 

 

 

 

 

NWX-DOL OSHA

 

Moderator: Gretta Jameson

September 8, 2016

7:30 am CT

 

 

Coordinator:	The operator, I’d like to inform all participants that
today’s conference is now being recorded. If there are any objections,
you may disconnect at this time. Thank you, you may begin. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I’m going to start off the recording and hand over the meeting.
One of the things I put on your desk today was an outline of page
numbers that makes things easier to find, and some outlines of page
numbers and the other document which is a (unintelligible) of what we
finished – essentially what we finished up with yesterday, so you have
a hard copy of what’s on the screen at this moment that we finished up
yesterday. 

Woman:	Okay. 

Man:	My question – so and it’s (unintelligible) incorporate
there’s a couple things there they told me to do that was
administrative. (James) and I had a day job (unintelligible), but I
couldn’t (unintelligible). I got notes that I wrote down afterwards
and put that in, so we’ll get to that later but what you have is a
hard copy of what was currently done, what we finished up –
essentially what we finished up yesterday. And with any luck that’s…


((Crosstalk))

Woman:	That’s not what you said yesterday. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	As I said, one of the things which I don’t have at this point,
(unintelligible) relevant, I took out the one that had the phone
numbers, but we didn’t make them available here in the room because we
didn’t want the public to have them, they’re not public, and
(unintelligible) go print it out so that you all have a current copy of
everybody’s phone numbers and what have you and so you can call and
harass each other after the meeting’s over. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	… reunion after, periodic reunions?

Man:	Sure. At your house? 

Man:	Sure, you bring the beer, I’ll host. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, good morning, everyone, if we could reconvene our meeting.
Okay, thank you. I’d like to start off by thanking Sarah for bringing
us the nice pastries, you know, and I think that…

Sarah Shorthall:	I’m going to be – this is Sarah Shorthall. I’m
going to be looking at everyone today to make sure there’s always a
plate. I’m not going home with any baked goods. 

Man:	Yes, as we get started I’d like us to just for the record
introduce ourselves again, we could start with Victor. 

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

Matthew Tobia:	Good morning, Matthew Tobia representing the
International Association of Fire Chiefs, and I’m from Louden County,
Virginia Fire Department. 

Bill Warren:	Bill Warren with the Arizona division of Occupational
Safety and Health. 

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

(Ken Vought):	(Ken Vought), no National Volunteer Fire Council. 

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

(Spencer Schwangler):	(Spencer Schwangler), North American Building
Trades Unions, CPWR. 

(John Morrison):	I’m (John Morrison) with the International
Association of Fire Fighters. 

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

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette with NFPA. 

Lisa Delaney:	Lisa Delaney with the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health. 

Mark Hageman:	Mark Hageman with OSHA and I am the alternate designated
federal official. 

(Gale Melonford):	(Gale Melonford) with international brothers of
teamsters and labor member of NACOSH. 

Rick Ingram:	Rick Ingram, VP America and Houston and management member
of NACOSH and also represent the National Steps Network. 

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, office of the solicitor NACOSH
council. 

Man:	Okay…

Bill Hamilton:	Bill Hamilton, OSHA. 

((Crosstalk))

(Chalonne Cox):	(Chalonne Cox), OSHA. 

Man:	Say that again.

((Crosstalk))

(Chalonne Cox):	(Chalonne Cox), OSHA. 

(Gabriella Arcot):	(Gabriella Arcot), OSHA. 

(Henry):	Your audio man, (Henry). 

Man:	Okay, thank you very much. I’d like to – before Mark gives you
instructions just remind you that we need to announce ourselves, our
names prior to speaking and speak into the mike for the
transcriptionist. Thank you.

Mark Hageman:	Okay, thank you, I don’t know if I need to do all the
same stuff I did yesterday, I guess I should. Okay, so fire alarm goes
off, out the exit, down the stairs, out the building. If we have a
shelter in place we stay right here and our supplies are over there.
Bathrooms out the doors on either side, most of you are aware of all of
this, elevators right out there, a bank of elevators. 

	Fourth floor, snack bar, sixth floor cafeteria for all the yummy DOL
treats, food and drinks. Just a couple of things I wanted to mention
this morning, so I got a call from (Andy) this morning and his back went
out on him last night. He is struggling a bit this morning, he may or
may not make it in. He’s going to see how he feels over the next hour
or so and see if he can make it in. So if he doesn’t make it you’re
going to be stuck with me for today. 

	The other thing I guess for the record, I need to mention is this SO
– if I end up being here all day, I have to be out for about a half an
hour this afternoon to go talk to (Faye Cox) who’s meeting today,
which is our Federal Advisory Committee, so we need to officially make
Bill Hamilton the alternate alternate DFO for that period of time and
also for tomorrow morning when I won’t be here, and if (Andy)
doesn’t make it in tomorrow morning, so whatever we need to do to make
that official, Sarah, (Bill) will be the alternate alternate.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, (Andy Levinson) designated Bill
Hamilton last week to be another alternate DFO for this week. 

Mark Hageman:	Okay, thank you. Just prior to our meeting starting, I –
we had an opportunity to talk with Bill Hamilton and (Bill) had asked if
we’d revisit page 17 to make sure that we’d covered a couple of
issues that are still outstanding there. 

Bill Hamilton:	Bill Hamilton, so in the July meeting just we’d talked
about including mayday and rapid intervention teams training, and so
this is where it went. I put it in here, we kind of skimmed over it
yesterday, but I wanted to make sure everybody was okay with that and
then – and on the screen there’s also the – there was a mentioning
to look at July to include the NFTA 1670 for confined space awareness
training. So make sure that everybody was okay with that before I just
accepted the change. 

Man:	So we’re on Roman numeral V, regarding…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	For mayday and RIT procedures? 

Bill Hamilton:	Yes, sir, yes. So if you would take a quick look at that,
along with Roman numeral VII, make sure that we’re – we’ve
captured what you thought on all of that. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, any thoughts or comments about those – either of
those sections. 

Matthew Tobia:	(Unintelligible), I’d comply with (unintelligible)
number VII that if we’re referencing an FDA (unintelligible) in
addition to (unintelligible). I’ll find out, okay, that has to be
added (unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, any other – thank you, Matt. Any other comments,
Bill Warren? 

Bill Warren:	(Unintelligible) that also includes all the requirements
for the complaint (unintelligible). 

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill Hamilton, it’s not an awareness training
for you know, confined space in there, because it’s an operational
standard, so – and if the intent of this is to be aware not to go in
it. 

Man:	I would just think most places (unintelligible) train your specific
(unintelligible) interests require other – to train other employees
(unintelligible). 

Man:	Okay, okay. 

Bill Hamilton:	Ken Willette. 

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette, and I think the language of both 5 and 7 is
good. We just note that we do not include the definition of mayday or
confined space in the terms earlier in the document, and it might be
good to have a definition for each of those. 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, any other – any thoughts about (Ken)’s
recommendation? Kathy Robinson. 

Kathy Robinson:	Kathy Robinson here, you know, I would like to agree
with what (Ken) said about that. I think we’ve repeatedly mentioned in
previous sessions that terms that are very common to the fire service
are not necessarily common to other disciplines and that defining those
would certainly make sense and clarify what’s meant by that language. 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, thank you, Kathy. Any other thoughts or comments? 

Lisa Delaney:	This is Lisa Delaney. I wonder if you wanted to reference
the specific sections and the text related to IMS and accountability
like we do – say you reference specifically paragraph L as it goes to
the top about rapid intervention teams, you want to do the same for IMS
and accountability, some – which I don’t know which section that is
off the top of my head. That would be section M, it’s incident
management. I don’t know where – I know accountability’s addressed
in one of these sections as well. Yes, accountability is N. Good. 

Man:	What page is that? 

Man:	Yes, you know what? 

Lisa Delaney:	According…

Man:	Oh, okay, so according to the…

Lisa Delaney:	Yes, according to the – that outline. 

Bill Hamilton:	That would be page 31. Okay, thank you, Lisa. So do we
want to reference you know, to be consistent or any thoughts about it? 

Man:	(Unintelligible) do you think it would read better if we got a lot
of this handled (unintelligible) management system and accountability
and mayday and rapid response, we do not need this little
(Unintelligible) management system (unintelligible) mayday, comma, and
rapid responses. 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, any thoughts about that – does that clean that
up? 

Lisa Delaney:	So this is Lisa Delaney, and I think it’s a clunky
sentence that I don’t think that we need to spend our time
wordsmithing, but I would just recommend that you could tighten it up. 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay. 

Lisa Delaney:	Because in the first part of the sentence is train and
then the second part is ensure that training includes. I mean, why
don’t you just restructure it to say training as a responder in X, Y,
Z, on down the list? 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, thank you. I guess that can be a little action
item. Any other comments or thoughts? 

Man:	(Unintelligible) Lisa’s comment on page 22 under section I
believe it’s L, where it talks about policies related to the rapid
intervention teams and – oh, I just had it a moment ago – rapid
intervention teams and evacuations, I think, that’s a part of what
you’re talking about, but that reference on page 17. 

Bill Hamilton:	You said on page 22? 

Man:	Yes, I thought it was 22 but I may have had that wrong. One second,
I’ll find it. It’s section L, I know that. 

Bill Hamilton:	Section L. 

Woman:	Page 24… 

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	Yes, section L begins on page 25. 

Man:	Yes, it is page 26, my apologies. The – section 6, establish an
info members (unintelligible) accountability systems, and then number 7,
establish procedures for mayday situations. Okay? 

Bill Hamilton:	So Lisa, your recommendation was to reference this on
page 17. 

Lisa Delaney:	Yes, correct, so I think there’s several times in the
standard where you reference back to the other section that actually
outlines the content, so that’s what I was recommending because it
already was partially done in that statement where you’re – the
referencing back from paragraph L for the mayday and rapid intervention
team procedures that you don’t have a reference back on the standard
to accountability system or the instant management system. 

Man:	Okay, thank you, I understand. 

Matthew Tobia:	(Lamont), I think (unintelligible) – I think Lisa has a
good point, just I think it’s an action item, let staff work offline.
I think the conceptual idea is that we wanted to ensure that personnel
receive training in mayday and rapid intervention team procedures that I
think everyone is in agreement about that. 

	And I think that the reference to NSDA 1670 was simply a recognition
that there’s nothing in the OSHA regs relating to awareness level
training for confined spaces, so there is a corresponding awareness
level training in 1670 and that just provides guidance to those who are
affected by the regulation on where they can go to get that level of
training or meet that requirement. 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, thank you, Matt. Any other comments or questions,
thoughts about section Roman numeral 5 and 7 on page 17, or we’re good
with that pending the action items? Okay, I see affirmative – okay.
This is Bill Hamilton, on page 18, near the top, Roman number 3, it had
the equivalent – not having a specific standard to look at as an
equivalent per se for other emergency vehicles other than heavy
apparatus, there are – should we just put in equivalent emergency
vehicle operator qualifications based on the type of vehicle the
responder drives or operates? Kathy Robinson? 

Kathy Robinson:	Thank you very much. I’m very supportive of the
language as (Bill)’s presented it there. I think that there’s a lot
of different initiatives across country in regards to defensive driving
courses and those sorts of things for ambulances and to inadvertently
exclude them would be a disservice to what we’re trying to accomplish,
so I think that that is well done and I thank you for including it. 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, any – Bill Troop. 

Bill Troop:	(Truth), US fire administration, with regards to that
chapter should we put something in there regarding meeting requirements
of state law and regulation, specifically some states may require
commercial driver’s licenses, and an example, one state requires
specific state level certification for EMS drivers. 

Kathy Robinson:	If the state requires something, the state requires
something. We don’t need to restate state requirements. Is there a
short answer? 

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	Any other thoughts or comments about Roman numeral three
on page 18, and thank you for your comment, too, Kathy. We’re good?
Okay, Bill Hamilton, page 22, Roman IX, and the attempt was – there
was – looking for some other description or terminology other than
growth decontaminated, and discussing this at the July meeting had
centered around hosing or brushing off, and so I wrote that as this is a
tough and temporary as an ID for to replace (unintelligible)
contaminated. 

	And to the extent feasible, in that if they cannot – if it’s
something that cannot be hosed or brushed off, like asbestos or anthrax
or something where it just needs to be bagged, then they would not to a
gross decontamination, they would bag it, but I think there was some
other thoughts on that, and…

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram. I had made a note yesterday,
(Bill), about the gross decontamination definition or gross
decontamination and I was hoping that we’d be able to put something in
there about depending or depending upon the potential contamination or
exposure, really what we’re talking about is exposure to the workers,
so depending on likely contaminants and potential exposure. 

	So you know, if it’s asbestos or silica or you know, (unintelligible)
silica or anything like that, we want to – you know, we want to try to
recognize that and then bag it and not try to clean it up. 

Bill Hamilton:	So – Bill Hamilton – so you’re – are you okay
with ensure PPE has large contaminants removed by hosing or brushing off
etcetera to the extent feasible and then adding something after that,
dependent upon the contaminant? 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro. You know, I think one is you
know, when you – how do you define large contaminants as opposed to
small? I mean, there’s all kinds of issues. I think the intent here is
to separate contaminated equipment and gear from the workers, so I think
if we had said something to the effect of to the degree feasible or
something like that, separate contaminated equipment and gear from
worker or from you know, from where the personnel are, and then when
known hazardous contaminated gear needs to be separated and bagged and
cleaned appropriately. 

	And then probably point back to the standards, the part of the standard
that talks about cleaning gear and all of that, just a thought there.
Just I think maybe make it more – allow the DSO to figure out how
they’re going to separate the contaminated gear from the worker. 

Victor Stagnaro:	And I’ll add this again, Victor Stagnaro, this is –
I know there’s some jurisdictions where they’ve started doing the
hosing of gear and there’s local regulations related to – you
can’t just let that go into the drain system, and so I think if we
need to be just kind of generally I get the idea that we want to set the
gear that’s contaminated away from the firefighter, or the responder.

Rick Ingram:	Now this is Rick Ingram again and I agree with Victor, and
I’m a little bit nervous about putting in any type of cleaning like
hosing or brushing. I think that you know, the idea is just separate it
from the workers and then I do – you know, just when you mentioned
asbestos it kind of made me think about you know, so if there’s known
contaminants that PPE needs to be bagged. That could be hazardous to the
worker. 

Ken Fontenot:	Ken Fontenot. This is a – this can (unintelligible) a
little bit of a catch 22 situation, is that we – on the one hand we
have PPE that’s been contaminated by hazardous material from
byproducts of normal house fires, and on the other hand when PPE has
been contaminated from hazardous material events and such, and it’s
hard to make a distinction because quote, one is still hazardous. 

	The intent I believe is on regular working house fires to get as clean
as possible to get it back on the rig, and bagging each set of bunking
gear is not in my mind a feasible thing to do from a house fire. And how
we put that into words is going to be a little bit tricky, because by
definitions they’re both hazardous and they both have been
contaminated. 

	I don’t really have an answer right now but I think we really should
figure it out, that what we’re talking about is to prevent the cancer
issue from growing or trying to stop it from – byproducts of
combustion in a structure fire is the goal of this statement I believe.
We’re not dealing with quote hazmat in this particular instance. 

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, Rick mentioned about – or whoever it
was about not wanting to say anything about the specific way in which it
was removed. I would agree with that because it turns more into a
specification standard than a performance standard, so I want to suggest
if this will be possible, ensure that contaminants are removed from PPE,
or PPE is separately contained to prevent exposure before leaving the
incident scene. 

	So you get containing or the removing the contaminants before you leave
the scene. You don’t even need to put in the words if it’s feasible,
because it always says that defense. 

Man:	This is (Unintelligible). Can you – can we put a statement in
there that the intent then is to on the scene remove the major
contaminants from you know, from a structure fire and not to deal with
the hazmat contamination, and is that something we can clarify, or…? 

Sarah Shorthall:	I think your best clarification might be in the
preamble where you explain what the intent is, and you know…

Man:	What the intent is. I believe that we’re all in agreement as to
the intent, right? 

Sarah Shorthall:	I think you just want to give a concept of remove those
from the PPEs or contain them to prevent exposure before you leave the
scene, and leave the two (unintelligible) or whoever if the commander
decides what way they want (unintelligible) that, that means they’re
truly performance based.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. Sarah, could you just repeat your
suggested language? I think I’m very supportive of it, I just want to
hear it one more time. 

Sarah Shorthall:	Sure, ensure that contained – contaminants on PPE are
removed – excuse me, ensure that contaminants are removed from PPE or
separately contain the PPE – oh, I’m sorry, certainly. Sarah
Shorthall, ensure that contaminants are removed from PPE or that the PPE
is separately contained to prevent exposure before leaving the incident
scene. 

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia, I would support that. 

Lisa Delaney:	So this is Lisa Delaney, I just had one question. Should
we be more specific when we talk about contaminants, like – so I’m
just wordsmithing a little bit saying visible particulates, or just
leave it at contaminants? And I don’t know if that could be…

Man:	I would – I mean, I think what we’re trying to get to – I
would leave it as generic as possible, I really would, because other
regulatory text addresses flood borne pathogens or other pathogens,
hazardous material standard addresses the issue of hazardous materials.
I think what we’re really trying to do is just generically identify
that to the greatest extent possible contaminants should be separated
from workers to reduce the likelihood of exposure. And I think that’s
the performance that we’re looking for. 

Bill Hamilton:	And you are? 

Matthew Tobia:	Matthew Tobia. 

Bill Hamilton:	Thank you. Okay, thank you. 

(John Morrison):	(John Morrison), IFF. Sarah, the only part about that
that I’m not sure that I know the reader will be reading into this,
that to ensure contaminants, it’s going to be very difficult to ensure
that contaminants – all the contaminants are taken care of at the same
– and PPE, and especially in a fire, you’re going to have gases,
you’re going to have other things that are going to be on that PPE. 

	And gross decon as they – it’s just a term that we all – I guess
we all associate with knowing that all we’re trying to do is –
you’re actually just washing off your gear from the normal – you
know, from an everyday house fire, so I don’t know if gross decon is
just something that we can’t use. I mean, it’s very accepted in the
fire service. Gross decon means that you hose off, you brush off, you
might even soap sud that but you’re doing something right there at the
scene before you get into your apparatus, before you do that. 

	And I agree, we have to – we don’t want to make this that you have
to bag all your equipment because most people don’t have two sets of
gear, so you’ve actually taken you know, firefighters out of service
if you take that gear, but gross decon sort of means that we’re trying
to get as much off as we can without ensuring that all the contaminants
– because we’ll never get all the contaminants off that site,
that’s why.

Matthew Tobia:	And I agree with you – this is Matthew Tobia – and I
agree with what you’re saying. Sarah, I know that you said that the
language is implied, but can you just reinforce why the words to the
extent feasible do not need to be part of the regulatory text? 

Sarah Shorthall:	A defense to any noncompliance, one of the defenses is
the inability to comply because it’s not feasible or creates a greater
hazard, now that of course is on the burden of the clerk to show that,
and you certainly can include the language in here. You make it –
however by doing so, you make it to the extent where every
(unintelligible) to the extent feasible, and either down here you have
to the extent feasible. 

	You certainly can add it, there’s no harm in doing it, you could say
ensure to the extent feasible that contaminants are removed from PPE or
PPE is separately contained to prevent exposure before leaving the
incident scene. You certainly can add that, but even if you don’t,
that is automatically included in there. You certainly can call it gross
contaminants in that situation. 

	We need to define the term because it may be known to you but not known
to others, and not known to our compliance officers who would out – be
out there enforcing the standards, so maybe if (Pat) wants to include
gross contaminants, maybe you could come up with a definition for that. 

	We certainly can also explain in the preamble what our intent is.
We’re not talking about sparkly pleats, we’re talking about removing
you know, your contaminants. I think earlier ones that would be able to
be seen, your standard procedure of cleaning things off before you leave
the scene. 

Pat Morrison:	Pat Morrison, I agree, Sarah, but I’m just trying to
that – gross decon I think even in the private sector it’s a word
that is used and in the firefighting it’s used, it basically is
something that is I think pretty well understood, very well understood
in the fire service, so I don’t want – you know, I think in this
language we just want to make sure that there are two things, either you
do gross decon, or you bag your equipment.

	It really is just – it’s either or, I think, I don’t even think
there’s a third point there. If you have another set of gear you’re
just – well if you’re going to bag your gear, if you feel better
doing that, so Rick, I do agree that there might be some hazmat. In the
hazmat world there is the decon process that becomes a little bit more
elaborate because we’re actually deconning, capturing that source and
then transporting that source back. 

	In this we’re basically – basically you just – you’re hosing
off firefighters, you’re scrubbing them down a little bit, you’re
just getting all that particulate out that we really want to maintain,
so I don’t know how else to say it, other than what (Bill) just did. 

((Crosstalk))

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. So my only concern is we’re
really talking about two different things. We’re talking about
structural firefighting gear and then all the PPE that the rest of the
world wears in the ESO world, so – and I think we’re trying to fit,
honestly, a round peg into a square hole. The – and that makes for in
my mind nearly impossible regulatory taxes. 

	So I would just offer that what we’re really trying to do is I think
is what the performance expectation is, and that is to the greatest
extent feasible separate gross contaminants from the PPE and keep
workers separated from contaminated PPE. I think – you know, I know
that it is generally understood in the industry that gross decon is
gross decon. I definitely don’t think that we should get into the
prescriptive world of saying hosing or brushing. 

	You know, and I think that the myriad potential exposures that are out
there make it difficult to identify what circumstances we want them to
do gross decon and what circumstances we don’t want them to do gross
decon. I think you know, I think Sarah’s language is strong in terms
of what we’re trying to get to, and you know, certainly you know,
support the idea of to the extent feasible and you know, if (Pat) wants
to you know, offer up – offer the inclusion of gross decontamination
perfectly appropriate. But beyond that, I think we’re going down a
rabbit hole. 

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram again, just a couple of points, we
don’t have a G in our definitions anymore, so we could put a G for
gross decontamination in our definition. That would be simple to do I
think. That would cover you know, the industry definition so that other
people that read this would understand that, and then so to me that
would make sense. 

	So if it’s a likely used industry term, that might be good for other
people to know what that is anyway, for other services. And then the
other thing is I’m still a little bit concerned about if we could –
whether we could put a little bit of language in there, just a few words
about if the ESO determines or suspects hazardous materials to you know,
basically use their judgment to separate it. And maybe you’ve already
got that covered, I didn’t – I just wanted to throw that back out
there one more time before we leave this. 

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, okay, (Pat), I have an idea here. For
9, if we went with the language on it mentioned here, one thing we could
do is add a title to that section, even if it’s just – and we could
call it gross decontamination, and then say ensure that contaminants
blah blah blah, and then get your term in there, but you explain it in
writing. 

Pat Morrison:	That sounds – I mean it’s – Pat Morrison,
firefighters, that’s completely acceptable to be. I want to throw
another wrench in there, I want to – well, let me…

Sarah Shorthall:	You’re going to put our – well just let me add –
you are going to have to explain, if you use the word gross
decontaminated you’re going to have to explain it, so if you think
it’s not going to be sufficient to simply say gross decontaminated and
go back to a definition or only to the preamble to explain all of that. 

Pat Morrison:	Yes, Pat Morrison again, this is – I know it sounds kind
of simple, but this is probably one of the most important things as far
as you know, one of the (unintelligible) prevention sites that we’re
trying to do. The other wrench I want to throw in, too, Sarah and I’m
acceptable, I accept that language, I think it’s fine. 

	But if somebody else has some other things to add, what we are finding
and we just finished some studies, that the coming out of a house fire
the PPE absorbs gases into the material and studies that are just
recently coming out now is that there’s an off-gassing effect, and the
off-gassing is done just on a natural way where air gets around it, air
sets off gasses, you know, those off gasses leave that and what we’re
trying to do, and this is just maybe for later, is that sometimes that
gear might not be in the apparatus. 

	It might be in a separate compartment until you get back, but the
studies that we are finding is that it doesn’t – it’s only a
couple of hours and then that gas gets off of that. That’s from the
Illinois study, (Gavin Horn) and (Denise Smith) and nine auction (Kenny
Finn), but they are finding that we get in the most contaminated piece
of equipment in the fire service is your apparatus cab, and if you can
just see that everybody gets on it, you have maybe sometimes four or
five people in that cab. 

	And if they didn’t do gross decon at the scene, if they’re just in
there after a fire, that becomes the most hazardous place that a
firefighter actually you know, is transported to and from, from a number
of calls there too. So that might be separate, maybe we can talk about
that later. I know we have to get through this one so I don’t want to
complicate it, but I wanted to bring that issue up. 

Bill Hamilton:	Kenn Fontenot. 

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn Fontenot, and we’re struggling with two
different things here. We’re talking about cleaning up some stuff that
is then feasible after a structure fire, and also contaminated gear from
hazardous material – other hazardous materials. 

	And I would like if possible we could put something that says what our
intent is to clean up after a structure fire, to return back into
service, and perhaps a statement saying that a contaminated PPE from
other hazardous materials referred to 1910120 and then let it rock and
roll from there where you go to you know, your quarters and everything
else. 

	And that makes it simpler in my mind, because there’s a whole lot of
times you’re going to wear structure gear and hazardous materials
that’ll have to be deconned in a separate process, that the majority
of what we’re trying to do now is just clean it up after we work a
structure fire. Well, perhaps we would put some sort of qualifier in
there with that. 

Bill Hamilton:	Thank you, (Ken). Bill Warren? 

Bill Warren:	Yes, my only question, then, is that you know, outside of
the structural world in the hazmat world is the – well the firefighter
world and their PPE and clothing is totally different in the way that
they approach and attack the fire. They also don’t have issues with
decontamination also, and I just wanted to make sure that whatever we do
is incorporated in all of the emergency services so that it affects
everybody. 

	So I don’t know how we do that, I don’t know how we groom that out,
I don’t want to see it separated, but I think we need to take a global
approach to this section, to be inclusive of all those EMS emergency
responders that would be responding to you know, a location, even in the
wildland firefighting industry there are opportunities for this to look
at structural firefighting or at least prevention of a home or something
like that burning. So as long as we’re all inclusive of all the
services that are there I think it’s – I think it would be good. 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, thank you, (Bill). So Kenn Fontenot, this is Lamont
Byrd raised the issue of there being – you got the hazmat component
and then you’ve got the fire contamination, fire-related
contamination. So Sarah, would it be – would this be something we
could actually provide that type of explanation in the preamble, or…? 

Sarah Shorthall:	Yes, sure, that’s what your preamble is for, to give
the various permutations, what does this mean for structural fires, what
does this mean for wildfires, and what you’re capturing is the broad
language that could include both. I mean, I don’t know, (Bill), if in
wildfires you use the term gross contaminants or not. If you do, you
could call the whole thing gross contaminants, you know, what you’re
trying to do is remove those gross – which is where you’d start in
the first place. 

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. I think the language that (Bill)
has provided is actually effective in nine. I think that’s really
getting to the heart of what we’re trying to accomplish, and you know,
this is a new area for emergency services and I think that given the
fact that there is so much that is still unknown and yet to be learned,
although it’s clearly an emerging issue important enough to make it
into the regulatory text, I think generic language like this allows for
us to be able to say that’s our intent without prescribing how
that’s done. 

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram and I totally agree with that. I
think (Bill)’s doing a wonderful job getting that language in there. 

Bill Hamilton:	Victor? 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro, I agree, I think the –
it’s the wording is good, I would back to Sarah’s point, I would
like to take out the – well, you already did, the to the extent
feasible, no you didn’t. I think that as an ESO looking at it, if I
have to the extent feasible then I may be, well, it’s just not
feasible in my realm so I’m not going to do it, I – if it’s not in
there I may not be happy about it, but I’ll figure out a way to make
it happen. 

Bill Hamilton:	Any other thoughts or comments? 

Lamont Byrd:	Are we removing to the extent feasible? Because – this is
Lamont Byrd. I think that (Pat) raised a really interesting point in
terms of that the gear, the contaminated gear contributes to such a
significant exposure for firefighters post-incident, so you know, I
would think that we would want you know, the standard practice would be
to do the decontamination. So one other question that I have, is so we
need to develop a definition of gross decontamination? 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, great. Any other thoughts or comments? 

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. I just think this is – in talking to
(Dr. Michaels) yesterday I told him how well this workgroup works
together, and even though we’re getting close to the end that we’re
really taking time, everybody’s taking time to thoughtfully discuss
these things. I mean, we just spent 30 minutes on one sentence, and
that’s a testament to how important this is to us, and I just want to
say thanks to the team, great job. 

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, you may have done it faster than OSHA
does. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So, Bill Hamilton, have we gone over the things you wanted to make
sure we covered the bases on? Was there anything else hanging out there
from your perspective? 

Bill Hamilton:	So I think the next thing I have is we’re getting into
SOPs – well, there might be one more on page 25, two others. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, okay, so let’s take a look on page 25, under number
2, the section beginning OSHA will deem an ESO demonstrating compliance,
take a quick look at that and make sure we’re okay. This is Lamont
Byrd. Matt?

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt, I just want to make sure I understand the
intent of the – of number two, and that is that the intent of this
regulatory text is to provide guidance to ESOs that they are meeting the
requirements set forth in K by doing these things, is that – that’s
how I read the text, is that correct? 

Lamont Byrd:	That’s – this is Lamont Byrd. That’s how I would read
it, Matt. 

Bill Hamilton:	Ken, Ken Willette.

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette, and as I look at paragraph 2, it’s that
all three of those have demonstrated compliance? Okay, and the second
– a second comment, what I don’t see in here and I know we did have
some conversation, especially relative to West Texas and that being a
motivator for some of this conversation, I don’t see any reference
back to tier two reporting or anything that the information that’s
being provided through the EPA reporting process, that should be an
important component of pre-incident planning for local communities. 

	And don’t know if that’s been discussed here or anyplace else
within the documents, but it seems this would be a natural place to
include that to encourage the local ESO to participate in that risk
communication process with the – those who are reporting through the
Sarah title two program. 

Victor Stagnaro:	Victor, this is Victor Stagnaro, (Ken), in section E
that is addressed and in section K if I have that letter correct, refers
back to E and in E it says that any facility that’s required for Sarah
title 2 or 3 has to be – has to have a pre-incident plan, and it has
to be included in the vulnerability assessment. 

Bill Hamilton:	(Ken), Bill Hamilton, this is one of the things that
(Andy) likes to call safe harbors, and that is if you comply with 1620
then you’re deemed to be in compliance with this section or this
paragraph of the standards. So you don’t have to meet all the things
that we say here if you meet 1620. And so…

Matthew Tobia:	Right, and – this is Matthew Tobia, just to clarify
this is – it does very specifically say the meeting complies with the
corresponding requirements of the paragraph, so the intent is to ensure
that you know, if you are you know, responsible for assessing you know,
wildland urban interface, that that – you could meet that requirement
by meeting that part of the standard. So I think the intent, I think
it’s good clarifying language to provide guidance for ESOs. 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, any other comments or thoughts? Bill Warren? 

Bill Warren:	Bill Warren, Arizona, I’m just trying to remember what
the you know national wildland fire fight group, I think they have
directives also that may be very similar to the ASPA, and I was
wondering if we should at least identify it in that safe harbor bill, at
least whatever that directive is, and I just off the top of my head
can’t remember what it may or may not be, so I’m just curious about
that. 

Man:	I think we – didn’t we discuss that a couple of meetings ago? 

Bill Warren:	There’s – I think we did. 

Man:	There’s – where there was not specific requirements similar to
what we have in there in the wildlands, and whatever their initiatives
that they had, I think that we looked through that and it wasn’t like
– and again it could be considered corresponding requirements for
pre-incident planning per se as we address it here. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I talked about it, I just can’t remember what it is. 

Man:	Okay, and that was Bill Hamilton. 

Bill Hamilton:	Oh, yes, sorry. 

Rick Ingram:	Yes, this is Rick Ingram. I just wanted to circle back to
(Ken). Since you haven’t been here, and make sure that you’re
comfortable with the reference back to e-reg and that language actually
being included in here because that is key language. 

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette, I think this is a great opportunity to
highlight that information wherever possible, and again falling back to
West Texas but again that’s an event that’s been replicated several
times and from here and from the hazardous material industry, they say
one of their biggest challenges is getting the local responder community
to engage in the dialogue, to take advantage of the information, and to
understand the risks. 

	

	And I know we make the circular reference back to paragraph B, but I
think this is a great opportunity for a known – for several events
that have had tragic responder consequences to highlight as a key, and
it doesn’t have to be anyone’s new task, it’s information that’s
already out there. We have people who are willing to partner with the
responder community and get out there and engage with them and provide
the information. 

	And I think we would be doing a great service if we could really
highlight that and direct the responder community to take that
information and bring it into their operational plans. So my inkling,
long answer I guess for it, my inkling is that if we can highlight it
with this language on pre-incident planning a little more specific than
just the reference back to E, that would be my comfort level. 

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick, just reading through the language in E, is
there one particular section in there or paragraph that we might be able
to cut and paste and place in a…

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes, this is Victor Stagnaro, if you look at page 10,
letter B, I think we could probably just cut and paste that entire
paragraph, place it somewhere in the pre-incident planning section and
just include the wording that a pre-incident plan will be done on those
facilities as outlined in section B. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, this is Lamont Byrd. Ken Willette, does that get it
done for you? 

Ken Willette:	Yes, this is Ken Willette, it does, thank you, Victor. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, all right, is there any further discussion on Victor’s
recommendation? (Grady)? 

(Grady):	This is (Grady), I apologize. I came in and I’m stirring it
up back here. First occasion, question (unintelligible). 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. So we’re going to the recommendation is on page 11,
no I’m sorry, page 10 – this is Lamont Byrd – under Roman numeral
II, B was that, Victor? 

Victor Stagnaro:	Roman numeral I, B, so it’s at the top of the page
– this is Victor Stagnaro – it’s the top of the page on page 10,
all facilities within the response area that are subject to reporting
requirements under the emergency planning and community right to know
act also known as the super fund amendment and reauthorization act of
1986, Sarah will be included in the ESO’s community risk and
vulnerability assessment. 

Man:	Okay, so that’s Roman numeral 2B, at the top of – about the
first quarter of page 10. 

Victor Stagnaro:	Right. Actually I think it’s 1B, but yes. Top of page
10. 

Man:	Right before (unintelligible). 

Man:	Well we’re working on the same – okay, I get what you’re –
highlight that, so we’ll make that an action item. Is everybody okay
with that? Okay, thank you. (Bill), are you (unintelligible), or no? 

Bill Hamilton:	We already – this is Bill Hamilton, we came – see if
– what’s the action item? Probably something somewhere, yes, I’m
sorry, I was trying to make sense of it, but go ahead. 

Man:	Okay, I’m looking at page 10. 

Bill Hamilton:	Page 10. 

Man:	And according to the copy I’m looking at it would be Roman
numeral 2B, all facilities within the response area. That’s…

Man:	Right, (unintelligible). 

Victor Stagnaro:	So this is Victor Stagnaro. 

Man:	Yes, yes. 

Victor Stagnaro:	I think I’m pretty square on it, if you want us to
break, I’ll get with (Bill) and we’ll get it in there and then
revisit it again. 

Man:	Okay, okay, okay, thank you. 

Victor Stagnaro:	1-2I-B. 

Man:	Yes, yes, yes, okay, I got you. We’re running a little slow this
morning. 

Victor Stagnaro:	So the action item, Bill Hamilton, is to cut and paste
that language into the – is it the PIT section on page 22? 25. 25, 25.
Page 25. It could be Roman numeral 9. 

Man:	Okay, so we’re going to make on page 25, Roman numeral 9 will be
the language that was taken from page 10. We have an action item.
Page…

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, any other thoughts or questions, everyone good with
the action item? Okay, thank you. I think that brings us up to where we
stopped yesterday, and Rick? 

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Let’s take a ten-minute break and we’ll come back in at
about 5 until 10, and we’ll start where we left off yesterday. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, everybody. Testing, one, two, three. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Bill), do you want to review what you did there, or can we go
ahead and start? 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, Bill Hamilton, so now in – on page 24 in
pre-planning, pre-incident planning K1, I added – well I put a new –
it’s a new III, it made sense in the sequence of how things work to
put it there and so the ESO shall prepare a pre-plan for each facility
within the ESO’s service area that is subject to reporting
requirements under the emergency planning and community right to know
act, also known as the super-fund amendment and reauthorization act of
1986, SARA. SARA, (unintelligible), SARA. And then renumbered the other
items after that, so that’s essentially the language pulled from the
establishing services chapter and section E. 

Man:	All right, Mr. Willette, does that satisfy your request? 

Ken Willette:	Yes, Ken Willette, yes it does, thank you, (Bill). 

Sarah Shorthall:	This is Sarah Shorthall, Mr. Co-chair, at this point
I’d like to enter the record two exhibits, the exhibit 7, the 9716
draft number 7 emergency response preparedness program standard exists
under 8 and 9716 outlines of the draft emergency responder preparedness
program standard. 

Man:	All right, so at this time we’ll start back – so we had
finished – we had started in emergency incident operations yesterday,
and I believe we had renamed that section and so all those changes were
in there I believe from sections one and two and we were about to start
three. So at the bottom of page 29 hazard controlled zones, now was
there any other comments or questions on one or two before we go
forward? 

	So we got quite a bit to cover today, so if there are not – okay. If
anybody has any questions, we can go back but let’s press on. So
we’ll move to page 30, did you want to take this one, (Lamont)? Okay,
so let’s read through section 3 and see if we have any questions. And
I’ll give you a few minutes to do that. All right, do we have any
comments or questions on that section? Ken Willette? 

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette with a question as it relates to three,
change to the perimeter during the course of the incident, and then we
go to four which is the control zones, was there any discussion about a
collapse though? I see no entry hot, warm, or cold, and that’s similar
to hazmat incidents. 

Man:	Okay, any discussion on that, collapse zone? 

Matthew Tobia:	Matthew Tobia, I don’t believe that there was a
specific reference to that, because that’s a little specific to
structural related incidents, my thought would be that the no-entry zone
would capture that exactly. 

Man:	Victor? 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro, I would echo what Matt says,
but in – where it says where no entry zone is designated, that last
piece where it says in order to protect evidence, that’s not really
fire safety related, maybe we could just replace that to due to imminent
hazards or due to potential collapse. 

Rick Ingram:	Okay, any comments on that? 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor, I think we’re saying due to imminent
hazards or potential collapse or if you want to add collapse zone in
that wording somewhere that might be appropriate. 

Rick Ingram:	Okay, does everybody agree that we should take out the to
protect evidence portion? Okay. Okay, we’re seeing nodding of heads in
the affirmative. And this is Rick Ingram facilitating this conversation
by the way. Any other…

Matthew Tobia:	I’m sorry, Rick, I apologize. This is Matthew Tobia,
you said you wanted to remove the language of protecting evidence? 

Rick Ingram:	I think that was the suggestion by Victor, was to remove
that. Ken Willette? 

Ken Willette:	Yes, I…

Man:	The other (Ken), in the definition of no-entry, we could also add
collapse zone there because it says control area designed to keep out
responders due to a high hazard or a need to preserve evidence. We could
put a potential business collapse there in the definition on page 3. 

Matthew Tobia:	Okay, this is Matthew Tobia, I just believe it or not,
I’m going to disagree with my very esteemed colleague, Victor
Stagnaro. When I think of preserving evidence I think of it from an
investigative standpoint of a firefighter injury or fatality, so an
emergency responder injury or fatality, so I would offer that that
language could stay in without being harmful to the proposed regulatory
text. 

	I would absolutely support the addition of collapse zone as an example
of a no entry zone. I would simply prefer – I would offer that we
would go our reputation that the preservation of evidence be included as
another example of a no-entry zone. 

Rick Ingram:	Okay, so we got two places, as Ken Fontenot mentioned, so
we have the 3BI, and the definition, so could we make those – are we
hearing a suggestion that we make those match? So the suggestion is we
make the leave-in the protect evidence and I actually have to agree with
that as well because it’s important for safety reasons later to have
that evidence to be able to go back and prevent further fatalities. So
– or incidents. Bill Warren. 

Bill Warren:	While I agree with that, Rick, I guess my only concern is
that (unintelligible) workers as I think Victor was alluding to because
now they’re concentrated on something other than the immediate hazards
that are associated with the fight at the time because now they’re
thinking about okay, we need to make sure we’re safe here, we need to
make sure our folks are safe, and oh by the way, we need to make sure we
ensure the evidence is safe too, which I think is kind of off a little
bit of what our intent is. 

Rick Ingram:	Good point. This is Rick Ingram again, so let’s flesh
this out. Any other thoughts? Ken Willette. 

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette, to follow up on (Bill) and Victor’s
discussion on that, the evidence. What I’m hearing is the reason we
would want to make it a no-entry was for investigative purpose, and I
think if we find language that states it’s to protect the scene for
investigative purposes as opposed to evidence, that may fit more in the
realm of we’re investigating a firefighter injury or hopefully not a
fatality and we’re trying to preserve the scene for that. 

	When we use the word evidence that seems to be more law enforcement
oriented or cause an origin which is not I don’t think in the spirit
of what we’re trying to achieve here. 

Matthew Tobia:	Okay, this is Tobia. I would say if we want to replace
the words, the need to protect evidence, with the words the need to
preserve the scene, that would be perfectly appropriate. 

Rick Ingram:	Bill Troop, okay, any other discussion? So protect the
scene rather than protect evidence, preserve it, okay. Preserve the
scene, all right. So Bill Hamilton, will you read that back to us,
please? 

Bill Hamilton:	All right, so Bill Hamilton – sorry. All right, so my
lead-in on this is so the ESO’s challenged to that, and then VI or
Roman 6, where a quote no-entry unquote zone is designed – designated
– where a no-entry zone is designated, no responders enter the zone
due to eminent hazards or potential collapse or the need to preserve the
scene. 

Rick Ingram:	Okay. Do we have to have the extra ors? I know that’s
really nitpicking, but – all right. (Miss Shorthall)? 

Sarah Shorthall:	As a layperson, I find that sentence very hard to
understand. This is just – where no-entry zone is designated, no
responder shall enter the zone. Why aren’t we just ending it there?
And explaining in the preamble these are some of the reasons why you
wouldn’t want people to enter the zone? 

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. We have a definition where we could go
into a little bit more detail, and then maybe use what Sarah’s
suggesting here. It’s food for thought, so any discussion quickly on
that? Ken Willette. 

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette, Sarah, so when you refer to the preamble, is
it the preamble for this section that you’re referring to? 

Sarah Shorthall:	Yes, yes. 

Ken Willette:	(Bill), could you zoom up to that please? 

Sarah Shorthall:	Oh, you don’t have – they don’t have the
preamble. 

Ken Willette:	Oh, they don’t have that? 

Sarah Shorthall:	We haven’t written that. 

Ken Willette:	Oh, we haven’t written it. 

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. I’m going to restate what I stated
yesterday and I really appreciate you know, the use of the preamble, but
most people that are actually going to use this standard are never going
to read that preamble, and I – as well intended as that is, the
standard is published, folks go onto the OSHA Web site, they’ll look
up the standard, and they’ll read that. 

	They will never read that preamble. I think if we’re going to include
something that’s critical to the language here we need to either have
it in the definition or in the actual regulatory text, that’s my
opinion, and my apologies but no offense. 

Sarah Shorthall:	None taken. If you want to keep those in there, those
are not – are there any other reasons why you wouldn’t want someone
to enter a zone? You have three identified there and it’s only three,
and if you’re thinking these are examples, then you need to say
something to the effect of where no entry zone is designated, no
responder shall enter the zone because of or due to hazards such as –
due to dangers such as imminent hazards, the need to protect evidence,
and the possibility of potential collapse. 

	Then you get in such as and that gives you other examples. Okay, you
don’t even need but limited to, just such as, it tells you that.
Because of the presence – due to the presence of…

Rick Ingram:	Such as the presence of (unintelligible)…

Sarah Shorthall:	Because of the presence of hazards such as imminent –
the presence of dangers such as imminent hazards or potential collapse,
or the need to preserve the scene. I mean, just trying to get in that
this is – these are examples, not your universe. 

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram again, does that make sense to
everybody? Any dissenting views? Okay. 

Matthew Tobia:	Okay, this is Matthew Tobia. The only thing I would –
just to clarify I would just offer, and I know we’re stuck on
wordsmithing, words have meaning. I would simply say that where a
no-entry zone is designated, responders – no responder shall enter
those zones, or responders shall not enter the zone. 

Sarah Shorthall:	Because of the presence of…

Matthew Tobia:	Right. 

Sarah Shorthall:	Of hazards – of dangers such as…

Matthew Tobia:	Yes, I would simply – I mean, I would simply say
responders shall not enter, are prohibited, yes. 

(Greg Kimmel):	So Rick, this is (Greg Kimmel), I can’t add to that
(unintelligible), no entry zone. 

Rick Ingram:	Okay, so is everybody happy with this language, good
discussion and it’s been suggested – this I Rick Ingram again – by
(Grady) to (unintelligible) add this language, duplicate this language
in our definition for a no entry zone. All right, so let’s – Lisa? 

Lisa Delaney:	Lisa Delaney, so a pet – this is just a pet peeve of
mine and I wanted clarification, so I think it’s under section 3I, we
talked about designating hazard control zones to identify the level of
risk to responders and the appropriate level of PPE. I’d like to bring
this up one level to say protective measures including PPE, because I
think that you’re designating these levels beyond just defaulting to
appropriate PPE. 

	We shouldn’t just go straight to PPE, there’s other protective
measures that are in place, thinking of the hierarchy of control sitting
on my industrial hygiene hat. 

Rick Ingram:	So the suggestion is for that sentence 3I, hazard control
zones are established at every emergency incident to identify the level
of risk to responders and the appropriate level of protective measures
including personal protective equipment. Any discussion on that? Okay, I
think we’re – okay. 

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, do you think level up or just
appropriate protective measures including PPE? 

Rick Ingram:	Appropriate. Is that all right with everybody, Sarah’s
suggestion? Thank you, Sarah. And thank you, Lisa. 

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Okay, so I think we’ve – so thank you very much for
bringing that up, good addition. Any other suggestions or questions on
section three? 

Bill Troop:	Bill Troop, UFFA with a minor question about item #7, if
we’re going to change the language as Lisa had mentioned in the other
one, should we do that for also the same thing in section VII? 

Rick Ingram:	Okay. I agree, so does anybody disagree with that? Okay, so
I think this is Rick Ingram, (Bill) is making that change now. All
right, good catch, thank you, (Bill). Anything else on section 3? Any
other discussion? Mr. Willette. 

Ken Willette:	I want to be sure I’ve got the right – Ken Willette, I
want to be sure I’ve got this correctly, if we go down to – okay, I
jumped to section 4, I apologize, I’ll go back to three. 

Rick Ingram:	Okay, okay, going once on three, go ahead, Ken Fontenot. 

Ken Fontenot:	Sorry, this is Ken Fontenot, just reading seven a little
bit and having a little bit of a concern about the way it’s worded
that it is though – will it ensure that the personnel appropriately
uses the PPE, that’s almost tough to do because I can train you all
day long and if you choose to do something different that’s on you,
but I’m responsible. Perhaps we could word it that they – the
responder is trained to use the PPE and that is a different way of
looking at it. 

	Because I can’t be responsible if I can’t see you or visually be
with you. 

Victor Stagnaro:	Victor Stagnaro – oh, I’m sorry. 

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia, just (Ken), to your point, two
things, one the training requirement is outlined in the training section
for the utilization of PPE and I think it is reasonable to expect that
the ESO regularly monitors its folks for compliance with appropriate PPE
awareness, and to me that’s an incident safety officer responsibility,
you know, to the extent that it’s known. 

	I mean obviously if the ISO’s on the outside and the crew is on the
inside, and you know the crew is choosing not to you know, wear their
PPE properly and they can’t be you know, they can’t be seen,
that’s beyond the ability of the – you know, the ISO to be
responsible for that but functionally I think it’s a responsibility of
the folks on the team to make sure that their people are wearing their
PPEs properly. We do that kind of regularly. 

Ken Willette:	And from a – this is (Ken) again – and from a
management standpoint, you know, so it is on the pipeline people. You
can talk to them all day about where the hell is their face shield when
they’re working pipeline, as soon as the SO goes away, the shield and
the helmet come off when they’re grinding and such, and the same thing
is true of many firefighters and other emergency responders. 

	And I don’t feel that that person, the ESO should be liable for a
particular person’s reluctance or personal negligence to wear their
stuff properly or do it. Speed (unintelligible) is just another one, we
can run all the SOPs, but they turn the corner, the belts come off. I
just have a little trouble with that part of it. 

Rick Ingram:	Okay, we’ve got – so Lisa then Kathy then Matt. 

Lisa Delaney:	This is Lisa Delaney and I see your point, (Ken), but I
think that there are certain situations you know, we have a policy but
we’re not – the culture is not to use it, and I think this is sort
of getting at that, that there’s – you can’t and this also gets to
this feasibility that there is mentioning, we know that you can’t be
everywhere, and – but you still need to set that expectation that
it’s going to be used properly. 

	And I think within from a compliance directive, I don’t see a
compliance officer citing a facility because one person chooses not to
wear PPE, you can’t – as you said, you can’t be everywhere at
once. I think this is sort of more of a reasonable – I would be
supportive of still having this in there. I think it’s really
important, because I think we see some work sites where it’s just sort
of turned – a blind eye is turned to PPE. 

Rick Ingram:	Kathy? 

Kathy Robinson:	Kathy Robinson, I tend to agree with Lisa as much as I
respect the issue that you’re identifying, (Ken). I think that with
regards to this type of thing, to paraphrase James Madison, if men were
angels there’d be no need for government, and I think that when
you’re talking about the use of PPE or seatbelts or any of those sorts
of things, that it’s much more than just having a supervisor onsite to
make sure that the person’s using it and using it properly. 

	I think that it really transcends to there being a culture within an
organization that promotes safe practice and behaviors, and I’m in
favor of leaving it in there too. I think that it’s problematic to –
while I understand we can’t be everywhere all the time, it goes beyond
personal responsibility into one that the employer ought to be providing
oversight. 

Rick Ingram:	We had actually Matt and then (Bill). Okay, Matt abstains.
Bill Warren. 

Bill Warren:	Yes, Bill Warren. From a compliance standpoint, what we
would look at is if there was a supervisor or a working lead that was
there at the site and allowed the condition of removal of the personal
protective equipment, more than likely we would cite that, and that
would be cited and the employer knowledge would be imputed from the
working lead man, foreman, supervisor, all the way up through the
organization. 

	So if employees did remove their gear in a place that they shouldn’t,
we would look at that employer knowledge of who’s leading that crew.
If it was completely isolated and it was unpreventable, you know,
employee misconduct, that’s a different situation, but for the most
part we would take a look at was there a supervisor that allowed the
condition to exist, and if they did then there’s a violation of the
standard there. 

Rick Ingram:	Sarah? 

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, in OSHA’s (unintelligible) action
certified balancing a thing, okay? The things you mentioned in terms of
like I can train, I can stop people who aren’t doing things correctly,
I can discipline people, I can have a written policy that someone has to
sign, I can do safety meetings and safety checks, those are all things
OSHA would look for in enforcement action to as Kathy says establish the
culture of safety. 

	If you’ve done that, OSHA is not going to cite you. Then they would
really say well that’s probably an example of isolated employee
misconduct. You know, if you take the steps to try to make sure that the
desired performance is going to be achieved, so even if we put that in
there they will look for the physical evidence that you did what you
could to make sure that was carried out. 

	I also have one question I wanted to ask Lisa, so you had talked about
changing the designation of appropriate protective measures at the
beginning of this. Are you just concerned that a responder appropriately
uses personal protective equipment or all protective measures? For
example work practices, administrative controls? 

Lisa Delaney:	That’s a good point. My issue is that we tend to focus a
lot on perceived as personal protective equipment, but we know there’s
other measures and practices that can be taken that protect workers that
we tend to think a lot and focus on PPE, so that’s why I was wanting
to take it up through one tier in terms of the hierarchy of protective
measures. 

Sarah Shorthall:	But returning to Ken Fontenot, does that put your mind
a little bit at ease? It already sounds like you’re doing the kinds of
things that would be necessary to you know, defend or have the
compliance officer say you know, we’re not going to cite you, you’ve
done what you can. 

Ken Fontenot:	This is (Ken), yes it does, (Miss Sarah), and I appreciate
the explanation. I do feel a little bit better. Just when I first looked
at it, it just seemed like we were being held accountable for actions
that weren’t ours only, but if you have done due diligence before and
somebody through an act of defiance or just didn’t want to do it, then
there’s not a whole lot you can do at that point. 

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, again, what we can also do is make
sure in the preamble we mention some of those things so that we give
information and guidance to (unintelligible) about what are the kinds of
things to be looking for to meet the requirement of due diligence?
We’re not just going to wait out there to figure out due diligence,
we’ll tell you things like train, safety meetings, check, a
disciplinary system if you catch them. 

Rick Ingram:	(Unintelligible), this is Rick Ingram, I’ll just add a
little bit more. It is in the OSHA PPE standard, that the employers are
responsible for the proper use of the PPE and then also in 5A1 and 5A2,
so that really speaks to the employer’s responsibility and the
employee’s responsibility, so I also agree that we should leave it in
there. 

	But it was a great discussion, and it’s better to bring it up and
talk about it and good job. Any other questions on item #3, safety 3?
Okay, great discussion and I’ll turn it over to Lamont Byrd. This is
Rick. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, thank you, Rick. I guess next we need to take a look
at number four, incident safety. That’s on page 30 also. I’ll give
you a couple minutes to kind of read through that, then we’ll have
discussion about it. Okay have we had a chance to take a look at it?
Okay so number four page 30, this is Lamont Byrd, are there any -
looking at four Roman numeral I, I'm sorry Roman numeral one, two or
three. Anything in that you know bottom of page 30? Yes, Ken Willette?

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette, and in each of those in I and then 3I they
cite - currently we cite 1720 - NFPA 1720, and the focus of that
document is on volunteer to call fire departments. And there's a
comparable document from NFPA - NFPA 1710 that speaks to career fire
departments. And I would suggest that we include the referenced to 1710
if possible along with 1720. Each document has a different strategy and
a different methodology about responder.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia, just to that point (Ken), I
believe that many - almost if not all, many of the references to NFPA
are going to come out of the final document that goes forward. The -
according to the legislative (history) that I got from (Andy) is the
reference to them in parentheses was made so that members of the
committee would know where the language came from as opposed to it
remaining in the document. So at the end of the day those references
will actually come out of the document. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Matt, Sarah?

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah (Unintelligible), but they will be included in
the preamble. I mean for example say if this comes from you know we
borrow this from - and that would actually be requirement under an act
because we have to explain where there is a national consensus standard.
If we differ at all why the reasons we differ, that's (unintelligible)
so saying that we agree with it actually makes our job easier.

Lamont Byrd:	Thank you Sarah. Any other - Ken Willette?

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette, so to Sarah's point and Matt's information
can we make a note that in the preamble that we reference both NFPA 1710
and 1720 in the discussion of this section? 

Lamont Byrd:	Do we have any other - thank you (Ken). Do we have any
other thoughts or comments about what's on roman numeral four - Roman
numeral one, two or three? Okay Bill Hamilton were you able to capture
the recommendation of - okay thank you. Let's move over to page 31 top
of the page. 

	Well what about this exception at the bottom of 30? If upon arrival at
an emergency scene the initial responders find an imminent life
threatening situation where immediate action could prevent the loss of
life or serious injury than such action is permitted with less than four
qualified responders present. We're good with that? Okay everyone seems
to agree. 

	So moving onto A including the exception, we're okay? Ken Willette?

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette, under A that exception it strikes me as a
little bit odd that we're saying two responders shall enter an (IDLH)
atmosphere yes. Exception, an (IDLH) atmosphere that includes the entry
of two responders. And we call out confined space. So is this saying
that you need more than two responders to go into confined space? Or is
it saying you need less than two responders to go into confined space?

Lamont Byrd:	Matthew Tobia.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt, I think it actually refers - the idea is
one in and one out. So if you had a confined space that precluded the
entry, physical entry of two rescuers that you could send one rescuer in
and one rescuer could remain outside the (IDLH). 

Lamont Byrd:	Does that clarify that for you Ken Willette?

Ken Willette:	Yes it does thanks. I'm still thinking it over but thank
you.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay I think (Bill) has a bit of…

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. 

Bill Hamilton:	So this is Bill Hamilton. The intent was for something
where it's so small only one responder could get in. I modified the
exception for your consideration; I'd say an (IDLH) that due to limited
size precludes the entry of two responders. As an example of confined
space, I don't know if there's others, but that would also be one in,
three out because we still have to have four responders. So only one
going in but you would end up with three out.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia not when there's an immediate
dangerous - not when there's a situation involving an imminent rescue
right?

Bill Hamilton:	This is not the imminent rescue.

Matthew Tobia:	This is just the entry into an (IDLH) environment.

Bill Hamilton:	Right, well this goes on to say that there has to be two
responders enter the (IDLH)…

Matthew Tobia:	Right.

Bill Hamilton:	And then the exception is essentially only one would have
to go in - only one would go in due to limited size. So there'd still
have to be four on the scene for entry.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you for the language and that clarification Bill
Hamilton. Any other comments or questions? Kenn Fontenot?

Kenn Fontenot:	Kenn Fontenot, Roman numeral three says that we ensure
that four responders are assembled and then the section we say is four
qualified responders. We either need to add or remove I think qualified
- and I guess the question is why is one just a responder next to
qualified? Not that it makes a lot of difference but maybe we should
remove qualified. Below that in the exception (IDLH) it says responders
also. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay any thoughts or discussion about (Ken)'s catch there?
Yes, Russell Duke?

Russell Duke:	Russell Duke, just to clarify is responder still include
like good Samaritans and others that may just be on the scene? So
responders is specific to basically a qualified - okay. Okay thanks.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay moving…

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah (Unintelligible).

Lamont Byrd:	Yes Sarah?

Sarah Shorthall:	I have (unintelligible). Was your question about a - so
here it says at least two go in but then next the exception, two can't
go in. Is it sort of a contradiction? Would it be possible if A were to
say if possible at least two shall go in and then that might obviate the
need for even having the exception?

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette, that does clarify it in my mind and it seems
to flow a little smoother from someone reading it. I just - when we
start to carve out exceptions it seems to me to be a little clunky. 

Lamont Byrd:	Any other thoughts or comments about (unintelligible)?
Moving through the document - yes moving on through the document I guess
we looked at B ensure that outside the (IDLH) minimum two responders are
present for assistance to a rescue of the team operating in the (IDLH).
We're good with that language? Okay.

	Roman numeral four, hearing - changed on A, okay. So to revisit the
language revision in A where possible at least two responders the (IDLH)
atmosphere as a team and remain in visual or avoid contact with one
another at all times. 

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick - this is Rick Ingram, it seems like we've got
a little bit of a conflict now between those two sentences. 

Bill Hamilton:	So I'm sorry what was - so 30 - well on top of page 31
under triple I, this is Bill Hamilton. Under page 31 under triple I A
and B that is the two, that is the two in two out. And we just
essentially by saying where possible I mean that's still clearly the two
in two out.

(Scott Morrison):	This is (Scott).

Bill Hamilton:	Go ahead.

(Scott Morrison):	Yes no, (Bill) I think I agree with you that where
possible you just opened up a whole - that just throws another whole
sort of equation to the - yes it's just you know I mean there's all
kinds of reasons where possible but that's not what - that's the intent
of the two in two out. Other than one of the one exception that we
agreed upon for immediate life you know for a rescue.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia I would honestly I think that we
should return to the original language that was proposed at the bottom
of page 30 without changing that - changing A or B and I would simply
remove the exception involving a single responder. I know we're trying
to address all things to all situations but we have a confined space
rescue standard that addresses entry into confined spaces and the
hazards associated with that. I think we let that, deal with that,
because changing this language gets us - opens up a tremendous can of
worms. And OSHA has spent the last 15 years writing letters of
interpretation on 1910-134 as it relates to the ideal age environment of
a structural fire. 

	And we're going to be writing letters for the next 15 years as it
stands anyway, so, thank you.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay so Matt's recommendation is to strike the exception,
sub-committee okay with that? Okay we've got in the affirmative no
objections. Okay and Rick we've solved the conflict you thought might
exist, okay. 

	So as we move through the document I think we stopped at roman numeral
four is it on page 31, ensure each responder at (IDLH) uses positive
pressure (SCBA). Are we good with that language? Okay.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia, just a question, (Bill) you might
be able to answer it. Is there - what's the intent of 4A? I don't know
if that's specifically intended to address issues, confined space rescue
issues or other environments, I'm just - or hazardous materials
incidents or you know other - my only concern is the confusion that may
result under the circumstances of one being substituted for the other
and I just want to understand the rationale. 

Bill Hamilton:	Who - this is Bill Hamilton, who - where is the flyer
respirator used? 

Matthew Tobia:	So this is Matthew Tobia. Typically where you would find
that would be in a confined space rescue or under some limited
circumstances for prolonged operations on a hazardous materials
incident, very rarely. Right, fire (unintelligible), shift yards, oxygen
(defic) atmospheres, but those would be examples of that.

Ken Willette:	Yes, Ken Willette, you might find it in the industrial
setting as well with the brigades who are in doing some kind of long
term remediation cleanup of an event.

Bill Hamilton:	So what's the, Bill Hamilton again, so what's the issue?
I don't…

Matthew Tobia:	So, yes so this is Matthew Tobia, I apologize and maybe
I'm just having a moment where I don't understand why it's there. I
guess I'm just; the interesting thing that I'm asking is it says flyer
respirator other than (unintelligible) may be used in an (IDLH)
environment only if equipped with those things. And my question is why -
why is it - why does it appear in the regulatory text? I don't know what
the background - what the legislative background is, I mean I think it's
been there since day one and I'm just…

Bill Hamilton:	It's Bill Hamilton, yes but we haven't really gotten to
this until now. I guess that it's something we pulled out of NFPA 1500
so we can see if there's some clarification there. And I see one point
that it's I guess (SCBA) should not come after the flyer respirator. So
it could say in an (IDLH) they can use the supply and respirator but
only if it's equipped with a (unintelligible) cylinder in the situations
where they would normally use the…

Matthew Tobia:	Yes my recommendation would simply be that rather than
make it a subset of the self-contained breathing apparatus component
that it would be its own number and exclude other than (SCBA). 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Matt. Is everyone okay with that
recommendation? Yes Sarah?

Sarah Shorthall:	Leading into that, in IV, there it says in accordance
of respirator protection program specified in paragraph F3 of this
section, there is no paragraph F3. 

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Lamont Byrd:	Action item.

Man:	Yes action item.

Lamont Byrd:	So that moves us to roman numeral five. Lisa Delaney?

Lisa Delaney:	So in the - what was previously roman numeral five is now
roman numeral six. I would suggest that we remove the designation of the
incident safety officer here because earlier we mentioned that that may
not be - that position may not be established. It may just be assumed
under the incident command. And this whole section on safety we've not
said the safety officers responsible for all of these things. So I think
we would just restructure the sentence to say ensure safety hazards or
unsafe situations are monitored and assessed. And measures for ensuring
(unintelligible) are developed. 

Lamont Byrd:	So that would fall back, this is Lamont Byrd, that would
fall back on the responsibility of the ESO and the ESO could delegate
that authority too, okay. Is everyone, yes Victor?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro. So on page 27 section M one
roman numeral three it also addressed exactly just that. So maybe we
just refer on page 31 as outlined in section M one roman numeral three.
Would that - if you want to look at that I can read it if you'd like. It
says the incident management system shall include assurance that the
safety function is addressed for incident safety officers assigned and
designated to assess the incident scene or existing or potential
hazards. So it does address that incident safety officer on a scene
whether it's the incident commander or whoever he or she designates. So
we could just refer that back.

Lisa Delaney:	I don't think we need to refer back to them. I think you
know the section just says incident safety and it talks about different
actions and we've already established previously that that's going to
happen, I don't know, I think it complicates thing. The whole section is
about safety.

Victor Stagnaro:	So this is Victor Stagnaro. My only concern is if we're
- we've got a whole section related to safety and it does not ever
address the incident safety officer so although we do address it earlier
in the section just seems like an appropriate place to at least comment
on the (unintelligible) safety officer. I agree though there is some
redundancy there. 

Lisa Delaney:	But the safety officer, a specific person serving in that
role, holding that title may or may not be designated, it may be
assessed. That function may be assumed by the incident commander so
that's why I'm having trouble going back and specifically calling out
that role, that position. But I think I'm struggling with it too because
obviously this is a health and safety standard and so not using that
term does seem a little odd not calling out the ISO. 

	So when I initially looked at the section, the title I thought
shouldn't it say ISO rather than incident safety because we call out in
section three on page 29 we say incident commander. So I don't know, but
I fell back on well perhaps the ISO - so when that function is assumed
by the incident commander I don't think are you calling the incident
commander IC/ISO? I don't think so right, you're just calling them
incident commander and they're doing the safety functions. 

Lamont Byrd:	So - and again if we go back to four incident safety, the
ESO (unintelligible) and it - and you know and then we go forward to,
this is Lamont Byrd, back to roman numeral five on page 31 again
considering what Lisa had suggested that you know that incident safety
officer in terms of title may not actually exist. Some other person in
another title may assume that function but the important part is just to
make sure that there's someone who's monitoring and assessing the safety
hazards.

Lisa Delaney:	And they would be doing everything outlined in this
section, not just the monitoring and assessing, they would be doing
(IDLH) protocols as well.

Lamont Byrd:	Bill Warren?

Bill Warren:	Yes, Bill Warren, yes I understand that but I think that
when we looked at that initially that when there's multiple roles held
by a single person usually that's the smaller events and as the events
get more complex and larger than those have to be divided because then
there's not enough time or not enough resources to ensure that the full
capability of what we're asking to be done here is completed. So you
know I don't know how we get around that because we're trying to
incorporate both from the very small four person event where you know
the captain may be holding two or three hats all the way up to then
where we have 300 people on site where you're going to have to delegate
that to those positional authorities to others. So I'm just struggling
with how do you make that all work from a global standpoint.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, Matt?

Matthew Tobia:	So one of, this is Matthew Tobia, one of two ways we
could go Lisa I would be okay with the language that you propose or in
the alternative we could say ensure the incident safety officer,
parentheses, if assigned, close parentheses, monitors and assesses
safety hazards. And then a second sentence in that same paragraph would
be if not assigned the responsibility shall remain with the ESO.

Lisa Delaney:	This is Lisa Delaney, I would say if we do the latter than
that should be moved up somewhere earlier in the section four because
the safety officer would be responsible for everything outlined in that
section. 

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill Hamilton. On page 29 N1 triple I, yesterday
we added something to take care of the (IC) covering the safety
function. And so now triple I says ensure the safety function is
addressed or an incident safety officer has assigned. And so if you look
on the screen now in the incident safety - I just pulled some of that
language, ensure the responder addressing the safety function or the
incident safety officer monitors and assesses. 

Lisa Delaney:	This is Lisa.

Bill Hamilton:	I'm trying to tie the two together you know because we
were talking about the function not necessarily a safety officer but I
pulled it back to the incident command section.

Lisa Delaney:	So do we agree though that whoever's responsible for
safety wouldn't they be responsible for - I mean you could literally put
in every single sub-bullet with under four, the incident safety officer
designee should ensure this, should ensure (IDLH). So like to me calling
it out specifically in B is - shouldn't be done.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, Matt?

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt, I would agree with that. I would honestly
say, this is Matthew Tobia, I would just agree that that sentence should
just perhaps come out because it's actually addressed earlier in the
section which puts it as an important you know which I think underscores
its importance under N1 triple I that the safety function is addressed
much earlier in the section and that putting it here is potentially
conflicting. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay Lisa?

Lisa Delaney:	Yes, Lisa Delaney, you might just merge the content so we
could be somewhat more specific in one tripe I to go beyond just
assigning and designating and then putting in the monitoring and
assessing and developing measures. So you could move that up, merge four
B with one triple I. 

Man:	Could you repeat that Lisa?

Lisa Delaney:	So we have two sentences that address safety and so we
were talking about merging - so taking the sentence, oh brother, four B
on page 31 ensure the incident safety officer monitors and assess safety
hazards or unsafe situations. If you could take some of that language
there and just move it earlier in the section N under one triple I,
ensure the safety function is addressed and we could be more specific in
terms of it being monitored and assessed. Not only are we saying it's
addressed, we could be more specific about how we're addressing it, by
monitoring and assessing safety hazards and developing measures for
ensuring responder safety. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay I think I understand that Lisa.

Lisa Delaney:	I think (Bill) doing it, it will make more sense. 

Lamont Byrd:	Is that good?

Lisa Delaney:	Yes.

Lamont Byrd:	Lisa says yes. Everyone else, sub-committee, what do you
think about this language? Does this address what we've been discussing?


	So on page, now on page 31 under what was roman numeral five but I
think it becomes roman numeral six, we're now just striking incident
safety officer or are we striking the…

Lisa Delaney:	The whole thing.

Lamont Byrd:	The whole thing, okay. Okay so are we, to the
sub-committee, we're good with the language change? Okay thank you Lisa
and thank you (Bill) and Matt and everyone else who was involved in that
discussion. I think we cleaned up some things there. And I think that
wraps up four unless there are some other comments or some issues that
we didn't address in four. Okay thank you.

	Okay moving onto section number five, communication, and why don't we
just read through number five, want to take it through one small section
at a time. Mr. Fontenot?

Kenn Fontenot:	This can - in five roman numeral I, I think work reliable
is going to be problematic because that is a very, very subjective term
when we're dealing with various frequencies and locations. That really
to me is going to be tough to figure out. Now I'm not sure of the
context of how it was done but some (frequencies) do poorly in urban
areas, some do poorly inside of structures. So how you measure
(unintelligible) would be my guess.

Rick Ingram:	Okay any other comments on that?

Bill Troop:	Bill Troop, USFA, the same thing could be said for adequate
under the (unintelligible). And then I had another question regarding
the citation of NFPA 1710. Is there any other NFPA citations we could
add to that in addition to 1710? Is there anything under 1720 that could
be added? Or NFPA 1500? That'd probably be a question for (Ken), Ken
Willette.

Rick Ingram:	So let's discuss the two words there, in I, reliable in A,
adequate. Any comments or questions or suggestions on those? 

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah (Unintelligible). For I, (Ken) I mean that's a
good point using these statements before the reliable whatever. But what
we're trying to get is one that is effective to facilitate prompt
delivery of services. Would you be okay with provide the communication
system that is effective in facilitating prompt delivery of emergency
services?

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Sarah Shorthall:	And that's off of the language we will use in
regulatory tests, achieve the performance for logging. 

Rick Ingram:	(Grady)?

(Grady):	I think the prompt delivery of emergency services is kind of
confusing here. I was maybe suggest incorporate the use of communication
systems - I've lost my train of thoughts here, sorry. I guess my hang-up
is facilitating prompt delivery of emergency services. It's throwing me
off. 

Rick Ingram:	So Bill Warren? This is Rick Ingram facilitating this
conversation by the way.

Bill Warren:	Thank you Rick I guess you know in some of my experience
with dealing with radios is that a lot of times you know you have a
reliable system that you have but it doesn't always work in all the
locations that you're at. Now you know talk about more of the rural
communities where you may be down you know in a valley or something like
that where the lighter site is working well and you can go in and out of
- it's not necessary as you go out of radio communications and so forth.


	So I just want to be careful that you know the words that we use make
sense to all the applications that we work. I kind of agree with (Ken)
that I'm not so sure the world reliable or in (Bill)'s position the word
adequate seem to conflict it between those two sentences there. And I
think it needs to be more concise. And I like what Sarah put forth if we
can eliminate maybe those two words and use some of that terminology.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Would coordinate or facilitate be a better word?

Rick Ingram:	Okay we've got several suggestions here so that's good. So
just listening to the conversation I wrote some notes here, ensure an
effective communication system to coordinate delivery of emergency
services. Will there always be walkie talkies or radios? There might not
be. So what we want is for the ESO's to develop and utilize a
communication system, whatever it is, that will - can coordinate the
services, effectively and safely I would think.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I actually like the word facilitate better than coordinate and I
will look to Sarah for some clarification on that because it's not a
communications system that coordinates. It would be people that would do
that. But you can use a communication system to facilitate. So again,
maybe I'm too deep in the weeds there.

Sarah Shorthall:	I mean probably either - I think the facilitate gets
you closer to the performance you're looking for. This is Sarah
(Unintelligible), closer to the performance you're looking for. What
you're trying to do is have a communication system that is effective in
providing prompt delivery services, that's what you're looking for. And
you know whether you use facilitate, whether you use any word at all, I
think the performance you want is communication system is effective in
providing prompt delivery. That's what you want.

	To use the word coordinate means it may be effective in coordinating
but it doesn't get you the prompt delivery. So I would have to say
(Grady) on yours wanting to strike the prompt delivery that's actually
something we have in our standard dealing with medical services and
first aid, got to be prompt. Otherwise it's not effective.

Victor Stagnaro:	So this is Victor Stagnaro. I would recommend then
something to the effect of provide an effective communication system to
provide prompt emergency services delivery.

Man:	Right.

Victor Stagnaro:	Or provide whatever the appropriate grammar would be
for that. 

Man:	What about utilize instead of provide and then use provide in
(unintelligible)?

Rick Ingram:	Any thoughts on that?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor, can you repeat that?

Man:	Utilize (unintelligible) of communication system that provides a
way to facilitate prompt delivery. 

Man:	So provide, well sorry - talking on the…

Rick Ingram:	Yes I think we're really getting into the weeds now, no
offense (Grady).

(Grady):	That's fine. 

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Actually yes, sorry, Ken Willette and then Kenn Fontenot.

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette and just following-up on the inclusion of the
word prompt for the delivery of services. And what you just explained
Sarah that it does appear in other language and you used emergency
medical services and first aid. Is that rendering assistance to an
employee? Is that the employer's obligation to deliver prompt services
to the employee?

	And I think here it's putting, it seems to be putting almost a burden
or another - I question to how it relates to what we're expecting the
emergency service organizations do for occupational safety. Because that
emergency services is to the community, it's to the person. And I don't
think they're covered under the intent of what we're discussing.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah (Unintelligible), you raise a very good point
(Ken). It's different there - you could even strike prompt if you want
but the idea is it's to have a communication system that is effective in
getting delivery service. That's the performance outcome you're looking
for.

Ken Willette:	Yes, Ken Willette, and I agree with that Sarah thank you.

Rick Ingram:	Kenn Fontenot.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn Fontenot and since this is a safety and
health document perhaps we should add the word safe delivery of
emergency service. Because that's I believe the intent of this section
is to have communication to keep the responders safe.

Rick Ingram:	This is - that's a - this is Rick Ingram, that's a great
segue into what I was just going to do. So I just want to take us
through these four parts of communication. So let's just do a real quick
overview to make sure that we're not getting this mixed up. So the first
one is - I; is provide an effective or reliable communication system for
prompt delivery of emergency services. The next one is about
communication capability between responders and the incident commander.
The next part, part B, is ensure operating procedures for radio
communications, provide the use of standard protocols and terminology
for all types of incidents. And then B double I is ensure - or double I
is ensure the communication equipment allows mutual aid responders to
communicate with the incident commander and other responders. 

	So just - I wanted to just back us up and look at this holistically. So
that's what we're trying to do is accomplish all those things.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro. So based on what (Ken)
mentioned which I think is extraordinarily valuable I think you could
almost strike I because we're not concerned - we're concerned but we're
not addressing the communication systems required for service to the
community. So I think you could almost strike I and just move where it
says A, ensure effective communication capability between responders and
the incident commander because that is a safety requirement on an
emergency scene for the employees.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia, I would agree with that. Just you
can - and I think it also avoids an entire other issue which is often
times individual ESO's are not actually responsible for the provision of
the communication system though the user or the end user of the
communication system and I'm not sure that we - that it was our intent
to put that obligation on the ESO itself as opposed to ensuring its
existence. So I would just offer that in concurrence with Victor that I
be stricken, that A and B become I and double I and then double I
becomes triple I.

Rick Ingram:	Alright any discussion, this is Rick Ingram, any discussion
on those points? 

Pat Morrison:	This is Pat Morrison I'm just, I'm getting a little
confused where the ESO, I mean communication is by far probably the -
any kind of line of duty communication is always listed in the you know
as a factor. And what we're seeing out there with communication systems
that are in place that it is I think it is the responsibility for the
ESO to make sure that the - you know it's almost simple, the
communication systems should work. I guess they're not working
sometimes. 

	But I don't know I think the ESO is you know there is a - there's just
a point - I mean we're currently right now and still at this state
having difficulty communications on the fire ground either
interoperability or you know however you want to you know being able to
talk to each other. And I think it's just - I just want to make sure
that we don't miss that focus here because it's ESO's are buying systems
right now that sometimes don't work once they turn that switch on in
certain areas. Especially in buildings.

	(Lauren) brings up the you know the urban area - I mean the rural area
but even a bigger problem in the urban area is just interop - or just
being able to communicate inside buildings because they do not have
effective revere systems and we lose the communication. We're a couple
of days away from 9/11 and that's exactly why so many fire fighters died
that day is exactly that they weren't able to communicate with each
other. 

	So the ESO I think is responsible for that communication system. So I
don't know Matt, I don't think that's what you were saying and maybe I'm
getting it off of the subject here but it's just that communication is
just so damn important for the safety and the health that you know from
portable radios all the way up to are they actually working, anyways.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt, (Pat) I agree with you 100% and I think
that A is that you know that coverall intent but I know that in many
jurisdictions across the country the ESO is the end user of the radio
equipment. For example you know (unintelligible) Pennsylvania, 86 fire
companies, each one an individual ESO. None of them are responsible for
the actual communication system itself. They are the end users that the
(EFD) communication system is provided by the county in that particular
case. And I think that's in many places across the country as well.

	I think at the end of the day from a performance standard perspective
what we're looking for is what's addressed in A and that is responders
and incident commanders need to be able to communicate with each other.
I think that that is to the extent that ESO's have an obligation to
ensure their capability to do that than they have a responsibility or
the ability to work with other stakeholders to ensure that whatever
system is provided meets those needs. 

	But I think there are - I think that what we're trying to get to is at
the end of the day we want responders to be able to talk to each other
and to speak with incident commanders. So when the incident commander
says get out, they hear that message.

Rick Ingram:	Kenn Fontenot.

Kenn Fontenot:	And a caveat to this discussion, the movement and the
growth has been to equip each responder with the personal communicate
device. And we're not even talking about that in here. And I'm not sure
that we need to or want to but when we're talking about effective
communication, it's not about the system itself, it's the ability of one
group to talk to the other so they'll know they're in trouble or we can
give orders on the emergency scene. So are we capturing the intent in
these words right here? And I'm not sure we're quite 100% because it's
maybe not specific or clear enough that we want to have enough
communication and adequate kind of feels that word that everybody can
talk to each other.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. I think (Bill)'s done a really good
job of capturing some of this. So (Bill) if you don't mind I will read
it this time for you. So number five, communication is the title of this
section. The ESO shall ensure effective communication capabilities
between responders and the incident commander to ensure operating
procedures for radio communications provided for the use of standard
protocols and terminology and all types of incidents. And three, ensure
that communication equipment allows mutual aid responders to communicate
with incident commander and other responders. Does that capture what
we're after here? Pat Morrison?

Pat Morrison:	Yes I think it does I mean it kind of the ESO is not - I
don't want to get away from - you know they're not in charge of maybe a
system that they're - that they have to use but by default if it doesn't
do what (unintelligible) then they are responsible for making sure that
those (unintelligible) stay in place within the system. You know it's
not - you just can't say that you know somebody else is responsible for
giving us our communication system but if it doesn't apply with the
point that (Bill) just wrote then that is an ESO's responsibility to go
back and make sure that communication system is effective. That's all.

Rick Ingram:	Kenn Fontenot.

Kenn Fontenot:	And this is Kenn Fontenot. To (Pat)'s point one of the
major finds in the Charleston investigation was antiquated communication
systems that made the department move to different style and types of
communication. So when you have something that points this out it might
have prevented or help prevent some of the things that happened in that
particular incident.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, Victor?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro. To your point in the future
and understanding that this should just go through fruition and become a
standard it will probably be the standard for many, many years. Do we
want to eliminate the use of the word radio? And whatever communication
system it is it has to be adequate, it has to be - or effective and it
has to have common operating use and standards and protocols. 

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick. Victor made a good point. Do we want to
just strike the word radio and just leave in communications? And we have
everybody in the affirmative here. Is there any descending views? Okay
we'll strike the word radio for future generations. Because it might be
- there might be something that we don't know about by the time this
gets to law. Okay, alright, we might have embedded chips in our heads by
then. Okay.

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill Hamilton; yes I'd like to get that chip. The
one thing that almost kind of scares me since we took out the
communication system and now we're just talking about communication and
sure effective communication between responders and the incident
commanders. 

((Crosstalk))

Matthew Tobia:	So this is Matthew Tobia just to - just to
(unintelligible) minimize it could we consider language and maybe this
is an action item offline but could we consider language that might say
where not otherwise provided the ESO shall ensure the provision of a
communication system to facilitate delivery of emergency services. (Pat)
I don't know if that gets to your concern or not. But where not
otherwise provided the ESO you know does become responsible for that. So
if the you know if there is no (AHJ) providing, I know we don't use that
word in the language, but if there is no (AHJ) umbrella organization
overseeing the responsibility of the provision of communications we
would give it back to the ESO to ensure that that does in fact exist. 

Pat Morrison:	Pat Morrison, I think the way they have it written I think
it's inherently written in there that if it doesn't follow - if it
cannot do these capabilities then you know you have to go - it's almost
by you have to go back and look at that system. You're being forced to
do that.

	A classic example that's happening right now across the country is
people going from 400 to 800 megahertz system and all of a sudden you
are as a responder you're responding and you've lost radio capabilities
within high rise without - with systems within those high rises. So the
responses that the point that (Bill) brought up I think in that is that
I can't communicate so therefore he is responsible for making sure that
communicate - there's effective communication between responders and the
incident in command. There was a breakdown in the system that they
purchased, they didn't purchase enough either antennas or - that is the
one radio system where they had extra money left over; I know that for a
fact. 

	But there's been many that have been - probably most have been
underfunded when they've been put in. It's just that if we do go with
what, and simpler sometimes is better, that if they do that they are
responsible for that. So whoever's building it doesn't matter they are
responsible. If you can't get this then you've got to go back to the
system. 

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram, so Pat Morrison with that being
said are you comfortable with the language that (Bill) has on the
screen?

Pat Morrison:	I am.

Rick Ingram:	And Matt?

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia, I'm comfortable.

Rick Ingram:	Alright so this is Rick Ingram again, it looks like we'll
leave that language as is and it defaults naturally like (Pat) said back
to the ESO.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah (Unintelligible); Matt and (Pat) even if we
didn't put your language in there our economist will definitely be
looking for pre-existing communication systems out there because that
will reduce the cost rather that - so that will be considered in the
standard and in the preamble and the economic analysis. 

Matthew Tobia:	Thanks, this is Matthew Tobia, I think the bigger concern
is that is the functionality of the system and he gets to the bigger
issue that I suspect technology will I hope catch up with some day which
is that you know our communication systems work great until we go inside
buildings which is well where we have to go to do our job.

Rick Ingram:	Alright so just a time check, and I just want to remind the
group we've got several pages still to go through here to finish up the
regulatory text. So we've got to go through about 2 1/2 more pages on
communication - on the section that we're on and then we'll get into a
program evaluation. And it's 11:30 now. We still also have to go through
our sub-committee recommendation memo to (unintelligible). So just to
remind you we've got a lot of work to do and I think this you know today
and tomorrow are our last two meetings that we're going to have. Unless
we just can't get through this and have to schedule another one. But I
think we're - so this has to be done in these two meetings. And we can
have some phone conferences I guess but we really need to finish this
up.

	So…

Lisa Delaney:	Rick?

Rick Ingram:	Go ahead Lisa.

Lisa Delaney:	One point to wrap up this section, is it important, Lisa
Delaney, we talk about our operating procedures for communications.
Should we highlight that in the SOP section? Should we cross-reference
it? I'm just hearing a lot of conversations and points that
communication is important and if we highlight it in the SOP section I
think that would give it more weight.

Rick Ingram:	I think that's a great idea myself, this is Rick Ingram,
Victor did you have a comment?

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes this is Victor Stagnaro I would agree. We have a
whole section related for focus on developing procedures, communications
is huge so I would concur that require the ESO to develop procedures
would be something we would want.

Rick Ingram:	Okay alright. So (Bill) would you take an action item for
that for right now and we'll see if we can - we'll revisit that probably
tomorrow. So anybody that was counting on leaving today don't check out
of your hotels because we're going to have a long day tomorrow, well
we'll have at least a half a day tomorrow too. Okay so we got, so we are
finished with number five, communication, except for the action item. Go
ahead (Bill).

Bill Troop:	Yes the question I had earlier about addressing 1710 an 1720
it's kind of mixed up in this document. As we mention 1710 or 1720 can
we have an accompanying document such as you know where we make 1710
under like one document and we also have an accompanying 1720 that
routes to the same thing. I'm just afraid somebody's going to look at
that and say well I don't like (unintelligible) service. Or do the same
thing, just (unintelligible). Because you have one line that represents
1720, you have another one that's 1710, I'm just wondering if you can
reference both standards with regards to those comments. Oh, Bill Troop,
US Fire District.

Matthew Tobia:	So this is Matthew Tobia. Just to reinforce I think that
those things can be talked about in the preamble section but again the
NFP - the references to NFPA standards are all going to come out of the
individual sub-sections. So I you know certainly in general terms my
expectation is that those will you know many of the NFPA standards
referenced throughout the document will appear in the preamble as
opposed to in the specific sub-text areas.

Rick Ingram:	And there will be references in the back of the document I
believe.

Bill Troop:	And Bill Troop, USFA, one last thing to comport with
language used earlier, I think Kenn Fontenot had brought up, we always
use the term automatic and mutual aid. 

Matthew Tobia:	That's addressed - this is Matthew Tobia, we spoke with
that yesterday that's addressed in the definition section.

Bill Troop:	Okay.

Rick Ingram:	Okay the next section we have a lot of red line text, I
think we've already been through it quite a bit but I want to turn it
over to Lamont Byrd.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Rick, this is Lamont Byrd. We would go to
number six at the bottom of page 31. 

Man:	(Unintelligible) accepted changes.

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill Hamilton, yes I went through the
(unintelligible) you look at the - all the strikers were things that
were moved to section L. 

Man:	Page 26.

Bill Hamilton:	Which is standard operating procedures. They had been, we
moved all standard operating procedures the development of them into L
and so this section now is - or this just has a for 6, 7, 8, 9…

Man:	Nine.

Bill Hamilton:	Is they have to you know essentially use the system or
whatever it is that they develop from the previous, right because now
we're under emergency - yes so we're under emergency incident operations
and they were saying during the emergency incident you have to use the
SOP's that you develop earlier. So that's the intent of all of those
changes. That was all asked for during the July meeting and we actually
talked about all those SOP's. We also talked about use of ten uses of
skill support workers and the 11 uses of spontaneous, unaffiliated
volunteers. We talked about that just today. Well I believe…

Lamont Byrd:	(Spencer)?

(Spencer Schwangler):	Yes this is (Spencer Schwangler). Just looking at
ten, roman numeral one and just wanted to revisit for my own mental
ease, that's the use of the word feasible. Just last night when I was
reading that it just seemed like that was a loophole that's as big of a
truck that you could drive through. Do we need to use to the extent
feasible on there that the operationally the (unintelligible) to be used
or could we just say (unintelligible) is specified in (E6) or they be
utilized.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia, I think that just to close the
circle on the discussion we had with that. I think that there - we were
recognizing that there were going to be circumstances for which there
was not going to be any existing relationship between the ESO and the
(SSE) and that the ESO might have to call upon an (SSE) for which they
did not have the pre-existing requirements in (E6) but still might need
to use them. I think that the - I understand your concern. I think that
there was - that the reason that that language was in there was to
recognize the reality of ESO's that might need the services of an (SSE)
but don't have a working relationship with an (SSE).

(Spencer Schwangler):	This is (Spencer). Yes I think that's the issue I
was just curious if there was some other way to word it than feasible
because that just seems to be such a generic term that we could throw in
there. Is there a way of being more specific that in certain
circumstances, certain specific circumstances you can bypass (E6) as
opposed to just saying well it's just not convenient for you?

Matthew Tobia:	Yes I mean this is Matt. I mean at the end of the day if
we simply said you know as of these specified in (E6) are to be utilized
obviously if the ESO has a need to use somebody other than that they
would simply have to be able to defend it you know on a posed incident
investigation if one ever came up. I mean certainly you know if there is
a legitimate articulable reason why they had to use X organization
simply because there was no other organization to use and they needed to
fulfill the mission I don't see where a regulator is going to whack them
for that. Cite them, fine them, whatever.

Lamont Byrd:	This is Lamont Byrd; I think you raise a good point
(Spencer) because it looks like this is being written for the exception
rather than what would typically happen. And I would agree that that
mass approach to dealing with this would make sense. You know you use
what's in (E6), if you cannot then you have to be able to defend it. 

(Spencer Schwangler):	So this is (Spencer), if I understood you right
Matt you'd be comfortable leaving out to the extent feasible simply
because you feel comfortable that an ESO if they needed to use someone
then they would just use them - they wouldn't have to have it in the
regulatory language that you - in other words we could just simply say
that the ESO shall ensure that (SSE)'s specified in (E6) are utilized.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt, my opinion (Spencer) is yes that's based on
the guidance that Sarah has provided with regard to there not being a
need to have that language - that caveat anywhere in the text based on
the fact that it has to be a living document that has to be interpreted
and regulated you know. I'm not - I'm certainly not the final word on
that but yes I would concur with your recommendation that we remove that
language.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay and this is Lamont Byrd, and Sarah would this be again
an issue that could be addressed in terms of intent in the (preamble)?

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah (Unintelligible). Definitely the intent would be
expressed as part of the summary and explanation and OSHA I'm sure would
give as many specific examples they can to help illustrate it.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Sarah. So Kenn Fontenot?

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn Fontenot. On page 32 number eight, the ESO
shall establish a medical monitoring and rehab procedures. I suggest we
remove the word procedures because that's already taking place in - on
page 26 under I9. That's where we wrote the procedures. What we're
saying here is you actually need to do this function, not establish
procedures. I believe that's what we're saying. 

	And the same thing would be true for number nine, that we remove the
word procedures and an ESO shall establish traffic scene safety. And I
think it's referenced in L10 also on page 26. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay any thoughts or discussion about Kenn Fontenot's
recommendations? Ken Willette?

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette. So would the burden on the employer be
they'll implement the standard operating procedure for that specific
area? So we've already put the requirement that they have to develop the
standard operating procedure, so now the next burden is when the
incident requires it you need to implement it. 

Kenn Fontenot:	Okay and that's what I was getting at because here it
says that you will implement procedures, what we're trying to say I
believe is we will implement it as Mr. (Ken) said.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay I think (Bill) has made a revision. Everybody okay
with that? Okay thank you (Ken) and (Ken). So are there any other
comments?

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Lamont Byrd:	Yes Victor?

Victor Stagnaro:	I just, in order to be consistent on page 33, roman
numeral three, where it says an adequate means of communication did we
decide to remove the word adequate and change that to effective? And if
so I just recommend you do that on this one as well as we did in the
other ones.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you for that catch. Everyone okay with Victor's
recommendation? Okay. 

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Good Samaritan? Okay. On - this is Lamont Byrd, on page 33
under number 12 use of Good Samaritan, are we okay with that? If you
would, take a look at that. Yes (Spencer)?

(Spencer Schwangler):	This is (Spencer). I would suggest that we
consider dropping the two words some type - or three words, some type
of. So it would just read good Samaritans are sometimes on the scene of
an incident providing service or assistance. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, yes Bill Warren?

Bill Warren:	I guess from a risk management standpoint I'm concerned
about where it says shall ensure the person's safety feasible. Because I
think when you identify that you had a good Samaritan that showed up on
a job or on an emergency scene and is performing some form of emergency
whether it be directing traffic, giving aid or assistance to an injured
person, as soon as the ESO comes on board it's almost like they've now
taken responsibility for that individual. And so therefore if they get
injured, twisted ankle, lifting - hurt a back, is not now the ESO
responsible for that person? So I just want to make sure we're clear of
what our intent is here that we're basically saying that we're
responsible to ensure that the overall safety is there but I guess I'm
concerned that we may open up liability for these ESO's specific to - so
Sarah if you can help me out there I'd appreciate it.

Sarah Shorthall:	We have - we do have a duty in some instances to
provide protection for volunteer. I think in the example, national park
service has a number of volunteer (unintelligible) and they have to
ensure that they're safe too. That's assurance safety but the act
itself, none of these regs - none of these standards show impact worker
compensation. So while there is a duty here it doesn't necessarily
create a duty on the worker's compensation. That's going to be a
separate entity and what governs that will be different.

Bill Warren:	Okay and I wasn't talking about worker's compensation, I
was talking about more of a liability lawsuit of (unintelligible) as a
result of an injury under the direct supervision of a ESO by a…

Sarah Shorthall:	I don't know whether for worker's compensation that
would be a situation which it would fall under that and therefore there
is no action allowed other than worker's compensation. It's probably
going to vary by state.

Bill Warren:	And I appreciate that discussion thereof but I do know that
in most states if you're not covered under the worker's compensation law
it does open up the individual entity for possible litigation. And
that's all I'm saying is that I want to make sure that if we're saying
shall ensure I think that's a real prescriptive of what ESO has to do. 

Lamont Byrd:	Ken Willette?

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette. (Bill) to you - from the incident management
system it's a well-established precept that anybody that's on the
incident scene once it's under the control of an organized in this case
ESO they are the responsibility of the incident commander. So that's why
which doesn't strike me as being out of place for the responder
community. It's a well-established precept. If they're on scene
basically you own them and you are responsible for them so this seems
consistent with that.

Man:	(Unintelligible), I just wanted to comment that we…

Woman:	(Unintelligible) could you please speak up?

Man:	I'm sorry, there we go, they turned me on. I'm turned on. I'm so
excited.

	We had this discussion about if the ESO - and it's if the ESO permits
the Good Samaritan to continue then they bought them and so the oneness
is on the ESO to say if they have any questions about the safety of the
individual to say I'm sorry I can't use you, you've got to get off the
scene. Am I not right about that, Matt?

Bill Warren:	You're exactly right; I just wanted to raise the question.

Man:	Yes okay.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia, I just ask that the term perhaps
be changed from good Samaritans are sometimes to good Samaritans are
individuals because this is the only place that we define what a Good
Samaritan is. We do not have a separate definition. The only place it's
used in the standard I would just offer that good Samaritans are
individuals, yes and yes, who are and yes. And I would get rid of the
word sometimes, I would just do may be on the scene, yes thank you.

Lamont Byrd:	Is everyone okay with the revision? Okay.

Woman:	Need to remove the word (unintelligible). 

Man:	Yes. 

Man:	We're good with Good Samaritan? Alright. We will now take a lunch
break; we'll see you back here about five to one.

Man:	We are resuming. Hello, hello?

Coordinator:	Yes you may continue.

Man:	Okay we're rolling now thank you.

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Okay I guess we're back on the record. And this is Lamont
Byrd.

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Yes so if we could go to page 33, post-incident analysis I
think that's next up for our discussion. And just kind of as an FYI this
is something that we should have probably started this morning at about
8:30 so we were just a little bit behind schedule and tomorrow is it. So
we've got to get all this taken care of between now and tomorrow noon.

	So, looking at page 33, post-incident analysis, 33 and page 34. If you
take a minute or so to take a look at that and then we can have a
discussion, make sure we're okay with it.

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Okay we'll take about another minute to look at this,
gather your thoughts. Okay have we - yes, Lisa?

Lisa Delaney:	It's Lisa Delaney, in keeping with my comments that I made
earlier there's a reference to establishing (SOP) so I would recommend
that that be moved to the (SOP) section in the standard.

Lamont Byrd:	And you're referring to O1.

Lisa Delaney:	O1.

Lamont Byrd:	Yes.

Lisa Delaney:	So instead you would - so the language about establishing
and developing (SOP) would be moved to section L, somewhere in L. And
then this would be to conduct a (PIA) would be the new language for the
section. And in my mind the second piece of that is that it's not just
determining the effectiveness but it's also identifying opportunities
for improvement. What I'm - so…

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you. Any other thoughts or comments about O1?
Or, yes Matt?

Matthew Tobia:	I'd like, this is Matthew Tobia, I'd like to see language
added into this section in some way capturing the need for a
post-incident analysis to be conducted any time there is a significant
injury or fatality to a responder. And that can include skill support
employees. 

Lamont Byrd:	So significant injury or fatality to a responder or (SSE).

Matthew Tobia:	Correct.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. 

Matthew Tobia:	And the intent there is - and if we needed to define it
we certainly could but functionally the example in my head would be
anything requiring hospitalization or beyond on scene treatment. And as
an example of what a significant injury could be defined as you know
that could be used as an example to provide clarification. You know when
do they need to do a (BIA), when do they not need to do a (BIA). 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay so significant would be limited to away from the scene
treatment?

Matthew Tobia:	Correct.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay.

Matthew Tobia:	Anything requiring greater than on scene treatment of an
injury. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay any thoughts or comments? (Grady)?

(Grady):	Yes this is (Grady) (Unintelligible) just for keeping and I
don't know if it's continuity but back in our definition we call folks
(unintelligible) and I know yesterday we talked about non-emergency
incident operation and emergency incident operation it's just for a
matter of continuity. So we need to keep that, I know we all here know
what post incident activity is. And back to the definitions of
post-emergency incident activity any activity. Any activity that occurs
after the ESO incident commander releases the field support and four
years after that (terminate) the ESO's command. So that's a little bit
different. 

Man:	Let's bring that up for discussion.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes this is Matthew Tobia.

Bill Hamilton:	Can I call timeout?

Matthew Tobia:	Okay.

Bill Hamilton:	Can we address these one at a time? 

Matthew Tobia:	Okay.

Bill Hamilton:	I'd like to keep up.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Bill) you can't keep up, come on man.

Bill Hamilton:	No I can't. 

Woman:	That was Bill Hamilton.

Bill Hamilton:	So I'm sorry that's - so we want to for O1 move the
developed - well developing an (SOP) for a post incident analysis to the
section for standard operating procedures for emergency incident. 

Woman:	Yes.

Bill Hamilton:	So this is going to - so okay so…

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	Okay so we're going to move O1 to L. 

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	And then the new one would be to implement it.

Woman:	Conduct.

Bill Hamilton:	Conduct it.

Man:	Conduct.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram. There's some language in O1 I Matt
if you would look at that. And right now it says - so you're saying do
it you know do (unintelligible) when there's a significant incident or
injury. Some of that language is already in the I so it's possible we
might be able to combine that. 

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia, yes sir my only goal was to ensure
that it - the way it's written right now is it's very generic. It
essentially says you know every, it doesn't specify when the (PIA) is to
be conducted, it specifies what could be evaluated. As it's written it
says to determine the effectiveness of the ESO's response of emergency
incidents. Does that intend to mean every incident? Or - and how formal
does the (PIA) need to be? Functionally what I was trying to get to was
from a performance standard at any time there is an injury requiring,
and I say injury generically to include illnesses that requires beyond
scene level treatment and any fatality to any responder or skilled
support employee. That there would be a formal - a post incident
analysis conducted.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick. Would you say anything beyond the first
aid treatment at location so that would include recordable or days away
from work cases?

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia, yes sir. And I think actually the
NFPA has some guidance language on post-incident analysis, what the
component pieces should be that we might be able to reference as an
action item. We could perhaps reference that. That's a little bit more
prescriptive but we could give that as an example of what a
post-instance analysis could include to be illustrative.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram one more time and in our industry we
also investigate significant near misses. So if it's judged to be like a
life threatening or injury causing near miss we might investigate that
too. So just to throw that out there for food for thought.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. There's actually a national near
miss reporting system that exists today which is similar to the FAA's
near miss reporting program. And certainly the challenge is defining
what a near miss is. And the E - and we could leave it to the ESO's to
find for themselves what a near miss is without being prescriptive. 

	I think that's you know that - I think that we could highlight the
importance of reporting near misses without telling organizations under
what circumstances they are required to report a near miss. 

Lamont Byrd:	Before we move forward, this is Lamont Byrd, with the
discussion about near misses I want to make sure that (Bill) is where he
needs to be concerning Lisa's recommendation because I'm not sure that
we - we've provided him with the information that he might need to do
what he's got to do. So (Bill)?

Bill Hamilton:	So essentially Lisa's recommendation we move it to - to
section L and then the information that Matt provided is all part of the
(SOP). So…

Matthew Tobia:	Well I think there's actually a couple of parts, I'm
sorry this is Matthew Tobia, there's actually a couple of parts (Bill).
The first one would be I know that we're trying hard to put all the
(SOP)'s in one place, I will offer, I don't know that it's reasonable to
think that we're going to capture all of them in the (SOP) section to be
honest with you because there's a myriad of issues that are not
addressed that could be addressed by an (SOP). But for consistency sake
if we're referencing an (SOP) somewhere which would probably all be in
the same section and I understand the need to do that. 

	Under section L the goal would be to - so under section L we would add
a number 11, (Ken), is that correct? Is that the number we're up to?

(Ken):	Yes.

Matthew Tobia:	So on page 27 at the top of page 27 we would add a line
that would direct ESO's to establish an (SOP) to conduct post-incident
analysis, analysis.

	And then returning to section O would be the performance circumstances
under which we might expect a (PIA) to be conducted. So the - under L,
the (PIA) we could list in that (SOP) definition a - some suggested
components of a post-incident analysis without getting into the
circumstances when one would be conducted. 

Bill Hamilton:	So this is (Bill), something like that in L is just
(unintelligible) - develop and (unintelligible) emergency standards
(unintelligible). Establish (unintelligible) procedures for conducting
first incident analysis determine - to determine the effectiveness of
the ESO's response in emergency incident. 

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. You could also - you might consider
adding some language in there about in significant - after significant
incidents or - so that you know so you could lay it out right there in
your SOP language about when you're going to do (PIA)'s. But just food
for thought.

Matthew Tobia:	Right so this is Matthew Tobia, I'm sorry (Ken) go ahead.

Kenn Fontenot:	Yes I was just kind of writing it down in hope that when
we would do (APIA) once Mr. (Bill) gets caught up putting it in the
(SOP)'s, we could put a simple statement such as ESO shall conduct a
(PIA) after a significant event such as but not limited to large scales
structure fire, near miss accident, fire fighter or skilled worker
injury or fatalities. And that kind of I think captures a lot of what
we're looking at. And that would become O single I.

Man:	Okay and that's Kenn Fontenot. 

Man:	And O single I. 

Kenn Fontenot:	Yes O single I or O one I guess if you want to
(unintelligible). 

Bill Hamilton:	…so in O we want to lay out how they lay out the
specifics of the SOP…

Lisa Delaney:	I think that…

Bill Hamilton:	…as to when it gets implemented?

Lisa Delaney:	I think we're missing the conduct though. We still need
that you conduct a pre -- this is Lisa Delaney -- a pre-incident - I
mean a post-incident analysis and then go into the what can - the first
few scans isn't what it should be completed.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn Fontenot. Under one right there, (Miss
Bill), if we could take what you have there and move that to a single
(i). And above that in one, there you go. We put the ESO shelf conduct a
post-incident analysis after a significant event and such as, but not
limited to, a large scale gas emergency, a near-miss incident, a
firefighter or SSE injury… 

Matthew Tobia:	It should be SSW.

Kenn Fontenot:	…SSW injury requiring off-scene treatment, are a
firefighter or SSW fatality. I kind of captured what Matt was getting
at. And it could be responder. It doesn't have to be firefighter.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, to the group. Matt Tobia? Bill Warren? Anybody?

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia. I think what he's captured is very
good. Thank you.

Lamont Byrd:	Bill Warren?

Bill Warren:	Yes, my only point is the ward in Arizona. My only point is
that in the part of the near-miss incident are we talking every single
one, Rick? Or are we talking about just what's considered a significant
one tier. Otherwise, it seems to me like what we're doing again is we're
creating a situation where for every single near-miss we're going to
have to do something. I think it's going to be a little bit prohibitive
for the ESO to conduct that.

Rick Ingram:	So I looked up some definitions -- this is Rick Ingram. I
looked up a few definitions that we have that we use in our industry. So
we have a high potential incident, that's an incident or near-miss,
including a security incident where most serious probable outcome is a
major incident. A major incident could be a fatality, a third-party
fatality, multiple serious injuries, significant adverse reaction from
authorities like OSHA, and then a near-hit or a near-miss. A near-hit is
an undesirable act that under slightly different circumstances could
have resulted in harm to people, damage to the environmental property or
loss.

Matthew Tobia:	Well, again, to reiterate, I think is a breach of most of
it here. You know, we're talking about fatalities; we're talking about
serious injuries; and I think that we need to define the near-miss
aspect to be of that higher degree. That's just my opinion.

Rick Ingram:	Yes, I would call it a significant near-miss, is what I
call it, or something. That could have - under slightly different
circumstances could have resulted in a fatality or catastrophe. How does
that sound?

Bill Warren:	Okay. So, Lisa, who teed up this conversation. Does this
take care of your proposal?

Lisa Delaney:	Yes, thank you, Bill. This is Lisa Delaney.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Kenn, you good? Okay. So subcommittee, are we okay
with this language? Okay.

Bill Warren:	Oh, if when we define the near-miss part, make sure that --
Bill Warren. Just again -- I think as I read it it talks about large
scale; it talks about a responder injury requiring on-site treatment;
and it talks about fatality. So the question is the near-miss incident
combined with that?

Kenn Fontenot:	I think that Rick had suggested that we just add the word
"significant" to near- miss.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes. Matthew Tobia. I would offer that we leave the
near-miss incident language there and then put a definition in the
beginning and we can work on a definition off-line. Because inevitably
the word significant is inherently subjective. Perhaps we can define the
language in a definition that addresses near-miss incidents. Because
what we're really talking about is near-miss incidents involving
responders as opposed to civilians. So…

Bill Hamilton:	Okay. We have that down as an action item.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. I want to get Bill another minute or so to make sure
he's up to speed on where we are. I don't want to get too far ahead.

Bill Hamilton:	So, Bill Hamilton. So just so I'm clear any time there's
any sort of injury to a responder, there's going to be a post-incident
analysis.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt. What I defined was anything extending
beyond on-scene treatment.

Bill Hamilton:	Okay. Requiring off-scene treatment, correct? So if my
department's policy is anybody that's involved in an MDA has to be
transported to hospital for evaluation.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes.

Bill Hamilton:	Is that an injury? 

Matthew Tobia:	Yes.

Bill Hamilton:	So we have to do a PIA?

Matthew Tobia:	Yes.

Kenn Fontenot:	Near-miss or injury. This is Kenn. A near-miss or injury
it should be action and investigation by HS.

Lisa Delaney:	This is Lisa Delaney. But should we also elements - I
don't know if - you mean you're kind of implying elements here, but
should we state it?

Matthew Tobia:	Yes. This is Matthew Tobia. I think I said it earlier to
Bill and I apologize if I didn't make it clear, but it should be added
any injury or illness requiring anything beyond on-scene treatment.

((Crosstalk))

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. So, I mean, a classic example - I
mean although you could take it to any level, there's a couple of key
things. Number 1, we frequently transport emergency services providers
off the teams of incidents because they failed rehab and their blood
pressure is up; they have an irregular EKG; they end up having a cardiac
event -- and that is the leading cause of death among emergency
responders with the exception of occupational cancer. Cardiac events are
the leading cause of death, heart attack, stroke, vascular ruptures. So
by doing these PIAs we're bolstering the importance of trying to get to
root cause analysis and I think that the value of getting to that root
cause analysis, the benefit far outweighs the cost of conducting them,
which are generally extremely low cost.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. So I think everyone has indicated that they're okay
with the revisions that have been made. Are there any other
recommendations for Section O? Sharing, none? Can we move on to P,
Program Evaluation. Take a couple of minutes to read through P.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Again, this is Lamont Byrd. Have we had a chance to
take a look at P, Program Evaluation, on Page 34?

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. I think it looks very good. The
only thing that I would offer as a recommendation is that under 1(ii)
that we add language to include timelines for benchmarking or timelines
for completion. I'm not offering that the timeline needs to be specific.
I'm just offering - we don't need to include the timelines, just that
language should be included that says the ESO shall develop a plan or
process for them to make changes to the ERP to include timelines for the
completion of identified deficiencies based upon the review of the
program.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thank you, Matt. Now, could give us that language
again?

Matthew Tobia:	The ESO shall develop a plan or process for implementing
changes to the ERP to include timelines for remediating or correcting
identified deficiencies.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Yes, Lisa Delaney.

Lisa Delaney:	Lisa Delaney. But the statement in P(1)(i)(b), if the ERPP
is making progress toward meeting its goals, I just don't see any value
in that statement. Making progress should meet its goals, not making
progress. And I think really statements (a) and (c) may cover, I would
just suggest we delete that statement.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Kenn Fontenot.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. The way I look at this is implementing this
whole rule at one time would be problematic for many agencies.

Lamont Byrd:	Kenn, can you speak a little closer to the mic, please?

Kenn Fontenot:	I'm sorry. Just omitting the whole rule at one time
becomes problematic for many agencies so if you can develop a process
toward meeting the goal. If I'm still with Miss Sarah - said earlier
about due diligence then we're making progress. Let's pick on something
where we're supposed to do something every year for everybody, but in
reality I can only do it for a portion of them. Then I'm evaluating how
I'm meeting that toward my final goal or implementing processes. I
really kind of feel that's an important statement that needs to be in
this document.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thank you.

Lisa Delaney:	Well, I guess my thought is, and I understand where you're
coming from, but usually these standards are (unintelligible) and
timelined to phase standards into being law so I don't know if it would
be met with that. But then, you know, I don't know. I would guess I
would just defer to OSHA on that.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Ken Willette.

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette. What Kenn Fontenot just shared I think makes
a lot of sense. The value here in that if you're the leader of the ESO
organization and you're implementing this preparedness plan, you're
going to measure your current state against this, which would be the
future state. And undoubtedly there's going to be gaps. And what's
important is to get that ESO to look at those gaps and begin a
corrective plan to close those gaps. And we wouldn't want to preclude
that from the ESO. We wouldn't want to have this be so requiring
compliance that they don't see this as a tool to improve work or safety
over a period of time.

	To address Lisa's concern, everybody would like to get the latest
edition of the code and adopted, but considering the diversity of the
population of workers we try to protect here, that's going to be a huge
challenge and having that path towards closing the gaps seems to be a
reasonable approach.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, thank you, Ken. Are there any other thoughts or
opinions about this particular discussion? Yes, Sarah.

((Crosstalk))

Sarah Shorthall:	This goes to both program evaluation and post-incident
analysis. It has you on both of them telling you to develop a plan or
process for implementing, okay? But it never tells you outright to
implement. And my suggestion would be in the last part, the ESO shall
develop and implement changes to the ERP. And above that in (ii) and
post-incident analysis, the ESO shall develop and implement a process to
correct, you know, deficiencies. And also in P because there is no (2),
you would get rid of the (1) and your (r) becomes a (1) and your (a),
(b) and (c) becomes (ii) and (iii).

Lamont Byrd:	Thank you, Sarah. Bill Hamilton? Okay. I just want to make
sure we're at a - we're working at a pace that's comfortable for you.
Make sure you -- I think we're making pretty good progress.

Bill Hamilton:	To some extent, before I start typing them, I want to
make sure everybody's kind of okay with what is being said otherwise I
type and then undo and redo and try and figure out where things were so.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. With Sarah's recommendation, is there any discussion
or have any questions about the restructuring and adding the
requirements to actually implement in both the O and P? Any discussion,
thoughts about that? We're good? So I think we're good, Bill?

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Sarah, could you speak into the mic, please?

Sarah Shorthall:	For incident analysis, so that's (ii) to plan for - and
this is an analysis of what you're doing is you're correcting
deficiencies? So I would say plan for correcting deficiencies to any of
those. And the other one shall develop and implement a plan -- I would
just say we develop and implement changes to the ERP. I mean…

Rick Ingram:	Sarah, this is great. Would you maybe want to say identify
and correct?

Sarah Shorthall:	Oh, if you want to do that under (ii) that's fine, too.
We often use that type of language to identify and correct. I don’t
know how important the concept of plan or process is to all of you. Is
it the plan and process that's important or is the correction of the
deficiency? Or is it both?

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt. I would say the more important thing is to
actually correct the deficiency. You know, I think there are those who
might argue that in order to do that you need to have a written plan,
you need to have some playbook to follow in order to do that. It depends
on how frankly bureaucratic you want to get.

Sarah Shorthall:	Well, you have to get - all right, for post-incident
analysis, you have established in writing and implement SOP. So that's
the writing part. Okay? I think it's probably develop and implement
changes or develop and identify - identify and implement changes.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes. This is Matthew Tobia. I would identify and
implement recommendations. Generally, it's recommendations that come out
of a post-incident analysis for change and call changes, that's fine.
The term that is commonly used that you see in NIOSH reports as well as
other reports is recommendation.

Sarah Shorthall:	So it doesn't have to be deficiencies. It could be
recommendations or deficiencies? Or just leave it at recommendations?

Matthew Tobia:	I'll defer to my colleagues, but my thought would be
recommendations. I see heads nodding. I see some people being passive,
but I see heads nodding. But what we generally see coming out of
post-incident analysis are recommendations. That's fair? You're giving
me the funny eye, Pat? What's it about?

Pat Morrison:	I just like giving you the funny eye?

Matthew Tobia:	Okay.

Pat Morrison:	Pat Morrison, Firefighters. They are recommendations, but
it's just such a weak word sometimes. I think recommendations because
means okay, I mean the whole things why NACOSH put the standard together
is not, you know, we're going back to a recommended sort of practice.
Usually on that, it's usually if this is what you need to implement for
the correctional changes. You know, there's going to be some sort of
connection to that, you know, if you have a list of recommendations that
just means I can pick and choose which ones I want to implement and
which ones I don't. That's the only reason I know.

((Crosstalk))

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. I would say either identify
deficiencies or identify changes that need to be made.

Sarah Shorthall:	So identify and implement changes? Okay. Or
corrections?

Matthew Tobia:	Changes.

Sarah Shorthall:	Okay.

Matthew Tobia:	That was Matthew Tobia, sorry.

Lamont Byrd:	This is Lamont Byrd. Are you okay with that, Pat?

Pat Morrison:	Yes.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. The only thing that I might add, and
I'll just throw it out to the group to consider, is to capture action
items and track those action items to closure. So that kind of goes
back, Matt, to your timeline statement when we first started talking
about this. But I'm going to leave that up to the group. That's all I'll
say. I don't know if that would add any value or not.

((Crosstalk))

Sarah Shorthall:	Up until (i), I would say the ESO shall identify and
implement. And you are going to put recommended changes to the
pre-incident plan, blah, blah, blah, blah. It's just like pulling away
from the plans and processes and getting you in to do it.

Matthew Tobia:	Exactly. This is Matthew Tobia. I agree with that.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Hey, though. Other members of the subcommittee? Are
you okay with this language change?

((Crosstalk))

Sarah Shorthall:	This is Sarah Shorthall again. This is to nail anyone
who does all the planning and doesn't put it into operation. So I think
it's tremendous that you agree that people have to do more than just
getting the paperwork done. They've got to direct so.

((Crosstalk))

Sarah Shorthall:	And OSHA, they all love OSHA.

Lamont Byrd:	Thank you, Sarah. Now, I know Ken has a comment, but to
re-visit the issue that Rick raised about tracking action items. And
what was the rest of that Rick?

Rick Ingram:	Yes, just tracking action items to closure. The problem
that we get into whenever we do an improvement plan is that okay, we
write an improvement plan; we have actions; and then a lot of times
nobody tracks them to closure. And I think this is a good opportunity to
really push that issue a little bit. I mean we're not going to be able
to build a - so if OSHA came in and looked at the program in a state
plan state, you know, it's not just about to have an improvement plan.
It's really important to have some way of tracking those actions to
closure in a particular timeline, like Matt said. I think that comes
last after everything else. This is Rick Ingram.

Lamont Byrd:	And Rick, do you think that the language that's been
drafted here captures that idea?

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. I'm going to defer that to the rest of
the group.

Lamont Byrd:	Kenn Fontenot, you had a comment or question?

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. When Mr. Bill gets called up, I believe he
is accidentally highlighted and struck through in the next thing which
we agree to keep and being a baker, I think we're wanting to keep that
instead of highlighting and deleting it.

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Yes, I think that Lisa made the recommendation and you're
okay with keeping it?

Kenn Fontenot:	Yes.

Lamont Byrd:	And Lisa's okay with keeping it? Everyone, I think we have
some discussion about it.

Kenn Fontenot:	We're good on that.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thanks for that catch, Kenn.

Sarah Shorthall:	This is Sarah Shorthall. Let me ask Rick. When you're
talking about the timeline, you're talking about the timeline for making
corrections on the post-incident analysis or making program changes?
From evaluation changes or both?

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. It could be for both, Sarah. I
mean I think originally we were having a discussion about the program
evaluations that morphed into a discussion about the post-incident
analysis. I think the changes that Bill has made are appropriate under
the PIA section, particularly relating to, you know, actually taking
action on those recommended changes. I think similar language could be
correctly located in the program evaluation section where the ESO shall
identify and implement recommended changes to -- copy that and then move
it. There you go.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. It looks good to me. That covers my
question.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. So the rest of the subcommittee? Everybody's okay
with the revision? Okay.

Sarah Shorthall:	If I could make one more suggestion for the
post-incident analysis (ii) and that would be in front of the word
implement add promptly.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. I would offer to you, Sarah, that
there are going to be some recommendations that simply can't be
implemented promptly, particularly based on the longer term nature of
some of the requirements that might be identified. For example, and this
gets to the heart of financial impact, if a post-incident analysis on a
firefighter fatality recommended perhaps significant changes to
staffing, significant changes to a communication system, significant
changes to organizational structure that those by their very nature
could take years to implement and might not occur simultaneously. If
promptly helps you from a regulatory standpoint, I understand it. My
concern would be I don't want there to be a perception that this is an
opportunity for a regulatory agency to drive how quickly an organization
or an ESO has to commit money to accomplishing its intended goals.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Any other thoughts about the issue of promptness?
Okay. So are we putting prompt in or not? We have two opinions here
and…

Sarah Shorthall:	I'm not on the committee and nobody seconded my
suggestion. This is Sarah Shorthall.

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thank you, Sarah.

Rick Ingram:	And I will second that.

Sarah Shorthall:	I am taken aback.

Ken Willette:	I think there is some value to at least - back to the
point of timeline, we talked about adding a timeline, I don't think you
get a pass because it may take years - I don't think you get a pass. So
I think at least you probably identify and develop the timeline for
implementation. I think the identification part can certainly be prompt
and if there's an issue related to making changes, then that may be
addressed in the timeline as to when you can actually do it. 

Kenn Fontenot:	This is interesting, though.

Matthew Tobia:	I would support my esteemed colleague from the National
Fallen Firefighters recommendation. I think prompt identification is
important and the timeline are also important.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram and I agree with that and I believe
that really covers and it would help the responders, the ESOs.

Matthew Tobia:	So the recommendation would be under small 2, Bill, to
put the word promptly in front of identify.

Lamont Byrd:	But then that - this is Lamont Byrd. That would also change
implement. That would mean promptly implement also. So we need to do a
little bit of wordsmithing, but Bill has a comment. I think Bill
Hamilton has a comment.

Bill Hamilton:	This is about the program itself and what's written
within the program and what needs to be changed about the program, not
necessarily changes implemented based on, you know, recommendations.
This isn't buying new radios because your radios are bad. This is
saying, you know, because somebody recommends or says your radios are
bad. This is what's wrong with my program and how do I need to change my
- the document that I'm creating based on all of this paperwork we're
doing.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. Perhaps it should be program
evaluation and improvement...

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram again. We can evaluate things all
the time. It's like the commercial that we see on TV about the termite
evaluator, but he doesn't do anything. He just…

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. I don't want to get confused. And
Bill's kind of toggling back and forth between the PIA and the ERPP
evaluation. I think the ERPP evaluation stuff is a -- I don't want to
say it's pro forma -- but it's a 30,000-foot view of your entire
program. And that should be evaluated annually. And that you should, you
know, develop and implement, you know, improvements to your overall
30,000-foot plan. The urgency of post-incident analysis recommendations
may point to the need for prompt identification and timely
implementation or, you know, plans. You know, and I'm sorry, that's a
bad word, but, you know, shall promptly identify recommended changes and
then it should be attached, you know, to implementation and an
implementation timeline should be established.

	So right now we're in the PIA section. I think that there was
discussion about prompt identification of recommended changes.

((Crosstalk))

Matthew Tobia:	Not in the SOP section. In the - yes. Keep going up. So
right now you're in the PIA section. So I would say the ESO shall
promptly conduct a PIA after a significant event. That would be good.
Obviously, doing a PIA two year's post-incident is not functional or
valuable to us so promptly. And if somebody wants to ask the question, I
would say within 30 days would be - offered an opinion about that. And
then I think everything else flows from that.

Sarah Shorthall:	In (ii) then, or should - oh, this is for the..

Matthew Tobia:	This is the PIA.

Sarah Shorthall:	The PIA. Okay. What you could say promptly identify and
implement recommended changes and finish that sentence. And then say if
changes cannot be implemented promptly, the employer, or whoever it is,
shall develop a timeline for implementation, which gets to Rick's issue
and gets to your issue. And it gives something we view as in a number of
standards if you get to it promptly or immediately, you know.

Matthew Tobia:	Okay. And Bill will work on wordsmithing that.

Kenn Fontenot:	Can you have a comment or it was just to help - this is
Kenn Fontenot. Just to help with the wordsmithing. I would suggest that
we include the word timeline. The ESO shall identify and implement
recommended changes including a timeline to the pre-incident, yada yada
on from there.

Sarah Shorthall:	Well, the reason -- this is Sarah Shorthall. The reason
I'm suggesting maybe that's the other - if you can change something to
be there by or should you have to develop a timeline. A timeline is if
you can't do it immediately. Let's say you're having to go through an
extra step. It's two days I'll have this done; four days I'll have that;
and six days that. Even OSHA wouldn't want you to go through that type
of paperwork.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thank you, Sarah. And Ken?

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Well, we're going to make it the rest of the day and I know
half the day, Bill. It'll be all right. And I'm not going to identify
myself.

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	Okay. So now it says we're in (unintelligible) and in
post-incident analysis, number, well in what is now identified as 2, the
ESO shall promptly identify and implement recommended changes to the
pre-incident plan, the incident action plan and the extended operating
procedures based on the lesson learned as a result of the PIA. If the
recommended changes to those plans and procedures cannot be promptly
implemented, the ESO shall develop a timeline for implementation.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Is everyone good with that revision? That's good.
Okay. Thank you, Sarah, Matt. And that makes sense to everybody but me?

Ken Willette:	Looking cool. The whole thing does.

Lamont Byrd:	All right. Sounds good. Thank you.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Bill, when you were reading that last sentence. Did you say
cannot be (unintelligible)?

Lamont Byrd:	Could you speak into the microphone please?

Rick Ingram:	I wanted Bill to go back to that statement he was just
working on.

Sarah Shorthall:	Talk into the microphone please.

Bill Hamilton:	It's on the screen, all right?

Rick Ingram:	So I thought you said the last sentence says the
recommended changes to the - I thought I heard you just say to the plan.

Bill Hamilton:	Well, I was trying to emphasize that's…

Rick Ingram:	What's being changed is the plans and the procedures.

Bill Hamilton:	I apologize. I wasn't reading word for word. It says if
the recommended changes cannot be promptly implemented, the ESO shall
develop a timeline for implementation.

Lamont Byrd:	Matt?

Matthew Tobia:	Does there need to be a written timeline? This is Matthew
Tobia. Does there need to be a written timeline?

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Documented or written, either one. Rick Ingram. And if it
was a document that I was writing for our company, I would actually also
say and track action items to closure because you can write a timeline
but if you don't track it to closure then it's just a timeline floating
out there. But that's my opinion. I don't know if anybody agrees with
that. Anybody else agree with that or not? Is it necessary to add that
or not?

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt. I would just offer that might be a
regulatory oversight function as opposed to something internal. I
understand what you're saying and yes, I think it should include, you
know, the closure date as items are accomplished, but I think that's a
regulatory oversight function.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram and I understand that and I think it's
implied anyway.

Bill Hamilton:	Okay. And if that language is acceptable - let's see,
we're on Page 30. That wraps up what we had on the agenda there. There
are a couple of outstanding issues that need to be dealt with. On Page
38, at the top of the page under (b), SSE's whose permeable clothing
becomes wetted with hazardous substances, that section, there's a
comment that Lisa and (Grady) to work on terminology and I'm not sure
that we addressed that.

Lisa Delaney:	So this is Lisa Delaney. After some discussion, I think
the changes we're going to make are really just wordsmithing so we're
fine with the way it is right now.

Bill Hamilton:	Okay. Thank you. And I think on the next page, no, I'm
sorry, a little further down under 7 - Section 7 on the same page, that
makes references to personal protective clothing or has been struck, I
think that was it. (Spencer)? I think (Spencer) wanted to make a
comment.

(Spencer Schwangler):	Yes. (Spencer). Bill, if we could reinstate the
word clothing in there I think your point about first responders only
having personal protective equipment makes sense, but the skilled
support people were showing up in our work clothes. And those work
clothes could end up getting contaminated and they're taking to
commercial laundry. And that laundry should be alerted to the fact that
it's not just - it's the clothing itself that those are going to be
cleaning and they should be alerted to that if there's toxins on that
clothing.

Bill Hamilton:	So it's Bill Hamilton. Are you talking about not personal
protective clothing, just regular clothing?

(Spencer Schwangler):	You can leave in - I just want to see the word
clothing back in there.

Bill Hamilton:	Okay.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. You could just say
clothing/equipment.

Ken Willette:	You could say clothing or.

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill. Our definition of personal protective
equipment includes clothing, personal protective clothing. That's why,
I, yes, so I put clothing or personal protective equipment.

(Spencer Schwangler):	Yes, please, thank you.

Bill Hamilton:	Okay. So it says clothing?

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, is everyone okay with the - is the subcommittee
okay with that revision?

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. I think there was one other thing. (Spencer), you
wanted to - you had a comment on Page 39 under Number 2, the
pre-incident training?

(Spencer Schwangler):	Yes. (Spencer) again. On 2(I) in the parentheses
there after the seven and a half hours, the current text says, or as is
done from construction industry. And we can just strike that because the
outreach program for disaster site worker training includes both general
industry and the construction industry. So there's no reason that we
have to specify the construction industry unless, you know, my
colleagues from the fire service know of other industries other than the
general industry or do you guys often call on maritime? Do you guys call
on maritime for assistance still to work on the maritime industry?

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. We are generally not the lead.
Local ESOs are not generally the lead agency on requesting that type of
federal assistance. Typically, you would find that the Coast Guard
becomes the cooperating and they make their requests for additional
skilled support workers in the maritime industry or another maritime
agency might make that request. So I think you're capturing the intent
of what we're looking for which is general industry and construction
industry.

(Spencer Schwangler):	There is an outreach program in our program for
the maritime industry as well so even if you did make that call the
requirement is the same so we can just strike that, if that makes sense
to everybody.

Kenn Fontenot:	That was (Spencer Schwangler).

Rick Ingram:	The only other thing we'd like to do now is track our
action items to closure.

((Crosstalk))

Matthew Tobia:	Can I offer to respectfully request that we take a break
so that we can work on - just take a minute because I know some of the
action items just got sent to Bill and I don't know if he's had a chance
to incorporate them.

Rick Ingram:	That's a great idea. How about if we reconvene in 15
minutes? Thanks.

	(Break)

Rick Ingram:	At the break, Matt and I went over all of the action item
notes that Lamont and I have taken so six pages of notes. We went
through those and I think we're on track for getting all of those
completed, is that right, Matt? This is Rick Ingram, by the way.

	So we will get all the action items closed that we've had for the last
day and a half - or over a day and a half. So I believe Victor Stagnaro.
Where are my glasses?

Lamont Byrd:	Is that an Italian way to say it?

((Crosstalk.))

Rick Ingram:	Victor Stagnaro has some comments.

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes, thank you. On Page 40 - this is Victor Stagnaro.
On Page 40, under skilled support program evaluation section (u), the
wording there mirrored the wording we have under program evaluation that
we just spoke about a little bit earlier. My recommendation is that
whatever changes we made to the document in that section be mirrored
here as I think that was the original intent. So I don't know that we
need to go into it in-depth but all those changes should just be
included into that section as well.

Rick Ingram:	Any discussion?

((Crosstalk))

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. And I had a discussion with (Spencer)
real quick prior to the meeting so I think that you are in agreement
that those changes should be made as well.

Rick Ingram:	So with that, we have completed the regulatory text so
let's give each other a hand. Okay. And my colleague is going to lead us
through the draft memo from the ERP subcommittee to NACOSH if you want
to pull that out of your package there.

Lamont Byrd:	Thank you, Rick. This is Lamont Byrd. Does everyone have a
copy or does anyone need a copy?

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Did you get a copy, Kenn? Okay, everyone else have a copy?
Has everyone had a chance to read this? I have a copy if anyone needs
it. Yes. Okay, are we ready to discuss? Okay.

Rick Ingram:	I have a suggestion. I suggest that Mark explain this a
little bit, explain the process. This is Rick Ingram. But I don't think
my mic's on. Okay.

Lamont Byrd:	I think it would better, Bill, that we have
(unintelligible). 

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

Lamont Byrd:	Developed it. 

Rick Ingram:	I mean the process.

Mark Hageman:	Well, I guess so - Mark Hageman. So I guess our process
would be go through this memo and like the way we went through the reg
text and let's make sure everybody's comfortable with it. I see there's
comments in here. Sarah, had done a review. She had some comments in
here. And I think we just maybe just go through section by section and
say, okay, are we good with this? If we're good, we move on. And then
once we get to the end, just make sure we feel we have everything
covered in the memo, or that you all have everything covered in the memo
that you want to say to NACOSH, and that should be it.

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill. If you remember back at the July meeting
when we talked about this, there was several people that were going to
add this and these and that they were going to work on to put this
together. And essentially I did some of it, and others did some and
others did some, and it's toppled together in, if you will, these three
different voices. And it says, Sarah's input on, you know, various side
notes. So it's great that it's not fluid as if one person wrote it
because they didn't.

Rick Ingram:	Just to give you a timeline, we have to have this ready to
go. This is Rick Ingram. We need to have this ready to go to NACOSH by
tomorrow at noon. That's when we shut it off and we all fly out of here,
or some of us.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. As we take a look at the memo, it's a memo for NACOSH
from Rick Ingram and myself regarding the report from NACOSH
Subcommittee on Emergency Response and Preparedness. And then in this
first piece says please find attached for your consideration, there is
comment given the left of the memo it might be helpful, but not
required, to have a summary sentence at the start. Sarah, did you want
to elaborate on that any?

Sarah Shorthall:	You don't get down to saying, you know, we want you to
consider this and make recommendations a part of it until almost the end
of a six-page document. So I thought it would be helpful for there to be
a summary sentence that basically is, in essence, an executive summary
of your document. That's all.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Any thoughts about that?

Kenn Fontenot:	Makes sense to me.

Lamont Byrd:	In the introduction, there was just one question that I had
-- and this is Lamont Byrd -- is that there are several references
actually throughout the memo to injuries and death, but there is no
reference to occupational illness. And when I think about, you know, I
have actually had members who worked, you know, in the aftermath of the
World Trade Center, and those folks, you know, most of them were still
alive, but many of them were ill. And I wondered would it be appropriate
to include occupational illness in the document.

Matthew Tobia:	It would be great. This is Matthew Tobia. I think it
would be good to have that. I don't know that there's an easily defined
number associated with occupational illness. There is to my knowledge no
one agency tracking occupational illnesses in the emergency services
community that can provide that information. In terms of numbers, but
the fact that the occupational illnesses exist or occur. You know, some
waited - that could be incorporated into the letter I think would be,
you know, would be representative of what's actually going on.

Lisa Delaney:	And this is Lisa Delaney. I am happy to go back to our
World Trade Center Program to see if there's any illness statistics that
could at least be referenced in terms of the World Trade Center
response.

Pat Morrison:	This is Pat Morrison. I was just going to see if we could
do that because there is a lot of documentation on the World Trade
Center. Not only did we lose 3,000 Americans, but we can actually put in
there they are tracking all of the illnesses and that. The International
Association of Firefighters are the only ones that track cancer deaths.
The other organizations in (Tripola), NFTA, they're starting a little
bit in the NFDA. The IFC do not, but we do. And so we do have that
statistic. It's a little different than what's being presented, but I'll
get to that in the third paragraph, but we do have that number. And I
just think we kind of slip the occupational cancer somewhat on here, but
we can get to that when we get to that. But I agree that I like what
you're saying about there has to be a problem. We've been talking about
that for almost a year now so we have to mention somewhere along those
lines. 

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Ken Willette?

Ken Willette:	Yes, Ken Willette here. I support that, Lamont, because
it's not only, certainly the World Trade Center has put a big focus on
this, but we've spent repeated history of responders having to interact
with blood borne pathogens, and viruses and other exposures that have
resulted in illness. And some of the measures within the responder
preparedness plan would reduce the responder's exposure to those so I
think very well of it to address occupational illnesses as well.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Any other thoughts or comments?

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. I would go with what Ken Willette said. We
made the statement even if we don't have hard data that covers all the
industry. Use the data we have and Sam's data and other things because
the cancer issue is hard to define at this point of the recent tracking.
But what needs to be part of this is a substantial health risk.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, thank you. Is there anything specifically addressed
in paragraph 1?

Pat Morrison:	This is Pat Morrison. I just don't know - I know that
Victor, you and Matt put this together, I guess the intro on this (b) -
what did you mean by saying the lives of all classes of first
responders?

Lamont Byrd:	I'm sorry. Where on - are you looking at paragraph 1.

Pat Morrison:	Yes, paragraph 1, probably the third sentence -- today the
effects of the worksite continue to claim the lives of all classes of
first responders.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes. What I'm talking about is that we're talking about
firefighters, emergency medical services personnel, police officers, you
know, other allied health professionals who, you know, are classified in
the umbrella of first responders trying to avoid the, you know, folks
they only on firefighters. Because if you look at post-9/11, there are
police officers who have died as a result of occupational exposure to
ground zero, EMS personnel, you know. Allied Help use our folks, you
know, who have developed cancers so they were functioning outside the
traditional realm of structural firefighting.

Lamont Byrd:	Yes, Ken.

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette. Matt, the one thing is when I saw the word
classes, it kind of struck me as being king of a categorization of
people for socio-economic demographics or something else. I wonder if we
can't find a better word to define that rod - categories is fine, you
know, all categories. There was no claim of ownership of that. It was
just to mean to ensure that we were capturing the fact that we weren't
just talking about firefighters because there were far more than just
firefighters on the pile-up at 9/11.

Lamont Byrd:	Yes, Lisa.

Lisa Delaney:	Lisa Delaney. I think it's important and I'm glad that
you've acknowledged that. I wonder if we need to have another sentence
in here because then the next sentence you start talking about skilled
support worker, which we're all very comfortable with after a year using
that term. So perhaps we need, you know, another sort of sentence that
talks about - that expands that statement that you made about first
responders because it gets - its first responders and how we define
skilled support workers and the standards. Maybe a little language
around that would be helpful.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Any other questions or comments. Thoughts about
paragraph 1. Hearing none, how about paragraph 2?

Lisa Delaney:	This is Lisa Delaney. And just in general do you plan on
actually providing the references for some of the data that you're
presenting in here, is that the plan?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro. We certainly can. I think the
NFDA reports on injuries is where that came from and as far as the
firefighter fatalities, those are numbers that came out of the Fallen
Firefighter's Foundation.

Lisa Delaney:	I think it would just be helpful if we actually included
them.

Victor Stagnaro:	Sure, yes. I agree.

Bill Troop:	This is Bill Troop USFA. We can also provide citations for
the firefighter fatality numbers from our database, too, as another
source.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Any other comments or thoughts? Yes, Sarah?

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall. Before we get to the line on
firefighter deaths, were those line of duty deaths or did those also
include the cardiac?

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. The answer to your question is
yes. So for the purposes of this discussion, the National Fallen
Firefighter's Foundation criteria lists clearly cardiac deaths within 24
hours of an emergency call or required training so the cardiovascular
deaths that are cited - the deaths that are cited there are inclusive of
traumatic and medical causes - all traumatic and medical causes.

Sarah Shorthall:	All traumatic events.

Matthew Tobia:	And medical causes. All traumatic events and all medical
causes that were approved beyond the wall.

Sarah Shorthall:	But these are ones that occurred within 24-hours after
the event?

Matthew Tobia:	Either on the scene, responding to, returning from,
operating on the scene of or within 24-hours of a call or required
training in the event of cardiovascular event.

Sarah Shorthall:	Okay. Because then on the next paragraph you talk about
occupational deaths among firefighters with cardiovascular disease and
that sort of, well, you think about disease as sort of latency and
long-term and then this says, you know, the paragraph before the 439 are
traumatic events. And so I'm trying to understand whether they included
it or whether you're saying in addition and then you're talking about
occupational deaths from cardiac disease.

Matthew Tobia:	The overall attempt is simply to highlight the fact that
cardiovascular disease continues to be the identified and agreed upon
leading cause of death among firefighters. There is an emerging trend to
identify that cancer, you know, occupational cancer, is a major concern.
But the intent here was simply just to in a broad brush way identify
that cardiovascular disease continues to be the leading cause of death
and in the very next sentence it talks about occupational cancer being a
significant and emerging issue in the fire circles.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall. Then I would wonder if you could add a
footnote on the 439 that just explain what they were, you know, within
24-hours, blah, blah.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. Sarah, it is also important to
note that of the three major organizations that track firefighter
fatalities, the definition is not the same in any one of the three. Book
criteria is not identical.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	USFA? I'll check it.

Pat Morrison:	Pat Morrison. But in that, I don't know if we could put in
there, and I'll pose this question to the Chairs, of the 439 that the
National Fallen Firefighters Foundation put on their wall were basically
approved by the Department of Justice for the Public Safety Officer
Benefit Program. So I don't know, and, you know, does it have any more
meaning when we're going to send this up to a group at the Department of
Justice, another federal agency has documented these as being line of
duty deaths. I don't if that gives us more of a - you know, it's not
just, you know, what we made up. This is a - and that is a criteria -
that it's a complete criteria for that.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. Couldn't you just simply say line of
duty deaths?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro. Yes, I think we could say line
of duty deaths to Pat's point that were approved - those family members
were approved to receive benefits by the Department of Justice under the
Public Safety Officer badges.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram again. I think if you just separate
for the public and for the NACOSH members who are not going to be
familiar, I think if you said died in the line of duty, I think that
would really make the point either way and I don't think you would have
to elaborate on that really.

Victor Stagnaro:	No, I like..

Rick Ingram:	…myself and then on the next page you do talk about the
cardiovascular issues.

Matthew Tobia:	To that end --this is Matthew Tobia -- to that end you
could certainly strike the word occupational on the first sentence as
the leading cause of death among firefighters (unintelligible) and that
is also one of the issues.

Bill Troop:	This is Bill Troop USFA. I think it might be also of benefit
to cite USFA's figures as another federal agency. You know, to give
emphasis in addition to the Justice - to the U.S. Fire Administration
reports a number of fatalities because we're being - this is a
federal-based document using another federal source might be helpful.

((Crosstalk))

Sharon Shorthall:	The reason I suggested giving that differentiation or
trying to explain it more was I do think the standard note trying to
reach some of the disease issues but primarily is dealt with safety
issues. And so, I thought, oh, here you've got the stature and then
you're saying the largest or majority of everything is cardiovascular
and how does the standard address that, so sort of like getting to the,
you know, let's stop the line of duty deaths and also this can help with
just cardiac disease.

Matthew Tobia:	Right. So this is Matthew Tobia. If you look at the
medical section of the standards, it's a huge component of how we're
going to reduce preventable cardiac events. Is there a requirement for
annual physical, a requirement for a fitness program and a wellness
program? Those will, you know, address that and, you know, many efforts
have already been undertaken to reduce preventable line of duty deaths.
We're also looking at injuries, which is a bigger, you know, 100,000
injuries a year, in addition to the 80 or so firefighter fatalities,
depending on what number you use.

Pat Morrison:	This is Pat Morrison. On that paragraph and the leading
cause of - well, Sarah, too, I just want to clarify. When we say line of
duty that does include, that is the heart attack. I mean that's the
heart attack either on the fire ground or 24-hours after a call. That's
considered the same if a building collapsed on a firefighter. If any of
those catastrophic events is the same thing as a heart attack, it's the
same.

Rick Ingram:	Exactly.

Pat Morrison:	The leading cause of death among firefighters is
cardiovascular disease, but that's on the fire ground. And I think that
really is the fire ground - the statistic that you've cited here is on
the fire ground, correct?

Matthew Tobia:	Not specifically. This is Matthew Tobia. Not
specifically, Pat. And if you log - if it's your log of our conversation
or desire to make it something else, I'm perfectly content with that.
But it's not just related to the fire ground. It's a leading cause if
you - from my perspective it's just based on the NFF's numbers. If you
state their numbers, which captures that criteria, within 24-hour call,
the biggest percentage of cardiovascular deaths.

Pat Morrison:	Correct. But it's all fire ground related. It's not
also…

Matthew Tobia:	It could be fire draft or training.

((Crosstalk))

Pat Morrison:	That's true, it might be training.

Matthew Tobia:	Or any of that within 24 hours.

Pat Morrison:	Okay.

Matthew Tobia:	That said, however, if your bigger issue is the fatality
of the cancer issue, I'm perfectly okay with that.

Pat Morrison:	This is Pat Morrison. That is an issue that I don't want
to just - because what we're emphasizing here in bold is the heart
attacks and we're kind of doing a footnote. So, well, recent studies
have also linked the occupational cancer to firefighting. I just don't
know how to make that a little bit more with, you know…

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. I've got a suggestion here. And I
would leave that paragraph with the horrific extent of exposure to
carcinogens and the large number of firefighter fatalities due to
cardiovascular incidents underscores the unique dangers. I would lead
that paragraph, perhaps, that's what I would offer to you, is lead with
that sentence and then follow-up with the…

Matthew Tobia:	You could knock out the first two sentences.

Rick Ingram:	I really think that would be better in my opinion. I think
that would be more - because we really want to have some impact. For all
intents and purposes, Mark, Bill and Sarah, you can correct me if I'm
wrong, but we're really working to try to sell this standard to OSHA for
publication for NACOSH. And so I think that would be a much more
effective way to start that paragraph. And I'll leave it at that for
discussion.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matthew Tobia. I absolutely agree with that.

Pat Morrison:	Pat Morrison. I agree, too. The only other - not to just
jump off on the cancer just yet, but PSOB just awarded the post - we
talked about the post-9/11 deaths up there. But they have just been
acknowledged as a line of duty for the first time. So these are the
workers both on first responders and with even - first responders that
are now - 47 first responders are being awarded a line of duty death
benefit for post-9/11 exposure.

Rick Ingram:	So you could you reiterate that acronym.

Pat Morrison:	PSOB is the Public Safety Officer's Benefit. And I'll just
give you just a real quick - the 439 names that we're citing from 2010
to '14 all had a criteria that the Department of Justice, our Public
Safety Officer Benefit Program, has listed as an award. If you're going
to have an award, you have to go through that program. For requirements,
you have to file to the PSOB to get those 439 individual firefighters
went through the PSOB. The PSOB has never, ever accepted a cancer claim,
occupational illness, occupational cancer as a line of duty death, until
two weeks ago, or maybe three weeks ago that they then accepted it
through. NIOSH has accepted those that certain cancers that were listed
as probable causes, or most likely causes, from the exposure on 9/11,
they are being awarded the PSOB claim. It's the same - it's the first
time we've ever seen that. Now, I say a lot of that I just want to make
sure that we don't - to me when I read this, we're just really
emphasizing again on the cardiovascular. I do not want to slight - I
think. Because I think this is NACOSH and I think that group will
understand occupational illness, occupational disease, outside of that
because with workers out there, that's usually what, you know, some of
those, like, you know, the protections that they have are to reduce that
and that's the same thing we're trying to do in this document here, too,
so.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram, again. I would like us to go back
to Page 1 at the very end there. Let's see, so we've termed an illness
and death - injuries, illness and death. So I think if we could include
illness in those last two sentences so, saying the part about -- I will
say it to you now -- program or produce measurable but limited
improvements and are reducing preventable injuries and deaths. Should we
add injuries, illnesses and death, or injuries, death and illness? And
then unfortunately firefighters continue to become ill, injured and die
or injured, ill and die at a far rate than our - and I don't know if
that's quite viable there or not. It sounds like it would be. So I think
that would really get Lisa's point across about illness, chronic illness
especially, it's something we deal with in our industry world.

Pat Morrison:	Great. Well, this is a document, you know, and we made the
point - or Matt had brought it up for reference, to add it in there so
it just re-captures that note.

Rick Ingram:	That's right. So, this is Rick Ingram again. And Lamont is
actually leading this section, but I took it over. Bill, are you? Yes,
go ahead.

Lamont Byrd:	You had a question, Bill?

Rick Ingram:	Yes, so can we agree on a consensus to add illness in those
last two sentences on the first page? We've seen nodding of heads in the
affirmative. Anybody dissented? Bill? I'm sorry.

Lamont Byrd:	Bill?

Bill Hamilton:	The only thing that I've (unintelligible) - industry, do
we know that firefighters become ill at a rate higher than other
industries? So I put it in, which is in the see the last, the second to
the last sentence as it says now says injuries, illnesses and deaths.

Lamont Byrd:	This is Lamont Byrd. Bill, what I had suggested early on
when I raised the whole issue of occupational illness, I was thinking
about just incorporating occupational illness throughout this document
where appropriate. If you were referring to some specific statistics,
and we don't have illness statistics, then we wouldn't include it there,
but where would be appropriate, we could just insert occupational
illness.

Sarah Shorthall:	I'm Sarah Shorthall. What you could do for Bill's
quandary about the end of the sentence starting unfortunately, if
changing other to many industries. It could be somewhat higher but this
is probably higher than many of us, so.

Pat Morrison:	Any other - Pat Morrison. Just when we cite on the second
paragraph when we cite the recent studies have also, let's cite the
NIOSH cancer studies on that one there and also we can - and that's the
study on close to 30,000 firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago and
Philadelphia. And that is the most up-to-date cancer that does have
numbers that has statistics in there and it really shows a lot of the
correlation.

Sarah Shorthall: 	Sarah Shorthall. Pat, would you be able to provide
Bill with that citation?

Pat Morrison:	Yes. The NIOSH Firefighting Cancer Study.

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	What did Pat say?

Pat Morrison:	Well, Bill, on the third paragraph, where you have recent
studies, I think we can just cite, you know, at least NIOSH for that
because I think that is an important distinction that people can take a
look at.

Matthew Tobia:	Right, so - this is Matthew Tobia. Bill, go back to that
page you were on. Scroll down. Right there. All right. We had originally
cut out the first two sentences. The sentence that that is referring is
the one that the second sentence was cut out, recent studies have also.
I would offer that that should be placed after the horrific extent of
exposures. And then I would say you can cite the NIOSH study in the body
of the…

Pat Morrison:	Pat Morrison. In the study, they were both active - they
were both deceased, active and retired. It was a retro event.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. Just as a side note to what Pat was saying,
one of the things that we haven't been able to come to grips with is how
big the cancer issue is simply because it - and there's study groups of
three different groups and only part of them were active. And a lot of
the cancer showed up after they retired or passed away so when the
numbers come in, they are probably not particularly reflective as the
total problem as much as - it's hard to make it reflective of the total
problem because we just don't have good numbers on how many people were
affected. And that's why I…

((Crosstalk))

Ken Willette:	This is Ken Willette. I'd like to go on Page 1. If Bill is
ready to scroll up. And this is Ken Willette.

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	So you wanted to take out the leading - the first
sentence in this paragraph that says leading cause of occupational
death. You wanted to take that out. Right? Move the horrific extent to
the top of the paragraph and move recent studies down further so that it
looks more like - okay, like this, right?

	Horrific extent of exposure to carcinogens in large numbers of
firefighter's fatalities need encounter that with this on this towards
unique dangers encountered in firefighting and adding in routine
processes to the effort to improve workers' safety in the industry,
recent studies have linked occupational cancer to firefighting -- we're
going to replace NIOSH. These are serious but not intractable or
solvable causes. That's kind of the way we wanted it? Is that what you
wanted. No, yes, no? What did I do?

((Crosstalk))

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt. I think that that captures the summary of
the conversations that have been taking place over the last half hour.

Sharon Shorthall:	Picking up with Rick's concern in the next sentence,
these are serious but not intractable or unsolvable causes of. And I
would not use occupational. I would use worker illness, injury and
death.

Ken Willette:	Yes, Ken Willette. The statement above to volunteering
consensus standards such as NFPA1500 have produced measurable but
limited improvements in reducing preventable injuries and death. Matt,
when you were crafting that, what was the message you were trying to
convey?

Matthew Tobia:	That voluntary consensus standards are just that, that
they're voluntary consensus standards and that because they don't have
the force of law, they don't have the ability to produce the kinds of
results that we're trying to get with regulation. I mean, I don't want
to minimize the effect of the NFPA standards because they're
tremendously successful, but I think that we need to be able to
articulate the difference between voluntary consensus standards and
regulation. And that's what I'm trying to - I guess I was trying to
identify the fact that there's a difference. That was the goal.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram. I would suggest that you put that in
right. What you just said sounded great and it made sense.

Matthew Tobia:	If I can remember what I just said, I will do so. Can you
hit rewind on that please?

((Crosstalk))

Ken Willette:	Let me see if I can just suggest something because I was
thinking more in the lines of what you were just thinking, Matt, as I
was looking at that. So voluntary consensus standards, such as NFPA1500,
blah, blah, have increased awareness and resulted in programs aimed at
reducing preventable injuries, illnesses and death but lack the
regulatory impact of OSHA and makes it a clear correlation between
voluntary consensus and regulatory intent or impact.

Matthew Tobia:	Got it. This is Matt. I got it. I got what you just said,
Ken, and I'll share it with you in just a second, Bill. Deep breath.
I'll get it to you. I'll walk over and talk to you in just a second.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Okay. This is Rick Ingram. Lamont and I were just
discussing the fact that we've got a long way to go on this. And we're
just wondering if anybody, and I hate to ask, but could anybody stay
until 5 o'clock instead of 4 o'clock. And I know how traffic is. I live
in Houston, Texas, so believe me I understand. But would it be possible
to? We can stay until 7:00 and traffic would be over by then, but. Okay,
could I get a show of hands? Today? Could you stay for a little longer
or not? 4:30 okay. So who can stay until 5 o'clock? 

Sarah Shorthall:	I thought you were going to ask us to stay until 7.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. So we've got a few that can stay until 5:00 and we
can work through some of the language. And the others would be here
tomorrow. I guess Lisa, you'd be here tomorrow? I don't think it would
be mandatory to be here. Bill, could you stay with us?

Bill Hamilton:	If I say, no, do we all get to go?

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Okay. So I think we have a consensus to stay until - for
everybody that can, we'll stay until 5 o'clock. If you can't, no
problem. And then we'll reconvene tomorrow morning, but I just wanted to
that cleared up now. So we'll work until 5:00 today and 4:00 tomorrow. 

Lamont Byrd:	You have to have a quorum for tomorrow.

Rick Ingram:	We'll ask Sarah. Sarah, do we have to have a quorum
tomorrow?

Sarah Shorthall:	You always have to have a quorum.

Rick Ingram:	We always have to have a quorum. Okay. So how many are
going to be here tomorrow? So we'll be okay. That's fine. And I know
Kathy will be back tomorrow as well. Okay. So thank you very much and
we'll continue. And Lamont made me ask you - this is Rick - so Lamont
made me ask as if it was my idea.

Lisa Delaney:	What are we doing tomorrow? Are we just working on the
same thing tomorrow as well?

Rick Ingram:	Finish this up. Work on the digital action plan. We still
got a long way to go on this.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Bill, do you want to read that back to me?

Bill Hamilton:	Consensus standards such as (MSJ1500) standard on Fire
Department Occupational Safety and Health program has increased
awareness and serves as the basis of programs designed to improve worker
safety but they are involuntary and therefore lack the regulatory
enforcement mechanisms that OSHA possesses.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. And (Ken) left so we can approve it while he's gone.
Okay, all right. So, can we go into the next paragraph? I think we're
saying almost the same thing in the last paragraph that we just added in
but let's go through this paragraph that you changed here.

	So is everybody comfortable with that one?

Man:	(Who wrote) the question?

Lisa Delaney:	This is Lisa (unintelligible) just one wording issue that
I noted is that we used different terms so in this paragraph we refer to
emergency medical responders and in the next paragraph we call them
emergency medical service providers. I just think we need to be
consistent.

	I think in most standard (unintelligible) we're using emergency medical
responders. I think that's - I'll look in definitions again.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt, if you're referring to the last sentence on
the second paragraph, the last thing on the second paragraph, I was
talking about the field as opposed to the individuals who serve in that
capacity so the field - still look at the field of firefighting and the,
you know, responders who are firefighters that's what I was - that's all
that I was trying to capture there.

Rick Ingram:	Emergency medical service.

Lisa Delaney:	Yes, so that is an organization.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, any other…

Sarah Shorthall:	(Unintelligible) in that last sentence, field emergency
medical services, is cardiovascular disease a close second or are you
trying to just emphasize that the leading cause of death is motor
vehicle collision?

Man:	It's just a fact, it's just what is factually known and honestly
there has been no recent research on this, the last one I believe and
Bill Troop can correct me but I believe the last time that anyone looked
at this was in 2010 but the data at that time cited the leading cause of
death was motor vehicle collisions and the second leading cause of death
was cardiovascular disease and the intent there was to identify that
even in the field of EMS traumatic injuries and cardiovascular disease
are the two leading causes of death.

Sarah Shorthall:	So you're - I guess I felt what you were trying to do
in this paragraph was to say you've got cardiovascular disease, you've
got cancer, you've got motor vehicle - there's a whole variety of
different ones.

Man:	There is. The main reason for putting that sentence in there was to
ensure that we - that it was clear that we weren't just talking about
firefighters.

Sarah Shorthall:	Okay.

Man:	That we were talking about emergency medical services personnel who
also experience line of duty death, injuries and illnesses; one that we
obviously don’t talk about is the contracting of diseases within EMS
personnel but I don’t know that that was captured in the 2010 - the
2010 study only looked at fatalities and did not look at occupational
illnesses.

Sarah Shorthall:	Do you think that the paragraph would be stronger by
striking everything after collisions?

Man:	(Necessarily) I would say no because the intent of the ERPP is to
capture something that is definitely not occurring right now which is
medical - which is physicals for all emergency responders not occurring
today.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram and I was just wondering if we
shouldn't have a closing sentence to that paragraph that kind of ties
the whole thing together such as this proposed draft regulatory checks
includes language to help correct this issue or something like that
because right now we're just - we're ending it with, you know, motor
vehicle collisions and cardiovascular disease. I think we need something
to bring it back to the entire meaning of the thought there.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt, that's fine. I actually saw that as a third
paragraph that the second paragraph was explanatory, was providing some
background and some explanation about being able to be - it was simply
identifying the common causes of workplace injuries, illnesses and
deaths and then the final paragraph was meant to kind of bring it all
together. But…

Rick Ingram:	So could we say, and I'll just throw this out there one
more time, could we say something like this draft regulatory (case) is
an effort to address these issues or includes - will address these
issues, is that needed?

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette, I think the next paragraph that starts, the
subcommittee has concluded, I think that answers that question Rick.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. I'm just thinking high school English days and my
teacher would have beat me up if I ended a paragraph like that. Okay.

Matthew Tobia:	Now, certainly what we could do, this is Matt
(unintelligible), what we could do Rick is we could take that sentence
and move it in front of the immediately prior sentence. So in other
words, take what is currently the last sentence in the second paragraph
and move it to the sentence, move it in front of the sentence that
starts with these are serious but not intractable or unsolvable
(causes), that might address your…

Rick Ingram:	I think that would be good and you already got the language
there so in my opinion that would help that paragraph. Good idea. That
really works so any other comments, this is Rick Ingram, does that help?

Man:	No, I was just echoing your support for Matt's recommendation I
think it does…

Matthew Tobia:	…and just moving on to the third - this is Matt just
moving on to the third paragraph, I think Sarah's recommendations are
outstanding just we believe and replacing the nation’s first, I would
say nationwide.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, if you wanted, I have no problem with
you saying the nation's first so long as you're just stating it's the
subcommittees belief rather than stating it as a fact and if you want to
state it as a fact I felt the only thing you could say was it is a
nationwide, I'm not sure, you know, there are - some people might
consider the work that (NSCA) has done to be…

Man:	National, right absolutely international. One thing that - the
comprehensiveness of this draft regulatory text was what I was pointing
to because it addresses skilled support workers which has not - it has
been identified as an issue but hasn't necessarily been addressed in
coordination with all of the other responders.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, so it would say we believe the draft
(unintelligible) language developed by the committee, subcommittee,
reflects a nationwide service and coordinated effort?

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette would the word national reflect a national
approach, brings a high level?

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, I'm going to play the role of English
teacher that I used to be, would you in that sentence also say we
believe the draft regulatory language, the subcommittee developed. I
hate that (unintelligible).

Matthew Tobia:	(Unintelligible) reflects, this is Matt, I think what we
talked about was reflects a national and then…

((Crosstalk))

Matthew Tobia:	There you go.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram do you need concerted in there or just
coordinated?

Matthew Tobia:	I think it's been a pretty concerted effort on our part
but I'm a little biased about that. This is Matthew Tobia, sorry.

Sarah Shorthall:	And it's perfect alliteration.

Ken Willette:	This is (Ken), just to make the (comment) short, that
sentence a little bit, if we replace all of the list of emergency
respond - just call them emergency responders who place themselves in
harm’s way, it just makes it a little bit shorter and if we need to
list them, that's okay, but sometimes shorter is better when people are
reading.

(Spencer Schwangler):	All right, this is (Spencer), did we mention the
skilled support anywhere else so far? It extends pretty heavy on - I
mean, we've clearly mentioned first responders and medical emergency
responders but this was one of the first places that we actually
mentioned skilled support which I thought Matt said was an important
part of the concerted effort.

Matthew Tobia:	Right, it's in the first paragraph. They're mentioned in
the first paragraph for the first time and then they're mentioned again
in the third paragraph but Lisa previously brought up the issue of
perhaps defining them but I don’t know - I don’t necessarily know if
we need to do it in the introduction or if we can do it later in the
body of the - if we say skilled support workers and the (unintelligible)
committee as a whole wants to know what that's about, I think they
should ask. I don’t mean that disrespectfully please.

((Crosstalk))

Lisa Delaney:	(Spencer), this is Lisa Delaney. I don’t think that
there's really - data related to (INI) for skilled support so I don’t
know if we should acknowledge that or if you have any data or references
that you could provide to add to this memo?

(Spencer Schwangler):	This is (Spencer), I can ask (Chris Train), if I
remember correctly, she's mentioned a number of times that Mount Sinai
in New York has been collecting data on skilled support workers that
were - had become ill as a result of the work that they did at the World
Trade Center. Is that true (Lamont), you're shaking your head. Okay. Do
you have access to that information?

Lamont Byrd:	I'm not sure that - I could possibly check with one of our
locals but there's been some - I would think it would be challenging for
me to get that data from our large New York level.

(Spencer Schwangler):	I'll check with (Chris).

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt. Lisa the point you bring up is good, I
think it's an even smaller subset of (INI) amongst skilled support
workers because it's in their capacity when they're supporting us, I say
us meaning emergency service personnel but I think you guys are on the
right track in terms of if Sinai is tracking skilled support workers
that worked Ground Zero that that certainly would be the group that
you'd be looking for and I'm sure that their cancer rate is probably far
in excess of the rest of their cohort of fellow employees.

Ken Willette:	(Ken), (fun) to know.

Rick Ingram:	In reading the last couple of words it says reflects the
balance between common sense and expectation of performance. I believe
it would be more powerful if we just swapped it and put (soft) between
expectation and performance and common sense and just believe that's a
more powerful statement, people are reading it.

(Scott Morrison):	This is (Scott Morrison), I have - on that last
sentence, and you guys did a great job and I know sometimes it's hard
when we're sitting here picking it apart but that - the other thing that
it seems to close not in a way that maybe that last - I mean all of the
way up to capturing the collective commitment of national stakeholders,
tremendous effort has been applied to present draft regulatory tests
that reflect… Do we - you know, common sense sometimes can be debated.
I know they debate it with me all of the time because I don’t have
common sense (unintelligible) but do we really want to put what this -
do we really want to add the next statement in to reduce what are we
trying to do is to make the workers safer and we're trying to protect
the workers. I understand what you guys are saying in there you were
putting it where what the collective effort in here was but really that
draft regulatory text is to save lives, reduce injuries and protect the
workers.

	You know what I mean, just say it what it is and expectation - you

Man:	Any thoughts or comments about that suggestion? Yes, Ken Willette?

Ken Willette:	Yes, Ken Willette, no, I think that makes a great
suggestion and that's a really good place to kind of really put out
bluntly what it is that we want to do through this. So if people say
well what's your intent, that's - our mission statement, that's what we
point - that's what it's all about, this is the motherhood apple pie and
puppy dog statement or don’t (unintelligible).

Matthew Tobia:	Right, this is Matt, I would agree with that and you
could even - I mean, you can specify reduced preventable line of duty
deaths, reduce workplace injuries and reduce workplace illnesses. You
know, improve workplace safety. I mean, I think that's the mission of -
certainly that's in keeping with the mission of OSHA in general.

Man:	Okay, so are we good with the language that (Bill) has put up or do
we need further revision?

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, the name of your standard that you're
proposing is emergency responder. There is to protect emergency
responders and get your title worked in there.

((Crosstalk))

Sarah Shorthall:	And field support work, is our skilled support not
considered emergency responders or am I wrong?

Man:	No.

Sarah Shorthall:	So we need to change it.

((Crosstalk))

Sarah Shorthall:	You've got to title then that of your standard that
doesn’t include (unintelligible).

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt, the only reason I say that,
(unintelligible) is because we talked about that on Day 1 about
delineating between emergency responders and skilled support workers,
the OSHA's charge to include skilled support workers document is
completely and totally appropriate particularly since they work so
closely hand-in-hand with each other but the…

Man:	Okay, so again do - are we good with this language or…

Sarah Shorthall:	I drop my suggestion.

Man:	Okay.

Lamont Byrd:	This is Lamont Byrd, so we're good with the way this
paragraph…

Man:	Okay. So now we move onto background. Any thoughts or comments
about this paragraph? And I see there has already been some revision to
this.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, I looked up the (RFI) yesterday or the
day - a couple of days ago and we did not say in the (RFI) that we
considered our standards to be inadequate. We said a number of things
which I think, you know, you could legitimately put in there but I think
to state this as a fact, it is not an accurate reflection of what OSHA
has said.

Man:	Got it.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt, I think that if I recall correctly from
(Andy) and I don’t want to misrepresent but he had indicated that this
effort was born out of the post-911 analysis done by the RAND
Corporation contracted through (unintelligible) to evaluate what
regulations needed to be updated, improved upon, changed, certainly that
- I think that drove the development to where we are today.

Sarah Shorthall:	If you want to say what it's for and from, I think
that's perfectly fine, but I don’t think that OSHA itself has made a
statement. We recognized their existing standards are not adequate. I
can't find any language, written language, that would suggest that.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes, I would say we - the message we ought to say in that
case is we should just scratch it.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, so given the recommendation by Sarah, are we okay with the
introductory sentence being in 2007 OSHA published an (RFI)? Good start?
Okay.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall again, I think that's very interesting
what you said Matt about the RAND Corporation. I mean, if you wanted to
put something else like that in the background that certainly is, you
know, more evidence that there needs to be some action on this.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt, I'm just repeating what (Andy) and I had
talked about just from an education perspective so I would just wait
until (Andy) is available to provide that information firsthand. I think
it's valuable because I think he was able to provide me a very clear
roadmap of how we got from where we were on September 11 to where we are
today in relation to the development of this regulatory (text) and I
think that that is probably useful in here but how we let (Andy) provide
that.

Man:	Okay, so moving forward, any other discussion or recommendations to
the background introductory paragraph? Hearing none, what about the next
paragraph beginning as a result of the April 2013 ammonium nitrate
explosion in West Texas? We're good with that?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor (unintelligible) I think we just need to
confirm the number of emergency responders that were killed in the
explosion in West Texas. I know the National Fallen Firefighters
Foundation honored ten but there may have been others that were not
honored that were killed, so we just need to confirm that number.

Man:	Okay, is there anything else? Nope?

Lisa Delaney:	This is Lisa Delaney, and I wonder if we wanted to go a
little into more detail about West Texas because I think we've been in
discussions with the (Drop Regulatory Texas) around the community risk
assessments and if that - we kind of told more of a story with West
Texas and that might be more compelling. I don’t… I don’t think I
want to do that, maybe not but it seems like we - there were some real
lessons learned that maybe we could highlight here in the background
that would explain why we focused on certain aspects as the standard…

Man:	Okay, thank you Lisa, Ken Fontenot?

Ken Fontenot:	This is (Ken), a little bit of wordsmithing that might
make this a more powerful read is the death of ten emergency responders
in April 2013 in West Texas due to an ammonium nitrate explosion
reaffirm that emergency responder health and safety, dah, dah, dah. To
me it's just a more powerful statement. It brings it right up front that
there's ten of them that died right there as opposed to hiding it down,
not hiding it, but it's buried down a couple of sentences down.

(Grady):	This is (Grady), I'd like to add to (Ken)'s comment there…

((Crosstalk))

(Grady):	This is (Grady), I'd like to add maybe something to (Ken)'s
comment. I agree with that, maybe saying that in April 2013 ten
emergency responders were killed in West Texas where an ammonium nitrate
explosion occurred, comma, and then pick the rest of it up. Just
wordsmithing.

Man:	Okay, and other thoughts or comments about this particular
paragraph?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I’m looking it up right now, the number is actually… It depends
on how you look, you know…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I think I got that from the (unintelligible).

Man:	This is (unintelligible), well the information I see is that total
of 14 people were killed (unintelligible) including that identified 11
firefighters from the fire department.

Man:	I am pretty sure that that's the (unintelligible) as a result and
goes all of the way through. I pulled that from the Reg agenda because
that's what (Andy) told me to do.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, (Ken) would you - okay.

Man:	(Unintelligible), until we find the right number we…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, and I'll read this revised sentence, the death of 12
emergency responders in an ammonium nitrate explosion in West Texas in
April 2013 reaffirmed that the emergency responder health and safety
continues to be an area of ongoing need.

Man:	That's a much stronger statement, it just puts…

Man:	Okay, the subcommittee in agreement?

Man:	Yes.

Man:	Okay, we're good with that.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick can I make a suggestion and add such President
Obama?

Man:	President Obama.

Rick Ingram:	Continue (unintelligible) statement.

((Crosstalk))

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall - where did you say - as such or as a
result? What did you say?

Rick Ingram:	Well what you just said is probably get better and as a
result President Obama…

Ken Fontenot:	This is (Ken) and what that does is ties it back into the
need for this subcommittee as directed by the president - to (the
existence).

Man:	Okay, so are we good with that sentence, beginning as a result
President Obama issued executive order? Yes? Okay, moving forward.

	Are we good with the remainder of that paragraph? Yes? Okay. So, now we
get down to the (unintelligible) subcommittee at the bottom of Page 2.
Sarah?

Sarah Shorthall:	Both of those were changes I put in there to do a
couple of things; one, to be a little bit more precise about what the
charge was and how it occurred and also to use language that we've
already published in one of the other documents. So we're not creating
something new. I mean, the first (order) of that was the Secretary
(Michael)'s charged, has come up with recommendations to help them then
they establish workgroups, excuse me, subcommittee. What - who was on
the subcommittee and what their work does, did. And then the last
sentence is trying to clarify or keep it clear that you are making
recommendations from (unintelligible) that will be approving and sending
something on recommendations on, not the subcommittee.

Bill Warren:	Bill Warren, can I just - can I just get a point of
clarification because when I read that I think of Secretary (Perez) and
not Secretary (Michael)'s. 33.06

Sarah Shorthall:	Secretary who?

Bill Warren:	I - (Perez), that's who I read here, I read that. So on
behalf of Secretary (Perez) OSHA (unintelligible) or on behalf of the
assistant secretary of OSHA. So, are you saying here then that
Secretary, that Assistant Secretary (Michael)'s on the behalf of the
secretary of labor, is that what we're saying?

Sarah Shorthall:	The actual charge in (unintelligible) is to the
secretary and the secretary delegates to the assistant secretary. That's
why the (cursory) we put that. If you'd like to use - on behalf of
Secretary (Perez) is that what you're talking about just getting the
secretary…

Bill Warren:	...understand all that (unintelligible).

Sarah Shorthall:	Right, yes. It's - in (unintelligible) 34:02 Secretary
of Labor, and then we have a Secretary of Labor's order and the
Secretary of Labors order has that, I'm going to defer, or I'm going to
delegate this and this and this function to this and this and this
person and that's how OSHA ended up being in charge of basically dealing
with (unintelligible).

Man:	Okay, thank you for that explanation Sarah. (Bill) are you okay?
You good? Anyone else have any questions or suggestions for that
paragraph?

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, just add one other thing, your
(unintelligible) will go to the Secretary of Labor.

Man:	Okay, well hearing no - okay, hearing now suggestions or comments
about the introductory paragraph, the paragraph that begins the primary
focus is there any question, comment, suggestion regarding that
paragraph?

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt, just returning to the original paragraph
that it is confirmed that the number is 12 emergency responders.

Man:	Okay, thank you Matt. So regarding that second paragraph, again,
beginning the primary focus, are we good with that? We're good? Okay.
Moving forward to the next paragraph beginning the subject matter
experts participating on the subcommittee if you would take a look at
that and offer your feedback.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, I have a question. If skilled support
is not emergency responders then we're using - represent a broad range
of emergency responders. Do we have anyone here who is representing
skilled support? Okay, that suggests you're not - you weren't one of our
subject matter experts. Do we - been here for the purpose is generally
that emergency responders are broad general classification or do you
need to add support something else of (unintelligible) if an expert is
included in here too?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor, so I would recommend on that first
sentence where it says to represent a broad range of personnel who
respond to emergency incidents.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	…employer.

Man:	Okay. Yes, Ken Willette?

Ken Willette:	Yes, Ken Willette, just to follow-up on that. Obviously
the FDA doesn’t respond to emergency incidents where standards
(unintelligible) organization but just for the point of clarity we could
just agree to use it as a - leave it as it is or we can mention it but
the follow-up on Sarah's point…

Sarah Shorthall:	Would it be okay if (unintelligible) is a broad range
of experts in emergency response? Would that cover everybody?

Man:	Okay, everyone good? Everyone okay with that suggestion?

Sarah Shorthall:	Broad range of emergency response experts?

Ken Fontenot:	This is (Ken), to make it read a little smoother, experts
and provide a balance and diversity of (use).

Man:	I'm sorry, who provides…

Ken Fontenot:	…take the and out is what I was getting at so it reads
smoother.

Man:	Who provides?

Man:	Thank you. Subcommittee we are okay with the revision? Okay. Next
sentence and the participants… Yes, Sarah could you pass to (Bill)?
Thank you.

Bill Hamilton:	Thank you, sorry to go back. The first sentence still
needs something because your representing major stakeholder entity and
it's… Consists of…

Man:	And to prevent from being redundant, to who the sentence, we could
change who represents to representing a broad emergency… You got who
represent - oh that, you’ve already changed one who to that. That's
great. Okay, so we're at that, the subcommittee is coaching.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor (unintelligible). Actually if you go
back to stakeholder entities, if you just say could we just say
stakeholders and remove the word entities? I know it's small and simple.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	…every unnecessary word.

((Crosstalk))

Victor Stagnaro:	Put an S behind stakeholder. A part of it is… And
obviously you guys will correct me when I'm wrong, the - trying to make
it - I use the word entities makes it clear that it is the - your
organization is not… That…

Man:	I see what you're saying.

Victor Stagnaro:	Trying to make sure that we're, that it - that we're
clearly saying the major entity, stakeholder entities, organizations -
well, whatever…

((Crosstalk))

Victor Stagnaro:	(Unintelligible) has an important component there
that's…

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram, entities makes sense to me and I think
it's just a matter of semantics. This is for (unintelligible) so they're
going to understand what (Bill)'s talking about here.

Bill Troop:	Okay, and so the remainder of that paragraph is just listing
the entities that are represent - yes, Bill Troop U.S. Fire
Administration. I think we'll go with Sarah. Should we use the formal
total entity of what the federal and some of the state organizations are
like who their (parent) organization is? Like, example CDC, NIOSH, DHS,
FEMA, U.S. Fire Administration and maybe some state organizations work
for like the Department of Labor, Arizona OSHA, something like that?
Thank you.

Sarah Shorthall:	I'm not sure - Sarah Shorthall, I'm not sure what
you're asking (Bill).

Bill Troop:	Okay. Some of our agencies, for example take mine, we're an
entity of the Department of Homeland Security and we're also under the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Should we say DHS, FEMA, U.S. Fire
Administration and for NIOSH would be CDC NIOSH? Some of the state
organizations they may have like the Department of Labor, OSHA,
whatever. Should we put out the formal long title of the organization?

Sarah Shorthall:	No.

Bill Troop:	Thank you.

Lisa Delaney:	This is Lisa Delaney, and NIOSH is the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, we're good. I think we are good through the list of
participants. Next page is Page 5.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Oh, okay, sorry about that. Subcommittee activities. Look at the
first paragraph, the subcommittee met face-to-face.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram, (Bill) did you write this part?

Bill Troop:	I take responsibility for nothing.

Rick Ingram:	However did you write, even though you're not claiming
responsibility, did you write this part?

Bill Troop:	The (unintelligible) part?

Rick Ingram:	Committee activities.

((Crosstalk))

Bill Troop:	Yes (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	So this is simply, this is Rick Ingram, this is simply a
narrative of what we have done in the meetings we've had and - I read
through this and I thought you did a - I want to compliment everybody
that has written any of this document up until now, this is - it's all
very good. All we're doing is refining, it makes it easy for us.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes, if you would, read through subcommittee activities. We could
probably go through this page and then we'll revisit if you have any
additions or corrections.

Man:	Yes Ken Willette?

Ken Willette:	Yes, Ken Willette, on Page 4 under (cares) of responders
and responded medical requirements, each of those it talks about
establishing responder medical requirements based on tiers and I don’t
- I didn’t see that. I saw the tiered list that gave examples of
physicals or screening that was being done but I don’t know that we
actually established medical…

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram that was one of our action items that
Matt and I discussed earlier and I didn’t know - Matt we had - so on
the tiered levels of responders spreadsheet that we have here, were we
to add medical requirements for suggested medical for each one or (Ken)
- or Ken talks about…

Ken Fontenot:	This is Ken Fontenot at the discussion we had yesterday,
we went ahead and put the stipulation in there that the ESO
(unintelligible) or duty or some verbiage along those lines that meant
the OSHA requirements to be part of this tiered response. So it wasn't a
specific for each level it was just that they would (ensure) for those
levels that they would be fit for duty and that was general wording we
came up with.

Rick Ingram:	So could we - this is Rick Ingram again, could we simply
remove the medical and fitness requirements for each tier or would
that…

Bill Hamilton:	I know we discussed about it, that was one of the main
elements I thought we were looking at is that there's just a difference
between a structural firefighter, wildlife firefighter, EMS person and
EMS person, you know, would be the skilled support individual that shows
up. There's a whole litany of differences between what the medical
requirements are based on those levels of responsibility so I don’t
know how we could get away from it.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram again, could we - and we want to be
factual here. So we have developed a list of tiered levels of
responders, we have that, and that's in a guidance document and the
addendum, right? So we might want to mention the develop a guidance
document which includes a sample list of tiers of responder duties and
capabilities to establish different levels of training and then - so
what I'm hearing is that we do have an action item to complete this
spreadsheet with medical information?

Matthew Tobia:	So this is Matthew Tobia, I'm not sure that we - I
don’t know what - I know that we entered the tiered - the examples of
tiered responses, tiered responders, into the record, I don’t know
that it was intended to become part of the draft regulatory text going
forward to the NIOSH subcommittee. I think it was intended, I think, we
originally put it in there so that if we got to rulemaking we would have
a document that we could reference back to rulemaking if we ever get to
that point.

Rick Ingram:	So we've got - this is Rick Ingram again, the last two
bullet points on Page 4 in the first half of the page is tiers of
responders and then the second, the last bullet point is responder
medical requirements, identified medical requirements for tiers of
responders. So, it's also a bit redundant there that it's in two
different bullet points but it sounds like it's certainly something we
need to address now.

Ken Fontenot:	Well, if my memory serves me from yesterday Rick, and this
is Ken Fontenot I asked that the reference to (Jeff)'s medical be taken
out of the spreadsheet and the others because those were personal notes
that got hung-up in it and I suggested we put the OSHA language in there
as a replacement that said that the ESO will ensure that the responder
is capable of performing the tasks that were assigned to them. So - and
(Ray) says a little bit that was added to it is also this prescribe a
state regulations and law. So that was sort of the discussion we had and
it was going to be an appendix item.

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette, the follow-up on Ken Fontenot's comment
under the bullet point responder medical requirements, is it the medical
requirement - because this to me it's the medical requirements your
blood pressure has to be such and such, your cholesterol has to be such
and such. But was it the screening and examination requirements that we
looked at, the process of looking at the candidate to see if they're fit
for duty?

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram. If we go back to Page 14 on the top
of the page, well actually Page 13, responder medical and fitness
requirements. So whether or not we say that we have - that we connect
that with the training, we do have medical requirements in here so we
might be able to take out the second half of that sentence on the fourth
bullet point and just rely on responder medical requirements and leave
that in there and I think that would be clearer and we're not painting
ourselves in a corner. So we have - would that be a simple correction
there? So we're seeing nodding of heads in the affirmative. Any
negatives? Any (distention)? Okay. And (Robert) rules of order is not my
friend so don’t expect too much.

Man:	Okay, thank you Rick

Rick Ingram:	Little humor, very little humor at the end of the day.

Man:	Okay are there any more comments or thoughts?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	What did you want to change? You wanted to change… I kind of
pulled this from the summaries when we - of what each… I mean, it's
supposed to kind of summarize what each of the subgroups did, right? And
so the one with the (tier) was supposed to develop a list of tiers,
right? And then which would include medical fitness requirements and
then there was another group that had overlapping people, of course,
they were supposed to try and discuss the medical requirements for the
tiers. We did a lot of - they did a lot of discussing but we never
actually came to a conclusion on those. So - right? So, there was one
group that was working on tiers to identify the different tiers and then
another that was kind of a subgroup that was supposed - that was trying
to do the medical requirement.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes, it was actually a combination of things. This is
Matthew Tobia I'm sorry, there was a subgroup looking at tiers of
responders, that was Ken Fontenot's group and then there was the
subgroup that I was responsible for that looked at medical and it was -
there was a section under medical requirements. We looked broadly at the
entire issue of medical, that actually - at the time that we formed a
subgroup it was specifically to look at medical requirements and
physicals for corresponding tiers of responders. There was a subgroup
that looked at that very issue.

Bill Hamilton:	Okay. I mean the idea is - this is Bill Hamilton, just
trying to identify that within the subcommittee you all broke into, you
all or all of you all, I forget, you broke into these separate subgroups
that all worked on a specific topic that, or different issues and the
intent is to show how much extra work went on in between the in-person
meetings. Thank God I didn’t have to count the number of
teleconferences that we - and how many hours we all spend on
teleconferences and email but - so now tell me what you want to change?

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram, I believe that, and please speak up
if I'm wrong, but under the fourth bullet point of the tiers and
responders, we do have - we did develop a sample list of tiers of
responder duties and capabilities to be able to establish different
levels of training needed and in that, that is actually a guidance
document that will be added as an addendum to the document. So a
guidance document and we would eliminate the last part of that sentence
after the comma.

	We decided not to do that just to keep the medical and health and
fitness general and then the - so that would be the first change. And I
might suggest that we say develop a guidance document that includes the
details, a sample list, of tiers of responder duties.

	That's good. This is Rick Ingram and the texts that you have up there
now seems to be pretty accurate and then that satisfies my comments if
that's okay with everybody else. And then the next bullet point I think
is accurate except we actually did develop a medical fitness
requirements for responders, not for tiers of responders but for
responders. Ken Willette?

Ken Willette:	Just a question, did we actually develop or did we point
to other existing?

Rick Ingram:	Well, we have two pages of medical and health and fitness
requirements.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Bill Warren?

Bill Warren:	Yes Rick it's (Bill), I think as I read the first part of
that medical requirement, it is up to the (ESO) to make the
determination of what the medical requirements are based on this. They
identified their peers response, so I'm good with that. I think this is
accurate.

Rick Ingram:	You know we could say, okay… I'll stop right there.

((Crosstalk))

Matthew Tobia:	What's accurate identify or develop?

Man:	Develop.

Rick Ingram:	Develop.

Man:	Okay, fine. (Take up tiers).

Rick Ingram:	We just need - this is Rick Ingram again, we just need to
take out the tiers (Bill) for responders. (ESO)'s and responders, right?
1.00.33 So (ESO)'s and responders.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	The correct…

Man:	Okay, thanks Ken Fontenot?

Ken Fontenot:	Before we get too far down the document, if we could go up
to the like third or fourth sentence where it says from time to time
maybe wordsmith it a little bit to say during deliberations subjects
were identified.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay. So we're past the first set of bullets and now we are to
obtain additional information, that paragraph.

Sarah Shorthall:	This is Sarah Shorthall, I personally think that the
names of these experts should not be identified if the names of all of
you are experts on the committee are not identified.

((Crosstalk))

Sarah Shorthall:	To me it seems strange that these people are given
special notice for coming to a meeting and you've been working for a
year on all of this and your names aren't mentioned. So, your - if - I
would suggest if you don’t want to put everybody's names that you just
have the first sentence and drop that you request an input from
additional subject experts, subject matter experts.

Man:	Okay, thank you for your recommendation Sarah. Is there any thought
or discussion about that? We're okay? So we're striking the names and
organizations or just the names? The names and organizations of the
medical experts who were invited. Any other comments, questions?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor speaking, (Phil Stiddleburg) is not a
medical expert however, he is certainly an expert when it comes to - as
a subject matter expert in that the costs may be associated with it or -
but he's not a medical expert so I don’t know if that's something that
needs to be addressed in that sentence.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes, I think that sentence might be okay because what we're saying
is that the subject matter experts were experts in medical requirements,
fitness evaluation, and their cost and impact on organizations. So, I
think we…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes, Bill Warren?

Bill Warren:	Yes, Bill Warren, I thought we agreed that we would include
at the beginning of that sentence requested additional input or, excuse
me, input from additional subject matter experts which would have been
brought into the (unintelligible), unless something…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, are we okay with that revision? Yes (Spencer)?

(Spencer Schwangler):	Yes, this is (Spencer), this is another example of
using a lot of ands in a row where we might want to just use the comma
and one and at the end. We have medical requirements and physical
evaluation and our cost and impacts. So can't we just use commas, the
English teacher agree with me? Okay.

Sarah Shorthall:	I try not to touch anything that wasn't with the
subject areas I had to. Sometimes I get blamed when I review documents
for being too much of an English teacher instead of a (lawyer) so
(unintelligible). I look at one thing here since we're on this. Sarah
Shorthall, you did not pick up my clue at all, maybe it's late in the
day and that is nobody said, wait a minute, our names are not - and I
was hoping someone was going to say something and so my other suggestion
had been with this, Page 3 right before you go into the list of bullets
that we change that (unintelligible) stakeholder representatives on the
committee are, and list your name and organization.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram and I agree with that.

Lisa Delaney:	So would we, also this is Lisa Delaney include alternate.

Sarah Shorthall:	Say no, I wouldn’t try to do all of that but if you
want to - you know.

Lisa Delaney:	Okay, so one thing is we could just include an attachment
that had - so there's one primary list with everyone's name and
affiliation. I didn’t know if that would just be an easier…

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill Hamilton, we could modify the contact, I
forgot what exhibit it is, subcommittee for emergency response
preparedness that lists the co-chairs and the subject matter experts by
name and organization. In my opinion, some of the alternates have spent
as much or more time being involved in this then - and they certainly -
if we're going to put names in, there should - in my opinion it should
include the (ultimate). Do you want to put that in the body of it or do
you want to make the attachment…

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt I would recommend an attachment.

Bill Hamilton:	Can we give them your names and email addresses too?

Matthew Tobia:	No. Well phone number. Well, okay, and so as long as
we're going down that road, do we also want to provide the address or
just the name and the organization and job title? Okay, phone numbers
and emails it is.

((Crosstalk))

Matthew Tobia:	I'll do names and - so organizations, names and job
titles. Okay, any objections. Okay.

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	So now - this is Lamont Byrd, so now that we've agreed to
list the names of the subcommittee members and alternates, do we now
want to put the names of the subject matter experts who are invited by
the subject matter experts?

Sarah Shorthall:	This is Sarah Shorthall, I personally think that if
your names only make it as an attachment, that I don’t think those
three names should come into the body of this memo. They aren't the
workers and not to denigrate them all, I thought their presentations
were wonderful but by golly, you are the worker bees here.

Man:	Bill Warren?

Bill Warren:	I agree with Sarah only because that there is a record in
the text of the minutes that it did capture those three individuals that
came in so I do concur with Sarah that I would prefer even in the - when
we go to the next session, that those names be deleted also. So I concur
with that.

Man:	Okay, so I think we've gotten through the second set of bullets.
The last paragraph on Page 4, a docket was opened, any comments or
recommendations concerning that paragraph? Okay.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall. (Bill) has already made one change
above in the second sentence and paragraph documents presented as the
in-person meetings rather than face-to-face.

Man:	Okay, thank you Sarah. Going to Page 5, (unintelligible)?

Bill Warren:	We have some changes.

Man:	Okay, Bill Warren?

Bill Warren:	This is Bill Warren, a few changes; one is thank you Sarah
for the clarification in the red text, I think it looks really good so I
do concur with that. The only thing I would like to see if you go down
to the second sentence where it says currently, it says only a few state
(plants), we identified there are six state (plants states) so should we
not identify how many actually have regulatory text specific to
emergency response and that number was six, that's identified by
Chairman (Krueger)'s letter so we did look at that or - I'm still good
with leaving only a few states but we do have an actual number of
states.

	The second thing that I'm really kind of troubled with is that the very
last sentence in that second paragraph there says (unintelligible)
representatives also contend that OSHA resources would be better used to
amend the OSHA Act to cover state and local workers. That was not the
intent and nor did we contend that. What was intended was that OSHA
developed consensus standard and building partnerships that was their
respective states that they're responsible for but at no time did
(unintelligible) to my knowledge ever concur that there be an amendment
to the OSHA Act under the federal side to cover state and local workers.

	If you look at the letter presented again by Chairman (Krueger) of
(unintelligible) he identified a couple of areas, one is that - was that
(unintelligible) believes that OSHA could use its resources to bring
greater protection but they focused instead on developing consensus
standards building partnerships and then further on down OSHA should
focus their emergency response preparedness for gathering information
which then they could share with the states that, like (unintelligible)
which would be available then for rulemaking in those states. So, I'm
not so sure that I recall at all nor would I agree that it would be
better used to amend the act to cover the state and local workers. I
don’t think that was a discussion. So I'd like to change that
either…

	Yes, and so what I was going to recommend was that the (unintelligible)
representative also contend that OSHA resources would be better used in
developing consensus standards and building partnerships with emergency
response and states where OSHA has jurisdiction and partnering with the
state plant states to ensure rulemaking, to ensure that they undertake
rulemaking or something to that effect. I'm still struggling with my
text.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, I suggest, in fact this is what I
raise my comment, this - in the letter which said, in the - maybe when
the representatives (was there), I think the safest thing for you to do
at this point is to take what positions you want directly from this
letter.

Bill Warren:	Okay.

Sarah Shorthall:	So, for example, on Page two of the letter, you've said
(unintelligible) believes that OSHA could use its resources to gain
greater protection (unintelligible), focus on developing (consensus)
standards, moving partnerships (unintelligible) for OSHA's jurisdiction.
That's the clearest thing that you've said that you can put in there.

Bill Warren:	I agree. I concur with that. There are actually two
elements of that because you have the 25 states that are covered under
the federal plan and the 25 states and two territories covered under the
state plan state. So the next paragraph or the third paragraph from the
top there also deals with the issues specific to the states that are
already having engaged in the public sector employers. So, you know, I'm
not so sure just if that clearly articulates what the (unintelligible)
members were interested in ensuring in their discussion with the
committee on that day.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, so in the paragraph after the bullets
starting with they or (unintelligible) representatives, okay, would you
suggest striking that and instead putting in the sentence from Page 2 on
your letter? (Unintelligible) believes that OSHA could use the
resources?

Bill Warren:	Well, agreed but a lot of that discussion too is that you
go on up further and it did talk about the unfunded mandated
(unintelligible) the additional burden that state plan states will
address, will have to be addressed, whereas in the non-plan states those
public sector employers will not have the same financial impact on them
as it does in the state plan states.

Sarah Shorthall:	So what you're suggesting there is…

Bill Warren:	I like what you put in there under the burden of
(unintelligible) heavily, I think that's what was discussed by, at that
time, Ms. (Sossa) and Mr. (Wood).

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram, (Bill) could you work with Bill
Hamilton and Sarah to get that language the way you want it? Since this
only really reflects you, your group, (unintelligible), so if you
don’t mind just for the sake of time, would you all work that out and
we'll go on through the rest of the stuff? We've only got two other
sections today.

Bill Warren:	No problem, I didn’t mean to slow us down, I just wanted
to make sure…

Rick Ingram:	That's fine, I think it was a good discussion, it's very
important obviously but I would suggest that if you all could work that
out between the two of you then we can go on to the impact and the
recommendations. I think we…

Bill Warren:	I think Bill Hamilton and I can work on anything else.

Rick Ingram:	That's good. Victor?

Victor Stagnaro:	Rick just not to prolong it but I will, I've got a
question for Bill Warren if we were to list in this memo
(unintelligible) concerns are outlined in a letter sent to Dr.
(Michael)'s on February 22, it's already part of the attachment, would
that then - you don’t have to try to abbreviate what's in the letter,
you just point to the letter and if you want to see what they have to
say you can just read it for yourself.

Bill Warren:	If it becomes an attachment I would concur with that. This
is Bill Warren, I would concur with what you're saying Victor as long as
we can strike that last sentence because I don’t think it accurately
reflects what (unintelligible) had intended in both our letter and the
discussions with Mr. (Wood)'s, Ms. (Sossa) and myself.

((Crosstalk))

Bill Warren:	On the one that says the (unintelligible) representatives
also content that OSHA's resources would be better used to amend the
OSHA Act to cover state and local workers. All right, if you read in the
position letter from Chairman (Krueger) it - that is not identified
anywhere. I don’t believe that that was so…

Rick Ingram:	So right there we could just say reference the…

Bill Warren:	The attachment, whatever…

Rick Ingram:	Attached (unintelligible) letter to Dr. (Michael)'s,
Attachment Number 3 and it is an attachment already, it's Number 3.

Bill Warren:	Yes, no, I am very good with that then.

Rick Ingram:	All right and just to be clear the next sentence or
sentences which state, it's (unintelligible) position that OSHA should
not develop this rule and that balancing the issues (unintelligible), is
that - so I assume that that all is…

Bill Warren:	That's still - I think that's agreeable.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, all right.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, is that language in their last
sentence, last paragraph there, is that language in the letter?

Bill Warren:	No, that was discussed I think what the question was, was
to Mr. (Wood), if I recall we have to go back and look again, the
question to Mr. (Wood) was that regarding the emergency services, the
safety conclusion is that all employees ought to be covered although we
recognize that there may have to be some exclusions specific to size,
budget or whatever it may be from the smaller volunteer departments that
would not be able to sustain and would automatically go into compliance
and would never be. So, but the position was that hey we still believe
that they should be covered in some form.

	Okay. So again my major concern Rick, was the issue that that would be
better used to amend the OSHA Act and I don’t think that there's
support for that from (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram, that's understandable and a lot of us
feel the same way but understood. So is it all right if we go onto the
invite statement now? So since we've got - what is left here, she's on
the hook. So, you want to…

Lamont Byrd:	Sure, impact on the last paragraph on Page 5. If you would
take a look at that. I guess we probably need to go on over to the top
of Page 6. This is Lamont Byrd to finish that paragraph.

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Yes (Bill)?

Bill Warren:	Yes, I know it might sound crazy, it's Bill Warren, I'm
wondering if we can just add where it says under like the third sentence
down where it says economically challenged, particularly those who
provide volunteer services. I'm thinking more about our rural
communities that don’t have a lot of inner-agency assistance. So I'm
wondering if we could add something to that effect or - some who provide
volunteer services particularly in rural areas, would that be advisable?
Only because I know that as we spread out the sparseness of the
population and then we have these small volunteer which are usually only
volunteer districts there - particularly in the west they're really
spread out far apart and therefore the response time of doing mutual aid
agreements is limited, it would not be good to identify at that point.
That's just a thought.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, thank you. Bill Troop?

Bill Troop:	Well, I agree, it's also a challenge. It's not just a
challenge in rural America, it's also a challenge in the suburban and
urban communities that have underfunded small primary volunteer
departments or all the - there may not be a lengthy response time but
there may be nobody coming because nobody can afford to pay. I mean
we're seeing, I'm seeing, some new stories, there's a new story this
week about small departments having major economic challenges to plan
bankruptcy and having equipment reposed. So, yes, I mean it's not just a
rural problem. You know…

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Any other - yes, Lisa Delaney?

Lisa Delaney:	Lisa Delaney, I suggest that we retitle this. So when I
read impact I think immediately, wow the impact of having the standard
but really this is talking about the impact to small or economically
challenged organizations.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes, this is Matthew Tobia just to add on to that, I
would just offer that perhaps the heading for this should be scoping
because what we're really talking about is who should this regulate -
who should this draft regulatory text apply to and instead of impact,
scoping would be what we're really talking about here.

Lamont Byrd:	Any other comments? Mark?

Mark Hageman:	Yes, Mark Hageman, so this is the one place in here where
you all sort of deferred to us to deal with this. Are there any other
areas that you want to put in this memo where you're telling OSHA that
OSHA needs to do something that you guys weren't able to address? One
thing that comes to mind was the medical stuff, did you - and that
addresses the small folks too. Is there any issue dealing with the
medical evaluations that you need to tell us that we need to deal with?
So anything else that you want us to do that you guys didn’t in this
text, you need to let us know in here I guess is…

Man:	I'm sorry Mark you want… So there's a couple of things if you're
looking for guidance or if you're looking for areas that OSHA needs to
work on, would that not fall under final findings and recommendations as
opposed to scoping because the scoping piece is really, I think the
scoping reflects the kind of significant discussion that we had about
who should or should not supply to and add that - that would need to be
a major consideration for moving forward. When we go to rulemaking that
OSHA should be very focused on that for the scoping piece. I would say
there might be other areas, I don’t know that medical belongs under
this specific area.

Mark Hageman:	The only reason I brought it up here is because this is
the one place where you mention that OSHA needs to explore it further.

Ken Fontenot:	This is Ken Fontenot, comment for Mark and the rest of the
committee, one of the discussions we had had was an exemption perhaps
for some department who were impacted by this, not know - I just don’t
want us to lose sight of that and what we're doing. I know (Andy) was
very (unintelligible) of it and he's not here to help out with this. And
it's not specifically listed in here. One of the numbers we had used was
that a population of 2500 people or less if they're identified
department serving that population are identified as significantly
disadvantaged and challenged either by economics or the ability to
provide services. So, I don’t know how we can keep that in there but I
certainly don’t want to lose sight of that fact, that that was one of
the things so perhaps some working in here as to a financial or the
impact that this document may have on those particular departments.

Mark Hageman:	Yes, this is Mark again, I don’t…

Ken Fontenot:	You understand?

Mark Hageman:	Yes, I think that's another good example of something that
you may want to state in here in some way that this rule should deal
with the size concern that you all have and what that should be. Just so
it's not lost, we don’t want anything that you guys still have
concerns with to be lost and not be part of this recommendation.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt, if you can I think that actually the 2500
number appears at the very top of Page 6 just as a reference but I do
think to the point that (Ken)'s making and that is that the small
business impact component needs to be thoroughly and assertively vetted
and that the stakeholder organizations that are present would be - are
prepared to provide contacts for organizations that should participate
in that, I forget the acronym, process.

Man:	And I would like to perhaps see in there that the research, (NFDA)
research of whatever has identified that the department serving that
2500 people are significantly challenged, I'd like to see a statement
like that in that preamble or even just recommendation side.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram and Matt I want to challenge the
change from impact to scoping and I think that really what we're talking
about is organizational community impact statement and I know Ken, you
know, I'm from a very small community and I know that's going to - this
will impact the first responders there, the (ESO) there or the (ESO)'s
and I really think that's what we're talking about to the organizations
and communities. Maybe we shouldn't say communities but to the
organizations or (ESO)'s.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes, I think that I didn’t - my observation, my
observation is simply that I think we're talking about the same thing
honestly and at the end of the day I think it's - I think what we're
really talking about is the scope of the regulations have - are going to
be driven, potentially driven by the economic impact of the regulations.
So the discussion that we had here was there's a very significant
potential for economic impact and that that will impact, that will
drive, scoping at this point.

	Lisa's point was if you look at the word impact, I agree, I thought
that it simply - that the information that would follow impact would be
what is the proposed impact of the regulations on reducing preventable
(unintelligible) injuries and illnesses, that's all.

Rick Ingram:	And I think we do have a scope of the document which is
listed in the actual regulatory text and I don’t want to confuse that
with the potential impact to the organizations or communities.

Matthew Tobia:	Right, so maybe one - this I Matt, maybe perhaps the
language should be financial impact.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, I wrote this down, potential financial
impact on small and other entities. I would also have to say I disagree
with scoping unless you are specifically proposing recommendations to
scope people out because I'm not sure you've reached that point, or
reached a consensus on that one. Would that work for you? I don’t
think - would that work for you (Ken)? I think if you hear the term
potential financial impact on small and other entities, I don’t think
anyone is going to think what's the impact of the whole standard? I
think they're going to think, how is this going to affect our…

Ken Fontenot:	And this is (Ken), (Bill)'s (unintelligible) into the 2500
and less, in the body of the text and I would respectfully ask the
chairs that tomorrow morning maybe we can revisit it again just if we're
not comfortable with fresh minds because I'm about toast.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Why don’t you step up to the mic if you don’t mind?

(Gabriel Arcot):	(Gabriel Arcot) speaking, just to - so the 2500 and
under, I think it's only kind of implied but I see what - I hear what
you're saying in terms of making a stronger statement, maybe saying that
they're mostly volunteers, maybe we could craft a statement or something
in terms of reflecting the fact that volunteer organizations do not have
a steady stream income or, you know, budgets that can - or something to
that effect where their budgets are very restricted or limited or
something that reflects that economic situation is unique and different
than large organizations.

Man:	So a question for the economists.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, we also have other standards in which
- where we have done analysis on the impact of small businesses where
we've changed or done a separate type of provision for them so small
businesses does not have to do, comply with paragraphs D, E and F for
example or only has to do such and such and that's actually written into
the stand - the (unintelligible). We have to potentially make
arrangements for small businesses and other like entities.

Ken Fontenot:	And this is (Ken) again, I just didn’t want us to lose
sight of that fact and the letter to the NIOSH community and (capture)
somewhere so we could work on it in public comment after the economists
and everybody had a chance to look at it.

Bill Warren:	Yes, Bill Warren, I just want to make sure when the
economists do their analysis that they use the state plan states, that
it's going to have the highest impact on it.

(Gabriel Arcot):	Now we (use) everyone who would possibly get impacted?

Bill Warren:	(With that)?

(Gabriel Arcot):	Well we look at everyone that would possibly be
impacted, all of the state plans would be grouped separately.

Bill Warren:	Okay.

(Gabriel Arcot):	In the analysis.

Bill Warren:	All right.

(Gabriel Arcot):	Because technically…

Bill Warren:	Well, I just wanted to be - don’t want to be weighed so
heavily on non - on the federal states which have limited impact to this
as it is on the state plan states who have major impact on this
standard.

(Gabriel Arcot):	Well, we'll definitely use all of the data that's
available.

Man:	All right, Victor and we're right at about stop time so if you
would… This will be the last comment.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor (unintelligible), two things; one I'd
like to see some wording in here that relates to the benefit component
of clearly - I think there's identifying research that shows that when
you have a safer workforce not only are they more productive but you
actually save money and then back to Mark's comment or request for
anything else that we would want OSHA to take care of, that would be one
of the other impacts we would like to make sure that's included in any
study or any research.

	Thank you.

Rick Ingram:	So with that, thank you for staying late. Thanks for all of
the discussion and we're at a good place to be able to finish up
tomorrow morning. So thank you so much for your dedication. Start at
8:30 again tomorrow morning.

Man:	Stop the record for the comps…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	We're stopping the recording for the day, thank you.

((Crosstalk))

Coordinator:	Thank you for joining today's conference, that does
conclude the call at this time. All participants may disconnect.

END

NWX-DOL OSHA

Moderator: Gretta Jameson

09-08-16/7:30 am CT

Confirmation # 9948774

Page   PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1 

