By: Jason Jantzi, Senior Risk Management Consultant, Public Safety 

Training videos, conference presentations, social media posts, and online demonstrations can be useful tools for the fire service. They expose members to new ideas and lessons learned from experienced firefighters across the country. Oregon chiefs, however, may want to keep one important point in mind: when a method is brought into an Oregon fire district, the district is still responsible for determining whether that method is legal, compliant, and defensible. That responsibility does not transfer to the person who posted the video, delivered the class, or demonstrated the tactic online. 

That distinction is important. Oregon fire chiefs remain responsible for the systems their members are trained to use, the equipment practices their agencies allow, and the tactical approaches their officers reinforce. A practice that is common or accepted in another state may still need additional review before it is adopted in Oregon. Without that review, the district may be left managing the compliance, safety, operational, and liability consequences. 

The SCBA Storage Example 

A recent example involved a fire district that adopted an out-of-state practice of storing self-contained breathing apparatus with the facepieces continuously attached to the SCBA. The district may have viewed the practice as a readiness improvement because it had been presented as acceptable elsewhere. In Oregon, this type of practice should be evaluated against the respiratory protection standard before it is adopted or continued. 

Oregon Compliance Reminder 

The applicable requirement is 29 CFR 1910.134(h)(2), Storage. This section requires employers to ensure that all respirators are stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals. It also requires respirators to be packed or stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve. 

Storing a facepiece attached to the SCBA, exposed in an apparatus cab or compartment, can create a compliance concern if the storage method does not protect the facepiece and exhalation valve from damage, contamination, deformation, or the other conditions identified in 29 CFR 1910.134(h)(2). Manufacturers also commonly state in their user instructions that facepieces should be stored in protective pouches, bags, or containers when not in use. This should not be viewed as a minor housekeeping issue. If Oregon OSHA identifies this condition during an enforcement visit, the district may be cited for a respiratory protection storage violation. Past inspections have shown that deficiencies involving respirator care, storage, training, medical evaluation, inspection, and documentation can result in serious findings and penalties. District leaders should be cautious about allowing a practice that appears inconsistent with the storage rule or manufacturer instructions to become normalized within their organization. 

Potential Penalty Exposure 

Under Oregon OSHA’s 2026 penalty bulletin, inspections opened between January 1 and December 31, 2026, may carry penalties of up to $17,004 for an other-than-serious or serious violation, depending on classification and circumstances. If the same or substantially similar violation has been cited within the previous three years, the matter may be treated as a repeat violation, with penalties ranging as high as $170,046. This is one reason improper respirator storage deserves leadership attention. If it is observed during an enforcement visit, especially after prior notice or prior citation, the financial exposure can be significant. Current Oregon OSHA penalty information is available on their website. 

The concern is not that outside instructors or online personalities are intentionally providing poor information. Many are simply sharing what works in their system. The issue is that their system may not be Oregon’s system. Popularity, tradition, or social media visibility should not replace a local compliance review. Before adopting any new equipment practice, districts should consider comparing the method against Oregon OSHA rules, manufacturer instructions, the district’s respiratory protection program, training records, and local operating procedures. 

Operational Tactics Also Need Local Review 

The same expectation applies to firefighting tactics and live fire training. In one example, a fire district allowed an outside trainer to set live fires in areas of its training tower that were not designed or approved for live fire use. The trainer had a reputation for aggressive tactics and high intensity scenarios. Those scenarios may have been exciting for attendees, but excitement is not the same as sound risk management. The result was approximately $900,000 in damage and a training tower that was unusable for months while repairs were made. 

Chiefs may want to view that example as a leadership reminder. Outside instructors do not own the district’s facilities, budget, compliance obligations, or public credibility. Before live fire training or aggressive scenarios are authorized, the district should confirm that the training location is designed for the activity, the burn plan is appropriate, the safety controls are defensible, and the training would withstand review by a health and safety officer. A tactic or scenario that looks impressive in class can create significant risk when it exceeds facility design, recognized safety practices, or Oregon’s operational expectations. 

Oregon’s fire service has historically experienced fewer on duty firefighter fatalities than many other regions of the country. While no single factor explains that outcome, Oregon has benefited from a safety culture that emphasizes risk evaluation, incident management, accountability, appropriate staffing, and disciplined tactical decision making. Chiefs may want to be cautious about weakening that culture by adopting tactics from higher fatality environments without first asking why Oregon’s approach has produced different results. Tactics are not just traditions. They are command decisions, risk decisions, and liability decisions. 

This type of risk evaluation was championed by TVF&R Chief Paul LaSage, who emphasized disciplined decision making, operational learning, and the importance of evaluating tactics through a safety focused lens before they become accepted practice. 

Questions Chiefs May Want to Ask Before Adopting a New Practice 

• Does this practice comply with Oregon OSHA rules and Oregon specific fire service requirements? 

• Is the practice consistent with the manufacturer’s instructions for the equipment involved? 

• Does our written policy, standard operating guideline, or OSHA written program authorize this method? 

• Have we evaluated whether this practice creates inspection, documentation, maintenance, contamination, or liability exposure? 

• Can our staffing, training, supervision, and incident management system support this practice safely? 

• Who reviewed and approved the practice before members were trained to use it? 

• Has the district documented the review, approval, training, and implementation process? 

Practical Considerations for Oregon Fire Districts 

Online training is best treated as a prompt for leadership review, not automatic authorization to change operations. If a video or class presents a new method, the chief may want to ensure that someone compares it to Oregon OSHA requirements, applicable ORS and OAR provisions, manufacturer manuals, adopted district procedures, and current training records. If the practice survives that review, document the decision and train members accordingly. If it does not, consider stopping the practice before it becomes habit. 

Chiefs may also consider encouraging members to ask a simple question when they see a compelling online demonstration: “Does this work for Oregon?” That question helps protect the district, the firefighter, and the community. It also reinforces that safety practices should not be adopted only because they are popular, fast, aggressive, or visually impressive. They should be adopted because they are compliant, appropriate, trainable, and defensible. 

Bottom Line 

Training from outside Oregon can add value, but it does not replace the district’s responsibility to operate within Oregon’s compliance framework. Each Oregon fire district should ensure that its equipment practices, respiratory protection procedures, tactical approaches, and training programs comply with Oregon requirements and reflect the realities of Oregon fire service operations. Before allowing what looks like a good idea from somewhere else to become local practice, chiefs may want to ask three practical questions: is it legal, is it safe, and is it defensible in Oregon?