Velcro 5-Point “Break-away” sides and shoulder designs on select products provide an extra level of Safety. Taken together, the new ANSI 207-2006 standard allows “Public Safety” personnel to maintain their identity as First Responders while using high visibility apparel.
NFPA & ASTM for Fire/Flame/Arc The forward section of the ANSI 107-2004 acknowledges fluorescent dye may be incompatible with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Fire/Arc Resistant fabrics and reflectives. Examples of workers that may need “FR” fabrics include Fire, Emergency, Utility, Metals and Petroleum industry. “FR” and “Arc” ratings will vary depending on the fabric and industry needs. Combined ANSI & FR “Best Practices” may include NFPA FR fabrics, ASTM FR fabrics, and 70E arc fabrics. FR reflective, Velcro, and dielectric snaps are then added.

High visibility apparel must also have multiple garment labels to protect workers from misrepresentation. Labels will include “ANSI” labels, “FR” labels, “Warning/Instructions for Use” labels, and “Country of Origin” labels. Each of these labels is required, and protects you, the user, from purchasing non compliant high visibility apparel. ANSI labels will include information on the Fabric, Reflective, Design, Class, Level, Size, Number of washings, and Washing/Care instructions. An additional label is required if an ANSI garment is Fire Resistant. The ANSI label may state ANSI or ANSI Style based on FR coating compatibility. Specific “FR” labels will clearly identify the Garment as meeting Fire Resistant NFPA 701, the higher Fire Resistant ASTM standard; and/or NFPA 70E Arc.

These governing agencies have all played a pivotal role in defining appropriate levels of worker visibility and benchmarking guidelines that also ensure the garment matches up with the wearer’s job function. By far, ANSI has become the definitive standard by which all high visibility clothing and apparel is designed. This information is presented by HiVis Supply, an affiliate site for Summit Sign and Safety, to aid in the decision process for selecting the appropriate garment style for your specific work environment. To view available ANSI approved apparel, you can visit our homepage at www.HiVisSupply.com.