NWX-DOL OSHA 

Moderator: Gretta Jameson

September 7, 2016

7:23 am CT

Rick Ingram:	Morning everybody. 

Group:	Good morning. 

Rick Ingram:	Welcome back to the Emergency Response Preparedness
Subcommittee. Thank you very much. And I just want to start, and I know
Lamont will say the same thing, but thanks to everyone who has been
working on this document in the interim between meetings. Wonderful
work. 

	But we’d like to go ahead and start introductions and we’ll start
with Mr. Hamilton over here on the left. 

Bill Hamilton:	Bill Hamilton, OSHA. 

Sarah Shortall:	Sarah Shortall, Solicitor’s Office. 

Lamont Byrd:	Lamont Byrd, member of NACOSH and I’m with the Teamsters.


Mark Hagemann:	Mark Hagemann with OSHA. And I’m the alternate
designated federal official until Andy gets here. 

Lisa Delaney:	Hi, good morning. I’m Lisa Delaney with the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

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

(Ron McGraw):	(Ron McGraw), The National Association of Firefighters,
alternate to Pat Morrison. 

Spencer Schwegler:	Spencer Schwegler, North America’s Building Trades
Unions. 

(Will Saduc):	(Will Saduc) with the International Union of Operating
Engineers filling in for Chris Treml. 

Kenn Fontenot:	Kenn Fontenot, National Volunteer Fire Council. 

Matt Tobia:	Matt Tobia representing the International Association of
Fire Chiefs from Lowden County, Virginia. 

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

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

Rick Ingram:	And let’s go ahead and introduce our guests and we’ll
start back here. 

(Sherron Cox):	(Sherron Cox), OSHA. 

(Robert Rondak):	(Robert Rondak), Association of (unintelligible). 

Woman:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Rick Ingram:	And I’m Rick Ingram. I’m a member of NACOSH and I work
for BP in Houston and also serve the National STEPS Network. So we’ll
start with instructions from our Solicitor of Labor, Sarah Shortall. 

Sarah Shortall:	Well I don’t have too much to add here. But for the
purpose of the transcript for this meeting, the transcriptionist is
actually listening and not in the room. So it’s very important for you
to speak up as loud as possible because I won’t have the person here
telling me you know, get your voice louder. So Spencer, that’s
directly for you. 

	Because I’m saying, I will be entering exhibits into the record and
you will be able to find those in a few days at OSHA-2015-0019 which is
the docket for this project. And that’s on the Regulations.gov
Internet site. 

Rick Ingram:	So in our introductions we missed one person, our
Technician back here. You want to introduce yourself? 

(Henry):	(Henry). 

Rick Ingram:	He’s one of those famous people that only has a first
name - (Henry). Okay, so Bill, you want to start with a review of
changes to the draft? 

Sarah Shortall:	We have a couple of other announcements that have to be
done. 

Rick Ingram:	Oh, okay. 

Mark Hagemann:	I’ve got to do that. 

Rick Ingram:	Oh, I’m sorry. 

Mark Hagemann:	I’ve got some important things to say. One other quick
thing on the transcriptionist, I know we’ve got three days of this and
I know it’s going to become very monotonous and painful for you guys.
But if you could, speaker name before you make a statement that would
help a lot too, since they’re not here and they don’t know who is
talking. 

	If you could just announce your name before you say something it would
help the transcriptionist. 

	A couple of safety and other things. If the fire alarm goes off, exit
down the stairs out the building. Follow all the people. 

	If we get a shelter in place we stay right here. There’s all of our
supplies for as long as we need to be in the shelter and hopefully it
won’t be very long because there’s not a lot of supplies there. 

	Bathrooms - as most of you probably know, out the door either way.
Elevators - right out there there’s a bank of six elevators. And the
cafeteria is on the 6th floor and snack bar on the 4th floor for those
of you that want to grab coffee or eat in the building. 

	And I believe that’s it for my part. Oh sorry, I broke my own rule.
Mark Hagemann. See how easy it is. 

Bill Hamilton:	Bill Hamilton. I’m sorry I laughed at Mark so hard but,
anybody that looked at the transcript, a lot of the comments last time
were unattributed and a lot of them, also the indication that what was
being said was unintelligible. 

	That wasn’t a comment about the person speaking. It was just that the
person on the transcript couldn’t understand what was being said
because the transcriptionist could not understand what was being said
because we were not close enough to the microphone. And I’m just as
guilty as anybody with that, at the last meeting. 

	Fortunately this time I’m going to be hiding over there away from the
microphone as much as possible. 

	So in going through the draft number six, and what was it just kind of
like before, I’ll run through it all to identify the changes that I
made to this and then we’ll pull it up on the screen and start
talking. 

	And some of the changes fall into topics that Victor and Kenn and
Spencer are going to talk about. So I’ll do like just a quick overview
of it and then we’ll let them do their part. 

	So very first thing on the first page is when we’re done with this,
I’m going to take out the note at the top that says, you know, it’s
a note to you folks and I should make it a note to NACOSH. Because by
the time we’re finished with this on Friday; maybe Thursday night --
okay, Friday -- we can - it should be essentially ready to go to them. 

	So I’m going to try and make it that way so that when we’re done,
it’s done and we don’t have to do much as far as making any more
edits. Hopefully none at all. 

	So that’s the first page. Jump to Page 5. Previously we had the
definition for Good Samaritan that you had asked for in a previous
meeting. In going through - oh shoot, I knew I forgot something. 

	In Section N-12 we actually describe Good Samaritan, so we didn’t
need a definition because it’s all in that description. You’ll see
that when we get there. 

	I just realized I forgot to give the outline with all the page numbers
for everybody which would make it easier to find things. Unfortunately,
I forgot to do that this time. 

	On the next page, Page 6, the recommended change to the
non-governmental organization title. You asked for - I’m sorry,
definitions. You asked for a definition of, personal protective
equipment so we kind of coddled something together. 

	Interestingly, there’s not a real - nobody has a really good,
specific definition for it. Not OSHA, not NFPA, not NIOSH so, maybe now
we’ll have one. So we’ll come back around to that. 

	You guys on Page 7 you asked for a definition of size up.
Interestingly, size up, and for those that have ever done it, it’s
usually a long description of things that you do during a size up. But
actually defining a size up, it’s about one of the shortest
definitions I’ve ever seen. 

	I mean it covers what we do. But if you guys - we’ll come back to
that one too. I’m sure someone will want to fix that. 

	On the next page, Page 8, spontaneous unaffiliated volunteer, one of
the things we wanted to do was eliminate the use of the term, deploy and
deployment because there was some confusion as opposed to timeframe of
when that occurs. And OSHA just kind of clarified that we’re talking
about a worker, not a person. A person rather, not a worker because we
don’t - can’t regulate workers. 

	And then on Page 9, E which starts on the bottom of Page 9 is the
section that in the last meeting you asked for it to be reorganized. And
so this is it, all reorganized. And I’m sure Victor is going to go
into that in great detail when we get there. Right, Victor? 

Victor Stagnaro:	If that’s what you’d like; yes. 

Bill Hamilton:	No, I want you to - no, not great detail. Yes, I want you
to make sure everyone understands and everybody is good with it. And
that would be great. 

	So skipping forward on Page 17, again another - we were moving the
training requirements together and some of the SOP stuff. And then also
we added in the confined space for Awareness Training for the NFPCA 1670
standard in there. 

	On Page 18, just added in the - we had been looking for something for
people that drive emergency vehicles other than heavy fire trucks. And
the closest, simplest thing to be something like this would be -
equivalent emergency vehicle operator qualifications based on the type
of vehicle that the responder drives or operates. 

	There wasn’t really any real good, clear specific standards that I
could find for other types of vehicles. 

	Next change is on Page 22. And one of the concerns had been the term
of, gross decontamination or gross - no try to - let me have - gross
decontaminate PPE before leaving the incident scene. And there was just
some concern about the term gross decontaminate. 

	And my recollection is, essentially what we talked about was brushing
it off or hosing it off to the extent feasible before leaving the
incident scene. So we changed that because that gross decontaminant term
was just not clear enough I think. And there was some concern with that.


	To the extent feasible means if it’s got, in my opinion; in my mind,
and maybe we want to add something that says, if it’s inappropriate to
do it, if it’s covered with asbestos or whatever and it needs to be
bagged, then you don’t gross decontaminate it you bag it. But so maybe
we want to add something there. 

	Page 25, we added in compliance with NFPA 1144 for wild land fire
fighting for the pre-planning; pre-incident planning. Speaking of
pre-incident planning -- I’m sorry. Yes, okay. 

	So then the next section is, Emergency Incident Operating Procedures.
And the important point here with these were emergency incidents,
standard operating procedures so, in the first sentence I clarified that
it was emergency incident standard operating procedures. 

	And then you look on the next page and a lot of its red because it got
pulled in from the other - some of the other locations. But these are
all things that were directly related to the emergency incident
operations. 

	Carrying on to Page 27, Incident Management, you wanted to include
something about a way for the responders to have a means for notifying
the Incident Commander of unsafe conditions and unsafe actions. This is
where the suggested - where it was suggested to put it here. 

	Page 28 and 29 there’s a lot crossed off and that was moved to E,
under the establishment of services and community assessment section was
moved up there as you requested. And Victor is going to go into great
detail and explain that to us. 

	Further down in Page 29, including the unified command structure when
there’s a shared responsibility among two or more ESOs. 

	On Page 31 I highlighted others because I didn’t - because we wanted
to see if there are other examples we wanted to include in that.
That’s why that’s highlighted. We didn’t - haven’t talked about
that yet. 

	On 32 - all right we’re in - this is just a kind of a - well come of
this moved to - and so this is where the SOPs had been. And now the
actual SOP has moved forward into the Emergency Incident SOP section.
And this is, you know, this was part of just ensuring that those SOPs
are utilized and for responder accountability, rapid intervention,
medical monitoring; etcetera. 

	The next one - Scene Safety. All right, on Page 33 under ten, some
discussion by the skilled support subgroup about making sure that the
Incident Commander verifies that the skill support workers have received
the pre-incident training that’s required in the Skill Support
section. And Spencer I’m sure, will discuss that some more when he
gets to talking about the Skill Support section. 

	We added in, the Incident Commander assesses incidents priorities and
determines the need for assistance from spontaneous, unaffiliated
volunteers. 

	Page 34, just an evaluation of the SUV. And then Good Samaritan, this
is the only place in the document that we use the term Good Samaritan
so, we took out the definition of it up front because we described it
here, and that should be fine. And it clarifies that the Good Samaritan
is typically on the scene you know, before - on the scene and providing
some sort of service before the arrival of the ESO. 

	Therefore being that if the - if they arrive after the ESO is there
they’re no longer by this, a Good Samaritan. They’d be a spontaneous
unaffiliated volunteer. 

	So with that timeline of differentiating between a Good Samaritan and a
SUV is whether or not the ESO is on the scene or not. 

	All right, continuing on, Page 35. So some changes there and actually
the comment is on Page 36. And as we made these little changes to keep
in line with the Americans with Disabilities Act. We don’t want to run
afoul of that. 

	And then the next one was combined - emotional health was combined into
C on the bottom pf Page 35 because they do tie together. 

	All right, and some of the other changes that you can see that I made
just as far as we had previously been talking about personal protective
clothing and personal protective equipment. And the definition now wraps
clothing and equipment in together - together into the definition for
PPE. 

	And again, so on the bottom of 39 and 40 this is just some rewording
that the subgroup had worked on. What we had - there was an issue with
the term, deploy, in that sometimes it meant - sometimes it means before
you leave the - you know, the base camp and travel to the incident scene
you know, you deploy from the base camp to the incident scene. But then
on the incident scene you deploy out into the field to do the job. 

	And so we needed to clarify or replace the word deploy because we
needed to clarify whether it was before you leave you know, the ESO
facility base camp, fire station; whatever or, on the scene. 

	So we kind of got away from using that - the word deploy because of
that confusion or potential confusion. And with that I’m done. 

Sarah Shortall:	Mr. Chair - Mr. Co-Chair, this something I’d like to
enter into the record as Exhibit Number 1, the agenda for the September
2016 NACOSH Emergency Response and Preparedness Subcommittee Meeting.
And as Exhibit 2, the 8-31-2016 Draft 6 of the Emergency Response and
Preparedness Program Standard. 

Rick Ingram:	What was your name again, ma’am? 

Sarah Shortall:	My name is Sarah Shortall. 

Rick Ingram:	Thank you very much. 

Sarah Shortall:	Thank you so much. 

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, thank you very much Bill and Sarah. This is Lamont
Byrd. I guess next on our agenda is a report from the Community
Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Subgroup, revisions to E and K and,
that’s Victor. 

	And we’ve already been prompted Victor, that you know, this is going
to be a wonderful thing. And I also wanted to mention that Kenn Fontenot
had - you did some work with tiers. 

Kenn Fontenot:	Yes. (Unintelligible) Curt Floyd with the NFPA took the
basic tier framework we had and made more sense of it. So there is a
copy of that in our working document. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. So if we could, after Victor is done, we could loop
you into the discussion then? 

Kenn Fontenot:	Please. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. The floor is yours Victor. 

Victor Stagnaro:	Good morning, thank you, Victor Stagnaro. And in spite
of Bill’s comments about my extensive review, I think I can be
relatively brief. 

	At the last meeting we reported out on the work of the committee and
the revisions of Section E. And it was the sense of the group that the
content was very good, however the way in which it was organized needed
some work. 

	So we decided that we would go back and review and kind of go from the
30,000 foot level and try to narrow and pare it down to the more refined
process or refined component of the standard. 

	And in addition we were asked to review Section K which is the
Pre-Incident Planning portion of the document because there were areas
of the Pre-Incident Planning that needed to be brought into Section E. 

	So essentially areas related to mutual aid. And then making sure the
link between the ESO’s requirement to have that conversation in
exchange with mutual aid partners, in addition to ensuring that that
exchange happens with the skilled support workers. 

	So essentially that’s the work that was done. It was just more of a
reorganization. There was also some concern about the wording when it
requires the ESO to conduct the Community Vulnerability and Risk
Assessment. 

	The way that it was worded was either a municipality of department
would do it for a particular building, when it was really required for
the entire community. And maybe an ESO that protects an industry or a
particular facility that made sure that that was worded in an
appropriate way so that both were done appropriately. 

	And actually I think Bill and the folks here at the Department of Labor
took that on and made those changes. 

	So hopefully we’ve covered your assessment if you have - if you would
like me to go through it, but I don’t think we need to read through
each piece of it. But if you want me to go review it you know, section
by section, I’m more than glad to do that. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, thank you Victor. Because there has been kind of a
pretty extensive reorg, I think it might be helpful for us at least, to
do you know, just kind of a cursory run over just to make sure that the
committee members you know, clearly understand what was done. And maybe
give them an opportunity to ask any questions, should they have them. 

Victor Stagnaro:	Okay, well on section - on Page 9, it starts off with
the - that each ESO will conduct a Vulnerability Assessment Program. And
then as noted, and I would just mention, the primary service area is the
community or municipality or county parish. 

	We want to make sure that even a military facility or whatever type of
department or ESO appropriately conducts the vulnerability assessment. 

	So then we moved on to those four major areas that essentially need to
be assessed. Anywhere there’s civilian worker injury or any time
there’s a property loss, critical infrastructure, or any environmental
damage. 

	Then a lot of the other areas are not new, but it talks about -- and
this was very important in Section B on Page 10 - Section IB where that
connection to the Community Right to Know Act or the Super Fund
Amendment Reauthorization portion, those facilities that require that
level of review are clearly spelled out that the ESO is required to
conduct an assessment in those particular facilities. 

	And then some of the major changes weren’t so much changes as it was
adopting areas that were in other parts of the document related to the
Mutual Aid Agreements. 

	As an ESO reviews and conducts its assessment, determines what it can -
what kinds of services it will provide and what kind of assistance it
needs. Whether it’s skilled support workers or assistance from mutual
aid partners, then those components related to legal authorizations, how
that request is made, and those marrying of operating procedures between
one jurisdiction and another, all that is laid out towards the end of
Section E of the document. 

	I think that kind of gives you kind of enough (unintelligible). 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, thank you Victor. Are there any questions or comments
about the reorg that and clarification that was done? Spencer? 

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer Schwegler. Just a quick question, and
I don’t think it had anything to do with your reorganization Victor
but, on Page 11 under Number 4, there’s a note there that says,
appendix with lots of question marks after it. Is that something that
we’re going to talk about later with Kenn? Is that…

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes, it’s actually what the community had decided and
what we discussed in the July meeting was that we were going to wait
until that tiered response component. Because there was another
committee working on that so, we wanted to wait until those tiered
responses were established and then we can insert that into the
appendix. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, are there any other questions or comments? Okay, Kenn
Fontenot. 

Kenn Fontenot:	Hello, this is Kenn Fontenot. In your packet there’s a
printout and a handout. Thank you Mr. Bill for getting this to the
committee. It’s called, Tiered Levels of Responders. 

	And Curt Floyd with NFPA took it upon himself after the last meeting to
rework this. And he took the original document that we had then and put
everything together that fit together instead of having it scattered
out. 

	So what you’ll see is various types of emergency services as called
for in the beginning of the document. And we are putting in there that
there should be different levels of responders based on current needs
such as awareness, operations, technicians, even support worker could be
done in certain cases. 

	And he referenced them to specific nationally recognized documents such
as NFPA. And there’s also some basic KSAs in there which are knowledge
skills and abilities, or the duties that would fall in each of these
categories. 

	On the far right it’s basically was for my in-house work with the
Fire Council. We were looking at different kinds of medicals and such.
So those are just suggestions. 

	And after a couple of weeks we may have something a little more solid
on the medicals. Andy had asked that we provide this group a copy of
what we’ve come up with. Basically the four levels of medicals that
we’re considering to let people know there are different options out
there. 

	Of course there’s 1582, Department of ESO specific, DOT and in a
wellness (unintelligible) physical which is available to most people. 

	This is a proposed reference document and like Andy has said so many
times, it’s more of a placeholder at this time. So it can be fleshed
out in the coming time but, it’s what we have come up with. 

Lamont Byrd:	Any thoughts or questions about the document? This is
Lamont Byrd. Kathy Robinson?  

Kathy Robinson:	Kathy Robinson. How would this document be used? 

Kenn Fontenot:	As a reference in the back of the document to provide
guidelines to folks looking at establishing levels - various tiered
levels of response. 

Kathy Robinson:	Would this - would an attachment like this - and I guess
this is more of a question for Mark, would that limit the applicability
of the rules to the folks that are listed on this appendix? 

	You know, let me just give you an example. I mean there’s flight
nurses and medical directors and other types of licensed health
providers that are involved in EMS. And if they aren’t on the list,
how would that affect - how would the rules affect them? 

Mark Hagemann:	Well a list like this which is guidance is really just to
give health for things that we can think of in tiers. There’s always
going to be other people out there that don’t fit into this. 

	So they would still be required to follow the rule. If they’re not in
here they would figure out what they’re supposed to do. 

Kathy Robinson:	I guess my only concern is -- and I don’t want to make
it too cumbersome -- but if those - if other personnel aren’t listed
then they think that they aren’t - that it doesn’t pertain to them.
So I’m not exactly sure how to deal with it. 

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Do you have some additional services that you’d like
added, could we not add those since it’s just a draft?  

Mark Hagemann:	It looks like -- this is Mark -- but like anything else,
any time you start a list of things, you know there’s always going to
be people that aren’t in that list. So you never have a complete list
of everything. 

	Again, this is guidance for things that we’re aware of. Levels that
we’re aware of. We can try as best we can to get everybody in there.
And again, that’s why this group is together. 

	So let’s see if we can get everybody we can into this list. And
hopefully then we don’t have that situation where if someone is
looking for the guidance and it’s not in here. Because it will require
something. This is guidance to help that rule. If it’s not in here
then they still have to figure out what to do to follow the rule. But
this is the best way to get them the guidance to do that. 

Kathy Robinson:	Thank you. 

Rick Ingram:	So on the -- this is Rick Ingram again -- on the first page
there’s EMS listed. Maybe we could add medical personnel or other
medical personnel. Would that…

Kathy Robinson:	I actually think that that would satisfy the concern
that I had. 

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn Fontenot. Also we could put a qualifier in
the appendices that this is not a total list or a complete list. It is a
relatively well-known grouping but, it doesn’t limit to only this
list. And that kind of qualifies it. 

	And as Mark was saying, if you fall outside this group, then there
should be or could be some document that you use to qualify your people
to that level, whether they’re a flight nurse. What’s the difference
between a flight nurse and a paramedic? Is there a difference or is it
just a paramedic that flies in a helicopter? 

Kathy Robinson:	There’s a big difference. But that’s not something
we need to debate today. But I do appreciate what you’re saying. My
concern is that when we have an attachment like that and people go oh,
my group isn’t on this list. 

Kenn Fontenot:	My name is not there. 

Kathy Robinson:	This doesn’t pertain to me. And everybody around this
table understands that it pertains to them. We just need to make it
clear to those persons that it affects. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, the last speaker was Kathy Robinson. Victor? 

Victor Stagnaro:	Kenn I think you’ve -- this is Victor Stagnaro. Kenn,
you bring up a great point. Two things come to mind is flight nurses and
other folks that are going to be on the scene probably have other
standards that would relate to them so, they would know what those are. 

	And then maybe we might want to add some wording either in the tiered
response component or in the document itself that if you don’t fall
into this list then you kind of really fall into that skilled support
worker. 

	And so therefore the Incident Commander now has responsibility for that
skilled support worker, whether it’s a flight nurse or a surgeon that
shows up on the scene or, whatever it might be. And that might help
address that concern. 

Kathy Robinson:	Thank you. 

Mark Hagemann:	Yes, this is Mark again. And that’s a good point
Victor. That you might want to come up with sort of a catch-all. So
there’s a requirement if somebody doesn’t see what they’re
supposed to do here, there’s sort of a catch-all. Anybody else, you
need to do this. 

Lamont Byrd:	Bill Warren?

Bill Warren:	Bill Warren in Arizona. You know my question Mark is that
could we not just put a note at the end of it that this is not an
all-exclusive list or something to that effect that simply tells the
reader that this is a general guidance and recommendation. 

	And then if he - you know, then they would have to figure out where
they thought they fell, based on the type or level of work that they
did. 

Mark Hagemann:	Yes, this is Mark. Yes, and that’s typically what we do
with the list. We’ll say, including but not limited to in our
regulations any time we have a list. And that’s a possible solution.
I’m just not sure that still gets to Kathy’s problem though. 

	If somebody is looking for guidance or they’re a particular type of
worker and they’re looking for that guidance on what they should do,
it might be more helpful to give them some guidance. Either choose the
closest thing or have sort of a catch-all. If you don’t fall in this
category this would be the minimum you would have to do; something like
that. Just some thoughts to throw out there. 

Lamont Byrd:	I think Spencer was up and then Kathy. 

Spencer Schwegler:	Yes, this is Spencer. Victor, you mentioned that the
skilled support workers do not fall underneath these tiers. Did I
understand you correctly? 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. My point was, if there’s someone that
arrives on the scene that is not listed into the - on the tiered support
reference then they may fall into a skilled support worker role. Because
we weren’t all-inclusive of everything that could potentially show up
on the scene, whether it’s a crane operator or a surgeon, if they’re
not listed here then as an Incident Commander my role - my
responsibility for that person’s safety falls into that skill support
component as far as the document goes. Does that make sense? 

Spencer Schwegler:	My -- this is Spencer -- my question is then, is it -
would it be a good idea to put skilled support on this as a particular
tier or no? 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt; Matt Tobia. I think we’ve drawn a pretty
wide line in the sand about delineating emergency responders and skilled
support workers. 

	And I think skilled support workers are a class unto themselves. As
opposed to getting to the level - the tiered level of skilled support
workers, I think if there needs to be a discussion about that; that’s
fine. I think it should exist within the skilled support worker’s work
group as opposed to this. 

	This is really focused on the delivery of the primary emergency
services on the scene of an emergency call to which skilled support
workers may be summoned to provide support services. 

Lamont Byrd:	Kathy? 

Kathy Robinson:	Kathy Robinson. I really appreciate the discussion first
of all, and the work that the group did in putting this list together. 

	I would actually just be content if you inserted, other health and
medical personnel, rather than making such a comprehensive listing of
things. Because nurses and physicians are the most obvious ones. But
there’s behavioral health specialists and a whole range of other folks
that could fall into that category. 

	And rather than have a 27 page document with all those titles in it,
other health and medical personnel I think, would satisfy my concerns in
that regard. 

Kenn Fontenot:	And this is Kenn. But Kathy a question for you, if we
were - when we insert the, other medical professionals, to the right in
the next column where we reference the document, and it would be a
reference to the applicable skill level, I guess I’m trying to frame
how we would put that in there. Because like we reference the EMS people
to the DOT levels. 

	So in that one we would just put a qualifier saying, reference here,
particular field of expertise for their level of training and what have
you? 

Kathy Robinson:	Kathy Robinson again. Let me think about that a little
bit Kenn. You know FEMA actually did extensive work in health and
medical components and has a bunch of job descriptions in - you know in
their resource management and resource typing documents. They list like
pharmacists and you know, all kinds of folks. So, I just need to think
about that a little bit. 

Kenn Fontenot:	So we could reference that particular - okay, cool. 

Matt Tobia:	Okay, this is Matt Tobia. Just on that exact issue, I would
say it’s determined by the individual state law because each medical
provider is - has to be licensed to practice within that state. 

	So whether it’s a nurse or a physician or a physician’s assistant
or a nurse practitioner or a pharmacist, they’re all licensed as
credentialed within their individual state. 

	So I would simply say that other medical professionals - you know,
other medical providers would be under level. Then I would just say you
know, as determined by individual state regulation or by the licensing
state. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, any other questions or thoughts. 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia again. Just a separate comment. This is
great stuff Kenn and I’m just going to ask you to please clarify. 

	I think, based on my familiarity with the work you’ve been doing,
when you say, over on the right-hand column, you say Jeff’s department
physically, are you talking about Jeff Cash, the Fire Chief in
Cherryville, North Carolina? 

Kenn Fontenot:	That is correct. 

Matt Tobia:	I thought so. Okay. And I just - nobody else would
necessarily understand what that reference is. 

	The other thing that I would do though, is I would encourage OSHA staff
to work to develop medicals for all of the other tiered level of
responders throughout the document. 

	It doesn’t talk about it anywhere except in firefighting. But I think
it’s critical that all emergency responders be evaluated for their
ability to perform the essential functions of the job to which they’re
going to be expected to perform. 

	So I would just ask that although this is likely going to be entered
into the record as a document for consideration, that whatever OSHA
staff develop at the end of the day for tiered level of responses, and
we’re extremely supportive of that, where (unintelligible) is very
supportive of tiered level of response identification. 

	But that it also include a medical component for every identified level
of responder to ensure everyone’s safety. Thank you. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, Kenn Fontenot. 

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn Fontenot. As I said, the medical part was
more in-house. It just did not get taken out. 

	I would like to see us remove those three references -- baselines, DOT,
and Jeff physical -- and perhaps insert the O2 language that’s
currently out there that says that the ESO shall ensure that a responder
is capable of functioning in the capacity or whatever the exact OSHA
terminology is. 

	Capable of performing the tasks that are assigned to us. And that comes
from the OSHA Fire Brigade Standard. There’s a specific - and I
can’t remember what it is off the top of my head, but it says that the
employer or ESO -- we could use in our term -- shall ensure that the
employee or the responder is capable of performing the tasks that they
are assigned to. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, any other thoughts or questions or comments? 

Sarah Shortall:	I just have one just because I’ve seen it in your
section. There are a lot of references to various consensus standards.
Sometimes they include the date and sometimes they don’t. 

	It’s important that every single reference to consensus standard
include the edition to which you’re citing. 

Lamont Byrd:	And that was Sarah Shortall. 

Sarah Shortall:	Sarah Shortall. And at this time I’d like to enter
into exhibit and clip it as Exhibit 3 of the Community Vulnerability and
Subgroup Report. And as Exhibit number 4, the Update on Tiered Level of
Responders. 

Kenn Fontenot:	I have a question for Matt. This is Kenn - for Matt. That
language, does that satisfy your (unintelligible) for medical services? 

Matt Tobia:	Yes, I think that what we had identified was that the ESO is
responsible for ensuring that each responder is evaluated medically to
be able to perform the essential functions of the job to which they are
expected to perform. 

	I think that we have previously identified that, particularly for
technician level interior firefighting that we would reference the 13
essential job functions of a firefighter in NFPA 1582, as an example of
what the essential functions are. 

	I think that it does - you know, it is going to be incumbent upon the
ESO to make that determination. We’re going to ask the
(unintelligible) to do that, but providing guidance as an expectation
so, yes. 

Kenn Fontenot:	Thank you. 

Lamont Byrd:	Is there any other discussion concerning Community
Vulnerability Risk Assessment or Tiers? Got it covered? Okay, thank you
everyone. 

Rick Ingram:	Yes, great job Kenn and team. So now we’re going to have
a report from the Skilled Support Subgroup - Spencer Schwegler. 

Spencer Schwegler:	Thank you. This is Spencer. So we were tasked with
trying to determine language that would make sense for the Incident
Commander to verify in some form or fashion, the training for the
skilled support workers. 

	I think there was really no question that the Incident Commander should
have some role in verifying the skilled support worker’s training. 

	I think in our discussion we were talking about the possibility of
contracts being issued prior to the event. Relationships built before
any incident happens. And that that training record would be part of
that verification process. And that that responsibility would be on the
SSE -- the employer -- to provide those records to the ESO. 

	So that was not a question. The only question came up is, in the event
that an SSE is dispatching workers to a scene, and that relationship has
not been developed ahead of time, how then - and should be impose an
additional burden on the Incident Commander to verify training records
when we’re in the heat of the action? Is that a fair assessment? 

	So I’m looking at Page 33, and the Skilled Support Group, we
recommended - we all agreed that there should be some level of
verification on the ESO that this receiving skilled support workers. 

	How they do that, whether they designate - they have a designee to do
that was fine. As long as there’s some indication in Paragraph N that
the ESO needs to make sure that the people that are coming out have some
- have training prior to the briefing that they’re going to get. 

	So Bill came up with this suggestion. And it’s Paragraph N,
Subparagraph 10, Sub-subparagraph Roman numeral I - Incident Commander
verifies that each skilled support worker has received the pre-incident
training required by S1 and S2. 

	Throughout - I mean throughout this paragraph, Paragraph 10, there’s
a number of other references to the Incident Commander or designee, such
as in Roman numeral II and then again in 11, Roman numeral II and Roman
numeral III, this responsibility is given to the Incident Commander or
designee. 

	And I believe last time we had this discussion where we didn’t feel
like we needed to put in, Incident Commander or designee every time we
mentioned the Incident Commander. Am I right about that? So that it
doesn’t have to be the IC himself or herself that has to do this. It
can be somebody else that can verify it. Matt, you’re shaking your
head like we need to put designee in here. 

Matt Tobia:	Yes, this is Matt Tobia. The - obviously we were at that
meeting. And in the fire service world, in the wild land world, in the
NIMS world, if you require the Incident Commander to do something, the
only individual who can do that is the Incident Commander, from my
understanding. This is me. 

	My sense would be that it should include the words, or designee. Or,
shall ensure that - you know, shall ensure that that is checked. Either
cause it to occur or have the authority to delegate it to someone to do
that on behalf of the Incident Commander. 

	I’m thinking of you know, an incident - and the reality is, you know
on an incident of regional or national significance, the Incident
Commander is not under any circumstances, going to personally verify
that skilled support workers have received the pre-incident training as
required. They’re going to, you know, rely on you know, delegated
individuals to do that. 

	I think it’s critical that we do either - that we do include it, the
word, or designee. 

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer. Asking my fellow Skilled Support
Committee, Subcommittee workers - members, is that okay with you guys,
just to allow the Incident Commander to designate somebody else to check
for or just to ensure. 

	You’re nodding Kathy and Lisa you’re nodding. And Victor is giving
me thumbs up. 

	You know and I’ve got no problem with that. I didn’t want to put an
additional burden on the IC. I just thought it - I think we collectively
thought that it was good that there was some reciprocal responsibility
that not just relying on the SSE to ensure that that training has taken
place - pre-incident training. Victor, did you have any comments? 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. I guess the way I had reviewed it when
we - as a subcommittee was looking at it, my sense was that the Incident
Commander will delegate it, more than likely. 

	To Matt Tobia’s point, you know, I certainly understand the way that
it’s worded. You know some folks may have the sense that it’s the
IC’s personal responsibility. I didn’t get that sense. 

	However, you know, that’s just a minor change and I think it covers
it pretty well. 

Spencer Schwegler:	Okay, great. Looking at -- this is Spencer again --
looking at Page 39 where Paragraph S begin, there are just a couple of
little things that some other minor changes that I think Bill made which
he mentioned earlier this morning to comply with the question of deploy
being confusing. 

	Whether or not it’s when the SSW is sent from their base of
operations or when they get out on site itself. And that was a little
confusing to me. I hate to bring Bill back in here. Maybe my fellow sub
work group members can address this in your thoughts. 

	Did you think that there was an issue as to whether or not the person
was being deployed from their base of operations or their place of
employment? Or actually when they got out on the site? 

Bill Hamilton:	The term deploy and deployment is used in both stations,
depending on what you’re reading in various other documents and what
have you. 

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	I’m sorry, Bill Hamilton. So where - I’m sorry, what
page number was it? 

Spencer Schwegler:	I’m looking at 39 and 40. 

Bill Hamilton:	So if I put the note on - so it says the SSE - it used to
say or it does say, the SSE, in cooperation with the ESO shall ensure
skilled support workers receive a site specific briefing before they are
deployed. That’s what it said. Before they are deployed from where was
the question. From their base or on the incident scene? 

Spencer Schwegler:	So this is Spencer. So what you’re saying is, it
wouldn’t make sense if they would get a site specific briefing leaving
their home base. They would have to be on site to receive their site
specific briefing? And that makes sense to me. That makes sense to me. 

	Obviously they arrive on scene and they’re going to need a site
specific briefing. 

Bill Hamilton:	Well if you look above that, it was written right, to the
- provided a site specific briefing by the IC or his representative. So
that would be, on scene. And that’s what…

Spencer Schwegler:	I don’t know. So your comment Bill, to use the
words, begin operating, would clarify that. 

Bill Hamilton:	Well I - I guess it depends on what you - what do you
mean by deploy, I guess is the question, right. On the bottom of Page
39, what’s crossed off, should not provide skilled support workers and
the ESO shall not deploy skilled support workers until they receive site
specific briefing. So, is that not on site? 

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer. Yes, it is on site. But the site
specific briefing is on site. So the word provide - shall not provide
skilled support workers, that’s sending them to the scene. And then
once they get on the scene the ESO will not deploy them to operations. 

Bill Hamilton:	Right. So another use of the word deploy was in the
definition of skilled -- I’m sorry -- spontaneous unaffiliated
volunteer. Where that had said, someone who voluntarily deploys to
assist at an incident scene. 

	They voluntarily deploy. Are they leaving home? Is that what’s
happening? Or they - deploy, they arrive on the incident scene they just
start doing what they want to do. 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. I think you guys are actually saying the
same. I think we’re pretty much - I think the idea is that a site
specific briefing needs to occur before individuals start operating
within the area of operation. 

	I think that the correction that was made is perfect. I really do. I
think it addresses the idea. 

	I think the issue of deployment - the area for spontaneous unaffiliated
volunteers, wherever they come from. We say deploy means, they get up
from wherever they are - they’re at home, they’re at their place of
employment, they’re in the 39th floor of a building and they leave the
building and go somewhere else, I think the idea is that they have gone
somewhere. You know they have left from a place and come to the scene of
the emergency. 

	Those individuals could come from anywhere and often come from
anywhere. So I think you’re actually - Spencer I think you’ve
actually - I think the language that Bill has provided actually hits
directly on the clarification you’re seeking. 

Spencer Schwegler:	Thank you. This is Spencer again. The only other
comment that I would make is from Paragraph S, Subparagraph 2, Roman
numeral II. And this is just a typo I think. 

	The training required in S, it says - the current text says, training
required in Paragraph S, 1, 1 of this paragraph, shall not be waived. I
think that should be S, 2, 1 because it’s referring to the
pre-incident training - the 7-1/2 hour pre-incident training. Am I right
about that Bill? 

Bill Hamilton:	Looks like it. 

Spencer Schwegler:	Okay. 

Lamont Byrd:	Matt Tobia. 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. Spencer, you know actually reading this
- reading over this again, we might be able to alleviate a lot of this
concern with regard to the term, Incident Commander or designee. 

	If we go to Page 33 number 10, we are I believe -- correct me if I’m
wrong -- I believe that we as a group are indicating that the
responsibility for ensuring the sub-parts of number 10 fall on the ESO. 

	I wonder if it’s redundant to require the Incident Commander or
designee to verify that those things are occurring. We’re saying the
ESO is responsible for ensuring those things occur. 

	You know, you could theoretically, you know, the ESO shall ensure that
for example, under I, the ESO shall ensure that each skilled support
worker has received the pre-incident training. That each - that the ESO
provides an initial briefing. That an adequate means of communication
exists. 

	And you know even going on down further, you know, that the ESO shall
ensure, under number 11, that you know, that incident priorities and
determines the need for the assistance from SUV is the responsibility of
the ESO. 

	I think we could make it even cleaner by just indicating that we’re
requiring the ESO to do that as opposed to a specific - affixing it to a
specific individual. I just offer that. 

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer. Matt, thank you. On the - just for
clarification, because I’m not familiar with how this functionally
would happen. In my training of skilled support workers, I’m telling
people, locate the Incident Command and check in there. Offer your
skills. Let them know who you are and what your skills are. 

	So is that functionally the place that they’re going to go, even if
the standard requires the ESO to do that? 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. I think the education you’re giving to
your skilled support workers is absolutely appropriate. Go to the scene,
find the Incident Commander, and they’ll direct you from there which
is absolutely appropriate. 

	But the difference between who you check in with - because functionally
what they’re going to do is the Incident Commander is most likely
going to redirect them over to, you know, some check-in location,
usually under the planning section. 

	And what you would then see is that the ESO is responsible, as the host
agency, is responsible for ensuring that all of these things take place.


	I think that listing these things is critically important. I think
that, you know, it helps clarify for the ESO, what their
responsibilities are when they call skilled support workers to the scene
and their responsibility for them. 

	But I think your education is appropriate - spot on. When you show up,
report to you know, the Incident Commander and they’ll direct you from
there. 

Spencer Schwegler:	Thank you. 

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. Do we have any other comments or
suggestions? 

Sarah Shortall:	Yes, this is Sarah Shortall. On Paragraph Q, and it’s
the - on Page 35 going on to 36, about medical conditions, did you find
that? 

Spencer Schwegler:	Yes. 

Sarah Shortall:	I know what the purpose of that is, is to make it
compliant with the ADA but, it’s not there yet. 

	I think the language would have to be revised to say, the SSW does not
have any medical conditions, physical or psychological that prevents
them from performing the essential functions of the job or poses a
direct and imminent threat to the safety or health of SSW or others.
That’s the language in the ADA. 

	So the notion, interfere, would suggest that no reasonable combination
is permitted. And I don’t think you’re intending to strip all
reasonable accommodations. 

	So if they can’t perform the essential job function, you know,
they’re out, even with reasonable accommodation. But the threat aspect
is not just imminent. It’s direct and imminent threat in the ADA. 

	So the language should read, the SSW does not have any medical
condition, physical or psychological, that prevents them from performing
the essential functions of the job or poses a direct and imminent
threat. And then you would just continue with the rest of the sentence. 

Rick Ingram:	Thank you Sarah. 

Sarah Shortall:	Sure. 

Rick Ingram:	Any other comments? Thank you Spencer and team. 

Sarah Shortall:	This is Sarah Shortall again. I’d like to enter into
the record as Exhibit 5, the Skilled Support Substance Report. 

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Just a note. That was in the addendum to our red text that
Sarah was referring to. Okay, stand by just for a minute folks and
I’ll get right back to you. 

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, this is Lamont Byrd. I think we’ve had a very
productive you know, first hour and 45 minutes or an hour and - or
however long it’s been. It’s a good time to take a break. Let’s
reconvene at ten o’clock. Thanks. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Who is that? 

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	Oh, really? This is the one where they have the…

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	So refined, that it might be the objection…

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	So there’s sea water everywhere. 

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	A lot more research going on. 

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	Are they doing…

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Okay, we’ll go ahead and call the meeting back to order
here in about 30 seconds. 

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	I think we had a couple of folks that came in after we did
introductions earlier. So we’d like to go ahead and get those members
to introduce yourselves, please. Name, rank, and serial number. 

Bill Warren:	Thank you Rick. Bill Warren, Arizona Division of
Occupational Safety and Health. 

Rick Ingram:	Bill, did you introduce yourself earlier? I’m sorry.
Okay. 

Bill Hamilton:	I was just (unintelligible) was here at eight o’clock. 

Rick Ingram:	Okay. All right, Grady you want to introduce yourself
please? 

Grady DeVilbiss:	Good morning, Grady DeVilbiss. 

Rick Ingram:	With? 

Grady DeVilbiss:	Virginia Department of Labor and Industry, helping to
represent them. 

Rick Ingram:	All right, thank you very much. All right during the break
we had an issue that came up that we need to revisit in the Skilled
Support Subgroup. And who would like to lead that discussion? Victor? 

Victor Stagnaro:	Victor Stagnaro. Yes, I brought it up to you so, thank
you for that. But we looked at the document just a little bit closer.
There’s a component in there that requires the Incident Commander to
verify that the skilled support worker has received the pre-incident
training. 

	And speaking with my good friend Matt Tobia with the International
Association of Fire Chiefs, we discussed the fact that on an incident,
that’s going to be a pretty complicated and probably unrealistic task
for the Incident Commander. 

	There is the requirement for the skilled support employer to ensure
that only skilled support employees or workers that have had the
training will be operating on the emergency incident. So therefore, we
would like to see that maybe removed, if there’s not any objection to
that. 

Rick Ingram:	Spencer? 

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer Schwegler. This is basically what
we’ve been talking about this morning earlier. And it was my
understanding that Matt was comfortable with having the ES - just
changing the language to the ESO, not the Incident Commander himself.
Did that change over the break? 

Matt Tobia:	Sorry Spencer, this is Matt Tobia. We were just talking
about you know, obviously worked that meaning and just following up on
that and looking at it again. 

	I think that if you - and honestly, going and looking at S1 and S2,
with the requirement for verifying that training, the parallel that I
draw is, if an Incident Commander were to call an engine - fire engine
from another ESO to come to the scene to provide support, they would be
relying on that ESO’s compliance with the regulations to only send
individuals who are trained and capable of performing the essential
functions. 

	Without then, independently requiring a re-confirmation of their other
skills - knowledge skills and ability sort of occasion. 

	So just looking at it from that perspective, I think that there’s an
expectation that the ESO is relying on the SSE -- the skilled support
employer -- to only send those individuals who are trained and capable. 

	I do think that the ESO has other obligations for the safety of skilled
support workers on the scene. But in terms of actually requiring the ESO
to verify that each individual skilled support worker has received the
pre-incident training required, is probably a heavy lift. 

Rick Ingram:	Bill Warren. 

Bill Warren:	This is Bill Warren, Arizona. Can I ask just this question
then? When they do their contractual agreement with these - is this is a
little better? When they do their contractual agreements with these
employers, could they not write into that that they provide them either
quarterly; annually, whatever the update to the training records? 

	Or, how would that interfere with that if part of the contractual
agreement is that they conform to this to ensure that that training and
medicals are done in accordance with the standard? 

	Would not that be an advisable way of doing it? Instead of them having
to go through the process of trying to figure out okay, who’s trained
and who’s not, is that agreeable that the employer let the ESO know
who is, and that can be done contractually, could it not? 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. I mean Bill, to your point yes, I mean
it could certainly be done that way. 

	I think that the ESO needs to determine for itself what level of
accountability or accounting it wants from those that have entered into
contract with as opposed to be prescriptive. Because I think the intent
is, we’ve talked all along that the standard is a performance standard
as opposed to a prescriptive standard. 

	And my concern would be okay, I’m an ESO. I enter into a relationship
with a SSE to provide crane operators. 

	They provide me with, you know, with mounds of verification of skills.
I guess my thing is, what am I supposed to do it? 

	I recognize that they have an obligation to perform that task. And I
think it’s great that it’s in here in terms of requiring SSE’s to
meet all of the obligations. I think that the relationship between the
SEE and the ESO is a determination for the ESO to make. As opposed to
prescribing it in the regulatory text. 

Bill Hamilton:	Bill Hamilton. On Page 12, number 6, I think we covered
what you are asking for. This is where the ESO determines what SSEs are
needed - identify the support needed. 

	II - Develop service agreements and contracts with the skilled support
employers. 

	III - Ensure they’re advised of likely responses. And the PPE
requirements. 

	But under II, develop the service agreement, they have to meet the
requirements established in this section - this Section B in this whole
- in OSHA speak, this section of this entire document. But it’s
specifically, does he meet the requirements of Q through U, which is the
skilled support section? 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt. I think that addresses the concern. And then
from my perspective, and I think from a couple of other people’s
perspective, just in having a conversation off line in-between the
session - in-between the last break and now, it’s simply that putting
the additional responsibility during an actual deployment should remain
with the ESO as opposed to, you know, with the Incident Commander. 

	And the pre-incident training is something that should perhaps come
out, only because it’s something that’s already been addressed in
another section of the standard. 

Rick Ingram:	Spencer? 

Spencer Schwegler:	Yes, it’s Spencer. My only concern is, I’m
drawing experience from the new Construction compliance based standard
where host employers and subcontractors are both - both have
responsibility to communicate with each other. 

	So it’s not - the responsibility is not put on one - on the service
provider and not the host. So in order to ensure that communication is
taking place from both ends asking that both sides have some
responsibility. Again this morning when I talked about this I – we
talked about the fact that it – in the cool and calm of contract
negotiations it’s not the problem. That’s – you have no problem
and I don’t think any of us have a problem with requiring that the ESO
make sure that the training is there. It’s only the heap of an
incident where it becomes problematic. Am I right about that?

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. Yes clearly, you know, the expectation
would be that during, you know during an emergency incident that
there’s an expectation of performance and that that – the ability to
meet the essential functions of what you’re being called to perform is
established long before the call is ever made summoning you to the scene
of an emergency

	These are individuals who are by definition bringing a set of skills
that are, you know, presumably necessary on the incident. So the answer
to your question is yes. I think that the section, page 12, number 6
addresses the issue of service agreement contacted advance, that
there’s a shared responsibility to verify that training, that those
people are qualified to perform that job as opposed to on the – you
know, on the incident scene.

	I think that’s critical. One of the things that was determined just
as an example and during Katrina, you know, individuals were titling
themselves as a type 3 incident management team and were deploying to,
you know, the disaster site with no verification of skills, you know,
knowledge, skills and abilities and then they got on the scene because
they want to be part of the incident. They used the right vernacular to
gain entrance to the scene but then they couldn’t perform. I think
that the importance of propagating those agreements in advance is
absolutely positively essential which what I think page 12, number 6
gets to. 

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer. Are there incidents where or can you
imagine a situation where an ESO neglected to make those prior
arrangements? Those prior contracts and just called a skilled support
employer and said can you send some people and thus wouldn’t have read
page 12 or may end up having folks that have no training out there?

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. The answer to your question is
absolutely. I expected that that actually occurred with some regularity.
The question becomes what is the – what is the – to what extent does
the ESO have the ability to assess whether or not the skilled support
worker is capable of performing the essential functions of the job to
which they’ve been asked to perform. I’ll give you an example.

	Motor vehicle collision occurs in which an armored car rolls on top of
a passenger vehicle. The ESO – the armored car weighs such that a
crane must be brought to the scene. The ESO doesn’t have an agreement
in place for a crane but they call for a crane. Honestly they look up in
the Yellow Pages, you know, crane companies. They call for a crane. The
crane comes to the scene. By its very nature I doubt that the ESO is the
incident commander is in the position to assess the competency of that
crane company to perform the job to which they’re being asked to
perform.

	So I don’t know that putting the (unintelligible) on them to do that
actually achieves what we want to achieve which is ensuring the
functional safety of everyone on that scene. I think the point is to
drive people to establish those relationships in advance. I think it
occurs today spontaneously because it’s allowed to occur
spontaneously. If we put regulations in place that require that to occur
prospectively we have a better chance of avoiding the scenario that I
just offered. 

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. I’d like to interject a couple of
questions here. So would it be appropriate here in this first paragraph
to mention the fact that these skills for workers should have the proper
credentials as per whichever section and letter and number that we have
in here. And then – and this happens to me as a site canal
professional out in the field all the time with crane operators, etc. It
is written into OSHA law if a skilled support worker is observed, you
know, if there’s observations being made then the incident commander
or designee may request further verification. That’s where the rubber
meets the road.

	If they’re out there working and they’re not working at the level
like you said Matt that they’re expected to, if it doesn’t appear
that they have those skills then we want that incident commander who’s
designee to be able over to pull – to see those records. And I don’t
think it’d be the incident commander. It’d be the designee. Does
that make sense to folks?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Could you just clarify which paragraph you’re talking about? Are
you talking about the one on page 12 or you’re talking about the one
on page 33?

Rick Ingram:	Well there’s a lot of paragraphs.

Man:	Yes, exactly. You’re nicely vague there.

Rick Ingram:	Yes. I was on purpose. So when you’re skill support a
dangle here that you got to – so this is command. This is why we’re
talking about this. The commander is verified that each skill support
worker receive the pre-incident training required by S1, S2, okay? We do
have the reference there so my question is is that reference adequate or
is there another reference that we need to make an addition to that?
Bill brought up something on another page that I didn’t write down.

	My suggestion would be toward just a little bit differently. The
incident commander or designee verifies that each skilled support worker
and verify the pre-incident training. I would say may verify that each
skilled support worker has received the incident training that – I
would also say that – and I don’t know which section it is in. Bill
can probably tell us but I read that in the contract. It says this was
laid out in the contract previous to the work again. 

Matt Tobia:	Rick this is Matt. One thing I’d offer is could we –
instead of I worded the way it is, could we not say that the ESOs shall
ensure that the skill support employer only sends individuals –
skilled support workers that beat the requirements in whatever? It’s
an option.

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer. I’m comfortable with that and I
think that’s what Bill has currently changed it to, something very
similar to that, right? The incident commander or designee ensures that
each skilled support worker has received training in S1 and S2. Is that
not what you just said?

Matt Tobia:	No. I think what I was saying was that the ESO shall ensure
that the skill support employer only sends individuals that meet the
requirements set forth in the regulation. The only reason I say that is
because – 

Man:	They’re not actually checking each work.

Matt Tobia:	Exactly. That’s exactly ((Crosstalk)). 

Spencer Schwegler:	I’m comfortable with that.

Matt Tobia:	That the skilled support – that the ES – I think what
your point just mentioned – this is Matt Tobia. I’m sorry. Your
point was you thought that there needed to be a handshake of
responsibility between the ESO and the (FSE). I understand that. I think
that most emergency services providers would indicate that they’re
relying on the skill support employer to perform that function and only
send individuals that are in fact qualified to meet those requirements. 

	I think that there could be a provision whereby the ESO retains the
ability to – the (FSE) to provide that documentation upon request or,
you know, as required.

Man:	Thank you Matt. Spencer does that make sense to you?

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer. Yes it does. It makes perfect sense
to not check each individual that’s showing up but my concern is that
there’s a communication or as Matt said a handshake that what we’re
talking about is communication between the ESO and the (FSE) that
they’re only getting people with the training.

	This alerts the ESO to those requirements and I think that it’s
important that it’s in there, that there’s some – I understand
that there’s some mutual language.

Man:	Mutual responsibility.

Spencer Schwegler:	Language yes, that brings that to the forefront for
the ESO that they’re responsible to make sure that training has taken
place.

Man:	Okay. Bill Warren?

Bill Warren:	My question is (unintelligible) and that is to what degree
does the ESO have to accept that – for example note some of the
examples that have been going around here, crane operators. As you know
beginning in 2017, November 2017 all crane operators have to be
certified on that crane. So when that crane operator comes to the
emergency situation then they’re certified to be able to safely and
adequately operate that crane.

	We have other things too that – like a large wrecker operator that
operate wreckers. They come in and they’re DOP qualified through their
class either C, B or A classification. So to what degree does the ESO
have to be able to assume (Mark) that when you have these special
support folks come on to your site and they are a crane operator so
therefore after 2017 we know that they should be your or they have to be
certified to operate that crane?

	And then for the wrecker operators who come in and they’re large
wrecker so they meet the class a certifications that they’re skilled
in that, just to make that assumption based on that work or do we say
that hey, we know those other regulations are out there but we still
have to re-verify so that’s my question to you. At what point does the
ESO have to get leap in the weave that you can’t make assumption that
some of these folks coming on to the site, you know, meet a criteria
that’s already been laid out on the other regulatory responsibilities?

Man:	Ready to jump in?

Man:	Sure.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. Going on page 18 of our reg TICs
there’s, well 17 and 18 refers to respond to training and
qualifications. We’ve got a lot of information there so maybe we could
reference that as well. That all happens before the emergency and I
think that’s what Matt and Spencer is discussing and I absolutely
agree the (NACOSH) has finished the work on temporary worker program and
it does talk about the dual responsibility to the host and the responder
in this case or the temporary worker. That work does relate to this so
that – there is a mutual responsibility that – how do we reference
that?

Man:	If I can jump in Bill’s question. I think Bill – the whole
point in doing pre-planning is actually establish these relationships.
These sorts of contractual relationships happen all the time both in the
emergency response service and as a private sector. I don’t think we
need to spell out exactly what’s required. If you’re going to stay I
want to have a relationship with this organization whether it’s a, you
know, whether it’s a mutual aid organization and deciding the quality
of your organization they’re going to do mutual aid or the quality of
the organization is you’re going to bring in for skilled support.
That’s all in that organization.

Man:	And we all agree that that was the case but in some of the examples
given there are times – I think Matt very eloquently described that
there are times where sometimes you just pick up the phone and you bring
them the nearest company that can assist and help with that. 

	So there may not be contractual pre-planning to an issue like that. So
the question then would become how do you make sure that if you’re
going to do that, you know, because I don’t think we want to prohibit
the practice but the question is so we don’t have a contractual
agreement but we have a serious emergency. I’ve got to bring in a
crane or I’ve got to bring in a wrecker. At what point does ESO have
to make an assumption that because of the nature of work that (FSE)
brings to the plate that there’s other regulatory requirements already
applied in this that says, hey they have to have the skill to operate
this level.

	They have to have a crane operator certification. They have to – at
what point in time do they have to keep worrying about it when there’s
other regulatory tests that says the (FSE) should’ve already taken
care of that? 

Man:	I think what you’re describing is one of a million different in
the moment decisions that an incident commander is going to have to
make. I think we’ve always tried to be clear. We’re not interested
in Monday morning quarter basking rate incident commanders. I think that
this is the sort of thing where when, you know, one thing
(unintelligible) said we plan to offer these sorts of skills or these
sort of (HIP) response capabilities and then they plan to do it and they
have a relationship in that organization that they have the relationship
with.

	It’s on another job or somebody’s not available and they’ve got
to go and find somebody to pick up, you know, sort of situation. They
clearly showed that they were trying to do the right thing and I’d
expect that our compliance officers would give them credit for
establishing the relationships and recognizing that there are exigent
circumstances. If on the other hand you had a circumstance where
somebody says we plan to have these sorts of capabilities they never
established, you know, the mutual relationships with the skilled support
personnel. That may be a different circumstance and that’s one of the
reasons our compliance officers interview people and try and figure out
the patterns and, you know, what the intent was.

	I certainly think when you look at – if we go forward to a rule
making the preamble that we’re looking at writing it’s going to
stay. We’re not interested in Monday morning quarterbacking people.
These are very hard jobs with, you know, making compressed decisions or
tough decisions in compressed amounts of time with limited information.
And we don’t want people to feel like we’re always looking over
their shoulder second guessing them.

Man:	And I agree with that.

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill Hamilton. In borrowing some language from
the skilled support section about the skilled support employer only
designating workers who the skilled support employer they’re properly
trained, etc, I borrow that language. I move it to page 6 – I’m
sorry. Page 12, number 6 added to the contract agreement requirement,
the agreement requirement. The language is on the screen and sure (FSEs)
are advised that only those workers who the skilled support workers
determine they’re properly trained, qualified and fit based on the
requirements of this section are designated to operate in an emergency
incident.

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. I would support that and I would offer
that in place of 10I on page 33, that perhaps language could be said to
be fitted to the extent feasible, utilizes (FSEs) outlined in E6. I
think what that captures is there may be a circumstance where there are
exigent circumstances. However we still want to promote the
establishment of those relationships in advance so that there’s an
expectation that to the greatest extent possible, to the extent feasible
that ESOs shall ensure that they utilize (FSEs) as outlined in E6. Is
that – I think the two things together in combination get to the
concern that we were talking about Spencer perhaps. 

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer, just got a couple things I wanted to
comment on. To Bill’s comment we’re not really talking about
technical training in terms of skill base which is what you were
mentioning, that it’s covered under the crane standard so part CC,
line 26 for example. We’re talking about free incident training which
covers hazards that are specific to disaster type situations and PTE
that’s appropriate for that de-contamination and a basic understanding
of the incident command system.

	That’s what’s in F so you’re right. An incident commander
that’s calling a crane operator, a crane operating company or –
would have the expectation that they’d send people that are
technically skilled to do that but they not have had any training in the
type of hazards that they may be confronting when they get on that scene
and that’s what we’re dealing with in S1 and S2.

	To this question of having comments about the required training in both
and paragraph (N) – is it paragraph – yes it’s paragraph (N),
subparagraph 10 Roman numeral 1 that’s also in – is it paragraph E?
Is that where it is, paragraph E? I think – 

Man:	Yes, paragraph E, section E on page 12 – page 6.

Spencer Schwegler:	I think that’s great. I’d like to have in one of
those places mention the training in S1 and S2 rather than just the
general comment that we’re – that we, you know, that way follow
everything in this section because that’s such a broad – you know,
that’s such a broad statement.

	It’s true. We want to cover everything in this section but is there
anything specifically that we’re calling out that we want to cultivate
to the ESO’s attention?

Man:	Right. So Andy this is a question for you. Could we not put a
footnote attached to the – under E6 on page 12, the additional
language that Bill added in? Could we not just put a footnote that says
please also see section (F), training for skilled support workers to
highlight the importance of what that training needs to include.

Andy Levinson:	Sure. We can do that.

Man:	Okay. Does that – 

Man:	Yes (unintelligible) for that. That sounds good.

Man:	Perfect.

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt. Bill what we’re talking about is under –
yes, right there. Just reference that these are reference paragraphs (F)
for training.

Man:	I guess I want to make sure where this is going.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	This is (unintelligible) speaking. So Spencer I understood that,
you know, most of the time that we get the (FSEs) on board that
they’ve gone through a pre-text or a pre-training contractual
agreement. You’ve got all the things outlined for them. I guess my
concern was because it sounded to me like it’s more a frequent than
not frequent that sometimes that the emergency organization has to call
in folks who may not be contractually based. So then now you don’t
know what you got.

	So that’s my concern, then to ensure that that training, I guess
it’s going to be onsite which is possible and I also find that onsite
training sometimes is very limited in its scope and goes through some of
the very basic stuff and may not cover everything that you really think
you may have. So you may get a good call for the crane operator but
he’s only going to get general knowledge onsite of what the hazards of
the job site is. They may or may not have the right PPE because you just
called them on the phone and you don’t have a contractual agreement
with them at the time.

	My question concern was always that when you do that, you know, I think
that there has to be a basic assumption that most of them have some kind
of training that at least for the limited amount of ability you’re
going to use them -- that’s just for example -- to pick that truck off
of the car. You know, that’s really not a lot of different than
anything else that they’d pick. So that’s all I’m saying, is that
I understand where you’re from, is if they’re contracted we have a
good assurance that they’ve got training. They’ve got the equipment.
I guess my concern is that what about those that we don’t have a
contract with, that you just literally picked up on the phone and said
hey, can you bring the crane operator back? That’s where my concern
was.

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer. I completely agree with you on we
talked – I think we talked up at situations because as far as
technical skills, they should still mean the training for the technical
skills. But as far as any kind of awareness or what kind of hazards they
may be facing, they really probably have no training with respect to
that. 

Man:	I just don’t want to prohibit the practice Andy that the ESO is
not able to use a non-contracted (FSE) because they think that will
really impact a lot of what you’re doing because you’re exactly
right. If you’ve got a contract with a crane operator or a plane
company and they’ve got three projects going and their cranes are all
out because there’s an old saying in construction that when iron sets
you lose money. Their idea is to move every piece of equipment. Every
bulldozer, every front end loader should be actively engaged somewhere.
And so it may not be available at the time that the ESO needs it for
that emergency because there’s not enough people laying around just in
case something happens.

	That’s my biggest concern, is that I just don’t want to limit the
incident commander to say I’m only going to be able to use my
contracted folks to let them know that they’re operated and trained in
everything.

Andy Levinson:	Bill I think it’d be presumably unreasonable
(unintelligible) involve millions of emergencies across the entire
country. Everything is pre-planned and (unintelligible). So I think we
need to look no further than just the good Samaritan provision that we
recognize that there are times. They leave with no relationship.
They’re going to come onsite and as long as the incident commander is
willing to own (unintelligible) and make sure that they operate safely
to the best of their judgment and discretion (unintelligible) incident
commander.

Man:	I agree with that, thank you Andy. Sarah?

Sarah Shortall:	Sarah Shortall. I think I have a question for Spencer
and Matt. That is under section 5 that you just put in. What is the
difference between an SCO ensuring that (FSEs) are advised and an
SCO’s just advising (FSE)? Is there a difference? How do you go about
doing one versus the other? I’m asking will it be possible just to say
that SCOs shall advise (FSEs)?

Matt Tobia:	Sarah this is Matt. I apologize. When you use the term SCO
do you mean ESO?

Sarah Shortall:	ESO, I’m sorry. 

Matt Tobia:	I just want to make sure. There’s a lot of acronyms. We
just want to make sure that you’re using the correct one.

Sarah Shortall:	Yes, ESO. So what exemptions does ESO shall ensure that
(FSEs) are advised versus the ESO shall advise (FSEs)?

Man:	It’s on page 12.

Sarah Shortall:	Yes it’s page 12. It’s right there in the red.

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. You can certainly say what you’re
saying Sarah and that is that ESOs advise (FSEs) that only those workers
– it’s just notifying them, notify, advise, notify. Either of those
words, you know, is appropriate. All you’re trying to say is that
it’s a more direct statement. Is that accurate?

Sarah Shortall:	I guess it’s how you go about proving that
somebody’s ensuring something’s done versus just, you know – 

Matt Tobia:	Doing it?

Sarah Shortall:	Social advise (FSEs).

Man:	Sarah I appreciate the (unintelligible) but I think that’s the
level of precision that we don’t need now. Let’s get the rest of the
content done and then I’ll leave that time to polish language, you
know, in the remaining three days. Let’s work on that.

Sarah Shortall:	We’re so far past where we’re supposed to be. I felt
that it was okay to bring it up now.

Man:	In addition we’re working on this, you know, there’s going to
have to be time to spend crafting the report – final report language
and making sure everybody’s comfortable with that. I think that’ll
take some time. 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. Andy I just want to clarify. I know that
we want to – the finer points of the regulatory text or, you know,
once we get to rule making we’ll obviously be revised as we go
through. I just want to – earlier we spoke about in this section,
I’m just – I’m still on page 33 under section 10 and 11. I really
just want to just highlight the importance of the ESO ensuring that
things get done as opposed to requiring the incident commander to do
those things.

	The example I could give you would be under 2 under 10 II. I might
suggest for example replacing and this is illustrative of the point that
I’m making only that I would strike the incident commander or designee
and that’d replace it with the ESO shall ensure the provision of an
initial briefing to each skilled support worker and then move on from
there.

	I’m using that as illustration as the greater point which is set of
time the hands of the incident commander or designee specifically that
the ESO retains that responsibility.

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer. So you’re talking about Roman
numeral 2. 

Matt Tobia:	Correct.

Spencer Schwegler:	Not roman numeral 1, which is – 

Matt Tobia:	Deal with this right now. That’s a separate discussion
that we spoke about. Earlier my recommendation under that language was
that to the extent feasible that (FSEs) that specify that E6 are
utilized. I think on the issue of encouraging or underscoring the
criticality of having the relationships in advance and then number 2
gets to the point – I guess illustrative of the ESO having that
responsibility as opposed to the incident commander and then under 11
roman numeral I same thing, that instead of the word the incident
commander that it’d say and assessment and determination of incident
priorities and establishing the need for the assistance from (SUVs). 

	I think what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to say – and
again I try to always remember Andy telling me this as a performance
standard as opposed to a prescriptive standard, that what we’re really
trying to get to is that the ESO is making sure that these things are
being done on their incident scenes as opposed to pinpointing that those
specific individuals responsible for them in this section. In other
sections we do fix responsibility because it needs to be fixed. 

Man:	I think Kenn first and then you Spencer.

Kenn Fontenot:	I noticed that early (unintelligible) I think (Matt)’s
point is now that because in stating the paragraph it says the ESO shall
ensure colon. So anything from there I don’t think we need to pinpoint
(unintelligible). I just think the ESO is responsible to ensure that all
of these things are taken care of. Only the first two that pinpoints as
to who will do it and the next six you say that these actions will be
taken. I believe we can remove in I and II. I sound like a pirate.

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer. So just for clarification again as a
construction mark I’m not familiar with how operations run. The ESO
we’re referring to as an organization and the incident commander who
may be the person who actually reads the standard would say this is my
responsibility because I’m the person that’s in the ESO. I’m the
representative of the ESO so therefore it’s my responsibility to
actually office this. That’s a very clear connection, right?

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. Yes, the point is that on any given day
it could – any individual within ESO could potentially be the incident
commander and so what we’re saying is that the ESO, I think elsewhere
in the document we’re identifying that the ESO needs to operate in an
incident management system and that if the management system would
include the designation of the incident commander at the scene of an
emergency and by the incident management rules wherever the incident
commander owns the entire thing, that they own all aspects of it. The
ESO plays a role in ensuring that that incident commander has resources
they need to the job that they need to do. 

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer. So it’s actually better, what
you’re saying. ESO is a better terminology to just hear because it
gives a broader sense of responsibility. It doesn’t pinpoint it one
specific person.

Matt Tobia:	In this specific section yes sir. (This is Matt Tolby).
I’m sorry. In this specific section I would say yes, the affixing of
responsibility on an individual in this section becomes an unmanageable
burden.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. I’ll ask a question about the group
here. How about verification? And we talked about if a person is out
there working and they don’t seem to be exhibiting the skills that
they should have or the job that they’re doing, it might be putting
other people in danger? How about a verification?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	From a safety officer or supervisor has the ability to terminate,
alter or suspend any action at any time and if they identify an
individual operating in an unsafe manner or incompetent manner they have
the ability to immediately remove that individual from that activity.
They actually have a responsibility, an affirmative responsibility to
remove that individual from that activity until at such time that
they’re skilled and the ability can be verified. That’s something
that takes place away from the emergency itself.

Man:	Do we have that in the document right now Bill if you’re
listening? Or do we need to add that or is that just – 

Man:	Let me just suggest that I don’t think we need that because the
incident commander is the person who’s running the show essentially
for the ESO. They are essentially the management representative. You
don’t need to tell the management representative that they have the
right to stop work. It’d be something if we said other emergency
responders have the right to stop work or any other activity and give
some special power but the incident commander’s running the show. Does
that line up with everybody else’s sense of – 

Rick Ingram:	That was (Andy Levinson) from Rickard. This is Rick Ingram
from wreckage, any other comments or questions or suggestions? It’s
been a great discussion. Spencer are you happy?

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer. I’m very happy. I’m just
curious. I’ve been sort of keeping an eye on what Bill is writing up.
I’m wondering if Bill can summarize what we actually wrote as a result
of what we’ve been talking about, make sure that what he got is what
we’re biting on. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay. So Bill Hamilton – so number 10, use your skill support
workers. So that change now says 10, prior to participation by skill
support workers that an emergency incident the ESO shall ensure to the I
to the extent feasible. (FSEs) is specified in E6 are utilized. Double I
in initial briefing is provided. This takes out the incident commander
provides or designee. Triple I, so it says initial – so the ESO shall
ensure an initial briefing is provided to each skill support worker.
Triple I, the ESO ensures an adequate means of communication is provided
and IV, the ESO ensures where appropriate response is designated and
escorts the skilled support worker.

	Let’s see. That was that one. And then do the same thing. In 11,
check out where it has the incident commander being responsible for
things. The ESO shall ensure I incident priorities – sorry, let’s
fix that one. We’ve got to fix that one. That the – 

Matt Tobia:	Bill this is Matt Tobia. I’d say the incident priorities
are assessed and established to include, to determine.

Man:	Right.

Man:	Set establish to determine, the need for assistance from that?

Man:	Period?

Man:	Period.

Man:	Okay, that’s good, all right. 

Matt Tobia:	And double I, ESO ensures an assembly registration area for
SEPs as established, triple I, again figure out the incident commander.
An initial briefing is provided to each SUV, IV, each SUV is evaluated
based on the SUV’s skills and pre-incident training and to the extent
possible participation by SUVs aren’t registered and receive the
safety briefing is restricted. It says essentially same thing without
saying this, the incident commander because before we were saying the
ESO has to make sure the incident commander made sure somebody else did.
So now it essentially says the ESO has to make sure that somebody does
it.

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer. Bill could you review E6 because I
think you made a few alterations since the last time we were there?

Bill Hamilton:	Page 12. Well let’s see.

Man:	Right there.

Bill Hamilton:	I did. So we added E6, ensure (FSEs) are advised that
only those workers who the (FSE) determines they’re properly trained,
qualified and fit based on the requirements of this section are
designated to operate at emergency incidents and we’re specifically
referencing paragraph Q through U which is the skilled support
paragraphs.

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. I would just offer that in reference to
(Spencer)’s correct assessment that we identify what we’re really
talking about and it’s inclusive with I would just add language to –
craft as a footnote to – with particular attention paid to section S
as in Sam which is the training section, just as a footnote. 

	Q through U is very – it’s pretty significant. I think it’s all
important but I think if we’re trying to highlight the importance of
the training feeds which I think at the end of the day is probably the
most critical that we highlight that, that was Matt Tobia and thank you.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. Bill reading through what do you
think?

Bill Hamilton:	Well it’s 6 of E, ensure (FSEs) are advised that only
those workers who the (FSE) determines are properly trained see
paragraph F. Qualified and fit based on the requirements of this section
are designated to operate at emergency incidents. And then I put in
brackets specifically skilled support employer paragraph Q through U.

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer. That sounds good to me. Thank you
Bill and Matt.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. Bill, could you look at on page 17 H1
and H2 and see if we need to make a reference there just out of
curiosity? It also mentions training and certifications.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. With that particular note there we may want
to add a note there that they may reference and establish a known
national standard. When you look at the first one on I it says establish
in writing. Probably what I’d do is if I have say a risky technician,
I’d say in my plan I’d just reference that particular NFP document
rather than rewriting the whole mess. It just makes it a little less
problematical for departments. So they can think of skill level and
reference it to a document and say, you know, this is what this supposed
to do rather than (unintelligible) line up with document like this after
a while.

Rick Ingram:	Well this – thank you Kenn. This particular section does
talk about a variety of skill including driving and other things.
We’ll let Bill finish this research over here and then we’ll revisit
it. Is there any discussion on that so far on whether or not to
reference H, I? No.

Man:	Let’s talk about the pre-work again before we talk right
(unintelligible) was written or as the contract was written, Andy
(unintelligible).

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. That’d be a department document and
it’d be very (unintelligible). You have to listen in writing.
Everything you want your people to do, they can reference by note a
specific standard on regulation. It’d just ease the paperwork. For
instance if I had a firefighter I’d put up meet the requirements
within FDA1001. That’d suffice to list in writing all of the skill
because if not I have to go into every little thing they’re supposed
to do.

Rick Ingram:	My point Bill is this is the requirement so just thinking,
no worries, any other discussion on that at all? Okay, any other
discussion on this section?

Kenn Fontenot:	There were some things that were raised in the discussion
with the SSE that maybe we want to take a look at for the ESO, in
particular in the mutual aid statement which is on page 11, 5A. Two
things, first of all where it says mutual aid we put slash automatic aid
because automatic aid becoming more common in the U.S. as departments
rely on each other to respond to fill staffing needs and resource needs.
Just that way like with what (unintelligible) was saying if it’s not
listed there unlike (unintelligible) automatic or inclusive.

	Somewhere in there and I guess my thought would be (unintelligible) as
a letter B as in Baker to follow A, that the ESO ensures that personnel
in this – covered in this section meet the requirements in training H2
and H2 just lists all the competencies and tier levels that we talked
about. The reason for this is from personal experience. You get a yellow
(cone) fire where everybody shows up. How do you ensure the people that
are showing up are qualified to do the job? So in the mutual aid
agreement I’d like to see a statement that says the ESO ensures that
all the people they will send meet the requirements of what they’re
going to be asked to do.

	I’ve been there. You’re grabbing people, hey are you a firefighter
1? Can you go inside and either all say yes and you have no clue but
it’s inherent upon the person supplying them to verify their standing
and that’s just the point I’d like to see in that area.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. Any other discussion on Kenn’s
point?

Man:	Kenn let me ask you this point of clarification. Do you think that
needs to be a whole separate provision B or is that just another thing
in the list under A with I, double I, triple I where the training and
credentials or some other qualifications?

Kenn Fontenot:	I’m good either way, just as long as it’s in there
because I know as an incident manager sometimes I have some concerns
about the people coming in to help me and I have no idea what I’d get
so I’d like that language in there somewhere.

Man:	My question again is that automatic aid, does that have the same
element of mutual aid agreement and mutual aid agreement, you have to
sign an agreement? Does automatic aid have something between the
jurisdictions that are automatically filed so that there’s protections
between the two jurisdictions regarding the role’s responsibilities
and things like that? I don’t know, I’ve never heard that term.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. Yes, same thing. It just means instead of
mutual aid where I call you when I need you, on automatic aid on certain
calls you’re going to respond at the same time I get the call. 

Man:	And understand that those are already a pre-agreement?

Kenn Fontenot:	Yes there is.

Man:	Okay.

Kenn Fontenot:	It’s a rep signed document.

Sarah Shortall:	It’s very important -- Sarah Shortall – very
important everyone gets the name because the transcription isn’t
onsite to see who you are.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn, just a point of clarification. Yes it is
pre-signed. It has the same components of a mutual aid. The only
difference is you respond at the same time as me as opposed to I get
there and ask you to come help. That’s the only difference.

Andy Levinson:	Kenn let you ask you another clarification. This is Andy
Levinson, sorry for the transcriptionist. My question is is it enough to
write automatic aid into the definition of mutual aid and then just use
the term mutual aid to include both or are there some people where they
only use the term automatic aid and it’d make more sense to help
people understand what’s required to use that mutual/automatic aid as
the term that appears all the way from the document?

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. I’m not sure I understand your question.

Andy Levinson:	So the question is for I guess – for lack of a better
term, for legal coverage we can include automatic aid in the mutual aid
definition and then just use the term mutual aid. If everybody
understands that mutual aid covers both then we’re fine. You think
people are going to get confused to think when I read mutual aid I
don’t think automatic aid is covered in that and we need to change the
term that we use so that firefighters throughout the country are going
to understand that it’s mutual/automatic aid.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. I don’t have a real good handle and
probably because I’m so familiar with the term. We’ve had automatic
aid where I live for the last 16 years for departments in my parish
respond automatically and they have. So it’s second nature to me but
perhaps other – but I see it growing in many areas. You want to put a
parenthesis in the definition of mutual aid and it covers it? I’m fine
with that as well.

Man:	It’s already in there. Bill and (Mark) just said it’s already
mutual aid, automatic aid and fire protection (unintelligible).

Kenn Fontenot:	So we’re fine and good.

Man:	Okay.

Kenn Fontenot:	Then we’ll add the little part about the training.

Man:	Instead of (unintelligible) say that it’s not all fine and good.
((Crosstalk))

Man:	Victor.

Victor Stagnaro:	Thank you. This is Victor Stagnaro. Back to – I’m
fine with automatic/mutual aid piece. It’s great. Back to the concern
related to training of mutual/automatic aid, if you go to page 12, Roman
numeral 2 it talks about procedures in training for all ESOs. The mutual
aid agreement shall be based on the type and level of services
established. So the training component is already listed as something
that needs to be addressed.

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. Just on that same point reading further
into that exact same section it talks about that it has to be
comprehensive enough to reduce the effects of (unintelligible)
responders and ensure uniform operation, which I think gets to Kenn your
point about both people who weren’t trained and able to integrate into
the system.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. I’d just like to see something a little
more specific that says you will only send me people who are trained and
I understand that it’s in there but it just – I know I’ve been in
some situations where I’ve been in a bind where I didn’t know what I
had to work with. I just want to be sure they get there and they know
what they’re doing. And if we feel that it covers it in those two
areas, I’m probably okay but I think I prefer to see a separate
statement in there.

	It’s going to be – this is Kenn. Most of it will be in the smaller
departments. The bigger departments aren’t going to have much of an
issue but it’s in your smaller departments where you get a lot of
help. You (unintelligible) said a lot of departments don’t need help.
The smaller departments, you’ll get a lot of folks showing up.
That’s where – 

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram, any other comments or suggestions?

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. I’d support the inclusion under A of
minimum training standards as opposed to a separate section but under
– so on page 11 and identify I through 8 so Roman numeral 1 through
Roman numeral 8 I’d also include the – addressing the issue of
minimum training requirements, training certification requirement.
Whatever language OSHA that feels most appropriate, long as there’s an
inclusion in that section.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. That’d be Roman numeral 9, whatever that
is.

Rick Ingram:	We’ll just watch Bill do his magic. This is Rick. And for
the record we’re all glad that Bill’s having the top instead of all
of us so thank you Bill.

(Unintelligible)

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia, I’m sorry. I’ll be referencing
another section within the same regulatory text so –

Man:	H2, the section that addresses minimum train requirements. I’m
sure of that.

Man:	Section H2.

Man:	H2?

Man:	It’s on page 17.

Victor Stagnaro:	Bill this is Victor Stagnaro. If you want to just look
at section 2 right underneath where it says based on the type and level
of service training, respond to training requirements based on the type
and level of services established in the document.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. C4 is what we’re – I think it was H – it’s H2
instead of C4 Bill. This is Rick Ingram. I think we can say – actually
should we say H1 and 2 or just H2 for the professional? One is this
basic training qualification, that’s number 1 and then professional
qualifications, that’s number 2. Kenn what did you have in mind? This
is Rick Ingram.

Kenn Fontenot:	(Unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	That’s all right. Come back to this. If you look at page
17 and 18 and see which references you were referring to please.

Kenn Fontenot:	H parenthesis 2, letter 2, professional qualifications is
in that section.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

Kenn Fontenot:	That’s on page 18.

Rick Ingram:	All right. Do we have any other discussion on that,
Spencer, anybody, Matt, everybody happy with that, Victor, Bill? For the
record heads are nodding and affirmative. I realize this has taken a
little bit of extra time but we’ll be done and Bill won’t have to do
homework later. We are a bit ahead of – are you happy with that now
Bill? Do you agree with it?

Man:	So what you want to say is responders that are sent to the scene
are trained and qualified. If the point is somehow you want to say
respondents that are dispatched or sent or deployed to the scene are
trained and qualified based on the requirements of H1 and H2, is that
what we’re trying to get to?

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. You could even simplify it and say
respondents meet the requirements of H1 and H2. You could even be more
succinct if you wanted to, that the mutual aid agreement addresses the
issue of that responders meet the requirement of H1 and H2. 

Man:	Kenn?

Kenn Fontenot:	I’m fine with all of this. (Grady) was pointing out
something on page 18, number 2 in parenthesis I, up in here where it
says we have to establish in writing. We put a note that you took
reference established standards. You may want to add that same note here
to prevent us from having to rewrite, you know, everything again. We got
what was in earlier when we put that little note that we can use. It was
under H. This is H1. Yes H2 – H1 was where we had it first on on page
17. 

Man:	Kenn could you re-iterate what you were saying there about that?

Kenn Fontenot:	Yes. The first time we just said instead of establish in
writing in writing all of the competencies that we’d add a note saying
that they’d reference, we could reference and establish a standard or
rule. And it should carry forth into page 18 also under 2I, it says the
same thing, establish in writing the minimum knowledge and skills. Just
put that same note there, that we could reference existing standards and
rules.

Man:	That could seem to put it right. 

Kenn Fontenot:	I guess what – this is Kenn. My point is if I could
reference an (NFPA) document and I wouldn’t have to write the old
document into my establish-in writing-rule. I could just say I’m
referencing it and I adopted this. Under H1 – 

Bill Hamilton:	My name. I’m sorry. Bill Hamilton, under H1 I,
establish a writing the minimum knowledge and skills required for each
responder. You don’t have to write them all out. If you want somebody
to comply with (unintelligible) to meet the minimum (NPA1500) be the
minimum knowledge and skill required then you can say your establishment
in writing is meet the minimum requirements of (NPA1500) without having
to write out every one of the things. That’s your establishing in
writing. You could just say meet 1500.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. That’s what I was suggesting that we’d
do. Just make a note that that could be done. When I read this it
doesn’t seem to give me that option that I must establish in writing.
I’m with you.

Bill Hamilton:	When we write the preamble we can make it clear or say
establishing it. You could do that. We can clarify that’s what –
that’s also what’s meant by establish in writing.

Kenn Fontenot:	That’s fine as opposed to training again. That’s fine
with me, as long as we get some methodology or some grout where we
don’t have to write all of this down.

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. Kenn I understand what you’re saying.
I think that we addressed in the term safe harbor as well as in the, you
know, in the explanatory text that goes with the regulation that
referencing or adopting, you know, establish national standards meet the
intent of that (unintelligible). I think we’re good. 

Rick Ingram:	I want to make a comment and then ask Andy a question. In
looking – after our last meeting I went back and went into the federal
register and looked at a lot of the preambles of standards that I used
over time in my work and I’m just wondering how effective is it for
the end user to have to rely on the preamble. I know that it’s used a
lot but if – you know, I feel like if we’re really doing our due
diligence we get the language right in the actual standard then we
don’t have to have people go back and allow that preamble. I think
that’s – I think that’s tenuous at best to expect folks to look at
that.

Andy Levinson:	Sure. This is Andy for the transcriptionist. So it’s a
delicate balancing act between what you put in preamble and what you put
in regulatory text. If you write everything and it covers every
situation then the federal register – the code of federal regulations
becomes so big and unwieldy hat nobody can read it or use it. It’s
already pretty big. It’s already pretty unwieldy. And so the agency
tries to put down enough that we give guiding principles so that people
understand how it operates and understands what the intent and objective
is of the provision.

	Then in the summary and explanation we provide additional explanatory
text that says here’s how we’re going to interpret it. When you
encounter these sorts of circumstances here’s how we’re going to
treat it. Now where that summary explanation comes in and is useful
they’re in a couple different places. When we write companion guidance
documents, they go along with this. One of the things that we’ll have
to do is we’ll have to write something called the small entity
compliance guide which tells small organizations here how you comply so
we can take more of that language and then put it into a guidance
document that’s more conversational language, more plain English for
people to understand.

	That can also become the guiding text and summary explanation for our
interpretations and for our compliance officers if they ever encounter
an unusual situation. So you want to be careful because if you put too
much in there people don’t see the forest for the trees.

Rick Ingram:	I understand that. As a safety and health professional I
look at – so now we have to read the standard. We have to understand
the standard. Then we get letters of interpretation. Also use the
directives for NACOSH to be able to follow and now we have memorandums
as well as everything else. So it’s very confusing for the end user.
I’m a management member of NACOSH and looking at it from the end
user’s viewpoint I just wanted to get that clarification. So if we do
a good – and I think this group is really doing a great job of getting
enough clarification in the actual regulatory text that it’s pretty
explanatory but I just wanted that clarification for my own use and for
– and that since I represent the business members of NACOSH.

Andy Levinson:	And, you know, the – when we’re running reg text we
always try and say as much as it’s necessary and as little as
possible.

Man:	I’m going to write that down.

Andy Levinson:	And so if you all around the table understand what you
think this means and you think this covers the circumstance then that is
a good indication that we’ve gotten the reg text written in a way
that’s clear and useful to people.

Rick Ingram:	I just want to make sure that this team is doing our due
diligence. This is Rick Ingram again, sorry. Service kicking me over
here but I just want to make sure that we’re doing our due diligence
while we’re here for these three days to get as complete as needed. 

Sarah Shortall:	This is Sarah Shortall. I wonder a couple of other
things from a lawyer’s point of view. You may think everyone thinks
that they’re doing this perfectly clear and someone thinks for sure
that everyone will understand white is white and then someone comes and
says it’s black. If it was that clear we wouldn’t need lawyers. We
wouldn’t need the Supreme Court.

	The other thing I’d add is you may think you’re coming with every
single possible scenario that could possibly exist and you’re not.
That’s what summary and explanation and later letters of
interpretation memorandum deal with. The things that we didn’t think
of then and we’ve thought of now.

Man:	One final point and then hopefully we can move on. In addition to
this group looking at this, that’s one of the reasons that we should
have the long process that it has, is go through those multiple levels
of review. So if we go forward to rule making you guys are going to do
this and NACOSH is going to look at this and see if they understand what
this reg text says and if they agree with it.

	Then the agency is going to take its crack at it, then it’s going to
go to (unintelligible) for process, that small business process where
we’re going to ask, you know, all of you to provide names of your
members, organizations who have to comply with the – who would have to
comply with the regulation and we’ll get 70, 80, 90 different ESOs and
skilled support organizations from around the country to take a look at
it and they’ll tell us what they think makes sense or doesn’t.

	Then it’ll go to a proposal and then the entire public gets to take a
look at it and so, you know, that’s where you really get through that
process of knocking off the rough edges and making sure that you really
boil it down to what we mean and provide enough explanation and the
right work. There’s multiple more bites at the apple on this one.

Man:	Well thank you for taking time everybody to help explain that.
Hopefully that was helpful to others here besides me. So Bill did you
want to summarize what you have there?

Bill Hamilton:	What I have where? Have you written anything else? 

Rick Ingram:	Okay. So we’re ready. All right thank you, any other
discussions on this section? Good discussion, thank you very much. 

Man:	Are we (unintelligible) something? So maybe we can go back to some
of the changes we made that I skipped over earlier and just make sure
everybody’s okay with the changes and the definitions and that sort of
thing before we open another can of worms with the next piece
(unintelligible) of the bunch, right? That’s what we’ll be on next.

Sarah Shortall:	Take some (unintelligible).

Man:	Okay so just a – on the – probably around page 6 was the
non-governmental organization and their concern was they was independent
of governmental control and we discussed changes not affiliated with any
government. So everybody I think is okay with that I hope.

	All right, the next is the definition for personal protective
equipment. (NFDA) uses the term personal protective ensemble to mean the
clothing and equipment. So it says personal protective equipment also
known as the personal protective ensemble. It says clothing and
equipment worn and utilized to prevent or minimize exposure to serious
workplace injuries and illnesses. Examples include items such as but not
limited to gloves, safety glasses and goggles, safety shoes and boots,
earplugs and muffs, hard hats and helmets, respirators and self
contained breathing apparatus, protective coats and pants, hoods,
coveralls, vests and full body suits.

	That’s a coupling together of various definitions including what OSHA
had for some personal protective equipment and then also
(unintelligible). Questions, comments, everybody good? What? I’m
sorry.

Sarah Shortall:	Sarah Shortall. The definition non-government
organization, it says affiliated, not affiliated, things that would be
better to say some part of any government? You can have organizations
and contracts and other types of arrangements that they could be
affiliated with the government although not part of the government. The
standard non-government organizations, second line is not affiliated
with.

Man:	Before we get into government control – 

Sarah Shortall:	Just say it’s not part of any government.

Man:	Okay. Not part of any government. Everybody’s good with personal
protective equipment?

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	A part of. Okay, okay. This change, alright. Size up, anybody want
to expand on the definition of size up? Right, it says an evaluation of
the incident seen. And if we try to start including all of the things
that can be included this could be a very, very, very, very long
definition. And we would not cover everything, and, so.

Man:	Did you call?

Rick:	Yes he's going to be here this afternoon.

Man:	Okay that's good. Thank you Rick.

Man:	Everybody good with size up? 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt (Unintelligible). There's a couple of things
that just I think should be highlighted and I don't know where the words
want to be included but it needs to indicate that it's an ongoing
process or a continuous process of evaluation.

Man:	That is in the back of the document when we say I mean - I mean we
don't say it's initial. If we were to say its ongoing then we should say
initial - we would say initial ongoing whatever. 

Matt Tobia:	I mean you could either, this is Matt (Unintelligible), you
could simply say it's a continuous process and the reason I say that is
because that spans the gambit of the circumstances when you would you
know when you're doing a size up to include before you ever get
dispatched on the call all the way through the termination of the
incident. 

Man:	On the screen the two places where it is - ah you dumbass, don't…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Alright.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So here it is in the document, the incident commander conducts a
comprehensive and ongoing size up of the incident scene. We'll have to
change that based on some of the other comments. And (unintelligible)
analysis conduct based on the size up before actively engaging the
incident. What the heck.

	Going back to the definition, let's fix that. Alright Matt how about
some words?

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt, I'm okay with that. I just I think - yes just
give me one minute please.

Man:	This is (unintelligible); I suggest we put an initial and ongoing
evaluation of the incident scene. That kind of covers everything I've
thought about.

(Lisa):	And this is (Lisa) (unintelligible), oh there we go. I guess as
a non-fire person just reading that I don't find it all that helpful so
to me adding a purpose so an initial ongoing evaluation of the incident
scene for XYZ would be helpful to help you with your planning, response,
activities, etcetera and I think can beef up that definition. 

Man:	Thank you (Lisa). Any other thoughts? Comments?

Bill Hamilton:	I made a note to add, this is Bill Hamilton, I made a
note to add language. We'll maybe revisit that during lunch or tonight
when I'm not doing anything and bring it back tomorrow, how's that?

Man:	So Bill let me throw out some language that maybe you can insert
there as a placeholder. An evaluation of the incident scene for the
purposes of - or for the purpose of determining operational activities -
scope and nature of operational activities. 

Bill Hamilton:	Do we, Bill Hamilton, do we still want to revisit this?
We always can, my guess is should I take it out of track changes and
move on, or leave it there to think about it?

Bill Warren:	This is (Bill Warren), I think Bill that sizes up
everything because the more specific to the body of the text, right, the
more specifics of it is. So this is just an overall definition that we
have and the more specific identification is in the body of the text I
think is fine.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro, I agree. As we expand though
and as I'm looking at it I wonder if we wanted to add operational
activities to determine strategies and tactics. I don't know if we want
to get that specific you know probably not but you know that is kind of
back to (Lisa)'s comment is that's the purpose of it. You do a size up
to determine how am I going to mitigate this incident? So to determine
mitigation strategies, maybe something to that affect might be more
accurate. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram, I had one other definition that I'd
like for us to revisit real quick when we get a chance.

Man:	Okay.

Rick Ingram:	It's the health and safety officer. Currently it says the
member of the fire department will sign and authorize by the fire chief
and I think we need to make it more general than that. 

Man:	Where are you Rick?

Rick Ingram:	It's on page, page five, health and safety officer second
definition from the bottom. Maybe we could insert ESO rather than fire
department or whatever's decided by the group. 

Man:	That definition (unintelligible) not only the ESO but you also have
the (SSE)'s. (SSE)'s potentially could have their own safety and health
officer that would not be designated by the fire chief or the fire
department. So should that not be more generic to take into
consideration ESO and all the others participating in that since this is
the definition.

Rick Ingram:	Yes I think, my thought was with the health and safety
officer would typically be assigned by the incident commander. 

Man:	Are we talking about only there where incidents (unintelligible)
again or are we talking about just when the emergency situation's going
on? Because typically you have a couple. You have the overall
departmental safety and health officer who takes care of the general
stuff throughout the day but then you have the safety and health officer
assigned to that emergency response team. So are we just narrowing it
down just to the emergency response in the definition?

Man:	I'll leave that up to the group for discussion so is it alright if
I take that one and facilitate that? So Matt or Victor I see you shaking
your heads so…

Matt Tobia:	So this is Matt (Unintelligible). So couple of things, first
I think it's as opposed to a responder I would say that it's an
individual assigned or - and authorized by the ESO as a manager of the
health and safety program. The health and safety officer is different
from the incident safety officer. Generally the health and safety
officer has a far more global responsibility than the incident safety
officers whose responsibilities may be specific only to that specific
type, that granular level of an infinite. 

	In this particular case I believe that the definition is intending to
address the health and safety officer because it relates back to the
health and safety program that we're requiring ESO's to implement. So we
are not requiring as I understand it I have to look at the regulatory
text, I don't know it by heart and Spencer can help me, I don't believe
we're requiring (SSW)'s to establish health and safety programs separate
from what we're doing with the ESO's. And if we're not asking them to
develop comprehensive health and safety programs than I don't think they
should be included in this definition meaning this should be limited to
ESO's.

Rick Ingram:	So my thought was that the definition would be referring to
the health and safety officer in the incident command system. So I might
have been wrong there.

Matt Tobia:	Okay so I mean, this is Matt (Unintelligible) again, Rick to
your point if you want to represent I think we represent under the
incident command system that we identify the need for incident
commanders to appoint and or establish a safety officer on incidents.
And as a result you know that incident safety office requirement is
addressed elsewhere in the standard.

Rick Ingram:	Yes so two definitions down or three down it's into the
safety officer.

Matt Tobia:	Right.

Rick Ingram:	I was just reading this on the airplane last night and…

Man:	I understand from the fire department perspective that that makes a
lot of sense. But from a safety manager perspective I'm not so sure for
me and the definition it does. And I'll tell you why. Because there's a
lot of the like ambulant services alone that have a safety and health
officer assigned to that to take care of all of their safety and health
programs. Even some of the larger crane companies and construction
companies have their own. 

	So the question is if we're going to employ them in if all we're
talking about is the fire department and we're not talking about these
other elements then I think you need to clearly identify that. Because I
think some of those other elements would have that. 

Matt Tobia:	I mean (unintelligible) jump in for a couple of points.
Point number one is that I think the definition that is written here and
the way that it's intended to be used is in the same way that we have
the respirator program administrator. This is a designated person who
has specific program responsibilities under the standard. And so you
want to be very careful about keeping that specific person for this
standard because we don't have those responsibilities for the skill
support employer.

	The other thing is most of the people that we're talking about for the
skilled support employers are going to operate most of their safety
programs under the (offices) of 1926, that's our construction industry
standards. There's already a safety and health program requirement there
and I would argue that we're getting a little far field to try and write
safety management stuff more broadly for construction and skilled
support type employers in this section.

Man:	I agree with that.

Matt Tobia:	It's a great point and I think you know there's more that we
want to do on that and you'll see safety and health program guidelines
coming out in the very near future for construction and general industry
that I think build on those points Bill but I don't want to muddy the
waters here. 

Man:	So Bill has changed the language there a little bit to make it a
little bit more general. Is that satisfactory to everyone? The ESO
instead of the fire department?

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt (Unintelligible) that's fine.

Man:	Any other comments, questions, complaints? Any other questions on
definitions? So we've got a - so it's about 15 until 12 now would you
all like to take a break? We will take a break now.

Matt Tobia:	Before we break, I'm sorry before we go, just before we go
there was one other area under the definitions that I just want to make
sure that we've addressed and that was the spontaneous unaffiliated
volunteer, I think that was the last one before we close out the
definition section - just before we go to lunch do we perhaps want to
consider just disposing of this? This is Matt (Unintelligible) by the
way.

Man:	I would just recommend we accept the changes as they're presented
unless somebody has a significant concern.

Man:	So it's the second paragraph on page eight. 

Man:	Let me ask one quick question so on the third line it has these
people provide assistance after the arrival of the ESO and I think you
want to tighten that up a little bit to say after the ESO has
established command or established control of the scene so that it's not
just you rolled up on scene and now you're expected to you know have
everything squared away.

Matt Tobia:	So this is Matt (Unintelligible), that's a good point I
would just say after the arrival - after the establishment of command by
the ESO. Because getting control of the scene and establishing command
are two totally different things for those people that have had that
experience. But I would offer that you know once command is established
you know there's an expectation that once command is established that
you respect the fact that that has occurred and you report to command
for assignment. 

	So let me suggest too that maybe command is the right word because for
example, and this is an extreme example, but you look at 9/11, there was
command established it was impossible to get volunteers off the pile for
a very long time. And it wasn't until they had control that you would
expect them to really have this in hand. So you may want to upgrade to
command instead of - or to control instead of just establishing command.

Man:	So I guess my thing would be that these - I think what we're trying
to get to are these individuals who for lack of better word freelance an
incident, alright. And obviously what - we do expect the ESO to be
responsible for the safety of these individuals once they have control
of the scene but there's that period of time in between when they get
there and when they get control of the scene that I don't think it's
necessarily appropriate to hold the ESO accountable for the safety of
those individuals who continue to you know arrive on the scene for
whatever reason.

	So I guess my observation is that if you're looking for a time hack
between when they transition from being a good Samaritan which are
individuals who were there before command was established and SUV's who
arrived, who show up after you know command has been established. I
think that's, to me that's a reasonable time act. I think you become
responsible for them once you have control of the incident operation and
maybe we need to break out those three periods of time, I don't know.

	But I think from the intent of a performance standard is before the ESO
gets there there's good Samaritans, after the ESO arrives on location,
establishes command they've presumably done a size up, they've
identified who's a good Samaritan, if somebody's holding you know
holding a tourniquet on someone's leg keep doing what you're doing or
hey thanks very much step back we've got it. And then there's the
individuals who continue to pile onto the scene after commands been
established but prior to a zone of operation being controlled. So I
guess there's really three time hacks. 

Man:	Right and so, this is (unintelligible), I think that it sounds like
we're in agreement that I see some heads nodding and I don't see anybody
jumping up and down disagreeing so that's the type of thing that's a
good explanation in preamble. 

Matt Tobia:	Yes this is Matt, I think so from the definition perspective
I would offer than an SUV is somebody who shows up after command has
been established. And the reason I feel that way is because if they are
responders and they're with the intent of doing help the theory is that
they should be reporting to command once command has been established. 

Bill Warren:	(Bill Warren) from Arizona. My question in that is what
about those that show up at the emergency scene prior to the arrival of
the emergency responders and are there, they're controlling traffic,
they're doing immediate first-aid because some do that. So how do we -
is that covered under this too because I'm not clear with that?

Man:	Those individuals are good Samaritans which is met in the
definition - or I'm sorry is met in a section of the standard. 

Bill Warren:	So just (unintelligible) definition since we took that
out…

Man:	Yes.

Bill Warren:	I don't think it's very clear when it comes to people
reading the definition what our intent was. 

Matt Tobia:	So this gets, this is Matt, this gets addressed in an entire
own section you know later in the incident. I think the definition is
important here because it does get addressed in a section later on. And
I'm just; I think the definition is important because it's a term that
has not previously been used in the vernacular of emergency services
communities. I think it's a good term, I think it's accurate, I think it
reflects you know the type of people we're talking about. As opposed to
Good Samaritan which is frankly pretty widely understood at least
generally understood in the emergency services community not requiring a
definition.

Man:	But I would just - I'm just trying to get to a point where we agree
that this is the definition of an individual that acts in this way.

Man:	Kenn and then Victor.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn Fontenot. The part of the definition I'm
having a lot of trouble with is we're not addressing members of ESO's.
And this is definitely a typical thing that members of ESO's are SUV's,
are freelancers. And I'd like to see in this definition somewhere that
that's put into it and really haven't had a lot of time to figure it
out. But some place in here we need to say that it's a member of your
neighboring department or neighboring county department that showed up
because he heard it on the scanner and he thought it'd be a cool thing
to do. So that's not really listed here. It says typically not
affiliated with any other group and that's - that doesn't cover what I'm
talking about. I don't know if anybody else has any heartburn over that
but I really do.

Man:	Victor?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro; I'm going to disagree with my
good friend Matt. I think on the area spontaneous unaffiliated
volunteers in some cases the establishment of command is the first
arriving company officer who may be a lieutenant or a 21 year old
volunteer firefighter. So there is that transitional period between
gaining control and establishing command at which good Samaritans and
spontaneous unaffiliated volunteers are still piling onto that incident.
So I think back to the definition I believe it should say an incident
scene or disaster site provide assistance after the establishment of
control by the ESO. Because at that point you can really - you can't
control it until you have control so those people are going to continue
to move in. So that would be my recommendation for that definition.

	And Kenn to your point I think they're from a policy standpoint every
ESO needs to determine you know when a member can be part of that
emergency incident. I completely agree with you and I think we've all
been on scenes where people just show up, take some level of gear out of
their car and begin to freelance. You know I don't know if we want to
address that here, I'm okay with that, but I think that is a policy that
each ESO needs to establish and enforce.

Kenn Fontenot:	And this is Kenn, I'd just like to as part of the
definition that it's not only non-governmental people; it is also other
members of ESO's. I know like in Katrina we had lots of people, we had a
whole taskforce from Florida we hadn't found for four days because they
didn't check in with anybody. We finally found them cubbyhole away in
some (unintelligible). They would be an SUV in this sense. 

Matt Tobia:	Yes two things, first just in response to the concern raised
with regard to control versus establishment of command. I think under on
page 34 the issue of restricting participation is identified or
addressed under roman numeral number five which simply indicates that to
the extent possible the incident commander restricts participations by
SUV's who have not registered or received the safety briefing. And I
think that's the whole (harmless) language that we've been trying to -
or that we're trying to ensure we address because we don't want to - we
don't want to set up the situation where incident commanders are held
accountable for individuals that they don't even know are on the scene.

	But to the greatest extent possible you know there should be a
recognition of their existence and the possibility of their arrival and
that to the greatest extent possible the incident commander puts into
place provisions for corralling those people and managing those people.
But I think once command is established there's an expectation that the
incident commander is ultimately responsible for what happens on their
incident scene in the presence of being overwhelmed by folks who
freelance the incident. 

	On the definition side I think Kenn's concern can be addressed simply
by saying on sentence number two this person may be affiliated with an
ESO or not affiliated with any disaster support group such as but not
limited to etcetera, etcetera, this person may not have training. I
think Kenn's point is very valid and that is that there are frequently
incidents where frankly ESO's - frankly emergency services responders
hear about what they think is an interesting call and they just get in
their car and drive to the scene which is a huge safety risk.

	There was a - I recall an incident where a tornado struck a community
in Oklahoma and the incident commander got on television and told people
and you know told other emergency service organizations if I didn't call
for you, go home. I don't - if I didn't call for you, you are not
helping me. And I think that's an example of ESO's kind of
self-deploying.

Man:	So at this point, Victor did you have a comment?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro. Not to get too, too deep into
this but the Dallas firefighter who was killed in the line of duty in
West Texas trying to assist in my view though he was honored as a
firefighter, he was a Good Samaritan at that particular point in the
incident. And that's not an ESO self-deploying, that's somebody who has
some knowledge and skills who thinks they can provide some assistance.
So I think when it comes to an ESO and I think it's covered in the
mutual aid piece agencies and departments and emergency services
organizations do not just show up to emergency incidents without being
invited. So I think that is already somewhat covered in the document.

Man:	That could add an element of danger, a big element of danger. Bill
could we ask you to - oh go ahead.

Kenn Fontenot:	Just to, this is Kenn, where you have a responder from
another ESO perhaps you might want to consider putting a responder from
a non-dispatched ESO and that kind of clarifies in my mind if you
haven't been asked to the dance yet so you're just showing up because
you think you need to and want to. I think everybody could figure out
what non-dispatch might mean.

Bill Hamilton:	So right now just as a thought I have as a definition,
this is Bill Hamilton, as a thought for the definition to address Kenn's
concern, a responder from a non-dispatched ESO or a skilled or unskilled
person who voluntarily arrives at an incident scene or disaster site to
provide assistance after the establishment of control/command by the
ESO. Because we haven't worked out control/command yet. The person is
typically not affiliated with any disaster support group, etcetera,
etcetera.

Kenn Fontenot:	And this is Kenn, Bill I'm happy as a clam that part of
the definition you fixed, thank you sir.

Man:	There's another new technical term for it. So are we - go ahead.

Man:	What do you want to do about establishment of commander control?

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt (Unintelligible), we'll have an answer for that
after lunch. And in keeping that in mind, not lunch, but command in
control in N12 use of good Samaritans we have there before the arrival
of ESO. So if we consider changing this definition here, this…

((Crosstalk))

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt (Unintelligible), I would not recommend the
changing of the definition of the good Samaritans piece. I think we're
still at the point of identifying three distinct periods within an
incident. There's the period of time before we arrive, the period of
time after we arrive but before we actually have control of the incident
scene and then after we have control of the incident scene.

Andy Levinson:	And so this is Andy. Let me suggest that maybe leaving
control/command in the definition the way that it is allows us some gray
area to operate and explain in summary and explanation these different
phases and that it is an evolution from the time you arrive on scene to
the time that you have command and how that might change.

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia, Victor and I agree with that whole
heartedly.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay this is Lamont Byrd. Is there anything - any other
discussions regarding definitions? Hearing none, it's about 12:05 if we
could reconvene at 1:05 that'd be great, let's go to lunch.

Man:	Thank you.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Well I think everybody…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	You know I got my (attitude) up.

Man:	Oh I guess you did.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Today?

Man:	Yes.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	On the record that…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes that's exactly they're like oh get my pen out, right?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So is it everything you thought it would be?

Man:	And less?

Man:	Could it be all that?

Man:	It's all new to me.

Man:	Yes.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Well this is our sixth meeting. A year ago September 9 was our
first and we had two - we had meetings one day in September, one day in
December, we realized we weren't getting far enough, we met for two days
in February, two days in May, realized that wasn't getting it either. We
did three days in July and we're doing three days now. But we're
supposed to be done at least with the face to face. There may still be
some emails and some discussions, but…

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	Well the way - so this is a sub-committee of (MAYTOSH) which I had
no clue what (MAYTOSH) was up until they told me we had to do this. And
it's a national advisory committee, it reports directly to - it's
deployed by the secretary of labor - it reports to the secretary of
labor through the assistant secretary. And Lamont and Rick are committee
members so they're our co-chairs. And that committee is made up of; it's
balanced of labor, labor representatives, management representatives,
government and (unintelligible). And there's I think 12 people in it.

	And Rick represents management, Lamont represents labor - Lamont's
(unintelligible). And so that also gives us some balance here of two of
them being you know (unintelligible). So and then so what this
committee's done - one of the things that (unintelligible) some point
think is this memo that this committee is generated you know as a
recommendation to the parent committee, the (MAYTOSH) committee. That
here's the (unintelligible) that we've you know spent a year developing
and we you know we recommend that you review it and give your blessing
to it and pass it onto the secretary of labor with the recommendation
that it move forward to becoming a you know continuing the rule making
process.

Man:	Ultimately…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	But before we get there like one of the things that
(unintelligible) small business regulatory for the small, right, so we
have to have a…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	And through all that and then we develop assuming that everything's
going forward a proposed rule and take this as a proposed language
presumably depending on how much you know (MAYTOSH) can change it as
they move it forward. So it could change.

	But essentially we would take this language and put it (unintelligible)
summary and explanation with it to explain a lot of things we're talking
about around the room. And then it's (unintelligible), so.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes so it's partly why it takes so long. The advantage of doing
this is essentially.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Do you remember… 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Ron)'s representing the international association of firefighters,
Spencer you know… 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	The national volunteer fire council, so. There's junior
firefighters and volunteer firefighters, right.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I was trying to (unintelligible) by kind of going around the room
how we have major players, major organizations (unintelligible). One
that, so (unintelligible) represent state planning and…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So they're here representing the state plan OSHA. Matt represents
the national volunteer fire council so that's…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So that's management.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	All firefighters (unintelligible) regardless of…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Have no idea what they would do.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So it's hard to say what they could do.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Why is my screen not on?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	One of the things I say is when the fire alarm goes off; grab
everything you need to get home. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	…meetings ago.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	There was a car fire in the parking garage five floors below.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Fire was contained. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Might as well go home, well I can't because my keys are…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So I could go in and get my car keys but…

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	And all of a sudden this (clerk) comes in there and tells the
panel of judges something and they stopped mid-word and said we have to
take a recess. So they all leave and we're sitting there, sitting there,
sitting there.

Man:	Federal court?

Woman:	Court of appeals.

Man:	Court of appeals okay. 

Woman:	And all of a sudden a clerk comes back in and says the judges
have left the building.

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	And we walk in the front of the building and there was…

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	And here was a presidential limousine carrying Mrs. Bush back to
the white house and I don't know who else and off to the right there you
can see the smoke coming out of the (unintelligible).

Man:	Oh wow.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Did you realize what was going on before you went outside?

Woman:	No we had no idea.

Man:	Right, yes we, there was a…

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	Oh yes. I live in Arlington so a lot of the Arlington police and
firefighters are there.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes pretty intense.

Woman:	Someone I clerked with, (unintelligible), we both clerked for the
(unintelligible) supreme court; she was on that (unintelligible).

Man:	No kidding.

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	She worked for a law firm; she was going out there to do some
(unintelligible) work to help the family.

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	They were flying into (Dayton).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	He got a rental car.

Man:	He did get a rental car and…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Hey thank you for coming.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	You're a part of the team as much as anybody else.

Man:	I appreciate it.

Man:	You are.

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Thank you. Alright if we could get started. Okay I hope
everyone enjoyed their lunch. This is Lamont (Unintelligible). Before we
actually resume our discussion I think Sarah (Unintelligible) wanted to
make a statement.

Sarah:	We spoke with the transcriptionist at lunch time and it's going
to be very important for you to keep repeating your names every time you
speak. Bill's going to provide them a list of everyone's names so they
get the spelling correct. Apparently there's a new procedure where it's
recorded and the person who's doing the recording is not the person
who's typing it up. So then it goes to another person. If you look at
the transcript we have from the last meeting significant areas where
comments are not attributed to someone and there are areas where people
could not be heard so it just says (unintelligible). 

	I think I'll point out that Spencer's done an exceptional job in here
making sure he's heard, Bill you're having a hard time being hard by -
so you need to make sure that you speak up and speak louder, use your
classroom voice.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Sarah:	And by the way I'm Sarah...

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Okay so next on our agenda is to have a discussion, a
review and discussion of the emergency incident standard operating
procedures. You can find that in your draft six on page 25. Yes, about
2/3 of the way down the page. I see that in the first or the second line
there was some added language, emergency incident, the emergency service
organization shall develop in writing and implement emergency incident
standards operating procedures that are flexible and expandable in order
to be applicable to unforeseen events. And then there's several -
there's additional language there.

	And then it was also the next page, page 26, you can see there's pretty
significant track changes there. If you would take a couple of minutes,
take a look at it and we can have a discussion about it.

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	Bill Hamilton, just as a reminder that a lot of it is
track change because it moved from the other section.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Bill. Okay have you had a chance to kind of
review this? To refresh my summary who - what subgroup worked on this?
Oh it was Bill - the workgroup of Bill, okay. 

Bill Hamilton:	In the last meeting I asked for the (unintelligible)
relating to emergency incident to all be grouped into one area and so
that's what I did. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Bill. So again this is Lamont
(Unintelligible). Is there any discussion? Or is everyone okay with what
Bill - Andy?

Andy Levinson:	Yes this is Andy; I was just looking at four and five at
the very top of 26. So evacuating an area when an incident becomes too
hazardous and then number five is evacuation from dangerous situations.
And they seem like the same sort of thing and I was wondering if it
might be possible to combine them into one provision?

Lamont Byrd:	Any thoughts? Yes, (Bill Warren)?

Bill Warren:	I know that in the two different areas, this is (Bill
Warren) from Arizona sorry I'm getting very close for you now Sarah. I
can kind of understand both in the fact that as I look at from what we
would normally consider instructional firefighting that those would be
considered. My concern is in the wildland side there's many times where
the state forester will evacuate a whole community because of an
impending wildland fire that are approaching or getting too close to
facilities and things like that. 

	So I just want to make sure that as we recognize the different elements
both from a structural fire department to a wildland firefighting which
would be included in this because there are times in those operations
that they do have to have procedures for evacuating. You know it could
be a couple blocks, in some cases it's a whole community of how do you
do that. And it's a little different if you have as an example you know
the fire curates (unintelligible) pending collapse. I do see those as a
little bit different and that's just my thoughts.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Bill.

Andy Levinson:	This is Andy so are you saying, so I guess what's missing
for me is a little bit - or for me is a little bit of clarity. So for
example what you added in there or what you implied within there is
evacuating civilians from the area when the incident becomes too
hazardous for responder operations. To me both of these read evacuating
emergency responders when things become too dangerous. And what you just
said is evacuating civilians. 

((Crosstalk))

Bill Warren:	Right well here's number four as I look at number four,
again this is (Bill Warren) from Arizona, it says that establish
incident procedures for when the incident becomes too hazardous for
responder operations such as for an example an impending explosion. Okay
I can see your point there now. 

	You know part of their duties is to also evacuate and so Colorado the
fire, the (Waldo Canyon) fire in Colorado Springs I mean there was a lot
of close calls on that fire even in evacuating you know civilians and
personnel and getting their own folks out to secure locations, safe
locations for them to reengage in the fire itself. 

Andy Levinson:	And I conceptually buy off on the concept, I don't think
that's what this says. I think you need a - or we would need a couple of
words that say to evacuate civilians and responders from the area so
that it's clear that that's what that is. And then number five would be
the you know everybody's you know afraid of imminent structural collapse
and so let's pull the firefighters out of the building and that's really
what number five. But there's got to be a distinction between four and
five or I think collapse them into one provision.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram and I can see the need for both of
those. One would be - in number four it does say evacuating the area and
then number five it says evacuation of responders. So I think Andy's got
a very good point there. If we could clarify that so the first one is
evacuating the area you know civilians or the public however we want to
say that and the second one evacuating responders. And those are -
that's pretty specific.

	When they're in a dangerous situation like the fire's deteriorating a
trench so that would be more of an emergency evacuation of responders
versus emergency evacuation of the public.

Lamont Byrd:	Matt (Unintelligible)?

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt (Unintelligible). Just a couple of
observations. I think that we could collapse four and five into one and
use the impending explosion as another example of rapid evacuation of
responders from dangerous situations. I think that was my first point.

	The second point is there is often times a calculated decision made by
incident commanders to place responders in harm's way if they are in
fact in the process of evacuating civilians. And that to the greatest
extent possible we try to keep those responders safe but we also
recognize that in the process of removing civilians from being overrun
by a wildfire for example that the firefighters have to place themselves
between the fire and the civilians. I don't know that that's
contemplated here.

	And the third observation I would say is that perhaps the - there needs
to be a delineation between the rapid evacuation of responders from
dangerous situations and the orderly withdrawal of emergency responders
from situations when conditions warrant. The rapid - the rapid
evacuation is drop your stuff and run as fast as you humanly can away
from the hazard. You know as opposed to we are transitioning from an
offensive fire attack to a defensive fire attack you know withdrawal
with your equipment and your PPE and your personnel in a very orderly,
organized fashion. 

	

	So just those three observations. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Matt, Spencer?

Spencer Schwegler:	This is Spencer. Just an observation that maybe Andy
you can address. It's my understanding that OSHA standards in general
are not about protecting civilians but are about protecting workers,
employees of - whether firefighters or - so is it necessary to
contemplate evacuation of civilians in the standard?

Andy Levinson:	So this is Andy. I'm going to answer that in two ways.
Number one, you're correct, we're not concerned about, or we don't write
standards that cover the public. However this provision as it's written
are standard operating procedures for the emergency service organization
to evacuate the public as a duty or a function of that emergency
services organization. So I think that you could put it in there
recognizing that this is a specific function, duty, service that every
emergency service organization would provide.

	I didn't personally read this initially to cover the evacuations of
civilians. I read that we took two different swings at this, wrote it
slightly different ways and I think it's more you know what Matt said
about that there's two different types of evacuation, immediate and then
the orderly withdrawal. I would say that the stuff you were talking
about Matt with placing people in harm's way during the evacuation of
civilians would be covered by the risk management section in the
(unintelligible).

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt, that's exactly correct. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay so given Matt (Unintelligible) clarification and his
two scenarios or examples does that clarify four and five that we can
leave this as it? Or do we need to do some words amending here? 

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Well I'm looking at you because you raised the question.

Man:	Right so my personal take was I think it's collapsed into one
provision that says you know evacuate people from these you know A and B
or you know I and little I, the two scenarios that match that immediate
evacuation you know for emergency situations and then orderly
withdrawal. I personally don't feel the need to tell every fire
department that they need to have procedures for evacuating civilians.
That is I think a policy procedure, a function depending on what the
department decides they want to do in their services up at the
beginning. So when they say to the community we're only providing
evacuation services from wildland or whatever that - if they feel
necessary to have a procedure for that, that's on them. But we don't
need to tell everybody.

Lamont Byrd:	Thank you, any other thoughts or comments about this
section? (Bill Troop)?

(Bill Troop):	(Bill Troop), US fire administration. Is there any way we
could add a word under the mayday paragraph there to include loss,
trapped, injured or ill? Because cardiac events account for 50% of on
duty deaths. So can we just add something about like if the firefighter
becomes ill on duty in that - in line seven?

	And could we also in regard to if you look at ten we have a very in
depth discussion of roadway operation safety. Could we also add like a
one liner on emergency vehicle safety operations? For example
firefighters taking the tank over a certain bridge can't go to this
bridge because it doesn't meet bridge weight or something like that? 

	That's just an example of adding a one liner on emergency vehicle
safety because I don't see anything here on emergency vehicle operation
in (SOP). Thank you.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Bill. So going back I want to make sure that
we're okay with four and five? So there was a recommendation that we
collapse the two into one and have sections A and B. Yes Matt?

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt (Unintelligible). This is what I would
recommend on language. I would get rid of four altogether, I would have
number five become number four and I would add language - add the
example of impending explosion. So it would say, number four would be -
the new number four would say that establish and implements procedures
for rapid evacuation of responders from dangerous situations such as for
example if fire conditions deteriorate or trench shows signs of
impending collapse, and then pending explosion, etcetera. 

	I would then create a new number five that creates that says that
establishes and implements procedures for the orderly withdrawal of
emergency responders from dangerous situations. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you for that language. Anyone have any thoughts
or comments about that? How about Matt's recommendation? Is everybody
okay with that? Bill - Bill Hamilton did you get that?

Bill Hamilton:	No I have to get Matt's notes. (Unintelligible) as you
all were talking that when evacuating the areas, remember this is the
one that the West Texas explode, get your people away, take everybody
with you as you're getting out of there. Right, that's evacuating the
area. So I added the word mitigation into what we had earlier. So the
responders even if they're evacuating people they're not doing anything
to try to mitigate.

	I think - and then the other was I added the word structure fire into
five and an example because this is the - and I think I
(unintelligible), this is a thought. Because this is the either rapid or
orderly evacuation of responder's form something like fire's through the
roof we want to go outside and go defensive instead of being interior
offensive. And you know the other thing is if the trench is impending
collapse, you just have to take a few steps backwards, you don't have to
run too far. 

	So that was kind of the thought on those two. One was the drop and run
because there's an explosion and the other is to orderly evacuate and -
or whatever evacuate. And those were my thoughts when we did this and so
(unintelligible).

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Bill.

Bill Hamilton:	I'll go over to Matt and get (unintelligible).

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thanks Bill.

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	So Victor's going to, we have an action item I guess where
Victor's going to give Bill Hamilton Matt's thoughts. 

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	And Kenn you had a comment and then (Ron) I'll if we're
done with the other section I'd like us to take a - well hold on one sec
please. Kenn, (Ron) are you…

(Ron McGraw):	Yes actually this is (Ron McGraw). Matt so in your vision
is the situation of a wildland fire shift also covered in those two? The
way you've written it.

((Crosstalk))

Matt Tobia:	When it, this is Matt Tobia, when it says fire conditions
deteriorate to me that's all encompassing. You know I'm not specifying
you know where. I mean I would also say that it could encompass things
like you know an incident of active violence you know would be another
example of the need to rapidly withdrawal from an incident. Because one
of the things that emergency medical services providers find themselves
in is a situation where they're in a you know they get into a call, they
have no mechanism or procedure for rapidly withdrawing from that
incident. 

	And so you know the incident of you know I'm trying to make it as broad
keeping in mind that we're not just talking about firefighting I'm
trying to keep it as broad as possible. So that was my intent.

	Bill I understand what - I understand what Bill was trying to get to in
the example of the West Texas incident my observation there is that
falls under the risk management component of risk benefit and what
actions responders need to take to evacuate people from harm's way.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Matt.

(Ron McGraw):	And I just…

Lamont Byrd:	(Ron), yes?

(Ron McGraw):	Concur with (Bill Troop) though as well on the emergency
vehicle safety SOP there should be - rather than just operating a
roadway incident actual emergency vehicle operation SOP should be
probably a separate number onto its own.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay.

(Ron McGraw):	And that was (Ron McGraw).

Lamont Byrd:	Okay Kenn Fontenot had a comment. Is your, Kenn is your
comment a higher number than number seven? 

Kenn Fontenot:	It would be.

Lamont Byrd:	It is, so could we revisit Bill - (Bill Troop)'s comment
about - or (unintelligible) adding language it says that establishes and
implements procedures for mayday situations such as when a responder
becomes lost, trapped, injured or ill, etcetera. Everyone okay with
that? Okay that's good. 

	Okay so now Kenn, floor is yours.

Kenn Fontenot:	Thank you, Kenn Fontenot; I'd like us to take a look at
number eight. When I read the statement here it seems quite vague to me
that I don't have to have somebody on scene set up as a (red team). And
I suggest that we put that establishes and implements procedures for a
rapid intervention team, establishes a (red team) on the scene of an
active incident, something like that next. 

	Because the way it says here - the way I read it is says put a
procedure together, I've implemented it but then it says I'll deploy it.
And it doesn't really say that they have to be on scene at that
incident. Maybe I'm just reading it kind of transversely and I
understand that we all kind of know that they're supposed to be there
but…

(Ron McGraw):	This is (Ron McGraw). I would say though that in this
section we're talking about setting up your SOP's and we're not talking
about actual incident management or working operating as a team. But
where we have it operating as a team further on in the document I
believe it is that you would implement it. But this is just an SOP's for
implementing it would be in the section where you're actually going to
get in the incident.

Kenn Fontenot:	Well then I'm having questions about the second part of
the statement. The immediate deployment of the team, is that covered in
that other part as well or is?

Lamont Byrd:	So as I understand what (Ron) has kind of described is that
you would be setting up a SOP for you know, a situation where you would
- it would describe how you have…

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	…how you would have immediate deployment, if necessary. 

Man:	I just want to make sure that including everybody - I don’t think
everybody; I’m don’t want to think for you. I would suspect that we
want to ensure that that is going to happen. It’s not just on paper,
that it will be done. 

Andy Levinson:	This is Andy. Kenn to your point, and I’m looking
somewhere on Page 30 and 31, and particularly on 31 where it says under,
Incident Safety, the ESO shall identify the minimum staffing
requirements that ensure operations are limited to those that can be
performed safely. And then there’s the four responders that are two in
and two out. 

	Somewhere in there I think a mention back to Rapid Intervention Team
policy or procedures should be in there. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Andy Levinson:	Thirty-two, seven. Page 32. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Oh then, there you go. Okay, that’s perfect. 

Lamont Byrd:	Kenn, does that address your concern? 

Kenn Fontenot:	I’m not sure yet. I just (unintelligible). And you know
when we say that, following deployment of the team, to me it’s just
not - I don’t think it’s really saying what we need it to say. And I
can be convinced that that’s not right if I’m reading it that way. 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt. Kenn, I think it’s just from my perspective,
I think that the SOP is actually - the way that this is written, number
8, actually provides a granular level of detail that most descriptions
that Rapid Intervention Teams do not necessarily address. I think it’s
even better than what you might find in other places. 

	The deployment of the team, I think is correctly identified under the
responsibilities of the Incident Commander during incident operations. 

	The intent of this section I think, is simply to identify you know, the
team itself. 

	Now you could say - you could add a Roman numeral IV that describes the
circumstances under which a team would need to be…

((Crosstalk))

Matt Tobia:	…yes, I’m trying to - stood up at an incident, for lack
of a better word. You know, so the Roman numeral IV would be, you know
could be a list of the types of incidents at which a rapid - an Incident
Commander should establish a Rapid Intervention Team. 

	That’s certainly - you know I think that that might address your
concern Kenn, or maybe not. 

Kenn Fontenot:	I think if we could wordsmith it around that would work
really well. 

Lamont Byrd:	We can go back to it. Okay, let’s park that and think
about it a little bit. Any other…

Kenn Fontenot:	We just could put that a Writ Team is assembled and
available for immediate assignment at an active incident or something
like that. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, I have a question. So 8 says that you will - it’s
instructing to establish a Writ or SOP for a Writ for the immediate
deployment of a team to search and rescue for any missing, disoriented,
injured, lost, unaccounted for responder. 

	Are there any other scenarios? I’m not a firefighter of course, but
any other scenarios where a Writ would be established beyond what’s
described here. 

Matt Tobia:	I think - this is Matt Tobia. I think Bill had just
identified just adding the word, ill to the definition instead of
injured that you add the word, ill. 

Lamont Byrd:	That’s regarding the May Day? 

Matt Tobia:	Yes, you know, under number 8, ill or incapacitated. And you
could simply say, incapacitated. 

Victor Stagnaro:	Lamont, this is Victor Stagnaro. I don’t even know
that you need to go into this much detail. I would just say, any time a
firefighter needs to be rescued. When it’s determined a firefighter
needs to be rescued, a Rapid Intervention Team can be exported. 

(Ron McGraw):	This is (Ron McGraw). Well isn’t it, as soon as you put
somebody into an IBLH environment, you need a Writ? 

(Dick Tate):	And this is (Dick Tate). That’s when you would want to
make…

((Crosstalk))

(Ron McGraw):	You have a Writ as soon as you put somebody into the IBLH.


Man 1:	You have the two (unintelligible) out component. And then as you
establish and more people arrive on the scene, then you do - should be
required to put in a Writ Team. 

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. 

Kenn Fontenot:	I’m still -- this is Kenn -- I’m still struggling a
little bit with the timing on it. It’s not the establishment it.
It’s that the SOP should address that a Writ be established on the
scene, something like that. 

	And I know in the Incident Commander part of it, it says, command will
deploy or establish a Writ. Number 7 on Page 32, wherever the word is,
shall implement a team. 

	I’m just wondering if that really needs to be in the SOP or not. Well
it should be but…

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill Hamilton. I think I understand where Kenn -
again too, if you look on the screen under 8, it establishes and
implements procedure -- I added some words -- establishes and implements
procedures for a Rapid Intervention Team for the immediate deployment on
the scene of a team of responders to search and rescue for a missing,
disoriented; etcetera, etcetera. 

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. I feel much better about just those two
words make a lot of difference when I’m reading it. Thank you. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thanks for your input Kenn. Are there any other
thoughts about the revision that Bill Hamilton made? Bill Troup? 

Bill Troup:	Bill Troup, U.S. Fire Administration. Bill, a question for
you. Are we going to have the one liner about the emergency vehicle that
can reference the language in the other section talking about the SOP
development? 

Lamont Byrd:	Yes, that’s further down in the document. 

Bill Troup:	Yes, I see that. 

Bill Hamilton:	Number 10, I think it was. 

Bill Troup:	Well, I think that’s highway safety, I think. Ten is
highway safety. I was just looking at emergency vehicle operations. Ten
goes into a great deal about roadway safety and (unintelligible) getting
stuck in the roadway. 

	I just wanted to add the one liner - a simple one liner about emergency
vehicle safety. Because there’s another section later on in the
document that goes into a paragraph about setting up an SOP for
emergency vehicle safety. I think just cross-reference each other. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, thank you. Kenn, you had a comment or thought -- Kenn
Fontenot? 

Kenn Fontenot:	Something that Bill Troup brought on III which is number
10. The use of high visibility and reflective PPE, I’m just putting it
out for discussion. Do we need to point out that firefighters special
structural gear is not considered adequate for this unless they’re
actively engaged. Or, is that just getting too deep into it. 

	Because I’ve heard comments. We had a structural, by line of duty,
last week and they were wearing structural gear. And you know they said
that while we were covered, but they weren’t actually performing a
duty. 

	So that technically they didn’t meet the emergency requirement for
(unintelligible) uniform or traffic control devices, they didn’t meet
that requirement for reflective gear. 

	And I don’t know if we need to talk about putting that there. I just
find that there’s a lot of confusion as firefighters believe that
reflective stripes on their bunker gear meets this requirement. And
technically, it doesn’t. And Bill, you all were big onto that at the
Academy. What are your thoughts? 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, any thoughts about that? Discussion? 

Bill Hamilton:	I mean, this is to build on Bill’s point. Other than
the - on Page 23, if you look, this is under the Section, Vehicle
Preparation or, Vehicle Preparedness and Operations, if you look at
number 2…

Bill Troup:	Yes, I saw that. I just thought it would be -- sorry, Bill
Troup, USFA. I just wondered if we can cross reference that under SOPs?
Because they talk about SOPs here. But under the SOP section there’s
nothing about emergency vehicle safety. That’s what I was getting at. 

Bill Hamilton:	So you just want to cross-reference that or do we want
to…

Bill Troup:	If the intent is to move all the Standard Operating
Procedures into one section, I mean I think the answer is to move that
provision from Vehicle Preparedness into the Standard Operating
Procedures section. I’m sorry, Bill Troup, USFA. In my opinion, that
would work. 

Lamont Byrd:	So Andy, you’re referring to Page 23, Roman numeral II?
Is that…

Andy Levinson:	Yes, 2 II. 

Lamont Byrd:	Yes, okay. So we want to move that over to the MAP? 

(Ron McGraw):	Can I make a suggestion? 

Lamont Byrd:	Who is…

(Ron McGraw):	This is (Ron McGraw). I just wanted to make a suggestion.
Perhaps you keep 2 there and say, in accordance with the SOP. Then have
1 and 2 - all these fall into the other part. Or at least the SOP part
fall into the other sections since you must have a SOP (unintelligible).


Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. I would offer that perhaps all that we
need to do in order to meet the desire is add a number under Section I
which could be number 10 or 11 that simply says, establish SOPs
addressing safety of operations in accordance with Section J. 

((Crosstalk))

Matt Tobia:	So we would simply add you know, because it is - I hate to
carve up Section J because it’s pretty comprehensive and very, I think
you know, well written. 

	I think if we’re simply trying to ensure that SOPs regarding vehicle
- safe vehicle operations are in fact established, that we simply add a
number under Section I, or L -- excuse me -- L sorry - L that addresses
a reference back to Section J. 

(Ron McGraw):	Even better. Okay, so are you suggesting adding an 11? 

Matt Tobia:	Correct, add an 11 that refers back to Section J. 

(Ron McGraw):	Perfect. 

Matt Tobia:	Establish a SOP relating to safety of operations in
accordance with Section J, (unintelligible) component of Section J. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, thank you Matt. (Ron), you good with that? 

(Ron McGraw):	Yes, I am. Less work. Even better. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Everybody - Bill Troup…

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Bill, you good? Okay. 

Bill Troup:	Yes, I’m good with that. 

Lamont Byrd:	Thank you. Victor? 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro. And if this is not the right
time to address this, it’s fine. 

	But since we’re on the this section and I’m fine with everything
that was just discussed, under Section 2 on Page 23, Roman numeral II
where it says that the SOP for backing, shall include at least one of
the following. And it has the four items - fighter, driver, walk around,
audible backup alarm and backup camera. 

	I would suggest and I thought we had discussed this in a previous
meeting, to remove audible backup alarm as an acceptable means of
meeting that requirement. 

	I believe that on emergency incidents in which there are lots of bells
and alarms and sires going off, an audible alarm backing up is just
another noise for people on an emergency incident. So I believe a backup
camera, a drive walk around, or a spotter is required. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, any thoughts about that? Thank you Victor? 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. I would agree with that. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. 

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. Not to preclude backup alarms, because
they’re probably going to be on a lot of the equipment anyway, but
you’re just saying, don’t depend on that. 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. Actually, (unintelligible) 1901 which
every major vehicle manufacturer follows, already requires - includes
requirement for a backup alarm. 

	What this is saying is that you cannot rely only on that backup alarm
when backing apparatus as a valid indicator that the vehicle is in
motion backwards. 

	The numerous workers in the general construction industry and
firefighters every year are killed by backing apparatus by vehicles that
all have a fully engaged backup alarm. So the intent is to exclude this
so that you cannot buy itself, address that issue.  

Lamont Byrd:	So the recommendation is to strike audible backup alarm?
Everybody good with that? 

Bill Warren:	Yes, Bill Warren. And just to reiterate what -- this is
Bill Warren from Arizona. To reiterate what Matt said, that’s - he’s
exactly right on that. I mean the issue is that we depend so much on
these audible alarms that they become white noise in an emergency
situation and in construction and in general industry and in
firefighting. 

	And so you know, we’ve had to look at - and I think NIOSH has done
several alerts for when firefighters have been backed over, throughout
the years. 

	So the City of Phoenix experienced one back (unintelligible). Exactly
the same thing. Backup alarm on the apparatus was working and
functioning well. 

	The issue is what Victor says is exactly correct and I completely
concur with deleting the backup alarm as an exclusive remedy for
ensuring safety of the firefighter as the apparatus is backing. 

Lamont Byrd:	Thank you Bill. Any other thoughts or comments, questions
about that? Okay, so moving forward, back to L. The last recommendation
was to add an 11 and to have a SOP that refers to the elements of
Section J that everyone was good with. Okay, and this is Lamont Byrd. 

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Okay Bill - Bill Hamilton has drafted some language
that’s up on the screen. If you’d take a quick look at that, does
this capture…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Are you talking about 11? It’s now the establishment…

((Crosstalk))

Bill Troup:	One quick question. This is Bill Troup, USFA. Should we use
the same title that we used in J, Vehicle Preparedness and Operation or
just call it, Vehicle Operation? Because the actual title of J is,
Vehicle Preparedness and Operations. 

	One of the reasons I bring that -- this is Bill Troup, USAF. One of the
reasons I bring that up is, some people actually develop SOPs on vehicle
checks. So that’s part of vehicle preparedness, not just the
operation. 

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Okay if we could, for the sake of time, Bill Hamilton could
you take a look at that, consider it and, if you understand what Bill
Troup was referring to. 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, on Page 22, if I’m correct Bill, you were just
recommending that J - the title of Section J is Vehicle Preparedness and
Operations. That we use the same language in number 10 here? 

Bill Troup:	Bill Troup, USFA. Yes, and then just eliminate the number 2
at the end. Just call it NJ. 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. I think what you’re doing then is
you’re requiring the ESO to establish a proceduring SOP on both the
vehicle preparedness and operations. So I’m just making sure that’s
what you were looking for. Because before we were just dealing with the
operations component of it. 

Bill Troup:	Bill Troup, USFA. Yes, I agree with Mr. Stagnaro that that
is correct. We want to have a SOP for both the vehicle prepare and
vehicle checks as well as, vehicle operations. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, are there any thoughts or comments about that
expansion? 

Bill Hamilton:	Then if -- this is Bill Hamilton. Sorry, Bill Hamilton.
Then under J, Vehicle Preparation and Operations, there’s not a
requirement there to have an SOP for preparedness of the vehicle. 

	There’s not a SOP for inspect and maintain. We don’t tell them to
develop a SOP to inspect, maintain, and prepare. We just tell them to
make sure that they are prepared. 

Lamont Byrd:	Any thoughts? Any further thoughts? 

Sarah Shortall:	We’re just using the language from…

Lamont Byrd:	Sarah? 

Sarah Shortall:	Excuse me, Sarah Shortall. What about just using the
language in J2, II where you talk about the SOP. Establish and implement
procedures for safely driving vehicles during non-emergency travel and
emergency response, which is what that applies to, that meets the
requirements of J2. 

Bill Troup:	Bill Troup, USFA. Sorry, that eliminates the SOP of actually
having a SOP on how to check the vehicles. 

Sarah Shortall:	But that’s not what - that’s not what J2 II talks
about. 

Bill Troup:	Bill Troup, USFA. I thought that we could just include the
vehicle checks on that. In addition to the vehicle operations, have a
SOP on how you check the vehicle at the beginning of your shift. 

Rick Ingram:	Bill, there is under J - and I understand where you’re
coming from. That’s a very important thing to do. But J1-I does talk
about inspect, maintain, and repair or remove from service each vehicle.
So, maybe it’s covered there. 

Bill Troup:	And again, that’s why we just say, instead of having J2,
just have 2. Eliminate that number 2 on it and have the whole section in
J. 

Rick Ingram:	You’re just saying to refer to J? 

Bill Troup:	Bill Troup, USFA, yes. 

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. 

Bill Hamilton:	Bill Hamilton. If here we establish - develop - this is
an emergency incident Standard Operating Procedures section. If we put,
establishes and implements procedures for vehicle preparedness and
operation in accordance with J, they need to develop - so you’re
saying they need to develop a Standard Operating Procedure for
everything in J? 

Lamont Byrd:	Yes, that’s the way I would read that Bill. This is
Lamont Byrd. 

Bill Hamilton:	But that’s a lot of Standard Operating Procedures. And
I don’t know, you don’t necessarily have to have a Standard
Operating Procedure to ensure that a person riding, is seated and
belted. You could have that as a policy. 

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. Bill, I’m afraid that might add a
little bit of redundancy to the document here that would not have to be
there. 

	I think if we’re talking about protecting the people, you know,
responders; I think that’s very appropriate. Believe me, I do
understand where you’re coming from. But I think that would add some
redundancy that really wouldn’t get us any extra help for protecting
responders in a SOP. 

Bill Troup:	Bill Troup, USFA. I just wondered how we could put some
language in there and just have a SOP on vehicle checks. Because we have
had vehicles that have not been maintained that have cost the lives of
firefighters. 

Rick Ingram:	I agree with you. (Unintelligible). 

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill Hamilton. So the thing to do then would be
to go back to J1, and under for instance J1I, develop a SOP to inspect,
maintain, repair, or remove from service, each vehicle. And that takes
care of that SOP for vehicle preparedness. 

Lamont Byrd:	Does that get to where you all need to be, Bill Troup? 

Bill Troup:	Bill Troup, USFA. Yes, it does. Thank you. 

Lamont Byrd:	Any other thoughts about that? 

Bill Hamilton:	Bill Hamilton. Then we can still leave vehicle operations
here in the Energy Incident Operations as a SOP for that or, to make
sure they do that. 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt. Yes, because I think they’re two totally
separate things. One is, emergency vehicle operations. The other one is,
incident (unintelligible) operations involving vehicles. There’s a
very specific difference between those two. 

	And I think just - again, just go back and add a number - just add one
that references back to Section J, I think that you really - it’s very
encompassing. If you establish a SOP that covers Section J, I think
you’ll accomplish your goal. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, where are we, J1I? Establish and implement procedure
to maintain - okay. 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, Bill Hamilton. So J1I, establish and implement
Standard Operating Procedures to inspect, maintain, and repair or remove
from service each vehicle to ensure the safety of responders using them.


Lamont Byrd:	Everyone good with that? I see some heads nodding in the
affirmative. Okay now, with respect to L, let’s see, L11 and L10.
Okay, I see what he did, he replaced…

Man:	I’m sorry, I expanded…

Lamont Byrd:	He switched 10 yes, and (unintelligible). 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Bill Hamilton:	So you’re just going to - so, Bill Hamilton. You’re
just going to make 11 and - and does that…

Man:	It doesn’t matter. 

Bill Hamilton:	Oh, it doesn’t matter. 

Man:	It doesn’t matter to me. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I’ll put it back. 

((Crosstalk))

Bill Troup:	Bill Troup, USFA. Bill Hamilton, I just got a minor
question. You quote J - just J2 in there, because we also mentioned J1.
Should we add J1 under the new 11 or just leave it as J2? That’s just
simply a question. 

Bill Hamilton:	The J1I is actually…

Bill Troup:	J1I, yes. 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. I was just blanket referencing Section
J. I mean in very general terms because the issue relating to emergency
vehicle operations is all-encompassing and I don’t think we want to
exclude any component of that. 

	So I’m trying to - I’m trying to get hyper-specific about - you
know, about the establishment of SOPs. I think the idea is that what
we’re trying to do is get to SOPs that address all of these areas. 

	If there’s a - because what I’ve heard from the other folks in the
group is that there needs - there should be a reference to establishing
SOPs relating to emergency vehicle operation. I wholeheartedly support
that. I just think a single encompassing thing is enough. 

Bill Troup:	And Bill Troup, USFA. And again, add changing the title to,
Vehicle Preparedness and Operation to accompany what is in J. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, I may be confused here -- this is Lamont Byrd -- I
thought we had had a discussion about, by referring to J, it would
require that a SOP would be established to for example, ensure each
riding position is provided with a seat and properly operating seatbelt.


	I thought that that is what that would accomplish and, we didn’t want
to do that. So we were going to - so we revised J1I and that 11 would
reference (J1I) but not (J12I). Am I…

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	That's what we discussed. Okay, so I just want to make sure
that…

Man 2:	So I think between (unintelligible), I think between that and
changing the title to what was in (J), the formal (pilot) I think would
be very helpful.

Man 3:	Okay, (I've seen Bill Hamilton), on Screen 11 here, (L11) the
(unintelligible) that establishes and implement procedures for vehicle
repairs and operation that meet the requirements in (J) which then means
everything in (J) needs an SOP.

Lamont Byrd:	Right and so…

Man 3:	Everything.

(Lamont Bird):	And so this is (Lamont Bird). So to fix that it would
refer the (J1I) and (J2).

Man 3:	So just…

Lamont Byrd:	That's my understanding of what's been discussed.

Man 4:	Is that where we are? (J1) and (J12) but…

Bill Hamilton:	Bill Hamilton, Matt said if we just had (J) it would
cover…

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt, I was out of the room when that discussion too
place, I agree with what Lamont is proposing. I’m a little concerned
that we're way in the weave. In general I understand the desire to
ensure that frankly - I absolutely applaud the establishment of SOP's
but there are probably about 60 or 70 other areas for which SOP's should
be established and without getting too far in the weave, I think that
what Lamont is proposing is probably very workable.

Rick Ingram:	…just an inspection - this is Rick Ingram so to clarify
that would be inspect, maintain and repair or remove from service. So
that's what you're saying that we need an SOP for?

Matt Tobia:	And various (unintelligible) the number Session J Number 2,
Roman Numeral II relating to safe drive - safely driving vehicles during
non-emergency and emergency response. I think if we're just - if we want
to make sure that those SOP's are getting written, we're reinforcing it
in two different locations to accomplish the same thing. I don’t know
if that's redundant Andy it probably is, so at the end of the day I
would leave it to - frankly I would leave it to OSHA staff to determine
the most appropriate place for it in this regulatory text ensuring that
it's there.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram and I'll say that our astute solicitor
agreed with you about 30 minutes ago. That's exactly what she was
whispering in my ear. Yes. So, I think that's a good addition in my
opinion.

	So this is Rick Ingram, we should have a special guest coming in about
ten minutes. So we'll - I was thinking it might be appropriate…

Man 5:	…before we go, may I just (unintelligible). I don’t feel like
we really addressed the issue I had with the (pod) visibility and I
haven't thought a lot about it and (ensuing) time, if we just reference
the (unintelligible) manual I would feel a lot better about it.

	Correct, that would be under Number 10, (INIII), reference those two.

Man 6:	Okay, (Bill Troop).

(Bill Troop):	(Bill Troop) that would be the manual uniform traffic
control devices, MUTCB, the 2009 Edition I think it's Chapter (6I).

Man 5:	Absolutely might be a (unintelligible).

Man 6:	(6I), is fire service.

Man 7:	Okay, with that if we could - let's contemplate that over a break
and then when we reconvene we can have a further discussion on that.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, so it's about 2:20, let's reconvening at what, 2:30?

Man 7:	Yes.

((Crosstalk))

Man 8:	Just to let you know, Dr. (Michael)'s is planning to come here
with a photographer and get a group photo. So if you want to go and
polish your head and shine your shoes or something now would be a good
time.

((Crosstalk))

Man 9:	Chapter (6I), (6I) is temporary traffic and (unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Man 9:	…also (unintelligible) Class 3 is compliant for 55 miles an
hour and above. So the (unintelligible) the window…

Man 10:	Well, it's still 107, (you're still leaning) 107, because Class
1, Class 2, Class 3. (Anti-207) is a public safety which is basically
(unintelligible). I don’t think there's any (unintelligible) Class 1,
Level (unintelligible).

Man 9:	Class 2 is a little bit short.

Man 10:	Yes, it's based on the miles per hour of what you're doing like
if you're working - that was the problem with 107, (they say) miles per
hour (unintelligible) whereas 207 there's no (specification) for that,
that's (unintelligible). And (Nancy) tried to address the
(unintelligible) couldn't put a (return here).

Man 9:	Right.

Man 10:	So if it's above it (unintelligible) but go over a certain mile
per hour limit you can only - you have to use the…

((Crosstalk))

Man 10:	…Chapter 6…

((Crosstalk))

WoLamont Byrd:	Anybody over here need any…

((Crosstalk))

WoLamont Byrd:	All right, gentlemen in the back we'd like to have you
step forward for pictures. Thank you. Perfect. Get closer together
(unintelligible). Thank you.

((Crosstalk))

WoLamont Byrd:	Thank you.

Man 11:	Okay, thank you very much.

((Crosstalk))

WoLamont Byrd:	…I did your microphone.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	We'll go ahead and get started again. This is Rick Ingram.
We're now going to be reviewing active emergency operations, it's on
Page 29, about halfway down, Section N.

Woman 2:	We reconvened.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	So we'll let Bill get caught up again here. How many of you
members are disappointed that Andy and Bill and Sarah and (Mark)
didn’t get the picture?

	Just for the record, it was unanimous from the committee members that
we really wanted them in the photo and actually I've been taking secret
photos of you and my son is really good at Photoshop so you'll find
yourselves in there with horns. So, okay. So we'll give you a little
time to read through that section.

Man 12:	Section N, Page 29.

((Crosstalk))

Woman 2:	While people are reading, I'd like to quickly just
(unintelligible) item I'd like to enter into the record as Exhibit 6,
the (81-16) revisions by the community (vulnerability sub-group).

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	So why don’t we read through 1 and 2 and we'll discuss
those instead of trying to read through the whole thing and we'll have a
discussion. So I want to give you just a couple more minutes to read
through 1 and 2, that's on the bottom of Page 29 and top of Page 30.
This is Rick Ingram again and we'll comment only on those two sections,
this first pass.

	Okay, so do we have any comments on Number 1 through (3)? Victor?

Victor Stagnaro:	I think overall it's very good. I like the section
where it mentions in Section 1,4 ensure that if an incident escalates in
size and complexity the incident commander (unintelligible) (taxable)
level management component I would like to see an addition to ensure
that if an incident is long duration that it some sort of program or
process is implemented to ensure the proper change of personnel
including the (unintelligible) commander, operational (period) something
to that effect because as you go further down into 2 where it talks
about the incident commander, (before needing) all activities, during
the incident that there may be a sense that that incident commander
can't be relieved. There has to be some sort of process that allows for
change over personnel.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, any comments on that? Kenn (unintelligible)?

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. If I might just for Question (1IV) or 1,4
where it says into tactical level if we might consider putting
strategic/tactical level, it's two different worlds, two different
things and with a big incident you probably have it broke up by
strategies more than tactics, I don’t know if we need to do that but -
out there.

Rick Ingram:	Matt?

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. I concur with Kenn, request to add the
word strategic/tactical on IV. I would also encourage that if there be -
to address Victor's concern that we at some point define and operational
period, typically in the incident management world operational period is
12 hours and that might be a good benchmark for addressing the need to
change personal at the command level.

	The other issue is under Number 3 it indicates that an incident
(unintelligible) shall be assigned and designated to test the incident
(unintelligible) for existing or potential hazard just from a nuts and
bolts perspective, there are frequently incidents where no incident
safety officer is formally assigned and responsibilities for safety
rests with the incident commanders, the best example I can give you is
two ambulances respond on a chest pain call. We can certainly reasonably
expect one of those two ambulances to take - command function without
necessarily assigning a separate incident safety officer on that low
risk incident.

	So I was just - I think I know what we’re trying to get to, which is,
you know, the early assignment of an incident safety officer on high
risk incidents for incidents of potential, you know, to harm us. But
I’m not sure that we’re addressing it. I don’t think that we’re
getting there with the wording (as stated). 

Man:	Okay, (Matt), any other comments?

Kenn Fontenot:	Yes, this is Kenn. I looked at it and thought about it
for a few minutes and went back to ancient history in my incident
command training. And in general, a single company response, a company
officers command will also serve as ISO. I don’t know that this does
not address it because when you get multi-companies then you might -
there’s a need to address it.

Matt Tobia:	This is (Matt). I might offer that the safety function shall
be addressed on every incident. If we’re requiring - if we are
ensuring that every - each emergency has an incident commander, that’s
one.

	Under two - under Roman numeral two -- excuse me -- and then under
Roman numeral three, that (ensure in each) emergency incident has the
safety function addressed which, again, is performance-based as opposed
to do prescriptive. That would allow either for the establishment,
independent ISO, or the retention of that responsibility with the
incident commander. 

Andy Levinson:	So this is Andy. So (Matt), another way that you might do
that is you can still have the ISO designated and then you can have a
note underneath it that says on small (incidents) the ISO might say more
than one role, for example, incident commander or company officer or
some other, you know, some examples of, you know, that would allow that,
right. So I think that’s the scenario that you’re describing,
somebody has to jobs and one of them is safety officer on a small
incident.

Man:	Right. And typically that - I mean, anything that the incident
command doesn’t (unintelligible), I’m sorry. Anything that the
incident commander does not delegate out pertains to - rests with the
incident commander, I think that, you know, as long as we’re
identifying that there are going to be smaller incidents for which a
separate incident safety officer is not warranted or that that function
could be addressed effectively by the incident (commander).

Man:	Okay, any other comments?

(Russell):	Hi, this is (Russell) (too). I just had a question. You
brought up an interesting point about, if it’s long-duration incident,
you wouldn’t expect the incident commander to be there, you know,
24/7. 

	You recommend that they follow the same fatigue guidelines that you see
in - on Page 36 which is (yield to the port) employer - shall develop
and implement a fatigue management plan.

Matt Tobia:	So this is (Matt). There’s probably a fundamental
difference between skilled support worker who generally work an eight
hour day generally - not exclusively, but generally - and many emergency
services personnel often work 24 hour shifts at a time or even longer,
24 or even 48 hours at a time.

	Fatigue is a bigger issue in emergency services, no question about it.
I think that if we were to, for example, say under one, Roman numeral
six, that operational periods shall be established and served as the
basis for rotation of personnel might be, you know, appropriate
language. 

	I don’t know if that’s appropriate by any means, but I think what
we’re trying to do is get to the point of chief - or of Victor’s
concern which is a valid one that is that the longer an incident
commander goes, the more likely they are to make a human error as a
result of fatigue.

Rick Ingram:	So I’ve made a - this is Rick Ingram - I had made a note
that, if the operational period exceeds 12 hours, the incident commander
should consider a change in personnel at the command level. I think
that’s what you said almost verbatim earlier.

Man:	Yes sir.

Matt Tobia:	This is (Matt). I agree with that.

Andy Levinson:	This is Andy. I would take up to 12 hours and I would
just leave it up to the ESO to figure out what the appropriate procedure
or time period is for swapping out a command. They could do it at eight
hours. It could be, if it’s something particularly intense, two to
four hours might be, you know, more than somebody can handle.

Man:	An extended period - say that.

VictorStagnaro:	This is VictorStagnaro. I had - ensures that personnel
including command personnel are rotated - maybe that’s not the right
word - but rotated through the incident on long-duration incidents,
typically every 12 hour operational period.

Man:	That’s the 12 hour (component).

Man:	But somewhere it addresses the fact that a long-duration incident,
you need to rotate personnel. (Kathy)?

(Kathy Robinson):	(Kathy Robinson), on Page 37, in the (unintelligible)
group, we talked extensively about fatigue, and I’m just wondering if
you think that that description in (fatigue) management doesn’t
pertain to the command structure.

	I would specifically point to - see there where it talks about long
work hours, greater than 12 hours per day or 50 hours a week, rotating
shifts (like limited) rest breaks, et cetera.

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes, this is Victor Stagnaro. As (Matt) had pointed
out, I think there is a difference between the skilled support worker
where they’re working typically in 8 to 12 hour shift and a lot of
people in the fire service that are working a full 24 hour shift.

	So quite often, during a long-duration incident, some of this is
addressed, if the incident occurs at a particular time of the day. You
know you’ve got relief coming at 7:00 in the morning because there are
new group of people coming in.

	So some of that, I think goes back to Andy’s point, leave it up to
the ESO, but you need to determine that long-duration incidents need to
be addressed and people need to be rotated through. Certainly, the (wild
land) fire service has this down. They know how to do that better than
anybody. 

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill Hamilton. So on the screen, and Roman six,
trying to capture the concept about ensure the incident - so this is the
ESO shall ensure the incident commanders and responders are rotated or
replaced during extended or long-duration operations.

Man:	Kenn.

Kenn Fontenot:	And just for - Kenn Fontenot for clarification, what is a
long-duration event? I know it’s very subjective. I understand but I
think we sort of need to figure out what it is.

Man:	Basically - go ahead with - I’m sorry, (Matt), go ahead.

Matt Tobia:	No, those going to say, just for my perspective, I would say
are rotated or replaced during complex or extended operations as
determined by the ESO.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, so that - this is Rick Ingram. That brings up a
question. So is the incident commander going to be told to rotate by the
ESO?

Man:	Could be. The ESO - remember the (unintelligible). Remember, the
incident commander is an agent of the ESO. At the end of the day, if the
ESO says, you know, as an organization, you said - thou shalt, you know,
turnover command to another individual.

Man:	So there’s - so I’ll add to that question. Is the incident
commander always going to be part of the ESO or could it be someone
outside the ESO? 

Man:	He’s still a designee from the ESO although these
(unintelligible).

Man:	Okay, and…

Man:	I think we should probably assume that the incident commander will
always be part of the ESO (unintelligible) probably so it exceedingly
rare to legally (process that).

Rick Ingram:	Okay, we have a dissenting view. This is Rick Ingram. (Ken
Fontinau).

(Ken Fontinau):	This is - in long-term major events, you’re going to
get some IMT teams which are not part of the post-ESO. They are under
the umbrella of the ESO but they’re not part of them, so that’s why
I’m saying…

Man:	So I’m familiar with them…

Man:	To which I would argue in that kind of case, which is one of these,
like, really big situations, that you’re no longer responding as your
ESO. You are now - we joined the incident management team and you rolled
up into the larger federal response, you’re now part of that larger
response.

	You’re a branch of that ESO on a mutual aid, not your own
organization. Some of that gets a little bit weird because if you’re
in a large land area like, you know, with Katrina and the flooding you
guys had, you guys made a (lot) that looks much more (unintelligible)
because your assigned to an operational area within, like, the entire
state, but.

Rick Ingram:	So - this is Rick Ingram - so for the large responses that
I’ve been a part of, the incident commander was the one who helped
make some of those decisions about how long it could work, you know,
actually in the incident command structure, the folks managing the
incident would make those decisions.

	And I was - I’m actually one that was told go home because I had
worked too many hours, several days in a row, so like, my suggestion
would be to thoughtfully consider having a word or two in there that
would not make it just determined by the ESO.

	And speak to Kenn’s point as well, but to allow the - or as
determined by the incident command - by the ESO or the incident command.
Could we say that or would that not be appropriate? 

Man:	Perhaps (AHJ) might be a term but I don’t know that we’ve
defined it yet.

Man:	Yes, we haven’t used AHJ and I would prefer to stay away from
that.

Man:	And I can see that, but in this case it truly is - then becomes a
federal - for regional, then it goes into that, so.

Man:	Right, but this is - I don’t pick we should try and solve every
problem in the world.

Man:	And those ones where there two days…

Man:	Yes, and the situation that really require a coordinated federal
response under the national response framework, few enough and far
between enough, considering the many, you know, hundreds of thousands or
millions of incidents that happened in the country, you know.

Man:	Yes, this is (Unintelligible). I think that really what we’re
trying to get to is somebody is thinking prospectively about the fact
that this - that an incident could potentially go on for more than X
amount of time and that there’s a fatigue factor that comes into that.

	And that there should be a consideration of that, and I think the ESO
is probably the best place to do because, frankly, I’ve seen - and I
think, Rick, you’ve probably seen it as well, incident commanders who
are reluctant to give up command	for a (unintelligible). One, they’re
incredibly invested in it. They believe that they have a very personal
responsibility to see the incident through and they, you know, feel a
very significant connection to the incident itself. 

	The problem is that our experience has been that the closer they get to
that point, the less, the more myopic their decision-making becomes and
the less objective they become. 

	So I think that there’s an intent to be able to retain the authority
of the ESO to say, hey, have a good, you go take a break and I’m going
to put somebody else in as the interim commander for a period of time. 

	(During one of the storms), I actually had a fire department, made the
fire department call me and said, you have to get the chief out of here.
He’s on shift seven days. We can’t put up with him anymore. He’s
making bad decisions and he needs to go. 

Man:	Got it. (Unintelligible). 

Man:	It’s just scary that it went seven days. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	He just didn’t have a whole lot of options (unintelligible).

Man:	Got it.

Man:	I was looking here though, probably have something about (rehab)
and (wellness). So maybe we could reference it in here (unintelligible).

Man:	Sorry. 

Man:	Right. So there may be something we can tie together with the
operational period and simplify it. Here it is. All right. 

Man:	So we’re talking, so we’ve got, just to kind of recap here and
I’m not dropping the subject while you all are looking. So Bill added
strategic in number four and we’re talking about duration and number
six. 

	And we had talked also about instant safety officer or ISO. I didn’t
know if we got any, so let’s, so I think you’re got that one
covered. So just might be true but we’re covering our questions that
we had. 

	And in Canada, you’re suggesting some language for this on page 32?
We’ve had several references over there to …

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Regarding safety), I don’t see too much, it seems we’re
copying verbatim and moving it to 32. We’re talking about the left
towards whatever we’re (unintelligible) mindful that eight hours but
kind of lost my train of thought. We had so much going on.

	But it seems to be a good fit right there. I think we might have it
covered with language that we’ve got in there, Kenn, myself, but is an
(ASW) on page 36 (unintelligible). 

	Do we have any other (thoughts)? Any other comments on that? Any
thoughts on what Kenn just brought up? Good discussion here. 

Man:	Yes, (unintelligible).

Man:	Okay. 

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick, Do we, Rick Ingram. Do we have any other
comments or suggestions on this section or do we think we have it? 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I think we indicated that we weren’t going to define operational
period specifically and that we were going to indicate that (by
incident). 

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Yes, so to start out with everybody, once we get Bill to
read through what he’s changed in this section and we’ve simply got
it, we’ll keep going. 

(Bill Halson):	Okay, (Bill Halson), (roman three) and the safety
portion. An incident safety officer is assigned as designated to assess
the incident scene for existing or potential hazards. And in (roman
four), if an incident escalates inside the complexity the incident
commander divides the incident in a strategic/tactical level as a
component.

	(Roman five) was recommend change for unified command structure
utilized by incidents where the complexity required a shared
responsibility among two or more (ESOs) or agencies. (Roman six) assures
the incident commanders and responders rotated or replaced during
complex or extended operations as determined by the (ESO). 

Rick Ingram:	So with that language, this is Rick Ingram, are there any
other additions or do we think we’ve got and captured everything that
we need to have? (Matt).

Matt Tobia:	Just a question. I apologize. From the, Andy, you brought up
a point earlier about, Sarah said it as well, that all of this makes
perfect sense to us because we’ve been living it for the last year.
But the definition, does there need to be a definition of active
emergency operation? 

	The only reason I ask that is somebody reading this, would they, would
somebody reading this know what that meant and from my perspective,
active emergency operations could be that period of time between
notifications of an emergency until such time as the ESO determines
otherwise. Or determine appropriately. And Andy if that’s way too far
in the weeds, I’ll just put her away.

	But my question, from my perspective the very first thing that some ESO
is going to have to regulate is, well what is (the exact) time? What
does that mean? So I don’t know if you need, if we need to include
that in the definitions or not. 

Andy Levinson:	This is Andy. I think we would probably discuss that in
the preamble. I don’t know if we need to (unintelligible). In my mind
I think I’m with you. It’s from the time that we’ll start rolling
at the fire station which, you know, begins the emergency response mood
and their special rules that I get to break because I’m driving a
vehicle to the, you know, all the way to the termination of that
incident.

Matt Tobia:	Right. That’s what I would think as well. From the time,
to me the actual emergency operations don’t start before I’m aware
of the incident. It can only start when I know about it. So if I’m the
ESO, as soon as somebody calls 911 or, you know, whatever emergency,
whatever means I get notified of an emergency, all right.

	I’m the host ESO. I get notified. That starts the clock until I
terminate the incident. To me that’s emergency operations. And the
reason I say that is because it’s you know, there’s a lot of
requirements that are forced in here with regard to what the
expectations are for performance during that period of time. I think
it’s important to be clear about when that is.

	Yes, so I would only modify that because we don’t get into just
(unintelligible) …

((Crosstalk))

Matt Tobia:	… administrative content and we are focused on safety
issues. I think that the safety issues really occur as the people are
rolling out of the station until these combinations. You can argue if
they slide down the fire poles then gets in the fire truck, is that part
of the emergency operation. I think how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin type of questions. 

Man:	Right. 

Andy Levinson:	So from the time that the ESO is active, has deployed,
like from the time the ESO has deployed resources until the emergency
…

Matt Tobia:	Until the ESO determines the event is concluded right. Which
is termination of command.

(Victor Singer):	This is (Victor Singer). Some of this is actually in
section (AMO) under incident management systems development on page 28.
It talks about the incident commander who would declare that the
incident has concluded. So I think it’s probably part of might fit
into that area where you determine when it is an emergency incident. And
you have to do that in writing according to M. 

Man:	Thank you Rick. I think some of the other elements like the
(unintelligible) fire base (get out and fight some of this. There’s a
requirement to change up your incident command based on either a 24 hour
clock or based on how it goes from a level one over to level three. 

	Because like some of those fires will last two weeks or more. So
there’s a constant need to complete, to refresh your resources like
that.

	So I don’t know if we can actually put a time limit on it because it
seems like it’s drastically (unintelligible) a structural kind of fire
compared to that kind of fire. And I guess I’m struggling a little bit
on how to bring all that together under this system. 

	I kind of agree with you Andy that I’m not sure of putting a time
limit on it. But we have to be pretty sure that people recognize that
this issue of fatigue as a long term thing.

Andy Levinson:	Look, right. 

Man:	And the whole issue of transfer of command Andy is a whole other
issue. You know, many municipal departments have a (dual) one alarm
fire. You’ve got, you know accompanying officers initially and
(unintelligible) chief. And then when you go to a two alarm fire you
want to upgrade to a higher level officer. 

	But the time you get to a three or four alarm fire, you might have
passed on command a couple of times regardless of the time, based
strictly on the complexity. So I don’t think it’s necessarily our
job to say here’s what the right procedure is. We just want to say you
have to have a procedure.

Rick Ingram:	Any other comments? Kenn, did we cover what you brought up
earlier for us? I didn’t mean to pass over you there. I apologize.
This is Rick Ingram.

Kenn Fontenot:	I think we’re good. 

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	So it’s not troubling you anymore?

Kenn Fontenot:	Well we were talking about it. (Unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	So just to clarify now, are we going to, has a decision
been made to add a definition for active emergency operations or not? 

Matt Tobia:	I would, this is (Matt). I would defer to staff on
determining whether or not it needs to be in there. What I’m trying to
get to is answering the question (in this section) and making sure that
we all understand what we need when we say active emergency operation. 

	Because there’s a lot of, there are quite a few requirements under
this section and from my perspective I wouldn’t want someone to be
arbitrarily be able to say well, give it this period of time. I don’t
want to (unintelligible) after X period of time with the reality that it
becomes more critical the longer the duration extends.

	So I’m trying to from a safety perspective, a perspective of
protecting workers, to be sure that everybody to the greatest extent
possible understands what we are trying to cover.

(Bill Halson):	Right. This is (Bill Halson). And if we go back a few
versions in the, of this draft the word active does not appear in this
title. We added the word active, to be active emergency operations to
try and differentiate it a little bit more from standard operating
procedures and incident management systems which are part of emergency
operations.

	And so this was more the, if you will, you know, the things that
actually occur on the scene of an emergency. And that’s where the word
active came from. 

((Crosstalk))

(Bill Halson):	So are we saying active emergency operations or are we
saying incident scene operations, just so I know the answer to that
question? 

Man:	I think its semantics. 

(Bill Halson):	Okay. 

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram. I would guess that we put our heads
together and try to come up with a simple definition, if we can. And if
it doesn’t fly then we haven’t lost anything. But I do agree with
(Matt) that if we don’t clarify that within the regulatory text, that
there is, there’s going to be some questions. 

	And I think we owe it to the engines to have a simple definition of
active emergency operations, if that’s what we’re going to continue
to call it. I think I’m the one that suggested adding active to
emergency operations to clarify this part at the last meeting. So I
think we owe it, so. Bill just, Bill something?

(Bill Halson):	Just change the term. 

((Crosstalk))

Matt Tobia:	Yes, we’ve got a definition for (emergency incident). I
would just, this is (Matt). I’m wondering if we shouldn’t just say
emergency incident, (refer back to the definition). 

Rick Ingram:	But, this is Rick Ingram. That makes perfect sense to me to
reinstate the gold star. 

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Do we have any thoughts on that? This is a group, this is a
group discussion. Any other thoughts on that? We’re seeing the shaking
of the heads in the affirmative for the record. Okay. Good outcome. All
right.

(Bill Halson):	This is (Bill Halson). The only issue then which is
emergency incident standard operating procedures. Is there going to be
some confusion? \

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I think its two different things so. 

((Crosstalk))

(Carol):	So (you want to change it from) standard operating procedures
to (unintelligible) is what you’re talking about. 

(Matt Debe):	This is (Matt Debe). That’s a great idea (Carol).

Rick Ingram:	Further clarification, this is Rick Ingram. I agree with
that. 

((Crosstalk))

(Matt Debe):	This is (Matt Debe). On page 31, there’s a, I think
there’s one minor change on page 30 which is just words missing which
I think is perfectly appropriate. But then on page 31 there’s just a
question you asked Bill with regard to the exception for (2H) and (2L).
You identified an exception that precludes the (executive) to responders
and the example you gave was confined space. 

Man:	(Unintelligible), is that correct?

Rick Ingram:	We were on the, N1 and N2 is what we’re working on, so
just to bring us back to that. Quickly, are there any and if you don’t
mind (Matt)?

Matt Tobia:	Go right ahead. I’m sorry.

Rick Ingram:	And I know we’ve already reviewed this information so
there’s probably not a lot of changes. But if we could just review N2,
3. Any questions on that one? Or are we okay with that? I’m not
hearing any comments. So we go to N3, the control zones. (Bill Warren). 

Bill Warren:	I missed that. This is (Bill Warren) in Arizona. I just
want to make a comment that under 2.5, can you hear me now (Cheryl).
Under 2.5, it says the incident command implements a personal
accountability to rapidly account for all responders at the incident
scene. I think that’s a critical portion of that number two because in
several areas sometimes they lose control and lose it particularly in a
large area like a wild fire scene. 

	These guys could be scattered out over miles and it’s easy to lose
folks. And so it would be interesting to see then in the future how
they’ve developed an accountability system to quickly account for
folks. And so I’m glad it’s in there.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. Just thought I’d keep up with a little
bit of technology. My guess is that responders would be fit with GPS
chips that would come back to the comment of collections at data points
and really see that benefit. So if somebody knows how to do that or
something like that. 

Kenn Fontenot:	I think the military has that covered. They probably
won’t share it though. I think what they do now when a lot of troops
are being put out there now there’s (unintelligible). It doesn’t
work real well with structure because it’s only (unintelligible)
specifically. It’s up and down, I mean lateral but not up and down.

Rick Ingram:	So just as a time check, go ahead Bill. 

Bill:	I was going to say I appreciate what my partner Kenn said but I do
know that when we identified and reviewed under the Yarnell wildfire
that occurred and lost 19 firefighters that was the one that we looked
at, to take a look at GPS monitoring system for all Yarnell firefighters
that are out there.

	And at the moment the technology just isn’t quite exactly there yet
for the application particularly as you get down in the canons and
places like that. So but I’m really glad that they’re still working
on it. But I’m not so sure we’re there where we can do it yet. 

	So I think we still need to develop probably a radial check procedure
or something like that to account for them because it’s so easy to
lose track where people are in the field, where you’ve got a large
event like the Yarnell fire. 

Rick Ingram:	So is there any suggestion to change any of the language or
are we okay with the language?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. Actually in section five under incident
standard operating procedures, currently I think it’s still number
six, we may have changed the number where it says establish and
implement a responder accountability system for maintaining
accountability of all responders. I’m on page 26, section six.

	So it’s addressed in the policy component as well as in the active
emergency operations component. So it’s there. We have it twice. 

((Crosstalk))

Kenn Fontenot:	To follow-up at intervals might be an example.
(Unintelligible). 

Rick Ingram:	So are you suggesting, i.e. regular interval radio checks? 

Victor Stagnaro:	Right, and just, this is Victor saying that is a part
of the personal accountability report. So an incident, an incident
commander, every 15 to 20 minutes will conduct a personal accountability
report by crews, engine companies and truck companies and that’s what
Kenn is referring to. 

Rick Ingram:	All right. So do we want to add that in or are we okay?

Man:	As an example or you could add it in. (Unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	Just a warning?

Bill Warren:	This is (Bill Warren). I really appreciate what they’re
talking about here because I do think that intermittent checks is a
really good way to make sure accountability occurs. But also as I look
at this one too, there’s a time when you just pull the plug and get
everybody back. And you need to know exactly where they are right at
that critical time when you need to have those folks moved.

	Or you need to know where they’re at. And if you’ve ever had the
chance to listen to some of the radio traffic of that fire, you know, it
was clear that folks didn’t know where they were. And they had gotten
into a place, in fact a lot thought they were in a safe zone. 

	So this is critical that when the infinite command decides that he
needs to have an immediate check because of whatever is occurring along
the fire line, that they have the capability of doing that. 

	I do like what my partner Victor said regarding the intermittent
checks, however often that is and whatever makes better sense for the
incident commander to at least get a better idea of where everybody’s
now working. 

	But that critical point of something’s occurring, something’s about
ready to occur like the fire’s changed direction, is now moving faster
than was anticipated and therefore we need to know where everybody is so
we can determine where we’re going to put people safely.

Man:	Okay. So you said this was in the …

Bill Warren:	Yes, section L under establishing a policy on page 26
number six. So it does require the ESO to develop policy for
accountability. 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. So could we, so I like the idea of
having the accountability system with checks at regular intervals as
determined by the ESO. And I think that’s kind of what we’re saying
because this is again, we want to give freedom to the ESO field to
decide when to do that according to the complexity of the incident. 

	So would that be better in number six, to add a little bit more detail?
Or do we need to add more detail? So that would be under L6 of the
standard job procedures. And then we can refer to that L6 in number five
here, Roman numeral five, that would be helpful? 

Man:	So do we have some suggested language that we can add in here? 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. I would recommend then with that in
mind right after operating at an incident including personal
accountability to report during specific intervals during the incident. 

Rick Ingram:	Your (vets) are added.

Victor Stagnaro:	Correct. 

Rick Ingram:	Under which section?

Victor Stagnaro:	Under section I, number six.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

Victor Stagnaro:	Or it could be under six, Roman numeral one. Or say
something to the effect of including by not limited to personal
accountability to reports 

Rick Ingram:	At certain intervals. 

Man:	That is determined by the ESO. 

Man:	Determined by the incident. 

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Kenn, does that work for you? This is Rick.

Kenn Fontenot:	I’m okay with it.

Rick Ingram:	It’s under L …

Kenn Fontenot:	(Unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	Yes. Just as a time check, it’s now 3:30. We’re going
to be finishing up within about 30 minutes. Do we have, are we going to
have any public comments today? Mr. (Pole).

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Rick Ingram:	So at 10:59 we’ll turn it over. This is Rick, (adding
some humor to the group). Victor.

Victor Stagnaro:	Rick apologies. I know you want to move on further and
deeper into this section. Just a thought and maybe some comments from
the rest of the committee. Under section N where we talk about incident
safety officer, section N1.

Man:	What page?

Victor Stagnaro:	On page 29. And I know we’ve covered some of this.

Man:	Okay.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is the first time that an incident safety
officer’s introduced in the document that I’m aware of. So I’m
just wondering one of two things. One, should we include language in the
developing of a policy or procedures that outlines, that you have to
provide in writing when an incident safety officer will be utilized and
who that will be.

	Or should that be under M where there’s, if you go to page 27, M1, it
says, it’s the last sentence in that paragraph. The IMS shall provide
structuring and coordination to the management of emergency incident
operations to provide for the safety and health of responders involved
in those activities. 

	And then nowhere does it actually address incident safety officers
although it does include on page 28, sorry about all the jumping around,
section two that the IMS shall include but not be limited to the
following functions. Maybe safety officer, incident safety officer could
be included there.

	Just thoughts for the committee. The first time we’re addressing
incident safety officer is during the emergency incident and nowhere
prior does the ESO need to think about it. 

Andy Levinson:	Victor, this is Andy. I think that’s a very good point.
And I think either I or I’m not 100% certain of this but I think the
incident safety officer is also discussed in (NIMS). And so it’s kind
of implied in that section, you know, under (NIMS). But I think we want
to spell it out more explicitly. 

Victor Stagnaro:	So this is (Victor Stagnaro). You could actually do it
in both of them as well. You could put incident, because usually the
incident safety officer is a direct report to the incident commander
under the incident, under (NIMS). So you’re right. It is implied and
if they’re using (NIMS), it would be required so it would be worth
mentioning. 

Kenn Fontenot:	Right. And it might be prudent to put it someplace on
page 28. So, you know, you’d have to manage. You’d have to put in
safety. And then operation planning. That gives it kind of the
appropriate I think hierarchy.

Man:	Yes, that’s fine. 

Victor Stagnaro:	And this is Victor here again. And I think Bill
addressed the policy component when we changed that in the last version
of it. You know, the incident commander needs to determine who the
incident, or the ESO needs to determine who the safety officer will be.
In some cases it may be the incident commander. Maybe somebody else. 

Rick Ingram:	Kenn.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. The (ICS) police out there, perhaps we
could (under the II which Bill’s working now), it says the IMS shall
include but not be limited to the following functions and command staff.
The incident safety officer is not a function technically or staff
position.

	I know it’s (unintelligible) or LBTW like (unintelligible). But for
the, there will be some folk out there to make that argument. 

Rick Ingram:	Any other comments on this? As Bill captured, this is Rick
Ingram. Has Bill captured your thoughts on that?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. Looks good to me. Thank you. 

Bill Hamilton:	I included, I put in the incident safety but it’s true
that it’s a sub-component of the command function. 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor again. Yes, you’re absolutely right. I
think Kenn you captured it. I think if you added the, Kenn if you
don’t mind repeating the command functions and commands. 

Man:	And command (staff).

Victor Stagnaro:	Right. 

Kenn Fontenot:	The (unintelligible) of functions and then staff is
(unintelligible). 

Rick Ingram:	You’re just saying after functions before the colon and
staff.

Kenn Fontenot:	And staff.

Rick Ingram:	On double I. 

Man:	How about if we take out functions? 

Bill Hamilton:	I’m afraid if we put in command staff then along the
way someone’s going to, this is Bill Hamilton, someone’s going to
say well you should list the other people who are part of the command
(staff).

	Devil’s advocate, I’m a terrible person. I understand. It’s only
two others, if you want to add them just for the sake of completeness.
It’s the (EIO) and the (unintelligible). That kind of simplifies it,
covers them all. Or just show it as a subset of commands. I don’t know
what the letter would be. 

Rick Ingram:	Sarah made a comment. She said that she could say (incident
command) but not limited. This is Rick Ingram. (Bill Warren).

Bill Warren:	Yes, (Bill Warren). You know, I guess I’m troubled by
because I think the incident command system is rule specific and
(unintelligible). So I think, I’m not sure that that is the right
place for that, that incident safety.

	I really believe it should be under five instead of four. And because
then what it is, the incident commander will still have the training and
authority to form at least the following. Then you say assume command,
assist the situation. Maybe we can there put then, identify and, you
know, safety, incident safety officer identify and …

Man:	Appoint.

Bill Warren:	… appoint a safety officer.Maybe that’s the better
place for it because I think the right, Victor and (Bill Troop) that
under the command system all the staff functions are there in most of
the agencies out there under (Sam Nimms) under (Sam) that the safety
officers (are part of that).

	So I’m wondering if it would be better placed down under assume
command (system) in situations, you know, maybe even after (approve) the
incidents of command, assign a safety officer and then at least you’ve
identified, I’m just putting out (unintelligible). 

Rick Ingram:	Any other thoughts? Comments? Any other discussions? 

(Lisa Delaney):	This is (Lisa Delaney). I guess because you’ve also
mentioned earlier that the (IC) may serve as the safety officer. I think
you need to acknowledge that through either, I think we should say the
formal functions of the safety officer and (unintelligible) the safety
officer or assure …

Bill Warren:	Rick, (Bill Warren) again. Yes, I guess I’m just getting
tripped up in the fact that I do believe under A through E, these are
specific functions of the incident command system. And I think we ought
to keep true to that. I think that we can designate under five somewhere
where it seems most appropriate to be fit is that the either the
incident commander if they do either assumes or assigns the role of
incident safety officer.

Rick Ingram:	Does that work for you Kenn, if we put it under number
five?

Kenn Fontenot:	Thank you. That’s great.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. This is Rick Ingram by the way. 

Kenn Fontenot:	(Unintelligible). Put the (IMS) shall include
(unintelligible) to the following (manned staff). Safety officer put it
up front where it belongs.

Rick Ingram:	Yes. Sure. 

Andy Levinson:	This is Andy. I would really like to stay away from
designating staff because now you’re getting into counting bodies and
our (unintelligible) would say you just forced that person to hire X
many people. 

((Crosstalk))

Kenn Fontenot:	If you take it to that extreme you can say well, we have
to have five (for operations).

Bill Warren:	No, you have to have the operations documents, you have to
have the functions that need to be done.

Man:	Right, the functions that need to be done. Not a separate staff
person for each function. I could have one person serve as (planning and
finance as long as they accomplish all of those functions. 

Man:	Let’s look at (IMS) showing, you should not be limited to the
following (unintelligible). We may want to put ISOs somewhere in there.

Man:	Well I think Victor’s point earlier was that we should mention
incident safety officer for those incident safety functions somewhere
prior to emergency operations. And I think that was a good point. 

(victor Segnaro):	So following this, I’m sorry. This is (Victor
Segnaro). I like the idea of the, on page 28, section five adding some
wording related to incident safety officer establishing or serving as or
assigning an incident safety officer. And then if we just added in
section I, the established and implemented procedures that outline who
will serve as an ISO at an emergency incident.

	

	That way you have to develop, it’s going to be part of your policy.
It’s part of what the incident commander needs to do, And then during
an emergency incident it’s already established that you will have an
incident safety officer. 

Man:	That’s right. 

Kenn Fontenot:	Right. Sorry. 

Bill Hamilton:	And this is Bill Hamilton. Along with that thinking,
let’s have a look at 27M. One, we added a triple I, page 27 M, One,
triple I. It just says the IMS, right, so we’re talking about the
incident. This is incident management system development. IMS shall
include a means for responders to notify the incident commander of
unsafe conditions or an unsafe act.

	How about if we put ahead of that or after it that the incident
management shall include the safety function or safety officer. Put it
up front as part of an incident management system development there to
go along with other safety comments that we had. 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. I think that covers it. 

Kenn Fontenot:	It would be something like this. Kenn, excuse me.
Something like responders’ safety shall be addressed per (business)
plan. (Company officers shall be assigned safety officers). Kind of
gives us that (flexibility). 

Rick Ingram:	All right. Once we get through with this, we’re going to
stop for the day. And we’ll take this up tomorrow. So put on your
thinking caps. If you have the fortitude, take this with you and read
through the next couple of sections, make notes and then tomorrow when
we come in we can get on through it. 

	And we’ve got time. We took three days. We do have a lot of other
work to do tomorrow. We’re putting together a memorandum. And we’ve
got (unintelligible) that needs to be completed. So let’s see where
Bill is. And public commenters if you’re ready, we’ll call on you in
a few minutes here. We’ll stop here for now and then we’ll start
there tomorrow. Is that all right with you? Do you agree?

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick. (Do you want to read just what you have
there)? I was just saying this has been a great discussion today and I
think we’re really making some excellent progress and adding some
details that we needed here. So this is, and, you know, we want to get
it done but we want to get it done right. So it’s well worth the
discussion. What about you Andy? Is it well worth it? Are you happy? So
we’re all happy over on this side. 

Man:	While Bill is doing some taping, let me say a couple words. If
folks can take some time today and just quickly scan the draft working
paper that we sent around on the report to make copies That is going to
be one of the most important documents. That is the place for you to get
your say on whatever you want to say. 

	So if there are things that you particularly like and endorse, if there
are things that you have concerns about, this is an area that you know,
I think we want to talk about. Some opportunities for the agency to
think about how to accommodate small departments.

	So, you know we had debate and discussion, you know, earlier about is
the line at 2500 or is it at 5000 or is it at everybody should be
covered  We don’t have answers but some discussion just saying you
know, the agency should think about this. A little more discussion about
some of the sheer ways that you could respond to different provisions.

	So for example, discussion about how medicals might be different in
small departments to alleviate some of the financial burdens. While the
1500 medical might be the gold standard that might be, you know, the
silver and the bronze that might be okay as well if people can afford to
do, you know, a 1500 medical. Yes Bill.

Bill Warren:	(Unintelligible) specific physical requirements
(unintelligible) they have to pass a physical. That may be different
than (unintelligible). So I think it has a comparable element that we
need to make sure that it’s right.

Man:	Right. So this is, yes. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	It was not in this packet. It was in the page Bill checked out I
think earlier when there were work papers going around from - yes. 

Man	(Unintelligible).

Man:	Right. There’s the (unintelligible) letters. There’s a trap I
think, response or (unintelligible) to the response to the
(unintelligible). 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Did the draft report have a draft response or letter from somebody
on the committee? 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, we should think about that. 

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man	Right. 

((Crosstalk))’

Man:	Yes, okay. Anyway, so there’s some opportunities while we’re on
the subject of OSHA just so everybody knows in two weeks I am going to
speak to OSHA again. This is one of the topics that they were interested
in. It’s a most intuitive topic. 

	So if the overall OSHA regulatory program, it’s some stuff that
we’re doing on a safety and health program then they’re going to
come onto emergency response one of the other topics. But, you know,
there’s continuing interest from the OSHA in the activities of this
committee.

Man:	We are so looking forward, yes. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I’m excited to engage with you Bill. With (Ann). (Michael). I’s
going to be a great discussion I’m sure.

Man:	A great discussion.

Rick Ingram:	All right. So any other, I think we’ll just, we’ve got
about eight more minutes left so what we’ll do, what (Phil) wrote
here, tomorrow, well take this up tomorrow. So we’re on H29, one and
two and we’ll review that, one and two. And we’ll start on three
tomorrow. So everybody, we’ll turn it over to our public comments. 

Man:	Yes, come up to the table. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Guess what Bill walked out.

Man:	Yes.

(Robert Rondak):	Yes, (Robert Rondak) with the Association of American
Railroads, Assistant Vice President Environment and Hazardous Materials.
And I attended this meeting today having no idea what I was getting
into. I was asked by one of my members, was I going to this meeting and
I didn’t even know about it. And it’s like I went to the association
first and I said of course. 

	And, you know, I don’t know for a fact if our members comply with
the, you know, 1910 156 standards currently. It applies to fire brigades
and whereas our members respond to hazardous incidents which often
involve fire, I don’t think we consider ourselves fire brigades.

	And generally speaking, our members, you know, rely on first responders
to put the fire out but we do assist in getting them resources to do
that if needed. So looking at the new language though, it’s pretty
clear to me that this applies to industry and it seems to me that we
would be an ESO under this, under these definitions.

	In other words our members employ people who have, you know, hazardous
materials training and we go out and respond to accidents. We support
the incident command system. And I just wanted to verify that that’s
what everybody here thinks the intent of this is.

Andy Levinson:	This is Andy. Let me answer this is a couple of ways.
Hazardous incidents are covered by your 1910 120.

(Robert Rondak):	I know that. 

Andy Levinson:	Putting that aside, there’s nothing that would be
covered by this if all you’re doing is hazardous operations. Now if
you were doing other functions, some of those might be covered. I’m
not 100% sure some of the things that you guys do are covered by FRA,
not by us. 

	And so I’m not 100% certain of which duties and activities would fall
under OSHA’s authority and jurisdiction and which would fall under
Federal Railways Administration or one of the other EOT agencies. And
that’s something that we would have to look at in more specific
detail.

(Robert Rondak):	(Robert Rondak) again. You know, emergency established,
okay general industry. Construction industry employees, employers who
have established workplace emergency response team, aka industrial
emergency facility fire brigade, industrial fire department emergency
response team, fire emergency organization. I think our members fall
into that group. And I, you know, maybe that’s a little broader than
the intent was. I’m not sure. 

Andy Levinson:	That is a whole other level. That’s not OSHA.

(Robert Rondak):	Okay. 

Andy Levinson:	That should be Federal Railway. So for example, and
again, I’m not certain of this. If anybody dealt with it in terms of
authority jurisdiction. But for example under the FAA they would perform
many of these types of functions that we wouldn’t necessarily cover
them for those functions because they are under the FAA’s authority
and jurisdiction. 

	

	And there are only a certain limited number of circumstances where
airline personnel would be covered by federal OSHA. And so you have to
look at the authority and jurisdiction under the Federal Railway Act and
under the OSHA act to see how those two overlap and what the
Congressional intent was. 

	And there may be safety functions that are covered under FRA where they
would say that you’re covered by those. It would require a whole lot
of other research and analysis that I don’t think we’ve done yet.

(Robert Rondak):	Okay. 

Andy Levinson:	But it’s an important point. 

(Robert Rondak):	All right. (Robert Rondak) again. I’ll let it go at
that. I’ll have our attorneys take a look at the applicability. I mean
we’re clearly complying with 1910 120 and we always have and, you
know, that’s the regulation.

	You know, I talk to all of our members and even when I was railroads’
(unintelligible) myself that’s what we complied with. This is new to
me. The only other thing specifically, I read the whole thing during
today.

	And on page 26 at the very bottom of the page it says that established
citizens implemented procedures for protecting responders from vehicular
traffic or operating in emergency incident on or before adjacent to.

	And I might suggest you might want to add railroads, all railways and
highways. That’s the only other comment. 

Sarah Shortall:	This is Sarah Shortall. That would be especially good
since there are instances in which OSHA Act does cover activities near
to surrounding railroads. And are you going to be here tomorrow as well?

(Robert Rondak):	I hadn’t planned it because it sounds like this is,
the intent is not to cover us. And we are covered under DOQ regulations
as far as emergency response goes. 

Sarah Shortall:	(Check if you’re covered) where the OSHA covers.
You’re right. OSHA does not. It should be said that to the extent that
OSHA does, then it would be covered.  

(Robert Rondak):	I’m assuming, (Robert Rondak) again, I’m assuming
based on our conversation that we’re not included at least not in the
intent of this. 

Andy Levinson:	So I think the right way to ask about it is in a way that
Sarah just answered which is, if you both are covered by OSHA for these
sorts of duties and activities. And OSHA is not included from having
authority and jurisdiction like other federal law. Then you would be
covered. 

	We have not gone into that level of detail now to say railroad people
are covered under FRA and they’re not covered from these sorts of
functions. We’d (have to do that type of analysis) It’s an important
question. 

Rick Ingram:	Bill.

Bill Warren:	Yes, I had actually an experience for this here two years
ago with a complaint from a railroad worker in which we had to work for
the FRA, the Federal Railroad Administration regarding the specifics of
doing some industrial hygiene testing for dust.

	And what we found out is that the, according to the safety division of
the FRA, they cover from the roadbed of the tracks to the caboose and to
the train itself. And they expect OSHA to cover external to that. 

	So we were able to go into one of the railroads and do samplings and
inspections but it was limited to the area external to where the roadbed
and the tracks were.

	So that foray explained to us, I have a letter from one of their
attorneys that identified that, you know they control for employee
safety anything that’s on the train, anything in the caboose and
anything on the tracks and that OSHA, federal OSHA and then in our case
their state plan covered external to that.

	So just to give you some kind of view, so I think he does have a point.
Some of that may affect that, some of it might be depended upon the
jurisdictional boundaries between FRA and OSHA. But I can tell you that
we have done that in the past. 

(Robert Rondak):	And you raise a very important point. One of the
reasons that it’s a long time since we talked to a lot of people, this
is still, this is earlier in the topic. It was potentially (a public
place). (Unintelligible) process. So we will absolutely look into that
and see where OSHA and FRA have drawn lines in the past. 

(Cheryl):	This is (Cheryl) again. I took some stuff down from OSHA’s
Web site about jurisdiction and authority with railroads. The idea
behind it is, as Andy said, we’re not going to be granting the Federal
Railroad Act. But to the (expense) of the Federal Railroad Act, if it
doesn’t cover something we cover that immediately.

	Not because we’re so desperate for the jurisdiction but we don’t
want anyone left without protection. So we come right up to the, you
know, up against each other so that nothing is left apart. Because it
was a (huge topic last time).

 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Thank you for coming and thank you for that comment. 

Lamont Byrd:	All right. Are there any thoughts or comments about
anything that we’ve covered thus far that cannot wait until tomorrow?
That being said, this is Lamont Byrd, we can adjourn for the evening.
Have a good evening. Thank you. 

						END

NWX-DOL OSHA 

Moderator: Gretta Jameson

09-07-16/7:23 am CT

Confirmation #9948763

Page   PAGE  1 

