Document ID: OSHA-2015-0019-0049
Agency: osha
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2016-11-04T04:00Z

NWX-DOL OSHA

Moderator: Gretta Jameson

September 9, 2016

12:33 am CT

Coordinator:	Welcome and thank you for standing by. This call is being
recorded. If you have any objections, you may disconnect at this time.
Thank you. Your conference will begin momentarily.

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Good morning everyone.

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Good morning everyone.

Man:	Good morning.

Lamont Byrd:	Yes. This is Lamont Byrd. Before we get started, (Ken
Faulkno) had asked that he get a couple minutes. I think he wanted to
make some kind of…

(Ken Faulkno):	Good morning. And this has nothing to do with our work
here. But it does - some of the folks here probably you might have seen
it or heard about it. There was a blog put out last night by (Safford)
NFPA that said that being that EMT is a requirement for certification as
Firefighter (1). I served on the 1001 committees of principle and I
chaired the workgroup on the EMS for that document. And that was an
erroneous blog. So my phone has blowed up this morning. (Ken Willet)'s
phone has blowed up.

	We were talking at 5:00 this morning. And what this was about was a
group of stakeholders wanted him as JPRs put in the document as a
separate chapter so that they would have something to work off of or to
create a separate standard. It was never intended for it to be a
prerequisite for certification.

	I just wanted to clarify that. Pat's not in the room but Matt is and if
your group - you start hearing, you know, rumors and rumors going on,
that's - they pulled the blog down this morning. They're putting up
better information. Thank you Mr. Lamont.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thank you (Ken).

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. You heard that. Well good morning.

Man:	Yeah. (Especially) let you know that (unintelligible).

Lamont Byrd:	Okay.

Woman:	(Unintelligible).

Lamont Byrd:	Okay.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Yes. So good morning everyone. I guess to start
things off, I'd like - I have a chance to introduce ourselves again for
the record starting with Victor.

Victor Stagnaro:	Good morning. Victor Stagnaro with the National Fallen
Firefighters Foundation.

Matthew Tobia:	Good morning. Matthew Tobia with the International
Association of Fire Chiefs.

Bill Warren:	Good morning. Bill Warren with the Arizona Division of
Occupational Safety and Health.

Bill Troup:	Good morning. Bill Troup, U.S. Fire Administration.

(Ken Faulkno):	(Ken Faulkno), National Volunteer Fire Council.

Russell Duke:	Russell Duke, International Union of Operating Engineers.

Spencer Schwegler:	Spencer Schwegler, North American Building Trades.

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

Lisa Delaney:	Lisa Delaney, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health.

Bill Hamilton:	Bill Hamilton, OSHA. I am currently acting as that
alternate - alternate designated federal official. Thank you.

Pat Morrison:	Pat Morrison with the International Association of
Firefighters.

Lamont Byrd:	Lamont Byrd, NACOSH Labor member, International Brothers of
Teamsters.

Rick Ingram:	Rick Ingram, NACOSH Management member of BP America in
Houston and also National Steps Network.

Sarah Shortall:	Excuse me. Sarah Shortall, NACOSH Council. I'm on the
last (tier) on the left. I'd like to do a couple stats. First of all,
I'd like to enter in the record the (VIC) Number 8, the 9-7-16 outline
of the draft EMR responder preparedness prepared this program standard
and Exhibit 9, the draft memo from ERP Subcommittee to NACOSH. And it
said the 10th, 11th from OSHSPA with David Michaels.

	And then just one reminder since we don't have the transcriptionist
here today, need to make sure everybody gives their names when they
start speaking.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. I think we have a couple additional folks who need to
be introduced.

Gabriela Arcos:	Gabriela Arcos, OSHA.

Man:	And Fronczak.

Robert Fronczak:	 Fronczak, Association of American Railroads.

Lamont Byrd:	And…

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	…our technical support. Okay. Good morning everyone. I
think the past couple of days have been very productive. And I think
we're coming down the home stretch so to speak. So I guess this morning
we are on Page 6 of the draft memo from ERP Subcommittee to NACOSH.

Bill Hamilton:	Lamont, can I - Bill Hamilton. Can I interrupt for just a
second? And in case the fire alarm goes off, please exit the room. Go to
the stairs and follow the crowd, exit the building. Shelter in place -
we stay in this room. What are some of the other safety requirements? I
forget.

	Oh, (unintelligible). Thank you. Thank you very much. And I think
that's the safety - you got the South cafeteria. It's on the sixth
floor. Bathroom, oh yes. If you can't find the bathrooms by now, too
bad.

	Before I switch from this chair to the other chair or this location -
well, I would personally like to thank every single one of you for the
time and effort that you have put into this and for working so hard and
for putting up with me trying to figure things out and getting a little
frustrated at times. I understand that, yeah, I know I (lived) it.

	But I really do appreciate everything that you guys have done and how
responsive you've been to all the - to all my emails and inquiries. And
if there's anything down the road that I can do to help you as you are
speaking with other folks in your organizations, please contact me.

Bill Warren:	Yes Lamont. I was just going to ask Bill is that when we
conclude this today would the committee - subcommittee be getting the
final versions of all the things going to NACOSH?

Bill Hamilton:	Presumably. I would guess so. We - that makes sense to do
that. And we were talking earlier about when that might occur. By the
time we finish getting everything together as far as the additional
information that has been asked for in the - add to the memo that we
don't have - that we're still collecting, that'll get added in and
(Rick) and Lamont will do the final approval on the memo.

	And if you look at - if you look at the end of the - end of the
document, there are some attachments that need to be done that need to
be - there are attachments to the memo that I still need to work on. And
once all that's done, we can certainly - as it's ready to go out to
NACOSH, send it to all of you so you can see - to the extent that final
product of the subcommittee.

	And I anticipate that being in - probably in my guess and you all know
what level in the organization I am, so my guess doesn't mean - really
mean a whole lot. But my guess would be end of October, beginning of
November because they typically would receive information about a month
before the NACOSH meeting, which would be in - beginning of December.

	So presumably no later than the beginning of November we should be - I
think we anticipate having (it).

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. And I think I speak for Lamont and
myself. You have written this. This is - you've really done the lion's
share of the work. I'm not sure what that was. But as far as I'm
concerned, anything that we get, you'll get as long as the law allows.
So we'll make sure that you stay fully in the loop right up until the
time we present to NACOSH and you'll get the response from NACOSH. So
we'll make sure of that.

Bill Hamilton:	And Bill Hamilton. Sorry. The - I had intended to - and I
tried to print out the version of the memo that is actually on - that is
on the screen that incorporates every - all the changes that were made
yesterday while you guys were together, the OSHSPA changes that Bill
Warren and Sarah worked on yesterday afternoon and some additional
information that Matt provided about the impact section.

	I intended to print it so you'd have a nice fresh copy. Welcome to the
Federal Government. Our printers aren't working today. So unfortunately
the most current edition the only copy I have, you know, is on the
screen. So I apologize you don't have a piece of paper in front of you
to look at the changes but hopefully if we can make it work - I know you
can make it work.

Sarah Shortall:	(Can I add) something? This is Sarah Shortall. You know,
(if) all year if all this works that Bill has been doing, he's made one
mistake and it was - he didn't get my contact information, write down
the contacts.

	So most of (these) I handed out my card. (And if) you please drop me an
email, I will let you know as soon as we have information about the
NACOSH meeting so that anybody who would like to attend and speak, I can
get the information to you and explain how you would go about submitting
your name and information in order to speak at that meeting. And the
meeting should be held in early December.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	Yes. We believe - so you can get it on your calendar, we
believe the NACOSH meeting is going to be the 12th and 13th of December.

Man:	Yes. I have the dates here.

Rick Ingram:	December.

Man:	Thirteenth and fourteenth. Tuesday and Wednesday.

Rick Ingram:	Did you want to (use any) (unintelligible)?

Lamont Byrd:	That's okay. We're going to - we're - this is Lamont. We're
going to take a look at the impact section. I think we - I know we had
some discussion about it yesterday. We want to make sure that we're all
on the same page.

Rick Ingram:	I believe Matt had kind of reworded a few things. Was that
the impact statement that you worked on Matt?

Matthew Tobia:	Yes sir. This is Matt Tobia. I know that yesterday
afternoon late in the day we were all struggling with the section on
impact. And so I went home and tried to capture what I thought were the
major issues we were talking about.

	I think I had a proposed title for the section as well. Yes. There you
go. And that may or may not be right. Again, I have no pride in
ownership whatsoever on this. It was simply an effort to ensure that
kind of the major themes in late yesterday afternoon's discussion are
capture. This is - you should take some time to read this. It's the
first time I'm sure most of us are seeing this.

Rick Ingram:	Scroll back up to the top.

Man:	Okay.

Rick Ingram:	Take them one at a time.

Sarah Shortall:	Sarah Shortall. In the third sentence I think it is
appropriate for the subcommittee to say they do not want OSHA to
promulgate but it's not appropriate for the subcommittee to be speaking
on behalf of OSHA.

Matthew Tobia:	This is meant to be - and Sarah, I completely appreciate
that fact and maybe it's pro forma. Andy has been on the record as
saying that I - from my perspective, he's speaking on behalf of OSHA,
which is why I worded it that way. And he has been on the record very
strongly…

Sarah Shortall:	Yes.

Matthew Tobia:	…of saying that. And perhaps, you know, as - we could
certainly say the subcommittee. I just - I'm just trying to capture that
sentiment.

Sarah Shortall:	We can say the committee wants to ensure that…

Matthew Tobia:	Yes.

Sarah Shortall:	…OSHA does not promulgate. Then that would be…

Matthew Tobia:	Yes ma'am. Thank you. Can I go back to the - there on the
second line?

Bill Warren:	Okay. This is Bill Warren. Sorry Lamont. So are we talking
- in particularly in OSHA plan states, are we talking those are federal
states or are we talking - or are we talking about the state plan states
in that discussion?

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. I was intending to capture the state
plan states concern that you had previously…

Bill Warren:	Okay.

Matthew Tobia:	…expressed concern about because of the fact that in
Federal OSHA states the economic impact in those states would be far
less than in states that had - with other states like…

Bill Warren:	So, whatever…

Matthew Tobia:	Whatever the terminology you want to use…

Bill Warren:	Yes. This is Bill Warren. And Bill Hamilton, thank you for
reading my mind just to add the state plan. That clearly defines which
(side) we're on.

(Ken Faulkno):	And this is (Ken). The second state probably should not
be capitalized because it's not part of the title. It's just a
geographical (graphic). Should say OSHA state plan (unintelligible).

Bill Warren:	Okay. Any additional thoughts or comments?

Lisa Delaney:	This is Lisa Delaney. There's one sentence and I can't
find it now because I'm having trouble seeing. But I think there was an
option to exclude certain sections of the standard. So I think there's a
statement saying (it could be) excluded from the standard but maybe we
didn't acknowledge for certain sections. I don't know where that is.

Man:	Yes. I think it's four and five…

Lisa Delaney:	Okay.

Man:	…of this (screen).

Man:	I'm sorry. (Where were we)?

Lisa Delaney:	I think it's towards the bottom of the paragraph. They're
talking about excluding from - certain groups from the standard.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes. Right there. Right there.

Lisa Delaney:	(Or)…

Matthew Tobia:	Where it says subcommittee. This is Matt Tobia. And that
was something that we had spoken about previously and I know that
Sarah's identified the possibility of excluding certain entities from
certain segments.

	Andy has shared that that's problematic from the rulemaking process;
not impossible but becomes very difficult to navigate from a regulatory
standpoint. Because I asked that question. I thought why don't we
just…

Lisa Delaney:	Yes.

Matthew Tobia:	…you know, require everybody to do risk assessment,
which gets to the issue of West Texas and then perhaps exclude them from
economic impacts component. It doesn't cost anything to do a risk
assessment.

	Andy at least indicated informally that that has in the past been
problematic but certainly not perhaps insurmountable or impossible to
do. And it may be appropriate to add that in. That after excluded from
the proposed regulations, comma, and/or certain segments of the
regulation or - and/or certain segments.

Lamont Byrd:	(Yes) (Ken).

(Ken Faulkno):	Yes. This is (Ken Faulkno).

Man:	(Ken) - hold on. Hold on a second. (Ken), if we could let - make
sure Bill captures this.

Man:	Does that get it (automatically)?

Man:	No. (Or)...

Man:	Okay.

Man:	(Ken) wanted…

Lamont Byrd:	Yes. (Ken).

(Ken Faulkno):	I don't have a change. I just want to echo what Matt has
said that - and I feel very strongly about this. If it doesn't cause a
whole lot of wrenches in the spokes that we could partially exclude
certain provisions because I strongly feel that a community risk
vulnerability assessment is a no cost doable thing and is critical to
the state to the responders.

	Andy and I have discussed it and Matt and various folks feel very
strongly that that component should not be an exclusion for anyone.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thank you (Ken). Sarah has a comment and then we'll
get Bill Warren.

Sarah Shortall:	We don't know what the proposed rule is going to be yet.
And so I would ask that we not call it the proposed rule but a proposed
rule. And instead of calling it regulation, which it will not be, it
will be a rule, using the word rule or standard, either/or.

Bill Warren:	Lamont, if I - this is Bill Warren. If I could just make
another quick observation. Instead of potentially excluded, could we use
what OSHA usually does is that's potentially exempted for parts of it.
Could we do that or what do you think. Sarah, I would guess that's more
a question to you from the legal aspect.

	I know that OSHA normally doesn't exclude anybody but they exempt
certain elements from standards. So would we consider that - would that
word be better excluded or would it be better exempted?

Sarah Shortall:	OSHA has excluded certain elements from standard all
together. They have excluded them from certain provisions. They've also
designed provisions that would belong to a certain classification. For
example, the (lead) standard, small non-(unintelligible) boundaries.
We're not able to achieve a (pell) of 50. And so we allowed them to do a
(pell) of 75 because of economic impact on the industry. So it does a
variety of different things.

Bill Warren:	So that's fine. Thank you.

Matthew Tobia	Importantly - this is Matt. This is Matt Tobia. Could I
offer just a suggestion that it should be rule? And the only reason I
would offer that is because at least in the emergency - at least in the
fire service community standards are widely considered to be consensus
voluntary standards and are not - do not carry the force of a rule or a
regulation.

	I would just offer that. Words have meaning a lot in the fire service
and standards are generally thought to be voluntary.

Bill Warren:	Bill Warren - yes, just based - Bill Hamilton based on what
Sarah just said, I think excluded or it was just fine. So I apologize
for the interruption there.

Rick Ingram:	Do we want to - this is Rick Ingram. I'm wondering if we
shouldn't mention the fact that this would be performance standard or
performance rule rather than prescriptive. And I think that's something
that we've worked on all the way through from the last year is to make
it performance based.

	And I think that will make it easier for the entities to build to
comply with it if they - if they're not exempt. Any thoughts on that?

Lisa Delaney:	This is Lisa Delaney. I think that's a great idea. I think
that belongs in the - maybe the subcommittee activity section sort of
describing the approach that we all (comfortably) agreed that and strive
to drop narrative regulatory (pack) that took up an approach of
performance based standards.

Rick Ingram:	Well I - this is Rick Ingram again. I think maybe we should
put that in both areas. But I, you know, I do think that that affects -
that could have an effect on the actual impact from my - in my opinion.
But I agree with what you're saying. But I think maybe we should put
that in both (labels) because this is how we started and then that's how
- it would lessen the impact, but that's just my - Sarah, you got
anything to say about that?

Sarah Shortall:	Sarah Shortall. I mean what I'd most think you can say
and if you want them put in both places certainly is appropriate because
performance based standards usually does make it easier for, you know,
the people to craft it so it fits their entity in the best way.

	And another thing you might want to say here is consistent with the
(act) you worked on developing a performance based (act) with OSHA
itself under 65 of the (act) is supposed to make a standards - define
our standards and performance cycle to the extent possible. So makes it
look good.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram. And to Lisa, I was looking at maybe
the last sentence in the introduction might be a good place for that
(mention).

Man:	What page are you on?

Rick Ingram:	Page 2. We could put it just about anywhere…

Lisa Delaney:	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	…but I think that really kind of includes our
introduction and then we could also have it in the impact. But that's
just food for thought.

Lisa Delaney:	Yes. This is Lisa Delaney. I agree. I think in that last
paragraph where we - is like a place to describe the approach that we
put.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Lisa Delaney:	Maybe I would say put it before the last sentence (that
we're) capturing on Page 2 in that (unintelligible) background. Yes.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Lisa Delaney:	And then before capturing. I would put a sentence in there
that says…

Rick Ingram:	Lisa, Lamont and I have concluded…

Lisa Delaney:	Okay.

Rick Ingram:	…that you're the most qualified to write that sentence so
we're going to (ask it).

Lisa Delaney:	I had written down the subcommittee strives to develop a
performance based standard (to consent) with OSHA's mandate. I will
defer Sarah on the letters and numbers that follow it (up) that you just
provided as part of your OSHA mandate.

Sarah Shortall:	(Will this) go to the end? Sarah Shortall. This will be
at the end of this section.

Lisa Delaney:	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	Second from the last sentence, right.

Sarah Shortall:	Second. Okay. Okay. I think it would be sufficient for
you to say consistent with (Osh act) unless you'd like the specific
provision. It's Section 65 of the (Osh act).

Lisa Delaney:	So we can just say (Osh act).

Rick Ingram:	I think Bill almost had (unintelligible).

Lisa Delaney:	And do we want to explain that performance based standard
provided with more flexibility…

Lamont Byrd:	This is Lamont. Where to the audience that this is going to
- I think the folks generally at NACOSH should - they all - they should
understand, you know, about - more about performance-based standards.

Lisa Delaney:	Right. But I think we just (lop it off in the)
performance-based standards.

Man:	Should it not be rule rather than standard?

Man:	(They don't care).

Lisa Delaney:	I think probably. Yes.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes. We used rule earlier or later…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes.

Matthew Tobia	Okay. This is Matt Tobia. I would just offer that just ask
OSHA staff to go through. If we're all in agreement that the term should
be rule instead of standard that they can go back through the document -
the report and find, select and replace standard with rule.

Man:	Okay. We'll make sure we get action item on that I (guess) just to
make sure we have coverage.

Rick Ingram:	Since we have it in this section, I don't see a need to
have it in the other section as well. This is Rick Ingram. Since we do
have it up front now, I don't see a real need to have it in the impact
statement unless somebody else does. So I'll withdraw that suggestion
unless someone feels strongly about it.

Man:	Okay.

Woman:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	Yes. (Thank you).

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. This is Lamont Byrd. Bill Hamilton, what - Matt Tobia
recommended that there be a find and replace for - to put rule instead
of standard throughout the memo. Is that correct Matt?

Matthew Tobia	If that's the - if that's the consensus of the
subcommittee just that words have meaning and just that the term
standard in the fire service at least is generally considered to be
voluntary as opposed to what the rule will be, which will be not
voluntary (and compulsory).

Lamont Byrd:	Thank you.

Bill Hamilton:	I'll go back (unintelligible) find and replace - take out
the (unintelligible).

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thanks Bill. All right. Are there any other thoughts
or comments about this section? Yes. Pat Morrison.

Pat Morrison:	Pat Morrison. I just have a question to the economists who
are in the room because this was the section that they're going to take
a look at for the fiscal impact that Ms. (Scally)'s going to have to
take a look at this.

	And I just wanted to get some clarification as to one of the big cost
value to this - in the rulemaking process that we did learn with the
medical and the information that we supplied. I don't know if we
supplied enough information for those numbers to come back after (link).
And that was one question.

	And the other - the end of that is also when you do an impact, you do
an impact of not just what the cost is but of not doing a rulemaking
what that cost could also be that i.e., a - I'll give you an example.

	A firefighter dies of a heart attack and the (fire ground) did not have
any kind of annual medical, it didn't have any screening. Is that cost
built into or is that cost built into the impact for municipalities?

Gabriela Arcos:	So (just in the) medical question. I want to thank
everyone (with) OSHA - the medical question. We'll go based off of, you
know, the final proposed rule. And usually there is (unintelligible) and
as well as, you know, in the supporting discussions, we try to pull out
as much detail as possible in terms of the range of options that are
available to meet the proposed rule.

	So we'll look at that. And usually, you know, we're able to identify
all the costs that might be attributed to any of the rules. In terms of
the cost and the benefit, in terms of not doing anything, we often kind
of look historically at injury data and death and fatality data as a
means to kind of incorporate and address that issue.

Pat Morrison:	All right. Thank you.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. We're still looking at
impact. Are we good on this or are there additional comments or
recommendations?

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. I just - so thinking about this again
on the impact statement, Matt, you did a great job. Thanks. Everybody
has done a great job all the way through this. But thanks for providing
this to us.

	I'm still - so I'm kind of - I'm waffling. If I was a politician I'd be
in trouble because I'd be charged with waffling. But I still - I think
that - I think that in the - like the second sentence of the impact we
might still want to put something about performance based rather than
prescriptive.

Matthew Tobia:	This is - I'm sorry. This is Matt Tobia. I would
certainly, you know, concur and support that particularly as it relates
to the alternative ways to meet the proposed rule. And perhaps in that
section - Bill, if you can scroll down for me just a little.

	Oh. So additionally, strong consideration has been given to
identification of alternative mechanisms. In that sentence perhaps - at
the end of that sentence where it says could employ to meet proposed
regulations, we could say could employ to meet proposed rules with
specific focus on the performance based intent of the rule.

Rick Ingram:	Rather than prescriptive.

Matthew Tobia:	Correct.

Rick Ingram:	Performance based rather than prescriptive. This is Rick
Ingram.

Matthew Tobia:	Right. With specific - right. With specific attention to
performance based solutions - performance based rather than prescriptive
solutions.

Rick Ingram:	I think you had said with specific attention to.

Matthew Tobia:	Right.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram.

Matthew Tobia:	Bill, in that sentence if we could just say with specific
attention or focus, yes, focus on, yes, performance based rather than
between, yes, rather than prescriptive solutions. Does that…

Rick Ingram:	Yes. This Rick Ingram. I think that'll help. So we've
mentioned that twice now. I do think that reinforces it where it needs
to be reinforced.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. This is Lamont Byrd. Just a second. Let's focus in on
the revision that was just made. Is the committee - subcommittee okay
with what's been proposed here?

((Crosstalk))

Pat Morrison:	Pat Morrison. I just - if you could explain Rick - I think
you did it on both you and Matt but when you say - when we say specific
focus on performance based rather than prescriptive solutions, can you
explain that to me? When I go…

Rick Ingram:	So prescriptive OSHA rules are this is what you have to do
and this is exactly how you have to do it. Performance based it's more
of this is the end result that we're looking for. The way you get to
that is up to you based on your business needs. Is that a fair
description of that?

Sarah Shortall:	Sarah Shortall. We could use the specification rather
than prescriptive. So I - and so we would say that our goal is to make
things - focus on the objective to be achieved rather than the
specifications by which you have to get to that end point.

	One of the things - other things that OSHA often uses with the word
performance based is to add the word flexible in front of it. Because
performance based does almost inherently have that concept of
flexibility in it that employers are looking for.

Pat Morrison:	Pat Morrison again. Yes. The - when you put in flexible,
that - from other OSHA rulemaking - in other words, what does that
actually mean? I mean it's in the fire service. And some of our…

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	So in the - I'll give you a good example, one I'm very
familiar with is the process safety management standards for hazardous
chemicals. So that entire standard is written around, you know, here are
OSHA's recommendations to have a safe program with hazardous chemicals.

	And these are some of the points that we expect. These are the elements
that we expect you to have. The way you reach those - the way you comply
with those elements is up to you.

	So there's many ways like, you know, they might recommend contractor
safety management or they do. They have contractor safety management in
there. But there's many ways that you can - the company can reach that
goal.

	So it's more goal - it's, you know, it's a standard but it's more goal
based on the entity has the flexibility to reach that goal in many
different ways. So just like the - when we're talking about the medical
portion of this, you know, the - there's - we want you to have a medical
element in your program, you know, to make sure that your firefighters
are fit for duty and safe and healthy.

	The way you reach that is up to you. So I don't know if that's a good
example for this or not. But that's how I look at it.

Sarah Shortall:	This is Sarah Shortall. Can I use the example that was
one of yours from yesterday Pat? Remember when we were talking about
decontaminating PPE. Originally it said in the standard that you would
decontaminate by hosing off or brushing off.

	And what we did was got rid of hosing off or brushing off and specified
what you have to do. You have to - you have to achieve (gross)
decontamination. And it's up to you about how you arrange that.

	And another example would be where (Ken) asked about how do we ensure
that an employee is doing what they're supposed to be doing. You know, I
explained, you know, you could have a discipline program, you could do
training, you could spot check it. We could have put all of that in the
standards but instead we want to achieve desired results of employees,
you know, using their PPE and how you enforce that you can develop
yourself.

Pat Morrison:	Pat Morrison again. Thank you. I hate when people use my
words back to me. But the - just going back to Rick. I just want to make
sure that the - and I understand the flexibility in getting a medical
requirement's going to be extremely important in this rulemaking
process.

	But the outcome - when you do the outcome is that is we're not changing
the outcome. We're just changing - I mean that - to me the outcome, I
mean the flexibility always gives somebody maybe an option how to get
that but the outcome should still be the same.

Rick Ingram:	There's still that - yes, that outcome expectation. Bill.

Bill Warren:	Yes. Bill Warren. Yes Pat, from a view of a safety
professional, flexibility is critically important because a lot of times
a lot of regulations are so narrowly focused that that across the
country just doesn't fit well.

	So by allowing the entities the opportunity to be flexible on how they
accomplish the end goal is very, very helpful for them to come into
compliance.

	If we were go get too prescriptive, you know, a large majority of these
- particularly the small division EMS folks would just simply not be in
compliance and they would choose not to be in compliance because the
prescription would be so intense that they couldn't achieve what our
outcome is. And that's why I think that the way it is now works well
for, you know, kind of across the board ability for entities to develop
their program.

Rick Ingram:	A good - and just a second (Ken). But a good - I think a
good example of prescriptive would be fall protection. You know, this is
what you have to have, this is how you have to do it, this is the weight
limits, this is - so that's prescriptive.

	So certain laws have to be prescriptive to protect the people. This one
is much more flexible. We just want - we want to these companies to
protect their workers. That's what it's all about. We want you to, you
know, look at this, use these - this standard to protect workers, get
them home safely at the end of the day.

	And we know there's a lot of things that they need to do that they're
probably not doing now. And I think that's our goal. I hope that helps.

Pat Morrison:	It does.

Sarah Shortall:	I'd have to make one correct here. Our fall protection
standards are performance based as well because we do give employers the
option of what type of fall protection they would use among several, you
know, acceptable types of fall protection.

	We do say in our standards if you choose this one, it has to be this
kind of requirement just to make sure it's effective. But we've given
the employers the ultimate ability to choose which line of fall
protection they want to use to comply.

Pat Morrison:	Thank you.

Rick Ingram:	I stand corrected.

Sarah Shortall:	(Unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	No, that's okay. No. I think that's great. Thank you very
much.

Sarah Shortall:	Yes.

Lamont Byrd:	(Ken Faulkno).

(Ken Faulkno):	I was just going to share with Pat a down home analogy on
performance and prescriptive is, you know, I know of at least three ways
to skin a rabbit. From the head down, from the tail down, from the
middle out. That's kind of prescriptive. And performance is if I get it
clean, that's all I'm shooting for. So that's the way I look at it.

Rick Ingram:	Thank you (Ken). Very good to have that in the record.

Man:	I guess I could use that - three ways to skin a fire chief.

((Crosstalk))

Sarah Shortall:	I personally am going to forget what I told you. I'm
just going to remember that one and use it every single chance I get.

Lamont Byrd:	Bill, did you get the rabbit skinning and the…

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. All right. So where are we on this docket? I have a
quick question for Ms. Sarah. The NACOSH Committee, is that a public -
is that open to the public…

Sarah Shortall:	Yes.

Lamont Byrd:	…in December?

Sarah Shortall:	Yes.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay.

Sarah Shortall:	It is required to be open to the public under the (TACA)
regulations and act. And in addition, we do make it open in more than
one way, performance based. So that in addition to appearing here at the
meeting, we also make arrangements for people to listen in and in
certain situations participate by teleconference.

Lamont Byrd:	Thank you.

Sarah Shortall:	(Unintelligible) meetings.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. So we've - this is Lamont Byrd. We've made quite a
few changes to this paragraph. It might be beneficial for us to get an
opportunity to just do a reread.

Rick Ingram:	Should that be a A rule or B rule? I know you mentioned
that once later on but - okay.

Sarah Shortall:	We can do that one later.

Rick Ingram:	Yes.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes. Well it is the (unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	If that's the one thing I had (for) today, we're all going
to be just fine.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	Well that should be undertaken (unintelligible).

Man:	I wasn't aware that was (legal).

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	…of a (unintelligible).

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. Bill, you may want to change that to
rule. Change the word regulation to rule. And then in the first
paragraph, there's also another location where it says regulation. You
can…

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	I think based on your suggestion earlier Matt -- this is
Lamont Byrd -- that maybe we can clean the document up, you know,
replacing regulation with rule where appropriate.

Rick Ingram:	I think you can probably scroll on down.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	…you're doing - okay. (That'd be good).

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Woman:	(Oh yes, there).

((Crosstalk))

Lisa Delaney:	Is contemplated the right word here around (the proposed)
rule provided to NACOSH for consideration or just leave that proposed
rule?

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	I agree with you. I would say drafted in this report
probably because this is a draft.

Lisa Delaney:	Well this isn't our report though. This is a memo.

Rick Ingram:	Yes.

Man:	Attached.

Lisa Delaney:	Yes, the attached.

Man:	Attached to this…

Man:	Well, we can take that part of it out.

Rick Ingram:	Yes.

Lisa Delaney:	Yes. Yes.

Man:	(Unintelligible). Does that work?

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. That looks good to me.

Pat Morrison:	Pat Morrison here. Sensitive (venues). How is OSHA going
to be sensitive? I mean is that - not that OSHA is not sensitive in any
way possible. But I just meant that word itself, is that a word that
you're comfortable with that people would (unintelligible).

Man:	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	Yes. You could say sensitive or carefully, you know,
contemplates.

Man:	Or also reflect - can reflect the cognitive of - be particularly
cognitive of the economic community or aware of it, understand it.

Lisa Delaney:	Be cognitive…

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Lamont Byrd:	Yes. Okay. To the subcommittee, what do we think about it?
We're good or are there further recommended revisions?

Lisa Delaney:	Are you talking about the (unintelligible) or the…

Lamont Byrd:	For the - this section here, yes, what we've been working
on. Yes (Ken).

(Ken Faulkno):	(Unintelligible) make sure that that says what we're
thinking.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. The title is Fiscal Impact on Small Rural and
Predominantly Volunteer Entities.

Pat Morrison:	(That works). I think - this is one we might just have to
discuss just a little bit because it's not just the volunteer side in
there. It's not just the small. This can be - this can be looked at I
think on career side. This is going to look at - they're going to look
at that fiscal impact of let's say in having to do - we have many large
fire departments. Boston, Chicago, Philly. No medical annual
evaluations.

((Crosstalk))

Pat Morrison:	Well but I think that eventually we'll try to get
(unintelligible) to do it but…

((Crosstalk))

Pat Morrison:	But the only thing I'm saying in this sense is here in the
title it seems like that's the only group that we were looking at but
this could have a impact on even larger sized - I mean it is going to
have a fiscal impact. It's not that it's - that it can't. It will on
those that are not right now complying with the rules. So…

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt. And I agree with you 100%. I think the -
that the discussion - I think when we were previously discussing
consideration of excluding - potentially excluding entities based on
population served that the discussion did not extend to the larger
organizations presumably under the position that A, many of them are
doing this - not all by any means. Many of them are doing at least some
of these - following some of these rules.

	And second that they were better resourced to be able to comply with
the rules. But I absolutely agree. It's going to impact - I mean it's
going to impact every employer for sure.

Pat Morrison:	Right. Right.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes. There's no doubt about that.

Sarah Shortall:	Sarah Shortall. Would it be easier just to have the
title be Economic Impact? And that way it leaves it open for…

((Crosstalk))

Sarah Shortall:	…economic impact.

Bill Troup:	Bill Troup, USFA. Why don't we just say it won't just be a
fiscal impact because it - in some of these rural communities or any
communities it's going to be a time factor to fill out those - to do the
paperwork and all the requirements of that. Just could we just say
impact as we had in the original language? Not just fiscal or economic
impact.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt. The concern was that - when we spoke
yesterday was that the perception would be that impact is what is the
impact of - what is the potential impact of the report. And what I think
we're really - in particular back to the rule.

	And I think what we're really looking for is to highlight the fact that
we as a group had a significant discussion and did not - we're not on a
consensus about who it should or should not apply to organizationally.
So I think potential economic impact - potential economic and
performance impact might be - might address the concerns.

(Ken Faulkno):	(Ken Faulkno). Bill that's (why I wanted to) look at it
again because it's not only a fiscal impact. It's a implementation
impact as well. But as such - I'm fine with just about everything but
you could put fiscal and implementation impact of this - of a rule - of
the rule, however it's…

Lisa Delaney:	This is Lisa. What about the term burden? Burden. No.

((Crosstalk))

Sarah Shortall:	How about just changing it to potential impacts on
entities?

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. And I think…

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	…I'll just say that I think the title if we got anything
in there about potential impact - I think the body of the paragraphs
that follow really explain what we're talking about. So if we take this
holistically and look at the title, potential impacts or whatever we
decide to put, I think Matt did an exemplary job of explaining all of
that in the text. So I think the - that's my opinion.

	I think we could go overboard on the title and it would actually almost
take away from the body of the text.

Man:	You don't want a paragraph of…

Woman:	(Unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	You know, I started (unintelligible).

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. So we've taken - this is Lamont Byrd. So we've taken
a look at the newly revised title of potential impact. Are we okay with
potential impact? Okay. I'm getting a - I'm getting a feel that the body
is okay with this. Okay.

	Now in terms of the content under potential impact, we're okay with
that. So it's okay for us to move forward into (finding) the
recommendations.

Man:	(After a) break.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. We'll do a break. It's about - what time do you have?

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Nine-forty-eight. Let's reconvene at 10 o'clock.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Okay friends. One more section.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Let's - okay. Lamont is out herding the cats. We want to
welcome Andy back. Welcome Andy. Wired for sound and everything else.
You want to have anything to say real quick?

Andy Levinson:	No. I don't want to (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	You will.

Woman:	We already got briefed on the bathrooms and the (unintelligible).

Man:	Bill didn't read that.

Woman:	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	Yes. All right. So we're on - so we'll start over on Page
6.

Man:	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	And this is actually our recommendation to NACOSH. So
again, no pride in authorship here. And Sarah has made some wonderful
comments that I would suggest that we accept. But if Bill can pull that
up.

Man:	All right. (Unintelligible).

Woman:	(Congratulations).

Rick Ingram:	So there's a little bit of flag waving here. But I think
it's appropriate in its context, so. I'd like to read that. The
Emergency Response Preparedness Subcommittee has recently completed a
full year's work in thoughtful deliberation to complete draft regulatory
language, which in our opinion will serve to protect some of our
country's most valuable assets, our first responders.

	These brave individuals many of whom volunteer time, place themselves
in harm's way to protect our citizens and the public from danger each
and every day. And I would like at this time to give an applause to all
of our first responders that (are here).

	The subcommittee has taken this responsibility very seriously carefully
considering differing views including those of OSHSPA and we believe
that the potential benefits of the draft regulatory text outweigh any
concerns.

	The September - at the September 2016 meeting there was consensus on
the subcommittee to recommend strongly to the full NACOSH that the
committee consider and deliberate on the draft regulatory language.
Recommended to the secretary to proceed with rulemaking and adopt the
NACOSH draft regulatory text for an emergency responder preparedness
program standard. And we can change that to rule if we need to.

	So that's what we have. And that's - that will be our final
recommendation to NACOSH to take this text and hand it over to OSHA with
a recommendation to make it into a rule. And again, no pride in
authorship there. So this is our last piece of text that we need to
complete. Any comments? Andy.

Andy Levinson:	My only question and I'm sorry I missed yesterday and
earlier this morning. Who are you? Sorry. This is Andy. Thank you. Andy
Levinson from OSHA. How do you see groups deal with the considerations
for small and very small? Are there recommendations in there?

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Andy Levinson:	Okay. All right. Great. As long as there's something you
all are happy with.

Pat Morrison:	Pat Morrison. I like how it concludes. I mean I think it's
very direct. I mean if the committee, you know, the members here are
supportive of that, I like that. I know that it still has a long way to
- I mean discussing and debating it's going to be thoroughly checked.
But I think that collectively it really does capture in a very direct
way what I think what our intent was and what we ended up with the
outcome of the subcommittee (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	Victor.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro. Just to poll the group or ask
- I know in the last paragraph it says that we recommend strongly of the
consensus of the subcommittee. I'm wondering is that unanimous and if
so, would we want to change that.

Rick Ingram:	Yes. If we can make that unanimous Bill, we would change
that. But I think Sarah has something to say. This is Rick Ingram.

Sarah Shortall:	I think you're - Sarah Shortall. I think your culture
(has kind of - is brilliant) this whole time and working to get sense of
the room consensus since really the only two votes that matter are these
two gentlemen up here.

	So I think the word consensus is very appropriate if it was unanimous
consensus. (You just don't) - so try to use language in there that's got
across that everyone is agreement but without talking about taking votes
(on). Unanimous would be the (group of votes).

Andy Levinson:	So let me offer perhaps alternate language that might get
to your point. So this is Andy. Perhaps a statement along the lines of
no stakeholders voiced serious concerns with this or no stakeholders
expressed reservation about moving forward so that it's not a - makes it
sounds a little less like a vote but conveys the message.

Woman:	(Unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	I don't know if I would agree with that Andy although I -
as I said, I appreciate what we've done here. I think there's been a
tremendous amount of positive work. The group together has developed
some idea of how do we protect emergency response folks.

	As again, my major reservation has always been that in the municipal
side that we've got 24 states now with Maine coming in as a public
sector state. We have 24 states now that are exempted from the rule and
that was our biggest concern that we've got economic and impacts of - to
do this in some of the states but not the whole.

	So that's my only reservation. And as far as the - what we've done
here, I think is a fantastic work. And, you know, I look forward to even
going back to my state and taking a look at what we can even implement
prior to OSHA working on their final proposal. But I'm not so sure I
would agree that it was a light as that, you know.

	And not only because I'm not only representing myself, as you know. You
know, Pat's representing all of his members. I'm also representing
OSHSPA too.

Rick Ingram:	So Bill, are you comfortable with the way this is worded
currently?

Bill Hamilton:	I'm very comfortable. And again, I appreciate my
colleagues. This has been a significant amount of labor. And I think the
final outcome is that not just firefighters but ambulance workers,
special support folks working in emergency management systems will
greatly be affected positively by this.

Rick Ingram:	And Matt, did you have a comment?

Matthew Tobia:	Yes sir. Thank you. This is Matt Tobia. Just a very minor
wordsmithing issue. One the very first sentence Bill, we used the word
at least twice in the same sentence. I just would offer that the second
complete be changed to develop.

(Ken Faulkno):	(Unintelligible) Rick.

Rick Ingram:	(Ken Faulkno).

(Ken Faulkno):	In the same paragraph the last sentence (unintelligible).
That probably should be a comma (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	So (Ken Faulkno) made the comment that we need a comma
between - after time.

(Ken Faulkno):	Comma (unintelligible) listening.

Rick Ingram:	Any other comments?

Sarah Shortall:	One English teacher comment is the first sentence of the
section the word which should be that.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	That was a fraudulent typing error.

((Crosstalk))

Sarah Shortall:	He's going to change - did he put a (T) in there
somewhere.

Rick Ingram:	No. He just changed it to that. We…

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	For the record, we're getting a little bit giddy because
we're getting close to the end. This is Rick Ingram. Any other comments?
Okay. So everybody's happy with that. Flag waving okay in the beginning?
Okay. Going once. Going twice. Okay. That's it. Let's give ourselves a
hand.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. I didn't see - and I want to just
(for the best) to being able to see it. We didn't review the language
that - I know that Bill and Sarah worked up language regarding OSHSPA. I
just - I was just curious to see what that - what they came up with as
far as their final language. And I don't know if there's any other track
changes that we need to approve.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Matthew Tobia:	Yes. Okay.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. Thank you very much.

Lisa Delaney:	This is Lisa Delaney. I just want to make sure that we
have the attachment currently numbered for final (unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	…fix all that yet. I was working on it this morning, so.

Lisa Delaney:	(Okay). So if you can, let's just take that offline and
work on that.

((Crosstalk))

Lisa Delaney:	Great.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. Bill, I noticed that you - at one time
you had the EPA representative listed as one of the visitors and now
he's not. Is that - was there a reason for that?

Bill Hamilton:	That was - Bill Hamilton. That was in one of the very
preliminary drafts. And I think internally we didn't see the value in
adding that to the memo.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

Bill Hamilton:	Because he - it didn't - he came in and talked about the
program but it - he talked about the program but it didn't - it had just
a minor impact I think on the - on one little - one aspect of the draft
regulatory language.

Rick Ingram:	And this is Rick Ingram. I was just curious. Not a problem.

Lamont Byrd:	This is Lamont Byrd. There are action items that we listed
from yesterday. And I would think that a lot of this would probably be
done offline. But one thing that was listed is gathering data on
occupational illness.

	There are a couple of examples like the data that might be available
from the World Trade Center. There might be some information on skill
support at World Trade Center. Possibly some emergency responders. And I
had listed Lisa Delaney, Spencer Schwegler and Pat Morrison and OSHA.
Yes Spencer.

Spencer Schwegler:	Yes. This is Spencer. I sent to you this morning a
link to an article I got from (Chris Tranion) yesterday regarding the
(field) support health impact at the World Trade Center at the - on
skilled support workers. And Lisa said that she will also do a little
more research on that. Who should we send that information to as we get
more stuff? Send it to Bill?

Lamont Byrd:	I would think Bill - yes. I would think Bill Hamilton.
Bill, that okay with you?

Spencer Schwegler:	And Bill, do you want us to come up with a sentence
or two from all of this? You just don't want us to do a data dump on
you.

Bill Hamilton:	Yes. A sentence of how it - (this thing) would be
helpful. What I can do is send the draft of the memo to you and you can
see how it, you know, see how it fits in that (agenda).

Spencer Schwegler:	Okay.

Pat Morrison:	This is Pat Morrison. Also on that we have the World Trade
Center health report that gets issues and that comes out on a regular
basis - quarterly basis anyway. And we do have the numbers for the
illnesses and the cancers that are directly related to the list of those
illnesses that are being accepted by the World Trade Center Health
Organization. So it's directly a link to those exposures.

	So we did want to put those down. So we'll get that. I'll have (Tracy
Gorman) from our shop, our Industrial Hygienist, make sure that she sits
on that panel there. We'll get those numbers. But those numbers are
documented. I think it's real important to have some correlation that
there are illnesses and there are cancers that are associated with that.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thank you Pat. Bill Troup.

Pat Morrison:	It's for everybody.

Bill Troup:	Bill Troup, U.S. Fire Administration. It was mentioned about
the NIOSH study of cancer among firefighters. USFA was a partner with
NIOSH on that. And Bill, I will get you all that information on that
study.

Man:	Okay. I actually had listed that Pat…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	…Pat had raised that, yes.

Pat Morrison:	Yes. I'll give you - Bill - Pat Morrison. Bill can send
that to you all. I know Sarah had me listed as the - to get that
information (if you can). But that's just - all it is is just the final
NIOSH cancer study report.

Bill Troup:	And Bill Troup, USFA. And the reason I mention that is you
would want to (roll) back on the study of how it happened and
everything. That would be in the Web links I'll send you on that. And
Pat, I'll copy - you want to respond to that.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Then I have a note to provide reference and citations
for the data or the references to the data that's in the memo I guess.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro. Yes. I'll send you the
references related to the NFPA reports on the injuries and the line of
duty deaths. I can send that to you. Also I'll send it to Bill.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thank you.

Pat Morrison:	Pat Morrison. And that (will include) - I think the same
thing. When we check that we're going to check the NIOSH. When we say
that we have - I forget what we said in the statement but there are
(elements there). We'll actually have that cited for the NIOSH cancer
reports. That will be another site.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thank you. And there was an action item to add a
footnote to explain the 439 deaths. That may have already been done
but…

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes. This is Victor Stagnaro. I'll make sure we take
care of that.

Lamont Byrd:	And you may have already said that Bill. I'm sorry, Victor.
Let's see. And then I think we need to - there needs to be just a little
bit of work done on the (tiers) spreadsheet. I think that needed to be
reformatted. And was there anything else?

Rick Ingram:	I think that was it. The only thing we mentioned - this is
Rick Ingram. The only thing we mentioned was the medical portion of the
spreadsheet. But I think we - that decision was made not to complete
that portion of it.

(Ken Faulkno):	This is (Ken). I'm not sure what you mean by reformatted.
The original format is in Excel but I'm going to go print it. The lines
were left out. Lines if left in it clears it up really a lot.

Rick Ingram:	It does? If you could maybe - this is Rick Ingram. If you
could maybe forward that Excel spreadsheet or did you?

(Ken Faulkno):	Bill has it.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

(Ken Faulkno):	He got it this week.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

(Ken Faulkno):	Just a matter when you print it, you go up into options
and you put grid lines and it'll print…

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

(Ken Faulkno):	…the Excel (spreadsheet).

Man:	Okay.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Yes. That's what we were talking about the (terms) of
reformatting. Okay. And I had an action item that's already been taken
care of and that was the draft language reflecting the position of
OSHSPA. And then there was to ensure that rules are used rather than
standard regulation and that's already or that's in process and already
been completed. That was all I had though. And yes, the OSHSPA part is
already done. Yes. That was all I had.

Rick Ingram:	The only other thing I had was I think we have some public
comments. And probably ought to hear those and I think that - and then
also the next steps if we can get Andy to - so public comments and then
get the next steps and we'll end the meeting after that.

Lamont Byrd:	So we have one guest who indicated that he wanted to make a
public comment. Is there anyone else?

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Lamont Byrd:	Yes.

Robert Fronczak:	Good morning. Robert Fronczak, Assistant Vice
President, Environment Hazardous Materials for the Association of
American Railroads. And I too would like to thank the emergency
responders that work with us throughout North America in responding to
railroad accidents. I know you do a lot of good work with us.

	After Wednesday's meeting I took some of the information back to the
office with me, scanned it, sent it out to my members. And even though
we realize that this is very early in the process, our members wanted us
to at least get on record with some comments from their perspective.

	The Association of American Railroads is a national non-profit trade
association that represents the nation's major freight railroads. Its
membership includes freight railroads that operate 83% of the line-haul
mileage. It employs 95% of the workers and accounts for 97% of the
freight revenues of all the railroads in the United States.

	Our members include passenger railroads that operate intercity
passenger trains and provide commuter rail service. AAR is the nation's
leading railroad policy research standard setting and technical
organization.

	AAR and its members are committed to operating the safest, most
efficient, cost-effective and environmentally sound rail transportation
system in the world. Its railroad members or AAR members operate over
161,000 miles of track in the U.S. along and operate substantial
networks in Canada and Mexico.

	Railroads have to prepare response plans for hazardous materials that
we transport today and there's an active rulemaking on oil spill
response plans in the notice of proposed rulemaking at the present time.

	The rulemaking is HM251B and comments to that rulemaking are due
September 27. (There were) workers who respond to hazardous material
accidents are trained in accordance with 29CFR1910.120.

	It was my understanding listening to the conversation on Wednesday that
this rulemaking language is being put together partially to prevent
situations that like what happened in West Texas, which was a fixed
fertilizer facility.

	But the way the draft language reads it appears it pulls railroads and
other transportation facilities into the rulemaking under the general
industry clause. (AAR) does not think the subcommittee intended the rule
would apply to rail carriers but we'd like the subcommittee to make that
clear.

	It's the intention - if the intention of the rule is to include
transportation industry, then the transportation industry should have
included in the subcommittee membership.

	The original language of this section applied to fire brigades.
Railroads don't put out fires. We support local fire departments that do
that. And we provide them with resources as necessary, one of which is
firefighting or fire resistant, alcohol resistant foam, which we provide
but we don't use that. We provide that to the local fire companies for
their use.

	The way the draft rule is currently written, it expands it to all
emergency response; at least that's the way we are interpreting it. If
the intent of the rulemaking is intended to apply to the rail industry,
it should be made clear that railroads are not emergency service
organizations. That is not clear in the way the definition for ESOs
currently read.

	One example from the railroad industrial hiking group is that in
Section 1910 15E1I requires emergency service organizations, which
conceivably under this rule would be railroads, to develop comprehensive
community or facility vulnerability and risk assessment written reports
addressing hazards within the area where - areas where emergency
services it provides are expected to be performed.

	This covers the nation's entire rail network. This is written for a
single - it seems to be that this is written for stationary sources and
as previously indicated the railroads already have extensive spill
response plans in compliance with EPA regulations and DOT is in the
process of developing a rulemaking for oil spill response plans, which
will include comprehensive emergency response plans.

	On the broader level, feedback from our rail industry hazardous
materials groups indicate that this largely attempts to require railroad
industries to comply with NFPA guidance under formal regulation, which
we feel that it's something that the fire industry itself has sometimes
difficulty in complying with.

	We'd like it to be recognized that if trained professional firefighters
operating in dedicated fire stations struggle to comply with the NFAP -
NFPA guidance, we find it hard to believe that the subcommittee intended
this guidance to be promulgated into a regulation that the railroad
industry would have to comply with.

	We just wanted to get on the record and try to make it clear that we
don't think the intent was for the railroads to have to comply with
this. Any questions?

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. I think that's wonderful that you
spoke up now and that - that really helps the committee to understand
your point of view and broaden our point of view. So thank you for your
comment.

Andy Levinson:	This is (unintelligible). Robert, if surely you were
reading a statement, do you have something that you'd like to enter into
the record as a written version of what you just said that
(unintelligible).

Robert Fronczak:	I do have a written version but I have a lot of
handwritten notes as I was working on it this morning during the
meeting. But I could send a copy to Bill.

Andy Levinson:	Yes.

Sarah Shortall:	Well everything you just said - everything you've said
will be reflected in the transcript. If you want to resend it, that'd be
fine. We can put it in the record. But you can be assured that your
statement is already going to be a part of the record.

Robert Fronczak:	This is Robert Fronczak. So you want a written copy?

Woman:	(No need).

Andy Levinson:	I think there's no need but personally if you have a
written copy, I think it'd be easier because that's easier for people to
see. Not as many people go back and read the transcript. But I'd like to
make sure that anybody who's looking through the docket reads your
statement.

Sarah Shortall:	Oh, why don't you go ahead and send it to me since I
also owe you some research, which I found part of it yesterday.

Robert Fronczak:	(Who again)?

Sarah Shortall:	Sarah Shortall.

Andy Levinson:	Okay. Thank you for you statement. Are there any other
guests here or any other members of the public who would like to make a
statement at this time? Okay.

	Actually before we get to some very well deserved thank yous, let me
talk a little bit about procedure moving forward. So we are going to
wrap up these last few remaining items that Lamont went through. And I
would say certainly no later than the end of this month, September, we
should have a final report from the NACOSH Workgroup that Rick and
Lamont can then forward to the full NACOSH Committee.

	The report as you write it when it is complete will be in the record.
Nobody can change that. NACOSH has the ability to do whatever it wants
moving forward. But the work that you've done will stand in the record
and the agency always has the ability to go back and rely upon the
information that you've provided should it ultimately find it more
persuasive.

	NACOSH is having a meeting in December and I want to say it's the
second week in December. And Rick and Lamont will be representing the
NACOSH Workgroup. I will be there as well as will Bill Hamilton. The
meeting is open to the public. You are welcome to attend in person. You
are also welcome to join that meeting by teleconference.

	They will have the opportunity for members of the public to speak in
general at NACOSH meetings and we will have to work out with NACOSH if
they would like to open the mic during the discussion to members of the
subcommittee to have the option if anybody decides Rick and Lamont have
something to say. We'll see what we can do about that.

	But that's something that's up to and so is who you met, (Mandy Eden)
who is the Director of our Tech Support members with the management
group and who is the DFO for the NACOSH Workgroup.

	Once that is done, they will make a recommendation to the assistant
secretary. I'm assuming that in December we will probably still have an
assistant secretary. If not, they will make a recommendation for the
acting assistant secretary and we will certainly have one of those.

	As you may or may not remember, there's an election in November. There
will be a new administration one way or the other in January. And then
it's up to the new administration to determine if we move forward with
the rulemaking and keep it on the reg agenda or not.

	I think one of the things that was certainly a very good sign that this
rulemaking process started under the Bush administration and then was
ultimately continued under the Obama administration. So I think there's
certainly some bipartisan support demonstrated for this project over the
last several years. Certainly the work that you've done stands as a
strong testament but there is, you know, there will be that decision
point.

	Assuming we move forward with rulemaking, the next step will be (that's
a brief) of that small business prop that switches a combination process
between OSHA and the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy
where what we will do is we will take our draft regulatory text along
with some additional explanatory information and we'll give it to what
are called small entity representatives.

	Small entity representatives are employer representatives only. So
labor does not have a voice at all during this process. It is only small
entities. So we're talking fire chiefs and/or city administrators or
representatives of management.

	In terms of small employers for municipal organizations, small is
defined as populations few - sorry - governmental organizations that
serve fewer than 50,000 people in terms of citizens.

	What we will be looking for from your organization are career and
volunteer and combination departments that fit that definition; smaller
than 50,000. And in particular we're going to be looking for again
probably not career but probably volunteer and combination departments
at the very small end.

	We talked about 2500 citizens and 5000 citizens being important break
points so we want to make sure we get some very small governmental
organizations represented at that level to talk in particular about the
economic feasibility issues that we have all talked about repeatedly
over the past year as well as ways that we can reduce the economic
burden.

	It is not uncommon for us to have 50 to 100 small entities
participating in this process. So we're going to come to you all as
organizations to beat the bushes and ask for all sorts of your members
in different categories.

	You can always provide us the names of the people that you think are
qualified in terms of that 50,000 number. Small Business Administration
will go back and they will vet the numbers to make sure that they
actually meet those definitions.

	We're also going to want to look for if you have private industrial
fire brigades that are doing this. We're going to certainly want to look
for small organizations that have fire brigades. And in that case it
gets a little bit more complicated because the definition of a small
business depends on the (NAIC)'s code for that business.

	Sometimes it's by the number of employees. Sometimes it's by revenue.
But again, if you've got organizations that are small and it's probably
not the Boeing Fire Department, but there's some other organizations
that are running, you know, fire departments or industrial emergency
response, we're going to look for those as well.

	Robert, let me say to you, we've got to look at the railroad issue and
whether or not there is coverage or not. If there is, we will certainly
reach out to you and see if we can get some railroad that meets the
definition of small. And again, that's an industry sector dependent. So
thank you for coming and raising these issues. And if we think that
there's a chance that you're covered, we will come to you for small
entity representatives as well.

	That small entity process is again open to the public so you can listen
but not participate. And that's a report that ultimately is agreed upon
between OSHA, the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy and
the White House Office of Management and Budget.

	And what that agreement means is that we provide a report that reflects
what the small entity representatives tell us. So we agree that this
reflects what they told us, not that we agree necessarily with what they
said. But it's an important opportunity to get feedback from the public
and to make sure that people understand the regulatory language. We will
provide them regulatory text.

	After that the next step if we go forward with rulemaking is a notice
of proposed rulemaking. That is the full traditional published in the
Federal Register all of the summary and explanation, all of the
exhibits, all of the analysis, the regulatory text, a list of questions
that we have for the public.

	So there will be opportunities for your organizations and your members
to provide written comments in response to a notice of proposed
rulemaking. We then always have public hearings.

	So there will be an opportunity for you and your members to come and
speak at a public hearing. And then after that there are opportunities
depending on how you want to participate for post-hearing comments and
then if you have attorneys post-hearing briefs.

	So there are several opportunities for public comment and information
to provide into this process. That's what it looks like going forward.
Do you have any questions on procedural issues, anything else I can
answer? Yes. Bill.

(Bill):	Yes. Sorry. I (guess) brought it up a little bit yesterday too.
But when you do your economic impact statement for picking the smaller
entities, in that this particularly affects the state plan states for
those entities. Is OSHA going to make a concerted effort to ensure that
that's kind of the population they look at those that will actually have
some major impact to or is it going to be combinations spread out over
both the federal and the state plan states?

Andy Levinson:	So when do the economic impact, we do everybody who will
be covered. So we're going to look at the people who would be covered by
the Federal Government including federal agencies and there are many
people who would be covered in that regard.

	And then we'll also look at the states and see which state plans have
which definitions for who would be covered and then try and assess the
number of people there. So there will be an extensive discussion of
what's going on in the states that are state plan states.

(Bill):	Thank you.

Andy Levinson:	And let me also say, you know, I said numerous times
throughout the meeting our goal is to make sure that not even a single
volunteer fire department goes out of business because it'd be public
health impact on this.

	We are going to spend an awful lot of time and look much more than is
usual I think at the economic feasibility issues particularly on those
very small government entities and see what types of flexibility we can
provide for not only folks covered by the federal but also to try and
have a nuanced discussion for the states because when the states go out
if we go forward with rulemaking have to do their own rulemaking, we
recognize that there might be a need for some state variability there.

Man:	Thank you (unintelligible). It's appreciated.

Matthew Tobia:	Andy, this is Matt Tobia. Just a question regarding
timetables. This (sobrifa) process, how long does that take generally?

Andy Levinson:	So as a general rule the (sobrifa) process is 120 days.
There is a period before that. So that's beyond the clock from the time
we send something to the Small Business Administration till the time the
whole process is concluded.

	As with anything, it takes time to write the paperwork, get agreement
that the documents that we have are the documents that we want to
provide to the small businesses.

	So, you know, there's some, you know, kind of period underneath the
water that nobody's going to see until that process begins. But it's a
fairly contained process.

	Then the commitments from the small entity representatives are to read
the document that we send then and then participate in one
teleconference, which is typically about 60 to 90 minutes. And that's
the sum total of their commitment to this process.

	And then we usually have particularly when you're looking at 60 to 100
or so people, you know, we might have six or either teleconferences. So
there's lots of flexibility. For the last several we've done a couple of
teleconferences in the evening to accommodate people who are working,
you know, during the day.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram. Will Lamont and I since we
co-Chaired this have any input at all after today or besides folks
comments or - and a recommendation to NACOSH to represent (these fine
people).

Andy Levinson:	Right. So no. Your involvement is here and then as NACOSH
members. And then once NACOSH takes the vote, then after that it
transitions to the agency and the agency has its full discretion and
authority in terms of everything.

	Certainly, you know, we respect the work that each and every one of you
have done and we promise to listen hard, you know, to each and every one
of you. But, you know, once NACOSH is done, it's in the agency's hands.

Sarah Shortall:	This is Sarah Shortall. I also wanted to go over a
couple of procedural items, as we're moving on to NACOSH. First of all,
I think I gave everybody my card so that as soon as the NACOSH meeting
announcement comes out I can get it to all of you and help you get
registered for participating in the meeting whether you want to just
listen or also want to actually speak at the meeting on the Council for
NACOSH. So I will be at the meeting or be clear for that.

	Then the other thing is that I want to tell you about the hearings is
it's very important for you to file a notice of intention to appear at
the hearing even if you do not plan to appear at the hearing. Because
what it does is it allows you to participate in all of the comments that
are involved with that.

	So if you wouldn't attend the hearing or you wanted to attend the
hearing only ask questions, you'd be able to do that. But what it also
guarantees you is the right to participate in our post-hearing comment
period. And only those who filed a notice of intention to appear and
participate in our hearing process, which includes that post-hearing
comment period will be allowed to participate.

	So it's so important for you just to get that notice of intention to
appear. And that announcement of that will be either part of the
proposed rule or will be in a subsequent Federal Register notice
announcing the hearing. So you will get plenty of notice.

	And then I want to encourage all of you to come and participate at the
NACOSH meeting. I know that from serving as the Council and (Sarisa)
have been very open to making sure we get the public comment at just the
right point of discussion. And I've every confidence she'll be doing the
same here as well.

	And I promise I'll be able to come. We will have baked goods that will
get you here. And then the last thing I wanted to say it's been my
distinct honor to get to work with the whole subcommittee. I'm really
sad. Have mixed (result of feelings). I'm very sad this is ending. I'm
so excited that you developed such a hard working product that's going
to be coming to fruition before the NACOSH.

	So I thank you for all of your work and just being able to be sitting
here with you and seeing you (part) - so this is all working (hard). So
thank you so much.

Andy Levinson:	(Thank you). At this time let me turn it the mic and the
meeting over to Bill Perry who is my boss, our boss. He's the Director
of the Directorate of Standards and Guidance.

Bill Perry:	Oh, thank you Andy. I just wanted to say that what you've
produced over this effort is really an exceptional work product. It's
really going to help us move forward. The work product certainly
reflects the time and energy and your expertise that you've put into it.

	Certainly we in Standards and Guidance could not have made this kind of
progress over the past year on our own. And we look forward to our
continued collaboration as we go through the rulemaking process on this.

	So really just on behalf of Standards and Guidance and the agency and
Dr. Michaels wanted to give you a very heartfelt thank you for your
service. And know that you made a very important contribution to the
safety and health of emergency response workers and other workers that
have been engaged in emergency response activities today.

	So thank you very much. Really appreciate your service on this. So I
think that's it. Anyone else has any last word?

Man:	So we have - Bill has a certificate.

Man:	Oh, I forgot. Yes. Certificates of thanks.

Man:	Can you walk around (unintelligible)?

Man:	Andy goes in traction later this afternoon.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. I just want to - I'm sure on behalf
of all the members of the NACOSH Subcommittee I really just want to take
a moment and recognize the OSHA staff for their tremendous work on this
project.

	The fact of the matter is that we show up periodically and provide
input and guidance and you give us a platform to advocate for the issues
that are most important to us. But the fact of the matter is that it's
the folks that are here every day doing this hard work. And Andy and
Bill and Sarah and (Henry) and all of your economists and staff are just
absolutely positively top shelf. You're extraordinarily blessed and
thank them for their hard work.

Man:	Absolutely. Thank you for that.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro. I'd like to thank your
co-Chairs for their leadership throughout and…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	And even though I'm not on a microphone, I'm sure everybody can
hear me. Thank you all very much. It has really been a pleasure working
with you not just in the meeting room but all of our work that you've
done to be in this meeting today.

	As Bill said, we could not have done this without you. And I am
confident that we are in a much better place with a much better product
that will serve your members because of all your hard work. So again,
thank you very much for your time and effort.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram. I just want to say what a pleasure.
I've said this before many times; but what a pleasure being able to
serve as a co-Chair with this group especially; all your dedication to
those people out there protecting us each and every day like we said in
our final note there; but incredible honor, humbled by the hard work
that each and every one of you have done especially in the phone
conferences here and the comradery that we've built up that's just
wonderful.

	And to Bill and Sarah and Andy and all the OSHA people agreed - I
agreed what an incredible group of people to work with. So thank you for
your service to our country. I know you all don't get that very often
but your public service as well and you've dedicated your lives to
protecting workers. That's what OSHA is all about.

	So I think it's obvious we all want the same thing. We want to see the
best of ours come home safely each and every day. So other than that,
I'll just end it with you know how I feel.

Lamont Byrd:	And this is Lamont Byrd. I also would like to make some
short comments. I certainly echo everything that my colleague here, Rick
Ingram has said. You know, the thing that I find to be, you know,
amazing is that just how rapidly this year has passed. You know, it's
actually been a year.

	And, you know, but I would just add that in addition to having an
opportunity to work shoulder-to-shoulder with you all and, you know,
absolute, you know, top shelf people in terms of your - the expertise
you brought to this process.

	I just appreciate an opportunity to actually have a chance to meet some
really good people. I think that I've met some very, very good people
during this process and I would hope that we could stay in contact in
the future. Thank you.

Man:	(And I'll request) to adjourn the meeting.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. So we are officially adjourned. Thank you so much.

END

NWX-DOL OSHA

Moderator:  Gretta Jameson

09-09-16/12:33 am CT

Confirmation #9948779

Page   PAGE  1