guy passes a written and practical exam, we as a company are not going
to put an operator in the seat of that machine unless we are relatively
sure he's not going to tear our machine up and more importantly, hurt
somebody else.

		That is due diligence and it is expected of us morally and legally.

		When I talked earlier about costs of testing going almost to $1.5
million, the middle class crane in those pictures of 600 and 750 tons,
to set up in that configuration, is about 40 tractor-trailer loads of
counterweight, and probably a week's worth of labor for five or six
people just to assemble it.

		The cost, you can see how that goes.  If I said okay, I have 750 ton
cranes and I have to set one up and I have to test 80 operators on it,
that's a major undertaking, not to mention the costs.

		The other thing that I wanted to talk about is if the Agency goes down
the road, there are over 80,000 crane operators who are already
certified in this country who will be disenfranchised.  Their
certification will be no good.

		I mentioned I was on CDAC.  We finished our work almost nine years
ago.  The intent of everybody who sat at that table with me, probably in
2008 or 2009, we would have operator certification in place in this
country to provide a better level of safety in the construction
industry, and for a lot of reasons, that didn't happen.

		Here we are two years away, and all of a sudden instead of having
80,000 people already certified, we are talking about having 80,000
people to have to go do it all again, and the cost to the employer for
those people.

		I know the operating engineers have written a letter asking for relief
from the interpretation.  We certainly support that at SC&RA, and in my
company, for a lot of reasons.  Number one, it was not the intent of
CDAC, and two, it is a tremendous burden for small business.

		I'm just going to give some brief history and then I'll conclude.  We
started certifying our operators through NCCCO back in 1996, and 100
percent of our operators have been NCCCO certified for quite some time.

		NCCCO is a non-profit entity that was founded and formed by the
industry, not by OSHA, not by the manufacturers, although the
manufacturers, OSHA and the industry helped NCCCO develop test
questions.  We think it is the best program out there.

		Certainly, they don't want to see those 80,000 operators currently
certified have to be disenfranchised.

		In closing, what I would like to see happen is the committee take the
opportunity to put this item on the agenda for the next meeting.  I
don't know when the next meeting is.  I suspect it is late Spring or
early Summer.  I think it is of such importance that if it cannot be
resolved between now and then to the satisfaction of the industry and
the people who helped write this rule, that this committee needs to hear
from the industry, and I would suspect you will hear a lot, if it's not
satisfied.

		Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee and getting it
on the agenda if we can.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  I appreciate that.  Thank you for your comments.

		MR. GILLEN:  Before you go, could you clarify what you are asking, is
it related to the complexity of the weight of the cranes?

		MR. POCOCK:  I think the misnomer is there is language in the standard
that says operators shall be tested by type and capacity.  The problem
is there are literally thousands and thousands of configurations, even
machines that were in the picture today.  You could take that 3,000 ton
machine, strip it down, take all the counterweight off it, and make it a
600 ton crane.

		It's very complex when you start having to test on capacity.  We are
much more comfortable in the industry testing by types of cranes versus
type and capacity.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  If the intent of  the language was type and
capacity, what was the intent?

		MR. COPOCK:  I think the language probably initiated from the ASAB 30
standard.  The accrediting agencies, NCCA, at that time, NCCCO, again,
they were the only certifying body out there, they looked at job
analysis and determined the program NCCCO has in place has aspects of
what is in the written examinations testing a person on the different
capacities.

		He knows I'm not on a 600 ton crane, now I'm on a 750 ton crane.  I
need to look at the load chart, I need to do some other things and know
what my capacity configurations are.

		If you step from one of those machines to the other and graduating up
the scale, you would notice very little difference in the cab
configurations.  They are the same, have the same instruments, same
gauges.  Counterweight configurations and boom sizes are a little bigger
as you go.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  All right.  Thanks.  Rick?  Are you still here?

		MR. BURNHEIMER:  Good afternoon.  My  name is Rick Burnheimer.  I'm
the EVP of Risk Management and Environmental Health and Safety for RF
CHECK.

		For the new members, I spoke at the May working group committee
meeting.

		Just a little background, RF CHECK is a information technology company
which has globally patented a multi-layered RF safety system.

		I have 25 years of experience in the telecommunications industry.
Before joining RF CHECK, I was with Sprint and Nextel.

		Today, our primary forms of communication depends on massive wireless
networks which support the demand for all things wireless.

		The amount of radiation produced by just one of these router antennas
can be several hundred times that of a cell phone, and it is recognized
by science and in the Federal Government as being harmful to humans.

		By the very ubiquitous nature of RF wireless antennas, workers are
routinely compelled to work in front of and in close proximity to the
nation's 600,000 Government and commercial antennas, and that number is
growing rapidly.

		The committee and its working groups have expressed concern about this
issue and the harm it represents to its members, employers and their
employees and their respective communities.

		Radio frequency radiation has been a topic of discussion at both
working group meetings in 2012.  It has been stated by the committee
members want to proactively address RF radiation over exposure to
innocent third party workers before it becomes a major problem.

		Unfortunately, for too long, it has been a major problem for the
thousands of workers being over exposed to RF radiation on a daily
basis.

		Comments made by members of the working group emphasized the fact that
they were never made aware of the health risks from wireless antennas.

		One member, Bill, made the comment that in all these years of
approving applications for siting, not once, never, has an applicant or
FCC licensee disclosed a health or safety issue or discussed safety
measures to protect the unknown exposed workers.

		If I got this right, he estimated more than 50 percent of the antennas
in his community could expose RF radiation to non-FCC licensed
individuals.

		Another committee member stated their 350,000 members had never been
informed of the risk and exposure to RF radiation that occurs on a daily
basis.

		This sentiment has been expressed by numerous other labor groups
including the IBW and CWA, and is considered unacceptable.

		At the working group committee meeting on Tuesday, the FCC stated all
FCC licensees must certify they are in compliance with the terms of
their license, which includes protection for all individuals, not just
their own employees, from RF radiation exposure from wireless antennas.

		They also commented that their enforcement mechanism to ensure
compliance is complaint based.  They only look into violations when they
receive a complaint.

		As one of the committee members pointed out, in most instances,
workers are unaware of the risk of radio frequency radiation over
exposure and their accompanying symptoms, so how would they ever know to
file a complaint.

		One of the things we talked about is there is a two tiered safety
system.  The wireless industry makes sure every one of their technicians
goes through RF training, and before they send them to work around an
antenna, they power it down.  Think of that visual.  They have training
and they power it down.

		Third party workers, no training, no power down, and in a lot of
instances, they don't even know the risk is there.  They don't even know
that antenna is there.

		Third party workers are exposed to excessive levels of RF radiation
because no effective comprehensive RF radiation safety system is
currently in operation.

		There are practical challenges that limit or prohibit the protection
of workers from RF radiation.  There is the impossibility or
impracticality of FCC licensees to have continuous 24/7 control of all
activities at antenna sites.

		Mandated use of stealth antennas that prevent a worker from
identifying the existence and location of RF radiation hazardous work
sites.

		We are aware of a major West Coast city that called us up and said
they had 180 applications pending for cell sites.  They were all
approved in a stealth nature, which means that is 180 more exposure
points that a third party worker would never know existed because he
can't see them.

		Co-location of RF radiation transmitting antennas result in increased
RF radiation emissions with no verifiable RF power down/off system.

		Restricted access will not protect workers who enter these areas to
fulfill a job responsibility.

		Warning signs have proven ineffective as they are often missing,
mis-labeled, or misunderstood by workers.

		I want to add something, they are not required by law, they are
recommended.  A lot of the antennas don't even have signs.

		No national protocol exists to supply workers with real time RF
radiation safety information.

		Workers who are required to perform their jobs in close proximity to
RF radio's and transmitters are no longer trained technicians protected
by the latest gear and equipment, rather they are now electricians,
carpenters, maintenance personnel, HVAC technicians, pipefitters,
painters, first responders and many others.

		Ultimately, these unsuspecting workers are regularly exposed to
excessive levels of RF radiation because there is no comprehensive
radiation safety system currently in operation.

		Given the health hazards and potential liability involved, the time
for complacency has passed.  A viable RF safety program must be
implemented.

		First and foremost, a national standardized RF radiation safety
protocol is crucial.

		RF site owners, contractors and others should be supplied with a
specific FRF safety protocol to ensure true worker safety.  The entire
system must be monitored for compliance by a mutual third party to avoid
any conflict of interest.

		For this to occur, those affected such as employers, landlords, public
entities, Government agencies, the insurance industry and others, must
demand the deployment of meaningful tools to continue to protect first
and foremost the exposed worker, as well as their own financial
interests.

		The risk is here, it's imminent, and unless controls are implemented,
it is inevitable that claims will be filed by workers seeking
compensation.

		I would like to say I like the motion of having OSHA and the FCC work
together, but Pete and I talked about the fact that the rules and
regulations aren't there.  The FCC licensee has the obligation to
protect all workers.  It's not being done.

		There are numerous cell sites that third party workers are being
exposed to on a regular basis.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you.  Any comments or questions from the
committee?

		MS. DAVIS:  I just have one question.  Are you saying these are just
recommendations?

		MR. BURNHEIMER:  Just recommendations, not a requirement.

		MR. CANNON:  When you mentioned a tool, what are you referring to?

		MR. BURNHEIMER:  I'd have to go into a commercial for my company.  The
foundation of our company was our founder was a contractor.  He was
unable to protect his workers.  That is how we got started.  Nobody else
out there has developed a solution to this problem.

		We all know it exists.  We all know workers are being harmed every
day.  Nobody wants to do anything about it.

		That is why we are recommending a third party solution, mutual third
party, similar to -- the best way to look at this is look at Miss
Utility, before you go digging in the yard, you make a phone call.

		What we are suggesting is before a worker goes to a rooftop, they
access a website that will show them what the danger is, where the
antennas are, what the exposure zones are, and what he can do to get
those antennas powered down before they do work.

		MR. HERING:  We talked over lunch.  What I said was basically I think,
and I'm trying to think in my mind nationwide, I know in New Jersey we
had the New Jersey planning officials, which provides the training, I
will get this information to them so every zoning and planning board in
the State of New Jersey knows about this.

		We can regulate on a local basis.  When I told my Board members about
this, they were dumbfounded.  Here we approved 27 sites in the last ten
years, back in the 1990s when it started.

		They wanted them all camouflaged, like you said, stealth, behind a
billboard, a flag pole, whatever.

		I think you had some good suggestions.  If you can get those groups in
the communities across the country -- you mentioned some
organizations.

		MR. BURNHEIMER:  The National League of Cities, the National
Association of Counties, PRIMA, Public Risk Insurance Management
Association.

		MR. HERING:  I think you mentioned something else about the fact of
what is the value of one Worker's Comp claim in this.

		MR. BURNHEIMER:  ASSE, in their risk management insights newsletter,
it was written by Tom Hague from Willis, and he quotes in there that the
average claim for a depression, the injury that is caused by this are
things like memory loss, slow brain function, depression, headaches, but
if you look at a depression type claim, the average Worker's Comp pay
out is $485,000.

		If these landlords were made aware of this issue, these landlords make
between probably $36,000 and $60,000 a year, depending on their
locations.

		One of the support groups we have is the insurance industry, the
International Insurance Society.

		It is either the company is self-insured and they are going to bear
that cost or their insurance company is going to bear that cost.

		MR. HERING:  I want to point out, too, in the zoning world, in
planning and zoning, these types of installations are what we call
inherently beneficial.  That is by statute.  The reason for that is
because in the Telecommunications Act, you can dial 911, you can dial
for help, it aides the public.

		We really can't turn them away.  We can turn them away for some
reasons.  It had nothing to do with the RF.

		Like we talked about, with new technology comes a whole new wave of
safety concerns if you think about it.  Here is one that I really
believe is a pretty serious one.

		Thank you.

		MR. BURNHEIMER:  We want to work in partnership with all the affected
parties.  We want to be a partner with the wireless industry and the FCC
licensees and insurance industry and the landlords.

		Wireless is here to stay.  It's critical to everything we do.  It's
going to continue to grow.  We just want to make sure the third party
worker is protected.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We appreciate that.  Matt?

		MR. GILLEN:  Based on your knowledge of how telecommunications works
and the antennas, you talked about powering down, is that a thing people
could do, if people know there is radiation at a certain location, and
the licensee can be called and that licensee would actually power down?
Doesn't it affect the cell phone use nearby?  How well does that work?

		MR. BURNHEIMER:  They do power down for their own employees.  If they
can do it for their own, they can do it for third party workers.

		Depending on the location of the cell site, in the urban areas, in the
cities, there are lots of antennas.  The reason there are so many is
because of the flow of traffic.

		If you need to power it down to get some work done and you chose an
off peak hour, an evening hour or something like that, you can get away
with shutting one end down because the traffic will just flow to another
one.

		The fact that they do it for their own, they can do it for third party
workers.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  As a practical matter, if you are a painting crew
with three painters and you see a sign there is an antenna, the painter
can call and say power this down for the eight hours I'm working?

		MR. BURNHEIMER:  They could do that.  I thought I heard the FCC make a
comment the other day that they are required to power down if asked.  I
thought I heard him say that.

		They can say I can't do it at peak times.  If you want to paint, you
are going to have to do that work in the evening or early morning or
middle of the night.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Therein lies a lot of the issues.

		MR. GILLEN:  The first level is awareness.  I'm just wondering if you
know of any materials either created by the insurance industry or others
about awareness of this whole third party or inadvertent exposure?

		MR. BURNHEIMER:  I would say most of the articles -- we have a
couple written by the gentleman from Willis.  He has done two now on the
topic.  I have had articles printed in Public Risk Magazine.  One in
Risk Management Magazine.  There are things out there, articles out
there you can find.  If you send me an e-mail, I can send you some of
those articles.

		MR. GILLEN:  Okay.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  I appreciate it.  Your statement is on the record.
 We will continue to try to work on this with the FCC and OSHA.  I have
a feeling we will be seeing you again.  Thanks.

		MR. BURNHEIMER:  We are always available.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you.

		Last but not least, Graham?  We should have put you after Chip since
I'm sure you are interested in talking about the same issue.  Graham
Brent is a friend and colleague from NCCCO.  Graham?

		MR. BRENT:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.  It is
my fault for signing up late.  I recognize it is late in the day, so
I'll keep my comments brief and hopefully on point.

		My name is Graham Brent.  I'm Executive Director of the National
Commission for the Certification of Crane Operators.  As you have
already heard today, we are a non-profit organization.  We were set up
in 1995 by the industry to provide a certification program for crane
operators.  We have since expanded that significantly.

		We were recognized by Federal OSHA in 1999 as providing certification
that met the requirements of the standards, and we have been accredited
since 1998.

		Since that time, we have issued 125,000 certifications.  We currently
provide about 15,000 certifications a year.  I provide that data as an
introduction to these remarks because there are three other
certification programs.

		We constitute still 90 percent of the market, so that means some of
the issues that we have on the table still in implementing aspects of
this certification rule affect NCCCO certificates much more than they
might some of the newer organizations that since DCAC met have arisen.

		We are a very strong proponent, as you might imagine, of the rule that
was developed by CDAC.  I think as this committee knows, this whole
thing was generated from ACCSH.  It was a proposal by ACCSH to OSHA.  It
was promulgated through negotiated rulemaking.

		To the point, I must say over the last several months we have been
working very closely with Jim Maddux and his team to try to resolve some
of these issues.  All credit goes to that team for being prepared to
discuss these issues.

		On some of these, we have reached -- I don't want to use the word
"impasse" -- some of these have been a tricky process, but we have
seen progress.

		There has been a letter of interpretation, as you heard this morning
from Mr. Maddux, on re-certification.  We think that was exactly the
right decision.

		There has been a clarification of the difference between testing on
the one hand and certification on the other.

		There has also been a clarification that testing by capacity, which is
the issue you have heard about, as well as by type, need not necessarily
be on the practical exam, but it can be on the written exam.  That is an
enormous relief in some areas.

		Still, and this is the "but," we are still hearing as a certification
body and we are a service organization to the industry, that there are
still strong concerns.  This concern comes not just from one sector of
the industry, it is across the board.

		This is a labor, management, manufacturer, and insurance issue.  Every
single one of those groups has protested aspects of this rule and still
do.

		The residual issues are that despite the relief we have gotten in some
areas, this could still result in additional practical exam testing.

		We are also very concerned about even written exam testing because any
cost impact that might have would be over and above what OSHA originally
intended or planned for.

		There are concerns not just about the cost of additional practical
exam testing but also as you have heard from Chip earlier, the
availability of that equipment.  In some cases, it simply isn't
available.  It's cost prohibitive to assemble and use for testing.

		Some of the interpretations from the FAQs you have heard about also
are problematic.  I think it is question 21, and I'm paraphrasing, if an
operator is certified on a 100 ton crane, can he run a 150 ton crane.
The answer is no.  We don't have any data that OSHA is relying on to
make that determination.

		In fact, the evidence on record is actually quite to the contrary.
The Power Crane Association is on record as saying they don't believe
capacity itself is a determinant of a change in skill set, but if
capacity has to be factored in, then it should be about 700 tons wide,
because at those points, that is the break point where the skill set
does change.

		As you heard from Chip earlier, a 600 ton crane can become a 3,000 ton
crane.  The actual control system is identical, it doesn't change.  The
cab is still there.  The operator is still sitting in the cab.

		Capacity is many ways is a reflection, a consequence of a skill set
change, it's not a determinant.

		The other area we got strong concerns about is what happens to
everyone that was originally certified, certified during the course of
the 15 to 18 years we have been in existence.

		Particularly those who were certified prior to this rule being
published.  This rule or the draft was put together in about a year, as
you have heard, and it took about another eight years for it to get out
and get published.

		There is a section of operators who were certified prior to this rule
being published in 2010 who would still be certified under the five year
certification they have when this portion of the rule is effective in
2014.

		Well, now they are disenfranchised because they haven't been tested to
the new rule by definition because the new rule wasn't published yet.

		That is a problem for a couple of reasons.  Those employers who
proactively certified their operators during that time, before the rule
was published, are in fact being penalized.

		At that time there were four certification bodies, all of them had
been recognized formally by Federal OSHA as meeting the then
requirements.

		Now what OSHA is saying is well, that was then and now is now, and now
is different.

		The other thing that is quite interesting is when OSHA did its impact
analysis, it estimated that 60 percent of all the operators involved in
construction were already certified.  It based its analysis on 40
percent needing to be certified going forward.  Now it is saying those
60 percent that were previously certified aren't really certified any
more.  I think there is a disconnect there.  Having said that, we have a
couple of possible solutions.  I don't want this to be entirely
negative.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  I was hoping you were going to get to that part.

		(Laughter.)

		MR. BRENT:  What we would suggest to OSHA is if you let the
certification body -- this is not an NCCCO issue, it's a certification
body issue -- if you let the certification body and the accrediting
body, which is either ANSI or NCCA, and we are certified by both and
accredited by both -- if you let the accrediting body and the
certification body determine the practical crane size and then let us
take care of the capacity issue exclusively on the written exam, then I
think we could find a navigatable path.

		Secondly, on the disenfranchisement, if you let re-certification do
its job, then we can capture all of these existing operators as they go
through re-certification.

		The rule requires them to be re-certified every five years.  That is
the standard across the board.

		Certification and re-certification in the certification world, the
whole certification industry, uses re-certification as a mechanism for
doing exactly this, it is designed to capture changes in rules, changes
in technology, changes in safety standards, in a progressive fashion.

		In other words, just because you have a change in technology or a
change in a rule, you don't have to go back and re-certify the entire
population tomorrow.

		We would say you use re-certification for what it is meant to do, and
we can capture these folks going through.  That may be there are some
that need to be captured after the 2014 date, and I think that is the
sticking point with Federal OSHA.

		I want to emphasize that re-certification is not grandfathering, and
for the record, this is the difference.  Re-certification means you
capture everybody eventually.

		In this case, it is not just eventually, it's by a date certain.  The
date certain is no more than five years from the moment you were
originally certified.

		Grandfathering is the existing pool of individuals that never get to
test, never get the change, and it is a completely different mechanism.
We have never supported grandfathering.  No certification body frankly
would be able to support it.

		In fact, it doesn't even exist now at the state level.  Since 2000, in
the crane world, when West Virginia brought their rule in, every state
license has required existing operators to be tested and certified.

		Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, those are the residual
issues, as Mr. Maddux said this morning, we are hoping we can resolve
them, but it does exist.  The clock is ticking.  We are two years into a
four year period.  We have a lot of people out there in the industry
very concerned about this, quite reasonably, and we would like to be
able to tell them it has all been taken care of.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  I appreciate your comments, Graham.  Are there any
questions or comments from the committee?

		MS. SHORTALL:  Could you please just state the name of your
organization again?

		MR. BRENT:  Yes, ma'am.  The National Commission of Certification of
Crane Operators.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Thank you.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  We will have to work with staff.  We have not yet
decided when the first meeting in 2013 will be.  I think typically we
are probably looking at the May time frame perhaps.  Hopefully, this is
resolved by then, but we will work with the staff, and based on Chip's
suggestion and your comments about how we should take this up if by then
it has not been rectified.

		MR. BRENT:  Thank you.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you very much.

		MS. SHORTALL:  At this time I would like to enter some exhibits into
the record.

		As Exhibit 30, the OSHA fact sheet titled "Keeping Workers Safe During
Hurricane Sandy Clean Up and Recovery."

		As Exhibit 31, CPWR update, CPWR launches an on-line resource to
identify and control silica dust.

		Exhibit 32, comments from Rick Burnheimer, RF CHECK.

		I'd like to make one other comment about tomorrow.  Persons who have
requested to participate telephonically in the meeting, if you are
unable to attend tomorrow and would like to listen in on the
conversation that ACCSH will be having, just speak with Damon Bonneau,
and he will give you the passcode information.

		Please be aware you may not speak during the meeting until the point
for public comment period.

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  Thank you, Sarah.

		Any other questions or comments?

		(No response.)

		CHAIRMAN STAFFORD:  I thank everyone for being here today.  I thank
the committee.  We will adjourn for this afternoon.

		(Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the meeting was recessed, to reconvene the
following day, Friday, November 30, 2012.)	*  *  *  *  *

	E X H I B I T S

Exhibit 1 -	November 29-30, 2012 ACCSH meeting agenda

Exhibit 2 - 	DOC Regulatory Update PowerPoint presented by Jim Maddux

Exhibit 3 -	NIOSH Update PowerPoint presented by Christine Branche and
Matt Gillen

Exhibit 4 -	ACCSH's work group list, which includes the work groups,
co-chairs and OSHA liaisons

Exhibit 5 -	Training and outreach work group report from the November
28, 2012 meeting

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

Exhibit 7 -	Recommended modifications to the introduction to OSHA's
construction outreach program delivered at the work group meeting
yesterday

Exhibit 8 -	Approved injury and illness prevention program work group
report from the November 28, 2012 meeting

	E X H I B I T S (continued)

Exhibit 9 -	Federal Agency Procurement Construction Health and Safety
Checklist

Exhibit 10 -	Backing operations work group report from the November 28,
2012 meeting

Exhibit 11 -	Proximity detection system, PowerPoint presentation by Dr.
Teizer, Construction Industry Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology

Exhibit 12 -	OSHA back over prevention technology PowerPoint handout

Exhibit 13 -	OSHA backing operations web page

Exhibit 14 -	Fatal injuries, a worker being struck by a vehicle or
motor equipment that is backing up, all industries, Bureau of Labor
Statistics 2011

Exhibit 15 -	Improved health hazards/emerging issues/prevention through
design work group report from the November 27, 2012 meeting

	E X H I B I T S (continued)

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

Exhibit 17 -	Engineered nano particle exposure and construction
PowerPoint by Bruce Lippy, CPWR

Exhibit 18 - 	Thermo degradation of organic coating's handout from
OSHA

Exhibit 19 -	Radio frequency exposure PowerPoint, Federal
Communications Commission

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

Exhibit 21 -	Diversity work group report from the November 27, 2012
meeting

Exhibit 22 -	Issues affecting women in construction, OSHA alliance
PowerPoint

	E X H I B I T S (Continued)

Exhibit 23 -	Proposed agreement establishing the lines between OSHA and
NAWIC

Exhibit 24 -	OSHA and NAWIC safety and health alliance plan information
sheet

Exhibit 25 -	OSHA and NAWIC alliance background document

Exhibit 26 -	National Association of Women in Construction fact sheet

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

Exhibit 28 -	Draft Women in Construction web page

Exhibit 29 -	OSHA draft Women in Construction fact sheet

Exhibit 30 -	OSHA fact sheet titled "Keeping Workers Safe During
Hurricane Sandy Clean Up and Recovery"

Exhibit 31 -	CPWR update, CPWR launches an on-line resource to identify
and control silica dust

Exhibit 32 -	Comments from Rick Burnheimer, RF CHECK

		 page \* arabic 2


[Federal Register: October 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 201)]
[Notices]
[Page 61449-61452]
[DOCID:fr16oc08-103]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Funding Availability and Solicitation of Applications
for the SAFETEA-LU Magnetic Levitation Project Selection

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of funding availability; solicitation for applications.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under this Notice, the FRA announces that $45 million
authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) for grants to existing
magnetic levitation (maglev) projects located east of the Mississippi
River has been appropriated and that project proponents (States or
State designated authorities) for the three eligible projects may
submit applications for grants to fund such projects. The three
eligible projects are the Pittsburgh project, the Baltimore-Washington
project, and the Atlanta-Chattanooga project. Funds awarded under this
section can be used for preconstruction planning activities and capital
costs of the fixed guideway infrastructure of a maglev project. This
Notice of Funding Availability does not apply to the $45 million
appropriated specifically for the Nevada Department of Transportation
to fund the existing proposed maglev project between Las Vegas and
Primm, Nevada (see section 102 of the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections
Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-244 (June 6, 2008)).

DATES: To be considered, applications must be received by February 13,
2009. FRA will begin accepting grant applications on Monday, October
20, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted electronically to http://
www.grants.gov (``Grants.Gov''). Grants.Gov allows organizations
electronically to find and apply for competitive grant opportunities
from all Federal grant-making agencies. An eligible applicant wishing
to submit an application pursuant to this notice should immediately
initiate the process of registering with Grants.Gov at http://
www.grants.gov. To confirm successful registration on Grants.Gov send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For application materials that an applicant is unable to submit via
Grants.Gov (such as oversized engineering drawings), applicants may
submit an original and two (2) copies to the Federal Railroad
Administration at

the following address: Federal Railroad Administration, Attention:
Wendy Messenger, Office of Railroad Development (RDV-13), Mail Stop
20, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    Due to delays caused by enhanced screening of mail delivered via
the U.S. Postal Service, applicants are encouraged to use other means
to assure timely receipt of materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Messenger, Office of Railroad
Development (RDV-13), Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Mail Stop 20, Washington, DC 20590. Phone: (202)
493-6396; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Robert Carpenter, Grants Officer,
Office of Acquisition and Grants Services (RAD-30), Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Section 102 of the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L.
110-244, June 6, 2008) (the 2008 Act), amended SAFETEA-LU, which
authorized, but did not appropriate, $90 million for maglev projects,
50 percent of which would go to the maglev project between Las Vegas
and Primm, NV, and 50 percent of which would go to an undetermined
maglev project located east of the Mississippi River. The 2008 Act made
the funding available and modified and clarified the language by
dividing the funding equally between fiscal years 2008 and 2009, adding
a 20 percent non-Federal match requirement, and allowing the ``east of
the Mississippi River'' funding to potentially be distributed among two
or more projects.
    In the Joint Explanatory Statement of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environmental and Public Works,
Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, and Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committees accompanying the 2008 Act (the Joint
Committee Statement), Congress explained that by changing the language
to allow FRA discretion to award funds to ``projects'' located east of
the Mississippi River, ``the intent is to limit the eligible projects
to three existing projects east of the Mississippi River: Pittsburgh,
Baltimore-Washington, and Atlanta-Chattanooga.'' \1\ Based upon that
clear Congressional direction, the solicitation for applications under
this NOFA is limited to those three projects. Through the SAFETEA-LU
maglev project selection (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.312), FRA will determine which of the three eligible
projects east of the Mississippi River will receive these funds and has
the discretion to award funds to one or more of those three projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the Joint Explanatory Statement of the House Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Senate Committees on
Environment and Public Works, on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs,
and on Commerce, Science and Transportation, on the SAFETEA-LU
Technical Corrections Act of 2008 at 5 (April 30, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    In the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 105-
178 (July 22, 1998)) (TEA-21), Congress established the Maglev
Deployment Program, the purpose of which was to encourage the
development and construction of an operating transportation system
employing magnetic levitation capable of safe use by the public at a
speed in excess of 240 miles per hour. TEA-21 provided $55 million for
fiscal years 1999 through 2001 for maglev transportation systems.
Congress directed FRA to establish project selection criteria, to
solicit applications for funding, to select one or more projects to
receive financial assistance for preconstruction planning activities,
and, after completion of such activities, to select one of the projects
to receive financial assistance for final design, engineering, and
construction activities.
    FRA received eleven applications and selected seven projects to
receive funding. After each of the seven projects completed preliminary
environmental documentation and FRA issued a programmatic environmental
impact statement and record of decision, in January 2000 two projects
were selected for additional funding and further study. The first
project was a 54-mile system through Pittsburgh, PA, and the second was
a 39-mile system between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC. Extensive
environmental and preliminary engineering work has been completed for
both of these projects. Proponents of two of the seven projects not
selected in January 2000 continued to study maglev or high-speed ground
transportation options, including maglev, with funding from other
sources. These two projects are a 40 mile segment between Las Vegas and
Primm, NV that is envisioned as part of a system eventually extending
to Anaheim, CA, and a 110 mile route between Atlanta, GA and
Chattanooga, TN.
    In TEA-21, Congress also authorized, but did not appropriate, $950
million in Federal funds for final design, engineering and construction
of the most promising projects. TEA-21 expired and Congress never
appropriated those funds. In SAFETEA-LU, Congress authorized, but once
again did not appropriate, $90 million for a new maglev deployment
program. In the 2008 Act, Congress made those funds available. As noted
above, half of those funds are allocated to the Las Vegas, NV project.
The other half of those funds will be distributed to one or more
projects based upon a selection process. By this NOFA, FRA is
announcing the initiation of that selection process and notifying the
project proponents for the three eligible projects of the selection
criteria.

    Authority: The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59,
August 10, 2005), and the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act (Pub.
L. 110-244, June 6, 2008).

    Funding: The 2008 Act provides $90,000,000 for maglev and directs
the Secretary of Transportation to: (1) Allocate 50 percent to the
Nevada Department of Transportation for the Las Vegas, NV maglev
project; and (2) allocate 50 percent, in the form of one or more grant
agreements covering up to 80 percent of the project costs, to one or
more of three eligible maglev projects east of the Mississippi River.
The Federal share of a selected project or projects shall be 80
percent; the grantee(s) is (are) responsible for providing the other 20
percent. Only expenditures made after the date of enactment of the
SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act, provided they are otherwise
eligible and covered by an approved scope of work, will be considered
potentially eligible as the non-Federal share. The funding provided
under these grants will be made available to the grantee(s) on a
reimbursement basis. If FRA selects more than one project, FRA may
choose to apportion the available funding as the agency determines in
its discretion.
    Schedule for Maglev Grant Program: FRA will begin accepting grant
applications on October 20, 2008 and will continue accepting
applications until February 13, 2009. Applications submitted before
October 20, 2008 will be disregarded. FRA may request that an applicant
submit a revised application reflecting a refined scope of work and
budget. FRA anticipates making the award(s) made pursuant to this
notice during FY 2009.
    Project Eligibility: Section 1307 of SAFETEA-LU establishes three
project

eligibility standards. To be eligible to receive financial assistance
under this program, a project must: (1) Involve a segment or segments
of a high-speed ground transportation corridor; (2) result in an
operating transportation facility that provides a revenue producing
service; \2\ and (3) be approved by the FRA Administrator based on an
application submitted to the Administrator by a State or authority
designated by one or more States. The first two criteria are
prerequisites to FRA evaluating an application and must be addressed in
the cover letter with supporting documentation in the application
package. If those two criteria are not met to FRA's satisfaction, the
project is not eligible for funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Congress titled section 1307 ``Deployment of Magnetic
Levitation Transportation Projects'' and the funding provided
through section 1101(a)(18) of SAFETEA-LU, as amended by the 2008
Act is made available for the ``deployment of magnetic levitation
projects.'' FRA interprets the statute as a whole as evidencing a
Congressional intent that the Federal funds be used to directly
advance and result in the construction of a maglev project. Thus, in
order to be eligible for funding under this program, an application
must include evidence that an operating transportation facility that
provides a revenue producing service will be constructed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the project proponents propose service in more than one State, a
single State or designated State authority should apply on behalf of
all participating States. FRA encourages States to submit applications
through their respective Departments of Transportation, which have
extensive experience in implementing Federally funded transportation
programs.
    Eligible Projects: As explained in the Joint Committee Statement,
only the three existing maglev projects located east of the Mississippi
River are eligible. These are the Pittsburgh, Baltimore-Washington, and
Atlanta-Chattanooga projects.
    Selection Criteria: Provided the statutory eligibility criteria
have been met, FRA will consider the following selection factors in
evaluating applications for grants under this program:
    1. Whether the project demonstrates the ability to address at least
one or more serious technological or financial/economic problem(s) that
challenge the feasibility of widespread adaptation of maglev systems.
Examples might include methods to make maglev systems more energy
efficient or ways to mitigate initial construction costs (e.g., by
reducing vehicle weight or demonstrating new, lower cost ways to
construct maglev guideway).
    2. Whether funds awarded under this section will result in
investments that are beneficial not only to the maglev project, but
also to other current or near-term transportation projects. Examples
could include the preservation of rights-of-way, and/or the achievement
of one or more planning goals. Applicants should keep in mind, however,
that Federal funds may not be used for station construction costs.
    3. Whether the project demonstrates the potential for a public-
private partnership for the corridor in which the maglev project is
involved, and/or for the project independently. Any corridor exhibiting
partnership potential must meet at least the following two conditions:
    (a) Private enterprise entities must be able to operate the
corridor--once built and paid for--as a complete, self-sustaining
operation. That is, the total fully allocated operating expenses of the
maglev service are projected to be offset by revenues attributable to
the service; and
    (b) The total societal benefits of a maglev corridor must equal or
exceed its total societal costs.
    4. The extent of the demonstrated financial commitment to the
construction of the proposed project from both non-Federal public
sources and private sources, including any financial contributions or
commitment the applicant has secured from private entities that are
expected to benefit from the project. If applicable, also include the
extent to which the State or private entities exceed the required 20
percent match.
    5. Whether the project demonstrates the ability to meet all
applicable Federal and State environmental statutes and regulations.
    6. The degree to which the project will demonstrate the variety of
maglev operating conditions which are to be expected in the United
States. For example, these conditions might include a variety of at-
grade, elevated and depressed guideway structures, extreme
temperatures, and intermodal connections at terminals.
    7. Whether the project demonstrates the ability to meet a top speed
of at least 240 miles per hour (MPH). FRA will also consider favorably
the ability to meet higher speeds as well as the duration that speeds
of at least 240 MPH can be attained.
    Requirements for Grant Applications: All applications must be
submitted through Grants.gov, which is the Federal grants portal. The
following points describe the minimum content which will be required in
grant applications. These requirements may be satisfied through a
narrative statement submitted by the applicant, supported by
spreadsheet documents, tables, drawings, and other materials, as
appropriate. Each grant application will:
    1. Designate a point of contact for the applicant and provide their
name and contact information, including phone number, mailing address
and e-mail address. The point of contact must be an employee of the
applicant.
    2. Include a detailed project description, including an explanation
of why the project is an eligible project and a thorough discussion of
how the project meets all of the selection criteria.
    3. Describe the market to be served by the proposed new service,
and the existing transportation facilities and service afforded by
other public and private modes of transportation in the market area. In
addition, the application should describe the operating changes to the
target market that are anticipated to result from the introduction of
maglev services, as well as assess the major risks or obstacles to
maglev's successful deployment and operation.
    4. Provide a detailed summary of all work done to date, including
any preliminary engineering work, the project's previous
accomplishments and funding history, and a chronology of key documents
produced and funding events (e.g., grants and contracts).
    5. Describe progress toward completing any environmental
documentation or clearance required for the proposed project under the
National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation
Act, section 4(f) of the DOT Act, the Clean Water Act, or other
applicable Federal or State laws.
    Applicants should keep in mind, however, that FRA will not give
additional weight to projects that have completed more environmental
work. Instead, as explained in the selection criteria, FRA will
consider favorably those projects that demonstrate an ability to
ultimately fulfill all applicable Federal and State environmental
requirements.
    6. Include a complete Standard Form 424, ``Application for Federal
Assistance,'' a signed Standard Form 424D, ``Assurances--Construction
Programs,'' signed copies of FRA's Additional Assurances and
Certifications, available at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/admin/
assurancesandcertifications.pdf, and the most recent audit performed in
compliance with OMB Circular A-133. Information on Circular A-133 can
be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133/a133.html. If
the scope of work includes non-construction activities, applications
must also include a signed Standard Form 424B, ``Assurances--Non-
Construction Programs.''

    7. Define the scope of work for the proposed project and the
anticipated project schedule. Describe the proposed project's physical
location (as applicable), and the extent to which the proposed project
consists of planning and/or implementation of capital improvements.
Include any drawings, plans, or schematics that have been prepared
relating to the proposed project. If the funding from the Program is
only going to be a portion of the overall funding for the project,
describe the complete project and specify the portion covered by
Federal funding.
    8. Present a detailed budget for the proposed project. At a
minimum, the budget should separate total cost of the project into the
following categories, if applicable: (1) Administrative and legal
expenses; (2) land, structures, rights-of-way, and appraisals; (3)
relocation expenses and payments; (4) architectural and engineering
fees; (5) project inspection fees; (6) site work; (7) demolition and
removal; (8) construction labor, supervision, and management; (9)
materials, by type; (10) miscellaneous; and (11) contingencies. Also
specify the amount of costs in each category that are proposed to be
funded from Federal funds, and the amount to be funded by non-Federal
matching funds.
    9. Describe and provide evidence of the source(s) and amount of
matching funds.
    10. Describe proposed project implementation and project management
provisions. Include descriptions of expected arrangements for project
contracting, contract oversight, change-order management, risk
management, and conformance to Federal requirements for project
progress reporting.
    11. Describe, in as much detail as possible, the next steps that
will be required beyond those described in the application to foster
implementation of the planned maglev services, such as technological
development or testing, additional planning, engineering or site
investigation activities, and right-of-way acquisition.
    Format: Excluding spreadsheets, drawings, and tables, the narrative
statement for grant applications may not exceed thirty pages in length.
With the exclusion of oversized engineering drawings (which may be
submitted in hard copy to the FRA at the address above), all
application materials should be submitted as attachments through
Grants.Gov. Spreadsheets consisting of budget or financial information
should be submitted via Grants.Gov as Microsoft Excel (or compatible)
documents.

Mark E. Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Development.
[FR Doc. E8-24567 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P