This report is on the web page that uses data from the National Center
for Health Statistics.  A lot of this is basic health information about
the percentage of construction workers who report a hearing difficulty,
about 15 percent.

		A good example would be 49.5 percent of construction workers didn't
see a primary care health provider in the last year.  Construction was
top for that.  The average for other industries was 30 percent of
workers who hadn't seen a primary care provider.  It gives you the
percentage of smokers, the percentage that didn't get a flu shot in the
previous year, for example.

		We continue to use Twitter to reach construction audiences that like
to get information that way.  We are up to over 6,200 followers now.  If
you do Twitter or know people that do, we are at NIOSH Construct.  It
has been a pretty good experience and we are glad we did it.

		Some details as far as integrating safety and health into green
construction.  Again, this is an area that our Construction Sector
Council selected to focus on.

		In NIOSH, we have had some really good meetings with the U.S. Green
Building Council.  They are the ones that had that LEED rating system,
leadership in energy and environmental design.  We have also been
supporting research in partnership.

		We have plans for next year to do additional outreach, additional
awareness materials, work on pilot credits, work on guidance
development.

		A year ago, I think we gave an update about green, but today, just to
share a couple of things we have been thinking about that seem to be
useful, and one is using this term "life cycle safety" to describe what
it is we are interested in.  It isn't just construction safety, it's
life cycle safety.

		Construction and maintenance workers play key roles in the life cycle,
and in life cycles, the green folks think about the environmental
impacts of buildings, so that is how they are thinking.

		It is not only the initial construction of the building, it's
operations of maintenance, renovation that goes on that involves
construction workers, things such as replacing the roof over the life of
the building, and demolition, although somebody told me I should change
that word to "de-construction," because there is more involved where
they are taking the building apart and reusing part of the building than
just demolishing the whole thing.

		Again, this whole life cycle view has been an important one.

		I thought you would get a kick out of this.  This is a photo that we
have  used.  It has been very helpful in helping green construction
folks get what we are talking about.

		This picture I actually took on the roof deck of OSHA.  It was a nice
Spring day.  I went up there for some fresh air.  I saw this worker kind
of perched on the edge doing his work.  It could be a facility worker, a
contractor, servicing that rooftop equipment.

		You can see there is no access, the worker has to bring his own
ladder.  There is no power, he has an extension cord there.  There is no
set back of the equipment from the edge.

		This is really right there on the edge, which really creates a fall
hazard for that worker.  There is no fall protection being used.

		It helps people get how we design a roof is really important, and the
responsibilities for fall safety.

		They might be able to do it today, but if they are distracted,
something happens, you are really set up for a fall, a bad fall there.

		DR. BRANCHE:  This photograph and the idea of life cycle safety goes
very well with our colleagues at the U.S. Green Building Council,
because so much of their focus is on the new construction, making
certain the people who are going to reside in a building or occupy a
building, that is where most of their focus is.

		We have been trying to bring up to them the notion of workers who have
to maintain the building.  It was this photograph that I think really
turned a lot of people's minds to what we were talking about, really
drive home the message, that we know this particular situation needs to
be rectified.

		MR. GILLEN:  The whole idea of life cycle safety benefits the owners,
that this can improve safety and health for the operations by the
maintenance workers.  It could be a more cost effective operation for
maintenance, lower renovation costs.

		For example, if the building has built in fall prevention, you don't
need to pay for temporary fall prevention when you put on a new roof
after 20 years, for example.  There could be lower renovation costs.

		There was quite a bit of interest in having improved facility
operation efficiencies, what building managers talk about.  The total
cost of ownership.

		Most of the costs are when you build something.  These studies show
that is really five to ten percent of the cost and operating and
maintaining the building is as much as 80 percent of the cost of the
building over the life cycle of the building.

		They have done surveys and shown that in reducing the operating costs
is the top reason for people interested in green design.  They are
interested in new types of features that are going to have lower
operating costs.  It kind of fits within the kind of thinking we are
seeing among our green colleagues.

		We do credit for having a vegetative roof or green cool roof that is
reflective, for example.  Energy production, you can get credit for
having a roof top solar, even wind installation.

		It is a good safety issue.  Falls are easy to grasp.  In addition,
these fall hazards are amenable to prevention by design.  This is
something an architect or engineer can be thinking about, and there are
solutions on the market, from parapets to guard rail to fall restraint
systems.

		We think it is a logical place to start and make some real progress
for integrating safety and health into green construction.

		For vegetative roofs, if you look at the reference guide, it says they
need to have semi-annual inspections.  People need to go up on the roof
to maintain the plants.

		On the cool roof, they need to be cleaned to keep them reflective.

		There are built in activities, operations and maintenance, life cycle
activities related to these green features that will put people up on
the roof kind of in harm's way.  It helps us communicate these issues.

		The roofs have sort of gone to somewhere nobody ever went to to sort
of a hot amenity for buildings.  More and more people are trying to use
the roof, have public access to it, have a green roof there, and also
the new high efficiency equipment perhaps needs a little more servicing
as well.

		It seems like the roof is a good place to focus on.

		What we would like to do is develop kind of a safe roof design guide
to describe the roof related life cycle safety issues.  That is what we
are going to do.

		A lot of our activities are focused on contractors.  What we want to
do with this is focus on building owners, focus on architects, focus on
accredited professionals, get them to be thinking about hey, we're the
ones that design the roof, we need to have a safe roof design guide.
Insurance companies are important, where the construction and
architecture people talk to each other a bit more.

		We would like to come up with a nice 10 to 15 page publication that
would help you.  It's a good product because we are all interested in
falls, we have the falls campaign going.

		This is a product we can use to talk to owners and architects and
engineers.  That is what we are thinking.

		Just to let you know there have been several new publications that we
can point to about integrating safety and health into green
construction.

		Talking about safe design suggestions for vegetative roofs, by Mike
Bean.  He has also done some work in Singapore where they had a lot of
green roofs, vegetative roofs.

		There has been other various studies.  There is another one about LEED
credits, how they affect construction worker safety and health.

		There is more information that we can point to in talking to your
green colleagues about this.  We are going to continue to work on it.
We wanted to share just a couple of developments.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you.  Bill?

		MR. STRIBLING:  I think I spoke with your folks.  We did a couple of
major roof top solar installations in New Jersey and the New York
region.  Some of the problems that we ran into were pretty extensive
when it comes to fall protection.

		Number one, the installation phase, and like we talked yesterday about
the towers and phone, radiation and all, these roofs are generally
leased to a solar provider, selling the power back to the power company,
some of these solar panel projects that we did were upwards of 27,000
pounds.  Installation was quite extensive.

		One that comes to mind now was in Carteret, New Jersey, White Rose Tea
Company, their main warehouse.  We had the problem, which we tackled
very well as far as the fall protection on the installation, but then
you get to the maintenance phase, and other people coming up on the roof
that now have to walk along the edge of the roof to get to an HVAC.

		We are trying to tell the owner that's leasing it, maybe you ought to
put the rails up now while we're doing it.  No, because they are only
leasing it.

		The other problem you run into with the solar installations, and there
is a massive amount of them on roofs now, some of them run anywhere from
400 to 600 volts DC in the big installations.  This voltage, all these
cables, are hot, energized all the time, until they get down to the
bottom to the inverters and transformers.

		Those cables are laying on a roof in massive bundles.  Other workers
are up there exposed to the cable that obviously can become damaged.

		We are talking about some significant voltage here and they are hot
all the time.

		You folks are working on this.  I would be glad to help you in any way
I can.

		MR. GILLEN:  I was just going to ask if we could include you when we
talk about the safe roof design guide.

		MR. STRIBLING:  Now we are being called back.  This is pretty
interesting.  A lot of these roof top units, a lot of these panels came
from China.  What we are finding out a year, year and a half and two
years in now, three years in on some of them, four years on a couple of
COSTCOs we did, now some of the panels are starting to fail.

		They fail at all different locations, like on a checker board.  Now
you have to disconnect those hot circuits with qualified personnel, and
get those units that are now failing.

		MR. GILLEN:  Sounds like a life cycle safety caution.

		MR. STRIBLING:  It is unbelievable.  I could go on for the rest of the
day and tell you about all the challenges we face.  I'm not even getting
into the wind.  We built the ones in Atlantic City.

		The problem with the solar, the next problem is they are energized all
the time, and we had our Commissioner of Fire in New Jersey put a nice
program together, and I will see if I can get it for you, on fire
fighters and roof top solar units that are energized.

		A fight fighter has to vent the roof.  This could be anywhere from a
commercial to a residential installation where all these panels are
energized.  If they burn, it is toxic.

		It's green, it's great, it's nice.  It comes with a whole host of
hidden problems that you don't know about.

		I will be glad to help you.  We have a project manager back in the
office, Dave Hagman, that's his line.  If there is anything he can do
with his line of maintaining these things and telling you about some of
the challenges we have, we would be glad to help you.

		MR. GILLEN:  Thank you.

		AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT:  Has there been any actual interest in the LEED
certification, to incorporating safety standards into green
certification?

		DR. BRANCHE:  That is exactly the relationship we are building with
the U.S. Green Building Council and others.  It was for that very
purpose, we wanted to be able to integrate worker safety and health into
LEED.

		We talked about the 2009 version, and we are talking to them about the
version that is to come out next year.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  They open up the SBGC comments at different times
when they go through looking at the LEED ratings, organizations have
made comments about how you can incorporate occupational safety and
health into the LEED rating systems as well.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Going back to the nail guns, I couldn't read all the
medical organizations, but I know you mentioned hand surgeons.  Do you
have data on what extremity of the body is most often affected with nail
gun injury?  Is it the hands?

		MR. GILLEN:  Yes, it is.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Are there nail gun injuries where it hits the feet or
legs?

		MR. GILLEN:  Those are listed.

		MS. SHORTALL:  I don't know if the list there had the General
Orthopedic Doctors or Surgeons Association.  That may be another one to
reach out to.

		I don't know if NIOSH is allowed to do this, this could be a
qualifier, but I do know a number of hardware stores, big ones, have
pretty extensive websites.

		Is NIOSH allowed to put like a nail gun or something else on their
websites?

		DR. BRANCHE:  On our website?

		MS. SHORTALL:  No, on their websites.

		DR. BRANCHE:  Anybody can post it.  They can post our information.

		MR. GILLEN:  We did some research and we found they have like a
buyer's guide on the websites, how to choose a nail gun.  When we did
this outreach, we sent the guidance to people at the big box stores and
other groups.  I don't know that they have.

		MS. SHORTALL:  You mentioned MSDs.  Are you only looking at manual
handling MSD issues or a broader range?

		MR. GILLEN:  In that particular document, it's more manual handling.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Since it's a document that has come out from NIOSH --

		MR. GILLEN:  It hasn't come out.

		MS. SHORTALL:  That will be coming out, will it be looking at per
metrics at the 95th percentile which your lifting index now does?

		MR. GILLEN:  No.

		DR. BRANCHE:  It's always a pleasure to be asked to make a
presentation to you.  Thank you very much.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Any other questions or comments?

		MS. DAVIS:  I just want to compliment you on the amount of work you
have done.  It's very impressive.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  I know in the building trades, we work with NIOSH
to try to promote the availability of HHE, and we really have a great
one going on now in NIOSH.  The under utilization in construction, would
you contribute that to the employers just don't know it is available or
it's onerous?

		Is there any kind of assessment of what needs to be done to improve
the program for construction within NIOSH?

		MR. GILLEN:  I don't know for sure what studies our HHE program has
done to look into it.  I think in general it looked into that, trying to
encourage people to use that and doing more of their own outreach.  They
have done some of that.

		Within construction, I don't know because years ago, there were quite
a few, ten or so, and it has kind of dwindled down.  I don't really
know.

		DR. BRANCHE:  I don't think people have an understanding about the HHE
program, the fact that NIOSH is still doing one.  I think people had not
been aware of that.

		In review of the HHE program in general, one of the basic criticisms
was the fact that NIOSH had not continued to make people aware of the
fact that the program is available.

		We know our colleagues in the HHE program have said they would like to
entertain opportunities to do HHEs in construction.  Of course, just
because someone asks doesn't mean it is going to be done.  A new problem
has to be uncovered.  We would like people to request an HHE.  We need
someone to submit the request.  People have to request that of NIOSH.

		MR. CANNON:  Is there a company size limit, like an OSHA consultation,
where it is small employer only?

		DR. BRANCHE:  No.  The fact that you have asked that question makes me
wonder if that is another concern.  There are no limits on size.

		MR. CANNON:  If someone calls in, they expect they have a problem, and
if it is identified they do, that information is made public; correct?
Could that be a deterrent?

		DR. BRANCHE:  Yes, we are a public entity so we are in the public
domain, and yes, the information is made public.

		MR. GILLEN:  The owner and employer are identified.

		DR. BRANCHE:  We are not a regulatory entity.

		MR. GILLEN:  It is really not any standard they could be in violation
of because nobody knows what is going on, some workers are sick, there
is a concern.  It's a new type of tool and it seems to be putting out a
lot of dust.  It is that kind of question that it is perfect for.

		OSHA people can do a very good inspection but say we don't have any
standards for that, so we are going to leave.

		MR. BARE:  The FACE program, I think that is an excellent program.  I
think it provides excellent information for the industry.

		I know some of the states have dropped the program like Nebraska and a
few other states.  Is it still a very active program?  If it's not being
done by some of the states, is there anything that can be done to help
rejuvenate that or spark interest from a state so they participate in
the program?

		MS. DAVIS:  Every five years, we compete against each other, just like
a bidding process.  There are a limited amount of funds.  There were
less funds available.  For two states, we were not funded.  It's a
funding issue.  A number of states competed and were not funded.

		It has really been a resource issue rather than a level of state
interest.

		MR. SCHNEIDER:  I just wanted to comment on the HHE question.  We
recommended, and I believe NIOSH is moving forward on this
recommendation, that when HHEs are published, they don't identify the
company.  The purpose of the HHE is really to learn about potential
hazards and it is not to finger a particular company.  It is really
knowledge the whole industry is going to benefit from.

		I believe the program is moving towards doing anonymous reports, and
the company and the workers at that company will get the report.  The
public report will actually not identify the company.

		DR. BRANCHE:  If there is one large manufacturer X in state Y, there
is only one of that type.  We are not trying to impugn anyone.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you.  Christine and Matt, thank you very
much.

		(Applause.)

		MS. SHORTALL:  At this point, I'd like to enter as Exhibit 3 the NIOSH
Update PowerPoint presented by Christine Branche and Matt Gillen.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you, Sarah.

		We are going to try to get one of our work group reports in before our
lunch break, and that is the training and outreach work group.

	TRAINING AND OUTREACH WORK GROUP REPORT

		MR. ERICKSON:  Members of our work group are Kevin Cannon, Bill Hering
and myself, Roger Erickson.

		We called the meeting to order at 8:00 yesterday morning.  Following
the introductions, the minutes from the May 9, 2012 meeting were
reviewed.

		The first order of our work group yesterday was the OSHA 10 and 30
hour course introduction, the "Intro to OSHA" part, which drew
considerable comments and conversation, of course.

		Jim Maddux spoke on a previous motion that Chairman Stafford had made
at that May 9 meeting.  Hank Payne weighed in as well on the concerns
and difficulties the Department has with the issue, basically how to
limit, what to limit, that part of the two hour intro.

		Questions, comments and concerns ranged from does the curriculum
support the objectives of the topic, concern of whether instructors
would be able to cover the required information in the set time frame,
once one was established, the power to let the instructor have the
flexibility to cover the topic as they see fit.

		There was also a comment or concern regarding immigrant workers, those
workers who might not have the basic background of OSHA from the
inception, the basic history, so forth.

		The on-line training was the next topic addressed.  As Mr. Payne had
mentioned earlier today, two issues were the fraud issue and customer
service issues.

		The Department is in the process of revising the solicitation process
and currently, as he stated, there are 11 entities that are providing
the on-line training.

		There was a question regarding a clarification on the 90 and 180 day
rule.  Mr. Payne clarified on the on-line training that you had 180 days
to complete that training.  I believe some people had been told that it
was 90 days, but the clarification was 180.

		A question was also brought up is there any significant difference
between the on-line and hands on, as far as research being done, and
Hank Payne basically stated, as he did earlier today, he has seen no
significant difference between the two types of training.

		The recommendation was made to change the current requirement, getting
back to the Intro to OSHA, to a minimum of one hour and allow additional
flexibility to the instructor.

		The final determination was the committee has a recommendation which
needs to be refined before sending on, a recommendation was made to
include the rights of injured workers in any revised motion.

		In regard to the falls campaign, Jim Maddux reported it was a huge
success and will be continued for a second year.

		An update on the Harwood Award, discussion on the two different types
of grants.  Hank Payne discussed the process for awarding grants and
slightly more than $11 million has been awarded during this current
period.

		The new business part of our report dealt with refining the
recommendation to the committee on the Intro to OSHA requirement.  The
concern of the trainer refresher class, the 500 to 502, we heard
numerous comments, complaints, about the cost and content of these
refresher classes, concerning travel and lodging.

		What is the purpose of the course and are we meeting the objective of
the course.

		Mr. Payne gave a brief history on the actual OSHA 10 and 30 and the
trainers going back to originally being an intro to hazardous awareness,
and that was the original purpose of the training.  Of course, the
Department knew as new standards came into being, we would have to do
updates.

		As we all know, the new standards are farther and further between now
than at the inception of the program, so a lot of discussion was
centered on that.

		A question toward Mr. Payne was is OSHA interested in reviewing the
refresher and his response was yes.

		Discussion followed in which NSHAW updates was also brought up, but
the consensus of the group and the committee was let's look at the
update for trainers, consider the quality of and need for the four year
requirement, what is the purpose of the refresher and are we meeting
that objective.

		With that being said, the motion is the outreach and training work
group moves that ACCSH recommends that OSHA maintains and enhances the
introduction to OSHA learning objectives which should include the rights
of workers to report injuries without retaliation.

		Furthermore, the set two hour time requirement would be eliminated and
left to the discretion of the instructor conducting the class.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you.  I think as a matter of order, there
are probably two things we need to do.  If there is any discussion or
comment about the work group report?

	M O T I O N

		MR. JONES:  So move.

		COMMITTEE MEMBER:  Second.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We have a motion and a second.  All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Opposed?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  The work group report has been accepted.

		We will move on to the motion that came out of that work group report.
 If you would read that again for me.  I will call for a second.

	M O T I O N

		MR. ERICKSON:  The outreach and training work group moves that ACCSH
recommends that OSHA maintains and enhances the introduction to OSHA
learning objectives, which should include the rights of workers to
report injuries without retaliation.

		Furthermore, the set two hour time requirement be eliminated and left
to the discretion of the instructor conducting the class.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you.  I think as a matter of order, there
are probably two things we need to do.  If there is any discussion or
comment about the work group report?

		MR. JONES:  So move.

		COMMITTEE MEMBER:  Second.

	M O T I O N

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We have a motion and a second.  All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Opposed?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  The work group report has been accepted.

		We will move on to the motion that came out of that work group report.
 If you would read that again for me.  I will call for a second.

	M O T I O N

		MR. ERICKSON:  The outreach and training work group moves that ACCSH
recommends that OSHA maintains and enhances the introduction to OSHA
learning objectives, which should include the rights of workers to
report injuries without retaliation.

		Furthermore, the set two hour time requirement be eliminated and left
to the discretion of the instructor conducting the class.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you.  The motion has been made.  Is there
any discussion?

		COMMITTEE MEMBER:  Second.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Any discussion?

		MS. SHORTALL:  Yes.  I think there needs to be some changes in the
motion.  It is no longer going to be the outreach and training work
group recommending it, it is ACCSH recommending that OSHA do something.
We need to delete that part.

		In the second sentence, it should state "Furthermore, ACCSH
recommends," so that is the second recommendation.

		The motion technically would be "Roger Erickson moves that ACCSH
recommends that OSHA maintains and enhances the introduction to OSHA
learning objectives, which should include the rights of workers to
report injuries without retaliation.

		Furthermore, ACCSH recommends that the set two hour time requirement
be eliminated and left to the discretion of the instructor conducting
the class."

		Would you accept those as friendly amendments?

		MR. ERICKSON:  Yes.

		COMMITTEE MEMBER:  Second.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  It has been unanimously approved -- the motion
has been made and seconded.  There is no discussion on the motion.

		All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Opposed?

		(No response.)

		MS. SHORTALL:  I would like to enter Exhibit 5, the training and
outreach work group report from the November 28, 2012 meeting.

		Exhibit 6, the OSHA outreach and training program introduction to OSHA
web page handout from the work group meeting.

		Exhibit 7, the recommended modifications to the introduction to OSHA's
construction outreach program delivered at the work group meeting
yesterday.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you, Sarah.

		MS. SHORTALL:  As Exhibit 4, ACCSH's work group list, which includes
the work groups, co-chairs and OSHA liaisons.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  To follow up on our discussion this morning with
Hank, I think it would be appropriate for us to also take action with
respect to the review of the overall OSHA OTI program and how it works
in our industry.

		I will turn it over to Tish who I think has language for that purpose.

	M O T I O N

		MS. DAVIS:  Yes.  I would like to put on the table for discussion the
following recommendation:  ACCSH recommends that OSHA with guidance from
the ACCSH outreach and training work group, conduct a third party
assessment of the OSHA OTI training program in its entirety as it
relates to the construction industry, to include detailed
recommendations for refining the program to address current needs.

		The assessment and development of a recommendation should include
stakeholder input to ACCSH and other venues.

		MR. JONES:  Second.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  The motion has been made and seconded.  Any
discussion?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Opposed?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Great.

		MR. CANNON:  I have a question for Sarah.  One of the things you and I
talked about was the compliance, material gaps analysis.  My thinking is
between now and whenever the next meeting is scheduled, that we convene
by conference call.

		Is there a limit and can it include all participants of the work group
meeting?

		MS. SHORTALL:  Yes.  We have developed a procedure since FACA, Federal
Advisory Committee Act, does not specifically cover subcommittees or
work groups.

		Our procedure is whether it is held here in conjunction with an ACCSH
meeting or at a separate time -- we always ask for telephone numbers
and e-mails.

		When the work group decides when they would want to hold a
teleconference, Damon will send out an e-mail to every person who is on
that sigh up sheet so they can participate.

		The teleconference company that we use has an unlimited number of
lines whereby people can participate.  We just have to let them know
what we anticipate using.

		Anyone who contacts Damon indicating they have an interest will be
able to use the telephone and participate.

		What we will do at the same time is make sure we have a local room
here in the building where the teleconference will be held.  If anyone
prefers to be here in person, they can do so.

		If members of ACCSH wanted to be here in person, they can do so.

		I do have to caution you, OSHA does not pay for travel for work group
meetings.

		By teleconference, you would conduct the meeting in the exact same
way.  It would be expected for the chairs to prepare a work group report
from that teleconference that would be put into the record at the next
ACCSH meeting.

		We will also distribute probably the draft minutes as soon as they are
prepared, so if people have questions, they can contact people.

		We announce the teleconference meetings on our web page.  We don't put
it in the Federal Register.  Recently, NIOSH has held a couple of
teleconferences, and on the very front page of OSHA's web page, it says
NIOSH to hold teleconference.  Anyone else broader than our group here
who is interested can participate.

		Of course, if you haven't signed up, if you didn't attend the work
group meeting, and this is an issue of concern to you, you should
contact Damon Bonneau, to get yourself added.  He is our point person.
He is always our point person here at the Department.

		MR. PRATT:  Being new, we just passed motions.  What happens now?
When can we expect something from this, from these two motions?

		MS. SHORTALL:  We indicated on Tuesday that OSHA is not bound to take
action on the motions.  They do keep a written record of the motions
that come in and where they are in terms of status.  It could be this is
not an OSHA priority at this time.

		MR. PRATT:  If that happens, then we bring it back up at the next
meeting?

		MS. SHORTALL:  If you want to.  The motions are in the transcripts.
They are in the minutes of this meeting.  I type up for OSHA all the
motions and exhibits.  If you ask Damon, I'm certain he can give you a
copy of that.

		MR. PRATT:  Okay.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you, Sarah.  Any other questions or comments
before we break?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We'll try to reconvene at 1:00.

		(A luncheon recess was taken.)

	A F T E R N O O N  S E S S I O N

		(1:08 p.m.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Let's call the meeting back to order, please.  As
a reminder, anyone who would like to make public comments, right now the
public comments period is scheduled at 4:00.

		The way we are going through the agenda, it may be earlier.  If you
signed on to make public comment, be sure you are here at the end of the
meeting.

		We have only one speaker this afternoon, and of course, that is David
Michaels, and the rest of the afternoon is going to be devoted to our
work group reports.

		We have scheduled half an hour for each report.  Some may be a little
less, some may be a little more.  We will just keep moving on.  I hope
we can get two reports in before Dr. Michaels is due to arrive at 2:00.
We also have to be a little flexible with his schedule as well.

		With that, we are going to have the report of the I2P2 work group, and
I will turn that over to Tom or Tish, however you two have decided to
handle it.

	INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION

	PROGRAM WORK GROUP REPORT

		MR. MARRERO:  The meeting was called to order by Tom Marrero and Tish
Davis.  Following the introductions, Jim Maddux of OSHA gave a brief
update on the status of the I2P2 proposed rule.

		Tom Marrero gave a brief recap of the minutes from the May 9, 2012
IP2P work group meeting.  This was followed by input via telephone from
Shannon Lusk, Missouri Valley, Inc., a mechanical contracting firm, with
about 65 to 75 employees.

		The concern was about the need to hire additional staff to implement
the I2P2, and asked for more guidance regarding details on the specifics
of what the program entails, what is meant by worker participation and
management involvement.

		Kristi Barber seconded the concern about potential costs to small
employers and the need for more guidance and details.

		She emphasized that with the small employers with 20 or less
employees, safety is not a primary concern.  Their concern is simply
trying to survive as a company and it is difficult to create a culture
of prevention in a survival atmosphere.

		Shannon Lusk also raised a concern about the threshold, number of
employees per company, that I2P2 would affect, as smaller contractors
would have more difficulty complying with the proposed standard.

		Jim Maddux indicated this is yet to be determined.

		Kevin Cannon suggested that OSHA should consider taking a look at the
1989 SHMP guidelines and revise them so that they apply to I2P2.

		Rob Matuga of the National Association of Home Builders expressed
support for the OSHA focused inspection approach.  He suggested looking
into the 1994 memo on the focused inspections that required a written
program to qualify, focusing on the four major hazards.  This provides
an incentive for employers to develop these programs.

		Jim Maddux reported this is still in place.

		It was also suggested that the stakeholder meetings are not bringing
in sufficient small employers, but Pete Stafford indicated the SBREFA
process focuses on this.

		It was a concern that the I2P2 program might be another method of
citing under the general duty clause in a back door way.

		Insurance Services Group reported that NACOSH has recommended that
OSHA educate stakeholders about I2P2.

		The work group followed up on the recommendation from the May 2012
meeting that OSHA and NIOSH with input from ACCSH develop guidelines to
assist Federal, state and local government in performing safety
qualification assessments for construction work.

		Pete Stafford and others from the building trades provided the work
group with an initial draft of a health and safety checklist to start
the discussion.  The intent was to develop a relatively simple list that
could be used.

		Work group members were generally supportive of the concept.  Staff
from the DOL ETA were present at the meeting and also expressed support.
 They indicated a checklist would be useful.  They also indicated their
willingness to work on it.

		The issue of accountability was raised, i.e., the need for additional
documentation to verify the checklist.  It was suggested there is a need
for a companion document describing what contractors need to submit.
These requirements could be built into the solicitation packet.

		The work group agreed to proceed with developing the checklist.
Comments on the draft checklist and companion documents should be
provided to OSHA within 60 days.

		The work group chairs and Pete Stafford will work to develop a second
draft at the next meeting.  It was suggested we also seek comments from
other agencies that already have health and safety pre-qualifications in
place.

		Jessica Douma gave a brief update on a job hazard analysis tool OSHA
is developing to assist in conducting these analyses.  The tool is
similar to SIMS involving the construction work site and multiple phases
of construction.  It should be ready for review by the next ACCSH
meeting.

		It was suggested that safety professionals should have the opportunity
to provide input earlier in the process.

		ACCSH members and OSHA agree that I2P2 should continue to address the
above issues as they are relevant to I2P2.

		It was also suggested that OSHA collect best practice examples for the
six major components of the I2P2 program on multi-employer sites.

		The meeting was adjourned at noon.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you, Tom.  Tish, anything to add?

		MS. DAVIS:  No.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We need a motion.

	M O T I O N

		COMMITTEE MEMBER:  Motion to accept the report as presented.

		MR. HERING:  Second.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  The motion has been made and seconded.  Any
discussion?

		MS. BARBER:  I have some discussion.  Where it states "Kristi Barber
made the concern about potential costs," the next sentence, I would like
to ask that the words "some small employers with 20 or less employees"
be put into the notes.

		I am an employer with less than 20 employees.  I am speaking for every
employer who has 20 employees or less.

		Thank you.

		MR. HERING:  I'll have the motion include that.

		COMMITTEE MEMBER:  I'll accept.

		MR. HAWKINS:  Mr. Chairman, I just want to let you know I am on the
meeting and I can hear fine.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Appreciate that, Steve.

		MS. SHORTALL:  I think we should adopt this, but I want to make a
correction here.  The comments that we have on the draft checklist and
companion document should be provided to the work group chairs within 60
days and not directly to OSHA.

		You can leave it in here, but I just want to tell you you need to give
it to the work group chairs and not directly to OSHA.  The requirements
specify that subcommittees and work groups may not give materials
directly to the Agency.  It has to filter up through the committee
itself, which is the only one that can give something to the Agency.

		MS. DAVIS:  This is in the minutes.  Can we just change the minutes?

		MS. SHORTALL:  You can change the minutes if you would like to.  I
just wanted to say to everybody here who has comments, give them to the
work group chairs.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  I think we should change it.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Just to be provided to the work group chairs instead of
OSHA.

		COMMITTEE MEMBER:  I'd like to amend the motion to change the language
as counsel just stated.

		COMMITTEE MEMBER:  Second.

		MS. SHORTALL:  There is a sentence after that, I would cross
everything out until you get to "Pete."

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We have the motion straightened out and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Opposed?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you.  Before we move off this, comments will
be collected in the next 60 days.  We will move to develop a draft, a
next revised draft.  I think the discussion we had yesterday in terms of
the next ACCSH meeting, as we continue to delve into this issue, we had
decided to bring in some procurement folks from other agencies as part
of the next work group meeting.

		MS. DAVIS:  I don't think that was explicit in our discussion.  It
kind of came up.  I think that's a great idea.  My question was we
talked about getting input from other agencies.  It could be at the next
meeting.  I would like to hear what they do at other agencies.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Okay.  In the meantime, we could also talk to
different agencies in the interim, get some feedback from some
procurement people, talk to folks like at the Army Corps of Engineers
and other folks as we continue to try to refine that.  I'll take that on
myself as an activity to continue to try to get some feedback to ground
us in that procurement world.

		When we first started talking about this initiative, either at the
last meeting or meeting before, we had talked about if we could ever get
to the point that we had draft language that OSHA would accept, and we
would try to potentially introduce the language through a presidential
executive order.

		I think that is still on the table and if we could get to that point,
it is something I would like for us with OSHA to consider on how we may
be able to take that next step and come up with pre-qualification
language for our Federal Government procurement that would be
accompanied by a presidential executive order that would put on record
that the Federal Government is serious about taking the lead of
protecting construction workers on the job sites that they finance.

		I think that is something we should consider as we proceed with our
deliberations here.

		As far as Jaime's tool, we need to look at that.  We will have that at
the next ACCSH meeting.  Between now and then, based on the comments we
have from those folks who have seen the tool, I'm not sure what we
should be doing as an activity to provide input for OSHA in the next
four or five months before we meet again on the learning tool.

		I don't know if the committee has any suggestions, I'm looking to
anybody on DOC staff, to see how we could work with you or the group
involved with this between now and then to keep refining the tools.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Since you have some people here who are local, part of
you here and the rest of you on the phone.  I can work with Damon on
doing that.  He has set up some work group meetings already.

		I do want to say that if you are contacting other agencies, it's
important to ensure that in the conversations you have, whenever Jim
Maddux thinks it would be appropriate for OSHA to be involved, that you
have the OSHA person involved in those conversations.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Did you hear that, Jim?

		MR. MADDUX:  Yes.  I'll follow up with you at some point after the
meeting.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Okay.  Any other discussion?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We will move to our next work group report, which
is backing operations, Chuck Stribling and Steve, who couldn't join us
but is on the phone.  Steve is the other co-lead with Chuck on the
backing operations work group.

		MS. SHORTALL: I'd like to enter into the record as Exhibit No. 8 the
approved injury and illness prevention program work group report from
the November 28, 2012 meeting, and as Exhibit 9, the Federal Agency
Procurement Construction Health and Safety Checklist.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you, Sarah.  Chuck?

	BACKING OPERATIONS WORK GROUP REPORT

		MR. STRIBLING:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I've been sitting in this chair
all week and I intentionally left the seat next to me vacant hoping my
distinguished colleague from the lesser State of Tennessee would be
here.

		(Laughter.)

		MR. STRIBLING:  Unfortunately, he wasn't able to do that, but I'm
really glad he has joined us on the telephone.  I really appreciate
having Steve around.  I've been told when he and I speak, we sound a
little alike.  That's good because it doesn't make me sound like the
only hick in the room.  Speak up and say something, Steve.

		(Laughter.)

		MR. HAWKINS:  I can hear well.  I really can hear well.

		(Laughter.)

		MR. STRIBLING:  The backing operations work group meet yesterday,
November 28, at 1:20 p.m.  Dr. Teizer, Ph.D. and Associate Professor
from Georgia Institute of Technology, addressed the work group and
presented a view of his research into proximity detection systems and
emerging technologies.

		Dr. Teizer explained that his research shows a lot of promise and most
of what his laboratory has developed, such as the hard hat with the
warning system and software for building information model is not yet
available in the marketplace.

		He advised there is no technology available that can eliminate all
vehicles struck by incidents but the technology can be a valuable aid in
preventing back over incidents.

		His presentation was extremely informative and generated positive
discussion.  Obviously, my summation does not even begin to address the
scope, breadth and depth of his presentation.

		If I tried to capture that, I don't think I'd be done before Dr.
Michaels got here, but I truly enjoyed his presentation and it gave a
lot of promising and valuable information.

		Following Dr. Teizer's presentation, Meghan Smith from OSHA unveiled
OSHA's backing web page.  She advised the web page is now live, but
unfortunately, a real time demonstration of the web page was not
feasible due to remote connectivity issues in this meeting room.

		Nevertheless, Ms. Smith provided a brief overview of the primary
sections of the web page.  She advised it addresses back over's in
construction and general industry and includes links to FACE reports, a
solutions page, a resources page, a regulations page, and a standards
interpretation page.

		The chair acknowledged that ACCSH made the recommendation to OSHA only
two meetings ago to develop a web page devoted to backing, and thanks to
Ms. Smith and Mr. Carl Butler also of OSHA for accomplishing this task
in a very timely manner.

		Ms. Smith then presented 2011 data gathered from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics on fatalities from workers being struck by a vehicle or
mobile equipment that was backing.

		This is the first time BLS has gathered the data specific to backing
fatalities.  In 2011, there were 79 fatalities reported for all sectors.
 That is presented in a variety of ways including the state of the
incident, birth place and employee status, month of incident, day of
week, time of the incident, et cetera.

		Mr. Chairman, no motions were made and the work group adjourned at
3:10 p.m.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you, Chuck.  Steve, do you have anything to
add or any comments?

		MR. HAWKINS:  I do think the issue is starting to gain some traction.
I had the DOT safety representative for Tennessee that had taken up
responsibility for our DOT workers bring me some outreach material she
received, including a clipboard of a dump truck.  On the back of the
clipboard was a diagram showing where the blind spots were for a
particular dump truck.

		I am starting to hear other people talking about it directly.  I'm
really excited about that.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Any other questions or comments?

		The main product or output of the work group was the website, I would
also like to thank Meghan for doing such a great job of getting the
thing up and running so quickly.

		This begs the question next depending on what OSHA does in response to
the RFI on backing operations, what is left for the work group to do in
terms of next steps.  I think it is something we don't have to decide
here today, but if you have any thoughts about what the work group
should be doing in the interim, we would appreciate your input on that.

		MS. DAVIS:  We talked about the whole signaling issue.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We talked about having a better understanding, if
there should be standardized hand signals for backing operations, and
that is something we should look at or as a work group activity.

		MR. STRIBLING:  I'm looking forward to hearing the presentation
tomorrow about what OSHA learned from the comments.  Certainly would be
glad to look more into standardized signals.  We did send out a small
survey.  Maybe we could send out the same survey or another survey
geared to a larger group of people, if that would be beneficial.  Maybe
get some direction from some of the OSHA staff on what might aid them,
based upon what we hear from the comments.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  It was either the last meeting or maybe the
meeting before, someone on the work group had mentioned that the Army
Construction Battalion has standardized signals for backing operations.
I don't know if that is something we might want to take a look at or
start the process of trying to collect some information on that.

		Any other questions or comments?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We have heard the work group report.  We need a
motion to accept the report.

	M O T I O N

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  I'll make a motion to accept.

		COMMITTEE MEMBER:  Second.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Any more discussion?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Opposed?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you.

		MS. SHORTALL:  I would like to enter into the record as Exhibit No.
10, the backing operations work group report from the November 28, 2012
meeting.

		I would also like to enter into the record as Exhibit 11, proximity
detection system PowerPoint presentation by Dr. Teizer, Construction
Industry Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology.

		As Exhibit 12, the OSHA back over prevention technology PowerPoint
handout.

		As Exhibit 13, OSHA backing operations web page.  Exhibit 14, fatal
injuries, a worker being struck by a vehicle or motor equipment that is
backing up, all industries, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you, Sarah.

		Matt and Walter, are you ready?

		MS. DAVIS:  Pete, I think it is worth recognizing Dr. Teizer yesterday
not only for his passion for this issue but his recognition of his
students.  I really felt he presented an incredible team.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  He did.

		MR. STRIBLING:  Here, here.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Walter?

	HEALTH HAZARDS/EMERGING ISSUES/PREVENTION

	THROUGH DESIGN WORK GROUP REPORT

		MR. JONES:  I'll just quickly start.  The health hazards/emerging
issues/prevention through design work group meeting was held yesterday
around noon.

		We had 42 attendees.  The co-chairs for this group are myself, Walter,
Matt Gillen, and Donald Pratt.

		We discussed three issues yesterday.  We did not have enough time to
get a sense of the room in terms of motions, but I think there are some
motions that will come out from individual ACCSH members.

		The first topic we talked about was nano technology in construction.
I'm not going to read everything on here.  I've got some pretty detailed
notes.

		The two speakers we scheduled to provide information was Kristen
Kulinowski from the Institute of Events Analysis at the Science and
Technology Policy Institute, and Bruce Lippy from CPWR.

		Kristen began first by giving us basically an overview of the work in
nano technology in terms of the scale and different classes of nano
particles.

		Most of could understand from our association with asbestos fibers.

		One of the more interesting things she talked about was how nano
particles when at the nano scale normally change, their properties
changed.  She used an example of gold.  Gold which is yellow and
conductive, non-magnetic, but at the nano level, gold becomes red.  It
loses conductivity, it becomes magnetic, and it also becomes explosive
and even catalytic.

		Nano particles help with cancer therapy, environmental clean up and
clean energy.  Kristen went through some demonstrations on how titanium
dioxide added to glass actually gives glass a self cleaning property.

		Researchers are now asking what are environmental and health and
safety impacts of engineered nano particles.  The big concern is human
health concerns from inhalation, the major focus of research.

		It has been determined in animal studies that certain nano materials
can induce cancer, pulmonary fibrosis, cardiovascular dysfunction, some
nano particles can migrate along the olfactory node, straight into the
brain.

		Because nano particles can translate through the skin or through the
body, through ingestion or contact, and induce health effects in animals
and cultures, it is believed exposure to nano particles must be
controlled.

		In terms of regulations, globally, nano particles are loosely
regulated with most governments providing just limited guidance on
safety assessments.

		EPA has PPE requirements for a certain multi-wall carbon nanotubes,
and those requirements are gloves and chemical protective clothing, as
well as NIOSH approved N-100s, which is fantastic.

		Now we are looking at PPE being required as a task based approach
instead of the typical industrialized approach to what is the hazard
assessment.

		EPA is using this new chemical approach.  When you are using these
particles, you have to use this type of protection.  This is a way
forward in occupational safety and health.

		Bruce Lippy began by pointing out carbon nano particles were found at
Ground Zero, and nano particles are pretty commonly found in air.

		What he wanted to make sure we focused on was nano particles or nano
technology as engineered nano particles, the ones that are created as
such.

		In construction, there are many promising applications that enhance
durability and strength.  However, there is limited commercialization
due to the very high costs associated with nano particles.

		In Europe, there is more activity with nano particles, with 94
products out there, 94 different products with nano particles as part of
the material.

		In terms of worker exposure to engineered nano particles, human health
and human health risks, we still do not know that much.  Studies have
shown that inhalation of engineered nano materials during coatings,
compounding and molding can pose respiratory health risks to workers.

		Bruce cited some corroborating sampling's from 2009 where mixing
nanocrete and applying titanium oxide onto glass showed some modest
exposure.

		In terms of industrial hygiene, sampling protocols have not been
developed and we are still relying on the age old NIOSH method.  One
micrometer particle weighs the same as one billion nano particles.

		It is difficult to distinguish because they are always influenced or
massed by other items that you're sampling.

		According to Bruce, surveys indicate the vast majority of workers are
unaware they are using this material.  Literature reviews and studies,
their accuracy is relatively poor, and not really comprehensible.  Less
of them provide cautionary handling language.

		Because of the lack of information, Bruce is working with CPWR,
leading a CPWR initiative to identify specific construction related
products and create a registry.

		They are also identifying applicable control strategies and measuring
their effectiveness with nano particles.

		We had speakers from the Directorate of Technical Support and
Emergency Management.  The speakers informed the work group that the
Office of Science and Technology Assessment is investigating worker
exposure to thermal decomposition of organic compounds, such as organic
coating's, steel and other structures, when extreme heat is applied.

		They were indicating that workers may be exposed to these coating's
through inhalation when extreme heat and flame from torches are used for
cutting and welding.

		Much of the initial work has come from unique workplaces, such as oil
and gas rigs and in very cold climates.  When exposed to flame, these
organic coating's or polymers can give off fumes, and it may break down
into components and form other by-products that could be harmful when
inhaled.

		There is a potential concern for the construction industry in welding
and cutting up heating pipes during installation and repairs, joint
welding and heat flexing of floor covering's, especially in small rooms
with limited ventilation, steel framing in building and construction,
and the reclamation of scrap metal.

		The folks from OSTA believes this area needs a lot more study and
research and asked folks on the committee and in the audience for leads
to further advance their research.

		Our third topic was FCC.  We asked them to discuss radio frequency,
since this is their area of jurisdiction.  Martin Doscad accompanied by
Agency colleagues, provided an overview on how the FCC exposure system
works.  We did get a handout of the presentation.  It gives a pretty
good description of exactly how the exposures can happen.

		The FCC has two exposure limits, exposure limits for the whole body
exposure at greater than 20 centimeters in distance, and one for
specific absorption rates for localized exposures at less than 20
centimeters.

		Each of these has two limits, one for occupational controlled
exposures and a lower exposure limit for general population.

		What the FCC does is they have PELs for workers and they have PELs for
exposures to the general population.

		The FCC licenses source such as broadcast antennas, higher power AM,
FM, and T.V., radar, wireless base stations.  It also licenses portable
sources such as two way radio's, cell phones, laptops, et cetera.

		The FCC requires a variety of control approaches to limit exposure.
It requires the placement of warning signs and signs warning the ranges
for exposures between general population and occupational exposures.

		Cautions for exposures from one to ten times the occupational limit,
warning for exposures ten times over the occupational limit.  That is
where your signs are.

		Exposures fall off with distance, and well defined marking's can be
used to help create exclusion zones.  However, some antennas are
concealed for esthetics reasons behind signs or disguised in trees, flag
poles and other structures.

		Signs and instructions might be less clear when these antennas are
found to be disguised.

		The FCC holds its licensees accountable for exposure compliance and
not the owner of the building.  FCC has technical standards on how to
measure, assess and avoid exposures in excess of FCC limits.  The FCC
does collect complaint information and is not aware of anyone injured
from wireless base stations, as they said in the meeting we had, no one
is complaining.  Again, they are not doing any surveillance as well.

		They are aware of injuries related to broadcast antennas.  In response
to a follow up question, the FCC stated it does not have a system of
surveillance to identify over exposures.

		ACCSH Member Bill Hering shared his experience in reviewing
applications by carriers for placement of cell phone antennas.  He
stated potential occupational exposures are never mentioned.

		He gave an example of antennas inside a billboard structure as an
example of where workers might have exposures and never being aware of
what they were being exposed to.

		Robert Weller from the FCC provided additional detail on how FCC
enforcement works.  He indicated the FCC authority is limited just to
the licensees.  The licensees must certify they are in compliance.

		In response to questions about how building owners could override
access controls, Robert Weller indicated the FCC has had discussions
with OSHA Solicitors about how this could be addressed.

		In addition, the FCC will use general population uncontrolled limits
instead of the occupational control limits for wider areas.

		Greg Lutz of NIOSH mentioned the FCC has worked closely with NIOSH and
other agencies, and he suggested the limit for potential construction
exposures might be dealing with notification and exposure issues
beyond -- dealing with these issues might be beyond the direct control
of the FCC jurisdiction.

		Drew Fountain described inadvertent radio frequency exposures as a
hazard in plain sight and suggested the signs can be misplaced and are
often ambiguous for workers.  He said the time weighted averaging used
for the exposure units are great for employers and workers who have
knowledge about exposure, but this is not often the case.

		In response to a question from ACCSH, Tish Davis, the FCC
representatives indicated they do complaint based enforcement.  For
example, if they find absence of notification or signage.

		ACCSH Chair Pete Stafford stated his impression from the discussion
was that a regulatory gap might exist, and some type of ACCSH
recommendation might be in order.

		The co-chairs thanked the speakers for their excellent presentations,
and the meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you, Walter.  Matt?

		MR. GILLEN:  Just to congratulate Walter.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  That was great, Walter.  You did a fantastic job.

		MR. PRATT:  I'd like to offer one small change in the minutes.  This
will be on page three at the top under Section Two, the fourth line
down.

		"As steel framing and building construction and reclaiming of scrap
metal and other work in demolition," I would like to add "and
de-construction."

		We talked about that earlier today.  I think that should be added,
"de-construction" also.

		MR. JONES:  That's fine.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Just for clarification, we don't need to change
the minutes, in terms of Bruce's report and what the CPWR wants to do,
there is one thing, we know about engineered nano particles in
applications in the construction industry, but we don't know very much,
and as a practical starting point, our goal is to develop an inventory
of nano particle products that are used in the United States
construction industry.

		Secondly, in my view, as a practical first step, to try to understand,
to actually get in the lab setting and start doing some sampling of
those products that we know are used.

		Those are two things that CPWR is hopeful to do to kind of start
taking a look at this emerging issue.

		MS. SHORTALL:  First of all, this is a point of personal privilege.  I
just have to say I think this is the best work group report I have ever
received.  Working as counsel, I would like to compliment whoever put it
together.  Please accept my compliments.

		MR. GILLEN:  Thanks for getting us in trouble with all the other work
groups.

		(Laughter.)

		MS. SHORTALL:  In terms of additional information, if the work group
wants to continue to look at nano technology, I might suggest a speaker
from the National Technology Initiative, which is a central coordinating
agency on nano technology.  They have quite an extensive website.

		For a number of years, nano technology has been dealt with as an inner
agency issue, the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy,
and also the international bodies.

		Having someone from there come to speak might also help the work group
understand what is happening on the issue.

		MR. GILLEN:  Thanks.

		MR. JONES:  Thanks.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We have heard the report.  No more discussion.
Motion to accept the work group report?

	M O T I O N

		MS. DAVIS:  I move.

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  Second.

		MS. DAVIS:  One thing I'm interested in is understanding who is
responsible for labeling requirements, outside of the MSDS process.

		MR. JONES:  We are going to try to address that.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We have a motion and a second.  All those in
favor?

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Any opposed?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Great.  For those of you who are interested in
public comments, sign up.  We are not going to go until 4:00.  It is
going to be much earlier than that.

	M O T I O N

		MR. JONES:  We do have motions.  I'm sorry.  Because the committee did
not have enough time to get a sense of the room or take a vote amongst
ACCSH members that were there, there were two motions that we thought
might be worth ACCSH considering.

		As an ACCSH member, I'm going to throw the first one out there.
Construction, building and maintenance workers can be inadvertently
exposed to radio frequency during renovation, maintenance, and related
tasks, cell phone and wireless base stations.

		Because the FCC has jurisdiction over the licensees that own the
equipment but not the employers or building owners, there appears to be
an important gap.

		I move that ACCSH recommends that OSHA or DOC for that matter and the
FCC collaborate to develop the following:  simple guidance for building
owners on preventing inadvertent radio frequency exposure to
construction and maintenance workers.

		Two, simple guidance for construction employers and employees on
preventing inadvertent radio frequency exposure to construction and
maintenance workers, and three, a memorandum of understanding to clarify
the roles and ensure availability of meaningful enforcement options for
construction and maintenance workers to address inadvertent radio
frequency exposures.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We have a motion.  Do we have a second?

		MR. HERING:  I will second that.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Walter, could you please repeat number three?

		MR. JONES:  I can give it to you.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We have a motion and a second.  Any further
discussion?

		MS. SHORTALL:  Number three is memorandum of understanding to clarify
roles and ensure availability of meaningful enforcement options for
construction and maintenance workers to address inadvertent radio
frequency exposures.

		MR. PRATT:  Walter, I didn't catch everything that was said, but was
there something in there about who is responsible to do this or you just
want to have it studied?

		MR. JONES:  I think what we are looking at is a memorandum of
understanding so it could be clear to the construction worker and the
maintenance worker who they are supposed to turn to for help in terms of
the Federal agencies, is it FCC protecting them or is OSHA going to
protect them, and for OSHA and FCC to figure that out.

		Right now, the FCC, based on their testimony, are only regulating the
licensees.  They are not regulating the building owners or anyone else.

		If a worker from a building owner is exposed, they have no recourse to
deal with that exposure.

		MR. PRATT:  Is the intent to get the two agencies together to figure
this out?  I didn't hear any direction.

		MR. JONES:  Yes, figure it all out.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  I think you are right.  That is what a memorandum
of understanding would do, lay out how the two agencies would work
together to fill this gap.

		MS. SHORTALL:  A memorandum of understanding is often used where there
may be something potential under Section 4(b)(1) of OSHA, to try to
figure out who has the authority to take action.

		Under Section 4(b)(1), if another agency has authority and exercises
that authority to control working conditions, then OSHA is prohibited
from taking action.  In other words, we are preempted.

		What we do in many of our MOUs is to figure out what is the extent of
that authority and the extent of our authority.

		Sometimes we have had situations in which another agency decides they
would like OSHA to take over jurisdiction because they don't have
resources or are dealing with something else.

		I don't know when Walter says "licensees" are controlled by them, I
don't know how far that extends.  It could extend to the working
conditions in that area, regardless of who was being exposed and their
employment status.

		I think it would take some effort in my shop.

		MR. JONES:  They are already in talks on that.

		MS. SHORTALL:  What they have done is talk.  As you heard yesterday,
FCC has a process of rulemaking to update their regulations.  OSHA has
been involved in this, too.

		In addition, right now the proposal is before the Commissioners of the
FCC.  When they agree this proposal is ready to go out, it will be
published in the Federal Register, and people will have a chance to
comment on it, which means any of you, any of your organizations will be
able to do it.

		They will be able to see from that where they are planning to go with
rules and what affects working conditions.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We had a motion and a second.  Any more
discussion?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Opposed?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Walter, you have a second motion?  Is Dr. Michaels
here?  Yes, he is.  We will let Dr. Michaels come up and we will get
back to this.  Thank you.

		Dr. Michaels, welcome.  It is good to see you.

	ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S AGENCY UPDATE AND REMARKS

		DR. MICHAELS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  It is always a pleasure to have you here before
our committee.  We have had an excellent meeting and excellent work
group meetings for the last couple of days.  Our new members are well
engaged.  We appreciate you joining us.  The floor is yours.  Thank you.

		DR. MICHAELS:  Great.  Thank you so much.  Let me begin first by
thanking all of you for your service, and in particular, the new ACCSH
members.  I hope this has been an enjoyable situation for you.

		The work that ACCSH does is very important.  We value it highly and we
know it has impact.  For decades, it has really helped shape OSHA's
work.  We are grateful you have joined us, especially the new members.
Welcome.

		I thought what I would do today is spending a little time talking with
you about how we think about what we are doing at OSHA and what touches
upon the work of the Construction Directorate on the health and safety
of construction workers around the country.

		I'll take a few questions and really would love to hear some of your
thoughts.  I get a full report from our staff about all of your
deliberations.

		The workplace has changed tremendously in the last 40 years, whether
it's because of many of you, employers, trade associations, health and
safety professionals, and OSHA and NIOSH working together.

		There were about 14,000 fatalities a year.  That has dropped to 4,000
a year.  We have made great progress.  It is worth to think for a minute
how much safety in the workplace has improved as we think about where we
have to go.

		We still have about 4,000 fatalities a year, with probably 50,000
illnesses a year, fatal illnesses a year.  We don't know how many
because it is not well understood and well researched.

		Most importantly for all of us what we see is millions of injuries
reported every year.  This is the estimate from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics based on their surveys, more than three million workers are
injured every year on the job.

		That is a very high number.  It is too high.  It hurts workers, it
hurts their families, it hurts employers and it hurts the economy.

		Obviously, tens of billions of dollars a year in waste as a result of
those.

		We have a ways to go.  OSHA exists to help employers.  Employers have
to provide a safe workplace.  It is OSHA's job to figure out how to make
sure employers do that.

		We have a very broad mandate.  We have nail guns to nail salons.  When
you think about all the types of workers who are covered by the OSHA
laws, we have to make sure they have safe workplaces.

		There is a wide range of workers in construction and manufacturing,
all sorts of service sectors, maritime, everybody except miners, workers
in mines.

		We have to do it in multiple languages.  The members of workplaces are
always changing, but an issue that has really faced the United States
for centuries is we have immigrants.  Our work force is made up of
immigrants, many of whom don't speak English.  To be able to work
safely, you have to be trained in hazardous and safe work.

		You have to be trained in a language you understand.  OSHA has taken
the position that if training is required, training has to be done in a
language and vocabulary that workers understand.

		We have been out at too many workplaces where workers are injured and
won't speak to the foreman, and we will say why wasn't that worker
trained properly, and they say well, they don't speak English.

		Our inspectors know that is not an acceptable answer.  If you hire a
worker to do a job, you have to be able to train them.

		We try to address that issue by putting out materials in many
languages.  These are just two examples.  The nail salon industry has
Vietnamese workers, so we put out materials in Vietnamese.  A great deal
in Spanish.

		The way I think about our challenge is to think about the range of
employers.  I come from a background in epidemiology and statistics.

		When I think about employers and their attitude towards workplace
safety, I think there are some that will stay on the right side of the
curve, great employers, and I'm sure the employers at this table are
there, VPP employers are there, the construction companies that make
sure that not just their own workers are safe but who cascade their
requirements down through all the levels of subcontractors and enforce
those to ensure workers aren't getting hurt, those are the companies
that have a great commitment to workplace safety.

		We know there are many companies like that.  We understand they do it
not just for the safety of their workers, but for their own business as
well.  The companies that manage for health and safety are the
profitable companies.

		You can talk to Paul O'Neil from Alcoa and Lee Raymond from Exxon.
They will tell you.  There are VPP companies who tell us they would not
be in China if not for the VPP program.

		Our approach to them is to say, great you are doing a wonderful job.
Give them a star, a flag.  We thank them.  We don't have that much to
offer them.

		At the other end of the curve, the far left end of the curve, are
companies that have little or no commitment to workplace safety, who
often look at their machines as being more valuable because it costs you
to replace a machine.

		If a worker is injured, there is someone else lined up outside to take
their job.

		We have situations like that.  Recently we had an employer who
manufactured those little bottles you get at a hotel, for conditioner
and shampoo.  A worked burned over 80 percent of his body.  The employer
didn't even call 911.

		They eventually put him in a station wagon and took him to a local
physician, who said this person needs to be in the hospital immediately.
 He died.

		Most employers are probably somewhere in between.  They want to do the
right thing, but they don't have the incentive to do it, don't have the
knowledge to do it or have the resources to do it.

		For each of those employers, we have different tools.  For the
employers at the very far end, like the one I described who manufactured
those cosmetic things, probably the best tool is a criminal referral to
the Justice Department.  That is not a safety and health issue, that's a
criminal issue.

		We have our inspection program.  We know some employers do the right
thing not because it's the right thing to do but because they are afraid
of the OSHA inspection and citation.

		We have compliance assistance.  We have information through our
website, through our compliance assistance specialists, through our
state consultation programs, which offer free consultation to small
employers.

		Those are employers who would like to make sure their workers are
protected but may not know how.

		Finally, the employers who recognize it is the right thing to do, make
the investment, and do a great job.

		I am hoping that curve is shaped more like this (indicating) where
there are more good employers over at the great end than employers at
the bad end.  We don't know.

		We have tools for each different type of employer and our objective
here, and you can't see this on the slides, is to move that curve.  Move
it all the way over.

		That is what you are helping us do, to think about how do we apply all
of these tools more effectively, how do we target enforcement activity,
how do we do our consultation work more effectively, how do we move that
curve.

		I'm grateful for your help doing that.

		We have tools and strategies, and they are appropriate for different
situations.  Our job is to figure out how to apply our limited resources
to these different strategies in the most effective way.

		"Effective" in this case means preventing injuries, illnesses and
fatalities.  That is the challenge.  That is what we think about.

		How do we think about that, how do we apply different strategies, how
we mix them.  Obviously, what is very much on our radar screen and we
appreciate your help, is figuring out ways to reduce fatalities and
injuries from falls.

		Let me thank you all for your great work on this.  You have pushed us
hard.  You have helped us change our policies, with NIOSH, with CPWR,
with a number of you, we have gotten involved in what I think is a very
effective campaign to prevent deaths from falls, and it involves all of
our strategies.

		Obviously, in terms of our inspections, fall protection violations
remain the number one cited standard essentially when we go out.

		As you know all too well, a few years ago we changed our enforcement
policy on residential construction.  Residential construction, we were
able to take some protections that we thought were less protective than
those required in our fall prevention standards in construction.

		We changed that in December 2010.  We still have some modifications in
terms of how we issue penalties and how we address it.

		Right now, all construction is covered by the same standard.  What we
find when we go out and do inspections is when we see violations of a
fall prevention standard, we don't see a lot of employers, home
builders, are doing what was allowed under that modification that was in
place for 15 years.

		We are finding they are not providing any precautions.  The vast
majority of our citations, when we talk about lack of fall prevention,
is really this fundamental no fall protection being given.

		It is a shame we still see that.  There was an article in the
newspaper yesterday, in the Atlantic City newspaper, I can't tell you
the name, but it was in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy where we are
out there doing inspections, mostly doing compliance assistance when we
see situations, getting people off the roof if it's a dangerous
situation, if they are fixing a roof damaged by Sandy, but we also saw
some new construction, not affected by Hurricane Sandy.

		What the employer said is quoted in the paper as I saw the OSHA folks
come in, so I told my people put on your hard hats and get off the
ladders.  I'm only paraphrasing slightly.

		Put on your hard hats when you see OSHA coming.  That is obviously an
attitude that we find very problematic.

		Those are the sort of people who were cited.

		The falls prevention campaign is really taking off.  I think it is
doing very well.  I don't need to give you the statistics.  You have all
lived and breathed this issue.

		I want to talk about how this campaign really is a joint venture, it's
come out of the work of this advisory committee and many of the
organizations that you work for.

		We are pleased with the materials.  We have them now in Spanish,
Russian and Polish, and they are coming soon in Portuguese, Vietnamese,
Laotian and Tagalog.

		It's very impressive.  We are just getting going but we have done a
lot of outreach activities, a lot of inspection visits, huge number of
publications going out.  We hope it has impact.

		We haven't measured the impact year, but we can see the materials are
being distributed.  We have a great website with large numbers of
downloads and visits, in the hundreds of thousands.

		Another thing we are pleased to see, and I don't know that we can go
to the bank on this yet, but we have seen a decrease in fatalities from
falls in residential construction.  This is before the campaign.

		We announced the change in our enforcement policy in December 2010.
From 2010 to 2011, the number of fatalities in residential construction
from falls decreased about 25 percent.

		These are preliminary numbers.  We are told they are likely to go up a
little bit but not that much.

		This reduction took place while the number of workers in residential
construction was flat.

		While we are still looking at this, we think it will have an impact.
The point here is for us to be able to save some lives.

		We do a tremendous amount of compliance assistance, getting out to
those employers who want to do the right thing, telling them how to do
it.

		We encourage the use of our free consultation program, and anything
you can do to get employers into that program.

		We far prefer to have employers use the free consultation program than
have us go there and issue a citation, often after a worker is hurt.  If
they can go there before we get there, before a worker is hurt, we are
all better off.

		One thing we have been very much focused on and I have talked about a
little bit to this group is looking at using data to understand exactly
how we are doing.

		Researchers have taken on the task of looking at OSHA inspections.
It's been a little easier for them to look at manufacturing, and much of
this comes from manufacturing.  We are trying to encourage them to look
at construction as well.

		We are learning a great deal.  One of the reasons we can learn so much
is OSHA decides where to go in an inspection, but a lot of our
inspections are based on randomly choosing the employer.

		That actually gets to a Supreme Court decision that said we can't be
arbitrary and capricious, and we have to make sure that all employers in
the universe we are interested in inspecting have an equal likelihood of
being inspected.

		In other words, I can't personally say those guys down the street,
let's go inspect them.  If we are going to be looking at construction
sites, plants, whatever it is, we have to use a system to randomly
choose the employer to visit.

		It is actually like a clinical trial a drug company could use.  We can
test whether our inspection had impact.

		Recently, an article was published in Science Magazine, which is
probably the leading journal, a leading academic journal, a peer review
journal.  This is a study done by faculty at business schools who were
interested in what is the impact of OSHA inspections on businesses.

		The authors were from Harvard and University of California Schools of
Business.

		They looked at inspections that we did in California and matched
employers we inspected with ones we didn't, and all the same
characteristics.  They were randomly chosen, which ones to inspect.

		What they found was an inspection led to almost a ten percent drop in
injuries over the next five years, the year we inspected and four years
after that.  It resulted also in a significant savings, lower Workers'
Compensation cost to every employer related to those injuries.  There
was a 26 percent reduction in injury costs per employer.

		These professors estimated that every inspection saved employers about
$350,000.  We should be charging them for our inspections.  The taxpayer
picks it up.  It's a gift to American industry.  We do a very good job.

		I would note there is some laughter in the room for the transcript.

		They looked at this question of what is the impact on the economic
health of the employer.  There are some accusations thrown around that
OSHA kills jobs and inspections are going to run us out of business.

		It turns out the OSHA inspections had no effect on the employer's
employment situation, how many workers they employed, their earnings,
sales, creditworthiness.  In other words, we save employers some money
and more importantly, we prevent some injuries, and we didn't do
anything detrimental to the employer.

		That was one story in Science Magazine.  There have been two studies
that have come out since then, that came out in November.  One was done
in Washington State and the other done in Pennsylvania, looking at the
economic health of the company, but found the same thing, that OSHA
inspections reduce injuries.

		This isn't that surprising.  We have been saying it for a long time.
It's nice to have three strong academic studies saying the same thing.
It ends the discussion about whether or not OSHA inspections actually
are effective.

		We know they are limited.  We only do a certain number of inspections.
 We can only look at certain types of hazards.

		As a particular tool, we know that works.

		The bigger thing we are thinking of is not us going into workplaces
and finding violations of particular standards, but changing the culture
of workplaces.

		I know all of you are involved in that and thinking about that all the
time.  That is something we know has to do with safety culture, a
workplace where the employer, the managers, the foremen, the workers all
have a commitment to safety and they work together to identify hazards
and to fix them.

		If the culture is there, that's important.  That's the number one
thing to do.  We have to encourage that.  We have information on our
website about injury and illness prevention programs.  Our consultation
groups, we encourage employers.

		We know injuries and fatalities occur where there is no violation of
an OSHA standard, but they still need to be prevented.  The way to do
that is by essentially embracing the injury and illness prevention
programs.

		A paper program doesn't work.  It seems pretty obvious when you say
that.  A paper program doesn't work.  We know that from California.
California has an injury and illness prevention program.  It's been
around for a long time.

		They have a very straightforward requirement, they say if an inspector
arrives and you don't have an injury and illness prevention program on
paper, they say okay, here's a citation.  It's a small fine.

		What the employer does is they download a file from the Internet and
poof, they have a program.  That's not really a program.  It's a piece
of paper, right?

		The Rand Corporation looked at this question and they said okay, let's
look at employers who have been inspected.  They said if you have been
cited for not having a written program, what's the impact on your injury
rate next year.

		Needless to say, there is no impact.  Just downloading the piece of
paper doesn't change what's going on in terms of safety.

		The other thing is if you start in a program but you didn't do the
components, and the key ones, did you do training.  If they cite you and
you say you have the paper, you started the program, but you haven't
trained your workers, you get a citation for that, and you have to train
them.  You have to start that.

		It turns out that has a huge effect.  Altogether, if there is a 26
percent reduction, and if you didn't train and then you start the
training as a result of getting a citation, you reduce injuries by 40
percent.

		We know it has an impact if it's done right.  That is what we want to
encourage employers to do.

		What we are very much focused on is this question on incentive
programs.  I know you all have thought about this a little bit and I
would love your thoughts on this as we go on.

		I don't think this works in workplaces.  The corner store, if you are
the person who buys the right ticket, it works for you.

		The idea that you get a small incentive for not reporting an injury,
we think that is counterproductive.

		This is a discussion we are having with all of our stakeholders and we
are eager for your input.

		We have seen lots of programs where workers were given a bonus,
because no one has been injured over a certain period of time.  It makes
sense.  They want a chance to be in the lottery for anything from a nice
jacket to a car.  Or everybody is going to get like a pizza dinner
during the week if no one is injured.

		There is actually no evidence that people work more safely as a result
of that, that some future game will change the way you behave today.

		It also says control of the workplace, preventing the injuries is in
the control of workers.  If they just act safely, be safe, there is no
real incentive to get rid of the hazards.  We know hazards have to be
gotten rid of.

		What this does do and we see plenty of evidence of this, it encourages
workers not to report injuries because they want to participate in the
incentive.  The incentives can be small.

		We heard one report where workers were told if no worker is injured,
all the contractors and subcontractors, in three months, everybody gets
a month's bonus.

		Let's say you are two and a half months into this, and you cut your
hand.  Are you going to report that?  All of your co-workers are going
to lose a month's pay?

		You have to essentially be dead for that to be reported as far as I
can tell.

		(Laughter.)

		DR. MICHAELS:  This is a serious problem.  We obviously want to
encourage employers to incentivize the right behavior and deal with
hazards and have training.

		There are things you can do to incentivize and you can do it well.  It
involves making the place safe.

		It's very important to note that reporting the injury is a protected
activity.  One of the ways employers learn about the existence of
hazards is a worker is injured and the injury gets reported.

		If an injury isn't reported, that leads to the inability of the
employer to identify hazards.

		We don't care about reporting for reporting sake.  We get a very small
sample of the country's OSHA logs.  There are various tools for
employers and workers to use.

		We feel very strongly employers should investigate injuries, have an
incident investigation system involving workers, to learn what's going
on in the workplace.

		If you have a system where workers are discouraged from reporting
injuries, we obviously think that is detrimental to the health and
safety of all the workers there, and we think it's a violation of the
OSHA  Act, and we need to discipline workers no matter what the
circumstance is, this sort of activity falls under that.

		We have seen employers who do that, they have a system where you are
disciplined and often you are brought up on safety rules that are sort
of pretext saying you're being brought up on charges of lack of
situational awareness.  In other words, you weren't paying attention.
The only time it ever happens is when someone is injured.

		We frown upon that sort of program, offering incentives for not
reporting injuries.

		We had a situation recently in New Jersey where we received anonymous
complaints.  We didn't know who actually reported the situation.  We
went in there.  We issued a citation.

		Right after we got there, a worker was fired.  The employer figured
out who called us.  We issued a citation on that.  The employer
essentially ignored us.  We said the employer has to pay $7,500 in back
wages to this employee, and he refused.  The U.S. Marshals then seized
the black corvette of the company president to pay those costs.  We
thought that was appropriate use of your taxpayer money.

		Anything that we do, and this is the important thing to remember, we
would like to remind everybody of this, we level the playing field.
There are many employers who want to do the right thing.  We certainly
don't want them to be at a financial disadvantage competing with
companies that cut corners and put workers at risk.

		What we do is important not just to protect workers but to protect the
responsible employers in this country.

		That is my brief discussion about where we are, and I'm happy to take
some questions.  I know you discussed some of our operations in the
hurricane recovery zone.  We can talk about that if you would like.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you very much, Dr. Michaels.  Do ACCSH
members have any questions or comments for Dr. Michaels?

		MR. JONES:  I have a couple, but I'll throw you a couple of softballs
here first.  Could you follow up on Sandy, Hurricane Sandy?  We heard
great things on going on, but could you tell us what's going on?

		This is the whole issue of mold and respirator uses.

		DR. MICHAELS:  I haven't been following the mold issue.  I just heard
reports.  I can't tell you what we are doing with mold yet.  I know I've
heard reports.

		In general, on Hurricane Sandy, since the moment we were able to get
going, once the storm passed, our regional folks, Region 2, have been
working non-stop to respond.

		What we have done is we deployed OSHA inspectors from around the
country.  We have staff from the area, New York and New Jersey, 10 or 12
at all times from other areas.

		We are out there going to places we think workers are working.  We
have ties with the Army Corps of Engineers, a lot of the Unions, but we
also have very good ties with the day laborer community.

		A lot of this work that is being done is being done by workers picked
up at Lowe's or Home Depot parking lots.

		For the most part, we give advice.  We get people out of hazardous
situations.  We tell them where to get equipment.  We have no safety
equipment to share.  We have been very fortunate that a number of
organizations have stepped up to the plate and are providing donations.

		I know the National Safety Council and the American Society of Safety
Engineers have really taken the lead in soliciting donations from
manufacturers, Hunter College, ASSE Chapter in New York, and are
distributing them to those who don't have this equipment.

		We are doing some enforcement as well, depending on the situation.  We
try to be everywhere at once.  It's difficult to do.  At this point, we
have learned a lot from the experience, first 9/11 and then Katrina,
since this Administration has been here, Deepwater Horizon, dealing with
the tornadoes in the Midwest a few years ago, knowing the clean up work
is very dangerous and can be.

		Workers are often out there trying to do the right thing with no
equipment, without even gloves.  There have been a number of fatalities
already, electrocutions, people falling from roofs.

		We are trying to get the word out through public service
announcements, English and Spanish.

		As you know, the Secretary is up there today touring some of the
facilities.

		We will have to get back to you on mold.

		MR. JONES:  I'll ask one more.  Matt and I and Don Pratt, we chair the
health hazard work group and emerging hazards.  The one thing we were
noticing is nothing -- it doesn't seem like much can be done with the
whole PEL issue, or maybe there is something that can be done, and you
are going to let us know now.

		I've heard you talk in the past about setting up a website where you
line up the PELs with TLVs and maybe RELs.  I've heard certain folks
from NIOSH talk about adding notations to the PELs in terms of when the
original study was done, when it was actually updated, so you can inform
folks who are relying on this to protect workers.

		Is there any movement on that?

		DR. MICHAELS:  There is.  We are working with ACJ, which is a private
organization, to make sure we could use their materials in the way we
want to.

		We are actively doing that.  We hope soon to be able to actually get
that out to the public.  We think having a place where you could compare
PELs and other occupational exposure limits would be very useful.

		It doesn't solve the big problem, which is most of our exposure limits
are out of date or missing.  We are gathering information on that.  We
are open to comments, suggestions, to think about this.

		I'm an optimist.  I think there is something we can do.  I'm just not
sure what that is yet.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Any other questions from members?  If not, I have
a couple.

		David, we also have an I2P2 work group that has been working on
construction issues.  We continue to plug along as the standard is still
held up in SBREFA.

		Do you have any insight for us?

		DR. MICHAELS:  I have nothing new to report.  We are developing
materials and doing other things.  We hope to start that process again
soon.  It has sort of been paused.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  In the meantime, we have decided we will continue
to regard the deliberations about I2P2 and how to make that work.

		DR. MICHAELS:  That is great.  We should be doing that whether or not
there is a standard.  It's the right thing to be doing.  That's what we
are doing.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We have also been developing a checklist, some
procurement language potentially, that we could use and work with on
OSHA hopefully down the road if we get to the point where we have
something final to present to the Agency.

		In our work group discussion yesterday, in the outreach and training
work group and in our main meeting this morning, we had some discussions
with Dr. Payne about our views and made some recommendations about how
we could take a look at the outreach program for the construction
sector.

		Those recommendations have been made and we need to follow up with you
and your office at some point about how we may go about pursuing some of
those recommendations that have came out of this committee.

		DR. MICHAELS:  I look forward to reading them and meeting with you.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  I appreciate that.  For me, I would like to
personally thank you for OSHA's commitment both in time and resources
that you have put into the fatalities campaign.  It has been really
great.  The work that OSHA has done to move this forward, we all
appreciate that very much.

		DR. MICHAELS:  I want to thank you, personally, Peter, and the rest of
you, because I think this has really been a tremendous collective
effort.

		This isn't OSHA's campaign.  It is a campaign for all of us.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  One last thing, and we started at the last
meeting, David, of putting together -- I'm going to take it over as
chair and try to get more involved -- in the surveillance discussion.

		We had BLS come in and tomorrow we will hear about the new OSHA data
system.

		I think you said it earlier in your presentation, I would like to
figure out how this work group or ACCSH as a full body and not just our
work groups could work with OSHA more on figuring out how to target
construction inspections.  I'd like to have separate conversations with
others around this table.

		We hear this all the time.  We had a small employer call into our I2P2
work group yesterday.  As we had gone through our deliberations, we
brought large employers in to talk to us, since they say the components
of an I2P2 standard are no big deal to us, we do all these things
anyway, and reinforced elements that we all view would be in an I2P2
standard.

		In fairness and full disclosure, getting all perspectives, we had a
small employer call in yesterday to raise with us what their concerns
would be as a mid/small sized employer with a standard.

		You hear this all the time.  One of the main concerns that Shannon
pointed out, a good employer trying to do the right thing, this is just
one other layer of stuff that I have to do, and a lot of my competition
isn't doing anything.

		It just seems to me as you listen to these kinds of conversations
about good employers not wanting regulation because it's a burden on
them, the whole purpose of these regulations is to get to the bad
employers that in some way, even with limitations on how you have to go
about satisfying the Dodge data to get to the OSHA inspection -- there
seems to be some way we need to figure out how we can do a better job of
targeting construction inspections.

		DR. MICHAELS:  I agree.  I think we have to be creative.  The world is
changing rapidly.  There are new data cross sourcing tools and
techniques that we could be thinking about that may help us to learn,
not from let's say traditional sources like the Dodge reports, but maybe
from photographs or places where food trucks are going.

		There are lots of things we should be thinking about that might help
us get to the place we need to go.

		Any advice you can give us on that would be great.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We will continue to work on that.  I think it is
important for us to do.

		Any other questions or comments?

		MR. JONES:  Can I follow up on that statement?  You said data cross
sourcing.

		Your communications efforts since you have been has been fantastic,
right, the website, you are getting a lot of hits.

		As an epidemiologist, a man who likes statistics, are you looking at
your website hits and these downloads, looking at demographics?

		DR. MICHAELS:  Not as much as I'd like to.  We don't know who is using
our websites.  We'd like to figure out how we could do that.  We know,
for example, a sizable portion of website hits come from mobile phones.

		If you look at our website, it isn't really amenable to reading on a
mobile phone.  It works fine on a personal computer.  We know we have to
think about ways to reach a changing population.  The population is
getting younger.  It speaks different languages.  It gets information
differently.

		My kids use YouTube to learn how to do things.  I wouldn't use YouTube
as an instruction manual, but they use it all the time.

		We have to think differently.  We need help doing that.  There are
limits to what we know, but I think there are some people in this room
and some organizations that are probably thinking about it, if you want
to share that with us.

		Obviously, that is one of our challenges.  That is why we have
advisory committees.

		MS. DAVIS:  First of all, I just want to go on record complimenting
Region 1 that we have been working with really closely.  We meet
quarterly now with OSHA, the Attorney General, the Health Department, to
coordinate efforts.  It has been terrific.

		They have done some terrific outreach to workers in the Anover area,
and had to turn workers away from training, had to close the doors
because of that level of response.

		I just really want to compliment them and thank OSHA for their
cooperation.

		One of the issues we haven't talked about here but in Massachusetts,
as you know, we have done a lot of work on young workers under age 18.

		The last two years, we have expanded our scope of interest to the 18
to 24 year old's, which is how Canada and other places define young
workers, less than 24.

		If you look at the injury data, they do in fact have the highest
injury rate, fatal injury rates.  What we are seeing is really
dramatically high rates among Hispanic workers in that age group.

		I just wanted to put that out.  Inexperienced 18 to 24 year old's, the
18 year old's look more like they are 16 to us.  There are tremendous
efforts, certainly in Massachusetts, in outreach to community colleges,
high schools.

		DR. MICHAELS:  We are certainly aware of that.  We have a challenge
going on.  Challenge.gov.  It's a way to involve app developers and
others in producing materials for the public good.

		We actually have a young worker smart phone app challenge, which
actually will close tomorrow.  We have a contest, $35,000 in prize money
up there.

		You can see some, you can actually vote on it.  One of the prizes is
for the app submission that gets the most public votes.  We have a great
team of people who are the judges, ranging from John Howard and I to
Arne Duncan, who is the Secretary of Education, to the Netbusters.  We
will see where it goes.  We know these are workers we want to reach.

		MR. CANNON:  I want to follow up on what Pete said as far as how you
improve targeting.  During our last meeting, we had a presentation, I
can't recall the authors or the gentleman, but they were talking about
the Dodge report or what is now called the McGraw-Hill construction
report.

		They said they were going to look into and implement a pilot program
where they were looking at smaller scale projects to target small
employers.

		I guess my question is could you not balance that out or use that same
system for your consultation services.

		DR. MICHAELS:  I'm not sure why we couldn't.

		MR. CANNON:  There may be small employers that are not aware of your
consultation program.  This would be a way to get out to those.  You
said there are some that intentionally disregard or they lack knowledge
or resources.

		DR. MICHAELS:  One thing we do is testing whether or not sending a
letter talking about our consultation program and essentially saying we
may inspect you, if that has an impact.  We are actually going to do
random experiments.

		We do have a couple of new fact sheets on hurricane response and clean
up that we have in the back.  I think they are quite good.  The number
one hazard in previous hurricanes was heat and two were sticks.  We were
used to dealing with the bayou's and everglades.  That is not the issue
in New York and New Jersey.

		We have new fact sheets out.  I think they are very good.  There are
copies in the back or you can download them and circulate them.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Again, Dr. Michaels, thank you.  I just want to
acknowledge Jim Maddux and his staff, doing a terrific job.

		Just two meetings ago, we had talked about a backing operations
website, and yesterday, we saw one, with Paul Bolon and Meg Smith, so
quite a turn around in one year that we made a recommendation, and
today, we are seeing the website live.  We appreciate it as a committee.

		DR. MICHAELS:  I appreciate that.  I think our staff is doing a great
job, and I see Dr. Branche is here from NIOSH, and I want to thank you
as well.  I think the collaboration has been very effective.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you.  I think Sarah would like to say
something off the record.

		(Discussion held off the record.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Back on the record.  Walter, the other motion,
right?

	M O T I O N

		MR. JONES:  The other motion, a variety of construction uses have been
described for engineered nano materials, current hazard communication
practices do not currently require any precautionary  labeling or safety
datasheet messages for engineered nano materials.

		I move that ACCSH recommend that OSHA determine if the GHS rule and
labeling of chemicals does address engineered nano materials, if it
does, we ask OSHA brief us at a future ACCSH meeting.

		If it does not, ACCSH recommends that OSHA pursue guidance and ensure
workers and employers can be aware of when they are working with
engineered nano materials.

		The purpose of the motion is to try to get some awareness of workers
who are working around nano materials.  It's not really currently
required, as we understand it at least, in safety datasheets.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  That's a lot for one motion.  Sarah?

		MS. SHORTALL:  It looks okay.

		(Laughter.)

		MS. SHORTALL:  I think it's very interesting.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  I'm going to ask  Sarah to read that again.

		MS. SHORTALL:  A variety of construction uses have been described for
engineered nano materials.  Current hazard communication practices do
not currently require any precautionary labeling or safety datasheet
messages for engineered nano materials.

		Therefore, ACCSH recommends that OSHA determine if the GHS, globally
harmonized system of classification and labeling of chemicals, addresses
engineered nano materials, if it does, ACCSH recommends OSHA brief ACCSH
at a future meeting.

		If the GHS rule does not, ACCSH further recommends that OSHA pursue
guidance and regulatory approaches to ensure workers and employers can
be aware of when they are working with engineered nano materials.

		MR. JONES:  Correct.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Do we have a second?

		MR. HERING:  Second.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Any discussion?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Opposed?

		(No response.)

		MS. SHORTALL:  Would someone tell me --

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  What you just read?

		(Laughter.)

		MS. SHORTALL:  Who made the motion?

		MR. JONES:  I did.

		MS. SHORTALL:  You seconded it?

		MR. HERING:  Yes.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Walter, is that it?

		MR. JONES:  That's it.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you.

		MS. SHORTALL:  I would like to enter some things into the record.  As
Exhibit 15, improved health hazards/emerging issues/prevention through
design work group report from the November 27, 2012 meeting.

		As Exhibit 16, introduction to nano materials and occupational health
presented by Kristen Kulinowski, Institute for Defense Analysis, Science
and Technology Policy Institute.

		As Exhibit 17, engineered nano particle exposure and construction
PowerPoint by Bruce Lippy, CPWR.

		Exhibit 18, thermo degradation of organic coating's handout from OSHA.

		Exhibit 19, radio frequency exposure PowerPoint, Federal
Communications Commission.

		Exhibit 20, OSHA update PowerPoint by David Michaels, Assistant
Secretary.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you, Sarah.  Next is our last work group
report for the day, and that is the diversity work group.  Kristi and
Jeremy, however you want to handle it, it's up to you.

	DIVERSITY WORK GROUP REPORT

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  Mr. Chairman, I recognize you have never had a
better overview from a work group before, but we saved the best for
last.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  That's right.

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  That's what you told me to say.

		Mr. Chair, we have several co-chairs.  We have Laurie Shadrick, myself
and Kristi Barber.  We welcomed the group.

		We had a presentation by Kathleen Dobson of Alberici Constructors, for
NAWIC, National Association of Women in Construction, and a participant
of women in construction.

		NAWIC's areas of concern are sanitary facilities, PPE, ergonomics and
tools, harassment, hostility in the workplace and training.

		They desire some form of alliance with OSHA to help them address these
items.

		Pete Stafford asked how we could combine the NAWIC goals with OSHA.

		Letitia Davis asked if it was possible for OSHA to add a link on their
website for people to get answers on sexual harassment during that
discussion.

		A discussion ensured about how that might be related to safety and
health.  Several members concluded that it may be a catalyst for
workplace violence, and perhaps that would permit OSHA to provide a link
as a resource to the EEOC and Office of Federal Compliance Plans.

		No consensus or recommendation was made, however, and the discussion
ended as we then transitioned into a discussion about the new website
and materials.

		It has been discussed for several years at ACCSH about the need for
some sort of information for women in construction.

		We were provided a draft fact sheet for review at that meeting.  There
was really only one issue that the group found as a whole that caused
any serious discussion, and that was where it says "ACCSH recommends
sanitary facilities," et cetera, that it would be better received if it
were actually to say OSHA recommends or ACCSH and OSHA recommends.

		There was a considerable amount of discussion and confirmation that
was the consensus from the group.

		Letitia Davis pointed out that the PPE course under the draft sheets
seemed very negative and there was a discussion about whether the
document itself was too negative and it should be providing solutions
for empowerment for the reader to be able to know there are solutions.

		There was discussion about the draft in its current state.

		There was consensus that there was not enough time to really put
comments together because the group was only just presented the
information, and OSHA asked the group to provide comments on the draft
sheet and on the draft website.

		It was decided that ACCSH members should review the material,
including the ability to go on-line, on the computer, and access the
website to be able to see all the links on the new proposed site in its
draft form.

		Then we can compile comments and provide submission of comments to the
work group chairs, and then we would provide that information as a whole
to the Chairman, Mr. Stafford.

		It was also discussed we should think about having a conference call
of some sort to be able to have further discussion on the comments that
we all have as a group.

		Sarah Shortall asked if the NIOSH website addressed hazardous
chemicals and reproductive health issues.  Matt Gillen said they did not
and there was concern if you have something specific towards women, it
would seem exclusionary or might be a way to have the wording to where
it was excluding women from a certain task.  There was concern about
having that in there.

		After all the discussion that we had, there is a recommendation that
was actually made during the work group.  It was a recommendation made
by you, Pete, and seconded by Chuck, to have a motion based on changing
the language within the document, for the fact sheet to actually add
OSHA.  Then it is going to be a lot better received by industry if it
actually has OSHA on there saying it is a best practice.

		As we continued, Danezza Quintero explained the web page is in its
draft form, and they are continuing to work on it.  They provided
several documents that we are going to submit to be entered into the
record on what it currently looks like.

		Laurie Shadrick asked that ACCSH members be provided the opportunity
to see all the links, and as I said, that is something we did discuss,
that we want to be able to access the tabs that are inside the web page.

		It will be important for all of us to be able to see how the flow of
the web page works so we can actually provide good feedback.  If we
don't feel it is going to flow well, perhaps the public may not feel it
flows well.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  This was part of the discussion yesterday, but in
terms of flow, are we talking about the work group would see a soft
launch of the website?

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  That is what I think we discussed.  I think that was
the intent of what Laurie was saying, we want to be able to see what's
behind the tabs, not just getting a paper that says that is what it is,
actually being able to access it and get a feel for what it is.

		I do believe there is a website address that we might be able to
access.  I know that is a request she had made.

		During new business, Scott Schneider talked about the Latino Action
Summit and if there was anything similar planned in the future, Director
Maddux said there was nothing planned on a national level but there have
been other activities and potentially regional offices were conducting
similar meetings.

		Mr. Schneider asked if there was a strategic plan to help immigrant
workers, and he commented that OSHA provided good information to foreign
workers for clean up efforts after Hurricane Sandy.

		The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

		We do have a motion to make based on the work group's consensus.  I
can make that now or you can ask for approval of the minutes.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Let's approve the minutes and then we can get into
the motion.

		MR. GILLEN:  I have a question.  I'm trying to remember exactly what
the discussion was yesterday with Sarah.  My recollection is she asked
if there was a page related to reproductive hazards for women.

		MS. SHORTALL:  I broadened it.  I said reproductive health hazards,
including effects on men and women and their ability to conceive
children, miscarriage and developmental health effects.

		MR. GILLEN:  I'm sure there is information such as that on our website
somewhere.  I'm not sure we have a topic page.  I can go back and look.

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  I can adjust our minutes to reflect that?

		MR. GILLEN:  Yes, or we can do it next time.  I don't want people to
be confused by that in the future.  It looks like we're saying there is
no information whatsoever on hazardous chemicals and reproductive health
hazards.

		MS. SHORTALL:  You said you didn't know at this point what you had.

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  That would be a better reflection of it.  Matt, what
would you request we enter in there?

		MR. GILLEN:  I'm going to say I would get back to the group or
something.

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  I will make that change.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Kristi, do you have anything to add to the report?

		MS. BARBER:  One thing that Jeremy didn't say is that OSHA requested
that we get back to them in a 30 day time frame because they want to get
these items out.

		What we would like to propose is that if we can get your comments back
in a timely fashion, we will try to get a teleconference planned so we
can discuss the comments, and then submit that to OSHA.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Just so I understand the clarification. Are we
commenting on the hard copy of that website we saw or is OSHA planning
on doing a soft launch so the committee can look at it and then comment
based on what they actually see on the website?

		MS. QUINTERO:  To provide a Word document.  I already provided the
links.  It will be a Word document.

		MS. SHORTALL:  That is the women in construction web page and the
women in construction fact sheet; right?

		MS. QUINTERO:  That's correct.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Is there a commitment on DOC's end on when we will
see a soft launch of the website after the 30 days and the comments are
received?  When could we expect to look at a soft launch website before
it goes live?

		MR. McKENZIE:  (Inaudible.)  We are going to continue to develop it.
If the committee has additional suggestions, we can take a look at them.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Laurie is not here today.  Laurie has a special
interest in holding the teleconference meeting after comments come in so
the work group could discuss them.

		She was worried that it would be difficult to schedule a
teleconference in the middle to end of December because of people's
holiday schedules.

		I spoke with Dean.  Dean says 30 days is the goal, but he understands
because of the timing, it may have to spill into the beginning of next
year.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thanks, Sarah.

		MS. BARBER:  I would also like to ask Danezza, I believe Laurie was
interested in what was behind each of the tabs on here.

		MS. QUINTERO:  Yes, I will be sending everybody that.

		MS. BARBER:  Thank you.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We are committing to get comments back to OSHA
within 30 days more or less.  We are independently feeding comments to
OSHA or they are going back to the co-chairs who are in turn are giving
all the comments collectively to OSHA?

		MS. SHORTALL:  People who have comments should be giving them to the
co-chairs.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  They will feed them to me and I'll send them to
Danezza.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Right.

	M O T I O N

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We have the work group report.  I need a motion to
accept.

		COMMITTEE MEMBER:  Move.

		MR. JONES:  Second.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Opposed?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you.  Danezza, I will talk to you later and
we will figure it out.

		We are a little bit ahead of schedule.  Never mind.  Jeremy?

	M O T I O N

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  The motion is ACCSH suggests to OSHA that the
wording in the OSHA fact sheet on women in construction be modified to
say to avoid health and safety hazards, OSHA and ACCSH recommends that
employers provide and maintain sanitary toilets, et cetera, as it is
written.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  The motion has been made.  Is there a second?

		It's fine if it says ACCSH.  Do we want it to say OSHA and ACCSH?

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  What we gathered from our notes is there was no
differentiation on whether or not anybody had come to a consensus that
ACCSH be taken off but that OSHA needed to be on there.  If we want to
have a discussion on the motion -- we didn't do that yesterday.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  I think that's right, it needs to say OSHA.

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  I think just OSHA.

		MS. BARBER:  I think just OSHA, too.

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  Kristi and I agree.  The discussion did not tell us
to take out ACCSH but it was pretty firm we should have OSHA.  We
thought we should bring it here exactly as it was and let us all decide.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  I appreciate that, Jeremy.  Unless there is any
opposition from any of the ACCSH members or Sarah.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Where in the fact sheet is that particular --

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  The fact sheet was a draft, we didn't want to go too
far into the language in there.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Did you want ACCSH and OSHA?  This one deals with
sanitary toilets, not PPE?  The motion just goes to sanitary toilets?

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  I think they are trying to make the distinction
whether it's OSHA/ACCSH, and it sounds like to me -- I would suggest
the language just simply be that OSHA recommends and remove ACCSH.

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  We don't disagree.  We thought we should bring it
that way.

		MS. SHORTALL:  When you were talking about this yesterday, you were
talking about it up at the front.  ACCSH's name was in there but it was
too bad that OSHA's name was not in there.  The only place it appears is
this one.  It would only deal with sanitation issues and not PPE.

		I just want to clarify that is what you want.

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  There is no standard getting through right now.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Frame the motion one more time.

//

	M O T I O N

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  This is the new motion.  ACCSH suggests to OSHA that
the wording in the OSHA fact sheet on women in construction be modified
to say at the appropriate location to avoid health and safety hazards,
OSHA recommends that employers provide and maintain sanitary toilets, et
cetera.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  What is "et cetera?"

		MR. BETHANCOURT:  The paragraph.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We have a new motion and a new second.  Any more
discussion?

		MS. QUINTERO:  (Inaudible.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you.  We have a new motion and a second.  If
there is no more discussion -- Ben?

		MR. BARE:  When you put this into the record, we would like to be sure
it has the word "Draft" on it.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Yes.  I think we will just have to darken it.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We have a motion and a second.  Any more
discussion?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Opposed?

		(No response.)

		MS. SHORTALL:  Exhibit 21, the diversity work group report from the
November 27, 2012 meeting.

		Exhibit 22, issues affecting women in construction, OSHA alliance
PowerPoint.

		Exhibit 23, proposed agreement establishing the lines between OSHA and
NAWIC.

		Exhibit 24, OSHA and NAWIC safety and health alliance plan information
sheet.

		Exhibit 25, OSHA and NAWIC alliance background document.

		Exhibit 26, National Association of Women in Construction facts.

		Exhibit 27, Women in Construction fact sheet, draft document,
developed by the Diversity Work Group.

		Exhibit 28, draft Women in Construction web page.

		Exhibit 29, OSHA draft Women in Construction fact sheet.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you, Sarah.

		I don't know who signed up but it is time for public comment.  Is
there a list or an order?

	PUBLIC COMMENTS

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Chip Pocock was the first to sign up.

		MR. POCOCK:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.  My
name is Chip Pocock.  I'm with Volker Companies.  We are based in North
Carolina.  I am a certified crane operator and certified practical
examiner with more than 30 years of crane and rating experience.

		I am here today representing the Specialized Carriers and Riggers
Association.  SCRA has 1,300 members in 42 countries.  I think it is
important to point out that 75 percent of those numbers are considered
small businesses.

		Most importantly, I was a member of the Crane and Derrick Advisory
Committee and spent 13 months meeting once a week in this very room,
usually sitting over there where Kristi does.

		I ran into Kristi yesterday afternoon and told her I'm from the
Washington, D.C. area originally.  I remember coming across the 14th
Street Bridge for the first meeting and thinking about the impact of the
work I was going to do on the safety and health of employees in this
country and what an honor that was.  I commend everybody here at this
table for that same commitment.

		There has been a lot of talk about the intent of CDAC.  I can tell you
what the intent was because I was there.  I lived it.  There are minutes
from those meetings.  What they miss is the interaction, the body
language, and the back and forth, both on and off the record that it
took to develop that standard in a year's time.

		I would point out that the Crane and Derrick Advisory Committee was
made up of not only employers, employee representatives, the operating
engineers, the iron workers, manufacturers, OSHA, all stakeholders were
involved in that process.

		What I want to talk about today is the type and capacity issue.  Mr.
Maddux said this morning very eloquently, it is an issue.  It's a big
issue.

		There is a cost impact to small business that was never anticipated by
the SBREFA panel after the CDAC document was signed off on by this
committee and by OSHA.

		The only accrediting body at that time was the National Commission for
Certification of Crane Operators, and I think we literally plucked
language from ASAB 30.5 as far as testing the certification
requirements, which is basically where the type and capacity language
came from.

		I don't think there was ever an intent -- in fact, I'm sure there
was no intent for it to be taken to the degree the Agency says they are
intending to take it, where the operators be tested on every type and
capacity crane they operate.

		Just to give you an idea, we did an internal study in our company
prior to a small business roundtable meeting several months ago.

		Currently in our company, we estimate it costs about $2,750 to provide
an accurate amount of training and get an employee tested and get him
certified both on a written and practical exam.

		That is essentially a core exam, four specialty written exam's, and
the three mobile crane exam's that our company has to have.

		If we take that to the degree where we have the type and capacity
testing for all 70 to 80 operators that we employ, those numbers go to
about $19,500 per employee for that same testing.

		We are talking about around $193,000 to $194,000 annually to somewhere
around $1.350 to $1.5 million depending on the number of operators.

		I would like to say those numbers do not include the cost for
assembly, dis-assembly, or moving machines to and from, whether it is
our yard or a site location where testing might have to occur.

		Jim's PowerPoint this morning showed a number of crawler cranes, the
largest of which is the new 3000 tonner that they rolled out this
Spring.  Several members of our company were there because we are the
largest owner of crawler cranes in the  United States and North America.

		One of the things you don't see, at the end of the photograph there,
the smallest crane you see is actually holding something, and on the
pedestal is a model crane, which is really illegible in the photograph.

		Jim made the comment about if you could run the biggest one, if you
tested on the biggest machine in that photograph, you literally would be
certified to run all of them.  Factually, that is a slight inaccuracy.

		The machine on the left is a telescopic crawler, which is different
from the other machines.  There is a little bit of a disparity there.

		What I would say about testing on capacity, I'm going to paraphrase a
scenario that my good friend, Bill Smith, came up with at this SBREFA
meeting, and that is if my daughter or son goes and gets a driver's
license and I put them in my Ford Focus and it has an automatic
transmission, they drive that vehicle for five or six months, and one
day they come in and they say daddy, the car broke down this morning, it
won't start or it's out of gas, whatever, and I need to take your truck.

		My truck is an F-250 diesel with a five speed transmission.  It's
long, big, heavy.  I know full well my daughter has never driven it and
I point that out, no, you can't drive the truck.  She holds her card up
and says but I have a driver's license.

		Do we allow our daughter or son to drive the truck because they have
the driver's license?

		My point is the cranes that you saw in the picture, a 600 ton crawler
crane is a $5 million plus investment.  Regardless of whether or not a