communities. I think it's a good term, I think it's accurate, I think it
reflects you know the type of people we're talking about. As opposed to
Good Samaritan which is frankly pretty widely understood at least
generally understood in the emergency services community not requiring a
definition.

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

Man:	Kenn and then Victor.

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

Man:	Victor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

Man:	Thank you.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Well I think everybody…

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	Oh I guess you did.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Today?

Man:	Yes.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	On the record that…

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	And less?

Man:	Could it be all that?

Man:	It's all new to me.

Man:	Yes.

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	(Unintelligible).

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

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

Man:	Ultimately…

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Do you remember…

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So that's management.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	All firefighters (unintelligible) regardless of…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Have no idea what they would do.

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Why is my screen not on?

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

Man:	…meetings ago.

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Fire was contained.

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	Federal court?

Woman:	Court of appeals.

Man:	Court of appeals okay.

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	Oh wow.

((Crosstalk))

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

Woman:	No we had no idea.

Man:	Right, yes we, there was a…

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes pretty intense.

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

Man:	No kidding.

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	They were flying into (Dayton).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	He got a rental car.

Man:	He did get a rental car and…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Hey thank you for coming.

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	I appreciate it.

Man:	You are.

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

Man:	(Unintelligible).

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Bill.

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Matt (Unintelligible)?

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

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

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

	So just those three observations.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Matt, Spencer?

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Bill.

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

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thanks Bill.

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Okay thank you Matt.

(Ron McGraw):	And I just…

Lamont Byrd:	(Ron), yes?

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

Lamont Byrd:	Okay.

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

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

Kenn Fontenot:	It would be.

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

	Okay so now Kenn, floor is yours.

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

Man:	(Unintelligible).

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Lamont Byrd:	Kenn, does that address your concern?

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	That’s regarding the May Day?

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Troup:	Yes, I see that.

Bill Hamilton:	Number 10, I think it was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Levinson:	Yes, 2 II.

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

(Ron McGraw):	Can I make a suggestion?

Lamont Byrd:	Who is…

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

(Ron McGraw):	Perfect.

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Everybody - Bill Troup…

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Bill, you good? Okay.

Bill Troup:	Yes, I’m good with that.

Lamont Byrd:	Thank you. Victor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Any thoughts? Any further thoughts?

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

Lamont Byrd:	Sarah?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Troup:	Bill Troup, USFA, yes.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Any other thoughts about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	I’m sorry, I expanded…

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

Man:	(Unintelligible).

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

Man:	It doesn’t matter.

Bill Hamilton:	Oh, it doesn’t matter.

Man:	It doesn’t matter to me.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I’ll put it back.

((Crosstalk))

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

Bill Hamilton:	The J1I is actually…

Bill Troup:	J1I, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Right and so…

Man 3:	Everything.

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

Man 3:	So just…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man 6:	Okay, (Bill Troop).

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

Man 5:	Absolutely might be a (unintelligible).

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

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

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

Man 7:	Yes.

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

Man 9:	Class 2 is a little bit short.

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

Man 9:	Right.

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

((Crosstalk))

Man 10:	…Chapter 6…

((Crosstalk))

WoLamont Byrd:	Anybody over here need any…

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

WoLamont Byrd:	Thank you.

Man 11:	Okay, thank you very much.

((Crosstalk))

WoLamont Byrd:	…I did your microphone.

((Crosstalk))

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

Woman 2:	We reconvened.

((Crosstalk))

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

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

Man 12:	Section N, Page 29.

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Ingram:	Matt?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	Okay, any other comments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	Yes sir.

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

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

Man:	An extended period - say that.

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

Man:	That’s the 12 hour (component).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	Kenn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	Okay, and…

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

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

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

Man:	So I’m familiar with them…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	And those ones where there two days…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	Got it. (Unintelligible).

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

((Crosstalk))

Man:	He just didn’t have a whole lot of options (unintelligible).

Man:	Got it.

Man:	I was looking here though, probably have something about (rehab)
and (wellness). So maybe we could reference it in here (unintelligible).

Man:	Sorry.

Man:	Right. So there may be something we can tie together with the
operational period and simplify it. Here it is. All right.

Man:	So we’re talking, so we’ve got, just to kind of recap here and
I’m not dropping the subject while you all are looking. So Bill added
strategic in number four and we’re talking about duration and number
six.

	And we had talked also about instant safety officer or ISO. I didn’t
know if we got any, so let’s, so I think you’re got that one
covered. So just might be true but we’re covering our questions that
we had.

	And in Canada, you’re suggesting some language for this on page 32?
We’ve had several references over there to …

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Regarding safety), I don’t see too much, it seems we’re
copying verbatim and moving it to 32. We’re talking about the left
towards whatever we’re (unintelligible) mindful that eight hours but
kind of lost my train of thought. We had so much going on.

	But it seems to be a good fit right there. I think we might have it
covered with language that we’ve got in there, Kenn, myself, but is an
(ASW) on page 36 (unintelligible).

	Do we have any other (thoughts)? Any other comments on that? Any
thoughts on what Kenn just brought up? Good discussion here.

Man:	Yes, (unintelligible).

Man:	Okay.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick, Do we, Rick Ingram. Do we have any other
comments or suggestions on this section or do we think we have it?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I think we indicated that we weren’t going to define operational
period specifically and that we were going to indicate that (by
incident).

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Yes, so to start out with everybody, once we get Bill to
read through what he’s changed in this section and we’ve simply got
it, we’ll keep going.

(Bill Halson):	Okay, (Bill Halson), (roman three) and the safety
portion. An incident safety officer is assigned as designated to assess
the incident scene for existing or potential hazards. And in (roman
four), if an incident escalates inside the complexity the incident
commander divides the incident in a strategic/tactical level as a
component.

	(Roman five) was recommend change for unified command structure
utilized by incidents where the complexity required a shared
responsibility among two or more (ESOs) or agencies. (Roman six) assures
the incident commanders and responders rotated or replaced during
complex or extended operations as determined by the (ESO).

Rick Ingram:	So with that language, this is Rick Ingram, are there any
other additions or do we think we’ve got and captured everything that
we need to have? (Matt).

Matt Tobia:	Just a question. I apologize. From the, Andy, you brought up
a point earlier about, Sarah said it as well, that all of this makes
perfect sense to us because we’ve been living it for the last year.
But the definition, does there need to be a definition of active
emergency operation?

	The only reason I ask that is somebody reading this, would they, would
somebody reading this know what that meant and from my perspective,
active emergency operations could be that period of time between
notifications of an emergency until such time as the ESO determines
otherwise. Or determine appropriately. And Andy if that’s way too far
in the weeds, I’ll just put her away.

	But my question, from my perspective the very first thing that some ESO
is going to have to regulate is, well what is (the exact) time? What
does that mean? So I don’t know if you need, if we need to include
that in the definitions or not.

Andy Levinson:	This is Andy. I think we would probably discuss that in
the preamble. I don’t know if we need to (unintelligible). In my mind
I think I’m with you. It’s from the time that we’ll start rolling
at the fire station which, you know, begins the emergency response mood
and their special rules that I get to break because I’m driving a
vehicle to the, you know, all the way to the termination of that
incident.

Matt Tobia:	Right. That’s what I would think as well. From the time,
to me the actual emergency operations don’t start before I’m aware
of the incident. It can only start when I know about it. So if I’m the
ESO, as soon as somebody calls 911 or, you know, whatever emergency,
whatever means I get notified of an emergency, all right.

	I’m the host ESO. I get notified. That starts the clock until I
terminate the incident. To me that’s emergency operations. And the
reason I say that is because it’s you know, there’s a lot of
requirements that are forced in here with regard to what the
expectations are for performance during that period of time. I think
it’s important to be clear about when that is.

	Yes, so I would only modify that because we don’t get into just
(unintelligible) …

((Crosstalk))

Matt Tobia:	… administrative content and we are focused on safety
issues. I think that the safety issues really occur as the people are
rolling out of the station until these combinations. You can argue if
they slide down the fire poles then gets in the fire truck, is that part
of the emergency operation. I think how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin type of questions.

Man:	Right.

Andy Levinson:	So from the time that the ESO is active, has deployed,
like from the time the ESO has deployed resources until the emergency
…

Matt Tobia:	Until the ESO determines the event is concluded right. Which
is termination of command.

(Victor Singer):	This is (Victor Singer). Some of this is actually in
section (AMO) under incident management systems development on page 28.
It talks about the incident commander who would declare that the
incident has concluded. So I think it’s probably part of might fit
into that area where you determine when it is an emergency incident. And
you have to do that in writing according to M.

Man:	Thank you Rick. I think some of the other elements like the
(unintelligible) fire base (get out and fight some of this. There’s a
requirement to change up your incident command based on either a 24 hour
clock or based on how it goes from a level one over to level three.

	Because like some of those fires will last two weeks or more. So
there’s a constant need to complete, to refresh your resources like
that.

	So I don’t know if we can actually put a time limit on it because it
seems like it’s drastically (unintelligible) a structural kind of fire
compared to that kind of fire. And I guess I’m struggling a little bit
on how to bring all that together under this system.

	I kind of agree with you Andy that I’m not sure of putting a time
limit on it. But we have to be pretty sure that people recognize that
this issue of fatigue as a long term thing.

Andy Levinson:	Look, right.

Man:	And the whole issue of transfer of command Andy is a whole other
issue. You know, many municipal departments have a (dual) one alarm
fire. You’ve got, you know accompanying officers initially and
(unintelligible) chief. And then when you go to a two alarm fire you
want to upgrade to a higher level officer.

	But the time you get to a three or four alarm fire, you might have
passed on command a couple of times regardless of the time, based
strictly on the complexity. So I don’t think it’s necessarily our
job to say here’s what the right procedure is. We just want to say you
have to have a procedure.

Rick Ingram:	Any other comments? Kenn, did we cover what you brought up
earlier for us? I didn’t mean to pass over you there. I apologize.
This is Rick Ingram.

Kenn Fontenot:	I think we’re good.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	So it’s not troubling you anymore?

Kenn Fontenot:	Well we were talking about it. (Unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	So just to clarify now, are we going to, has a decision
been made to add a definition for active emergency operations or not?

Matt Tobia:	I would, this is (Matt). I would defer to staff on
determining whether or not it needs to be in there. What I’m trying to
get to is answering the question (in this section) and making sure that
we all understand what we need when we say active emergency operation.

	Because there’s a lot of, there are quite a few requirements under
this section and from my perspective I wouldn’t want someone to be
arbitrarily be able to say well, give it this period of time. I don’t
want to (unintelligible) after X period of time with the reality that it
becomes more critical the longer the duration extends.

	So I’m trying to from a safety perspective, a perspective of
protecting workers, to be sure that everybody to the greatest extent
possible understands what we are trying to cover.

(Bill Halson):	Right. This is (Bill Halson). And if we go back a few
versions in the, of this draft the word active does not appear in this
title. We added the word active, to be active emergency operations to
try and differentiate it a little bit more from standard operating
procedures and incident management systems which are part of emergency
operations.

	And so this was more the, if you will, you know, the things that
actually occur on the scene of an emergency. And that’s where the word
active came from.

((Crosstalk))

(Bill Halson):	So are we saying active emergency operations or are we
saying incident scene operations, just so I know the answer to that
question?

Man:	I think its semantics.

(Bill Halson):	Okay.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram. I would guess that we put our heads
together and try to come up with a simple definition, if we can. And if
it doesn’t fly then we haven’t lost anything. But I do agree with
(Matt) that if we don’t clarify that within the regulatory text, that
there is, there’s going to be some questions.

	And I think we owe it to the engines to have a simple definition of
active emergency operations, if that’s what we’re going to continue
to call it. I think I’m the one that suggested adding active to
emergency operations to clarify this part at the last meeting. So I
think we owe it, so. Bill just, Bill something?

(Bill Halson):	Just change the term.

((Crosstalk))

Matt Tobia:	Yes, we’ve got a definition for (emergency incident). I
would just, this is (Matt). I’m wondering if we shouldn’t just say
emergency incident, (refer back to the definition).

Rick Ingram:	But, this is Rick Ingram. That makes perfect sense to me to
reinstate the gold star.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Do we have any thoughts on that? This is a group, this is a
group discussion. Any other thoughts on that? We’re seeing the shaking
of the heads in the affirmative for the record. Okay. Good outcome. All
right.

(Bill Halson):	This is (Bill Halson). The only issue then which is
emergency incident standard operating procedures. Is there going to be
some confusion? \

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I think its two different things so.

((Crosstalk))

(Carol):	So (you want to change it from) standard operating procedures
to (unintelligible) is what you’re talking about.

(Matt Debe):	This is (Matt Debe). That’s a great idea (Carol).

Rick Ingram:	Further clarification, this is Rick Ingram. I agree with
that.

((Crosstalk))

(Matt Debe):	This is (Matt Debe). On page 31, there’s a, I think
there’s one minor change on page 30 which is just words missing which
I think is perfectly appropriate. But then on page 31 there’s just a
question you asked Bill with regard to the exception for (2H) and (2L).
You identified an exception that precludes the (executive) to responders
and the example you gave was confined space.

Man:	(Unintelligible), is that correct?

Rick Ingram:	We were on the, N1 and N2 is what we’re working on, so
just to bring us back to that. Quickly, are there any and if you don’t
mind (Matt)?

Matt Tobia:	Go right ahead. I’m sorry.

Rick Ingram:	And I know we’ve already reviewed this information so
there’s probably not a lot of changes. But if we could just review N2,
3. Any questions on that one? Or are we okay with that? I’m not
hearing any comments. So we go to N3, the control zones. (Bill Warren).

Bill Warren:	I missed that. This is (Bill Warren) in Arizona. I just
want to make a comment that under 2.5, can you hear me now (Cheryl).
Under 2.5, it says the incident command implements a personal
accountability to rapidly account for all responders at the incident
scene. I think that’s a critical portion of that number two because in
several areas sometimes they lose control and lose it particularly in a
large area like a wild fire scene.

	These guys could be scattered out over miles and it’s easy to lose
folks. And so it would be interesting to see then in the future how
they’ve developed an accountability system to quickly account for
folks. And so I’m glad it’s in there.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. Just thought I’d keep up with a little
bit of technology. My guess is that responders would be fit with GPS
chips that would come back to the comment of collections at data points
and really see that benefit. So if somebody knows how to do that or
something like that.

Kenn Fontenot:	I think the military has that covered. They probably
won’t share it though. I think what they do now when a lot of troops
are being put out there now there’s (unintelligible). It doesn’t
work real well with structure because it’s only (unintelligible)
specifically. It’s up and down, I mean lateral but not up and down.

Rick Ingram:	So just as a time check, go ahead Bill.

Bill:	I was going to say I appreciate what my partner Kenn said but I do
know that when we identified and reviewed under the Yarnell wildfire
that occurred and lost 19 firefighters that was the one that we looked
at, to take a look at GPS monitoring system for all Yarnell firefighters
that are out there.

	And at the moment the technology just isn’t quite exactly there yet
for the application particularly as you get down in the canons and
places like that. So but I’m really glad that they’re still working
on it. But I’m not so sure we’re there where we can do it yet.

	So I think we still need to develop probably a radial check procedure
or something like that to account for them because it’s so easy to
lose track where people are in the field, where you’ve got a large
event like the Yarnell fire.

Rick Ingram:	So is there any suggestion to change any of the language or
are we okay with the language?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. Actually in section five under incident
standard operating procedures, currently I think it’s still number
six, we may have changed the number where it says establish and
implement a responder accountability system for maintaining
accountability of all responders. I’m on page 26, section six.

	So it’s addressed in the policy component as well as in the active
emergency operations component. So it’s there. We have it twice.

((Crosstalk))

Kenn Fontenot:	To follow-up at intervals might be an example.
(Unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	So are you suggesting, i.e. regular interval radio checks?

Victor Stagnaro:	Right, and just, this is Victor saying that is a part
of the personal accountability report. So an incident, an incident
commander, every 15 to 20 minutes will conduct a personal accountability
report by crews, engine companies and truck companies and that’s what
Kenn is referring to.

Rick Ingram:	All right. So do we want to add that in or are we okay?

Man:	As an example or you could add it in. (Unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	Just a warning?

Bill Warren:	This is (Bill Warren). I really appreciate what they’re
talking about here because I do think that intermittent checks is a
really good way to make sure accountability occurs. But also as I look
at this one too, there’s a time when you just pull the plug and get
everybody back. And you need to know exactly where they are right at
that critical time when you need to have those folks moved.

	Or you need to know where they’re at. And if you’ve ever had the
chance to listen to some of the radio traffic of that fire, you know, it
was clear that folks didn’t know where they were. And they had gotten
into a place, in fact a lot thought they were in a safe zone.

	So this is critical that when the infinite command decides that he
needs to have an immediate check because of whatever is occurring along
the fire line, that they have the capability of doing that.

	I do like what my partner Victor said regarding the intermittent
checks, however often that is and whatever makes better sense for the
incident commander to at least get a better idea of where everybody’s
now working.

	But that critical point of something’s occurring, something’s about
ready to occur like the fire’s changed direction, is now moving faster
than was anticipated and therefore we need to know where everybody is so
we can determine where we’re going to put people safely.

Man:	Okay. So you said this was in the …

Bill Warren:	Yes, section L under establishing a policy on page 26
number six. So it does require the ESO to develop policy for
accountability.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. So could we, so I like the idea of
having the accountability system with checks at regular intervals as
determined by the ESO. And I think that’s kind of what we’re saying
because this is again, we want to give freedom to the ESO field to
decide when to do that according to the complexity of the incident.

	So would that be better in number six, to add a little bit more detail?
Or do we need to add more detail? So that would be under L6 of the
standard job procedures. And then we can refer to that L6 in number five
here, Roman numeral five, that would be helpful?

Man:	So do we have some suggested language that we can add in here?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. I would recommend then with that in
mind right after operating at an incident including personal
accountability to report during specific intervals during the incident.

Rick Ingram:	Your (vets) are added.

Victor Stagnaro:	Correct.

Rick Ingram:	Under which section?

Victor Stagnaro:	Under section I, number six.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

Victor Stagnaro:	Or it could be under six, Roman numeral one. Or say
something to the effect of including by not limited to personal
accountability to reports

Rick Ingram:	At certain intervals.

Man:	That is determined by the ESO.

Man:	Determined by the incident.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Kenn, does that work for you? This is Rick.

Kenn Fontenot:	I’m okay with it.

Rick Ingram:	It’s under L …

Kenn Fontenot:	(Unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	Yes. Just as a time check, it’s now 3:30. We’re going
to be finishing up within about 30 minutes. Do we have, are we going to
have any public comments today? Mr. (Pole).

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	So at 10:59 we’ll turn it over. This is Rick, (adding
some humor to the group). Victor.

Victor Stagnaro:	Rick apologies. I know you want to move on further and
deeper into this section. Just a thought and maybe some comments from
the rest of the committee. Under section N where we talk about incident
safety officer, section N1.

Man:	What page?

Victor Stagnaro:	On page 29. And I know we’ve covered some of this.

Man:	Okay.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is the first time that an incident safety
officer’s introduced in the document that I’m aware of. So I’m
just wondering one of two things. One, should we include language in the
developing of a policy or procedures that outlines, that you have to
provide in writing when an incident safety officer will be utilized and
who that will be.

	Or should that be under M where there’s, if you go to page 27, M1, it
says, it’s the last sentence in that paragraph. The IMS shall provide
structuring and coordination to the management of emergency incident
operations to provide for the safety and health of responders involved
in those activities.

	And then nowhere does it actually address incident safety officers
although it does include on page 28, sorry about all the jumping around,
section two that the IMS shall include but not be limited to the
following functions. Maybe safety officer, incident safety officer could
be included there.

	Just thoughts for the committee. The first time we’re addressing
incident safety officer is during the emergency incident and nowhere
prior does the ESO need to think about it.

Andy Levinson:	Victor, this is Andy. I think that’s a very good point.
And I think either I or I’m not 100% certain of this but I think the
incident safety officer is also discussed in (NIMS). And so it’s kind
of implied in that section, you know, under (NIMS). But I think we want
to spell it out more explicitly.

Victor Stagnaro:	So this is (Victor Stagnaro). You could actually do it
in both of them as well. You could put incident, because usually the
incident safety officer is a direct report to the incident commander
under the incident, under (NIMS). So you’re right. It is implied and
if they’re using (NIMS), it would be required so it would be worth
mentioning.

Kenn Fontenot:	Right. And it might be prudent to put it someplace on
page 28. So, you know, you’d have to manage. You’d have to put in
safety. And then operation planning. That gives it kind of the
appropriate I think hierarchy.

Man:	Yes, that’s fine.

Victor Stagnaro:	And this is Victor here again. And I think Bill
addressed the policy component when we changed that in the last version
of it. You know, the incident commander needs to determine who the
incident, or the ESO needs to determine who the safety officer will be.
In some cases it may be the incident commander. Maybe somebody else.

Rick Ingram:	Kenn.

Kenn Fontenot:	This is Kenn. The (ICS) police out there, perhaps we
could (under the II which Bill’s working now), it says the IMS shall
include but not be limited to the following functions and command staff.
The incident safety officer is not a function technically or staff
position.

	I know it’s (unintelligible) or LBTW like (unintelligible). But for
the, there will be some folk out there to make that argument.

Rick Ingram:	Any other comments on this? As Bill captured, this is Rick
Ingram. Has Bill captured your thoughts on that?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. Looks good to me. Thank you.

Bill Hamilton:	I included, I put in the incident safety but it’s true
that it’s a sub-component of the command function.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor again. Yes, you’re absolutely right. I
think Kenn you captured it. I think if you added the, Kenn if you
don’t mind repeating the command functions and commands.

Man:	And command (staff).

Victor Stagnaro:	Right.

Kenn Fontenot:	The (unintelligible) of functions and then staff is
(unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	You’re just saying after functions before the colon and
staff.

Kenn Fontenot:	And staff.

Rick Ingram:	On double I.

Man:	How about if we take out functions?

Bill Hamilton:	I’m afraid if we put in command staff then along the
way someone’s going to, this is Bill Hamilton, someone’s going to
say well you should list the other people who are part of the command
(staff).

	Devil’s advocate, I’m a terrible person. I understand. It’s only
two others, if you want to add them just for the sake of completeness.
It’s the (EIO) and the (unintelligible). That kind of simplifies it,
covers them all. Or just show it as a subset of commands. I don’t know
what the letter would be.

Rick Ingram:	Sarah made a comment. She said that she could say (incident
command) but not limited. This is Rick Ingram. (Bill Warren).

Bill Warren:	Yes, (Bill Warren). You know, I guess I’m troubled by
because I think the incident command system is rule specific and
(unintelligible). So I think, I’m not sure that that is the right
place for that, that incident safety.

	I really believe it should be under five instead of four. And because
then what it is, the incident commander will still have the training and
authority to form at least the following. Then you say assume command,
assist the situation. Maybe we can there put then, identify and, you
know, safety, incident safety officer identify and …

Man:	Appoint.

Bill Warren:	… appoint a safety officer.Maybe that’s the better
place for it because I think the right, Victor and (Bill Troop) that
under the command system all the staff functions are there in most of
the agencies out there under (Sam Nimms) under (Sam) that the safety
officers (are part of that).

	So I’m wondering if it would be better placed down under assume
command (system) in situations, you know, maybe even after (approve) the
incidents of command, assign a safety officer and then at least you’ve
identified, I’m just putting out (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	Any other thoughts? Comments? Any other discussions?

(Lisa Delaney):	This is (Lisa Delaney). I guess because you’ve also
mentioned earlier that the (IC) may serve as the safety officer. I think
you need to acknowledge that through either, I think we should say the
formal functions of the safety officer and (unintelligible) the safety
officer or assure …

Bill Warren:	Rick, (Bill Warren) again. Yes, I guess I’m just getting
tripped up in the fact that I do believe under A through E, these are
specific functions of the incident command system. And I think we ought
to keep true to that. I think that we can designate under five somewhere
where it seems most appropriate to be fit is that the either the
incident commander if they do either assumes or assigns the role of
incident safety officer.

Rick Ingram:	Does that work for you Kenn, if we put it under number
five?

Kenn Fontenot:	Thank you. That’s great.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. This is Rick Ingram by the way.

Kenn Fontenot:	(Unintelligible). Put the (IMS) shall include
(unintelligible) to the following (manned staff). Safety officer put it
up front where it belongs.

Rick Ingram:	Yes. Sure.

Andy Levinson:	This is Andy. I would really like to stay away from
designating staff because now you’re getting into counting bodies and
our (unintelligible) would say you just forced that person to hire X
many people.

((Crosstalk))

Kenn Fontenot:	If you take it to that extreme you can say well, we have
to have five (for operations).

Bill Warren:	No, you have to have the operations documents, you have to
have the functions that need to be done.

Man:	Right, the functions that need to be done. Not a separate staff
person for each function. I could have one person serve as (planning and
finance as long as they accomplish all of those functions.

Man:	Let’s look at (IMS) showing, you should not be limited to the
following (unintelligible). We may want to put ISOs somewhere in there.

Man:	Well I think Victor’s point earlier was that we should mention
incident safety officer for those incident safety functions somewhere
prior to emergency operations. And I think that was a good point.

(victor Segnaro):	So following this, I’m sorry. This is (Victor
Segnaro). I like the idea of the, on page 28, section five adding some
wording related to incident safety officer establishing or serving as or
assigning an incident safety officer. And then if we just added in
section I, the established and implemented procedures that outline who
will serve as an ISO at an emergency incident.

	That way you have to develop, it’s going to be part of your policy.
It’s part of what the incident commander needs to do, And then during
an emergency incident it’s already established that you will have an
incident safety officer.

Man:	That’s right.

Kenn Fontenot:	Right. Sorry.

Bill Hamilton:	And this is Bill Hamilton. Along with that thinking,
let’s have a look at 27M. One, we added a triple I, page 27 M, One,
triple I. It just says the IMS, right, so we’re talking about the
incident. This is incident management system development. IMS shall
include a means for responders to notify the incident commander of
unsafe conditions or an unsafe act.

	How about if we put ahead of that or after it that the incident
management shall include the safety function or safety officer. Put it
up front as part of an incident management system development there to
go along with other safety comments that we had.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. I think that covers it.

Kenn Fontenot:	It would be something like this. Kenn, excuse me.
Something like responders’ safety shall be addressed per (business)
plan. (Company officers shall be assigned safety officers). Kind of
gives us that (flexibility).

Rick Ingram:	All right. Once we get through with this, we’re going to
stop for the day. And we’ll take this up tomorrow. So put on your
thinking caps. If you have the fortitude, take this with you and read
through the next couple of sections, make notes and then tomorrow when
we come in we can get on through it.

	And we’ve got time. We took three days. We do have a lot of other
work to do tomorrow. We’re putting together a memorandum. And we’ve
got (unintelligible) that needs to be completed. So let’s see where
Bill is. And public commenters if you’re ready, we’ll call on you in
a few minutes here. We’ll stop here for now and then we’ll start
there tomorrow. Is that all right with you? Do you agree?

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick. (Do you want to read just what you have
there)? I was just saying this has been a great discussion today and I
think we’re really making some excellent progress and adding some
details that we needed here. So this is, and, you know, we want to get
it done but we want to get it done right. So it’s well worth the
discussion. What about you Andy? Is it well worth it? Are you happy? So
we’re all happy over on this side.

Man:	While Bill is doing some taping, let me say a couple words. If
folks can take some time today and just quickly scan the draft working
paper that we sent around on the report to make copies That is going to
be one of the most important documents. That is the place for you to get
your say on whatever you want to say.

	So if there are things that you particularly like and endorse, if there
are things that you have concerns about, this is an area that you know,
I think we want to talk about. Some opportunities for the agency to
think about how to accommodate small departments.

	So, you know we had debate and discussion, you know, earlier about is
the line at 2500 or is it at 5000 or is it at everybody should be
covered  We don’t have answers but some discussion just saying you
know, the agency should think about this. A little more discussion about
some of the sheer ways that you could respond to different provisions.

	So for example, discussion about how medicals might be different in
small departments to alleviate some of the financial burdens. While the
1500 medical might be the gold standard that might be, you know, the
silver and the bronze that might be okay as well if people can afford to
do, you know, a 1500 medical. Yes Bill.

Bill Warren:	(Unintelligible) specific physical requirements
(unintelligible) they have to pass a physical. That may be different
than (unintelligible). So I think it has a comparable element that we
need to make sure that it’s right.

Man:	Right. So this is, yes.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	It was not in this packet. It was in the page Bill checked out I
think earlier when there were work papers going around from - yes.

Man	(Unintelligible).

Man:	Right. There’s the (unintelligible) letters. There’s a trap I
think, response or (unintelligible) to the response to the
(unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Did the draft report have a draft response or letter from somebody
on the committee?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, we should think about that.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man	Right.

((Crosstalk))’

Man:	Yes, okay. Anyway, so there’s some opportunities while we’re on
the subject of OSHA just so everybody knows in two weeks I am going to
speak to OSHA again. This is one of the topics that they were interested
in. It’s a most intuitive topic.

	So if the overall OSHA regulatory program, it’s some stuff that
we’re doing on a safety and health program then they’re going to
come onto emergency response one of the other topics. But, you know,
there’s continuing interest from the OSHA in the activities of this
committee.

Man:	We are so looking forward, yes.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I’m excited to engage with you Bill. With (Ann). (Michael). I’s
going to be a great discussion I’m sure.

Man:	A great discussion.

Rick Ingram:	All right. So any other, I think we’ll just, we’ve got
about eight more minutes left so what we’ll do, what (Phil) wrote
here, tomorrow, well take this up tomorrow. So we’re on H29, one and
two and we’ll review that, one and two. And we’ll start on three
tomorrow. So everybody, we’ll turn it over to our public comments.

Man:	Yes, come up to the table.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Guess what Bill walked out.

Man:	Yes.

(Robert Rondak):	Yes, (Robert Rondak) with the Association of American
Railroads, Assistant Vice President Environment and Hazardous Materials.
And I attended this meeting today having no idea what I was getting
into. I was asked by one of my members, was I going to this meeting and
I didn’t even know about it. And it’s like I went to the association
first and I said of course.

	And, you know, I don’t know for a fact if our members comply with
the, you know, 1910 156 standards currently. It applies to fire brigades
and whereas our members respond to hazardous incidents which often
involve fire, I don’t think we consider ourselves fire brigades.

	And generally speaking, our members, you know, rely on first responders
to put the fire out but we do assist in getting them resources to do
that if needed. So looking at the new language though, it’s pretty
clear to me that this applies to industry and it seems to me that we
would be an ESO under this, under these definitions.

	In other words our members employ people who have, you know, hazardous
materials training and we go out and respond to accidents. We support
the incident command system. And I just wanted to verify that that’s
what everybody here thinks the intent of this is.

Andy Levinson:	This is Andy. Let me answer this is a couple of ways.
Hazardous incidents are covered by your 1910 120.

(Robert Rondak):	I know that.

Andy Levinson:	Putting that aside, there’s nothing that would be
covered by this if all you’re doing is hazardous operations. Now if
you were doing other functions, some of those might be covered. I’m
not 100% sure some of the things that you guys do are covered by FRA,
not by us.

	And so I’m not 100% certain of which duties and activities would fall
under OSHA’s authority and jurisdiction and which would fall under
Federal Railways Administration or one of the other EOT agencies. And
that’s something that we would have to look at in more specific
detail.

(Robert Rondak):	(Robert Rondak) again. You know, emergency established,
okay general industry. Construction industry employees, employers who
have established workplace emergency response team, aka industrial
emergency facility fire brigade, industrial fire department emergency
response team, fire emergency organization. I think our members fall
into that group. And I, you know, maybe that’s a little broader than
the intent was. I’m not sure.

Andy Levinson:	That is a whole other level. That’s not OSHA.

(Robert Rondak):	Okay.

Andy Levinson:	That should be Federal Railway. So for example, and
again, I’m not certain of this. If anybody dealt with it in terms of
authority jurisdiction. But for example under the FAA they would perform
many of these types of functions that we wouldn’t necessarily cover
them for those functions because they are under the FAA’s authority
and jurisdiction.

	And there are only a certain limited number of circumstances where
airline personnel would be covered by federal OSHA. And so you have to
look at the authority and jurisdiction under the Federal Railway Act and
under the OSHA act to see how those two overlap and what the
Congressional intent was.

	And there may be safety functions that are covered under FRA where they
would say that you’re covered by those. It would require a whole lot
of other research and analysis that I don’t think we’ve done yet.

(Robert Rondak):	Okay.

Andy Levinson:	But it’s an important point.

(Robert Rondak):	All right. (Robert Rondak) again. I’ll let it go at
that. I’ll have our attorneys take a look at the applicability. I mean
we’re clearly complying with 1910 120 and we always have and, you
know, that’s the regulation.

	You know, I talk to all of our members and even when I was railroads’
(unintelligible) myself that’s what we complied with. This is new to
me. The only other thing specifically, I read the whole thing during
today.

	And on page 26 at the very bottom of the page it says that established
citizens implemented procedures for protecting responders from vehicular
traffic or operating in emergency incident on or before adjacent to.

	And I might suggest you might want to add railroads, all railways and
highways. That’s the only other comment.

Sarah Shortall:	This is Sarah Shortall. That would be especially good
since there are instances in which OSHA Act does cover activities near
to surrounding railroads. And are you going to be here tomorrow as well?

(Robert Rondak):	I hadn’t planned it because it sounds like this is,
the intent is not to cover us. And we are covered under DOQ regulations
as far as emergency response goes.

Sarah Shortall:	(Check if you’re covered) where the OSHA covers.
You’re right. OSHA does not. It should be said that to the extent that
OSHA does, then it would be covered.

(Robert Rondak):	I’m assuming, (Robert Rondak) again, I’m assuming
based on our conversation that we’re not included at least not in the
intent of this.

Andy Levinson:	So I think the right way to ask about it is in a way that
Sarah just answered which is, if you both are covered by OSHA for these
sorts of duties and activities. And OSHA is not included from having
authority and jurisdiction like other federal law. Then you would be
covered.

	We have not gone into that level of detail now to say railroad people
are covered under FRA and they’re not covered from these sorts of
functions. We’d (have to do that type of analysis) It’s an important
question.

Rick Ingram:	Bill.

Bill Warren:	Yes, I had actually an experience for this here two years
ago with a complaint from a railroad worker in which we had to work for
the FRA, the Federal Railroad Administration regarding the specifics of
doing some industrial hygiene testing for dust.

	And what we found out is that the, according to the safety division of
the FRA, they cover from the roadbed of the tracks to the caboose and to
the train itself. And they expect OSHA to cover external to that.

	So we were able to go into one of the railroads and do samplings and
inspections but it was limited to the area external to where the roadbed
and the tracks were.

	So that foray explained to us, I have a letter from one of their
attorneys that identified that, you know they control for employee
safety anything that’s on the train, anything in the caboose and
anything on the tracks and that OSHA, federal OSHA and then in our case
their state plan covered external to that.

	So just to give you some kind of view, so I think he does have a point.
Some of that may affect that, some of it might be depended upon the
jurisdictional boundaries between FRA and OSHA. But I can tell you that
we have done that in the past.

(Robert Rondak):	And you raise a very important point. One of the
reasons that it’s a long time since we talked to a lot of people, this
is still, this is earlier in the topic. It was potentially (a public
place). (Unintelligible) process. So we will absolutely look into that
and see where OSHA and FRA have drawn lines in the past.

(Cheryl):	This is (Cheryl) again. I took some stuff down from OSHA’s
Web site about jurisdiction and authority with railroads. The idea
behind it is, as Andy said, we’re not going to be granting the Federal
Railroad Act. But to the (expense) of the Federal Railroad Act, if it
doesn’t cover something we cover that immediately.

	Not because we’re so desperate for the jurisdiction but we don’t
want anyone left without protection. So we come right up to the, you
know, up against each other so that nothing is left apart. Because it
was a (huge topic last time).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Thank you for coming and thank you for that comment.

Lamont Byrd:	All right. Are there any thoughts or comments about
anything that we’ve covered thus far that cannot wait until tomorrow?
That being said, this is Lamont Byrd, we can adjourn for the evening.
Have a good evening. Thank you.

						END

NWX-DOL OSHA

Moderator: Gretta Jameson

09-07-16/7:23 am CT

Confirmation #9948763

Page   PAGE  1