think that we're going to capture all of them in the (SOP) section to be
honest with you because there's a myriad of issues that are not
addressed that could be addressed by an (SOP). But for consistency sake
if we're referencing an (SOP) somewhere which would probably all be in
the same section and I understand the need to do that.

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

(Ken):	Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	Okay and that's Kenn Fontenot.

Man:	And O single I.

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

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

Lisa Delaney:	I think that…

Bill Hamilton:	…as to when it gets implemented?

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

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

Matthew Tobia:	It should be SSW.

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Bill Warren?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Tobia:	Yes.

Bill Hamilton:	Is that an injury?

Matthew Tobia:	Yes.

Bill Hamilton:	So we have to do a PIA?

Matthew Tobia:	Yes.

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Yes, Lisa Delaney.

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

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Kenn Fontenot.

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thank you.

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

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Ken Willette.

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Tobia:	Okay.

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

Matthew Tobia:	Changes.

Sarah Shorthall:	Okay.

Matthew Tobia:	That was Matthew Tobia, sorry.

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

Pat Morrison:	Yes.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay.

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

Sarah Shorthall:	And OSHA, they all love OSHA.

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Kenn Fontenot:	Yes.

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

Kenn Fontenot:	We're good on that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Thank you, Sarah.

Rick Ingram:	And I will second that.

Sarah Shorthall:	I am taken aback.

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

Kenn Fontenot:	This is interesting, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

Matthew Tobia:	This is the PIA.

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

Ken Willette:	Looking cool. The whole thing does.

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Lamont Byrd:	Could you speak into the microphone please?

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

Sarah Shorthall:	Talk into the microphone please.

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

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

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Matt?

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Hamilton:	Okay.

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

Ken Willette:	You could say clothing or.

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

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

Bill Hamilton:	Okay. So it says clothing?

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

Kenn Fontenot:	That was (Spencer Schwangler).

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

	(Break)

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

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

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

((Crosstalk.))

Rick Ingram:	Victor Stagnaro has some comments.

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

Rick Ingram:	Any discussion?

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

Lamont Byrd:	Developed it.

Rick Ingram:	I mean the process.

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Any thoughts about that?

Kenn Fontenot:	Makes sense to me.

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

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Ken Willette?

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

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Any other thoughts or comments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	Yes, Ken.

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

Lamont Byrd:	Yes, Lisa.

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

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

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

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

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

Victor Stagnaro:	Sure, yes. I agree.

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

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

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

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

Sarah Shorthall:	All traumatic events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	USFA? I'll check it.

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

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

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

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

Victor Stagnaro:	No, I like..

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

Rick Ingram:	Exactly.

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

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

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

Matthew Tobia:	It could be fire draft or training.

((Crosstalk))

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

Matthew Tobia:	Or any of that within 24 hours.

Pat Morrison:	Okay.

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Ingram:	So you could you reiterate that acronym.

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

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

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

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

Lamont Byrd:	You had a question, Bill?

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

Lamont Byrd:	Bill?

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

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

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

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

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

Pat Morrison:	Yes. The NIOSH Firefighting Cancer Study.

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	What did Pat say?

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

Sarah Shorthall:	You always have to have a quorum.

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

	So is everybody comfortable with that one?

Man:	(Who wrote) the question?

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

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

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

Rick Ingram:	Emergency medical service.

Lisa Delaney:	Yes, so that is an organization.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, any other…

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

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

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

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

Sarah Shorthall:	Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

Matthew Tobia:	There you go.

((Crosstalk))

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

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

Sarah Shorthall:	And it's perfect alliteration.

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	No.

Sarah Shorthall:	So we need to change it.

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

Sarah Shorthall:	I drop my suggestion.

Man:	Okay.

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

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

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

Man:	Got it.

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	Okay, is there anything else? Nope?

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

Man:	Okay, thank you Lisa, Ken Fontenot?

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

Man:	Okay, the subcommittee in agreement?

Man:	Yes.

Man:	Okay, we're good with that.

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

Man:	President Obama.

Rick Ingram:	Continue (unintelligible) statement.

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah Shorthall:	Secretary who?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

Man:	…employer.

Man:	Okay. Yes, Ken Willette?

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

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

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

Sarah Shorthall:	Broad range of emergency response experts?

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

Man:	I'm sorry, who provides…

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

Man:	Who provides?

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

Man:	…every unnecessary word.

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	I see what you're saying.

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

Sarah Shorthall:	No.

Bill Troop:	Thank you.

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

Bill Troop:	I take responsibility for nothing.

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

Bill Troop:	The (unintelligible) part?

Rick Ingram:	Committee activities.

((Crosstalk))

Bill Troop:	Yes (unintelligible).

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	Yes Ken Willette?

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

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

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

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

Bill Hamilton:	I know we discussed about it, that was one of the main
elements I thought we were looking at is that there's just a difference
between a structural firefighter, wildlife firefighter, EMS person and
EMS person, you know, would be the skilled support individual that shows
up. There's a whole litany of differences between what the medical
requirements are based on those levels of responsibility so I don’t
know how we could get away from it.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram again, could we - and we want to be
factual here. So we have developed a list of tiered levels of
responders, we have that, and that's in a guidance document and the
addendum, right? So we might want to mention the develop a guidance
document which includes a sample list of tiers of responder duties and
capabilities to establish different levels of training and then - so
what I'm hearing is that we do have an action item to complete this
spreadsheet with medical information?

Matthew Tobia:	So this is Matthew Tobia, I'm not sure that we - I
don’t know what - I know that we entered the tiered - the examples of
tiered responses, tiered responders, into the record, I don’t know
that it was intended to become part of the draft regulatory text going
forward to the NIOSH subcommittee. I think it was intended, I think, we
originally put it in there so that if we got to rulemaking we would have
a document that we could reference back to rulemaking if we ever get to
that point.

Rick Ingram:	So we've got - this is Rick Ingram again, the last two
bullet points on Page 4 in the first half of the page is tiers of
responders and then the second, the last bullet point is responder
medical requirements, identified medical requirements for tiers of
responders. So, it's also a bit redundant there that it's in two
different bullet points but it sounds like it's certainly something we
need to address now.

Ken Fontenot:	Well, if my memory serves me from yesterday Rick, and this
is Ken Fontenot I asked that the reference to (Jeff)'s medical be taken
out of the spreadsheet and the others because those were personal notes
that got hung-up in it and I suggested we put the OSHA language in there
as a replacement that said that the ESO will ensure that the responder
is capable of performing the tasks that were assigned to them. So - and
(Ray) says a little bit that was added to it is also this prescribe a
state regulations and law. So that was sort of the discussion we had and
it was going to be an appendix item.

Ken Willette:	Ken Willette, the follow-up on Ken Fontenot's comment
under the bullet point responder medical requirements, is it the medical
requirement - because this to me it's the medical requirements your
blood pressure has to be such and such, your cholesterol has to be such
and such. But was it the screening and examination requirements that we
looked at, the process of looking at the candidate to see if they're fit
for duty?

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram. If we go back to Page 14 on the top
of the page, well actually Page 13, responder medical and fitness
requirements. So whether or not we say that we have - that we connect
that with the training, we do have medical requirements in here so we
might be able to take out the second half of that sentence on the fourth
bullet point and just rely on responder medical requirements and leave
that in there and I think that would be clearer and we're not painting
ourselves in a corner. So we have - would that be a simple correction
there? So we're seeing nodding of heads in the affirmative. Any
negatives? Any (distention)? Okay. And (Robert) rules of order is not my
friend so don’t expect too much.

Man:	Okay, thank you Rick

Rick Ingram:	Little humor, very little humor at the end of the day.

Man:	Okay are there any more comments or thoughts?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	What did you want to change? You wanted to change… I kind of
pulled this from the summaries when we - of what each… I mean, it's
supposed to kind of summarize what each of the subgroups did, right? And
so the one with the (tier) was supposed to develop a list of tiers,
right? And then which would include medical fitness requirements and
then there was another group that had overlapping people, of course,
they were supposed to try and discuss the medical requirements for the
tiers. We did a lot of - they did a lot of discussing but we never
actually came to a conclusion on those. So - right? So, there was one
group that was working on tiers to identify the different tiers and then
another that was kind of a subgroup that was supposed - that was trying
to do the medical requirement.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes, it was actually a combination of things. This is
Matthew Tobia I'm sorry, there was a subgroup looking at tiers of
responders, that was Ken Fontenot's group and then there was the
subgroup that I was responsible for that looked at medical and it was -
there was a section under medical requirements. We looked broadly at the
entire issue of medical, that actually - at the time that we formed a
subgroup it was specifically to look at medical requirements and
physicals for corresponding tiers of responders. There was a subgroup
that looked at that very issue.

Bill Hamilton:	Okay. I mean the idea is - this is Bill Hamilton, just
trying to identify that within the subcommittee you all broke into, you
all or all of you all, I forget, you broke into these separate subgroups
that all worked on a specific topic that, or different issues and the
intent is to show how much extra work went on in between the in-person
meetings. Thank God I didn’t have to count the number of
teleconferences that we - and how many hours we all spend on
teleconferences and email but - so now tell me what you want to change?

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram, I believe that, and please speak up
if I'm wrong, but under the fourth bullet point of the tiers and
responders, we do have - we did develop a sample list of tiers of
responder duties and capabilities to be able to establish different
levels of training needed and in that, that is actually a guidance
document that will be added as an addendum to the document. So a
guidance document and we would eliminate the last part of that sentence
after the comma.

	We decided not to do that just to keep the medical and health and
fitness general and then the - so that would be the first change. And I
might suggest that we say develop a guidance document that includes the
details, a sample list, of tiers of responder duties.

	That's good. This is Rick Ingram and the texts that you have up there
now seems to be pretty accurate and then that satisfies my comments if
that's okay with everybody else. And then the next bullet point I think
is accurate except we actually did develop a medical fitness
requirements for responders, not for tiers of responders but for
responders. Ken Willette?

Ken Willette:	Just a question, did we actually develop or did we point
to other existing?

Rick Ingram:	Well, we have two pages of medical and health and fitness
requirements.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Bill Warren?

Bill Warren:	Yes Rick it's (Bill), I think as I read the first part of
that medical requirement, it is up to the (ESO) to make the
determination of what the medical requirements are based on this. They
identified their peers response, so I'm good with that. I think this is
accurate.

Rick Ingram:	You know we could say, okay… I'll stop right there.

((Crosstalk))

Matthew Tobia:	What's accurate identify or develop?

Man:	Develop.

Rick Ingram:	Develop.

Man:	Okay, fine. (Take up tiers).

Rick Ingram:	We just need - this is Rick Ingram again, we just need to
take out the tiers (Bill) for responders. (ESO)'s and responders, right?
1.00.33 So (ESO)'s and responders.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	The correct…

Man:	Okay, thanks Ken Fontenot?

Ken Fontenot:	Before we get too far down the document, if we could go up
to the like third or fourth sentence where it says from time to time
maybe wordsmith it a little bit to say during deliberations subjects
were identified.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay. So we're past the first set of bullets and now we are to
obtain additional information, that paragraph.

Sarah Shorthall:	This is Sarah Shorthall, I personally think that the
names of these experts should not be identified if the names of all of
you are experts on the committee are not identified.

((Crosstalk))

Sarah Shorthall:	To me it seems strange that these people are given
special notice for coming to a meeting and you've been working for a
year on all of this and your names aren't mentioned. So, your - if - I
would suggest if you don’t want to put everybody's names that you just
have the first sentence and drop that you request an input from
additional subject experts, subject matter experts.

Man:	Okay, thank you for your recommendation Sarah. Is there any thought
or discussion about that? We're okay? So we're striking the names and
organizations or just the names? The names and organizations of the
medical experts who were invited. Any other comments, questions?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor speaking, (Phil Stiddleburg) is not a
medical expert however, he is certainly an expert when it comes to - as
a subject matter expert in that the costs may be associated with it or -
but he's not a medical expert so I don’t know if that's something that
needs to be addressed in that sentence.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes, I think that sentence might be okay because what we're saying
is that the subject matter experts were experts in medical requirements,
fitness evaluation, and their cost and impact on organizations. So, I
think we…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes, Bill Warren?

Bill Warren:	Yes, Bill Warren, I thought we agreed that we would include
at the beginning of that sentence requested additional input or, excuse
me, input from additional subject matter experts which would have been
brought into the (unintelligible), unless something…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, are we okay with that revision? Yes (Spencer)?

(Spencer Schwangler):	Yes, this is (Spencer), this is another example of
using a lot of ands in a row where we might want to just use the comma
and one and at the end. We have medical requirements and physical
evaluation and our cost and impacts. So can't we just use commas, the
English teacher agree with me? Okay.

Sarah Shorthall:	I try not to touch anything that wasn't with the
subject areas I had to. Sometimes I get blamed when I review documents
for being too much of an English teacher instead of a (lawyer) so
(unintelligible). I look at one thing here since we're on this. Sarah
Shorthall, you did not pick up my clue at all, maybe it's late in the
day and that is nobody said, wait a minute, our names are not - and I
was hoping someone was going to say something and so my other suggestion
had been with this, Page 3 right before you go into the list of bullets
that we change that (unintelligible) stakeholder representatives on the
committee are, and list your name and organization.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram and I agree with that.

Lisa Delaney:	So would we, also this is Lisa Delaney include alternate.

Sarah Shorthall:	Say no, I wouldn’t try to do all of that but if you
want to - you know.

Lisa Delaney:	Okay, so one thing is we could just include an attachment
that had - so there's one primary list with everyone's name and
affiliation. I didn’t know if that would just be an easier…

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill Hamilton, we could modify the contact, I
forgot what exhibit it is, subcommittee for emergency response
preparedness that lists the co-chairs and the subject matter experts by
name and organization. In my opinion, some of the alternates have spent
as much or more time being involved in this then - and they certainly -
if we're going to put names in, there should - in my opinion it should
include the (ultimate). Do you want to put that in the body of it or do
you want to make the attachment…

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt I would recommend an attachment.

Bill Hamilton:	Can we give them your names and email addresses too?

Matthew Tobia:	No. Well phone number. Well, okay, and so as long as
we're going down that road, do we also want to provide the address or
just the name and the organization and job title? Okay, phone numbers
and emails it is.

((Crosstalk))

Matthew Tobia:	I'll do names and - so organizations, names and job
titles. Okay, any objections. Okay.

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	So now - this is Lamont Byrd, so now that we've agreed to
list the names of the subcommittee members and alternates, do we now
want to put the names of the subject matter experts who are invited by
the subject matter experts?

Sarah Shorthall:	This is Sarah Shorthall, I personally think that if
your names only make it as an attachment, that I don’t think those
three names should come into the body of this memo. They aren't the
workers and not to denigrate them all, I thought their presentations
were wonderful but by golly, you are the worker bees here.

Man:	Bill Warren?

Bill Warren:	I agree with Sarah only because that there is a record in
the text of the minutes that it did capture those three individuals that
came in so I do concur with Sarah that I would prefer even in the - when
we go to the next session, that those names be deleted also. So I concur
with that.

Man:	Okay, so I think we've gotten through the second set of bullets.
The last paragraph on Page 4, a docket was opened, any comments or
recommendations concerning that paragraph? Okay.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall. (Bill) has already made one change
above in the second sentence and paragraph documents presented as the
in-person meetings rather than face-to-face.

Man:	Okay, thank you Sarah. Going to Page 5, (unintelligible)?

Bill Warren:	We have some changes.

Man:	Okay, Bill Warren?

Bill Warren:	This is Bill Warren, a few changes; one is thank you Sarah
for the clarification in the red text, I think it looks really good so I
do concur with that. The only thing I would like to see if you go down
to the second sentence where it says currently, it says only a few state
(plants), we identified there are six state (plants states) so should we
not identify how many actually have regulatory text specific to
emergency response and that number was six, that's identified by
Chairman (Krueger)'s letter so we did look at that or - I'm still good
with leaving only a few states but we do have an actual number of
states.

	The second thing that I'm really kind of troubled with is that the very
last sentence in that second paragraph there says (unintelligible)
representatives also contend that OSHA resources would be better used to
amend the OSHA Act to cover state and local workers. That was not the
intent and nor did we contend that. What was intended was that OSHA
developed consensus standard and building partnerships that was their
respective states that they're responsible for but at no time did
(unintelligible) to my knowledge ever concur that there be an amendment
to the OSHA Act under the federal side to cover state and local workers.

	If you look at the letter presented again by Chairman (Krueger) of
(unintelligible) he identified a couple of areas, one is that - was that
(unintelligible) believes that OSHA could use its resources to bring
greater protection but they focused instead on developing consensus
standards building partnerships and then further on down OSHA should
focus their emergency response preparedness for gathering information
which then they could share with the states that, like (unintelligible)
which would be available then for rulemaking in those states. So, I'm
not so sure that I recall at all nor would I agree that it would be
better used to amend the act to cover the state and local workers. I
don’t think that was a discussion. So I'd like to change that
either…

	Yes, and so what I was going to recommend was that the (unintelligible)
representative also contend that OSHA resources would be better used in
developing consensus standards and building partnerships with emergency
response and states where OSHA has jurisdiction and partnering with the
state plant states to ensure rulemaking, to ensure that they undertake
rulemaking or something to that effect. I'm still struggling with my
text.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, I suggest, in fact this is what I
raise my comment, this - in the letter which said, in the - maybe when
the representatives (was there), I think the safest thing for you to do
at this point is to take what positions you want directly from this
letter.

Bill Warren:	Okay.

Sarah Shorthall:	So, for example, on Page two of the letter, you've said
(unintelligible) believes that OSHA could use its resources to gain
greater protection (unintelligible), focus on developing (consensus)
standards, moving partnerships (unintelligible) for OSHA's jurisdiction.
That's the clearest thing that you've said that you can put in there.

Bill Warren:	I agree. I concur with that. There are actually two
elements of that because you have the 25 states that are covered under
the federal plan and the 25 states and two territories covered under the
state plan state. So the next paragraph or the third paragraph from the
top there also deals with the issues specific to the states that are
already having engaged in the public sector employers. So, you know, I'm
not so sure just if that clearly articulates what the (unintelligible)
members were interested in ensuring in their discussion with the
committee on that day.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, so in the paragraph after the bullets
starting with they or (unintelligible) representatives, okay, would you
suggest striking that and instead putting in the sentence from Page 2 on
your letter? (Unintelligible) believes that OSHA could use the
resources?

Bill Warren:	Well, agreed but a lot of that discussion too is that you
go on up further and it did talk about the unfunded mandated
(unintelligible) the additional burden that state plan states will
address, will have to be addressed, whereas in the non-plan states those
public sector employers will not have the same financial impact on them
as it does in the state plan states.

Sarah Shorthall:	So what you're suggesting there is…

Bill Warren:	I like what you put in there under the burden of
(unintelligible) heavily, I think that's what was discussed by, at that
time, Ms. (Sossa) and Mr. (Wood).

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram, (Bill) could you work with Bill
Hamilton and Sarah to get that language the way you want it? Since this
only really reflects you, your group, (unintelligible), so if you
don’t mind just for the sake of time, would you all work that out and
we'll go on through the rest of the stuff? We've only got two other
sections today.

Bill Warren:	No problem, I didn’t mean to slow us down, I just wanted
to make sure…

Rick Ingram:	That's fine, I think it was a good discussion, it's very
important obviously but I would suggest that if you all could work that
out between the two of you then we can go on to the impact and the
recommendations. I think we…

Bill Warren:	I think Bill Hamilton and I can work on anything else.

Rick Ingram:	That's good. Victor?

Victor Stagnaro:	Rick just not to prolong it but I will, I've got a
question for Bill Warren if we were to list in this memo
(unintelligible) concerns are outlined in a letter sent to Dr.
(Michael)'s on February 22, it's already part of the attachment, would
that then - you don’t have to try to abbreviate what's in the letter,
you just point to the letter and if you want to see what they have to
say you can just read it for yourself.

Bill Warren:	If it becomes an attachment I would concur with that. This
is Bill Warren, I would concur with what you're saying Victor as long as
we can strike that last sentence because I don’t think it accurately
reflects what (unintelligible) had intended in both our letter and the
discussions with Mr. (Wood)'s, Ms. (Sossa) and myself.

((Crosstalk))

Bill Warren:	On the one that says the (unintelligible) representatives
also content that OSHA's resources would be better used to amend the
OSHA Act to cover state and local workers. All right, if you read in the
position letter from Chairman (Krueger) it - that is not identified
anywhere. I don’t believe that that was so…

Rick Ingram:	So right there we could just say reference the…

Bill Warren:	The attachment, whatever…

Rick Ingram:	Attached (unintelligible) letter to Dr. (Michael)'s,
Attachment Number 3 and it is an attachment already, it's Number 3.

Bill Warren:	Yes, no, I am very good with that then.

Rick Ingram:	All right and just to be clear the next sentence or
sentences which state, it's (unintelligible) position that OSHA should
not develop this rule and that balancing the issues (unintelligible), is
that - so I assume that that all is…

Bill Warren:	That's still - I think that's agreeable.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, all right.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, is that language in their last
sentence, last paragraph there, is that language in the letter?

Bill Warren:	No, that was discussed I think what the question was, was
to Mr. (Wood), if I recall we have to go back and look again, the
question to Mr. (Wood) was that regarding the emergency services, the
safety conclusion is that all employees ought to be covered although we
recognize that there may have to be some exclusions specific to size,
budget or whatever it may be from the smaller volunteer departments that
would not be able to sustain and would automatically go into compliance
and would never be. So, but the position was that hey we still believe
that they should be covered in some form.

	Okay. So again my major concern Rick, was the issue that that would be
better used to amend the OSHA Act and I don’t think that there's
support for that from (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick Ingram, that's understandable and a lot of us
feel the same way but understood. So is it all right if we go onto the
invite statement now? So since we've got - what is left here, she's on
the hook. So, you want to…

Lamont Byrd:	Sure, impact on the last paragraph on Page 5. If you would
take a look at that. I guess we probably need to go on over to the top
of Page 6. This is Lamont Byrd to finish that paragraph.

((Crosstalk))

Lamont Byrd:	Yes (Bill)?

Bill Warren:	Yes, I know it might sound crazy, it's Bill Warren, I'm
wondering if we can just add where it says under like the third sentence
down where it says economically challenged, particularly those who
provide volunteer services. I'm thinking more about our rural
communities that don’t have a lot of inner-agency assistance. So I'm
wondering if we could add something to that effect or - some who provide
volunteer services particularly in rural areas, would that be advisable?
Only because I know that as we spread out the sparseness of the
population and then we have these small volunteer which are usually only
volunteer districts there - particularly in the west they're really
spread out far apart and therefore the response time of doing mutual aid
agreements is limited, it would not be good to identify at that point.
That's just a thought.

Lamont Byrd:	Okay, thank you. Bill Troop?

Bill Troop:	Well, I agree, it's also a challenge. It's not just a
challenge in rural America, it's also a challenge in the suburban and
urban communities that have underfunded small primary volunteer
departments or all the - there may not be a lengthy response time but
there may be nobody coming because nobody can afford to pay. I mean
we're seeing, I'm seeing, some new stories, there's a new story this
week about small departments having major economic challenges to plan
bankruptcy and having equipment reposed. So, yes, I mean it's not just a
rural problem. You know…

Lamont Byrd:	Okay. Any other - yes, Lisa Delaney?

Lisa Delaney:	Lisa Delaney, I suggest that we retitle this. So when I
read impact I think immediately, wow the impact of having the standard
but really this is talking about the impact to small or economically
challenged organizations.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes, this is Matthew Tobia just to add on to that, I
would just offer that perhaps the heading for this should be scoping
because what we're really talking about is who should this regulate -
who should this draft regulatory text apply to and instead of impact,
scoping would be what we're really talking about here.

Lamont Byrd:	Any other comments? Mark?

Mark Hageman:	Yes, Mark Hageman, so this is the one place in here where
you all sort of deferred to us to deal with this. Are there any other
areas that you want to put in this memo where you're telling OSHA that
OSHA needs to do something that you guys weren't able to address? One
thing that comes to mind was the medical stuff, did you - and that
addresses the small folks too. Is there any issue dealing with the
medical evaluations that you need to tell us that we need to deal with?
So anything else that you want us to do that you guys didn’t in this
text, you need to let us know in here I guess is…

Man:	I'm sorry Mark you want… So there's a couple of things if you're
looking for guidance or if you're looking for areas that OSHA needs to
work on, would that not fall under final findings and recommendations as
opposed to scoping because the scoping piece is really, I think the
scoping reflects the kind of significant discussion that we had about
who should or should not supply to and add that - that would need to be
a major consideration for moving forward. When we go to rulemaking that
OSHA should be very focused on that for the scoping piece. I would say
there might be other areas, I don’t know that medical belongs under
this specific area.

Mark Hageman:	The only reason I brought it up here is because this is
the one place where you mention that OSHA needs to explore it further.

Ken Fontenot:	This is Ken Fontenot, comment for Mark and the rest of the
committee, one of the discussions we had had was an exemption perhaps
for some department who were impacted by this, not know - I just don’t
want us to lose sight of that and what we're doing. I know (Andy) was
very (unintelligible) of it and he's not here to help out with this. And
it's not specifically listed in here. One of the numbers we had used was
that a population of 2500 people or less if they're identified
department serving that population are identified as significantly
disadvantaged and challenged either by economics or the ability to
provide services. So, I don’t know how we can keep that in there but I
certainly don’t want to lose sight of that fact, that that was one of
the things so perhaps some working in here as to a financial or the
impact that this document may have on those particular departments.

Mark Hageman:	Yes, this is Mark again, I don’t…

Ken Fontenot:	You understand?

Mark Hageman:	Yes, I think that's another good example of something that
you may want to state in here in some way that this rule should deal
with the size concern that you all have and what that should be. Just so
it's not lost, we don’t want anything that you guys still have
concerns with to be lost and not be part of this recommendation.

Matthew Tobia:	This is Matt, if you can I think that actually the 2500
number appears at the very top of Page 6 just as a reference but I do
think to the point that (Ken)'s making and that is that the small
business impact component needs to be thoroughly and assertively vetted
and that the stakeholder organizations that are present would be - are
prepared to provide contacts for organizations that should participate
in that, I forget the acronym, process.

Man:	And I would like to perhaps see in there that the research, (NFDA)
research of whatever has identified that the department serving that
2500 people are significantly challenged, I'd like to see a statement
like that in that preamble or even just recommendation side.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick Ingram and Matt I want to challenge the
change from impact to scoping and I think that really what we're talking
about is organizational community impact statement and I know Ken, you
know, I'm from a very small community and I know that's going to - this
will impact the first responders there, the (ESO) there or the (ESO)'s
and I really think that's what we're talking about to the organizations
and communities. Maybe we shouldn't say communities but to the
organizations or (ESO)'s.

Matthew Tobia:	Yes, I think that I didn’t - my observation, my
observation is simply that I think we're talking about the same thing
honestly and at the end of the day I think it's - I think what we're
really talking about is the scope of the regulations have - are going to
be driven, potentially driven by the economic impact of the regulations.
So the discussion that we had here was there's a very significant
potential for economic impact and that that will impact, that will
drive, scoping at this point.

	Lisa's point was if you look at the word impact, I agree, I thought
that it simply - that the information that would follow impact would be
what is the proposed impact of the regulations on reducing preventable
(unintelligible) injuries and illnesses, that's all.

Rick Ingram:	And I think we do have a scope of the document which is
listed in the actual regulatory text and I don’t want to confuse that
with the potential impact to the organizations or communities.

Matthew Tobia:	Right, so maybe one - this I Matt, maybe perhaps the
language should be financial impact.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, I wrote this down, potential financial
impact on small and other entities. I would also have to say I disagree
with scoping unless you are specifically proposing recommendations to
scope people out because I'm not sure you've reached that point, or
reached a consensus on that one. Would that work for you? I don’t
think - would that work for you (Ken)? I think if you hear the term
potential financial impact on small and other entities, I don’t think
anyone is going to think what's the impact of the whole standard? I
think they're going to think, how is this going to affect our…

Ken Fontenot:	And this is (Ken), (Bill)'s (unintelligible) into the 2500
and less, in the body of the text and I would respectfully ask the
chairs that tomorrow morning maybe we can revisit it again just if we're
not comfortable with fresh minds because I'm about toast.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Why don’t you step up to the mic if you don’t mind?

(Gabriel Arcot):	(Gabriel Arcot) speaking, just to - so the 2500 and
under, I think it's only kind of implied but I see what - I hear what
you're saying in terms of making a stronger statement, maybe saying that
they're mostly volunteers, maybe we could craft a statement or something
in terms of reflecting the fact that volunteer organizations do not have
a steady stream income or, you know, budgets that can - or something to
that effect where their budgets are very restricted or limited or
something that reflects that economic situation is unique and different
than large organizations.

Man:	So a question for the economists.

Sarah Shorthall:	Sarah Shorthall, we also have other standards in which
- where we have done analysis on the impact of small businesses where
we've changed or done a separate type of provision for them so small
businesses does not have to do, comply with paragraphs D, E and F for
example or only has to do such and such and that's actually written into
the stand - the (unintelligible). We have to potentially make
arrangements for small businesses and other like entities.

Ken Fontenot:	And this is (Ken) again, I just didn’t want us to lose
sight of that fact and the letter to the NIOSH community and (capture)
somewhere so we could work on it in public comment after the economists
and everybody had a chance to look at it.

Bill Warren:	Yes, Bill Warren, I just want to make sure when the
economists do their analysis that they use the state plan states, that
it's going to have the highest impact on it.

(Gabriel Arcot):	Now we (use) everyone who would possibly get impacted?

Bill Warren:	(With that)?

(Gabriel Arcot):	Well we look at everyone that would possibly be
impacted, all of the state plans would be grouped separately.

Bill Warren:	Okay.

(Gabriel Arcot):	In the analysis.

Bill Warren:	All right.

(Gabriel Arcot):	Because technically…

Bill Warren:	Well, I just wanted to be - don’t want to be weighed so
heavily on non - on the federal states which have limited impact to this
as it is on the state plan states who have major impact on this
standard.

(Gabriel Arcot):	Well, we'll definitely use all of the data that's
available.

Man:	All right, Victor and we're right at about stop time so if you
would… This will be the last comment.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor (unintelligible), two things; one I'd
like to see some wording in here that relates to the benefit component
of clearly - I think there's identifying research that shows that when
you have a safer workforce not only are they more productive but you
actually save money and then back to Mark's comment or request for
anything else that we would want OSHA to take care of, that would be one
of the other impacts we would like to make sure that's included in any
study or any research.

	Thank you.

Rick Ingram:	So with that, thank you for staying late. Thanks for all of
the discussion and we're at a good place to be able to finish up
tomorrow morning. So thank you so much for your dedication. Start at
8:30 again tomorrow morning.

Man:	Stop the record for the comps…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	We're stopping the recording for the day, thank you.

((Crosstalk))

Coordinator:	Thank you for joining today's conference, that does
conclude the call at this time. All participants may disconnect.

END

NWX-DOL OSHA

Moderator: Gretta Jameson