A planned federal regulation for emergency responder preparedness would require emergency services organizations to come up with ways to protect responders using emergency vehicles even in nonemergency situations — such as parades — despite concerns such a provision could be a poison pill for the regulation.

A National Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health subcommittee is drafting an emergency responder preparedness regulation for the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration to consider in response to the deadly April 2013 blast at West Fertilizer Co. in West, Texas.

The disaster highlighted a key vulnerability in that the local volunteer fire department was likely unaware of and unprepared for the detonation of ammonium nitrate materials at the facility

The latest version would, among other things, require that vehicles are prepared for use by responders, including having properly operating seatbelts. One provision would require emergency service organizations to establish in writing and implement a procedure that provides an alternative method for ensuring responder safety when seatbelts are not feasible.

It lists examples of applicable scenarios such as responders standing as honor guards during a funeral procession and transporting holiday figures.

This provision was the subject of a lengthy debate during the latest hearings on the draft standard Tuesday in Washington amid concerns that OSHA would be regulating nonemergency situations and subject the agency to accusations it would essentially be banning the transport of holiday figures such as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

“My concern is we not have a poison pill in this regulation and restrain people unnecessarily from being involved in the community,” said Andrew Levinson, deputy director for OSHA's Directorate of Standards and Guidance.

However, Rick Ingram, health and safety adviser at BP P.L.C in Goliad, Texas, and co-chair of the subcommittee, questioned why the standard would cover nonemergency events in the first place.

“If this is an emergency response and preparedness program standard, why are we trying to cover something that is not an emergency response event?” he said.

Training and going and returning to an emergency event would be considered part of the regulation's scope, “but when we get into everyday driving of a fire truck or other vehicle used for emergency management, it just doesn't seem right to me,” Mr. Ingram said. “I think we're going outside of the scope.”

An exemption for parades and similar events could be written into the standard, Mr. Levinson said.

“People have still been hurt during these ceremonial functions and there are ways to address this issue, either by controlling speed or a harness or something else,” he said. “Our intent was that there is a legitimate hazard there that is easily addressed in a way that allows people to function in their ceremonial role while still keeping people safe. If people don't object to the provision, I think we'd prefer to keep it in.”

The standard should require emergency services organizations to consider how to ensure vehicle safety even in nonemergency situations because the second-leading cause of death for firefighters is vehicle accidents, said Victor Stagnaro, director of fire service programs for the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation in Crofton, Maryland.

And the proposed regulation also tackles safety issues related to fire poles in fire stations, “which from a traditional standpoint are very important to the fire service,” he said.

The current version still features a controversial ban on construction of slide poles at new emergency services organization facilities two years after the final rule is published.

“In my view, we've already expanded into certain areas,” Mr. Stagnaro said. “It's incumbent upon the employer to protect the employee when these events are occurring.”