Document ID: OSHA-2015-0019-0046
Agency: osha
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2016-11-04T04:00Z

NWX-DOL OSHA

Gretta Jameson

July 14, 2016

1:26 pm CT

Man:	I believe so yes. That's one of things that he wanted to talk about
so. They'll be around at some point going forward and then… 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Do you want us still to do an introduction again just to, for the
record (unintelligible). 

Man:	Yes, we used to get to that every day. Just so we know whose here
and who is in attendance from the outside (unintelligible). I think we
have a couple of reporters back today, so. (Unintelligible).  

(Lamont Bird):	Good morning everyone. I guess it is time to get things
started today. Again, I am (Lamont Bird), I am a coach here with Reading
Room VP, the International Steps Network. Thank you, (Rick). So to start
things off, I think it would be good for us to just introduce ourselves
again for the record. If we can start with (Ken Fontanel).

(Ken Fontanel):	Good morning, this is (Ken Fontanel), International
Volunteer Fire Council./

Man:	(Unintelligible), Director, Arizona OSHA.

(Lisa Delaney):	(Lisa Delaney), Associate Director for Emergency
Preparedness and Response (unintelligible). 

(Spencer Strangler):	(Spencer Strangler), North American Building Trans.

(Chris Dremmel):	(Chris Dremmel), International Union of Operating
Engineers.

(Kathy Robinson):	(Kathy Robinson), National Association of State EMS
Officials.

(Matt Tibia):	Good morning. (Matt Tibia), International Association of
Fire Chiefs.

(Bill Hamilton):	I am (Bill Hamilton), OSHA Director of Standard and
Guidance.

(Victor Shandel):	Good morning. (Victor Shandel) with the National
Fallen Firefighters Foundation.

(Art Kagleman):	(Art Kagleman), Director, OHSA Standards and Guidance.

Man:	(Matt), if you would, introduce yourself. 

(Matt Morris):	(Matt Morris), International Association of Firefighters.
I would like to thank (Sarah) for finding my way here this morning. I
would like (unintelligible) on this building here of getting lost and
dangers of getting lost.

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	Yes, surprised. This is my first year I ever made it back.
(Unintelligible).

Man:	And I think we have a few guests, if you would introduce
yourselves.

Woman:	(Unintelligible). 

(Dave Rowlands):	(Dave Rowlands) a reporter with Insider
(unintelligible). 

Man:	We haven’t introduced (Dennis) but he has been doing a great job,
kind of our silent partner over there. Would you introduce yourself,
(Dennis)?

(Henry Romano): (Henry Romano)

Man:	Okay, and because we are in a different space you want to do this
safety?

Man:	Sure.

Man:	Everything I think is pretty similar in this room as it is two
floors down. Shelves are in place and I am guessing they are just
supposed to be filled with things, (Bill)? 

(Bill):	(Unintelligible).

Man:	Yeah, either the mice or somebody else took them so I believe we
are still in a shelter in place situation. I believe we still supposed
to stay in this room. In evacuation, if the same is downstairs, the
stairwells are right there. Just follow everybody down the stairs and
out the building. Everybody I believe knows where the bathroom, the
snack bar, the cafeteria and everything like that is since we have been
here for three days. 

Man:	Okay, thank you. Yesterday we ended on, according to my notes, Page
27 of the document that I have with N: Emergency Operations. (Bill
Hamilton), if you would like to kind of take us through N. I think we
probably dealt with some of this stuff a little earlier in our meeting. 

Man:	(Unintelligible) we are starting with - there is something we have
not yet reviewed as a group. 

Man:	(Unintelligible).  

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay. If we can take another minute or so to look at this. I know
it's quite a bit of information, but we can break it up if you'd like. 

Man:	Let us know and we can start the discussion. Okay (Bill), okay. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	Okay, makes sense to me. So, under N: Emergency Operations, 1:
Incident Command and Management, any thoughts/comments about that?
Suggestions? Are we good with it? 

(Rick Ingram):	Hello? Hello. I want to throw one thing out here; this is
(Rick Ingram). I know probably I am not the only one thinking this. It
is very similar to incident management, although I realize we are
dealing with more about incident command here and details of that, but
so do we feel like this is a separate section and it is needed
separately from the incident management and emergency operations? They
are very similar. 

(Matt Morrison):	This is (Matt Morrison). I think this one here I think
is a little different what we discussed yesterday where we talked about
overall sort of principle of incident management and the matter of it
funneling down to pinpoint the actual incident itself.

(Pat):	And I know that yesterday, you could have put a lot of these just
in a guidance document, we could have just put it in a reference, we
could have just have said that we need to follow incident command, but I
think sometimes when you spell it out in a proper document it - I think
it highlights the importance of what the reader is going to look at when
the document comes out. 

	If you vary it, I just think very few go to the reference guides for
guidance. (Unintelligible) something up front. (Unintelligible) because
there is so much information but I think it does. So, we are just going
from a large scale of what are the overall principles that you need to
have, all the way down to now you have an incident how do you manage
that, and I'll let my fellow colleague sign on.

Man:	Okay, thank you (Pat). Any other thoughts about it, that section.

Woman:	I have a couple questions. In one triple I to ensure if the
incident (unintelligible) it's almost the case that an incident
escalates. It always escalates.

Man:	Well, you hope it doesn't escalate. 

Woman:	Okay.

Man:	You hope you're seeing the best point, but (unintelligible). 

Woman:	Well I just think it should say ensure that different incidents
escalate, doesn't mean that it always does.

Man:	I think you have a good point there.

(Kurt Floyd):	This is (Kurt Floyd). I think what the intent there is, is
that initially your initial arriving units will start with a command
structure of a certain size, based on your size up and what is going on
with the incident, your command structure will grow into some larger
thing. So, I think that is the escalation that they are referring to,
not necessarily the incident, although it doesn't always escalate. 

Man:	This is a great example, and I hate to use this but at Virginia
Tech when we had to (unintelligible), it was always right at the peak,
you know, when it happens. You know, (Sarah) I think I'm following you
as well. It typically does but we were right at the top of it. You know,
then it starts but we put it into play immediately with that, so I don't
know if that hope helps. (Unintelligible).  We want to back it up. There
is a couple of incidents where start out just (unintelligible) and
points were (unintelligible). 

Woman	My other question is on 2I, which is one individual responder is
assigned as incident commander. The definition of incident commander
typically it gives the senior, typically the most senior or most
experienced responder at the emergency incident but the requirement does
not say that. It is only in the definition. So, the change would be any
limits on who the incident commander could be. 

(Pat Larson):	Well, it is the nature - this is (Pat Larson) again. It is
the nature of the incident, believe it or not the incident commander can
be the first arriving unit that can show up, so that can be an officer
on any fire apparatus and it can even be any EMS personnel that shows up
- the first you know - and they will usually pass - it's just a
formality - they usually patch command and then it does get to that
experience by the time a Battalion Chief or somebody that has that
responsibility will come. But, quite frankly, when you show up you can
be a very young, young officer with limited experience. 

	It can be your first call on an engine company and you are all of a
sudden - command was passed to you and you can't pass it again. You
would like to, but you can't, until a Battalion Chief or somebody
arrives. You can't pass it to another unit. So say that sometimes your
experience is very limited as an incident commander but hopefully you
have other resources, more experienced coming and they will take over
that command.

Woman:	And this - 	I suppose we will talk about, at that point, passing
over incident command?

Man:	I'm sorry, say one more time?

Woman:	At that point, if the Battalion Chief or someone else come, the
standard, the proposed for talking about passing it over. 

Man:	He assumes - they assume command at that point. It is just a
different - but they assume command.

Man:	Yes, (Pat), is that part of the (unintelligible). 

Man:	You train on it. You identify what it is and so as the progression
goes the Battalion Chief comes onboard and they already know, based on
their training and procedures, to pass that incident on to the next
highest level. But most of the time, my experience with the fire
department and working with them, is that when the Battalion Commander
comes in he quickly assumes command. There is a quick exchange of
information and then that other guy goes off and continues his work. So,
if I remember right, I think it's a part of the (unintelligible).

Man:	It is.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I don't know (Sarah) if you would want to reiterate that in here,
based upon that additional training. 

Woman:	It doesn't have to be in there. You know, it's something
(unintelligible).

(Greg):	This is (Greg). If I may, we just earn an incident command with
how it's scalable and you would talk about - can either expand or
condense with that, so it's on a scale - I don’t know if that helps
you get a better handle on it or not, you know to make it fit for that.
(Unintelligible). 

Woman:	Is it something that we can elaborate on in a preamble?

Man:	We are in the definition. 

Man:	Maybe we could add that to the definition.

(Man):	And this is (Ken). In some instances, the senior and most
experienced person does not assume command. Based on the incident
itself, it may be a kickoff point for a junior officer that the senior
looks at it, says you have this, how can I support you? And then they
would be assigned to a lesser role. It is not always that way but it
does happen a lot of times with the most senior, because the chief shows
up and the assistant chief has it in a smaller department. He may say,
"How may I support you?" and they may go on task or operations. So, when
we tie it up to the most senior, then we will be limiting it or putting
it up.

Man:	Okay, so in terms of what (Sheri) - if I understand what she was
asking, it is under - is it agreed that it is not necessary to provide
that kind of detail in the reg tech?

Woman:	I think it would be adequate if we - if you would
(unintelligible) OSHA in the preamble.

Man:	In the preamble. 

Man:	I think it would strike you (unintelligible) that somebody is going
to be in charge. 

Man:	That one will be appointed.

Man:	 Okay and (Sheri's) other comment about as an incident escalates in
size and complexity, is it necessary for us to revise that language
there?

(Sheri):	No, I just wanted to know if it didn't, you could use the word
(unintelligible). Say basically (unintelligible). 

Man:	Okay. 

Man:	Well, I don't know.

(Victor Shandel):	Well, two things. This is (Victor Shandel). The
incident command component is pretty viable, so it is always among the
top five recommendations in an (NIOSH) investigation of a firefighter
fatality. So, I think it needs to be really clearly defined and I think
what the intent here is, is that the (NTSO) will clearly define who the
incident commander is and in some cases it may be a 19-year-old on a
fire truck until a command officer arrives. 

	So that, somehow, I think needs to be clarified. I forgot what I was
going to say about the second question regarding the escalation. I think
there the intent is it does - sometimes it escalates, sometimes it
de-escalates. I think the intent is to make it flexible, which is the
whole thing about the (IMS) system, is that it is modular in a sense
that you can grow it if needs to be grown or you can make it smaller as
the incident begins to be solved.

(Ken Fontanel):	This is (Ken). In double I, I think it is a pretty bold
statement. When I read this it says "ESO shall ensure that there is
incident commander." To me that just says there will be somebody in
charge. Who that person is, I guess, depends on the operations and how
it is set up. The resources you have. It is gray. We just need to add a
comment to the back. We need to talk about transfer command or hands
off. I know we know that, but does that language need to be in there for
(Pat), because I know you were addressing that. When we are talking
about a 19-year-old coming up, does that language help anything?

(Pat):	This is (Pat). I don't know that it would but there are so many
different scenarios in this case here. In some departments the fire
chief is actually supposed to take command when they show up and it
changes throughout the country as far as who has that absolute command
as far as the structure on there. A lot of them sometimes will allow I
think, will allow the person that has that command, even if a senior
officer shows up, they're going to allow that Battalion Chief to run the
command. You know, they will operate on that. So, it is kind of hard to
capture all of that but I understand what you meant. 

Man:	Okay, so is it okay that this could be something that has been
suggested that could be discussed in the preamble? Pass the command to
(Bill Hamilton).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Well, I would offer that the entire cost of the incident
(unintelligible) system is, you know, is contained within the most
direct language on the command system. In other words, it is really up
to the jurisdiction, the (unintelligible) who is going to have the
management system. Everything that we are talking about is in that EOS
structure. I think that (Sarah)'s point is good. Certainly, you know,
ensure if an incident, you know if an incident escalates to the size
(unintelligible) certainly if changing that word is certainly fine. 

	I would avoid the assumption that it will. The bigger question that I
have is making sure that in the preamble, we address the idea of unit by
command and it talks about it - it measures it here but if you read this
just by itself, each ESO as it is written shall ensure that the
commander is assigned on every incident. So, you could have three ESOs
responding to a single incident, theoretically requiring each one to
independently establish its own incident commander which is contrary to
the entire genesis of unified command. 

	I think that just in the preamble of being intuitive to us, you will
have - if we had a hazardous material incident out on the highway, the
Hazmat team responds, the fire department responds and the EMS agency
responds. We would not want each one to independently establish their
own command structure. We would want there to be coordination among the
three ESOs under one unified body command structure.

(Rick Ingram):	This is (Rick). Would that be appropriate to add a
sentence to that effect? I think we could do that in one sentence
because we have in 2:I, one individual responder is assigned as the
incident commander. I think we could just alter that sentence slightly
and get that point made. That is a very important point. 

(Spencer Strangler):	(Rick) it's (Spencer). The next sentence right
below that in the note says - addresses the unified command, doesn't it?

Man:	Yes. It does. 

Man:	Yes, it does. I'll be honest with you, I am concerned about the
word "may" because again if you're a regulatory reader or somebody would
read that would say EMS agency, the OSHA reg says I must have an
incident commander as an ESO and that's my concern. I don't want to get
into a situation where we are trying to provide guidance. So, if we just
change the word "make" to (unintelligible) the whole idea for
multi-jurisdictional entities has always been one of the things they
have worked on for a long time to make sure you have to do it by command
at a serious incident, so would it have note if it would say the
multi-jurisdictional response shall require (unintelligible) because I
think that's what (NIMS) is doing. You know, it's like a whole idea
(unintelligible) structure (unintelligible) last 15, 20 years. 

Man:	And this is entered into a - maybe I'm missing something on this
unified command but when we talked about it, we talked about
multi-jurisdictions or multi-agency, because sometimes it is a single
jurisdiction and maybe adding multi-jurisdictional or multi-agency might
help clarify because if it is happening within say one county, it's
within a single jurisdiction or one locality. It could have multi
agencies, EMS, fire, police, or it could be multiple counties set up.
Maybe just adding multiple agency or multi-jurisdiction might clarify.

Man:	My only concern is that we get in the "or" thing, which, you know,
that (Sarah) (unintelligible) in my mind, throughout this, we've been
talking about ESOs, not jurisdictions because there are - there are -
ESOs are not added to jurisdiction.  The higher priority in my mind
would be multi ESOs responding into this (unintelligible). 

Man:	Multi agency. 

Woman:	Could I suggest something? When … 

(Kirby):	This is (Kirby). You can't have "shall" there. And the reason
is because not all multi-jurisdictional responses will require unified
command. I have operated three-alarm fires where I've got multiple
jurisdictions coming in to help me and I don't - I don't need unified
command. Unified command, the idea of unified command, is that you have
some multi-jurisdictional response but - however, the size of the
incident requires a unified command because you may have different types
of jurisdictions that are not just fire. So, you do not want to put
"shall" on there. 

M1:	Okay (Sarah) you had…

Woman:	Well, I mean in light of what Mr. (White) said, I was just going
to suggest if the incidents involve multi-jurisdictional response the
ESO should establish a unified command structure. I take it the ESOs
have to agree on unified command structure?

Man:	Generally speaking, each agency or type of agency submits an
incident commander. They might have an EMS supervisor, a police
supervisor and an incident commander and they form a nucleus of the
joint command. Hopefully they get along well enough that they can
operate. In a lot of cases it depends on the types of the agency. One
agency may rise above - if it is an active shooter with multiple
casualties it becomes more of a police environment than a fire and
rescue. Then, in a fire environment or a rescue, a tornado or some such
things it becomes more of a fire rescue. You may see a little bit more
fire presence in the command center and in general, they should work
together at least in my experience and what I have seen on my end of it.

Kurt:	(Kurt). Yes, I get what you are saying and you are right. If I am
on a fire, I am in command. I absolutely do not need to unify command
structure for three other entities that have resources. The problem is
that this area is not exclusive to firefighters. It is - unfortunately -
but it is for whatever reason a pretty common standard that has gone
well beyond just firefighting. My concern is that, you know, ESOs will
independently perceive that they are required or will use the leverage
as a fuse but do not participate in an integrated command structure and
what's the word we want to use. 

	The other thing I have to do is get away from the unintelligible)
because the jurisdictions imply a political or governmental subdivision
and there are ESOs, there are many ESOs in this country that are not
tied to any jurisdiction. Not tied to any political entity, not tied to
any political geographic subdivision. So, we want to be careful because
if we use that term I think it has meaning and we are straying from the
ESO application. I don't know, (Pat)?

(Pat):	Yeah, this is (Pat). I think that we understand here at the table
that we have done a very good job with the ESO incident command,
incident commander and coming down. The unified command, just to let you
know, unified command came out of (MIMS) and everything else came out of
some very, very bad calls with multi-disciplines. Usually it was law
enforcement and fire and this came right after 9/11 when you had a
number of agencies and you had who is in charge and who is not in
charge, and that delay caused serious health and safety effects on those
individuals that were operating on that scene.

	So, that unified command is mostly used when you are bringing in, when
you are not too far from here. The Pentagon, you know, that was a
unified command structure that was set up. I think Chief (Schwartz) was
the fire chief that ran that command but it was unified. You had police,
you had the military, the FBI. You have multi-jurisdictions that come. I
agree with (Matt) that you have to understand that you think you might
be in charge but when somebody can come over and if you don't have that
established on the unified command side of things, and I think I am
speaking correctly where it happens more so outside of our discipline of
firefighting. It happens when we bring in others, especially law
enforcement. 

	State police I can give you a big example, and that all has to be
established ahead of time and that is why you want your ESO to establish
what other unified command policies - if there is a large scale incident
on a highway who has control over that? Many, many incidences of fights
and everything else happening during that call because the command
structure wasn't set up as a unified, joint command structure.

(Matt Tibia):	This is (Matt). Just to reiterate that, or just to
reinforce that, another example would be the (unintelligible) at a
theater shooting, where you had fire, police and EMS, all three
independent agencies. You had police officers inside calling for EMS and
you had fire department personnel calling for EMS units and the
dispatchers are in the middle, trying to determine who gets a higher
priority. The EMS units on that incident, but it's totally a general
lack of coordination on that scene. 

	I think that a lot of these concerns can probably be addressed through
mutual aid agreement, automatic agreements and policies and procedures,
SOPs, that could be identified in the SOP section. I think we just want
to make sure that somewhere in this document we identify the fact that
every incident should have one incident commander regardless of who that
individual is and that each ESO is not independently responsible for
establishing their own command structure on a multi-agency, multi-ESO
incident.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Well, go ahead (Victor), I'll wait.

(Victor):	This is (Victor), I was just going to offer up a sense to try
to address unified command piece. So it's something to the effect of
ensuring unified command structure is utilized on incidents where the
complexity of the incident requires shared responsibility among two or
more agencies. 

Man:	That just segue ways into what I was going to say and what I was
going to say was that in 1 Roman numeral III and I think that's what
we're talking about so if we added that sentence or something like that
to Roman numeral III, that's where that decision is made, right when the
incident escalates, so it makes more sense to me to have it up there.

(Ken Fontanel):	And (unintelligible), this is (Ken). When you're talking
about III, Roman numeral III, I was just wondering if it wouldn't be
maybe a better fit to move it into the design phase of the incident
management program, which when I look at it, the Number 2,
(unintelligible) shall be designed to meet the particular
characteristics of incidents based on size and complexity. Perhaps
Number 3, we can add the sentence you're talking about and move it right
there and take it out of operations, so it puts it into design at the
(IMS) because right here, it doesn't seem like a real good fit in
operations and that sentence is on Page 25. I have it as Number 2 to add
it. 

Man:	I'm going to look at our revised one. 

Man:	I think we revised that (unintelligible). 

Man:	Okay, so we had a couple of recommendations here. (Victor) had
offered some language and then there was a recommendation that some
language be added to a section, possibly in the planning side, I think
is what (Ken) was getting at. 

Man:	So one five.

Man:	So my question - (Victor) can you read your language again?

(Victor):	This is (Victor). Ensure a unified command structure is
utilized on incidents where the complexity of the incident requires a
shared responsibility among two or more agencies. 

Man:	Just have a little bit of discussion on should that kind of
language or language to address this issue be in the planning section of
this document?

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

(Victor):	This is (Victor) again. It's actually one of the things that
sub group was tasked with when we got - reached the area of mutual aid
and all of that, so I think it really will probably be addressed in that
Section E as well when we get - we do that again. 

Man:	Okay. Any other thoughts? (Kathy)?

(Kathy Robinson): (Kathy Robinson). I actually like the language that
(Victor) proposed but I am not exactly sure where it will be and, you
know, I recognize the majority of the panel has lived and no pun
intended breathed smoke day in and day out but I'm thinking about
surgical team that actually might deploy from a hospital with trauma
surgeons in the field and how do we anticipate them to interface with
incentive management system. So and I'm just a little bit confused by
that because I'm not sure that they understand that they actually fit
into this because all these models are written around (NIMS) and fire
scope and those sorts of things and the medical community really doesn't
talk about that sort of thing that much, so I'm in support of what
(Victor) is offering. I'm just not sure - but I'm not sure where it
fits.

Man:	(Unintelligible) help Ms. (Kathy). In a large scale event, depends
on the nature of the event but in deployment of a medical, special
medical response group, they would probably - probably EMS would be at
the table at joint command, so that would be one place.

	One of the operation areas of branch, would probably be a medical
branch and in there you would have the various functions, whether it be
a special surgical team, triage treatment, transport, (unintelligible)
transport, that all falls in that portion of it, so you have a special
place and the argument is well (unintelligible). 

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	Yes, it just depends on how instant man sets it up. The branches
are flexible. They can be anything from law enforcement to EMS and in my
state now, we actually have an animal control branch. After some of the
hurricanes, we had to actually establish an animal control branch for
the wellbeing and transport and shelter of animals collected. So that's
kind of where you would fit, that you would be under the influence of
the person at the (unintelligible) center who recommends
(unintelligible).

(Kathy):	Well, and I absolutely understand those concepts. I'm just -
I'm just thinking about the (unintelligible) who picks up a go bag and
heads to the field and maybe it's more of an education issue. I mean I
don't know if that's it but I don't think the average trauma surgeon
realizes that there is an incident commander and that he needs to make
sure that he's accountable to them and I don't know that this is the
place to fix it, but I'm just …

((Crosstalk))

Man:	…national conflict or even regional conflict. Even just
(unintelligible) into and a (unintelligible) that's why we got as much
as anything an education now. 

(Kathy):	So is there a need for language here for an ESO to coordinate
with all community partners? I'm just trying to get my head wrapped
around this, so I appreciate your patience in that regard. I just - I
think it's just broader in scope. Where I'm estimating this scope of
this language and how - to make sure that the broader community
understands that.

Man:	Okay. I think you bring up, (Kathy), a great point. I think that
when we were working on a skilled support worker component, our focus
was tow truck drivers, crane operators but I think a surgeon is under
the same category as a skilled support worker. So that would be
something as an ESO develops their program, that might be one of the
vulnerability and risk assessment components, you know, we need to get
with our hospitals, if there is - you know, where I came from, we had a
go team where the surgeons wouldn't even come unless they were called
for one, but if they did, they fit into the incident command system and
they may not have ever even known it. They just operate it around them,
so I don't know that it's a huge concern but I think it is addressed in
the skilled support worker component. 

(Kathy):	Okay.

Man:	Okay, so (unintelligible) and (Kathy) too I think that the (NIMS)
training is really set (NIMS) because they have to really train to get
out of the fire service to train the other organizations around. It was
very complex and people didn't know or understand that and hospitals,
mental hospitals, other agencies that had to deal with shelter with all
of that was a basic (NIMS) training that the requirement was they had
some understanding as to if there was a large scale incident, what is
this incident in command, how do we fit into this and who's in charge of
that, but it is kind of complex and it’s like - because I do know
that, you know, if you need surgeons, and that has happened and
especially in the world we're living in today, that might happen more
and more.

	I know in the Boston bombing (unintelligible) of who's going to do what
but it is a skilled support worker that shows up and that's another -
and we (unintelligible) but that's one we can apply.

Man:	So I have a question. One of the things we're going to do later
today (Lamont) and I are going to be presenting this (unintelligible)
and there's going to be some tough questions, and you know, they want to
know that this is worthy of making it a law and I have to say and I
think this is a great discussion and I appreciate all the points and I
understand the importance of it. I worked in one of the largest
incidents that we've ever had in the country, (unintelligible) command
system, but I'm really having a lot of trouble separating incident
management from the emergency operations, and I have - I'm trying to
understand because there's a lot of very similar information here and
I'm just wondering why we wouldn't have one section instead of two
separate sections because it's dealing with some of the same
information.  Almost same language, some of it. And I think if we could
simplify this, get this - believe me, I understand how important this is
firsthand but not looking at it, you know, from a different type of
incident that I worked on, there were several of them actually but I'm a
little concerned that we've got a lot of extra information in here
that's going to complicate this and we're going to get some questions
about why did you do it this way.

	Why couldn't you have combined those two sections and made it much more
simpler. So that's just a fundamental question there. So my apologies
for throwing a monkey wrench in but (unintelligible).

Man:	(Pat), I don't think it's a monkey wrench. I think it's an
extremely important statement you have. You're going to have to explain
it.

Man:	We are going to have to.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	We may have the experience but this is going to go up to another
level and I don't see why maybe perhaps we can't put that underneath,
but let us - I don't know where …

Man:	With that, I agree. I mean we certainly want to put
(unintelligible) position (unintelligible). So if we move incident
management, we just call it incident management and emergency
operations, combine the language, you know.

Man:	Combine some of it because we've got some of the same sentences in
both and this doesn't make sense to me. It just over complicates the
whole thing in my opinion, in my humble opinion, and with all due
respect.

(Spencer Strangler):	Yeah, (Spencer).

Man:	Hello (Spencer).

(Spencer Strangler):	I'm guessing (Andy) where is wanting to weigh in on
this because (unintelligible) standards that the establishment of sort
of the policy level is one part and then the operations given is a
legitimate other part and lots of them have duplicates. Lots of
standards have that duplication and one is creating the plan and the
next is how you implement it and I think that was the intention here if
I'm not mistaken.

Man:	Yes, (Spencer) exactly right there. Typically the way we write
standards (unintelligible) is that there is a planning element and then
a doing element and the planning element is very important because that
happens in the comfort in your office, without the pressure and that
you're writing an incident management system and doing that plan but the
emergency operations stuff is usually a whole other gig.

Man:	And I understand that but in this case it's so similar that, you
know, we've got the (unintelligible) in a separate section and here
we've got incident management, which is really explaining what you have
to have, you know, and what's expected in incident management and
incident management and then emergency operations is so similar that I
just - yes, I'm really having a hard time …

Man:	(Unintelligible) for example for emergency operations. Let's say
we're using (unintelligible) duplication maybe that would be helpful. 

Man:	Well, it's actually telling me how to set up an incident command
and incident command and management, these two (ESOs) shall and then
ensure that each emergency incident has an incident command over saying
the same thing over here in Section M. 

Man:	So let me throw out another analogy. It's kind of like
(unintelligible) or similarity between your training and then you're
actually doing. So you're going to teach somebody how to fight fires in
the training session, but then you're going to expect them to implement
the training where they actually go to an emergency incident. And so the
incident management system piece is actually more similar to like your
standard operating procedures and your other sorts of things where you
set up the rules that your system is going to live by.

Man:	Okay. And I get that. I'm with you. Believe me I'm with you.

Man:	And from our legal and regulatory structure, you say number one,
you've got a plan and then number 2, you need to follow that plan, so
that's what really these two sections are set up for. 

Man:	Okay, well let me direct you to Number 4, N4, communications. OSHA
will provide (unintelligible) communication and ensure adequate
communication, that's N.

Man:	So N4, the communication system is really the radios and we have a
lot of people die from poor radio systems, for failure to even have
radio systems that were adequate, so that's really different, even
though it's communication and it may be helpful to describe it
differently than communication system but that's different from standard
terminology that are in the incident management system. 

Man:	Okay, you all tell me that I'm wrong, and I'm just trying to
challenge the words, so.

Man:	If I could, just to help, just a suggestion, I actually hear what
you're saying, I would say that we could, under Number 1, one you could
keep I, get rid of ii, and iii and then the ii would become
(unintelligible) so you could just say, ensuring incident management
system development Paragraph 1 is utilize emergency incident. Period,
end of story. I think that addresses the intent of the application of
the development of an IMS earlier in the standard. Earlier in the
standard requires that you have one. This requires that you actually
apply it, and I think you can do that, you know, I mean an inherent
theme is through and through. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's
inherent in small I is 2 and 3, 2 and 3 are included in that. 

Man:	See the only thing that I would say, and I agree with 3 and 4 in
there, some of these things we added because there are people who have
died, you know, for exactly these things, so we have pointed them out so
it's kind of like hey, guys, you can't miss this one. I'm with you on
that.

Man:	And so that's why I think it's there. So let me get a sense - I
think it would be helpful to maybe get a sense of the committee, and I
don't want to put you on the spot (Rick) but does anyone else having
similar concerns about the way that the incident management system is
set up in the emergency operations section is set up? 

Man:	You know I'll make a comment. I have a concern. Not similar, you
know, to (Rick)'s, but my concern is that what we're doing is developing
regulatory text. If this regulatory text moves forward and becomes the
noticeable (unintelligible) rule making, there will be other
stakeholders who will have input into the development of a rule and so
personally, I would prefer to see something that's very comprehensive
and should the stakeholders who would be regulated by this rule, you
know, feel it necessary, they could weigh in, a larger body of folks
could weight in and say, you know, it's too detailed, and I think OSHA
could - would respond in kind. But at this point, I think we need to
keep this thing pretty detailed. I think you made an important point
that lies within (unintelligible) it sort of hits you and you can't miss
this one. 

	I think we need to share that with a larger audience that would be
looking at this during the rulemaking process. 

Man:	So it sounds like I'm kind of standing alone here, and that's fine.
I have wide shoulders that are fine and throughout this process, I've
been challenging a few things and I just think it's healthy for the
discussion. What would help me as a reader, the first time, is to have a
brief sentence at the beginning of each section to explain. This is - so
here we are, so this is incident management and just a really brief one
sentence. Incident management and intent of this section, yes, we don't
even have to say that but something about incident management and then
something about operations, emergency operations. This is when we - just
like Andy said. This is the application of the plan.  So that would help
me. So I don't know if that's …

Man:	So let me say this, I think for the purposes of moving forward, we
can absolutely add a sentence at the beginning of each section that says
this is the intent of this section. I've got a couple of lawyers, at
least one lawyer, I need to figure out if the Federal register will do
something like that because they have very strict guidelines about how
you craft regulatory language that goes in the code of Federal
regulations and I don't know what the (unintelligible) do and I'm
finally trying to push them but I've got to have those conversations but
at least moving forward, we can explain to people what we're trying to
do and why it's there.

Man:	Well, just to let you know, I deal with OSHA law all the time and
I'm reading regs, I'm reading the standards, letters of interpretations,
directives all the time in my work and have been for years and it seems
to me that sometimes we make things a little bit - when we have such
redundancy sometimes, it's not paid attention to, so I just - so that's
my background. So I understand the point and I understand the
importance. I'm absolutely of the (unintelligible) that's what I do is
try to protect lives.

Man:	So when we do - when we (unintelligible) regulatory language,
particularly in a program like this, it follows a general model of plan,
train, do and so then you will see provisions that are very similar for
this. I'll plan for this activity and then you shall train people to do
this activity and then you shall actually do this activity and so yes,
you will see similar sorts of issues come up three times typically
because it's worded under three different obligations during that
implementation of the rulemaking or the implementation of the rules. So
for example, you're just not seeing like in training session because we
just incorporated that in PA1001, you won't see all of the similar types
of things that say you shall train in the incident management system and
you will be trained to, you know, for rapid intervention and pristine
(unintelligible) and all of those sorts of things because it's all
shorthand in 1001 but that concept is repeated essentially three times.

(Terry):	(Andy) I have a question (unintelligible) management, Number 1
and that is so if OSHA adopts or develops in writing and implements an
(unintelligible) management system, so what's the difference between
implementing an infra management system and emergency operations? Is
that the implementation of the emergency operation system or is the
implement in Paragraph M different from what's in emergency operations. 

(Andy):	So what I would say (Terry) is that probably you missed it
yesterday. So again there's lots of things that we need to clean up and
so the intent in M for (unintelligible) management is that you're
developing all the time our system and then in emergency operations is
all of the doing. So there's a probably a word that need to change into
that diagram. 

	Again to (Matt)'s point, we can probably get rid of "you shall have an
incident commander" and "you shall understand at the incident scene
(unintelligible) complexity", what we could do is in there specifically
because (unintelligible) investigation that specifically say, you know,
that there was no command established or that it has the same
(unintelligible) few engines showed up and by the time they got to a
third alarm, they hadn't, you know, changed to a more experienced
commander. They have to reevaluate their size up as, you know, the
incident develops. And so we put those things in there because that's
what's killing people on higher ground.

(Matt Tibia):	And this is (Matt). 

(Andy):	And did you see that I offered that as a compromise opportunity
for (unintelligible). I share your - I share your opinion about that. I
mean every (unintelligible) that you see in here can be tied to a fire
fatality. So, you know, what I mean, when you go before (NATAGE), you
know, the very direct answer can be that, you know, there's a reason why
this language is in here, and we just (unintelligible) to the name of
firefighters who died in the line of duty -- multiple firefighters who
have died in the line of duty -- repeatedly and with great vigor,
because of a failure of effective command. So, you know, and a failure
to expand the incident-management system where you have one person
sitting in the front seat of a pickup truck with 200 responders on the
scene and nobody has control of that incident. 

	So I just want to be clear that I support that concept going forward
but I understand the concern about excessive language.

Man 2:	Okay, (Spencer).

(Spencer Strangler):	Hey, this is (Spencer). Just make a suggestion
based on the comments that we've heard so far that instead of just
incident management for the title, just make it incident management
system plan. That way it clearly identifies that this is the planning
phase or incident management plan rather than just incident management.

Man 2:	Incident management system, like…

Man:	Like, plan (unintelligible) system?

(Spencer Strangler):	Yes, I mean, to a person that's not familiar with
the (NIMS) incident management system might be a little unusual, but the
word "plan" is obviously the planning for the system. At any rate,
either way I think you should put the word "system" in there because
right away you start talking about the (IMS) and all of the other
sub-paragraphs are all (IMS), and so it would be certainly clearer to
add the word "system" in there, whether, you put "plan" in there or not.
It would be helpful from my standpoint because when I first started
reading regulatory text, I was confused by the same thing that (Rick) is
mentioning, that there are these lengthy explanations of developing the
plan and then it seems to reiterate everything when it gets to the
implementation but once you understand the idea behind it, it's much
clearer. 

	Anyway, that's my suggestion.

Man 2:	Okay. Thank you. We've had a lot of discussion about - I guess we
haven't gotten past (N1). So if we could - are there any comments? I
think the discussion we've had has been very, very important. So at this
point, I guess we can go back to - (Victor) had recorded some language
and we had not, as I recall, made a decision on whether to accept that
language and where to put that language if we accepted it. 

Man 3:	I support (Victor)'s language. Thumbs up over here. 

Man 2:	Okay, and I think (Cathy) also indicated that she supported it in
concept.

Man:	I'll also support that. (Unintelligible).

((Crosstalk)) 

Man 2:	Okay, so I think we have a pretty good acceptance of the
language, that it's okay. So where do you think this should go now?
Should it go on the planning side or operations? I think the
recommendation that (Ken) made is that it go to the - was that (Ken)?

(Ken Fontanel):	I think it should go in the planning and developing and
designing the plan. If it's in the plan, then it's there for you to
build on.

Man 2:	Okay, (Bill)?

(Bill):	Oh, I think in my understanding of what (Andy) had said, I
concur with my colleague (Ken) on putting it in planning, but if I
understand what (Andy) was saying, it really is multiple places. It is
in part of the planning section, but then it should also be a part of
the doing section, too. So the planning says you need to get this done,
and then when you get to an actual scene and an incident, you need to
make sure that the guidance and the direction is there that here is the
doing portion. Here's what we need to accomplish in the incident. 

	So that's just my thoughts. (Bill Warren). 

(Rich):	This is (Rich). I agree with that. I think it should be more
than a note. Right now, it's just added as a note. I think it should
actually be in the sentence or a standalone. 

Man 2:	Okay.

(Matt Tibia):	This is (Matt). I would agree with that. It should be in
both places, and it should be a clear sentence.

Man 2:	Okay with your sentence in both places?

Man:	And I would also support what (Spencer) mentioned earlier about if
we could just change the title, maybe or add a word to the title of both
of these sections, that would…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Andy), I don't know OSHA talk, but could the titles for the plan
be developing an (IMS) plan? Does that not make it very clear what the
function of that section of the document is?

(Andy):	Sure. It's probably longer than (unintelligible) section, but
yes, we can use that as a working title. 

Man:	(Bill) has something up there. 

Man:	That's the same thing, just different words (unintelligible).

Man:	Okay. All right. We've made some progress. 

Man:	I'd like to recommend that we move section nine to section three. 

Man 2:	Section nine.

Man:	Section nine is hazard control zone, and I think one of the - the
reason that I'm recommending that is prior to engaging in activities,
there needs to be a determination of what are the zones of operation.
That is typically done instantaneously, or very quickly. It's often
intuitive, but I do think that it's critical to establish the zones of
operation, particularly if we're going to leave it to the (ESO) to
determine whether the minimum training standards for participating in
the various zones of operation, as well as what are the levels of PPE
required to participate in the various zones of operation. 

	I think it's logical that we need to have an incident commander. The
incident commander needs to be fixed and clearly identified. The
incident commander needs to very quickly identify the zones of
operation, and that should be earlier in the document.

Man 2:	Where was that…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So I'm recommending that section nine become section three, ahead
of incident safety.

Man:	That's on Page 30.

Man:	Right. So, on Page 30 I'm recommending that it be moved to the top
of Page 28.

Man:	Any thoughts about that?

(Ken Fontanel):	This is (Ken). I support that. It should be early on in
the design. I had a question about number nine, item Roman numeral
seven, where it says the (ESO) or the incident commander that each
responder appropriately uses the PPE. There's no possible way that can
happen for command. I mean I don't know what appropriate means --
appropriately -- so I just have a little bit of trouble with that
statement. I understand that we tell him what to wear and that, but I
cannot follow you and say, "You've got your mask on your hip and not on
your head."

Man 2:	Okay, (Ken), so could we put a place marker there for (Matt
Toby)'s recommendation of moving nine over to just before three? Or move
it to three? Is that okay with everyone?

Man:	That's fine. 

Man 2:	Okay, and (Ken), under seven, Roman numeral 7 on page 30, it's
the latter part of that statement, that clause, and that each responder
appropriately uses the PPEs for that zone. You have some difficulty in
that. You say the (ESO) would not be able to ensure that happens?

(Ken Fontanel):	It's more the function of a crew leader. I mean, this is
part of your training, but I meant in a large-scale incident. I've got a
hundred people out there. I cannot follow each and every one of them and
see that they're appropriately using their equipment. I'm just having
trouble. It (unintelligible) people's…

Man 2:	Yes, (Ken), I hear what you're saying. I don't know that it's
going to be required of the incident commander. I think that it requires
that the (ESO) ensure it. Now, the (ESO) is ultimately going to be held
accountable for their people's activities, anyway. I think that that's
why we designate safety officers, to ensure that it…

((Crosstalk))

Man 2:	I agree with you, (Ken). As the incident commander, I cannot be
running around the incident scene trying to determine if everyone's
wearing their gloves on…

((Crosstalk))

(Ken Fontanel):	I believe we can fix this with (unintelligible)
suggested from yesterday in the preamble somewhere, that we make the
statement, the incident commander or designees, whatever term we choose
to use, and that applies throughout the whole document, and at this
point this takes care of itself because the supervisor of that crew or
whatever is responsible there that the equipment is used appropriately,
(unintelligible).

Man:	So, let me just say a little bit about how OSHA typically looks at
this. All of the obligations fall upon the employer in this case. So
that's who, you know, when OSHA comes in and does an inspection, it's
the employer's obligation. We run into these sorts of things all the
time in factories and other work places, and it's not that you expect
everybody to be following everybody at every moment making sure that
they're wearing all the PPEs. It's that you have the policies and the
procedures and the training, and then the actual practice is that people
use it. So that in the event that one employee isn't using it, well
that's the employee's problem.

	If none of the employees regularly use it, even though you have a
policy, well, that's a management issue, and that's how we would look at
it. It's not that we're going after the incident commander expecting you
to be the nanny following everybody.

(Ken Fontanel):	I'm one hundred percent with that (unintelligible)
because that's the way I teach it. If you have a policy and enforce it
and somebody doesn't wear a seatbelt because they're a knucklehead,
that's on them. They at least have the policy. I've enforced it. I've
(unintelligible) discipline issues with that.

Man:	Right. Right. The important corollary or the important
(unintelligible) part of that is, you know, when our inspector's going
in, if they start interviewing people, and it's like, "Yeah, nobody does
that," then you don’t really have a policy. You may have a policy, but
you don't have a practice, and then that's on the employer because, you
know, having written policies that you don’t implement. That's a big
problem for us.

(Ken Fontanel):	I'm just having a little bit of (unintelligible) on that
point (unintelligible).

 

Man:	Yes. 

(Ken Fontanel):	(Unintelligible).

(Bill Warren):	Hi, I'm (Bill Warren). I guess, (Ken), what I looked at
that was seven. I moved that up to a part of where we're at, and I even
looked at it that part of the issue is we're looking for is going
(unintelligible) and this is your hazard-control zone for
(unintelligible) ensure that, and so to me the designation of the
appropriate protective equipment is when the person comes on the scene,
because it may be hazmat. It may be a vehicle accident. It may be fire.
It may be a chemical spill. It may be release that there's some
communication developed so that the folks arriving on the scene,
particularly in multijurisdictional, knows what PPE is expected for
whatever kind of incident. That's what I looked at when it come to that.

(Andy):	I'm good with that part. It's just the "ensures appropriately
using" that I was having trouble with.

Man 2:	Okay, we jumped ahead, and thank you for that clarification,
(Andy). We jumped ahead to page 30, but we still had a little bit to
review on 27. Are we good with (unintelligible) two? The incident
commander? That language there? Are there any recommendations or issues
with that language? 

Man:	(Unintelligible). What was the final determination with the note
multi-jurisdiction responses incidents may require? Is that staying?
(Unintelligible) changed the note?

Man 2:	Yes, that changed.

Man:	Okay.

Man 2:	There's actually some language that (Victor)…

Man:	That's the language, but we took "may" out.

(Victor):	This is (Victor). My understanding is we took that whole note
out and we added the language, but I don’t know that we decided where,
and I would recommend it either fit under one four, somewhere right
after…

Man:	It's replacing that.

(Victor):	But I think that we had discussed placing it both in…

Man 2:	Yes.

(Victor):	…the planning and operations.

Man 2:	Right. Yes. Okay? 

(Victor):	 And then, under operations on page 25, my recommendation
would be either it become number three or it become two "I" on page 25.

Man 2:	To the language that you recommended?

(Victor):	Yes. 

Man 2:	Okay. So noted. 

Man:	And I just assumed that OSHA would incorporate at the appropriate
locations.

Man 2:	Mr. Co-chair, (Bill) (unintelligible) keeping up with us.

Man:	(Unintelligible)?

Man:	Based on experience.

Man:	Yes.

((Crosstalk))

(Ken Fontanel):	This is (Ken). I would like to add a little more weight
to one (unintelligible) on page 27. I would like to add more weight to
that, move it away as a subset, make it as a standalone item, because to
me that's really an important issue. It's kind of buried up in there as
a subset of one-three or one (unintelligible) three.

((Crosstalk))

(Ken Fontanel):	I would suggest that it be made item three, where
(unintelligible) up there and then make it item three. So I'm just
giving more weight, more prominence to the document. 

Man 2:	Okay, I'm sorry, (Ken). I didn't follow where you were. You said
on page 28?

(Ken Fontanel):	27.

Man 2:	27. 

(Ken Fontanel):	Under one, capital letter A. The incident safety
officer? I would like to see it become a number such one, two, or three,
or whatever, to give it more weight and more prominence. I believe
that's a very critical, important part of this document. 

Man 2:	Okay, any thoughts about that from the subcommittee? 

(Ken Fontanel):	Yes, this is great. (Matt), you (unintelligible) we
talked yesterday, and we talked about, you know, positions, or, well, we
all did yesterday in our discussion, and we routinely use where
(unintelligible), you know, command and (unintelligible) or - I've lost
my train of thought. Wait a minute.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

(Ken Fontanel):	No (unintelligible). Yes. General command - what am I
trying to come up with?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	We haven't put that in there anywhere. I know we understand it, but
I think maybe this falls back to where (Ken)'s going with that, in a
way. I mean, I know when you're (unintelligible) we all understand that,
that we - is that helpful to have, you know, (unintelligible) general
commander?

((Crosstalk))

Man 2:	All I would offer is just in keeping with what (Andy) has said is
that from a policy perspective, I think we want to make sure that people
are wearing their PPE, they're wearing it properly, and that we're
holding someone accountable to ensure that that's occurring. So from a
policy perspective, if that's the consensus of the group, that we let
the staff find a place for it to be. Whether it needs to be an
independent statement or if it could be part of another statement, I'm
okay with either way. I think it belongs in this section because it
talks about engaging, but I think from a policy perspective I think we
all agree that there does need to be language that requires people to
wear their PPE where appropriately, and that that's a priority for the
(ESO).

Man:	Okay, (Lisa)?

(Lisa Delaney):	This is (Lisa) (unintelligible). I think it's important
- we've been focusing a lot on (unintelligible), and I understand why,
but I think it's important that we focus on the safety part of
(unintelligible) because that is really the whole purpose of the
standard, and I'm getting a little tripped up with the inclusion of
(unintelligible) - is this being done in a real strategic way in terms
of we're sort of picking and choosing the most critical elements of
(unintelligible) that we want to highlight as it relates to responder
health and safety? 

	I think (Bill) and (Andy), when you provided us with the draft, it
sounds like you've thought about that and done a lot of - and are
highlighting the issues that based on fatality investigations, et
cetera, that you have some data to support that, but I feel like maybe -
it's not something we can do today, but possibly going back between now
and the next meeting to really ensure that the right elements of
(unintelligible) are highlighted and this is happening. 

	I do agree - circling back to the original question that the safety
officer role should be highlighted here, for sure. 

Man 2:	(Unintelligible). So, (Ken)'s recommendation would be that the
incident safety officer be moved up to a Roman numeral, at least, to
give it more prominence?

(Ken Fontanel):	As a Roman numeral or a number.

Man 2:	Okay. Are we okay with that? Okay. It looks like we have pretty
strong consensus. (Rick)?

(Rick Ingram):	I have one other suggestion going back to the title of
this. I really like the change of the title for (unintelligible), and
how would you all feel about active emergency operations? Does that make
sense?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes (unintelligible) it does. I mean, that was my next comment or
question was that we really should change that title to correspond, and
I don’t know if we do incident command operations or do we do - but I
understand. I read it (unintelligible) from the laymen sort of point, it
doesn't really - it says (unintelligible)…

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	That's where the duplication is, and we do have to retitle that. 

Man:	I've kind of toyed with a lot of different words, but I'll just
throw that out there. Active emergency operations, maybe, but that’s
just something to consider.

Man 2:	Okay, any thoughts about that?

Group:	It's good.

Man:	We wouldn't have to have an explanation then. 

Man 2:	What's that? I'm sorry. Where do the active go? I'm sorry.

Man:	Under - on the title.

Man 2:	In the title?

Man:	Yes. Or emergency. (Andy), is that…

((Crosstalk))

Man 2:	Active emergency operations?

((Crosstalk))

Man 2:	Okay, and before we go any further…

Man:	Please.

Man 2:	A while ago, we talked about possibility deleting here, if you
can read what's on the wall, keeping an "I" and getting rid of double
"I" of ensuring emergency incident…

Man:	I recommend we bring (unintelligible) back. That was just made as a
suggestion. No action was taken on that. That was a suggestion on trying
to build consensus on (unintelligible), but ultimately
(unintelligible)…

Man 2:	Okay.

((Crosstalk))

Man 2:	Okay, and so then this part - I guess this is what (Ken) was
saying, should be - is this the one you were talking about?

(Ken Fontanel):	Yes, sir. (Unintelligible) number two.

Man 2:	Oh, well, let me ask you…

((Crosstalk))

Man 2:	Let me ask you, then the - if I move it up to be under number
two…

Man:	I think it would become large number two, not Roman numeral two. 

((Crosstalk))

Man 2:	Oh, it becomes number two, here. 

Man:	Right, and then that becomes number three and four, and
(unintelligible).

(Ken Fontanel):	My only question there - would you assign a safety
officer before you assigned an incident commander? Or - it's been my
experience that the incident commander assigns the safety officer.

Man 2:	Yes, I think it just (unintelligible) just causes it to occur. It
doesn't say when it has to occur.

Man:	Right. So another way that that could happen is number one, "I,"
"I," where it says ensure each emergency incident has an incident
commander, it should say (unintelligible) safety officer
(unintelligible). Right? And then they're both in the same
(unintelligible). They're both, you know, (unintelligible). 

Man:	That's good, too. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

(Ken Fontanel):	Some of the flack you'll probably get, and I've heard it
(unintelligible) (Ken), is that staffing doesn't allow for both position
(unintelligible) (IMS) rules say if you don't decide (unintelligible).

Man:	(Unintelligible) ensure and (unintelligible).

(Ken Fontanel):	So we (unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay.

(Ken Fontanel):	In both places, I mean, we have to (unintelligible) keep
(unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Unintelligible) command and observation (unintelligible).

(Ken Fontanel):	(Unintelligible).

Man 2:	So, question (unintelligible), (Lamont), (Bill Warren)
(unintelligible) for (Victor) and (Matt) and all that. If I understand,
you're saying correctly (unintelligible) we got a vehicle collision and
only one unit rolls out, four guys are in the apparatus. They peel out,
so the captain is the incident commander of that scene, and if I
understand you correctly, he's also the safety officer. So we would not
require two of them there, but based on this (unintelligible) of the
scene, just one truck or vehicle collision, you know, the captain and
his three guys -- we're talking captain or, like, (unintelligible)
commander, and the safety officer for that (unintelligible), correct?

(Ken Fontanel):	Generally accepted practice, yes, and on large, large
incidents, it would be an (ISO) for the incident, but it depends on how
much of a (unintelligible) you could have assistant or multiple safety
officer (unintelligible) sector, division, (unintelligible).

Man 2:	Okay. (Bill Hamilton), you had a thought, comment? No?

(Bill Hamilton):	No. 

Man:	I do, but (unintelligible).

(Ken Fontanel):	And we've got to spruce that up to say (unintelligible).

Man 2:	Okay. Listen, (Matt), I think the (unintelligible) point is that
if you want to ensure that the safety officer functions is addressed
(unintelligible) policy perspective. I think staff can work out the
regulatory language that would address our (unintelligible), but from a
policy perspective, we say -- we note that the safety officer functions
be addressed.

(Ken Fontanel):	Okay, and with that I think we're at a good point to
where we could take 15 minutes. It's 10:30. If we could reconvene at
10:45, that'd be great.

Woman:	Would it be helpful if we brought a couple fans in here? 

((Crosstalk))

Man 2:	Do you have any personal fans?

((Crosstalk))

(Ken Fontanel):	My only problem with it is that if it starts getting too
loud, I won't be able to get (unintelligible).

Man:	Yeah?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	It seems cooler in here (unintelligible) to me, but
(unintelligible).

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	So as long as I have a microphone and something useful to say, it
took a while, but we finally got room reservations for a September
meeting for your consideration that you block out your calendars. As a
followup, I'll send out an email with the dates and ask that people
(unintelligible) it. The only thing that we have available in September
and let me put (unintelligible), I don't know that it's going to be a
two-day or three-day meeting, four, five, whatever. I don't know.
(Matt)'s looking at me. He wants to kill me, but we blocked out three
days in each of these two weeks, and it's just for either a two-day or a
three-day meeting.

	Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, September 6, 7, and 8, and then
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, September 20, 21, and 22. So you can
pencil those on your calendars. I'll send an email and check people's
preferences.

	Yes, sir?

Man:	Just to let you know, (unintelligible) September in North Carolina,
so I need to get the dates of when that occurs. 

Man:	Oh, okay. All right. Okay.

Man:	If they want to come down, (unintelligible). Hey, there's a letter
up there that tells all about this (unintelligible).

Man:	I know.

Man:	(Unintelligible) somewhere around the 28th, so (unintelligible).

Man:	Oh, yes, right. (Unintelligible) about two weeks.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Somewhere in that neighborhood. So (unintelligible). 

Man:	So we're hearing several conflicts in September, including…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Could you repeat those dates (unintelligible)?

Man:	September 6, 7, and 8, September 20, 21, 22.

(Spencer Strangler):	Okay, so it's just the sixth (unintelligible) west
coasters have to travel on Labor Day. (Unintelligible)?

Man:	Yes, and those are the dates I got. 

Man:	Okay.

Man:	My offices and (unintelligible) told everybody. Yes. We can meet in
the cafeteria. Or a bar.

Woman:	If we could have a meal like yesterday's, that'd be great.

Woman:	Yes.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Woman:	(Unintelligible) legal, formal (unintelligible).

Man:	Yes, we could help (unintelligible). 

Man:	(Unintelligible)

Man:	Yes, we can't. It's a public meeting, so it's got be in a public
location. 

Man:	So what if we - (Spencer) brought up Labor Day. I think Labor Day's
the fifth? Is that correct? So, if we add a half-day meeting on the
sixth, we could travel in the morning and get here in the afternoon, and
have a three-day. 

Man:	Either way.

Man:	Hey, well, here's an idea. We can go - Wednesday, the seventh and
eighth, and that September 21.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes, I'm saying that the (unintelligible) in fact, truthfully, we
were hoping that Labor Day week wouldn't even be an option, but
obviously everything else is not an option.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Although I can look at it. If I have to send somebody off to
(Unintelligible), I will. I just won't let you know that the group is
meeting I think (unintelligible). 

Man:	Well, so I'll send these out, and we'll try and figure out - I
guess if it's only a two-day meeting, two days - I don't know. We'll
figure it out. 

Man:	(Unintelligible) the seventh and eighth if it's just the seventh
and eighth?

Man:	I can.

Man:	I can.

Man:	Yes.

Woman:	Yes.

Man:	Yes. Yes, sir.

Man:	That would actually work well for me. 

Man:	And maybe I get to say that maybe (unintelligible) do is just plan
on two longer days, and we'll just get done when we can get done.

Man:	This is going to be our last meeting, right?

Man:	This will be the last meeting, yes.

Man:	And is there a reason we can't go into Friday? So they issue
rooms…

Man:	Oh, I didn't ask for Friday.

Man:	You didn't ask for Friday?

Man:	No. 

Man:	No. There's no reason so far. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	What if we did a half-day meeting on Friday and just make that our
writing of our proposal to (Unintelligible)? Does anybody have a problem
with that?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	After we're done with this, we can just walk right over to the
meeting. People are right on this floor, and we can see if we can do
that Friday, too.

Man:	Okay. Does that sound reasonable?

Man:	So it'll be a Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. I mean, I know it's a
(unintelligible) point, and there's a whole lot of work gone into it
(unintelligible). September is - I mean, that's definite. We're not
going to have any more after that. I'm not going to (unintelligible).

Man:	We really need to try and wrap it up because here's basically the
issue. We need to have something done sometime in September or October.
We've got budget for one more meeting, and then NACOSH is meeting in
December, I think the second week in December. So we need to get them
something early enough that they have time to consider it, discuss it at
their meeting in December, and make a recommendation to the assistant
secretary. Really, it needs to happen at that December meeting because
our assistant secretary is leaving certainly no later than January 19,
and we'd like a policy decision that has been based on the
recommendation.

Man:	All right.

Man:	Okay. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). You just holding the door? 

Man:	(Unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	This better be free.

Man:	I told him we were ready for (unintelligible).

Man:	We're doing the (unintelligible). 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Can you…

Man:	I guess so. So we're going to have the (unintelligible) or are we
going to (unintelligible)?

Man:	Yes, so let's keep going with our conversation. When the
(unintelligible) get in, we can switch the discussion up a little bit. 

Man:	Before we start, I just wanted to say thanks for the robust
discussion on merging those two sections, and I really feel good about
it. So I just wanted to say thanks.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	Good job.

Man:	Okay, so we - I'm not sure where we left off. I guess we're at
number two on page 27? Incident commander? I don't recall hearing
anything that anyone had more than that. If you would, (Victor)?

(Victor):	Yes. (Unintelligible) (Victor) still on number two. I think
it's still number two, Roman numeral three. The incident commander
conducts an adequate size-up of the incident scene, and I just want to
throw this out as mostly for the fire folks. The improper risk
assessment is either in the top five or maybe the top causal factor of
firefighter deaths. 

Woman:	(Unintelligible) yesterday.

(Victor):	So should we review that and maybe put something a little bit
more substantial than conducts an adequate size-up? Just add some
discussion? I think doing 360s is one of the common issues that come up
in the NIOSH reports, so I just think that at least we should pause and
give that a little more consideration. 

Man:	(Unintelligible).

(Kirk):	This is (Kirk). I agree with that, whether we tack on some
examples or how we do that I'm not sure, but I absolutely agree. 

Man:	Anyone else have thoughts about it?

Man:	I know we mentioned it early. Is the document someplace or other?
About a risk benefit (unintelligible) worth mentioning here because that
is critical that a risk benefit analysis be performed before actively
engaging.

(Matt Tibia):	This is (Matt). If I could, I'd just offer some amended
language where it would say that the incident commander conducts a
comprehensive and ongoing size-up that places responder safety as the
highest priority. I say that because size-up is not a one-time event.
It's an ongoing event. It's expected to be an ongoing event, and that it
points to the importance of responder safety as the highest priority. 

Man:	Can I make a comment? On the term "size-up," is that a common term?
You know, "evaluate" seems to be a more common term. 

(Matt Tibia):	You could certainly say it's an adequate assessment of the
incident scene. That would certainly address the same thing. "Size-up"
is a term that is common within the emergency-services world. It would
not be a foreign term to the (ESO) community at all.

Man:	Would you say that would be for all emergency-service
organizations? It's not something I've heard before.

(Matt Tibia):	It's going to be egocentric of me to say that, but
functionally, my answer's going to be yes, but intuitively, even in the
EMS community alone, the (DOT) curriculum talks about scene safety,
scene size-up. It is a term that is commonly understood.

Man:	(Unintelligible). So (unintelligible).

Man:	So do you think it would be advisable, then, (Matt), do include the
term "size-up" into our definitions, or are we getting too far into the
definitions, (Andy)?

Man:	(Unintelligible).

(Andy):	So, this is (Andy). I don't know that we need a definition of
"size-up," but we could add one, and that might be a place that if you
were looking for, you know, the size-up shall include designing,
construction of the building, weather, you can talk about all the
different factors that go into - size-up could be included in the
definition so it's imbedded there, and that might be one way to get a
little bit of what both of you were looking for. 

Man:	Okay. This is great. I like that, (Andy), because I think that'd
get somebody from not in our world a better perspective of what we're
looking for with that definition.

Man:	Yes. (Bill) I (unintelligible) words (unintelligible) in there
(unintelligible). That might address the concern of do you think that
putting the definition - and certainly it gives the opportunity to
identify what the components of it are. 

(Andy):	My general preference is I would stick with size-up because I
think that's the (unintelligible) everybody uses, and the fire services
(unintelligible) outside (unintelligible) knows that's what we're
talking about. If you say "assessment," now you've confused them.

Man:	Yes. I (unintelligible).

(Andy):	Then we'll include the definition for the
non-fire-(unintelligible).

Man:	Yes, those (unintelligible).

Man:	Okay, great. 

Man:	Now, (Matt), you had mentioned - you had offered some language that
referenced safety. 

(Matt Tibia):	Yes, sir. What I was recommending was instead of just
saying "adequate," I would say "conducts a comprehensive and ongoing
size-up that places responder safety as the highest priority."

Man:	Okay. Any thoughts about that proposed language?

Man:	(Unintelligible), this is (Unintelligible). I don't have any
problems with that. I just don’t - do we eliminate the occupants at
all? Besides that, it's not only for our safety but we are trying to.
You know our actions are going to either call us or, you know, rescue or
to not rescue - or I mean I'm just…

(Rick Ingram):	We could totally say, you know, (unintelligible) and
responder safety is the highest priority. I always say I think if the -
I was just trying to get to the idea.

(Ken Fontanel):	Now I know what you're trying to say.

((Crosstalk))

(Bill):	So, I have a question. Yesterday I think we mentioned - actually
(Mattie) when he came in, mentioned whether or not you respond or not.
Then, just thinking back about the city of (West) again, should we have,
as part of that size-up conversation should there be something about the
town of (Wither) or not to take action Or do we…? 

(Rick Ingram):	Sometimes you are just going to stand back and let it
burn.

(Victor):	(Rick), that is the risk analysis I was moving to. I feel very
strongly about that. You do an (RBA) and if something happened in the
middle of the desert you let it go. You don't even take any offensive
action. In a situation like (West), the only risk would be to remove the
civilians away from it. There is no benefit to attacking this plant. I
really feel strongly at some point (Randy) here should put risk benefit
analysis before we engage. 

(Bill):	I would like to, kind of, address what you are saying. If you
look at it, 

(Rick Ingram):	We are to determine whether to engage, or…

(Bill):	(Unintelligible) in the case of (West) it was, could have been
the type of - depends on the decision to evacuate the area.
(Unintelligible) It is the only way we do have to make that call. A lot
of times (Rick), it is just based on the amount of fire that you are
seeing, the amount of the equipment that you have. The type of
instructions that you are sending… 

(Rick Ingram):	or the chemicals… 

(Bill):	…chemicals, you make that decision. You are putting them in
there, just a risk, what we call just to risk.

(Rick Ingram):	So would it be worth stating that very clearly in
language terms here somehow?

(Bill):	I believe so. You know, (Herb Kinney) has a statement that we've
all heard correctly we risk a lot to save a lot. Took gaskets and
modified it a little bit, I hope he doesn't mind. I put in risk a life,
save a life. So, when life issue goes away then it puts a whole night -
new dynamic on the incident. It's just an incident at that point, and
all you want to do is keep your responders safe. So, it is really
important that we address - like it says in here, like safety first and
incident stabilization and property. Somewhere in there we should
probably incorporate all of these, offensive, defensive, aggressive,
whatever kind of - a manager needs to make a good decision based on what
he is going to get for what he is going to do. And you are right, if you
don't have the resources it can be a tough decision. Two guys in the
pack pull up and you have a house burning and people hanging out in
there, is that a go or no go? For a lot of people it's a go. 

(Rick Ingram):	I have seen mistakes made, even in the drills. When we
run drills, whether to go in - you know if you have somebody in a
terrible situation you know, our human nature wants us to go in and save
them, but that is why we have the domino effect in confined space
rescue. We have 2-3 people die when you know, one is bad enough. 

(Ken Fontanel):	Just a note, (unintelligible) the fire in Boston two
years ago, and that was exactly it. We lost two of my buddies but we
actually had - the commander actually had to stop firefighting. If he
didn't we would have probably lost eleven firefighters. 

(Rick Ingram):	So, in consideration of (Ken's) recommendation is there
any language and location where this language could be placed? 

(Ken Fontanel):	It is good to get a (unintelligible) somewhere because
we're talking about size up and quarter of the size up. So it could be
an extension of it or another subset of it somewhere. The rest of these
I am pretty okay with. 

(Rick Ingram):	I guess if I were to write it I would put it as five,
roman numeral V, and ensure that (unintelligible) analysis is conducted
based on the size of it. Proactively engaging the incident. Something to
that effect. 

(Ken Fontanel):	Okay, any thoughts about that?

(Kathy):	There might be an "A" underneath (unintelligible).

(Rick Ingram):	I would be okay with an "A", a subset of it
(unintelligible) make it a capital A, under IV. 

(Ken Fontanel):	(Randy) I would offer - can we do one of those - maybe
included but not limited to - and maybe put a couple of the things we're
talking about size of there and then it is referred back in the
definition as well. I don't have the page. Keep it in that one sentence?
Keep it in. Okay. (Ken), that recommended language again was ensured
that a risk benefit analysis is conducted?

(Ken)	Based on the size of (unintelligible) before actively engaging the
instrument and that is just a second little stop point for command so if
they A: we say you need to do the size up. B, once you figure out what
you have then you could, the outcome of what you are going to do before
you do it. (Unintelligible). 

Man:	Okay, any other thoughts or comments about (Ken's) recommendation?

(Rick Ingram):	Well, I like the recommendations and I would like for us
to consider to go one step further, like (Brady) mentioned and have some
examples about - and maybe use (Pat)'s suggestion about offense or
defense or engage or stand back. You know, I don't know what terminology
would be correct there, but whether to engage or not, I think that's
critical for this document. I think that would be a really good
addition. 

(Ken Fontanel):	(Bill), were you able to…

(Bill):	I jotted down some notes from (Bill) - from (Ken's)
recommendation. 

(Ken)	Okay in short, if I can read my writing. We have, like - I will
give you a good example. I live in San Antonio, Texas area and we have
high water rescue operations all the time; almost monthly there. Sadly,
someone gets killed. There are times when they really should not have
gone in to try, you know, but we have to fight human nature again. 

(Bill):	If I wrote this down properly, ensure that a risk benefit
analysis is conducted based on the size-up before actively engaging the
incident. Does that capture it properly, (Ken)?

(Ken Fontanel):	Yes, sir. 

(Rick Ingram):	(Ken) is this the first time they used the root benefit
analysis in the document? How can we identify with that?

(Ken Fontanel):	Yes. In evaluations this method is defined and it does
say the same thing. Basically - what it says is it exactly safe and does
it work with what you are going to do? (Unintelligible) stop before the
building is coming down. If there is nothing you can do better is to get
more people hurt.

((Crosstalk))

(Bill):	You get an entire strip of gold stars for writing that.

((Crosstalk))

(Ken Fontanel):	So we're good on this language? We good? Okay. (Brady)
had suggested examples, or does this capture what you wanted?

(Bill):	For me it does. But I'm wondering if need to put some examples
like (Rick) was (unintelligible)…

(Rick Ingram):	Just for laymen. Just a suggestion. 

M3:	I prefer (unintelligible).

(Ken Fontanel):	Okay. Any general preference? 

(Rick Ingram):	General preference would be to not -- I think that this
probably stands on its own. There is a whole bunch of literature and
guide material on how to do size up and how to do risk benefit analysis
and we don't need to recreate that. That is probably like a guidance
document and some discussion in the preamble. But I don't want to turn
this into, you know, the encyclopedia Britannia back when there used to
be one. 

(Ken Fontanel):	Okay. (Kathy)?

(Kathy):	Thank you. I would like to remind the co-chair that we didn't
hear the cat story this morning. That being said, this discussion just
makes me think about some of the safety initiatives that I have been
involved in over the last couple of years and I commend anybody that
serves as an incident commander because I just think that that is
something that is a very complex job that a lot of people don't
understand. But we put in a lot of this information and I think one of
the things that we have overlooked is what if the incident commander is
not making proper decisions? Is there a way for a skilled support worker
or somebody else that's on scene to be able to have some sort of input
as to whether or not a decision is appropriate? I am not encouraging
people to stand down and all that sort of thing, but - you know - some
of the risk management things like the aviation industry does is the two
challenge rule. If - you know - you challenge it once and the pilot
command decides not to pursue that particular avenue you would challenge
a second time. Then, after that point another party gets involved. So,
is it appropriate in this sort of discussion to have a means for a
worker who feels that their safety is being compromised - to just
challenge or better understand the environment that they are being put
in, and if you think I am crazy I am not going to stand down. I just
wondered.

(Bill):		   (Unintelligible). 

(Ken Fontanel):	There is presence Ms. (Kathy) that would stand by a
lawsuit and say - and I forget the scoop in this area and term. It was
White Westinghouse - versus. Westinghouse and White was placed into
these compromising positions and refused to perform the task and he was
let go of his job and he sued. There is precedence there. So, it is a
very fine line between insubordination and lack of designation. 

(Rick Ingram):	Is there a formal process that I am not really aware of?
Unless you just walk up and smack IC upside the head and put him
unconscious, if you attempted or needed to?

(Ken Fontanel):	Part of the function of safety is to bring that up. The
backbone around that is, if safety comes up to you and says this is bad,
as commander you accept that or go on. His command has to work whichever
way he goes. So, unfortunately in our world it's set up
(unintelligible).

((Crosstalk)) 

(Kathy):	You know, I surely can appreciate what you say about that. I am
just thinking in a trauma resuscitation, if a resident physician is
making a decision that may not be in the interest of the patient - you
know - in any hospital I know there is a procedure for challenging that.
Like I said, I don't want to create controversy or insubordination or
any of those sorts of things. I am just wondering what kind of avenue
does the front line person have when they think that the decisions are
not being made in their best interest? In the interest occupational
safety, shouldn't we be having that conversation? 

(Victor):	This is (Victor). I think you bring up a great point. Within
the 16 Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives there is an initiative that
focuses on the ability for personnel to advise of an unsafe act and stop
unsafe acts. I wonder if that would fit in the management component or
the planning component and, you know, maybe mentioned in the operational
side of it. I think you bring up a great point, that perhaps management
needs to consider some sort of means by which it can accept that kind of
conversation to happen on an incident.

(Kathy):	Well, I would be happy to suggest an action item that your
subgroup could take a look at. What you are saying is exactly I guess
the point that I am trying to make, and if it belongs in another place I
am good with that. I don't want us to ignore it if there is something
that we can offer to improve worker safety. 

(Ken Fontanel):	Let me suggest this, perhaps there is way. Maybe in the
incident management system section there is a provision that says the
incident management system shall have a procedure for people to raise
concerns about life safety issues You know, so it is not a clear
affirmative statement one way or the other about who has the right,
authority, or whatever, but each jurisdiction as they are setting out
their idea, has to figure out how to do that. 

(Kathy):	I think that would be acceptable. 

(Ken Fontanel):	And (Victor) this is an action item that your group will
take on?

(Victor):	Sure, yes. But it will fit into not necessarily Section E or
K, but it would fit into L, I think. Incident Management System.
Correct? Is that right?

(Ken Fontanel):	I think ultimately the right place to put it is so that
that conversation is embedded in the idea policies and procedures. So
that it is thought out in advance of an actual incident. 

(Victor):	Yes, and I might even try to propose something by the end of
the day, if I can. 

(Ken Fontanel):	All right, okay. Thank you for your input (Kathy) and
with (Spencer) and then we'll need to get with our comments here. 

Man:	This is (Spencer). I just wanted to mention to you (Kathy) that
(Kurt Ratten) does address skilled support worker participation and the
evaluation of any incident, page 38. I think what you are talking about
is in the heat of the moment at the situation where you are being asked
to do something that you think is unsafe. There is some provision for
feedback after action in paragraph ten. 

(Ken Fontanel):	Thank you, (Spencer). With that, (Gabby) and (Cherron),
can you ladies come to the table and join the corner over here. We will
give you a little bit of introduction to the topic. We talked about this
a little bit the other day. So, there are two things that happen during
the rule making process, one of them is the consideration of economic
feasibility. Which means can people put forward to do what is in the
standard? There is also other technological feasibility, can people
literally accomplish this or is there is a technological reason why they
couldn’t or would it be impossible to actually do. 

	As we are considering economic feasibility, that also leads into
another discussion which is that small business or small entity process
where we will work with the Small Business Administration Office of
Advocacy. That was (Bruce Lundgren) who was here on the first day of the
meeting. We will also work with the White House Office of Management and
Budget, and the 38 OSHA OMB and XBA) work together to put together a
process where we go out to small businesses and small entities; so small
volunteer fire departments, small career departments, industrial fire
brigades that meet the definition of small - that's a whole other
discussion - and we say here is the draft regulatory (tax). So, let's
say for the sake of arguing that OSHA adopts the language that you all
have worked on here. 

	Then we have to present the small entities with regulatory
alternatives, which means what are some ways that we can change the
scope of either who is covered or who is not, or how they accomplish the
mission to make it easier for small businesses and small government and
small organizations to comply with the standard? So, we talked about
should we change the scope? You know, that is kind of one issue. Should
we give alternate provisions and say medical exams can be different for
small entities because they can't afford an NFPA 1582 medical. So, we
will present a whole bunch of those different options.

	The people who are going to sit on that panel are going to be your
members. We are going to come back to you and say, give us names of
small volunteer fire departments from around the country or small career
departments from around the country or industrial fire brigades, and
that's who is actually going to sit on this. So, it's your people, your
individual members, will work with us. As part of that conversation, I
wanted to bring Cherron and (Gabby) here to talk a little bit about
small and what is the size breakdown and some of the data that they have
got, so that we can start this discussion. Ladies, why don't you take it
away.

(Kathy):	Excuse me, can you first bring the microphone right in front of
you? And when each of you speak would you please spell your name for the
transcript? Thank you.

((Crosstalk))

Cherron Cox:	Good morning. My name is Cherron Cox, C-H-E-R-R-O-N, last
name C-O-X and I work for the Office of Regulatory Analysis. 

Gabriela Arcos:	My name is Gabriela G-A-B-R-I-E-L-A Arcos A-R-C-O-S and
I work with Cherron Cox in the Office of Regulatory Analysis. 

Cherron Cox:	So, as (Andy) was explaining, our job would be to determine
who has covered the scope, of course, and the number of departments or
establishments that will be affected by the regulation. So, the two
sources that (Gabby) and I have been looking at to help you to help us
to decide what is considered small. The two sources were the (NIPA Fire
Service Survey) and the other one was the census data from the US Fire
Administration. So, we chose to approach this, again for help in
determining what is considered small. The first one you see is the - the
first table above is number of fire departments based on population
served. Hopefully you all can see this. 

	As you can see, the total number of fire departments that was reported
in 2014 was approximately 29,180, this figure here. The majority or
nearly 50 percent of those fire departments are based in populations
under 2,500 people. Now, the majority of those fire departments that
serve that population are 93 percent of them are all volunteer. In
population sizes of 25,000 and above there are fewer fire departments,
however the majority of those populations are served by career
departments, mostly career departments which means at least 50 percent
or more of the department is career firefighters. So, 25,000 and above
are mostly serviced by career firefighters. Okay, yes?

((Crosstalk))

(Bill Warren):	I see. This is (Bill Warren). I see where you have the
number protected. Did we get the number of firefighters in each of those
areas? Like for example, how many firefighters are under the 2,500 and
below, and how many firefighters are in the 100,000-249,000? Do you have
that information?

Cherron Cox:	Yes. That is in the next chart below. 

Gabriela Arcos:	That is the number of firefighters.

Man:	Yes, because I think with this one it is a little misleading for me
as I look at it, because it looks like if we choose, for example (Andy)
25,000 less would be exempted. Then you know the issue of the 16, I am
sure the 16 and the 41 for the 500 or anything over 100,000 would have a
vast majority of the actual number of firefighters involved. 

((Crosstalk))

Cherron Cox:	The next chart below I am giving the actual numbers.

((Crosstalk)):

Cherron Cox:	Oh yes, it is a handout. I'm sorry. 

(Ken Fontanel):	Is the first (unintelligible) in the handout?

Cherron Cox:	Yes. It would be item (15, page 4). 

(Ken Fontanel):	Okay. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	…where Cherron …

(Ken Fontanel):	I see you highlighted 25,000. Is that the break over
point from mostly volunteers to the majority of careers?

Cherron Cox:	That is where, yes. Where you come into at least like 60
percent of those are covered by career and then the 40 percent is
volunteer. So, below that number you get mostly volunteer, if not all
volunteer. 

(Ken Fontanel):	Okay. 

Cherron Cox:	So this next table which I believe is, I think this is
probably Table 1. Similar to table 1, we did add a few more things in
your document. The second table again is the actual number of career and
volunteer firefighters, based on population served. So, in the first
column here you have the population size. The second column here is the
number of fire departments that serve those populations. The third and
fourth columns here are the actual number of career and volunteer
firefighters that serve the communities. Okay, so again you can see that
in populations that serve under 2,500 people even though the majority of
firefighters are volunteer, more than half of those volunteer
firefighters are serving in those areas where the population size is
under 2,500. So, again, you have a total of 788,000 volunteer
firefighters, but 379,000 of them work in areas with population sizes of
under 2,500. 

	The same thing here in the higher population sizes. Even though there
are fewer career firefighters, the majority of them - more than half of
the career firefighters - are serving in those population sizes, the
large population sizes that are above 25,000 or more. 

	Of course, in the lower population sizes again you can see here you
have more of the volunteer firefighters that are serving those areas as
well. 

(Mac):	(Andy), if I could - just a note because I'm going to forget,
(unintelligible) this is (Mac). One thing and I don’t know if this is
a concept to be looked at yet, but that we may want to look at it is,
how many firefighters will be impacted in OSHA states? So, in other
words what's the breakdown across OSHA and non OSHA states, right?

	And we will do that, and that is a more complicated analysis because
each of the state planned states has different definitions of volunteer,
you know for whose covered and so we'll have to go state by state and
figure out. But yes, that's absolutely would be in our analysis. 

Woman 1:	Yes, just like you said that was our plan. We just wanted to
give you all just a general idea of what the data is looking like and
then if you can, you know, help us to decide again what's - what you all
recommend as small then we'll start to pick it apart, going by the
state-by-state plans and things of that nature.

Man 1:	Yeah, I agree with the one. I agree with Matt on that and also
Andy, would we include the territories too? The territories are also
covering the OSHA app. Yeah. 

Woman 1:	You want to take this one?

Woman 2:	So, the previous two tables are based off the report from NFPA.
From their surveys, this table here is actually from the U.S. Fire
Administration. This is the quick count so it's, you know, just
preliminary estimates that we did this morning. We wanted to look at the
distribution of departments, fire department sizes. So we've gone ahead
and classified them between under 10, 10-19 et cetera, all the way down
to over 600. It was unclear if the data that we were using was strictly
stations or departments so I think the larger numbers are a reflection
of department sizes. Just so you can see, I mean there is, on the
volunteer side, the distribution of number of small stations. It's
heavier. There's more representation of volunteer only or mostly
volunteer stations for the smaller station sizes. That was kind of like
the takeaway that we got from here. We would probably want to evaluate
the data source a little bit more closely so we could clearly define
stations versus departments.

Woman 1:	Okay now the last - the reason why we included this last table
here was this one was strictly based on the conversation about medical
requirements and from the meeting in May, there was conversation about
what medical requirements should be considered based on age and how
often it should be considered based on age. What we did was we looked at
the data from the NFPA fire survey which gave us a break out of the
number of firefighters by age and of course based on the population
again that they serve. Again in the higher populations, the percentage
of firefighters, there was a larger percent of firefighters that were in
the category, basically both in the same category, of ages 30 - pretty
much 30 to 49 were the majority of the firefighters in the bigger
populations. Again, that's, you know, you can, we put that there for it
to maybe help you decide as to you know like how should you service that
population I guess. I mean that population of firefighters based on age
and the medical requirements for that particular group of people.

	Then of course, for firefighters under the age of 30, we found those to
be mostly volunteer firefighters in those populations or in those areas
that serve populations from pretty much 10,000 to under 2,500. Those are
the highlighted areas there. Again ages 30-49 you'll find those in the
larger populations and 10,000. I mean under the age of 30 you'll find
those mostly in populations, the smaller population sizes.

(Andy):	Does that include the wildlife firefighters, (unintelligible)
and things like that or is that just the structural firefighters
volunteer? 

Woman 1:	That wasn’t' clear. That breakout wasn’t given in this from
this particular census data but that is definitely something that we can
take into consideration as well. Again as we get some more clarity as to
again the size, you know, when we get more direction from you all as to
what you're considering small departments and who should be considered
then we're going to do those detailed breakouts based on services, based
on state planned states and the things that you mentioned. 

Man 1:	Well, to add a further wrinkle, I believe one of the
complications is when you look at for example BLS, Bureau Labor
Statistics, data. Many of those wildland firefighters are actually
classified as temporary workers. They are seasonal workers. So if you
were only looking at full time employment, you know those people don’t
show up and so we're going to have to - and many of those folks are
working ten months out of the year as seasonal workers and then take a
two-month vacation - so, it is their full time job. You know, but we've
got to go back and figure out with all of our data sources because there
are a lot of federal ,you know, folks who would be covered who fall into
that unusual circumstance.

(Andy):	Just as part of the (unintelligible).

Man:	Good work in protecting rural communities?

Woman:	Any other questions? 

(Kathy Robinson):	(Kathy Robinson). I don’t really have a question but
I offer to provide you in 2011 the department of transportation did an
assessment of BMS in the nation and 50% of the entire population of the
states participated in the survey and there's a lot of information in
there about fire based EMS as well as non-fire based EMS and hospital
based EMS and rural, tribal, those sorts of things that might assist you
in that regard. 

Woman:	Thank you.

Man 1:	(Kathy), if you could get us a link to that report or…

(Kathy):	I actually think I sent it to (Bill) but I just can't imagine
but I absolutely will.

Man:	Okay. So, if there are no other questions for the ladies, let me
suggest now's a good time to talk about where do you think we're headed
in terms of feasibility? How small? Are there some people who should not
be covered by the standard because it's simply economically infeasible?
They can't afford to. Then are there perhaps another group of people who
are small and should be doing most of this but might need exemptions or
alternate methods of compliance? For example, we talked about this doing
a different medical exam instead of 15, maybe 2 medical. Does any of
this data, in your experience, suggest something that you think the
committee might want to recommend to (NATASH) and to OSHA.

Women:	We should probably give them the definition of what we consider
economic infeasibility to be. 

Man 1:	I'm not sure how we would look at economic feasibility in the
case of volunteer fire departments. 

Women:	Oh.

Man 1:	Because budgets and other sorts.

Woman:	Well, basically economic infeasibility is looking at industries
as a whole not so much the individual. It looks like the issue with this
will result in massive dislocation, undue constriction of an entire
industry, something like that. So, it's an overall thing not well this
class, this individual company. 

(Andy):	 Right, okay I didn’t know that’s where you were headed with
your point. We've already had some discussions. We don’t want to put a
single volunteer fire department out of business. So as we draw lines
for things, because there are extraordinary public safety implications
in this particular regulatory scenario that don’t exist for any of our
other regulatory scenarios, and so we want to make sure that where we
draw lines that every department that’s going to be covered, career or
volunteer, is going to be capable of doing that because putting people
out of business is not something that we are interested in at all. 

(Ken Bockmill):	This is (Ken Bockmill) with National Volunteer Fire
Council. I want to preface my comments first of all, I want to
acknowledge (Andy) and OSHA's steadfast position that they would not or
do not want to hamper operations in small communities. Close the
emergency services in those operations which even though it is not maybe
as good as it could be, it is the best is for those communities and
those things are being taken - considered in this discussion. 

	

	We work real hard in the council trying to arrive at a position and
based on discussions as late as 1 this morning and 6 this morning. The
other part of the NFPA study that’s not reflected here is actually a
needs assessment. It identifies a lot of the same things here that in
populations served 2500 and less where the greatest needs and gap in
service, gap in resources and needs in the country in volunteer service
or in the fire service whether it be small, career, or totally
volunteer. There were examples given such as husband and wife in the
same fire department respond to a call. Husband wears the gear, he gets
tired and he passes his gear on because there's not enough gear to go
around. Lack of standard compliant gear, lack of resources to maybe
accomplish a lot so the line that we kind of looked at was around 2500,
is perhaps the line saying that that’s exclusionary. The document
might not apply to it. If the rest of the group wants to look at maybe
some carve outs in the higher populations that may be more flexibility
in the medicals up to a certain point, we certainly would support that.
That's kind of what we came up with to present to the group this morning
for discussion. 

(Matt Tibia):	This is (Matt) (unintelligible) from the IRC. I think that
there are some zero cost components envisioned in this standard. For
example, a vulnerability assessment, an application of an incident
management system. I think that there are - there are definitely some
components that have substantial economic impact. I don’t - I don’t
- I can't envision a circumstance where we would ever value the life of
a volunteer firefighter less than a career firefighter and I don’t
think anybody in this room would ever say that. I also understand and
recognize that in many places, were it not for those 367,950 volunteers,
there would be no protection whatsoever. I would offer that we would
look at the standard and identify those components that have zero-dollar
cost. Those would apply to everybody and that a waiver be granted for
small, under 2500 departments for components that do have an economic
cost

.

(Bill Warden):	And it's (Bill Warden). I guess my bigger concern is I'm
not so sure 2500 is the magic number. I was looking more at the 5000 to
99, you know, 9900 where you see a real differential between the number
of volunteers and all. That’s the communities I think they are highly
serviced by some of these and if we could have something that would, you
know, not only either exempted them for some of it but have alternatives
that were more cost efficient because the - I concur with you
completely, (Andy) that we don’t want to put any of them out of
business because of the public safety issue that we'll find elsewhere. 

	The valent work that our fire departments emergency management folks do
which is critical to our society so I'm looking more at a little bit
higher number but I don’t know exactly where that should be. Should it
be even 25,000? I don’t know yet but I agree with (Matt) that there
are components in there that I think are even covered under each of the
states. Even to have a volunteer fire department, those folks still
receive training and so it's those kind of things as long as we are
covered elsewhere I think we should be okay.

(Matt Tibia):	This is probably a good time to mention, you know, one of
the things that we're also thinking about is typically when OSHA does a
rule making escape plans are - let me rephrase that. When OSHA
federation does rule making, the state plans are required to do their
own rule making. Most of the time, most of the states just simply adopt
what fed OSHA has done. But there are opportunities where, you know, we
could say that we will look for favorably upon states that do their own
rule making and do their own feasibility assessment for what is too
small in their state and how they adjust coverage in their state. 

	How do people feel about that particularly, you know, again in the
small volunteer communities because I would imagine, you know, a small
volunteer community of 5000 or 7000 people in Arizona could be a several
hundred square mile county and in New York that could be, you know, a
small town that’s maybe 10 or 20 square miles. So, even based on
population size, there's pretty substantial variability in the
characteristics. How does that strike everybody?

(Bill Ward):	(Bill Ward) again. I concur with that I think because as
you start to take a look at some parts of the southwest -- I'm thinking
of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah even parts of California, Oregon, and
Washington up into Wyoming, which is also a state planned state -- you
know the populations are centered usually in two or three places in that
whole state and then the small volunteer fire departments have a
distance to go. What I've seen in places like Nebraska and Iowa is that
there's a lot of townships close by so they can actually join together
but It'd be difficult in the Southwest just simply because of the
distance between communities. You know the response time will go to 45
minutes to an hour in some cases.

	So that would be a concern. So I think we really got to figure out what
is that level and I liked your idea to allow the states to determine
what makes the best sense for them. 

(Ken Bockmill):	I'd like to chime in on comments that (Matt) made and
(Matt) that was actually one of my concerns in the discussions last
night and this morning with the executive committee. I believe there are
certain things that a community fire department regardless of size
should do. A risk analysis would be one just to keep you out of trouble
like West Texas. 

	That would be my prime concern. That one I can sign off very easily.
There is some pushback on that because they say we're adding another
burden and in reality it's just bringing forth a burden that was already
there that just wasn’t being - isn’t being done in many cases. I
don’t have any issue with that whatsoever. I think it's basically a no
cost. There's resources available and I believe for the well-being of
those smaller departments, it's something that should be done. A good
risk analysis just places you don’t go, don’t show, don’t do
anything. I'm fine with that. I didn’t know if the committee would
consider maybe piecemeal ing some of things so I've no issue with
looking at that either.

Man:	Let me ask another question. Other than medicals, are there any
other sanctions where there's an alternate method of compliance that you
think is cheaper and easier that should be available for, you know,
let's say for the sake of argument, we drew the line at 2500, you know,
or at 5000 and said "these people, you know small volunteer departments
are not covered if they’re in communities you know that small". Now
between 5000 and 25,000 or 5000 and 50,000, those volunteer communities
are given some additional flexibility. 

	Besides medicals is there anything else that you think there should be
some alternates?

(Bill Ward):	I think in some of the, like some of the equipment needs as
my friend (Ken) just pointed out, there's sometimes at some of these
smaller fire departments and volunteer fire departments don’t have
enough equipment. A lot of times they get hand-me-down equipment from
some of the larger municipalities that’s reached the age of their
replacement. So, it gets transitioned down to some of these volunteer
fire departments that don’t have anything.

	So, the question is, do we allow in a sense to use hand-me-down stuff
when if they didn’t get it, they wouldn’t get anything. They
wouldn’t have the funding to afford the (unintelligible) and helmets
and the things like that so just as long as we understand that as the
smaller we get and the higher range of volunteers, the more financially
constrained most of those agencies become. So if we can make sure that
we don’t do anything to hamper what the efforts that they want to do
within that local community. 

Man:	Right and I understand and am sympathetic to the concept but what
we need are, instead of a 1582 medical, we will allow a questionnaire,
you know, or any type of personal statement from a doctor or instead of
training, you know, NFPA 1001 is no longer required we will allow X
instead. So that’s the type of …

Man:	Comparable.

Man:	Right, but something specific where we say this provision with not
apply at all or this provision will not apply but in the alternative,
you can do, you know, X. 

(Ken Bockmill):	This is (Ken). The equipment part was the one I was
going to bring up because I go back to my days as a fire chief of three
or four years, we never tested SCBAs. It wasn’t financially feasible
When we got a few dollars in front of us, we would test every other year
which doesn’t meet the intent of this, but it was the best we could
do. It's just real unfortunate that there's a lot of places that they
can't afford to have SCBA's tested. 

	So, testing of equipment, maintenance of equipment, those are some cost
items that may or may not be captured in what we try to do and the
tiered approach to medicals, like I said, we just came up with it like
last night again we worked at the fire council. We were going to take
the position that we will offer as resources four levels of medicals so
that departments will have something. It starts off as the lowest level
like I've mentioned that have wellness physical with the questionnaire.
Move up a step to DOT. Then AHJ compliant. Then 1582 based on resources
available. Those are some things we've identified. We've been working
part time to figure out what they were. Now we're beginning to get a
handle on it and we're seeing some light.

Man:	(Ken), it would be really helpful if you could provide us, for
example, those four tiers and any words that you've written around them
because that's the type of thing that you know if this committee
recommended that OSHA consider that for regulatory alternatives moving
forward, makes it easier for us to put into, you know, that small
business, small entity process.

(Ken Bockmill):	Be happy to. The third tier I'll mention is age dated.
What we're looking at and working on is the doctor has signed off with a
letter that says that his physical meets the intent of the fire brigade
OSHA regulation. So that’s our third tier which is somewhere between
DOT and the 1582. So, yes we'll be happy to provide that, yes. 

Man:	And also if you take a look at the number of volunteers that are 50
and older, 31% in that 2500 and below. I do know that a 50-year-old is
not going to be able to pass a 1582 for the most part, but if there is
some as (Ken) has identified, some alternative, that we could keep that
volunteer working because I do think there's a significant difference in
some of the activity level of the smaller volunteer departments than we
find in our major metropolitan areas. So to give it some help to where
based on their age appropriateness can they conduct and do the work that
they're being assigned to do. To me it's just a lot different than if
you're looking at going into a you know a burning facility with all your
gear on comparative to someone who shows up at an automobile accident
scene in their local community to help with emergency evacuation and
things like that. 

(Matt Tibia):	This is (Matt). I think that ties back into where you're
going to let your - where the ESO is going to let its personnel operate.
In other words, if the ESO makes a decision that it's going to allow its
personnel to operate in the hot zone in the ideal, in that environment,
then I think they have an obligation to ensure that they are capable of
doing that. 

	If they are only going to let them go to motor vehicle collisions, then
that obviously is something different. I don’t automatically agree
with the assertion that just because you're age 50 you're not going to
pass an NFPA 1582 physical. I hope that that’s not the case because in
about nine months that’s going to be, you know, I'm going to be in
that category. I just - I know that there's an overwhelming fear. My
experience is that’s not predicated on fact. I mean that only based on
my experience with having implemented 1582 physicals in a combination
fire department where 95% of the - you know 95 to 98% of the members,
regardless of age were able to pass the physical. I'm not advocating,
the other thing that needs to be said is, you know, I'm not specifically
advocating for an NFPA 1582 physical. I'm advocating for a physical that
ensures that a firefighter can meet the essential functions of their job
based on what is expected for them to do.

(Ken Bockmill):	(Matt), I'm very sensitive and appreciative to that
language and again I commend you and your work group have come up with
that language. That was the biggest help to me in working with the EC or
executive committee, trying to reach a consensus on what we were going
to do and that put a lot, helped a lot and I really thank you for that. 

(Matt Tibia):	I just I don’t want us to leave here and have the media
indicate that we're demanding 1582 physicals for all firefighters
because we are not advocating for that. 

(Ken Bockmill):	That's a good place to be. 

(Matt Tibia):	So, I just you know, to that end, I just want to offer
that it should be commensurate with the job duties expected to be
performed. 

(Andy):	Anything from anybody else on how small is too small. Now when
we come back to you, the definition that the small business
administration uses for small is 50,000 and smaller in terms of
population server and they're looking at municipal government. So
that’s their broad grouping of small. So we're going to come back to
you and ask you for career and volunteer fire departments and industrial
fire brigades and the industrial there's a whole other definition of
small. 

	For departments from different parts of the county and different sizes
so you know again, we are going to look for some people that are under
2500, some people that fall into that 2500 to 5000. Some folks that are
in the 5000 to 10000. Some that are in the 25,000 range and we can have
as many different people on our small business small entity process.
It's not uncommon for us to have 40 or 50 different people, you know, to
get the variability that exists in the country and if we have more than
that, we have more than that, so this is not something where we are
turning people away. We're usually begging for more participation. So
please just remember when we come back to you, you know probably next
year for names, that’s what this is for. 

Man:	The process of when we finish our work and we put the document
together it goes from this subcommittee up to the NACOSH committee where
you will represent the position of this subcommittee. When does the cost
benefit analysis come into play? When do they actually take a look at
this? Is it that NACOSH has to approve.

(Andy):	No, NACOSH does not approve at all. So, this group, in order for
us to have a legal mechanism for us to meet in this way, we had to fall
under a federal advisory committee. NACOSH is the federal advisory
committee that we fell under. So this group will report to NACOSH. 

	The only people that actually get votes are these two gentlemen because
they are the NACOSH members but they can do things like defense of the
committee, you know, of our work group and report back to NACOSH. NACOSH
will make a recommendation to the assistant secretary. The assistant
secretary can accept or reject, modify, do whatever he would like to do
so NACOSH can say we hate it and he could say too bad I'm doing it.
NACOSH could say we love it and he could say great I love it too. He
could say too bad, I don’t like it but the assistant secretary can do
whatever he or she wants to do. 

	Now, in terms of the cost benefit analysis, we will have economic
information for the small business process. That’s one of the things
that we'll go through. So, we will go through all of these provisions
and provide examples of the cost of this type of medical is this. The
cost of that type of medical is that. We think this is how many hours it
will take to write standard operating procedures, and we think this is
how much time and money it costs to train to this level. All of that
information will be presented to the small business group. You know that
small business small entity group so that they can consider it.

	That is not cost benefit analysis. That gives them information to
figure out what the economic impact on small business is. The actual
cost benefit analysis information will come out when we do our actual
notice of proposed rulemaking. There's actually two different tests and
it's a little bit different. We have to consider the economic
feasibility. So, can people afford to do what we're saying? That’s
required by the (unintelligible). 

	The cost benefit analysis is a separate analysis that’s required by
executive order 12866 and 13563 and that’s an OMD so like the White
House and office of management and budget look at the cost benefit
analysis information. Did that all make sense?

Man:	I think so. Yep. (Andy), I do have a question for you. Since most
of the regulatory language that OSHA puts out is primarily for the
private sector for this particular one since it's a large majority it's
going to be public sector employees, are you going to include some of
the public sector employer associations that would be similar to the
small business administration, but we're focused on the governments
like, I'm thinking of the National Association of Counties, the League
of Cities and Towns. Those kind of organizations, would you include them
as a part of that, as you're doing your analysis. Because I think that
really is the key. 

Man 1:		I think that they probably would be - usually the decisions
about who's on the 			committee, who's on the small business committee
is a combination of OSHA suggest people, the small business
administration suggest people, sometimes the White House suggest people
on SMP. 

	And again, usually we're begging people to do the process with us. We
usually don’t have an abundance of people. Yes, if you've got people,
particularly, you know, in the state of Arizona that you think would be
interested in helpful and willing to participate, we certainly will take
any names. Again, I expect we'll go out to, you know, some of the city
county manager groups and see what their interest is. 

Man:	I think that would be helpful. 

Woman:	At this time, I'd like to enter the record two exhibits. As
Exhibit 8, the PowerPoint presentation by OSHA's Office of Regulatory
Analysis. Exhibit 9, report the pair by OSHA's Office of Regulatory
Analysis based on highlights from NFPA's DOS fire department profile,
2014. 

	I'd also like to add, with regard to the SBREFA process that we will be
going through that, the meeting that occur with the small employer
entities, that is an open meeting, so you would be allowed to attend,
listen in, you wouldn't be allowed to speak at it. Just want to make
sure that people understood that. 

Man 2:	Can you say that again, I'm sorry, accept the? 

Man 1:	Yes, so the small business process, the people who are on the
panel speak. The public can listen in but is not allowed to provide
input. Only the people that are on the panel can actually talk. It's
still an open public meeting, so if you want to listen. 

Man 2:	How about the NACOSH meeting that - is that an open meeting for
us? 

Man:	Yes. 

Man 2:	Okay. 

Man 3:	I think I can speak for all of us. We would really encourage any
member that would like to be there to come. You guys did the work; you
deserve to be there. 

Man:	Right. 

Man 3:	We might call on you to clarify. 

Man:	Right, and one of the things to discuss, because we're right, you
know, we're at lunch time. One of the things on the other side of lunch
is to talk again about what's going to go into the report from this work
group to NACOSH. If there are recommendations about how you think the
report and the information should be presented. Because (Rick) and
(Lamont) can go back to NACOSH and discuss, here's our time table,
here’s what we think we’re going to have and here's what we think
would be useful in presenting information to the full NACOSH. 

	And so this is an opportunity for everybody to discuss and figure out.
Because again, the goal is that we have something done at the end of the
September meeting ready to go to NACOSH. 

Man 3:	We did one very brief presentation in our last NACOSH meeting
that was over pretty quick. We went, we did have one very brief
presentation at full NACOSH. I would say that it went very well. 

Woman 1:	Can I ask a question on ORA minutes? Could you please explain
how you go about determining whether your small entity, small employer,
based on industry size. It's not uniform is it? Or does it differ
depending on what industry you are? 

Woman 2:	I'm sorry, can you repeat that? 

Woman 1:	Okay, when you go about doing the analysis and also on the,
when we do SBREFA, they do the analysis on small businesses, could you
explain how whether that's the same number that's used for all
industries or whether it varies by industry? What constitutes a small
business? 

((Crosstalk)) 

Woman 2:	We follow the definition, is established by the SBA, the Small
Business Administration. 

Woman 1:	That varies depending on the industry? 

Woman 2:	Yes. 

Man:	All right, so let me make this whole conversation plain English.
The point that (Sara)'s getting at is, we will go through and figure out
who's covered by the standard, as we're considering it. Those people get
NAICS Codes, North American Industrial Classification System Codes. Then
the small business administration has definitions for each of those
different categories. While when federal might be one category.
Municipal government for state is another. Aircraft manufactures might
be another NAIS codes. 

	We would look at Bowing and people like that. Military bases, you know,
could be a whole other, you know. You've got to figure out based on the
NAIS Codes what the size definition is. That's all part of what we would
call our industry profile. Who's in, who's out and it's a long process
that you guys don't need to worry about, that's our problem. 

	All right, we're going to hit you up for people in jurisdictions
smaller than 50,000. 

Man 3:	Ready for a lunch break? 

Man:	Yes, let's do lunch. 

Man 3:	It's 12:10, let's take a lunch break, we'll be back here at 1:10
and we'll. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man 2:	Yes, thank you very much, ladies. 

Man:	Thank you ladies, thank you…

((Crosstalk)) 

Man 3:	Thank you. 

(Rick Ingham):	We're taking to full NACOSH and (Andy)'s going to get us
started on that. 

(Andy):	Okay, so we talked about this a little it before. The process is
that this group is going to write a report that will go to NACOSH. Now
the only people who are allowed to vote are actually these two
gentlemen, (Rick) and (Lamont). They can do a sense of the committee,
there was unanimous support, or, you know, some other descriptors that
talk about how people, you know, the general sentiment of the group to
emphasis the strength of it. Or, you know, most people agree with this
but some others thought, you know, something else. There's flexibility
in there vote. We're not taking a vote, okay, in terms of this group. 

	There's going to be a report that goes to NACOSH. That report will be
in the public docket. The work that this work group has done will stand
on its own in the public record. Then NACOSH, will take the report and
debate and discuss. They can say, we love what you guys did, or we all
did, and we whole heartedly endorse OSHA to do it. They can say, we hate
what you did and we think OSHA should not work on this at all. Or we
like the idea but we suggest modifying it in these following ways. 

	NACOSH can do whatever they would like to do. Then they will make a
recommendation to the assistant secretary. The assistant secretary can
do whatever he or she would like to do. He can find the work of this
group more persuasive, he can find the work of NACOSH more persuasive.
He can decide to pull it from the agenda, put it on the agenda. There's
no binding or bearing of NACOSH other than the assistant secretary will
listen to it and consider it. The decision is his. 

	Whatever NACOSH does, in their report, or their discussion, or their
recommendation, will also be put in the public record. You'll have this
work, will be in the public record as it exists. Then their work will be
layered on top of it as they do it. Then the agency will make decisions.
The agency has the ability to go back to any of, or all of, the
information that’s in this record or in the subsequent NACOSH record.
Is that generally clear for everybody in terms of process, decision
making? That kind of stuff. 

(Rick Ingham): 	I have a question, typically, and I realize that, this
is (Rick Ingham). I realize that nothing is typical, we're in this full
legged process. With that being said, typically what happens, once it
comes out of a subcommittee like this, does NACOSH usually adopt it or
has there been cases when they did not? 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Andy):	We have not really had a work group like this in a very long
time, you know, from NACOSH. Most of the NACOSH work groups have been
comprised mostly of NACOSH members, full NACOSH members. With a couple
of other people added in not in this situation where, you two are the
only NACOSH members. Most of the people, you know, are outside. I would
expect that NACOSH would probably recommend that the agency move forward
but I could also expect, you know, given for example, the state plan
issue came up that they might have additional recommendations or
modifications but you never know. 

	Again, you know, NACOSH has the ability to say and do what it would
like to do and the final decision making rest with the assistant
secretary. What I will say, is that the assistant secretary care enough
about this issue to charge NACOSH and create this work group and fund
the last six meetings. He is substantially interested in this topic and
thought that the work group was a way to advance the issue. You can kind
of take that, you know, for what it is. 

(Rick Ingham): 	Understood. 

(Andy):	Now, the outline that you have before you is just a draft, this
is something that (Bill) and (Mark) and I agenda as suggestion. The
report to NACOSH can be whatever you all would like to put in the
report. One of the important things is getting an understanding of what
should be in it now because we think we can help draft some of the
things that will go in there to make sure that, you know, the work is
done. So that there's a report that this group can look at for the next
meeting in September. Make sure that the words are the words that you
all are comfortable with and that it says what you want to say. 

	Most of this is descriptive, not policy oriented. Introduction and
background is just a OSHA did the RFI, OSHA did a stake holder meeting
on this topic. Then west Texas happened and then there was the executive
order and the assistant secretary created this work group. Then they
charge to this workgroup to say, here's what it is. That's, if somebody
picks up the report they've got a little bit of background and context.
To understand that this meeting, or this work group didn’t happen in a
vacuum. That there was reasoning behind it.

	Then a makeup of the subcommittee, so it's a description again of the
organizations that are here. To show that, you know, there was balance
representation from lots of different sectors in the community. Or that,
sorry, of the affected, potentially affected community. Then we were
thinking a description of the meetings and then the sub groups. Again
just the volume of work that went into this, a description of the types
of thing were discussed at the meetings. Some of, you know, a
description of some of the things that were entered into the docket, you
know, the exhibits and information that the agency, or that the group
considered. 

	Again, when NACOSH gets this and when the public sees this, they can
see that there was substantial work and thought behind what went into
this process and this discussion. Then OSHA came in, the state plans
came in. We'd like to provide, or we think that there should be a
description of what the state plans said. Then some response from this
committee, did this committee find what the state plan said persuasive
or not persuasive and why or why not. So that NACOSH understands how you
all think about this issue and the argument that OSHA made. 

	Then what's not in here is the whole red text but, you know, that
certainly will be a major part of the report. Then some recommendation
to NACOSH. This work group, everybody on the work group felt that NACOSH
should recommend to the assistant secretary, duh, duh, duh, duh. Or most
people thought this and some people thought something else. Now one of
the issues that not on here but is probably worth considering is this
discussion of how small is small. And what sorts of considerations or
how could the agency give consideration to small volunteer fire
departments. 

	Both either by exclusion from the standard or by flexibility around
certain provisions and alternate methods of compliance. Then whatever
else you all want. I think all of this is kind of an open discussion
about, does this outline make sense and what else should be added. Then
if you have direction, if somebody either wants to start writing
particularly the response to OSHA or the recommendation to NACOSH. Where
that's more of a policy oriented statement. 

	If we can keep the OSHA folks more in the summary of what actually
happened and out of the writing the policy recommendations. Those words
come from you all, that would be better and I'm sure makes (Sara)
happier. Without me open it to discussion. 

(Rick Ingham): 	In our last discussion with NACOSH we basically used
this. We told them about the work we were doing, we told them about what
a wonderful group to was and how robust the conversations were and
challenges and discussions. I like this outline, I think the, and just
starting from the top, you know, the summary of issues. Leading to the
convening of the subcommittee and the charge to the subcommittee,
absolutely. The makeup of the subcommittee and we've got a lot to be
proud of there and guest speakers that we've brought in as well. 

	We might want to get a list of some of those. That would be my, we
should have that in case someone asks. In the meetings and subgroups, I
think that was good and we did talk a lot about that with NACOSH. I'm
thinking that as we go through this, I can imagine talking to that
group. Like if you were the first, if you had never heard of this
before, if you hadn't been working on it. Think about, I would challenge
you all to think about how you would present that yourselves. 

	There each going to be on (Lamont) and I and that's fine, we have broad
shoulders, you have really broad shoulders. Mine are not quite as broad
but I can handle it too. I would like to be able to go through the main
sections of the document. I can see us doing that and just reading off
the title for those sections. Now I assume were going to be providing
full NACOSH with a working flip a finished copy of this? 

(Andy):	Yes, so I think that the report and the final draft regulatory
text, that the committee writes is what goes to NACOSH. That should go
to NACOSH probably at least a month before the December meeting at the
outside latest. So that they have time to read and consider in advance. 

(Rick Ingham):	When we begin our summary of it and our presentation to
NACOSH, they'll have that in hand. We'll have our copy and I don’t
know if we would have a PowerPoint because that would… 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Andy):	It can be whatever, I think that's a discussion honestly for you
two to have with, (Ann) and with (Mandy) about what is the most
effective way to, you know, and what would be useful. 

(Rick Ingham):	To me, I think that would be a good way and have it
basically sectioned by sec - do you know how much time we will have? 

(Andy):	No, I think that's of the negotiation between you and (Ann) and
(Mandy). 

(Rick Ingham):	I could envision a simple PowerPoint with the titles of
each section and then if they want to discuss each section in more
in-depth then that would be appropriate. Does that sound reasonable to
everybody? Your presenting it along with us. We're the ones that's going
to be doing the talking but your presenting along with us, backing us
up. (Lamont)? 

(Lamont Bird):	My thing is regarding the OSHA, I think that should stand
alone. In the summary of the subcommittee support of this project should
be a separate bullet. I'm not so sure putting those two together it.
OSHA's not changed its position on that. I just think that it should be
a separate number five that shows the position of the committee. 

(Rick Ingham):	So would you put the summary of the subcommittee report
first and then OSHA second, or how would you? 

(Lamont Bird):	Whatever you would like to. Whether you want it to go
first and then OSHA second, I mean, I don’t think there's any degree.
I just think that those are two separate issues. It sounds to me like by
doing it this way you're trying, it automatically conflicts with each
other and I think clearly OSHA's laid out the reasons why that they have
trouble with this. Then I think we should clearly then articulate the
committee's position as to why the committee has support for this.
Rather than have them has a subgroup of OSHA, that's just my view. Is
OSHA is a separate issue than what the committee. 

(Rick Ingham):	I think - oh, go ahead. 

(Bill Hamilton):	I think in that order will be appropriate for us to
raise the whole OSHA issue. Then I will respond, that makes perfectly
good sense, however. 

(Kathy Robinson): Obviously my organization has supported my, the
opportunity to participate but I don't speak for my organization. I'm
wondering if there is a, if there's any benefit to an organization
submitting a letter of support to the proposal? 

(Lamont Bird):	I think at this point, probably not. I think at this
point the agency generally looks at these things, where, you know, we
understand that it's not your speaking on behalf but we also generally
expect that your consistent with your organizations interest in issues.
If we go forward to full rule making, you know, during that process I
think that is absolutely the time when a formal letter of support for,
you know, or whatever other thoughts and sentiments you have would be
most appropriate. 

(Kathy Robinson):	Thanks that's good…

((Crosstalk)) 

(Sara):	I would remind people, I mean you're not on NACOSH but, when we
put out the federal register notice of NACOSH meetings we always invite
public comment to be submitted. If your organization would like to write
a letter at that point will be made art of the NACOSH docket for that
meeting. 

(Kathy Robinson):	Thank you. 

(Rick Ingham):	Just a clarify that point of order. After (Lamont) and I
present this to for NACOSH, at that time could we call on members of the
public, which might be committee members to speak? For the - I know
OSHA's going to have an opportunity to give your view. With all due
respect, would we have an opportunity to have others that have served on
the committee present their view at the same time?

(Sara):	Regulations that we have for NACOSH, do provide an opportunity
for input from the public. What has been the history of that is, its
allowed as the chair, and the discretion of the chair as time permits. I
have a feeling this would be something that they would definitely allow.

	We have been gradually moving away from only having comments at the end
of the day and trying to insert them so there topical as the subject.
I'm certain that (Rick) could inform the chair that people might like to
speak when we have this subject on the agenda at that point. 

(Andy):	Right, but having said that (Sara), there's no reason that we
couldn't have a work group presentation to OSHA. There's no reason
(Rick) and (Lamont) need to be the only two people form the work group
presenting. If there were others who wanted to come to that meeting and
be part of the presentation and discussion, you know, you're not really
members of the public in that regard. Your members of this work group
that has done work for NACOSH. They might be interested in hearing what
you have to say to help them understand. 

(Rick Ingham):	(Kathy). 

(Kathy Robinson):	(Kathy Robinson), I really appreciate this discussion.
I think, you know, I'm just going to say out loud what's on my mind. I
have a concern that being separate component of the outline for the
memorandum. That the chairman has gone on record with on these rules. I
just, you know, we put a lot of work in to that. I think that we
wouldn't be here if we weren't committed to them. I'm just trying to
figure out individually and organizationally how I can continue to
support the work of the group. 

(Rick Ingham):	I will say one think about (Ann Saysha), she is the
chairperson of NACOSH first. In the brief time that I've gotten to know
her I know that that bias will not be made public during the NACOSH
meeting. She did make comments during one of our subcommittee meetings
but I really do trust her to not do that. (Bill). 

(Bill Hamilton):	As you recall too, she also actually said, (Mike Wood)
to be the spokesman and really segregated herself in our meeting.
Specific because of her membership as one of the chairmen of NACOSH.
(Michael Wood)'s was actually the spokesman on that presented eight, the
OSHA position. 

(Rick Ingham):	Yes, and we're bound to a certain level of apolitical
leadership. I think that's a nice way to put it. I think (Anne) would
not demonstrate any bias at the meeting. 

(Sara):	The NACOSH regulations do permit a chair to step down at any
time during a meeting. If (Ann) wanted to express a personal opinion and
give the NACOSH group the ability to designate a vice chair to, you
know, control the meeting during that period of time. Although the chair
definitely in their role is not expressing their type of opinion there
is an opportunity for her to make sure hers as a member of the committee
is fairly registered as well. 

(Bill Hamilton):	As you recall (Rick), too, one of (Ann)'s last
admonitions to the group here was to continue the work, you know,
continue the process. That was what her admonition on behalf of NACOSH
was for it not to end, for it to move forward. Again, that's why I
reiterate that, you know, (Michael Wood)'s actually was the spokesperson
that day. That carried the message to OSHA. 

(Rick Ingham):	Thanks (Bill). Any other questions? 

(Randy Fackin):	This is (Randy Fackin), I don't know if all of us can be
in a room, I'm, you know, always been a team player. Is among ourselves
is there anybody in particularly or areas that we would like to see
especially try to be at this meeting. That have. 

(Sara):	This meeting that will happen with NACOSH is open to the public.
Any member on this committee would have the right to attend as a member
of the public. 

(Randy Fackin):	Understood. 

(Matt Tibia):	What, this is just a procedural question. Is NACOSH, would
NACOSH be called upon to make a decision with regard to a recommendation
at that meeting? Or could they, they could take any number of actions to
include tabling it, waiting for the research, referring it? I assume. 

(Bill Hamilton):	Yes, they could do any of those things (Matt). I think
one of the reasons for providing a report well in advance of the meeting
is to give them the opportunity to read and be prepared and have debate
and discussion. I think it is more likely than not that they will make a
decision at that meeting. Just because they only meet, you know, a few
times a year. This is one of those, if they don’t make a decision
then, then, you know, effectively their tabling it, you know, for three
to six months, potentially. 

	I think that, you know, and part of the discussion between (Rick) and
(Lamont) and (Mandy). (Mandy Eaden), is I the person from OSHA who
oversees all of the agency activity with NACOSH. I think are planning on
a robust meeting and ample time for debate and discussion at that
meeting so that they can make a recommendation. I think they understand
that our assistant secretary who will be leaving in January. Would like
a recommendation before he leaves, so he can, you know, make a decision.

(Sara):	Even if NACOSH are not prepared at their next meeting to make a
decision. There are provisions both in their regulations as well as
their reviser make regulation to call a special meeting. For, you know,
concerning a particular topic. If it was limited to that and also
publicized. 

(Lamont Bird): 	Yes, and I think that, so it's be incumbent upon (Rick)
and I as we put our game plan together to kind of address your question
(Grady). As we put our game plan together as to how we're going to make
our presentation. That if there are subcommittee members that we think,
you know, could really help us in making that presentation. I think that
we'll have to reach out to you and ask you, yes. 

(Rick Ingham):	This is (Rick) again, this is a preliminary discussion
today. We'll likely have like a half a day meeting on Friday or
something, however that agenda plays out. To more fully discuss this and
it will be closer to the time of presentation. We'll have the document
closer to a final product. We can talk more about that then but (Grady)
thanks for bringing up a question. It was a great question. As far as
I'm concerned, personally I'd like to have every one of you there. 

	I think you've done a great job, including anybody that might be
opposed. I think that you deserve to be there. You've don’t the work,
all on each phone conferences and I mean, this is a tremendous amount of
effort that you all have put together for this. Taking time away from
your families and jobs to do this. I think you deserve to be there. I
would love to see you there to represent the different organizations. I
think that really adds a lot of weight and credence to what we have
tried to do here. Anyway, that's my personal opinion. 

(Lamont Bird):	There's strength in numbers. 

(Rick Ingham):	That's right. 

(Sara):	Could I at this time please enter into the record is exhibit
number ten, draft outline for the ERP subcommittee reports in NACOSH.
And this exhibit 11, (Lisa Delany) and (Kathy Robinson)'s responses and
revisions to the June 9, 16 draft ERP proposed roll. 

(Andy):	Let me suggest a follow on work activity. If we modify the -- I
sense general support for the outline with (Bill)'s suggestion of moving
the summary of OSHA. Maybe if we move that up into the meetings and sub
group so that we can put their statement about what they said in the
context of the meetings and subgroups. Move the subcommittee support
down to the recommendation to NACOSH. I think that OSHA can take a crack
at summarizing because again, it's factual material that we would be
summarizing. That essentially we get rid of four by slitting up one
through three. 

	Let me suggest that perhaps a work group to start drafting number five
would be good so that there's red text, or not red text but that there's
text. That we can put up on the screen, you know, for the next meeting
to start as a foundation for that final section. 

(Rick Ingham):	I agree with that. Does that sound okay to you (Bill)?
Sitting back there. 

(Bill Hamilton):	I just think like having both of them together like
that, it creates kind of a conflicting situation. Either separate them
or as you said (Andy), have them both in different elements, I think
it’s fine. 

(Rick Ingham):	Four and five or whichever. (Saul) volunteered to help
draft the language open, (Lamont) did as well and (Pat). Anybody else?
(Spencer), anybody else? Thank you (Lisa). Anybody else? Okay, that's
okay, we all have day jobs. Thank you very much. You'll all have an
opportunity to look at it obviously. Maybe after the committee meets
then (Bill) would be so kind as to send it out to everyone so that you
can at least take a look at it before our next meeting. Would that be
fair? 

(Bill Hamilton):	(Rick), can I jump in, I'd like to shanghai (Ken) and
at least, (Ken) if there's something that you can say about, you know,
how small is too small. And the agency should give special consideration
to, you know, small volunteer departments and communities below certain
size. If you could provide that group with some language that you all
think you could live with or support. 

(Ken Fontanel):	Be happy to. 

(Rick Ingham):	I would also like to have some help with the introduction
to help folks understand the importance of this. Whether, and I think
(Bill), and everybody here, including you understands the importance of
this. It's all about saving lives. It's not about anything else except
saving first responders lives and community lives. Would anybody be
willing, would you? 

(Ken Fontanel): 	I'll help you with that (Rick) but I just want to
reiterate that OSHA did, was not in opposition of the firefighter safety
and firefighter lives. We're not in opposition. I just want to make sure
that it's clear that, that was not their concern. Their concern was more
of a jurisdictional issue rather than a life safety issue. With that I
would be very happy to help you with that. 

(Rick Ingham):	Okay. 

(Victor):	(Rick), this is (Victor). I'd be willing to support that
effort as well. 

(Rick Ingram):	Okay. Just basically why this is important to first
responders. I think that is, that's why we’re here. We can, I know
it's a rule making process and all that, or whatever were calling it at
this point. Draft language process, but I think that will make a huge
difference. We want the committee to really understand why we're doing
this. Other than just - and the presidential memo was very important.
Okay. Anybody else that would like to do that, but again, we'll be
reviewing this and we'll need all of your help at our next meeting to
refine it. 

	If you don’t mind, I was going to ask the question, would it seem
logical to all of you to present, you know, like I said earlier. To
present the titles of the different sections and why each one is
important. You’re the ones that have helped me understand why each one
is important. I think (Lamont) would say the same thing. Just a little
brief, okay here's this section, this is why we feel it's important,
this is what it does. 

	Whether we put this in, it's in the actual document or not we can tell
the folks why we, the why behind it. 

(Matt Tibia):	This is (Matt), I would certainly recommend that, that
happens but it just needs to state the 3,000-foot level thing because,
you know? 

(Rick Ingham):	It would have to. 

(Matt Tibia):	Yes, you know, and I mean, just the, I think the major,
you know, functional areas certainly could be, you know, could be
included. I would certainly provide an introduction background
significance and then, you know, get into the major areas intended to be
addressed. 

(Rick Ingham):	I can envision, I do a lot of PowerPoints, I can envision
the title and then a brief. One or two sentence description of why the
committee felt like that was important and its meaning. A lot of these
folks are going to be laypersons, like me. 

(Bill Hamilton):	(Rick), can I - it's (Bill Hamilton). Can I offer as an
alternative, maybe instead of incorporating that into the actual
memorandum? Since we're going to be getting in the red text, you're
going to be given the red text as well. Maybe we take the outline
document, that's already has the major categories in one area. Thanks,
(Chris)

(Rick Ingham):	Thanks, (Chris). 

(Bill Hamilton):	With the…

((Crosstalk)) 

(Bill Hamilton):	Just put a couple sentences in the outline next to the
tittle, you know, what the major, kind of describing what it is. 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Bill Hamilton):	Instead of, incorporating it all into the memorandum. 

(Rick Ingham):	No, I agree with that. I think that would be fine. I'm
thinking more about a PowerPoint

(Bill Hamilton):	Presentation. 

(Rick Ingham):	PowerPoint presentation. 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Rick Ingham):	We can do it here and in a PowerPoint. It will be very
simple to cut and paste into each one. 

(Bill Hamilton):	My fault, I misunderstood, I thought it was going to go
in the memo. 

(Rick Ingham):	No problem at all. Any other?

(Mark):	(Rick), can I just ask a question, do we have to, I know we're
going to bring a recommendation, your, both of you are going to bring
recommendation up there. Is it that we can go ahead without the
consensus of this group is to move forward with the rule making? Have we
got to that point yet? Or have we not got to that point? Is that
something you're going to need, I mean, that's going to be a statement
that. 

(Rick Ingham):	You mean the actual recommendation? 

(Mark):	Well, it would be a recommendation that would be a consensus
that this group wants to move forward. Knowing that we've had some, I
think some great discussion and even there's some concern with cost.
Knowing there's some concern with shut down of organizations and that we
try to address. Do we need this to be, the consensus of this group was
that NACOSH, that OSHA would move forward with that? I don't know if
that's. 

(Sara):	Why is it that OSHA would be the following, between now and the
next meeting. Let's (Lamont) and (Bill), (Rick), put together a
recommendation. That they could then show all of you here. They would be
able to understand from your reaction to it whether there seems to be a
consensus that supports their resolution to move forward. 

(Mark):	Got it, (Sara). Thank you.

(Sara):	Okay. 

(Rick Ingham):	I would, I think (Lamont) and I are both in the mind that
we are going to recommend that this is recommended from to NACOSH, to
hand over to the assistant secretary for further consideration of
writing a standard. Or we wouldn’t have been here all this time.
(Greg), you got. 

(Greg):	Well, just kind of looking at that, I mean, is that something
you need verbally from us to go forward? I just, I don't know, it's just
a formality. 

(Rick Ingham):	I know there's been some discussion here, I think that,
you know, the, sometimes you'll have a minority, you know, sort of
report or people that, you know, don’t want to accept it. We really,
if we. 

(Mark):	I like what, (Sara), just said that they're going to put
together if we feel comfortable with that. That way there doesn’t put
everybody here at, you know, position we can read on that. 

(Pat): 	I think it's real important that even with all the concerns that
we had. That we all recognize that the need for a standard like this.
For rule making like this, is imperative. To me it's, I could go on but
I'm not but I'm pretty passionate that it has to. Knowing that there has
to be some understanding of where desperate impact would follow. How do
we get through that? We've gone from the tiers; we've gone from some
levels. We've gone from really, I thought, some pretty deep discussion.
I'm really proud of all the organizations that are represented in here
and working with them. 

Knowing that we had to work through some touch channels and still we
have a contingency, you know, we have a constituency to go back. We have
to talk we have to do that. It really felt that it was a fair process
that everybody had the opportunity to really put forward that this, if
it was a perfect world we wouldn't be here. This would be done, it's not
and we have to, you know, put it in place. I really do think there's a
absence of a rule making out there. Especially in the fire service that
this is quite important. Not quite important, it is for generations of
firefighters to be protected. 

I think this is something. If we're get to that point. I know we're a
long way off, I know that this process is, you know, it's painful but
getting to this next. Just getting to that was the big deal. Just
getting to the meetings of, I don’t know how many people came here but
that was a big deal. Getting to this, getting into the next step and
knowing that, as they say, the devil's in the details. All the cost
benefit analysis and everything has to take place. That this document
will be changed many, many times, I'm sure over the next couple of
cycles. At least it's moving forward. 

(Sara):	I guess one of the reasons I recommended doing it this
particular way is, that way you have an actual piece of paper in front
of you. What the two members of NACOSH really would like to recommend.
We will have the benefit of a transcript being able to go around the
room and capture what your own feelings are about that. Of course, that
becomes part of the record of the entire work that's being done by this
subcommittee. And becomes part of the record by incorporation with
NACOSH. 

(Andy): 	Right, so (unintelligible) we added a committee of people
(unintelligible) that have future work but (unintelligible)
recommendations. I think there were five or six people. 

(Rick Ingham):	To address what (Pat) was bringing up and he brings up
some very interesting or fun things. Would be inappropriate Mrs. (Sara)
to pull the EOP set up committee to support our opposition at this point
that it go forward?

(Sara):	They certainly can take whatever type of sense the room they
want but that's not the critical issue. The only persons who have vote
on this. 

(Rick Ingham):	I'm talking about today on this. 

(Sara):	I know but the only people have votes are those two members. I
think because your vote is basically a non-vote. What is more important
is to get your comments on something. That's what we can hold onto.
That's why they have this draft recommendation to discuss. We can hear
what your actual opinions are to that. That's something that OSHA will
want to refer to when it's developing rule, writing its preamble. That
type of thing. 

(Rick Ingham):	I want to just speak to (Pat)'s comment earlier, very
eloquent by the way. I think you wrote it for us. If we can get that in
a transcript, we'll just use that because that's why we're doing this. 

Man:	Why don't you tell the council. 

(Rick Ingham):	We are still; we do still have some time to refine it a
little bit further. I think you really brought up a good point and that
is, what are the sticking points right now? I know (Ken) is concerned
about the smaller services, the ESO's. I know (Bill)'s got some concerns
about who's going, who it's going to actually apply to or not. Who's
going to follow it and not. 

(Bill Hamilton):	Will apply to the state plan, state plan states for the
public sector employers, which are the greatest amount of the EMS folks.
Put in a federal state so well not apply. 

(Rick Ingham):	Yes. It will not be binding in other words. 

(Bill Hamilton): 	Will not be what? 

(Rick Ingham):	It would not be binding, right? 

(Bill Hamilton):	No, there exempted from the OSHA act. As (Andy) has
always put it out, we can still capture the small independent privately
owned ambulance companies. Like areas like, rural metro, but the
municipalities, townships, they would not be covered under this. 

(Mark):	Federal states would be covered. 

(Bill Hamilton):	Correct, the federal forestry and stuff like that. 

(Mark):	Naval air stations. 

(Bill Hamilton):	Naval Air stations. If we look at it from a holistic
point that's a smaller percentage. 

(Rick Ingham):	Well, we would hope, and this is what I said early on
when we first started meeting, that we're writing something that makes
sense, it’s practical and people can see the value in it. Even those
municipalities that might not be binding to that would see it as a good
enough document then straight forward enough that they might utilize it.
We would hope so. I know that it seems that every fire department uses
NFPA and refers to NFPA. 

	In those cases, it would be a wonderful reference document and a
guidance document for them to follow. Hopefully they will do the right
thing for their firefighters. I think that's part of the message after
this gets hopefully into law making. Into a final rule that it will be
recognized as such. I would with a lot of small departments we have as
small volunteer fire department in the two cities where I, actually in
the three cities where I own property. Arkansas and two cities in Texas.
There always looking for better ways to do things. 

	Even though there, you know, ones a 2,500 population. Ones about a
3,000 population, ones about a 5,000 population. Then those firefighters
- my cousin, my first cousin was the fire chief of a community with
about a 3,000 population. He was interested in this. He was interested
in what all of you - and I think the reason that it might be utilized is
because of all of you sitting here at the table. I think (Andy) said
that too. We've got some of the top experts in the county here among us.

	I'm an optimist, I believe that it will not fall on deaf ears.
Everybody in this country has seen what has happened to our first
responders. What happened there in the city of West. I can't imagine
anybody not, just ignoring something that we have developed to protect
the best of ours. Anyway, anybody else? Sorry I get on a soap box; I
also preach at a cowboy church every once in a while. 

(Bill Warren):	(Bill Warren) and (Rick), just to tell you though, the
good part of what the committee here has done and I think all my
colleagues is that we began the dialogue and opened the discussion of
how do we protect those who protect us. I think that's an extremely
important discussion for us to have had. I don't think the whole
discussion goes down in vain at all. I think, in fact, the fact that we
began to open dialogue of how do we prevent firefighter loss. Whether it
be from the municipal fire department to the rural volunteer, to the
wildland firefighters. 

	All those who are engaged to this emergency response system. The
ambulance drivers, the hazmat guys that show up. I mean, to me it is a
discussion that was very much worth the amount that OSHA spent on this
(Andy). For us to get together and at least open the dialogue for the
whole country to see. 

(Rick Ingham):	I think. 

(Andy):	I agree. 

(Rick Ingham):	I want to point to our recorder but, would you stand up
for a second. 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Rick Ingham):	A lot of where this goes at the end is going to be up to
folks like you. Do we agree with that? 

(Sara):	I would (unintelligible) but. 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Rick Ingham):	You understand what I mean?

((Crosstalk)) 

(Rick Ingham):	We appreciate you being here, okay. That's what we.

(Sara):	I see, I see. 

(Rick Ingham):	Okay. 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Bill Hamilton):	I think we're getting really close to wrap up, so
before we do that. Let me just reintroduce everybody to (Bruce Lungrin),
whose sitting over there on the wall. (Bruce) is from SBA, Small
Business Administration Office of Advocacy. 

	(Bruce), we had a whole bunch of discussion this morning around small.
I can catch you up on some of the discussions that we've had but I've
told them that we will be going out to all of them, you know, in the
next, you know, probably six months to a, you know, to a year on
starting this SBREFA process, assuming that we move forward with rule
making and members from these organizations to come and populate our
small entity representative panel. 

	When you get a call from me or (Bruce) in the not too distant future,
you know, that's a really important process for us. 

Man:	Yes, (Andy)…

((Crosstalk)) 

(Andy):	(Bill) and that does, you know, I think that the small
businesses have a different definition of what a small town or a
small…

((Crosstalk)) 

(Andy):	Small rural community would be. As long as we keep in the
contextual we are going to get that. 

(Andy): 	One of (Bruce)'s most important jobs is working with us to make
sure we have all the different types of people that would be covered by
the rule represented. Then they are the ones who set the definition of
what small is. We'll figure out and find people who fit into each of the
boxes on the chart. 

(Sara):	(Bruce), there are a number of people that are very interested
in the SBREFA process. Want to be able to attend the SER meetings, which
of course are open to the public, although they understand they can't
talk there. Hoping that it will keep the subcommittee in the loop so
they can exercise that, right under SBREFA. 

(Bruce Lungrin):	Yes, absolutely. 

(Andy): 	(Bill Hamilton). 

(Bill Hamilton):	Thank you, before you all disappear. I know everybody's
anxious to go, so as difficult as it is to get these conferences for
Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. Nobody seems to care about Fridays.
In the short period we took for lunch we were able to confirm that
Friday September 9 is available. We can meet Wednesday, Thursday,
Friday, September 7, 8 and 9. It will be in the room directly below this
one in 4437. I will as usual send emails and et cetera, et cetera.

(Mark):	Now, (Bill), and I don’t have problem working on a Friday but
I do have a problem traveling on a Saturday. Could we make that a
full-day meeting on Wednesday, full-day meeting on Thursday and maybe
half a day meeting on…

(Bill Hamilton):	You're saying, like 9:00 to 7:00 Wednesday, Thursday
and 9:00 to 2:00 on Friday?

(Mark):	Sure, as far as I’m concerned. I get up at 4:00 so we can do
it at 5:00 am, too. 

(Bill Hamilton):	I will - if you tell me when you want to meet and we'll
do it. 9:00 to 4:00, 9:00 to 5:00, 9:00 to 6:00, and then by noon, be
done by noon on Friday. You tell me or you guys figure out what you want
to do. 

(Mark):	How would everybody feel about 8:30 to 4:00 instead of 9:00, so
8:30 to 4:00 would suit everybody? Then on Friday - no, somebody,
(Andy), doesn’t like that. 

(Andy):	One of the things is (Mark), is a early morning person and I'm a
late in the day person. We'll get this covered one day or the other.
8:00 to 8:00. 

(Mark):	Okay, so if we did 8:30 to 4:00 Wednesday, Thursday and 8:30 to
noon on Friday. That way we can book our travel back on Friday. 

(Andy):	(Bill), I did find two over lunch period that OSHA meets the
21st in North Carolina. 

(Bill Hamilton):	Okay. That will be good. 

(Matt Tibia):	This is (Matt). I just wanted to do two things, one, I
really just want to go on the record as saying that the ISC is going to
support this moving forward rule making very formally. That the
assistant secretary raised this level, this issue to a extraordinary
high level. That it really isn't just the firefighter fatality, although
those are the ones that get the most attention. Hundreds of thousands of
firefighters are injured every year. 

	None of those make the news headlines and none of those get the
attention. If there was any private industry in America that had the
level of injury and death that we have. It would have the undivided
attention of OSHA. I would absolutely positively articulate that it is
absolutely critical that we not value our emergency services personnel
any less than we value anybody else. 

	If 100, you know, sanitation workers were crushed every year in
apparatus that would bring a screeching halt to the use of that type of
apparatus. Till such time as they could ensure work place safety. We
will support this in whatever form it ends up. We have no illusions; it
will look dramatically different five years from now than it does today.
It will take that long probably to get there. 

(Andy): 	Yes, it will be five years, maybe even longer but we'll see.
Hopefully not but our intent is asking this work group to come together
and wrap through, you know, pseudo negotiated point. The things that
matter, so we'll knock off some rough edges. Our intent is very much to
honor the work and the judgement of this group. 

	And again, the fact that the ISC and the NVFD and the IFF and FPA and
the EMT groups and the support groups have all come together. It's
something that is extraordinary that our, I give you my word that we
have every intent of honoring this work and effort. 

(Matt Tibia):	Absolutely, this is (Matt), and (Andy), I absolutely
positively believe that with all my heart. I'm more concerned about the
public comment period then I am about the work of OSHA staff. There is a
unbelievably dedicated group of people that want to work this forward.
Then the second thing I want to offer real quick is I would like to work
with you and (Victor) on the introduction part. If that's okay. 

(Victor):	Sure. 

Subcommittee	Since your talking about public comments I'd like to ask
(Bruce) what opportunity will any of these organizations have during the
SBREFA process to provide any comments? Along with just attending the
SURS meeting, panel meeting. 

(Bruce Lungrin):	All right, so yes we are with the Small Business
Administration. We just finished (unintelligible) process making SBREFA
panel. The small entities that's what the term we use. They include
small business defined by the NASC Code, the North American Central
classification codes. Any business as I understand that have a fire
brigade or emergency response capability. Well I want to be 100%
correct, so that leaves the small business and there are nonprofit
organizations that might also come into this. 

	Then they would be small governmental jurisdiction for a population
less than 50,000. What we'll be doing is, reaching out when the time
comes that OSHA convenes the panel. This is under the statute, we will
reach out to all of you and ask you to get actual regulated entities.
These would be your members, they'd be local firefighters and volunteers
and professional - in other private and nonprofit entities and they will
then be selected. We recommend them and OSHA actually selects them.
We'll set up, OSHA will prepare all them sterile that will get sent out.
There put into a public docket that OSHA opens up. It will be
universally available; everyone can see them. 

	In the process safety management panel right now there is public
comments on them. There common very local public on them. Everyone's
going to be able to see these and we'll get actual regulated entities to
comment on them and provide their advice and recommendations to the
SBREFA panel, which is SVA, OSHA and office of management budget. Then
we'll prepare a report of five recommendations to OSHA. Does that answer
your question, (Sara)? 

(Sara):	Even better than I hoped. 

(Bruce Lungrin):	Okay. 

(Rick Ingham):	Well I want to - I've been asking for a little bit of
(unintelligible) throughout this process. (Unintelligible). Oh, go
ahead, (Spencer). 

(Spencer Strangler):	(Spencer). This is unrelated to what we've been
talking about, but I just wanted to get in before we all said goodbye. 

	(Bill), if we have additional things that we want to suggest into the
text. There was something under operations, emergency operations that I
wanted to suggest. Can I just send that right to you? I think (Lisa)
also had a comment that’s he wanted to do and then we can talk about
it at our next meeting. 

(Bill Hamilton):	Absolutely, and we'll, yes, we'll get it in there and
especially if you wrote something and we didn’t get back to you right
as well. We'll address that next item as well. 

(Spencer Strangler):	Okay, great thanks. 

(Bill Hamilton):	(Victor) gave me something, too. 

(Rick Ingham):	Yes, and I know I didn’t, we didn’t get to the end of
the program evaluation but I wanted to suggest that we put something in
there about drills. In program evaluation, there's nothing written in
there now. 

(Bill Hamilton): 	About drills?

(Rick Ingham):	Yes, so I know all of us do drills for emergency
operations. I just think a little bit of something in there, I'll send
that to you (Bill). 

(Bill Hamilton): 	Okay. 

(Rick Ingham):	Now my, oh go ahead, (Kurt). 

(Kurt Floyd):	Real quick. 

(Rick Ingham):	That's okay. 

(Kurt Floyd):	I know, on behalf of NFDA, I couldn't say it better than
(Matt) did. We, I think will be supporting this but thank you everybody
for allowing me to be here. I know (Ken) was busy up in Halifax so he
couldn't make it. I probably will not be here in September; I think
(Ken) will be back. I wasn't really aware of the process that went on
here. I'd have to say it's remarkable. You're doing an outstanding job.
Forgive me if I wasn't on top of things coming in towards the end. It
was a little bit difficult. 

	I think the work that everybody has done here and the distinguished
colleagues that are all sitting around this table have done a remarkable
amount of work, and for the good. For the safety of our first
responders. I would just like to say, thank you very much for allowing
me to be here and to be a part of it. 

(Rick Ingham):	Thank you. Now I wanted all of us and everybody really
deserves some applause but I want us to give (Bill) some applause. 

(Bill Hamilton):	That’s not going to make me type any better. 

(Rick Ingham):	We know. 

(Bill Hamilton):	I appreciate it, thank you all. 

(Rick Ingham):	Yes, we know it won't (Bill). I also wanted to thank
(Sara) and (Andy) and everybody else. The folks that have done the work
leading up to this, the text has just been amazing on the phone
conferences. That's not easy to do. I've sit in on a few of them, but
what a great job. Let's give everybody a hand. All right. I think with
that we're adjourned. 

(Andy):	We're adjourned, have safe travels. Okay are we wrapping up?
We're wrapping up. 

END

	NWX-DOL OSHA 

	Moderator: Gretta Jameson 

	07/14/16/1:26 pm CT 

	Confirmation # 9255921 

	Page   PAGE  \* MERGEFORMAT  1