Document ID: OSHA-2007-0082-0017
Agency: osha
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-04-22T04:00Z

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRIVATE  

+   +   +   +   +

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

+   +   +   +   +

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 

+   +   +   +   +

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION SAFETY AND HEALTH

+   +   +   +   +

FRIDAY,

JANUARY 25, 2008

+   +   +   +   +

		The meeting came to order at 8:30 a.m. in room N3437 of the Frances
Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC.  Linwood
Smith, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

 

LINWOOD SMITH, Chairman

FRANK L. MIGLIACCIO, JR., Employee

	Representative

DALE DAVID HAGGERTY, Employee Representative

ROBERT KRUL, Employee Representative

EMMETT M. RUSSELL, Employee Representative

THOMAS L. KAVICKY, Employee Representative

MICHAEL J. THIBODEAUX, Employer Representative

THOMAS R. SHANAHAN, Employer Representative

DANIEL D. ZARLETTI, Employer Representative

DAN MURPHY, Employer Representative

KEVIN BEAUREGARD, State Representative

STEVEN D. HAWKINS, State Representative

ELIZABETH ARIOTO, Public Representative

MATT GILLEN, Federal Representative

STEVEN F. WITT, Designated Federal Official

	C O N T E N T S

Opening Remarks	3

Post-Frame Construction Presentation	4

Discussion on Post-Frame Construction 	18

Presentation

Concrete Masonry Unit Construction Safety	38

Presentation

Discussion on Concrete Masonry Unit	72

Construction Safety Presentation

PortaCount Presentation	80

Discussion on PortaCount Issue	85

Housekeeping and Closing Remarks	98

	P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

	8:32 a.m.

		MR. SMITH:  Good morning.

		(Chorus of "Good morning")

		MR. SMITH:  I think everyone's, I believe I saw Thomas earlier.  Tom
Broderick had to fly back home last night or this morning.  Thank you
Veneta.  Okay.  Excuse me.  Thank you very much.  As I was saying, we've
got Tom Broderick's not here, he had to leave and Thomas, I think he's
here, he just -- he'll probably be back in just a second.

		First, did everyone had a good time last night?  It was a lot of fun. 
I think everybody enjoyed it.  And even Stew probably enjoyed it.  He's
not big into that kind of thing, but I think he enjoyed it.

		We'll go straight into our presentation this morning.  Opening
remarks, I don't have a lot other than to welcome you.  And our goal
today is maybe to finish a tad earlier, earlier than the agenda if that
will not make anyone upset.

		We don't want to upset anyone now, but that will be our goal.  So
we'll move right along and move right into our opening comments by the
National Frame Builders Association and I'm going to ask you if you
would please introduce yourself and look forward to your presentation.

		MR. KNIGHT:  I sure will.  My name is Tom Knight.  I'm president of
the National Frame Building Association.  We're headquartered out in
Lawrence, Kansas.  

		And just on behalf of the industry, yes it's shining right in your
eyes there, we certainly appreciate having the opportunity to address
the committee this morning and appreciate you having myself.

		To talk a little bit about the post-frame construction industry,
post-frame construction is likely, I would think, an industry that might
not be on your radar screen.  It might be a little obscure to you out
there.

		So, when I tell people I'm with the National Frame Building
Association, they kind of look at me cross-eyed.  Does that mean picture
frames or what does that mean?  This is a very unique type of
construction.

		And so I'd like to show you a little bit about that as we go through
this presentation.  Some of you have seen this before, so please bear
with me.  But again, we are the National Frame Building Association.

		We're relatively a young organization founded just in 1970 because
this industry is actually fairly young.  In fact, the first patent on
post-frame construction was given in 1949, so it's just not that old.  	
Our industry organization is vertically integrated.  We represent
builders, industry suppliers, distributors, et cetera, everyone in the
industry.  To give you all an idea of what post-frame is all about, it
really -- you might have heard that term pole barn somewhere in your
history.

		Basically, the post-frame construction industry grew up on the farm,
building barns, livestock storage.  We used to call it shade and shelter
on the farm a barn, machinery storage, things like that.

		Today, the old pole farm has evolved into what is today called
post-frame construction, highly engineered structure compared to the
first buildings that were built around pre-soaked poles like a telephone
pole, you know back in the '40s.

		And today, when you driving certainly in the rural landscape most of
the buildings that you see on the farm, et cetera, our post-frame
construction.  This industry pretty much controls the ag construction
marketplace.

		You know, again, barns, livestock storage, machine storage, workshops,
the like.  Okay.  And that's really the new method of choice on the
farms.  And, excuse me, that remains a primary markets served by the
industry today.

		Now, I mentioned that the post-frame building, the first pole barn was
patented and 1949.  Now the reason, that this type of construction
evolved in the first place was because Congress in World War II came
down with an edict that demanded that -- or set forth their rule that
you could not build a barn that was greater than $1,500 in cost.

		So some innovative guys in Illinois tried to figure out how they could
do that and they started putting poles in the ground to which a sidewalk
and a roof truss system in that time rafters were attached.  And that
became a pole barn.

		So that's how the -- that's where the industry really came from and it
has evolved from there.  But today, post-frame resembles residential
construction albeit a simpler method of construction, typically pretty
simple buildings.

		The vast majority of these buildings are, they're wood framed, number
one, they are wood framed buildings, they are single story, they are
built on grade, they have no basements and are very similar, again, to
residential homes although these designs, again are generally much
simpler than a residential home.

		This is a typical example in this picture right here.  This would be a
suburban garage.  And that represents a large part of the industry today
as well.

		Okay, I mentioned that these are wood framed buildings.  And you can
see in this photo that these are vertical wood columns that act as the
main structural component of a post-frame building.

		These posts are embedded in the ground, four or five feet below the
frost level and spaced anywhere from six to 12 feet apart in to which
the side walls and roof system are attached.

		So, it provides a non-conventional foundation.  Again, there's no
concrete foundation.  There's concrete in and around and underneath
these posts, but we have the absence of an absolute foundation.

		Lots of these buildings too don't even have a floor in them.  You
know, they're just built on, you know, dirt and earth, if they're for
that type of storage, machinery storage and that type of thing.

		So, in post-frame again, these horizontal, what we call walled girts
are attached to wood posts at regular intervals around the circumference
of this building and that provides the primary structural component to
which the roof trusses are also attached.

		These buildings feature pre-manufactured wood trusses and so forth in
the vast majority, probably 99 percent of the cases and roof purlins
give stability to trusses and so forth.

		Typically, as you can see in these pictures, people work from ladders
on these buildings.  They are not excessively high off the ground et
cetera.  Again, these posts extend to the full sidewall height of the
building, roof trusses attached to those posts and so forth.  And the
wall cladding and roof cladding complete that building envelope.

		This is kind of a step by step.  The building perimeter's laid out by
hand, posts are pressure treated to prevent decay and insect
infestation, holes are dug by power auger and the posts are generally
set in concrete or on a pre-cast concrete block.

		And there are a number of alternative types of foundations today that
are also utilized in post-frame construction but they all involve a post
or a column in the ground.  That column sometimes is -- and could be
concrete.

		Roof trusses lifted by crane in some cases.  This is a home, a
post-frame home going up.  I mentioned that horizontal girts generally
two by four conventional lumber attached at regular intervals to the
pole height at the sidewall that you can see and then roof purlins
provide that stability we've talked about before.

		Roof trusses are generally 412 pitch or less in post-frame
construction and crew members are typically not more than eight to 12
feet above the ground.  These are small crews.  I want to emphasize
this.

		These are typically three and four person crews that come in and build
a building and this building is probably erected in a week or less in
the majority of cases.  

		So it's very efficiently or quickly constructed.  Very much unlike a
home in that regard,  very much simpler.

		These are examples of homes here.  And again, constructed in just a
few days.  More elaborate buildings such as this one, obviously are
going to take more time, but again, you can see there's a lot of
resemblance to a residential home here.  Single story, that type of
thing, pretty simple roof system et cetera.

		But today, post-frame has moved off the farm.  And they're being
selected as a construction method of choice in a wide variety of light
commercial buildings.  

		These buildings again, are economical, they're efficiently constructed
wood frame, these are adaptable to an enormous variety of architectural
styles, they're durable, they're appealing et cetera.  They're not only
economical to erect, they're economical to operate because they're very
easily insulated and that type of thing.

		So we're seeing an increase use of post-frame construction in a
variety of markets that weren't there 20 years ago when we were just
building on the farm.  So today, we are certainly in light commercial
construction.

		We think when we get into larger buildings that certainly conventional
fall protection, you know, should be employed.  When we're talking about
up to 100 foot clear spans in buildings, you're obviously going to be
working at a great heights when you're at the -- not only at the eave
but at the ridge line of those kinds of buildings.

		Well, few people would suspect that this country club is a post-frame
building.  What I'm saying is, when you go down this road today, many of
the buildings that you previously didn't recognize and you would never
recognize perhaps, are post-frame.

		You might think it's another type of conventional construction, stud
frame, you know, masonry, whatever it might be, but these are post-frame
buildings and they're increasing in use around the countryside today. 
You're seeing more and more of them and you probably just don't
recognize them.

		Well, in these cases, conventional fall protection is difficult if not
impossible to create.  And it's a unique nature of post-frame, it
presents -- works with exactly the same challenges that are faced by
workers in the residential home construction industry.

		These are small companies.  These companies are -- the backbone of the
industry will probably be a company that does $1 million of business a
year.  We have maybe a half a dozen companies that do 50 million or
more, but the vast majority of them are small a million, less a million
to 2 million, that type of thing.

		So they're building lots of these buildings very quickly and moving on
to the next job.  There are today, over 8,000 post frame contractors and
about 35,000 employees involved in the post-frame construction industry.

		It is about a $12 billion industry in the United States today.  So
it's a lot, even though it's obscure and people don't recognize it, it's
a lot more industry out there then you might realize.

		But what we have found in our statistical studies and our organization
represents about 1,000 companies of the 8,000 that are out there, but
the reason we don't represent more is that those other 7,000 are, if you
will, a fellow with a pick up and a ladder and a couple of crew member
helpers.  

		And we're not going to get that guy to get organized and get involved
in the organization.  We do, however, reach that audience completely
because we have two industry publications that go to 35,000 people every
single month.  

		So we know who they are, et cetera.  We survey them as much as we
possibly can.  And what we have found is that we have virtually a
complete absence of injuries from falls.  

		We do have -- we can't trace any fatalities from falls.  If anybody
has any different information, we'd certainly like to hear that, but we
can trace absolutely none.

		The injuries that we're having are cuts and abrasions and pulled
muscles and backs and that type.  These guys are working with sheet
metal and that type of thing.  So those are the types of injuries that
we're encountering.

		We certainly talk about and try to edcuate our people on fall
protection at every opportunity, but most of that 8,000 again are people
that are not necessarily going to industry events, conventions and trade
shows and regional meetings and that type thing.

		So, we have to try to educate those people through our publications
and via our website and that type of thing.  But the emphasis is that
these are small companies out there.

		So in summary, again, post-frame is wood frame construction, it
features posts embedded in the ground with a non-traditional foundation,
quickly constructed by three to five man crews, single story structures,
the feature of these buildings feature pre-manufactured trusses, three
and 412 pitch roofs are the rule in these particular buildings.

		Workers are generally only eight to 12 feet off the ground and we just
feel that post-frame should come under the residential fall protection
guidelines and exemption. 

		Here's a problem we have, in post-frame we have some area offices that
apply the commercial construction fall protection rules and in the next
county, another office will be applying the residential rule.

		So, we've got a lack of uniformity that we would certainly like to
have addressed at the same time.  And that's really another message I
really want to give you here.  I think there's confusion in the field
among area compliance officers and area offices about what standard
should apply to this type of construction.

		For many, many years, again, this type of construction was obscured. 
These guys were building on the farm out on the north 40 they were
invisible.  They were never seen.  Today that's changed and we're
building, you know, we're building, you know, strip malls and churches,
McDonald's restaurants, you know, post-frame. 

		And so they become, you know, certainly more visible.  And we don't
argue the fact that in those, you know, larger commercial projects,
there's no question, conventional fall protection has to be employed.

		This is another example, so we're striving to have the same fall
protection guidelines that apply to residential construction apply to
us, see these guys working off of ladders.  And then in these larger
buildings, you know, they're going to have a manlift and so forth.

		Again, I would emphasize that a lot of these buildings are built on a
regular grade on the farm, so it's somewhat difficult to have a manlift
and so forth, you know, take these people up and down on the side of a
building.  But this kind of gives you a pretty good idea of how these --
some of these buildings are going up.

		This happens to be a little bit larger building here.  All of these
are post-frame buildings, these are homes.  And so again, many of them
rurally, you know, rurally situated post-frame homes.

		Okay.  So, again we're asking for this and would like for the
committee to make a recommendation to OSHA include us in the definition
of what is residential construction.  That's what we're asking.  But
we're asking for it in limited situations.  Okay?

		And these are what we have come up with that we think is justified. 
And those would be buildings that would have an eave height of 16 feet
or less or that are 4,000 square feet or less or that feature
residential roof system, very simply, okay?  Those things.

		And you know, we just feel that when buildings certainly become larger
than that, higher than that, et cetera, then certainly conventional fall
protection should and must apply.

		But these buildings, these guys are coming in and working there days
on a building or four days and then they're moving on to the next, and
they're raising trusses in many cases by hand with guys on a ladder and
setting it up, you know, without even the benefit of a crane or a job
site, it's very, very difficult for them to employ conventional fall
protection systems.

		And we're just not seeing accidents and injuries and certainly not
deaths from falls on this type of construction.  So that's the message.

		MR. WITT:  I have a question, clarification.  You are suggesting that
if one of these three criteria apply the residential fall protection
directive should apply in the situation or all three criteria?

		MR. KNIGHT:  Yes.  Any one of the three.

		MR. WITT:  Any one of the three?

		MR. KNIGHT:  Either or.  Either or is what we're suggesting to you. 
Thomas?

		MR. WITT:  So if it's 4,000 square feet or less to be that large
building, two slides before, that was going to be about 20 to 25 feet
high?

		MR. KNIGHT:  Yes.  That would --

		MR. WITT:  How would you consider that one residential?

		MR. KNIGHT:  Yes.  About a 50, you know, 50 by what 80, 80 foot
length, 50 foot wide, that would be a 4,000 square foot building.  Many
of these buildings are just rectangular building, you know, they're not
going to feature a lot of wings and that sort.

		MR. SMITH:  For my clarification, Mike and Thomas, your subcommittee
report yesterday and the motion that we passed on residential fall
protection, does it address this issue?

		MR. KAVICKY:  No.  We only talked about the definition.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Did you all come to a consensus in your workgroup
on post-frame?

		MR. THIBODEAUX:  I just have some questions if I may.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay, sure.

		MR. THIBODEAUX:  Okay.  Mike Thibodeaux.  Why are you proposing 16
feet or less an eave height when you said the guys normally don't get up
above eight or 12 feet?

		MR. SMITH:  Well, again, when they're setting something at 16 feet,
they're on a ladder at probably at 12 foot high, you know, and four feet
high they're putting the truss on.

		MR. THIBODEAUX:  Okay.  So, what are they doing now when they're
building a building like this?  Are they still working off ladders and
why is that --

		MR. SMITH:  They are.  They are.  That's exactly what they're doing,
they're working off of ladders.

		MR. KAVICKY:  The concern -- Tom Kavicky with the Carpenters Union.

		MR. SMITH:  Yes.

		MR. KAVICKY:  The concern that I had was what we're doing is we're
going in there and we're reopening it up because in the directive,
Steve, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it talks about a small
attachment to a building, to a structure, a commercial structure like an
entrance way roof or something like that.

		We're talking about a whole building now being covered.  So, you know,
we addressed it in the workgroup, we are taking a look at it, but we're
not ready to make any recommendations right now.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Okay.  It seems to me that, you know, I mean, the
gentleman has a good discussion item on the fact that it is residential
type of construction.  You know, that would be hard to -- hard for me to
dispute anyway.  Daniel?

		MR. ZARLETTI:  This is Dan Zarletti at County Construction.  Two
questions or two points.  One is I think your issue on how OSHA is
handling the compliance issues based on what standard and what county is
the way I think you put it.

		MR. KNIGHT:  Yes.

		MR. ZARLETTI:  Like across county line, one office can see it
represented differently than another.

		MR. KNIGHT:  Right.

		MR. ZARLETTI:  I think that's an issue between you and the RA that
handles both of those counties or if in fact the state line draws a line
between two RAs I think that needs to be resolved between them because
that's a compliance issue.

		And if they're not seeing it eye to eye, then they need understand why
not and then if they come to an agreement and your compliance should be
equal for either side of the county line.

		MR. KNIGHT:  Right.  Okay. 

		MR. ZARLETTI:  So that would be just one suggestion.  The other is,
the way I work on this kind of a thing is I always try to look for
feasibility.  You know, does fall protection make sense?  Well, let's
ask that question, but let's ask if it's feasible, let's ask if it
creates a greater hazard to have it than not to have it.

		Those are the kinds of things that are going through my mind when you
were speaking.  There are products that we probably all have seen, you
know, at various times where there are products out there that are
designed specifically for providing anchorage points so that fall
protection can be afforded on buildings under construction.

		I'm just not sure how much you've exhausted that because you didn't
bring that part up.

		MR. KNIGHT:  You know, I heard a presentation day before yesterday
from the Home Building Industry Contractors from Arizona and so forth
that was pretty enlightening.  Because we have struggled with that --
this question.

		How do we provide fall protection on these structures.  It's been a
major issue and one that nobody's been able to really solve.  That was a
very enlightening presentation and you know, I think that has an awful
lot of merit and so forth.

		It's something we can explore.  The problem that I'm going to have is
that, again, with those thousands of builders out there that are, you
know, doing all of those buildings, reaching those guys and teaching
them about that, we'll do the best job we can, certainly if we can come
up with some -- and I'm hoping to get some more information on that
system from these guys.

		And we'll certainly share that as much as we can.  But the education
process I think is very difficult for us because these guys are so
obscure in many cases and hard to reach and so forth. 

		And then getting them to change the way they've done things for 50
years, you all know what that's all about too.  Very, very difficult for
us to do.

		MR. KRUL:  Bob Krul with the roofers.  Tom, you know, I understand the
problem you're having and I think Dan's suggestion to you is probably a
very sound one, but, you know Emmett and I were just looking at the
difference between residential and light commercial is clear.

		I mean, residential is residential, light commercial is light
commercial and if the point that Steve made that any one of those three
criteria would apply I could see the whole fall protection standard
getting turned on its head just because there's a residential type roof
on a building.

		I mean, we could be talking about a huge commercial structure that
just because it has a residential roof on it is now exempt from fall
protection coverage.

		I understand the dilemma you're facing because of this new type of
construction and entering the market, but it would be -- I could see it
being very -- I think that's why Steve asked this question.

		It would be very, very difficult to -- I mean we would be making
exceptions to the fall -- the current fall protection standard that
would probably create more confusion out in the field than doing
solving.

		MR. KNIGHT:  Well, perhaps the criteria that we've come up with is
just too loose and needs to be tightened up.  We're certainly amenable
to looking at that, absolutely.  I happen to think your point is a good
one.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Thomas and then --

		MR. SHANAHAN:  Yes.  Tom and I understand what you're trying to -- I'm
sorry.  Tom Shanahan.  Tom, I understand what you're -- the gist of this
whole thing too.  I think it definitely merits discussing it.

		I, the question I had for you is just to clarify to follow up on
Steve's question is, so when you said -- and the three criteria there is
or, so in other words, if you had a 3,000 square foot building that was,
you know, 75 feet off the ground then it would still fall under
residential?  Just to try to be extreme about it.

		MR. KNIGHT:  Well, I guess you could, you know, that would probably be
a good point.  It should be and.

		MR. SHANAHAN:  Right.  So I want to make sure that's clear --

		MR. KNIGHT:  It should be and.

		MR. SHANAHAN:  -- I think because I think that's confusing as you look
at the whole thing.  I think you meant and.

		MR. KNIGHT:  That's certainly not what we're looking for.

		MR. SHANAHAN:  Right.

		MR. KNIGHT:  We're looking for this single story.

		MR. SHANAHAN:  So, and just the idea that you're amenable to us
looking at that --

		MR. KNIGHT:  Oh, absolutely.

		MR. SHANAHAN:  -- I mean that's what we want to do.

		MR. KNIGHT:  Certainly, absolutely.

		MR. SHANAHAN:  I just want to clarify that.

		MR. SMITH:  Steve?

		MR. HAWKINS:  I would just like to say that I think it would benefit
our committee here if you would go back and look at your and take the
CPL for residential fall protection and set it aside and look at the
requirements for the standard.

		Because in a vast majority of the state planned states that Kevin and
I represent on this committee, there's a large number of those who
haven't even adopted that CPL.

		So what you'd be, you would be buying your members one thing on one
side or getting for them for just about half of the states and the other
half of the states are not going to follow that.  So I think you would
be best served to try to look at this approach from the standard.

		And when you go to the standard, you're going to see that it's going
to ask you to look at the feasibility of fall protection.  I don't think
there's anyway that this group and I don't want to speak for everybody
I'll just speak for myself.

		There's no way that I would consider your request without having some
evidence of feasibility like Tom said and Mike said.  So, put the CPL
aside because it could change.  As you know with OSHA, it's much more
likely that it could change than the actual standard itself could
change.

		So, put that aside and look at the requirements of the residential
exemption for conventional fall protection when it's in feasible and
then you work under a plan.

		If you could develop a play because these buildings are different
shapes and configurations, but I personally have built pole barns myself
with my father in law.  So, it's not rocket science, it's pretty
straight forward honestly.

		And I think there are lots of opportunities and having done that
myself where you can use fall protection.  So perhaps you could also
narrow your focus to the areas or the time -- those times in that
construction process when you can't use conventional fall protection and
try to narrow that down.

		Because what you've asked for, I think from my standpoint personally
would be overly broad and at this point couldn't really be justified
because you haven't given us any evidence that somebody's taking a real
meaningful look at the feasibility of conventional fall protection.

		And you saw the presentation.  Difference between conventional and
then feasible is your knowledge of what's available.  And you know, you
think something's impossible and then you see a presentation like we saw
in our workgroup that obviously, you know, there's a lot of products out
there and if -- I tell contractors sometimes pretend like somebody was
paying you to tie off, what would you do?

		You know, sometimes that kind of gives them something to think about.

		(Laughter)

		MR. HAWKINS:  And there have been a few occasions they said well, yes,
if they're paying me I could do it.  And I said well you probably
shouldn't have said that, but now --

		(Laughter)

		MR. HAWKINS:  So, that would be my recommendation and I do appreciate
your presentation, it's very important.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Kevin?

		MR. BEAUREGARD:  I just want to add on what Steven Hawkins said.  This
is Kevin Beauregard from the North Carolina Department of Labor.  I
think that you could also probably get some assistance.  

		I know if you had members in North Carolina or even if you don't have
members in North Carolina, if you contact our technical assistance
bureau, they'll be glad to help work with you to look at feasible
approaches to fall protection.

		And I'm sure OSHA or the other state plans probably have a similar
type of service.  So if you indeed want to look at whether or not its
feasible, we'll be glad to take a look at it.

		MR. KNIGHT:  Okay.  Well, I appreciate that.

		MR. WITT:  Now let me add to what Dan's already said.  This is Steven
Witt.  OSHA, we have 68 area offices across the country and 10 regional
offices.  

		If there are questions about consistency of enforcement of the fall
protection standard, or feasibility of means of fall protection, we have
compliance assistance specialists in every one of our  area offices that
would be more than happy to work with any of your members or non-member
companies about fall protection and what is feasible.

		MR. SMITH:  What we're going to do, and we thank you very much for
your presentation, but what we're going to do at this point is just
refer this back our subcommittee.  

		We appreciate them taking the time to look at this and they'll also be
willing to work with you and if they have any recommendations for the
full committee, we'll consider them.  But we'll refer it back to them.

		And we would, any recommendations on this subject will come through
the subcommittee.  Okay?

		MR. KNIGHT:  Thank you very much.  I appreciate it.

		MR. SMITH:  Thank you very much.  Very good presentation.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Can I add something here?

		MR. SMITH:  Sure.

		MS. SHORTALL:  I just wanted to add that OSHA workgroups are always
open to any member of the public to come and participate in the meeting.
 And to the extent possible, those meetings, if they're going to be
concurrent with an ACCSH meeting are announced in the Federal Register
Notice announcing an ACCSH meeting.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Okay.  Talking about ACCSH meetings has everyone
given their schedule to -- everybody's shaking his head.  Now if you
would, try looking at your calendars this morning and --

		MR. WITT:  Excuse me.  Just to clarify a little what we asked for
yesterday.  When you look at your schedules and you give your
availability to Michael Buchet, if you look at the last two weeks in
April and the first three weeks in May, that is the first three weeks
before Memorial Day, we'd like -- it's very difficult to coordinate the
schedules of the 15 members and make sure OSHA's available to support
the committee.

		So if you would look at the last two weeks in April, first two weeks
in May, it is our intention to have a meeting during that five period --
that five week period.  Thanks.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Also, just a little bit of housekeeping here.  The
posters in the back of the room that Stew was given last night as
retirement, most of us have already signed it, but if by chance you're
in the room and you haven't signed it, we would like for you to sign it.
 Just wondering if you would.  We would appreciate that.   And try to
say something nice. 

		(Laughter)

		MR. SMITH:  We appreciate it.  He's got -- remember he's got
grandchildren and they might look at it.

		(Laughter)

		MR. SMITH:  So keep it family related.  Thank you.  But look at --
take a minute and look at your schedules if you would.  Let's go ahead
and do that if you can, if you have that accessibility with you. 
Because once we get back, we'll get busy and it will take two weeks to
get that information in.

		MR. MIGLIACCIO:  Let me ask a question.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.

		MR. MIGLIACCIO:  Are we looking at Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or it
doesn't matter?

		MR. SMITH:  Just whatever days you're available.

		MR. MIGLIACCIO:  Okay.

		MR. SMITH:  During those weeks.  

		MR. SHANAHAN:  This is Tommy.  Do workgroups always meet before or do
they meet separately?

		MR. SMITH:  Yes.  

		MR. SHANAHAN:  Okay.

		MR. SMITH:  Yes.  Yes.  We would let the chairmen of the workgroups
plan those meetings and the times.  Everybody knows what year it is
right?  Yes, sir Thomas?

		MR. KAVICKY:  Mr. Chairman, I just have a point of clarification.  I'm
a little confused as to what happened in this specific issue here.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.

		MR. KAVICKY:  When someone comes to OSHA and asks about residential
fall protection, exemptions, things like that, they're normally funneled
through the workgroup, in this case it was funneled into the workgroup
and put on the full ACCSH committee meeting.  I was wondering why.

	And if somebody comes to me, I want to make perfectly clear that I give
them the right direction.  So if you could clarify that for me.  I'd
sure appreciate it.

		MR. SMITH:  I want -- I'll give you my thoughts and then I'll defer to
somebody else.  But being the -- being we have a workgroup that is
meeting  on this subject then I, you know, and you all heard the
presentation, you all gave a report and had an opportunity to -- and I'm
sure ask more questions and discuss it more extensively than we did.

		And you also heard other presentations that may or may not impact and
the other discussions may or may not impact.  		So it's my belief that,
you know, being you're specifically looking at these issues and you're,
you know, you're the one that changed the definition on residential fall
protection that, you know, I would personally defer, you know, to your
recommendations on this subject.

		But now, how that works as far as the whole committee is concerned,
could you give us some clarification?

		MR. WITT:  There's no, Tom, there's no hard and fast rule.  There was
a lot for the residential workgroup to do this time.  We thought it
would be helpful for everyone to hear this, maybe it should have gone to
the workgroup first.

		I didn't believe that there would be -- that the committee would react
and be in a position to make a recommendation or move forward on this. 
This is just a short general presentation.

		It's now referred to the workgroup.  I'm not -- it may -- even if we
did present to the workgroup on Wednesday, I think we'd be in the same
position today.  So it's subjective.

		MR. KAVICKY:  Okay.

		MR. WITT:  In retrospect, maybe we should have put it on the
workgroup.  But we knew we had the other presentation and the workgroup
had other significant work they were going to consider.

		MR. KAVICKY:  Very good.  Thank you.

		MR. SMITH:  Thank you.  Thank you for the hard work that you did. 
Good question.  Any other questions or comments at this time?  Is anyone
else ready at this point?  Okay. 

		MR. CARNEY:  Let me set up here.

		MR. SMITH:  Super.  Who's he?  Stonesmith Patented Systems?  Okay.  

		MR. CARNEY:  Someone needs to get their face out of the picture.

		MR. SMITH:  If I move you'll be in good shape.  At this time, we have
another presentation from Stonesmith Patented Systems, Incorporated on
concrete and masonry unit construction safety prevention.

		And we appreciate your being with us today, and if you would introduce
yourself please.

		MR. CARNEY:  My name is David Carney, I'm the General Manager for
Stonesmith Patented Systems, Inc.  And we developed and brought masonry
products to the masonry industry with the idea of focusing on innovation
and safe work practices.

		And so the presentation today has to do with safety and injuries,
accidents in the masonry industry.  So I have copies of the presentation
on your desk and some information, product related information in the
back where you registered.

		Okay.  I'd like to spend just a couple of seconds to focus on the
opening and then I'll go into the main body of the presentation.  Let me
go back here.

		MR. SMITH:  Well we can leave -- turn the ones in the back on.

		MR. CARNEY:  The construction industry, especially masonry industry,
is a very physically demanding profession.  And nothing that we're going
to discuss today will be new to you, and I think that's what the real
issue is.

		But it's not new, it's been around for decades.  And while we made
some significant improvements that have been made in safety,
particularly in fatality prevention, the masonry industry continues to
face the same issues that they have for decades.

		And if you go back through the injury and illness data, you'll find
that for years we have faced these same issues.  And it's not
necessarily restricted to the masonry trades, most of the construction
trades are the same.

		But it's perhaps because the masons represent such a small portion of
the construction industry or because they predominantly learn their
trade on the job.  There are apprentice programs, but the majority of
the masons learn their trade on the job from their boss, their mentor.

		It seems that innovation in work practices and safety practices that
alleviate the exposure to injury has been sort of not been on the top of
the heap from an innovation perspective.

		If you look at advances in products, if you look at advances in safety
equipment, the masonry industry has had few and it's pretty much done
the way it's been done since the pyramids have been built.

		But it's only been in recent years that we've seen a lot of
significant improvement that would ease the mason's burden.  And now
that we've begun to see some inroads into innovation and product
development, we find that adaptation is painfully, painfully slow.  And
no pun intended on the pain.

		The construction industry, as you well know, has the highest injury
accident rate of all industry sectors and has the most fatalities of any
sectors, up 6 percent from 2005.

		One area that is becoming prominent is the number of injuries and
illness to Hispanic workers in the construction injury, it's up by 7
percent since 2005 and fatalities among Hispanic workers in 2006 is the
highest that's been recorded since the reporting started in 1992.

		Now, one anomaly of that, depending on how you like to look at data is
that the rate is lower.  And the reason the rate is lower is the
population in the construction industry is much higher.

		Some of the workgroups addressed this, excuse me, Wednesday in terms
of culture and diversity, but language and cultural differences
significantly impact communication to workforce safety and impact
insurance costs.

		Had an interesting opportunity to talk with some of the Latin American
countries about products.  And their basic question to me was, let's
talk productivity, we don't need to bother with safety.  If we need more
people, we go get more people.  

		Another anecdote is one I really enjoyed.  My wife is with a company,
they went over to the Mediterranean area and were doing some work in the
Mediterranean area when it became too dangerous for the back hoes and
the cranes to work, they put people in the trench.

		Equipment's expensive, people aren't.  So as we get an influx of
multi-cultural workforce, not only do we have a difference in language,
we have a difference in culture and a difference in value of people and
value of safety of people.

		So as we do our training and work on areas like that, we really need
to look at the cultural differences as the workforce begins to change. 
Another area, and I know we've gone one in here that's addressed in his
work light is the lack of warm-up, muscle warm-up.

		And I'm going to come back to that in a moment.  Musculoskeletal
disorders, if you'd like to look at the injury data, which I'm going to
present some of it, musculoskeletal disorders are muscle tendons. 
They're basically aches and pains that  you and I have every day and
they're not associated with acute events.

		So we don't have a traumatization of the workforce, we don't have to
deal with the grieving family who just lost a parent, a father, a
husband.  They just nag at us day after day.

		And while they decreased a little bit in 2006, musculoskeletal
disorders cost us two days greater in the media and lost time and
injuries.  

		What's not included when you look at the musculoskeletal disorder data
is if a person is transferred from one job to another because they had
an injury, so today they are a mason, tomorrow they're driving a truck,
those don't get counted or they have restricted activities.  So 40
percent of all injuries are MSDs.  

		When we take a look at the injury and illness data within the
construction industry verus the masonry industry, the mason industry has
done well in the fall fatality area.  

		Protruding rebar has always been a major issue, it's been an exposure
not only to masons but anyone not on the work site through slips, trips
and falls.  You don't have to fall from a very high level to have an
impalement from an exposed rebar.

		The rebar caps certainly limit the amount of fatalities and in some
cases they increase in size the whole when you fall.  The lost time
injury case, we're doing much better in that area, but within the
masonry industry, masons still continue to be above the overall
construction case rate at 6.1 in 2006 versus 5.9.

		Now they've closed the gap a little bit, they were at 7.5 when the
industry was at 6.8 in 2003, but the new data out shows that they're
closing the gap.

		Liberty Mutual does a great amount of work with injury and illness
data and presented that chart.  It's not a minor matter that we're
dealing with when we talk about injuries in the workplace.  It's a $50
billion business, has been a $50 billion business for the last several
years.

		The same three causes of injuries and illness, overexertion falls in
the same level and bodily reaction.  And I'm going to come and talk
about bodily reaction here in just a moment.  They have been the same
top three.  And the top 10, while they've changed in relationship a
little bit, have been the same since `98.  

		When you think about a $50 billion business a year in cost to the
industry, then you have your employer cost that can make that up in the
80 or 100 billion.  That's actually more than A-Rod makes in a year and
so it's a fairly significant amount.

		The other thing that I think is interesting and it may not be a
question that we want to ask, but maybe something of interest to NIOSH,
is this is the annual cost.  		When you look around the room here we're
all moving toward a period in our life where we're not going to be
working.  The effective cumulative trauma disorders and musculoskeletal
disorders that nag and nag and nag at you is what happens when we end up
on Medicare.

		What's the life cycle cost of musculoskeletal disorders?  They're not
as exciting to investigate as fatality.  They're really annoying on the
workplace.  But what is the life cycle cost of a musculoskeletal
disorder.

		And when we look at insurance costs to the industry, and this comes
from the State of Washington within the masonry industry, the insurance
rates were going up at 23 percent.  

		Industry and talking to the insurance companies because we believe
that if we do some more safe work practice and get the multiples down,
the insurance costs would be a huge savings for contractors.

		The insurance perspective of those that I talked to had been yes, you
can bring your multiple down, it's a three year average so it's going to
take a while to pull your multiple down and during that same period,
even though your multiple is going down, the cost of insurance is going
up, and so the contractor may not see a decrease in insurance rates
because the annual costs are going up.

		What they see is they don't spend as much and if you don't reduce the
actual bill you pay each month, then the contractors often don't see
that as a savings and they look for other areas than safety and reducing
the multiple as ways to save on their construction costs.

		When I take a look at industry comparisons between masons and the rest
of construction, masonry fatalities are disproportionately to
population.  Now, I said a few minutes ago that the fatalities have come
down significantly but they're still 3 to 4 percent while the population
represented is only one and a half percent of the construction industry.

		So, almost double, their representation in the population in terms of
fatalities.  They're the highest risk group for non-traumatic
musculoskeletal disorders in the back arms and legs and they have the
highest loss time rate of anyone in the industry.

		I often thought that it had to do with well, we're brining in lower
salaried people and this is a nice entryway.  So I did project the wages
and they're right in, the median wages are right in line with other
skilled workers.

		But we have a lot that come in through the vocational tech schools and
coming in as mainly helpers.  With the rise in the Hispanic workforce,
in 2006 the Spanish workforce represented over 40 percent of the overall
construction, excuse me, 40 percent of the masonry workforce and that
was up from 29 percent just three years ago.

		So we looked at the impact of the changing diversity of the masonry
workforce with a segment of that population that has a higher accident
illness injury rate, that the ability to continue to pull these numbers
down over the long haul may in fact reverse itself and it may begin to
go back up.

		So I wanted to talk about work products that the masons work with. 
Four basic products, the block, the rebar, the cement and the aggregate.
 And this gives you an idea of the weight that they have to deal with on
a daily basis, eight inch block is 40 pounds.

		I was able to bring enough copies of the presentation for each of you,
but I was not able to bring enough blocks for each of you.  So, in order
to have you get a sense of what the mason has to face everyday and I
know a lot of you that have handled this yourself, the mason has to
handle, this is an eight inch block, this is the little one.

		So, I'd like you to pass that around and just get a sense of both the
feel of the block and the weight of the block.  Then after you move it
along a little bit --

		MR. THIBODEAUX:  You're assuming I'm strong enough to lift it.

		MR. CARNEY:  Yes.  After you move it along a little bit, just put the
glove on.  Now let me show you just before you pass it on, let me show
you the proper way to --

		MR. KAVICKY:  If I hurt my back who do I --

		MR. CARNEY:  You lift it by the web.  So, and if you don't want to
lift it by the web that's fine.  But, the point of the demonstration is
lift it by hand and then lift it with the glove, you will feel a
difference between lifting with the hand and lifting with the glove and
I'm going to come back to that because that contributes to injuries.

		The second thing that the masons deal with is rebar. 

		MR. ZARLETTI:  We get the idea, you don't have to do this.

		MR. CARNEY:  The other thing that they deal with is rebar.  Now this
is one of these rebars known as little bar, not used in nearly as much
as number five bar.  If you were handing a 16 foot rebar, number four,
this would only be 10, 11 pounds, but you're dealing with it at the,
usually at the end of the bar as opposed to the middle.

		Now when I showed you a slide about bodily reaction, that's fairly
key.  It's a simple sort of thing, you go up and you say to your helper,
go get a rebar.  And most of us are at an age where we remember pick up
sticks right?  

		So the forklift loads it, and dumps it into the lay down area and we
have a pile of rebar similar to what we see.  You send your helper to
get one, he goes over and he picks up the top one.  But, and again, I'll
send this for tactical reasons, the ribbing, the ribbing catches and
what he thinks he's doing is pulling out a rebar very simply and it
doesn't move.

		And you've got a strong pull on the muscles and now, I'm exerting not
-- I'm not picking up a 16 pound object, I'm dealing with an extremely
strong resistance to that object.  Again, just to get the feel because a
lot of the injuries will come off rebar.

		And when you hold it, you can pass that around, the concrete is --
cement is 94 pounds and if you're not dealing with aggregate --

		MR. BUCHET:  Let's go Frank.

		MR. CARNEY:  -- delivery and handle by wheelbarrow, you're dealing in
50 to 100 pounds.  So, now if you need to understand that, Frank, what
rebar is, we can talk later.

		MR. MIGLIACCIO:  I'm not sure what it is, I just like it.

		MR. CARNEY:  So the issues that I want to talk today are splice
overlap, working around rebar, repetitive motions and lifting because
this is what costs the industry money.

		The type of movements, and again, these are not necessarily restricted
to just those of masons, the type of movements are the bending and the
stretching, lifting and pushing heavy weight, twisting and working in
awkward positions.  

		And that affects the carpenters, it affects the air conditioning
folks, it affects the plumbers, but gripping and pinching and that's why
when I pass the block the glove's important because it takes more
pinching power if you're using a glove, significantly.

		The physical positions are measured by OSHA in terms of positioning
hands above the head, elbows above the shoulders, a back bent by more
than 30 degrees.  So if you're talking about a mason picking up a block,
or a carpenter picking up lumber, and it's usually time and intensity
related.  The same thing with the neck bending, kneeling and squatting
and pinching.

		It's an amazingly light amount before you begin to get an impact
pinching two pounds of weight, we have a 40 pound block.  If that had
been 12 inch block, it would have been 55 to 60 pounds.  Gripping 10
pounds and lifting heavy objects, 75 pounds once a day, and that
generally comes out of the nursing industry, a 55 block, 55 pounds more
than ten times a day.

		While most companies would go broke if a mason only did 12 inch block,
10 block a day, 25 pounds above the shoulders and below the knees and
that's where the masons work is above the shoulders and below the knees
in many cases.

		So, again, if they're limited to 25 pounds not a lot of money to be
made.  Lack of muscle warm-up and I know you see this on the
construction sites that you're on.  What happens with the worker?  He
drives up in his pickup right, jumps out and I was talking with the
roofing, grabs a bundle of shingles, throws them on his shoulder and he
runs up the ladder.

		Masons have been sitting in their truck waiting for work to start,
jump out of their truck and stage block.  Immediately start lifting
heavy objects.  No warm-up.  On a morning like this morning, you're
staging your materials.

		Think about the NFL games the other day, what would have happened if
those guys had to play with no warm-up?  What would the injury rate have
been in the football games?  Athletes spend a lot of time warming up.

		And I know, at least one company has imposed a five minute warm-up
period before the start of work.  Five minute warm-up period after
lunch.  That's a fairly forward-looking sort of thing.  It sounds silly,
it -- masons are a pretty macho bunch as are construction.  Why do we
need to warm up?  We're young studs.

		But you don't find many at 55, 60, 65 still lifting block.  They've
long since -- it's a young person's game, much like sports is a young
person's game, but they don't make 23 million a year because they have a
short life work expectancy.

		In a typical mason's work day, if he were able to lay 200 block a day
and most of them don't, I think the standard up in Chicago was 150 that
they would like to get to, most of them are lifting in the range of 130,
you'd be lifting over five tons a day.

		We don't think much of it at 40 pounds a lift, but when you're at the
end of the day, you've lifted five tons or more.  If you do your own
staging, you're closer to 16 tons that you lift.  At five tons, that's
more than an NFL lineman works, lifts when he is in full preparation to
the season.

		Other issues have to do with splice overlap.  Now certainly, there is
a structural piece to the splice overlap and my attempt today is not to
address that, it's just the physical side.

		But on the structural side, if you don't get a correct splice overlap,
you have insufficient length, you can have longer but not shorter
splices, and inadequate splice lengths lead to structural failure.

		Most of the splice overlaps are eyeballed.  Very seldomly you see them
kneeling and doing the measuring are as they are in the left hand
picture.  So you affect the tensile strength, which then leads to over
design needs in order to compensate for the expectation that you might
short the overall splice.

		That's certainly a significant issue in California where preventive
seismic concerns are.  Splicing is very manpower intensive and it takes
two hands, usually has a helper.  And then we get into the injury rate.

		Splicing is usually accomplished with either a tie wire, you take the
tie wire and you bring it around the bar and many of you have seen it,
and you use a twister, a tie twister and you have the wrist action, or
you have a reel of wire and you're twisting your pliers.

		And the studies that have been done and they're NIOSH studies and they
measure the mean velocity of the wrist in all planes.  When you're
twisting, you are way outside of the velocity rate for wrist safety.

		The reason I asked that you grip the rebar, is gripping the hand
action, again, is hand injury.  When you get into tying above the waist
or stooping and mending you're into the other musculoskeletals.

		When you work with rebar, I think the upper left-hand picture is not
an atypical work site. I go to lots of work sites and photograph the
ones that I can when I'm there.  Now you notice that your -- the bar
cap, the caps aren't there so they're already in violation.

		But a lot of the job sites are like that.  Twenty-seven percent of the
non-fatal injuries come from slip, trips and falls in that area.  The
interesting thing is particularly as we work with more seismic related
areas, eight percent of the non-fatal injuries are to eyes.

		When you think about rebar set at four foot on center, you've got a
little bit of work room.  When you put them at -- in every other cell,
you're really getting your face right into the bar as you approach the
end of the bar.

		Poking and apparel snagging are 12 percent of the non-fatality
injuries.  What's not counted there, because it gets counted in another
category is the human body reaction when you snag your clothing or you
poke yourself and you jump back or you pull back, which may lead to a
slip, trip or fall.

		So, you're naturally going to react to the snagging and the minor
scrapes, cuts and abrasions, which everybody deals with, represent over
10 percent.  And most of the minor cuts, scraps and abrasions as you all
know, never get reported.  They're not considered injuries that you
would tell your boss about.

		In looking at the repetitive motion, I mentioned the hand and the
plane and the middle left-hand side is the gripping and squeezing with a
glove.  It takes significantly more force, even though the gloves
protect the hands from other sorts of interference with materials.

		But the gripping and the twisting all lead to injuries.  The hands
represent about 13 percent of the masonry lost time injuries.  When you
get into the lifting, you get into the lifting sequence where your
muscles stretch, tighten, compress then you get it at the rotator cuff
and the upper arm strength.  

		So I want to look at this same slide from a muscle group.  The
ligaments, the back ligaments, the disc, herniated disc, the back and
peck area, this just shows the back side of the muscle group that is
most prone.

		The rotator cuff area while you're holding block at an angle above
your head with elbows above hands and above shoulders and the upper arm
when you are holding block fully extended.

		So the lifting cycle, you start with stretching, you start with
twisting and we start with something that didn't translate from 2007 to
2003, tightening and compressing and stretching.  But I believe it
printed out correctly on your slides.

		Twenty percent of them are back injuries and the upper arm is 27
percent.  So what are we to do about that?  One of the things is to look
at the masonry culture.  This is not uncommon throughout the industry,
24.5 percent of all masons are self-employed, 25 percent have 10 or
fewer employees and 39 percent have fewer than 20 employees.

		We are in the small business arena.  Some of those self employed do
have employees, so you can't exactly add those numbers up, but we're in
the range of 60 to 70 percent based on reported data and of course, a
lot of the small businesses don't report.

		But, we're dealing with the one person, truck syndrome that we've
talked about in several of the workgroups already.  It's not out of line
with the rest of the industry.  The rest of the industry is almost 65
percent have five or fewer employees, 26 percent have five to 10
employees industry wide.

		So as OSHA is dealing with safety issues, if they don't get down to
these small companies, it's very hard to reduce the injury rate.  Within
the industry, work practices are learned on the job, although there are
some formal training.

		It's always been that way as the norm, and when it comes to bidding,
innovation is risky.  And injury is part of the job, it's all in a day's
business.  The unsafe work practices get accepted as the norm and passed
on.

		So, we think about this in practice, if we don't get to leaders of the
small organizations and get them safety oriented, their tradesmen will
learn their skills.

		I think about it in terms of sanitation, they used to do a lot in the
sanitation area.  It's great to give a lecture on sanitation, and then
the chef comes in to taste the soup and he tastes it with the ladle and
puts the ladle back in the soup.  All training is lost.

		When the boss comes on the work site and he walks past a safety
problem and asks the worker about how the production rate is going, all
safety lectures are lost because the boss just walked past a safety
hazard and didn't make it be corrected on the spot.

		So, leadership of organizations, even if it's a two person
organization, cannot ignore the safety issue because the tradesmen learn
from their boss or their mentor.  

		Within the masonry industry, a lot of the injuries are not reported. 
And as we change the ethnicity and the diversity, it becomes more of an
issue.  You don't want to be labeled accident prone.  Real masons don't
get hurt.

		And if you get hurt on the job and it's a musculoskeletal, maybe it's
not the result of today's job, but a year ago's job or two years ago
job.  And it just happened to get caught and reported on this job.

		There are a lot of times, there are economic incentives in the
contracts for days injury free, well, you certainly don't want to report
an injury and if you're a two or three man shop, you want to get your
economic incentive.

		And there's also some concern in reporting that if you report the
injury you get your head above the grass and your immigration status and
employment status might be challenged.  And as Marty mentioned, that
multiples often decrease slower than the rising cost of insurance.

		Within the small business and masonry culture, it's highly competitive
and there are very few barriers to entry.  And maybe there should be. 
There was some talk in the workgroup about how does one get a license,
maybe it's in the licensing area or the permitting area or the design
area, but there is no barrier.

		If you can afford a pickup truck, you can get into the masonry
business just by going and getting your business license, and in our
state it's $50 and you're in business.

		Often times, the masons are concerned about carrying other masons on
their payroll, get them all trained up, treating them like an
apprentice, giving them great skills because as soon as they get skills
they break away and become one of the 24.5 percent self employed, they
know all the customers, they know all jobs and they immediately go and
bid their former employers jobs.

		Because typically, like most construction crews, you staff up for the
task at hand and you lay off.  Only the big companies have the ability
to carry the overhead of slack work, where you can redirect your
employees to either training or other functions within the workplace.

		When it comes to bidding, you don't want to bid innovation if it might
cost you more because you don't know that everyone else is.  So if you
go out on a limb, you can get underbid.  Most of the self-employed and
small firms are multi-task.  They work on the job site today, tonight
they go home and work on the books, they work on their reports.

		And as most of you know, small businesses struggle to make payroll,
they struggle to get their taxes filed on time, they struggle to make
administrative reports, and if they have to go back home and do a hazard
analysis where they need to get on a Web site to Google around and find
safe practices and innovations, not likely to do that.  Six-pack abs
have a different meaning in the industry.  

		They also have limited budgets for training.  And one of the areas
that again you all may affect is safety and fines and penalties for a
violation are frequently smaller than the penalty for delay of product
delivery.

		So if you hold up the construction site because you want to be more
safe and you have to pay a delay penalty or assess the delay penalty,
that may be a better risk.

		In looking at some of the open literature, Ohio had a very good
guidance for safe work environment.  And I think if any of us were to
sit down and write a plan, it would look a little bit like that.  Real
change starts at the top.

		We need to develop good company rules, we need to get all the
supervisors and safety coordinators and employees together, get their
input, get their buy-in then we need to train all the employees, we need
to develop and implement written safety plans.

		I think almost any organization you go to, you'd find this guidance,
it's good guidance on how to develop a safety program.  But 24.5 percent
of all masons are self-employed.  Another, or 24.5, 25 percent have 10
or fewer employees and 39 percent have 20 or fewer employees.

		How often have you seen a one to five person company have a written
plan that they review with their employees.  We need to get it down to
where it's pragmatic for safety to be a practice.

		There have been some industry efforts, I have mentioned that
innovations are coming a lot faster.  The adjustable scaffolding really
does a lot to put you in the optimal lifting range.  The optimal lifting
range, as you know, is between your knees and your pecks.

		One, you get higher productivity out of that range, you also get fewer
injuries.  It's a capital cost.  It's more expensive than standard
scaffolding.

		The industry has come up with A and H block, open end CMUs to address
lifting over rebar.  Lightweight CMUs, ultra light block have come along
arrogated, concrete block and two person lift teams that several states
have imposed, particularly the State of Washington.

		And then this is where the parochial thing can come in, there's
another new product called the BarTarget and we have -- I can talk to
that about later.

		The interesting thing about the lower right-hand picture is women
constitute only 1.6 percent of the masonry workforce.  A lot of it has
to do with the lifting weights.  I believe it's three of the last four
years women have won the Spec Mix 500 Bricklaying Contest, they are good
masons, they handle brick extremely well, they've been sort of kept out
of the block business because of the weight.

		And most of the 1.6 women in the masonry workforce are in the block --
or in the brick world.  If you don't have to lift over your shoulders,
you open a whole new workforce.

		And those of you who look at the masonry workforce and you see it also
in your workforces and the other trades, we're an aging workforce.  As
we age out and get into the 50's and 60's, we've got to find new sources
of employees.

		This is just a quick commercial on how to build a wall without rebar. 
You put it in, you build the wall, that's the mason's view then you
insert rebar like that, that's the inside view.  Then you can pour your
grout and continue to build on.  And I can talk with anyone who's
interested later about that.

		What we've found, and I opened with is that adaptation of innovation
has been slow.  "We've always done it that way" culture, the cost of
innovation usually rests with the masons and that's a cost barrier to
buy-in to something like scaffolding that's adjustable.

		There's a lack of confidence that there will in fact be the
productivity gains that are claimed.  And if you're not sure anybody
else is using the new stuff, you're not going to use it.

		There was a study done by Dr. Jennifer Hess at the University of
Oregon that thought that one-third of the workforce must adopt a new
practice before it begins to take hold in the industry.  That's a lot in
any industry to take one-third of your industry.

		And there's little -- most of the small companies have limited time to
invest in learning new practices.  So the reliance is on engineers to
drive and architects to drive from the spec top down.  It's too hard to
push from the bottom up.

		I got a call the other day from a guy who wanted some help.  He said,
I can't pour grout until the inspector look at my joints, my lap joints
to see how I've tied them.  What can you do to help me to get where I
can pour before he gets here.

		I said, I'm not sure I understand the problem.  There should be no
fear of looking at your lap splices before you pour.  And good on that
inspector because the lap splice length is important.

		But he sat down with his engineers and his inspectors and his
architects and after several hours, they came to some agreements, but it
took time that he wasn't out with his crew.  Change pushed from the
bottom up is hard.

		So in summary, from the masonry trade perspective, the multiple
musculoskeletal disorders, the lifting, the repetitive motion and
lifting over rebar are the dangers they face.

		It's hard work, never going to eliminate physical stress, but we can
significantly reduce it.  And if it's true that our -- in our industry
that people are our most valuable resource and in other construction
industry, then we shouldn't expose them to the risk.  

		It really impacts masonry recruiting because I can go to McDonald's
for almost the same price as I can become a masonry helper and ask if
you want fries with this and not expose myself.  So it's a recruiting
problem as well when the injury rates are up.

		We can take time to warm up.  The youngsters are used to warming up
for sports, why not let them warm-up for work.  And then I believe that
the real process is to drive safety adaptation from the top down by the
industry leaders.

		If we're going to get to the small companies, we need to
institutionalize and reward and have the big firms, the A&E firms to
spec safety or work enhancing products as part of their design and build
safety into the design when we license and permit, require safety to be
part of the qualifications for being in the industry.

		With that, I thank you very much.  I have added at the end, the
references because I rely heavily on the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
their open database is wonderful, which you all know, NIOSH reports and
then some of the others.

		I did not do it in an academic bibliography type list, but I did want
to get credit to where I had draw.  Thank you for the opportunity to
present, I'll answer questions.

		MR. SMITH:  Thank you.  Very informative.  Yes, Dan.

		MR. MURPHY:  In your -- Dan Murphy with Zurich.  In your analysis, you
had 10 or fewer or 20 or fewer employees and that was a large percentage
of the workforce.  Was there any difference in the makeup of that
workforce?  Was there more, for example, Hispanics in 10 or less or did
you look at that?

		MR. CARNEY:  We did not do a heavy analysis of that, but you're seeing
the Hispanic workforce all the way through.  But the small companies are
very oriented that way.

		MR. MURPHY:   Okay.  Thank you.

		MR. CARNEY:   A lot of the small companies are multi-culturally
diverse.

		MR. SMITH:  Dan?

		MR. ZARLETTI:  Well, I would be the first to tell you that I'm the new
guy on the block here so I'm a little bit confused as to the intent
here.  I didn't hear you ask the -- this committee anything to consider
doing toward the assistance of your concerns in your presentation.

		So, you didn't really drop the sales shoe.  I'm still waiting for the
-- I got the pitch, I just didn't hear if I want to buy it.

		MR. CARNEY:  Well I think there are two things from the industry. 
One, musculoskeletal disorders and cumulative trauma disorders aren't
the jazzy thing.  They're there every day.  And I believe that often
they get short shifted because of that.

		It takes a lot of work to get marginal decreases in this area.  And as
you do your funded research, as you do your safety training, I think
musculoskeletal disorders and bodily cumulative traumas warrant the same
type of emphasis as fall fatality, arrest protection.

		So my request to the committee would be, don't relegate that off and
say this is too hard, this is world hunger.  I think you need to keep
the emphasis on the kinds of things that are trades based every day and
not relegate that to a less important.

		MR. ZARLETTI:  Well, I would agree with that --

		MR. CARNEY:  I think that's one request.  The second request I believe
is for the ACCSH and the construction directorate to champion the
specifying of safety products, work enhancement products that take less
of the strain from the body.

		And I think it can only be driven from the top down from an
organization such as this.  The local A&E's aren't going to do it.

		MR. SMITH:  Tom?  Thomas?

		MR. KAVICKY:  Tom Kavicky with the Carpenters Union.  I guess I would
ask the question as how would you rather than, you know, we all know the
exposures, we all know the MSDs, we've got the iron workers tying their
rebar, we've got the carpenters working on form work things like that,
the masons doing their thing.

		I guess more importantly is, how would you build a wall without the
protruding rebar, without the lifting, without the snagging?  I would
almost expect a new way of doing the job rather than, you know, what we
already know.

		MR. CARNEY:  Within the masonry world, there is that capability to
have less exposure.  There are a number of ways to achieve the splicing,
there are a number of ways to achieve the reduced lifting.  And those
often are left to choice.  

		There are ways to use delivery systems at the cost of the bid.  I
think those kinds of things could be specified.  Grout handling systems,
mechanical delivery systems.  Those do not get left to the bidding
contractor as their choice of handling.

		You have the same thing in the carpentry industry in terms of material
handling.  If safe handling practices were allowable costs and encourage
supported cost, they would become the cost of the product.

		And I think those are things that in the project proposal, the
management plan, the safety plan, those can be required.  And then
everybody bids to use that equipment.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Steve?

		MR. HAWKINS:  Mr. Chairman, I think the answer to Dan's question is
we're being requested to consider an ergonomic standard for the masonry
trades, is that correct?

		MR. CARNEY:  I think an ergonomic standard would be a good thing to
have.  But ergonomics is not -- doesn't always play well in its pundit
support.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Dan?

		MR. ZARLETTI:  If I might.  I watched your slide presentation and you
were showing slides that you were explaining to be non-compliant.  You
know, rebar's not -- rebar not covered, housekeeping not right.

		So I'm looking at this and saying that most jobs are understaffed,
non-compliant and they're under reporting injuries to stay above the
watermark and I'm wondering if you're asking the folks at OSHA here to
come up with the ergonomic standard or to look away?

		MR. CARNEY:  No, I did not intend to imply that most jobs are
non-compliant and under standards.  I believe what I was trying to say
is that the nature of this industry and not necessarily in isolation of
this industry is that the day to day grind on the body, there are ways
to minimize that and we should do that.

		Certainly the picture I showed of the rebar not being capped, I would
hope is the exception as opposed to the rule.  I would hope that a
compliance officer would catch that, I would hope that a foreman would
catch that or a lead mason would catch that.

		My intent was not to imply that all work sites are unsafe and you
ought to -- OSHA ought to look away.  What I was trying to suggest is
that there are practices that exist in goods and they exist well,
generally in large firms who really focus on this have the safety
officers, have the site reviews, bring inspectors onsite.

		But you're only touching the tip of the manpower.  You're certainly
hitting the most of the dollars.  That's where the big money is and
maybe the little guy doesn't -- may not be able to afford a fine.  And
if he gets fined, he closes and opens under another name, I don't know.

		But, when you look at the numbers of people, they're in the little
industries.  And we need to do something to encourage them to be as
compliant as the big industries who have time to develop programs.  It
may be the GC that develops the programs.

		MR. WITT:  Let me ask a follow-up question.  Since one of the
principal roles of this advisory committee is to make recommendations
and to advise the Assistant Secretary in the area of construction in
this country, what advice do you believe this committee should consider
making to the Assistant Secretary in the area of masonry construction?

		MR. CARNEY:  The advice that I would suggest is where based, proven
ergonomic factors can reduce the exposure to lost time injuries and
illnesses that those be a requirement in design and construction
planning.

		And that small industries have some established injury requirement,
whether it's in the licensing process where -- to enter the industry,
you may have an OSHA training course that they should go through and
maintain an awareness, just to be a qualified contractor or a qualified
tradesman.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  With that, we will thank you for your time being
here with us and for your presentation.  

		And we're going to take a 10 minute break and let's try to keep it to
10 minutes if we can, come right back and we'll have another -- discuss
the PortaCount issue.

(Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off the record at 10:03 a.m. and
went back on the record at 10:19 a.m.) 

		MR. SMITH:  Could we get your attention in the back of the room
please, so we can start?  In the back of the room.  Thanks.  Thank you
very much.  Okay.  We're going to talk about the PortaCount issue. 
Would those folks come forward?

		And also, the sign-up sheet in the back, if any of you publically want
to make a comment.  I didn't see the names on it.  If anyone has signed
it, please let us know.  Or if anyone wishes to be heard, now's the time
to sign up.

		Thank you very much.  Do you want to preface this, Steve?

		MR. WITT:  There was a presentation yesterday by John Steelneck on
PortaCount.  You have copies of the transcript language from last
October's meeting related to this issue and you have a copy of the
Federal Register Notice.  

		I'll ask John Steelneck and Bob Biersmer from the Solicitors office to
take a couple minutes just to summarize the issues and what we like from
the committee are any recommendations, any suggestions and a reaction to
the Federal Register Notice and then get a sense of the committee on
this issue as we move forward.  John?

		MR. BIERSMER:  Can I introduce myself first?

		MR. WITT:  Sure.

		MR. BIERSMER:  I'm Robert Biersmer, B-I-E-R-S-M-E-R and I'm the
project attorney for this PortaCount effort.

		MR. STEELNECK:  Good morning.  I'm John Steelneck, I'm the project
officer on OSHA's respirators team.  I gave the presentation yesterday
on the two new -- two proposed revised PortaCount fit test protocols.

		What these are, are two new protocols that TSI, Incorporated, the
manufacturer of the PortaCount fit test instrument has requested that
OSHA consider for adding to the existing PortaCount test protocol that's
already part of the OSHA respirator standard.

		We have in Appendix A of our respirator standard, mandatory OSHA
approved fit test protocols that have been evaluated and validated.  And
those are the ones that employers and respirator wearers need to follow
when they perform respirator fit testing.

		For new fit testing protocols there is a procedure and a standard to
allow for Section 6.b.7 notice and comment rule making for adding new
fit test protocols.

		We really intended it for totally new unique ways of doing it, but
it's also been used to adopt new protocols or change -- slight changes
to existing protocols.  It's already been done for the controlled
negative pressure fit test.  

		We have what's called a CNP Controlled Negative Pressure REDON fit
test, which is an alternative protocol that was proposed and we went
through public comment and has been adopted and is now part of the OSHA
standard.

		We have a new Bitrex abbreviated fit test protocol that has been
requested by the manufacturers 3M, the manufacturers of the Bitrex bit
test protocol that we presented to the advisory committee back in
October of 2006 that is now currently out for public comment, with
public comment due by February 25th of this year.

		And we have now two new protocols for the TSI PortaCount that
PortaCount has requested that we take a look at.  They have done what is
required, they have done a peer review, industrial hygiene article on
the evaluation of three new fit test protocols for the PortaCount.

		They've only requested that two of those protocols be included.  We
have protocol one, which is the one, the first protocol that I talked
about and a second protocol performs very well, it meets all of the ANSI
Z8810 fit test criteria for evaluating new fit test protocol.

		It meets and exceeds all the minimum criteria for a new fit test.  The
first protocol, protocol number one has a problem in that for
sensitivity it's 91 percent when 95 is the minimum passing value.

		That raises a question for us and we have included that question --
those questions as part of our public announcement, as part of the
notice of proposal that will go that seeks public comment.  We've raised
that as a question and asked for public comment back on how that problem
should be addressed and should we possibly reject.

		You know, how should we look at this first protocol and see what it --
see whether why it doesn't meet the ANSI criteria.  That, in part it's
because in doing these new types of protocols, they don't do an
extensive amount of testing. 

		They do the minimum amount of testing that ANSI requires for their --
for doing the evaluations.  But in the past, they have done much larger
fit test protocols when we evaluated the original PortaCount, the
original Bitrex and others.  They were really 10,000 samples and more, a
lot more sampling.

		In these cases, you're down to a much smaller numbers of tests that
were done.  And the problem with that is it makes even one false
positive very hard to overcome.  It will kill your statistics when you
do your evaluation, and that's what it's done for the protocol number
one.

		But we -- what we are proposing to do is to bring them here before the
advisory committee and seek your comments and then we will do the
clearance process within the Department of Labor to send it over to OMB
once we have your approval to go ahead.  

		And that's what we're looking for is to have you evaluate it and give
us your comments and tell us to proceed.  And then we will proceed to go
over to OMB, have their -- them look at it before we publish it as a
notice of proposed rule making to seek public comment in a similar
fashion as to the way we've done with Bitrex.

		And depending on what we get as public comments, will determine
whether or not OSHA will ultimately either adopt or not adopt these
protocols.

		MR. SMITH:  Thank you.  Comments or questions from committee?  Bob?

		MR. KRUL:  Bob Krul with the Roofers.  And I will throw this out as a
comment, not in the form of a motion, Mr. Chairman.  

		The first thing that strikes me about what's being asked of us is
there's only a few of us sitting around the table I think to make what
amounts to be a snap decision regarding these tests and protocols.  I
don't include myself in that group.

		The memorandum that was given to us by Dorothy Dougherty, has in its
key issue on the second page, the key issue to be addressed in this rule
making is whether the proposed PortaCount fit testing protocols would
identify poor respirator fits at least as well as the OSHA accepted
quantitative fit testing protocols already listed in Part 1C of Appendix
A to the Respiratory Protection Standard.

		And I see two serious issues that I don't feel the majority of this
committee could make a decision on without professional and expert help.
 One is the shortened testing period that's being requested in the
protocol.  And two is the failure and borderline failure as was
mentioned in two of these tests.

		Now, my understanding is that when an issue is presented to ACCSH that
the committee has at least 90 days and an extension through a written
request of the Assistant Secretary if more time is needed to act on
these matters.

		And my suggestion right now would be, I would not put it in a formal
motion until everybody has a chance to speak on this.  But my suggestion
would be that those of us on a committee can consult with the experts at
NIOSH, with the experts at the center.

		I'm sure the state agency representatives have experts that could look
at this NPR and bring it back to the next meeting where after at least
reason discussion with experts and processionals, this committee could
make a better decision as to what the recommendation could be regarding
the NPR.

		MR. SMITH:  Thank you.  Other comments?  Kevin?

		MR. BEAUREGARD:  Yes, Kevin Beuregard, North Carolina Department of
Labor.  I concur with what Robert said.  Back in the document that we
got that is dated October 11, 2006, back then when a protocol was being
considered there was one that had a 15 second time limit.

		And some of the stakeholders that I represent had some concerns at
that time, it wasn't enough time for the people that have a higher
sensitivity to go through that test and perhaps find a problem.

		And I think when you look at the revised PortaCount protocol one,
which is 30 seconds I believe, what you're seeing is you're seeing a
failure in the sensitivity area at 30 seconds.  You're not seeing that
in the revised protocol number two.

		And so I would say I still have concerns about that area and I think
some of these statistics are kind of leaning towards that area as well.
But there may be an issue with shortening the time even to 30 seconds.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Other comments and/or concerns?  Yes, Dave.

		MR. HAGGERTY:  David Haggerty with the International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers.  Kind of to echo what Kevin says.  I also have a concern
about shortening the time period.  

		We all know if you've done or been involved with respirator fit
testing over a period of time, people who are doing that test and find
ways to short cut this.  We already shortened this up to 30 seconds,
then what are -- what kind of test results are you going to get for
those people who are wearing a respirator.

		The other thing that I have a question about too after reviewing this
is the fact, the people, the number of tests that they perform to come
up with the stat is a concern of mine.  I think that that should be a
larger group that is tested before they -- we actually look at these
results.

		I agree with Mr. Krul, I don't think we have some people on this
committee who do have the expertise to review this data and to see if it
is and give us a recommendation whether it is appropriate or not.

		I think over, looking and reviewing this, overnight period is not
enough time to review this.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Matt?

		MR. GILLEN:  Matt Gillen.  I just would actually like to say that
NIOSH has subject matter to just work on respirator issues,
International Personal Protected Technology Lab.  And I had a sidebar
with John and he indicated that NIOSH is preparing some comments.

		So I, you know, I would feel more comfortable hearing from our NIOSH
folks before I took a position on this as well about the underlying
technical issues.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Tom?

		MR. KAVICKY:  Thank you Mr. Chairman.  Tom Kavicky with the
Carpenters.  I have to agree with Bob and the rest of the committee that
has spoken already.  I went on record in October of 2006 saying that the
15 seconds was too short.

		I have done fit testing and sometimes they don't break the seal until
45 seconds into it or longer.  And I would feel much more confident with
recommendations coming -- and studies done from NIOSH than I do right
now.  Thank you.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay. I think, we probably got a consensus that we don't
feel qualified at this point to give you significant comments.  I mean,
you've heard some comments, but basically we're going to need some time
to look at this and address it at our next meeting.

		MR. BIERSMER:  Bob Biersmer, I think that's fine.  If you go ahead and
during the interim period have people look at it that you want to look
at it and come back to the next meeting prepared to give us your
comments, we can do that.  There's no problem.

		MR. SMITH:  Well, we'll be glad to and we'll certainly have that as an
agenda item at the next meeting hopefully and be more prepared to give
you information at that point.

		I think in the future, we would request too that you, you know, maybe
give us more time to look at areas if you could because we do need
significant time to discuss this with our constituents, our stakeholders
and talk to them about these issues and hopefully facilitate the
purpose.

		Can you give us a more of a sense of where the industry is?

		MR. WITT:  John, and you'll report back to the director or the sense
of the committee on this issue?

		MR. STEELNECK:  Yes.

		MR. WITT:  Thank you.

		MR. SMITH:  Thank you very much.

		MR. STEELNECK:  Thank you.

		MR. BIERSMER:  Yes, thank you.

		MS. SHORTALL:  John and Bob, will you be available during this interim
period to answer questions from members of the committee about the
proposal?

		MR. STEELNECK:  Yes.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Okay.

		MR. BIERSMER:  Please direct your questions to John on that subject
matter --

		(Laughter)

		MS. SHORTALL:  Well, I should have said John and Dr. Robert Biersmer,
which is the fact.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Tom had a question.

		MR. SHANAHAN:  Tom Shanahan.  I just had like a process question being
the new guy.  Is it because they've gotten this far with the whole
thing, there's a draft of notice.  I was just wondering, does it have to
wait until then?

		I mean can we have an assignment to get this done within a month and
-- because I'd like to go to -- we have a long standing relationship
with CNA insurance company and they have sense of IH department I just
wondered if maybe we had to wait until the next meeting.

		MS. SHORTALL:  I need to answer that.  Probably the most important
purpose that ACCSH serves and established in the construction safety act
many years ago was that this committee before OSHA can publish a
proposed rule affecting the construction industry, has to come before
this body and present it and allow you an opportunity to give your
recommendations on that.

		You'll notice in other proposals that we've done, there's always a
section in the preamble that explains how did ACCSH react, what kind of
recommendations they have, maybe additional questions they might want to
have asked.

		So that is your single most important purpose.  Not only does a
Federal Advisory Committee act, but also the regulations governing this
particular body requires that meetings be on the record.

		And so, even if we were to do something away from this meeting, it
would have to be trasncripted, minutes would have to be drawn up, it
would have to be made available for the public to come listen, which is
a requirement of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

		So trying to do all of that by a phone system would be almost
impossible.  So the reality is, you really almost have to do it in
person.  Okay.

		MR. BEAUREGARD:  Linwood I have --

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.

		MR. BEAUREGARD:  -- I just have one question and I promise that will
be it.

		(Laughter)

		MR. BEAUREGARD:  We got the memo from the directorate, we have a draft
document that says do not say or quote so I'm assuming that you don't
want us to disseminate that to folks as well.  Do we have a copy of the
study that this is based on or the draft references a journal article.

		But I'm not a respirator expert, but I'm assuming when I bring these
back to my people, they're going to want to take a look at some
information of how you arrived at these numbers.

		MR. STEELNECK:  Well, if you need the article, I have copies.

		MR. BEAUREGARD:  So John, you will make copies available to the
members of the committee.

		MR. WITT:  Ok, I'd like to ask --

		MR. STEELNECK:  We'll make copies and try and have that to the members
before we leave this meeting.

		MR. WITT:  Thank you.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Good.  Thank you.  Any other questions or comments?

		MS. SHORTALL:  I have one in response to Kevin Beauregard.  Because
the draft proposal was formally given to the committee during an open
meeting, we have had to make arrangements to put it into the docket.

		So technically, persons who would want to will be able to view that as
well as the memo.  We're not going to put the transcript in, or I'm not
going to put the transcript in because all the transcript is, is a small
segment of something that's already in an earlier ACCSH docket.

		MR. SMITH:  Thank you.  Thank you very much for your time and effort. 
We appreciate it.  We look forward to seeing you next meeting.

		(Laughter)

		MR. STEELNECK:  Thank you.

		MR. KRUL:  Mr. Chairman?

		MR. SMITH:  Yes, Robert.

		MR. KRUL:  Just for purposes of the minutes, would you like the
tabling of this until the next committee as an official motion?

		MR. SMITH:  Yes, sir.  It sounds good.

		MR. KRUL:  I would so move that we table this with the members of the
committee using their own resources to get insight and input from
experts and professionals on this and have it as an agenda item at the
next meeting.

		My only question to Steve is, that the proposed meeting date may go
beyond 90 days does that -- or to Sarah, does that pose a problem?

		MS. SHORTALL:  There is no requirement that says that you must have 90
days or anything like that.

		MR. KRUL:  Oh, okay. 

		MS. SHORTALL:  That may have just been -- historically what has
happened, you just must be given the opportunity to get a proposed rule
to supporting information regarding that, that would give you enough
knowledge to make a recommendation and during the course of a meeting,
be allowed to make that recommendation.

		MR. KRUL:  Okay.  I so move Mr. Chairman.

		MR. HAGGERTY:  Second.

		PARTICIPANT:  Second.

		MR. SMITH:  Motion and seconded.  Any more discussion?  I've read this
in the book, I was going to read it to you if I could find it.  About
the 90 days.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Oh, well then I'm wrong.

		MR. SMITH:  Ninety days is in the book, I believe.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Well, I guess another thing you can say is since you
haven't received -- since you haven't at this point received all the
information necessary on which to base it, the 90 days has not began to
run.

		MR. KRUL:  Super, thank you.

		MR. SMITH:  Thank you.

		(Laughter)

		MR. KAVICKY:  That's an attorney's answer.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  We have a motion and second.  Thanks for saying
that Bob.  All in favor say aye.

		PARTICIPANTS:  Aye.

		MR. SMITH:  Thank you.  All opposed?

		(No response).

		MR. SMITH:  Motion carries.  Okay.  That -- I think commits to the
agenda.  We've got a couple of housekeeping items I think and any other
comments that you all want to make.

		MS. SHORTALL:  I would like to at this time enter into the record for
this meeting and into OSHA docket OSHA-2007-0082 Exhibit number 0014,
which is a presentation by the National Frame Building Association on
Fall Protection for the Post-Frame Construction Industry.  

		And as Exhibit 0015, I would like to enter the Masonry Safety
Presentation by Dave Carney from Stonesmith Patented Systems,
Incorporated.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  And I need to ask one more time, anyone from the
public sign up to speak?  I don't see any hands so I'm going to assume
they did not.

		Okay.  We have a few minutes, we're running early.  I'm sorry.

		MR. STEELNECK:  Copies are coming.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Copies are coming.  Anyone on the committee like to
make a comment at this time or have a question or recommendation?  Now's
the time to speak.

		MR. BUCHET:  I have one that I just wanted to ask, this may be more of
a health thing, it's not really a recommendation I guess.  Just
personally I like to study, you know, prepare for things.

		And I just wondered, and I realize the nature of the meeting this time
was protracted because of all the other things going on, but I was
wondering going in the future, if we could get things a little earlier
and I would be happy to help.

		If I just got the copy of it, I would be happy to distribute it out
with, you know, use my staff or what because I know these guys are so
busy.  So anything that we could do, that I could do to help, I would
love to do that to move it along.

		MR. WITT:  We note -- that's noted and we do intend to get things to
the members as far in advance of a meeting as we're able, but we're
dependent on the directives that are producing these documents and
especially if we're relating to the presentation we just had in the
Federal Register Notice.  No, that's always our intention we intend to
do that.

		MR. BUCHET:  Well if I could help --

		MR. WITT:  Appreciate that, thank you Michael.

		MR. SMITH:  Thank you.  Anyone else?  Yes, sir Dan.

		MR. ZARLETTI:  I just had a question as to after we've bended around
with these dates, have we come up with a number or a date on the next
meeting?

		MR. SMITH:  Have we come up with a date yet?

		PARTICIPANT:  We are going to do that before we leave, you know.

		MR. SMITH:  Yes, we'll ask the --

		MR. WITT:  In fairness to Michael Buchet, we'll look at the dates
first.

		MR. SMITH:  We'll look at the --

		MR. BUCHET:  Well, first you have to read the handwriting.

		(Laughter)

		MR. SMITH:  Has everybody responded that's going to respond? 

		MR. WITT:  Please be pointing to me today, leave those dates with
Mike.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  We'll ask the directorate to get us that -- get us
the meeting dates as soon as it's available so we can go ahead and book,
nothing else books on top of it.

		Okay.  So we realize your schedules, that's the way it is today it
might change.  Thank you, good comments.

		Any other questions about the order?

		MR. MIGLIACCIO:  Yes, the people sitting on the OTI subcommittee like
to have, you know, a subcommittee meeting when we do plan this, when
they come up with that date.  And if we can, maybe Hank and them guys
take, somebody from Hank's office we can maybe get that in here.

		MR. SMITH:  Yes, sir.

		MR. BUCHET:  Can we get requests like that emailed to us so that we
can keep track of it?

		MR. MIGLIACCIO:  Yes, I just want to let everybody know here I was
going to send you that, I'll make sure you get that.

	MR. SMITH:  Okay.  Thank you.  Anything else for our attention?  If not
we're going to call this meeting adjourned.

		PARTICIPANT:  I make a motion we adjourn.

		PARTICIPANT:  Second.

		MR. BUCHET:  Second.

		MR. SMITH:  Okay.  I have it motioned and seconded we adjourn.  All in
favor stand up.

		(Laughter)

(Whereupon, the foregoing matter was adjourned at 10:44 a.m.) 

 

 

	NEAL R. GROSS

	COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

	1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433	WASHINGTON, D.C.  20005-3701	www.nealrgross.com

	 page \* arabic 1