(Bill):	I'm not talking about the front horn; I'm talking more in the
rear.

Victor Stagnaro:	…right, this is Victor, That's a mechanism used to
communicate with the driver in the front of the tiller, truck and for
the tiller driver to communicate. Not for the purposes of ensuring or
checking to make sure that people are out of the way when you're backing
up. Although, the driver would use that to indicate to the driver, stop
the fire truck, so I get that. I think…

(Bill):	Not an exclusion.

Victor Stagnaro: Yes, right, the purpose of the horn is for that
communication to occur between the two.

(Chris Tremlin):	This is (Chris). Not all the machines today - I mean,
not if you're talking directly about fire apparatus, we talk about
construction equipment that might be on the job. They are getting more
popular, the back-up cameras, but they're not on - they might not be on
every machine you see today. If that's going to be a - is that a mandate
that every machine has to have a back-up camera or just…

((Crosstalk))

(Chris Tremlin):	At least one of those, okay.

Man:	Standard operating procedure to have one of them

(Chris Tremlin):	On, this is (Chris) again. In emergency situations, now
speaking to the first responders in the room, in those particular
incidences, are there spotters that will work with the different pieces
of equipment on the job?

((Crosstalk))

Pat Morrison:	This is Pat. There supposed to be.

(Chris Tremlin):	Supposed to be, okay.

Bill Warren:	This is Bill Warren. Let me just tell you, my experience
has been, is that - (Matt) is exactly right. Most the fire department,
in particular this fire department, has all specific to require a
spotter for every time you back up. What I've seen is that policy is a
lot different than practice. If you leave it to the humans, they'll
leave that out. We have had fatalities as a result of backing an
apparatus over, or you back over a firefighter who doesn’t see it
coming and there's no backup alarm, there's no audible warning that
tells them, I am making this maneuver.

	Therefore, we've seen a lot. In fact I investigated one to where a
firefighter was killed as a result of a backup. Where the apparatus
backed 150 feet up and caught him in between his ambulance and the
firefighting truck. My concern is if we just leave it to the spotter,
even though I think that’s the best way to do it, I still think we
have to have alternative ways to ensure that we do protect those guys,
because you can't see in the back on some of those machines.

(Chris Tremlin):	No, and like somebody mentioned before, the certain
machine depending on what's going on, you know, if they back into a pile
or whatever sometimes the backup alarms do get clogged and they fail. I
mean, it’s a mechanical device so they do fail. Just to be aware of
that.

(Matt Debut):	I agree with you, (Chris), I think the best way to do is
always have a spotter.

(Bill):	Yes. We have a real simple backing practice that we use. Did I
submit that to you guys to consider for adding as an appendix
(unintelligible)? I know we got a long list already but it's very simple
and it's very effective and we use it all across the industry all the
time. We have pretty large equipment with towing rigs et cetera that we
roll around. (Unintelligible).

(Danny):	This is (Danny). Absolutely. The other thing is that the agency
and the construction area is going to be looking at backing operations
in more detail. There's going to be a lot more stuff coming out of that.
I think that by the time we're done with this there will be a lot more
on that.

(Andy):	Maybe we'd like to use it as well.

(Danny):	(Andy), I'm hoping that they also - not only as construction
for backing issues but backup culture and general industry. We've
experienced already several backing fatalities in agriculture. We are
absolutely aware of that and we've done some guidance on backing in
agricultural operations but we don’t really have standards that apply.
There's a whole bunch of political and legal reasons why we don't cover
a lot of those, you know, ag operations. We have those guidance models
because it's been a problem.

((Crosstalk))

(Ken Botno):	We're good? I heard somebody.

(Chris Tremlin):	This is (Chris), I believe that there is one of the
last safety and health meetings back over the - for the past year. OSHA
is supposed be starting to maybe form a committee regarding backovers in
the construction industry, is that correct?

Man:	That's correct, that's out of our directive of construction. And
when we are tangentially involved in it.

Man:	Are we moving on?

Man:	I think we can move on.

Man:	Okay (unintelligible) the thing (unintelligible) about the design
built and intended without a seat belt. But just sort of add a note as a
reminder for us to think, if we wanted to add in there that it's for the
vehicles that are built without seat belts. Manufactured. Okay.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Golf carts. Electric carts or something like that.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I'm making myself a (unintelligible). I'll go to the other note and
make that change. So, and then we have we mentioned with the SRT for
when it's not feasible for them to be belted when they're - we included
parades and for vehicles without seatbelts and those with
(unintelligible) note.

Man:	Can I ask a question? What's the intent of alternative mean? I
wasn't here for that part of the discussion. I just want to try to
understand. (Unintelligible).

Man:	If they cannot be in a seat with a seat belt there is either - for
example a speed restriction or they wear a harness that's secured to the
vehicle (unintelligible).

Man:	Okay, thank you.

Man:	Be careful what you say not because you could be in the next news
article at (unintelligible).

Man:	Don't forget Easter bunny.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	And then just above (unintelligible) say the TPD, we moved that
somewhere else. On the PPE section, I'm going to recommend that we
completely skip that for right now because one of the subgroup of the
(unintelligible) meeting is tasked with looking at that again, so let's
maybe we can let them take a look at it and match it up with E and we'll
look at it tomorrow after they finish that work tonight, right? Come on
Victor.

Man:	So we're skipping over preemptive plan.

Man:	Because we have to look at it all, so let them do that and - it has
- what's in there is all the changes that were made - that I made based
on what you recommended at the May meeting, so I will - especially for
this part, I'll accept all the changes and then so they know what they
had to start with based on your recommendation from the last meeting,
and then they can make recommendations on top of that or to that based
on what, in theory, where we would be now.

Man:	So my one point to the team that's going to be working on that is,
you know, reading through this it goes right into (unintelligible)
locations, etc. develop, but does it say this is to be used
(unintelligible) develop this and for use prior to - develop it prior to
incidents to be able to respond to incidents. So I think that
(unintelligible) a really good lead in sentence would help
(unintelligible). Because you know, as I understand how these things
evolve and everybody has done a great job with it, but give us a little
bit of context before you go right into it. What the (PIP) is, etc.

	I think you know, maybe starting with the definition there. You know,
maybe restating the definition a little bit or referring to them.

Man:	(Unintelligible). Just make a note of I'd like to see maybe number
five moved up to - not five but V moved up to II, because it's kind of
four down and it's really the crux of the matter. It's on Page 23. Roman
numeral V. If we could consider moving it to double I or Roman numeral
II. It's really important. It needs to be up there. And also remove - to
the extent feasible, I think it should say shall do it.

Man:	That was just a note for (unintelligible).

Man:	Let's take this to Paragraph L, emergency incidents, standard
operating procedures. You asked that I included that they are - like we
had the flexible (unintelligible) further down and we moved it to the
front. It will be right up to the top. Here's another community or
facility that we will resolve once we work out that key section in E.
Looks like (unintelligible). So 2 just moved up from 4. Repositioned
that. Three is the procedure beyond here, establishing what they're
going to do when they can't do anything or if it's beyond their
capability.

	And evacuation procedures - this was a drop and run. Emergency
evacuation from dangerous situation. (Unintelligible) for responding to
May Day situation.

Man:	Can I ask a quick question? You've got evacuation in 3 and then
you've got evacuation in 5. So it seems like those are the same thing,
and if they're not we should describe how they're different.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	What's the difference between the different evacuation procedures
when an incident may become too hazardous or procedures for emergency
evacuation of responders?

Man:	Well, Number 4 was the place is going to blow up and so get the
heck out. And Number 5, I agree it needs to be re-worded, but that's the
fire is out of control, back out of the house, let's go back outside,
surround the ground for a while and reconvene and you know, re-establish
what we want to do, as opposed to 4 is what they should have done in
West Texas which is drop and run.

Man:	(Unintelligible) is the orderly removal of crews, transition from
offensive to defensive, orderly removal and the other is jump out the
window because (unintelligible). So I think this probably should be in
the same provision. So for example, shall develop operating procedures
that include one, transition from offensive to defensive operation and
orderly withdrawal and then two immediate evacuation or whatever the
term is because I understand the need for the different procedures and
we should make clear what the difference is.

Man:	Maybe we could have Victor's group look at that too.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	Thanks (Matt). All right, so this is as I said earlier, we had
basically we put 6 in there for spotting a May Day situation and
(unintelligible) and then 7 establish (unintelligible) procedures for
rapid intervention team but we also have rapid intervention team - rapid
intervention has its own section. Its own paragraph, rather. And so then
6, so we really kind of need it in one place but go ahead.

Man:	So on 6 and 7 the only part that I'm concerned about here is our
procedures for finding May Days different than rapid intervention teams
or do we use the rapid intervention team to respond to May Day situation
is issue number one. You know, is it one or two provisions.

	And then the second one is some language description/discussion about
how this is different than is what in the two in two out provision and
already contained in 134, because we want to make sure that we're clear
where there's overlap and where there's difference.

(Matt Debut):	This is (Matt). I agree and I'm willing to take a stab at
some language that addresses those two. The reason I was
(unintelligible) was because the only way we get (unintelligible)
responding to those situations is if we have an SOP that identifies what
a fire code is supposed to do when they find themselves lost
(unintelligible) out of area and need assistance or something like that.
Meaning, we need to define what a May Day situation is and the
expectation that that is the term that we want people to use.

Man:	We take out the word responding and it's for May Day and that's
what is it …

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Right because the responding to May Day is what made it seem to me
like overlap with the rapid intervention teams and the two in two out.

Man:	(Randy), were you here this morning when we discussed the
definition for rapid intervention?

(Randy):	No, I was not.

Man:	(Unintelligible) because it very specifically (unintelligible) that
was the conversation yesterday was that rapid intervention is not the
same thing as two-in two-out. And beating the two-in two-out provision
of (unintelligible) 134 is different than rapid intervention, which is a
team of individuals together (unintelligible).

Man:	We developed overnight - we developed a definition for rapid
intervention team, notice that the very last piece of it says it's not
the same as the two-in/two-out, specific - or maybe should say a
separate specific requirement. But we also said we would - we were okay
with it for the time being and we would kind of revisit after we talked
about the rapid intervention stuff this afternoon.

Man:	One thing that we're going to discuss this afternoon at the
(unintelligible) was the staffing we thought would be appropriate to the
size of the incident. As opposed to a specific number. I think we're
kind of hung up on the number.

Man:	(Unintelligible) we started with it here. There is a separate
requirement for two in and two out later on in the document.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So your intention if I'm getting this is that in doing the rapid
intervention team theory, you have also met your requirements under two
in two out but this just goes above and beyond two in two out?

Man:	That's exactly right. And I'm more concerned about the reverse. I
don't want - I don't think DSO should live under the mistaken belief
that if they've met their requirement for two in two out, that they've
met the requirement for rapid intervention. Because those are two
totally different things. So if they have a RIT team in place, you know,
a team of personnel that, you know, that that could be the requirement
for two-in two-out. But meeting two-in two-out doesn't mean you've met
the requirements for rapid intervention.

	And my immediate (unintelligible) let me give the best example I can.
An entry company arrives on location with four personnel dressed,
equipped, ready to go and they happen to be the second arriving engine
and they are the engine being used to meet the two in two out, they also
could serve as a RIT team throughout the entire event, assuming that the
complexity of the incident is not beyond that of our (unintelligible).
But is the second arriving engine has two people and that's your two-out
for the first driving engine company, those two people don't constitute
a RIT team for the balance of the event. If you put ten emergency
responders into the (unintelligible).

Man:	Right. So the question in my mind is given the two-in two-out
already exists, what are you required to do above and beyond two-in
two-out for every incident in the country? Under this provision for RIT.
That's the key distinction in my mind because that is what people are
going to ask - what do I need to do above and beyond? What incident
needs to be covered?

	And our economists are going to figure out costs and other stuff with
going above and beyond two-in two-out. And it's got to be something that
is clear, you know, this group thinks it's necessary and is practicable
or feasible directly. It's feasible, you know, for all the departments
so (unintelligible) become standard at all of the events that you
described it being appropriate for.

Man:	All right, we can just go ahead with this. I think that is going to
be part of the discussion that comes up under N3 on Page 28 under
incident safety, because that's where we try to talk about - and we have
not looked at that at all yet as a group. That's where the two-in
two-out information kind of appears in this document but we haven't
gotten there and what we're talking about now is just making sure that
they establish - we're in a standard operating procedure section and
establish standard operating procedure for having a rapid intervention
team.

Man:	Right, and so but I think while we're in this formative place where
you're developing the policies and procedures before you get to the
using it you've still got to have a very clear concept - the group needs
to have a very clear concept of what do we mean by rapid intervention
team and how is it above and beyond two-in two-out? And then you can
work on implementing it under the incident safety section.

(Matt Debut):	Right, so this is (Matt). I'll offer that the difference
would be that a rapid intervention team or responders.

Man:	I think I heard (Ken) say before he's hung up on these numbers and
we don't want to have numbers …

(Ken Botno):	(Matt) is hung up on it first.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I'm going to be brutally honest. This is going to be a very
controversial position. Two-in two-out was already a huge
(unintelligible).

Man:	It is probably by fire service. I mean (unintelligible) in the
application (unintelligible) with good reason but the issues - so when
we heard from (unintelligible) our state plan folks, the issues around
two-in two-out and staffing were some of the biggest reasons why they
are concerned about this ruling or this potential ruling, because they
took a lot of hits from their local jurisdiction and they got two guys
from the state who can talk about that.

	But (Joe), I want to be very clear - and I'm not saying that the group
should or should not, I'm just saying that if you are heading in this
direction, it should be a very clear articulated explanation of what we
mean or what the group means and why it's necessary because this is
going to be a flashpoint issue in this ruling. I mean, I'm not trying to
say do or don't. I'm just trying to say be very clear about what you
mean so that everybody understands.

Man:	For discussion sake because, you know, (Andy) is absolutely right,
perhaps in my mind two-out is the support people for the first initial
hose line at an incident. A rescue team, whatever. Based on the first
resources you get and a RIT team is a more formalized group that has
proper equipment and you know, they're trained in it and such and I'm
trying to figure out what is a good definition of each, so we'll know
what to think when we're talking about that.

	So like for instance in two-out, I believe -- and I could be wrong --
the incident commander can serve as one of the two-out people.
(Unintelligible) operator, too, which technically on a RIT team, that
would fly. Somewhere it falls between the stager incident, which is the
immediate starting of it and the complexity of this and how big it gets,
how many people inside the building. And I don't know if it's ever been
established -- and maybe there's no way to do it -- what's a tipping
point? Maybe upon arrival of sufficient resources you formally staff the
RIT. But in hours, it needs to be done as soon as possible for that
first back up of the hose line.

	I'm just putting it out there - it's thinking out loud more than a
positional on anything. Asking you know, for other people what do you
think on that. What is the difference?

Man:	(Unintelligible) discuss what you have four-in and four-out. You
have two-in two-out so my math says if you got four-in you could have
four-out. So once again I think we're going to try to address that
because once you have ten-in, two-out is probably not enough.

Man:	And again, there are a couple of issues to all of this. And one of
them is staffing from a - and is this a staffing issue. And then the
other one is a cost issue. And so our economists will say okay, if you
need X many more people on every fire department to run, you know, a
2000 square foot fire hose that goes beyond the first two engines, where
it would just have two inch (unintelligible) they're going to say they
need X many more thousand fire fighters in the country at 50,000 bucks a
pop annual salary and benefits and you know, you just added $1 billion
to the cost of the pool which now - we're not going anywhere.

	So you know, there's a lot of different issues because we have to do
cost/benefit analysis. That is one of the biggest things that hangs is
cost/benefit. So I just - and we are happy to consider whatever the
committee wants to recommend to the agency. I just want to make sure
that it is a very clear explanation and again, an understanding of
two-in two-out is easy to say every interior fire needs two-in two-out.
Does every other response in the country require fire response require
rapid intervention? It goes beyond two-in/two-out. And if so, what does
that look like?

((Crosstalk))

(Matt Debut):	This is (Matt). I'm actually okay with the language on
Page 29. If everyone turns to Page 29 and looks at the middle of the
page. The standard operating procedures section was earlier but this
language I believe (unintelligible). Right (unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

(Andy):	My observation would be that - I mean we could either move 6
over to the SOP section or reference you know, as referenced in
(unintelligible).

Man:	So I think the way that six is written that it's written broadly
enough that as OSHA people, what we would inspect if we would come in
and say do you have written standard operating procedures for rapid
intervention that allows each department a tremendous amount of
flexibility to figure out what their procedures are, and then the second
part of it was in the event we were (unintelligible) incident we would
say, did you follow your own procedures? And I think that's something
that would be easy for us to live with from a regulatory perspective if
that's what this group thinks would be appropriate from a technical
perspective to accomplish the goals of rapid intervention.

Man:	And (Andy) this is (Ken). Maybe a disclaimer at the end of that
first I. Maybe the number of responders needed for the team based on the
size and complexity of the incident. I feel better about that because if
not, a lot of people will say well I have two people as my RIT team, you
got a hundred guys fighting the fire. That doesn't meet the intent. So I
would submit that it should be based on this and then they'd have to
fall on common sense and best practices after that.

	If you've got a large building with two attached, two sectors working
and two divisions to the call, you're going to need more than one team
and more than two people in each team.

Man:	I stepped out and came back in and I'm looking at this one
(unintelligible) to keep them on scope so cliff water rescue for
instance, and I think you all have written this in a way that it would
work for just about any event. Although referencing the NFPA, it's still
work for other events like swift water.

Man:	Well and this is not really directly referencing NFPA. This is our
internal team notation to show where that language and concept came
from, so when you actually (unintelligible) were these (unintelligible).

Man:	That won't be in there (Ken).

Man: 	No that won't be there at all, except where we have these specific
citations to a specific standard and (unintelligible) 1971
(unintelligible) 2016 edition.

Man:	Those are just temporary references.

Man:	These are just temporary references for everybody to understand
that we didn't pull this out of thin air.

Man:	Okay so where we are now, (Matt), we have an action item that you
were going to clarify and differentiate between 5 and - I'm sorry, 6 and
7 on Page 24.

Man:	Yes, I believe the first one was just that first action item was
differentiate between 4 and 5 and then the second action item was
differentiate between 6 and 7. At this point, my recommendation would be
to leave the action item for cleaning up between 4 and 5, leave 6 and to
be more clearly defined and I think the issue about number 7 is simply
whether or not to take it out completely or refer to in accordance with
section M. In other words, we could say that establishes, implements, an
SOP in accordance with (unintelligible). (Andy) what's your - is there a
need or a reason to cross-reference this into (unintelligible) six which
calls for the establishment of SOP?

(Andy):	What I would say is all the places where you want to have
standard operating procedures should be in a standard operating
procedures section. So I would support moving the rapid intervention
stuff (unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Move up so that the (unintelligible) written procedures and then
what you want to do in the incident management section is as
appropriate, the incident commander shall implement those procedures or
when necessary shall implement the standard operating procedures
(unintelligible) intervention team.

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill Hamilton. When six and seven appeared after
the last meeting because there were a couple things I guess that came
up. I wrote them in here but what I should have remembered and reminded
at that time is we had some of the stuff later on to document, we just
hadn't gotten to it. And the (unintelligible) operations we had were at
least initially were essentially kind of basic. If we look back through
this thing, there are SOPs that litter this document and, you know, one
earlier was an SOP for all alternative means of securing people to
apparatus when they can't sit in that seat. So I'm just trying to think,
instead of moving all of the …

Man:	So at a minimum I think all of the ones that deal with incident
scene safety and emergency operation should be in this one section. So
you know, where we have the driver and a vehicle stops that's kind of
its own self-contained section so it makes sense to have everything
there, but when you have emergency incident standard operating
procedures and anything that is standard operating procedure for use in
an emergency incident probably should be there so that you know, here's
my section that says potentially here is the 20 SOPs I developed for my
department. And then really the emergency operation section - that
Section N is all about using the standard operating procedures that
you've already developed. Does that make sense to everybody? A couple of
nods?

(Matt Debut):	Yes, I just - this is (Matt). I just think we'll need to
expand the emergency into the standard operating procedure section to
that number and it can just be bullets. You know, it could be in
bulleted format. You know, the following SOPs need to be promulgated
within the ESO.

Man:	Right, right. And this is something I think you know, we can do in
between. I think the important thing is identify what are the standard
operating procedures that we think need to be developed and implemented
and then we'll figure out how to get it into the right text in the right
way.

Bill Hamilton:	And (Bill Hampton) playing devil's advocate, just going
back to the vehicle operations right here on Page 21, 2(i) does not
include the term SOP but 2(ii) includes the term SOP. So for emergency
and non-emergency response to (unintelligible) that would be the
emergency section? Emergency incident, standard operating procedure
would this be (unintelligible) moved?

Man:	I would say that I think that's the type of thing we can discuss
later. I think that's a detail. I think we all agree that there needs to
be those procedures, as long as they're somewhere in the document for
now we can figure out how to group them later.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I mean I think from when we were developing the emergency incident
standard operating procedure section, that was first engine to the first
corps, second engine, backup line. You know, that kind of thing is what
we were considering not really trying to include one - we intentionally
tried to spread out all the others to be when you looked for stuff about
vehicles, there's what you need to know about vehicles. When you looked
at things for other (unintelligible) for risk (unintelligible).

(Matt Debut):	This is (Matt). You could likely in very short terms and
very generic terms list the SOPs, and SOP addressing incident
management, an SOP addressing vehicle operations, an SOP addressing
rapid intervention. And then the details can be in the individual
section. I don't think that that …

Man:	I was going to compile a list in one area and then reference to the
others.

Man:	Correct.

Man:	Okay and with that, what I think is an excellent suggestion,
(Matt), we can take a break? Get a little coffee and stretch. So it's
2:10.

Man:	I think we stopped that at M but (Bill) just wanted to make a
comment before we …

(Bill):	Just going back to the horn, so I did want to say
(unintelligible) was correct, in that the construction standard
specifically allows for minimum standard, either back up alarm or
spotter and so I just wanted to clarify to the group that I had
forgotten that part of it and was probably thinking of my Navy policy
work requires the use of a horn prior to backing. So I wanted to get
that record corrected for (unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Can you all hear me? I couldn't hear myself, but I'm partially
deaf.

	So I think we're starting on Section M, is that correct (Bill)?

(Bill):	Yes, bottom of Page 24.

Man:	So you want to take it?

(Bill):	No. This is where we ended in our May meeting and so we've not
discussed this yet.

Man:	Okay.

(Bill):	Would you like me to take it?

Man:	Okay so let's take a look at Section M as in Mary, incident
management. So the info show to adopt or develop and writing and
implement an incident management system to manage all emergency
incidents based on the type and level of services established in
Paragraph E. The IMS shall provide structure and coordination to the
management of emergency incident operations to provide for the safety
and health of responders involved in those activities. Boy I like that.
That's a technical term. Boy I like that. That's from Arkansas we say
that a lot. We also use cold beer every once in a while.

	So any comments? Would everybody like time to read through this section
rather than have me read the entire thing, and then - so why don't we
read through Page 24 and 25 and we'll take comments. Is that okay?
Anybody have comments, just raise your hand. Okay, (Ron).

(Ron Gravdienero):	This is (Ron). If we have it in 4 that the IMS shall
be compatible with (NIMS) and (unintelligible) we probably should have
that right up in front. If you're going to do this (unintelligible) it
will be consistent with the (unintelligible).

Man:	Okay. Would you suggest that we have that as 1(i).

(Ron Gravdienero):	That or you can incorporate it in the first
paragraph, writing implement management systems that are consistent with
(NIMS) and the (NRS). Dot, dot, dot .

Man:	Okay. Any comments on that? That makes sense to me. Just combine
the two sentences. Go ahead.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	I can tell when the gears are turning. Either that or he's saying a
prayer, I don't know. I think (Bill) is the one that needs to say the
prayer, though. Anybody else got - we have to have a little comedy here
in the afternoon to keep us going.

Man:	I would recommend - I think we've had issues previously with
multiple part sentences. I would definitely support moving number 4 up
to number 2 and let number 2 become 3 and 4 and so forth. I think the
sentence the IMS shall be compatible with the national info management
system and the national response "shall be compatible", I think is
critical.

	That takes away the flexibility for people to say well it doesn't have
to be or should be. I think that "shall be compatible" is critical. I
would offer that it's absolutely important and perhaps it should be
number 2 in the section.

Man:	So shall be compatible. Is compatible - reflect or just compatible?

Man:	Compatible. I think compatibility means it can integrate into and
with the national incident management system and national response
framework. There may be jurisdictional differences in terminology but
from a larger perspective it needs to be compatible so they can
integrate.

Man:	Okay. Let's go to - since we're looking at Number 4, let's also
turn the page and look at Number 5 and see if that one should go up
there with that at the same time. We could make …

Man:	I'm okay with that staying where it is. I mean staying where it is.
I think the idea was it's an effort to try to elevate the recognition of
whatever IMS is establishes is compatible.

Man:	Okay. So we have okay Lisa?

Lisa Delaney:	Maybe I'm missing that meaning of Number 2, but to me 1
and 2 seem very similar in intent and I wonder if there's a way to merge
them. They’re still referencing there adoption, development, running
and implementation and then 2 that talks about design or sort of
referring back to that Section E of type and level of service. So unless
I'm missing the subtlety of 2, I think there's a way to combine them to
streamline.

Man:	We want to contemplate that for a second and see how we feel about
it? So the language seems pretty good here but we're just talking about
maybe combining a little bit and taking out a little bit of redundancy
and reordering.

Man:	If I could point out the little I, each responder shall be trained
on the IMS because that's already in on Page 16. In the training
section, you have training responder to incident management system and
accountability system implemented in accordance with Paragraph L and
ensure, etc. So there's already that training section, just a more
appropriate place for it.

Man:	Any other comments? So we have a suggestion to move 4 up and
possibly remove I and combine 1 and 2. Victor?

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes this is Victor. Back to your request for us to look
at Number 5 and if I look at Number 3, Number 3 discussed communication
for effective operation and Number 5 discusses (unintelligible)
information to responders and notification of (unintelligible) so I'm
wondering if that's also an area where there could be some merging
because we're talking about communication so that way, all the
communication portions stays in one area.

Man:	Okay.

(Greg):	It's (Greg). Out of respect to all my colleagues here I know
incident management is implemented not only during emergencies but to
capture those - just thinking about, I mean I know there's a handoff
point sometimes where we may - our formalities may have left the fire
grounds or that operation for whatever it is and where I'm going with
that is like in Number 1, when you say that the IMS shall provide
structure and coordination to the management of emergency incident
operations to provide for the safety and health of responders involved
and those activities.

	So we want to consider I mean in addition to emergency, just other
operations? I'm just throwing that out there because you know, at times
we've got things that are going on there that may be contractors or
something may not be functioning. I'm just offering that up for
discussion. I'm okay with everything we've got in here but does this
need to be more far reaching? I don't know. Am I making sense or not?
You all are not going to hurt my feelings with that you say.

(Randy):	This is (Randy). I think you're making sense and we talked
about this at one of the earlier meetings. I think we want to be careful
about picking and choosing. You know, this doesn't have to be everything
under the sun. And I hate to say this, but you know, one of the
controlling issues is cost/benefit analysis and so if we don't have
people that are being hurt, you know, at these sorts of incidents, I
would say leave it out. If there are particular cases where you think
people are being hurt and there is a need for us to do something, then I
think it's worth considering.

Man:	I'm thinking probably more organization and smooth flow of things
(Andy) probably presents more of a threat (unintelligible).

Man:	Okay. Any other comments?

(Ken Botno):	(Ken) again. I'm just kind of going over and over 6, Roman
numeral I. The word capability kind of stumbles me in that sentence. For
a couple of reasons, but in particular a lot times we say the first
person arriving on a scene shall assume command and sometimes that
person doesn’t have a high degree of experience and training and such.
And then we have a list of things that they shall have the capability to
do.

	I'm just a little bit - reading that over and over and seeing it, A,
maybe we could just remove the word capability. I'm okay with the word
authority, I think that's fine. Capability is a little bit hard to
measure and also depends upon who shows up and whether or not they've
established (unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Just in response to that (Ken) I absolutely hear what you're
saying. I think that perhaps an alternate word would be the IT shall
have the qualification and authority. And the reason why I say that is
because we addressed earlier in the training standard that crew leaders
shall be trained to - consistent with the standard of 1021 and I do
think that whoever gets on the radio and assumes and announces that they
have command of an incident should have the qualifications to do so.

	I would offer in addition to that, that the implementation of an
incident accident report is usually directly implementation to approve
the incident action plan. If you follow that the IMT world, the incident
management team world, the implement commander approves the IAC.

Man:	So improve and implement? Approve and implement? Or just approve?
He's also going to be implementing, right?

Man:	Right.

Man:	Approve and implement. Okay. So let's just for the sake of
productivity, let's not go past 6 right now. So if you're reading past
6, stop. So we've got several action items just through here for right
now so let's get this cleared up first. Since this is fresh on
everybody's mind, in 6(i) do we want to replace capability with
qualifications? Does that make sense to everybody? Anybody disagree with
that?

Man:	I'm good because even if firefighter one and two we
(unintelligible) it out using the IMS so I think we're okay there.

Man:	So, (Bill)?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Again, qualifications means something. Maybe training? Shall have
the training and authority to perform.

Man:	Training is experience, also in OSHA language.

Man:	Training can be a lot of things but I think we've already covered
training in our training section.

Man:	Okay. Does anybody have any comments on that? So (Bill), does
everybody agree remove capability because that's a relative term and add
training?

Man:	I would support that.

Man:	I support that.

Man:	So (Bill), do you want to do that now? We will block that out and
then on I(c) approve and implement the incident action plan. Do we have
any heartburn with that?

Man:	Would we consider or implement. There are two things - on a small
incident there will be an informal IEP (unintelligible) and on an even
with multi shifts, there will be a formal (unintelligible) planning. So
the way it says right here it's a little bit different because I see on
a big event, we might implement the IEP. I mean (unintelligible)
operations, it will take care of that. I don't know how we can
straighten it out a little bit.

(Matt Debut):	This - that's what I was actually - this is (Matt).
(Unintelligible) getting to that they actually approve the IEP. Not
implement.

Man:	They might on a small event though. That's why I say approve,
implement, or approve or implement.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So how about approve and implement as appropriate. Can we say that?

Man:	I would prefer to say approve or implement.

Man:	Approve or implement. Okay. Okay.

Man:	So they're approving the plan coming from planning on a big event
or they're implementing it on you know (unintelligible).

Man:	Could be say approve/implement. Can't approve that, okay. That's
how we do it in the wool patch. Okay. So that was bad. Can we strike
that? I'll be able to come back. Okay so are we good with that? Approve
or implement? Okay.

	Now let's go back to Page 25 again now. So we have several suggestions.
The simplest one might be to remove (i). 1(i). Can we get a consensus on
removing 1(i). Do we have anybody that disagrees with that?

Man:	That is covered elsewhere.

Man:	So strike 1(i) (Bill). Thank you very much. And now we've had two
other suggestions. One was somehow combine the language so we've got two
suggestions - one was combine the language in 1 and 2 and then also
consider combining language from 2 and 5 --

Man:	Three and 5.

Man:	Is that 3 and 5?

Man:	Three and 5.

Man:	Three and 5, my mistake. And then also moving 4 up to 2. So …

Man:	Four up to 1.

Man:	Up to 1, yes. Well I think it was just after - that's where I had
my arrow pointing. So okay, so let's take them one step at a time. Where
would we like number 4. The IMS shall be compatible with national
incident management system and the national response framework. Tell me
where you'd like to see that you experts.

Man:	We're looking to consolidate 2, 3 and 5 or 4, maybe make them
bullet points under 1 with the first bullet point being that it be
(unintelligible) NRF framework. The first bullet point and then take the
components of 2 and communications part and make bullet points out of
those. It takes away all those other numbers.

Man:	Okay. So the suggestion is to move number 4 to just under number 1
is that correct? First of all.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	I think you could make it (i). We can't really do bullet points in
the federal register.

Man:	Okay.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(I) would be a good fit because it's the first thing you look at.

Man:	All right.

Man:	And then you could address the communications as (ii) and do you
know, (unintelligible).

Man:	So we'll just replace the language in the current (i) with the
language in number 4. Does that make sense to everybody? Okay we're
seeing nodding heads in the affirmative. So (Bill), would you do that
and then we'll work on the rest of it. Do a methodical change here. All
right?

Man:	I would recommend that could be (i). I would recommend that the
next sentence what is currently number 2 could be (i), (ii), 3 could be
(iii) and …

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, so now we have not addressed - okay, I'll let you finish
that. So now we've not addressed Lisa's suggestion that we somehow
combine the language between 1 and 2. Can we look at…

Rick Ingram:	Oh.

Lisa Delaney:	So, yes, one thing you can do, if you just delete one of
the references to that Subparagraph E. So either in Section One where
you talk about based on the type and level of surface, you can just
delete that (unintelligible) section and Double I, and then in a little
more detail in terms of what else is mentioned there, operating
environment, foreseeable incidents, et cetera if you want to keep that.

Rick Ingram:	Yes, so the question would be then, in my mind, does it
belong in one or Double One? So, if we're going to mention it, we'll
mention it in one place, and that would be the more prominent place in
the Number One, would that not be correct, Lisa? That would be setting
the stage upfront to say that you're going to reference Section E here
in this related to the Management Section. That make sense? Okay, could
you say yes for the record?

Lisa Delaney:	Yes. Okay, I'm thinking.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

Lisa Delaney:	I don't know if we're introducing too many topics in one,
but I think that it's - I don't know what the difference is between
adopting and developing IMS based on the type and level of surface
versus what's in the old Part Two, talks about designing, you know, the
same as developing.

	But what you're adding with the second paragraph, which is now Double
One, it's drilling down a little deeper in terms of it's not just the
type and level of service. Some additional information is added here
that I don't know if it's beneficial to keep or can we make it a little
more generic and keep it with referencing Paragraph E.

(Mac):	This is (Mac). Theoretically, you could really delete all of two,
all of II. Just delete it all because the overarching statement in
Number One is that the (ESO) shall adopt or develop in running an
incident management system to manage all emergency instances, all.

Rick Ingram: 	Yes, that's what I was thinking as well. So could we get a
consensus on deleting the current II?

(Mac):	If I could make just another comment. I don't develop these kinds
of plans, but the question I have is would it be possible that an
organization, (ESO) would have some kind of boiler plate or template
that they are kind of cutting and pasting rather than to actually
develop it?

	So, I see this in other standards, that you have to have a written
program, et cetera, and it's usually not that specific. What two does is
drills down a little deeper and tells the regulated community that your
IMS has to have these helps or these components. So, it's given them a
little more instruction. For those who know, maybe it's a no-brainer or,
you know, for new (regs), maybe it's just giving them just a little bit
more instruction about what the expectation is.

Lisa Delaney:	Maybe the word, meet, is too general. Maybe it should be,
address. Address a particular specific characteristic because I think
that (Lauren) is right, that under one, it could be just very general
and not state much (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	So let me, I want to throw this out to the group if you
don't mind. The only difference that I see between One and Two is that
we're including size and complexity, as well as the operating
environment for foreseeable incidents. And then it goes right back into
E, the same exact language. Couldn't we take those comments and put them
in one and cover everything? That way you've got your details that
(Lamont) was mentioning and (Jenny) and we can do it, we can get rid of
the entire sentence. Go ahead, Victor.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. Let me throw a monkey wrench in there.
If we include as this includes Paragraph E of this section and we also
go back to the pre-incident plan for those particular facilities or
properties where you had to develop a special pre-incident plan, then
that would address kind of what (Lamont) was mentioning too in regards
to particular properties that may be unique that require special
attention. And it goes back to that pre-incident plan component.

((Crosstalk))

(Mac):	I mean that could be a small iii. If you leave the II in place
and just say, the IMS shall address the particular characteristics of
incidents based on. Take designed to meet or shall address, take out the
B designed to meet, and just say, shall address, would be an option.
That would allow that to stay and then do an iii, and it should be that,
the IMS shall be in accordance with any site-specific pre-incident plans
developed for the location.

Rick Ingram:	That makes sense to me. Does that make sense to you?

Lisa Delaney:	It does seem like there should be some reference to the
pre-incident plan because, otherwise, like, what was the point of it?
You want to take that into account. I don't know if they have to be, in
accordance with, because maybe there's new information and a certain
sense of change, but some language that says that it will, you know,
utilize the (PIP).

Rick Ingram:	Should reference, okay. (Lamar), does that make sense to
you?

((Crosstalk))

Lisa Delaney:	I mean you might take that thing off the shelf and look at
it (unintelligible) I would imagine…

Rick Ingram:	That's right.

Lisa Delaney:	…but you are the (unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Lisa Delaney:	…based on logic.

Rick Ingram:	Well, I think I play devil's advocate in terms of, like,
getting more granular on to the IMS structure for a specific incident. I
mean, the IMS is supposed to be flexible and scalable, so I don't know
why we need to go into this level of detail, and this is not probably
even an exhaustive list.

(Andy):	Just building off what Lisa said, I think if you have something
that's (NIMS)-compliant, that's kind of covered all the rest of it
because in order to be (NIMS)-compliant, we need something that's going
to be scalable to (unintelligible). Right.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, so do we have any suggestions for language here?
(Bill) is ready to type, I think. (Bill), do you have any comments or
suggestions to add to this?

(Bill):	Nope. I will say that you can see that we pulled a lot of it
from (NFTA) and they were all, you know, separate things. And it is
supposed to be, you know, an overall system for everything that the
(ESO) could, you know, encounter as an overarching way of managing
incidents (unintelligible) and to some extent being, you know, somewhat
general but including, you know, these specific things. And again, we
can just pull it from (NFTA) and if we want to delete it, we can delete
it.

Man:	This cannot - I think it's a necessary component, but I'm not sure
it's in the right place. It looks more like an operational statement
than an administrative statement. It might be a better fit on Page 27
under One I, under Emergency Operations, and (unintelligible) that the
IMS shall meet the particular characteristic of incidents, it's a better
fit because it's more operational there than it maybe would be in the
prior section of Incident Management.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. So I'm taking away one of your gold stars because you
(unintelligible), so.

Man:	I might take one of (Grady's). I really believe there should be a
statement in there, but I'm not sure if it's a good fit in
Administration because it's just too narrow. It's talking about
foreseeable incidents and things. You're not going to know what it's
going to look like until you get there.

(Bill):	Okay, and I just want to say, the comment I made, I'm not sold,
you know, enough on it that it's, you know, considering what (Andy)
mentioned about it has to comply with (NIMS) and that'll cover
everything, you know, I'm fine with that.

Rick Ingram:	And I'll say one thing, I do think that this would be a
great place to mention pre-incident plan because that's really what
we're talking about, the IMS shall address particular characteristics of
incidents based on.

(Mac):	And if you put it that way and it becomes more administrative and
it can just (unintelligible) need to an event, but if you put that in
there, that clarifies it too. I'm good with that way also. And just,
words meant to say it reflects the assessment we did or whatever.

Rick Ingram:	That's what we're doing. We're tying it all back to the
pre-incident plan.

(Mac):	And that's what we're trying to do (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	Okay. Is that as clear as mud to everybody? Good
discussion. Now let's put some words on paper. So what are we going to
put here? Can we reach a consensus on this? Do we want that granularity,
size and complexity operating environment for foreseeable incidents or
do we…

(Mac):	I would have put, based on the community or facility risk
analysis…

Rick Ingram:	Yes.

(Mac):	…and that kind of takes care of all of the complexity and all
of the other where-ifs and where-fores. And that goes back to E anyway
because that's what Section E is. We mentioned Section E in the first
sentence, right?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is (Vic). You will want to include Section K then,
which is the pre-incident planning...

Rick Ingram:	That's right.

Victor Stagnaro:	…E and K.

Rick Ingram:	Yes. Why don't we do that? And that way, we're referencing
E and K and that gets all of our granularity? OSHA forgot to pay the
light bill.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	So if we, in Number One, would that be an appropriate place
to still mention Section E and K? So would that take care of our issue
here? Would that give us the reference that we need? It might be a
little bit cryptic, but it's there. That would be the - any suggestions
there? Any questions? Again, it's a democracy, and (Lamont), you said
you'd be okay either way?

(Lamont):	(Unintelligible). Could you just review what we're getting
ready to (unintelligible) if you don't mind?

Rick Ingram:	Okay, so we've got a reference to E already in Number One.
That one has not changed at all, and if we add a reference to K, and
that would be pre-incident planning, then that fits very well with
incidents management.

(Lamont):	Okay.

Rick Ingram:	That would allow us to delete double I.

(Bill):	Right. So, what I typed into, 1. For Your Consideration, says,
The (ESO) shall adopt and develop in writing and implement management
system to manage all emergency incidents based on the type of level of
surfaces established in Paragraph E of this Section. And the
pre-incident plan developed in accordance with Paragraph Ten - I'm going
to have to put in this section)…

Rick Ingram:	Okay, right.

(Bill):	…and then, so that's what you're asking for, something like
that?

Rick Ingram:	Yes. Go ahead and finish the sentence. You said the IMS
shall provide structure…

(Bill):	The IMS shall provide structure and coordination to the
management of the Emergency Incidents Operations to provide for the
safety and health of responders involved in those activities.

Rick Ingram:	Does anybody have any heartburn with that? And then we
would be deleting II. So first of all, is One okay as read?

(Group): 	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. And now, can we all agree to delete II? Okay, we see
heads nodding in the affirmative.

(Group):	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	All right. So that takes care of that (Bill). All right?
And now we'll move on to three, which is now II. So the original Three
is now II. The IMS shall - and we did move, yes, we moved Four up to one
I. Now three has become two I. The IMS shall consist of interactive
components that provide the basis for clear communication and effective
operations.

	And then it goes on to say what those components are. And then that
will take us straight into the current Five, which is also Transmit
Information, which goes along with Communication. So how does everybody
feel about II now? And…

Grady DeVilbiss:	Hey, Rick? This is Grady (unintelligible). Are you,
you're talking about II, The IMS shall include the following?

Rick Ingram:	Yes.

Grady DeVilbiss:	I just wondered, should we…

Rick Ingram:	Oh, wait. I'm sorry.

(Bill):	II is now, The IMS shall consist of interactive components that
provide the basis for clear communication and effective operations.

Rick Ingram:	Yes. In your text, that would've been three before. Okay?

((Crosstalk))

Grady DeVilbiss:	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	And then under II we would have, Components shall include
as applicable based on the type of surfaces established in Paragraph E
of this section.

Grady DeVilbiss:	That would become A, (Bill)?

Rick Ingram:	Yes, probably.

(Bill):	It becomes A.

Rick Ingram:	Now, could we combine those?

Lisa Delaney:	So, I have a question about combining. The IMS shall be
compatible with (NIMS) and the (NRS). The components that are then
lifted, aren't those parts of (NIMS)? So could you make that - what we
currently have is II - make that Two? And then, kind of move everything
over because that's going to be one big long section…

Rick.	Yes. That would be good, yes. The Double I could actually be Two.
Is that what you're saying?

Lisa Delaney: 	Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Rick Ingram:	Yes. That simplifies it for us too. And then, under that,
Components shall include. And then we're okay. Is everybody okay with
that list? Does everybody agree so far?

Victor Stagnaro:	I'm okay with it, but as Grady said, I just, I raised
the question because, again, maybe getting in the weeds, but, you know,
a lot of times those that we come back and (unintelligible) control,
those are optional. So I don’t know if we want to put, be so, like,
shall include. You know, sometimes we're, like, (unintelligible) is - if
you have a need to fill that slot and you don't have to. I just, I'm
getting in the weeds here, I understand that. Should we use, shall
include or shall consider?

Rick Ingram:	Well it does say, as applicable, based on the type and
level of surfaces. So, as applicable, gives you, kind of a back door
there.

Victor Stagnaro:	I must have missed that. I'm sorry.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Okay. That makes me feel better for yesterday. So,
Component shall include as applicable based on the type and level of
surfaces established in Paragraph E of this section. Common terminology,
modular organization, and I'll ask, since that's part of (NIMS), do we
need all that detail? And I'm just throwing that out there…

((Crosstalk))

(Mac):	Well, the only thing that I would say is that needs to be
compatible and if an organization decides to develop its own incident
management system, I think this provides them guidance with the major
areas that we want them to address.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

(Mac):	Because (NIMS) has, you know, many sections, (unintelligible) has
many sections, I think, at a minimum what we're saying is, these are the
things that your incident management system needs to include.

Rick Ingram:	And is that a comprehensive minimal list? Or are we
(unintelligible), because the only problem - and I've said this in past
meetings - when we make a list, so we do not want to say, but not
limited to, unless this is the comprehensive list that would be
referenced in (NIMS). See what I mean?

(Mac):	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	So.

((Crosstalk))

(Mac):	Confer to (Andy) on whether or not it needs to say, at a minimum.

Victor Stagnaro:	…or, not limited to.

(Mac):	Right. I think either way, at a minimum, or, not limited to...

Victor Stagnaro:	Right.

(Mac):	…are functionally the same thing.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. As applicable, and, not limited to, were based on,
we're adding another sentence after this (unintelligible). Okay.

(Mac):	And again, it's good to point out that this is development and
not operational, so this is building your plan, so these components
should be addressed in the plan. Whether or not to use them, that's a
different ballgame. But part of the plan should have these.

Rick Ingram:	All right. Okay. So are we all good with that through
Double I, now? Or are we all just so tired, we're giving up now? Okay.
(Unintelligible). Well, we're getting it We're making progress.

	So now, let's go on to Number Five. That would be Number Three last
time.

(Kathy Robinson):	Rick?

Rick Ingram:	Yes.

(Kathy Robinson):	Could you just go back up a little? That sentence
reads really weird. Components shall include but not limited to as
applicable based on the type and level of the surfaces established in
Paragraph E of this section.

Rick Ingram:	Should not be (unintelligible) or do you think that would
help? (Unintelligible).

(Mac):	Components of the IMS.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. Shall include but not be limited to the following.
Yes. So now if we do that, then we'd take out the, as applicable, so. I
agree with you, (Kathy), I was having some heartburn with that too.

((Crosstalk))

(Bill):	Okay, so then what are we changing?

(Kathy Robinson):	No, that…

Rick Ingram:	Can we just type a second sentence there?

(Bill):	 At a minimum the following.

((Crosstalk))

(Bill):	At a minimum, as applicable based on the type...

(Kathy Robinson):	Can't be (unintelligible) the minimum.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Mac), you can tell them.

(Mac):	But, is this one of those issues that you guys could, you know,
work it out, the words? I think you get the idea of what the intent is,
or no?

(Kathy Robinson):	Well what he is saying is that we need to decide
whether - does everybody have (unintelligible) available or we just keep
which (unintelligible)?

(Mac): 	The intent of an IMS system needs to have these things.

(Kathy Robinson):	Okay.

((Crosstalk))

(Mac):	The application of these things is (unintelligible), maybe, you
know, to the extent to that it is (unintelligible). This is a
description of what an IMS needs to have in order to be an IMS.

(Kathy Robinson):	Okay, so, as applicable (unintelligible).

(Andy):	Right, so yes, this is (Andy). I would get rid of the as
applicable, because in clause number one. At the beginning you say that
it is written and implemented based on the type and level of service.
Everything that flows from that at the beginning of this paragraph is
based on the type of level of service.

Man:	Yes, I think you only need to say that once right.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Can strike it from the whole rest of that. Anything else that
(unintelligible).

Man:	Put your colon there and delete.

(Ken Botno):	In reality, those words are not necessary because the, how
much you use doesn’t matter your designing the whole thing.

Man:	Okay, how does that look to everybody? Okay. All right, so we have
a consensus there? (Kathy), do you like that better or after we got one
thumbs up from (Kathy), anybody else?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	All right.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I think we're, so are we ready to go onto the next one, is
everybody happy? (Andy), are you happy?

(Andy):	I'm always happy.

Man:	(Andy)'s happy, all right. Okay, so number, the current number
five. Okay.

(Ron Gravdienero):	Hold on, back up there because we had it in there, as
the, this will include but not be limited to the following function
(unintelligible) safety. One of those, maybe not at first but somewhere
in there. Maybe safety.

Man:	Okay, that the (unintelligible). I know when (Andy)…

((Crosstalk))

(Kathy Robinson):	Are these our components?

Man:	Yes, we do have ten, in IMS, we have safety officer in there. I
think that might be implied, I don’t know.

Man:	Says that operation procedures we'll (unintelligible) safety
(unintelligible) in the next section. I know that we haven’t had the
safety options

((Crosstalk))

Man:	It's okay.

((Crosstalk))

(Ron Gravdienero): 	What you could say is, you could change functioning
(unintelligible). Facing is actually a general staff function, which
commanded general staff. Command staff, what you're saying there are the
general staff. Command staff for the individuals that work for the
commander of safety, TIO, liaison, three functions that work directly to
the end of the command.

(Ken Botno):	Three staff officer's functions.

(Andy):	Right, staff but their staff. They work directly for command.

Man:	Could, so I don’t, I know we don’t want change any audible
language in IMS but could we say clear safe or clear communication and
safe and effective operations?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor, I think if you go back to one, it says,
shall provide short term coordination to the management or mercy
(unintelligible) operations to provide for the safety and health of
responders. Again, I think it's one of those areas that it all flows
from that. If safety is addressed it's an integral part of it.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes, I think it's just a recommendation, I think later on actually
document and talk about the requirement to assign a safety officer on
every (unintelligible). I think we're addressing that kind of stuff.

Man:	(Ron), I want to say thanks for bringing it up since I am a safety
and health professional so I appreciate that.

((Crosstalk))

Victor Stagnaro:	It really is a job security for you guys.

Man:	It is. It really is.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Ron), we'll talk later and franchise for tomorrow, okay.

(Ken Botno):	Good discussion, if we wanted to just really, and I'm kind
of thinking about what (Ron) was saying. We'd really wanted to make it
obvious there we could add a triple line instead the IMS
(unintelligible) include but not be limited to the following step. Then
you could list safety PIO and liaison. That put safety up there and has
to reporting to plan.

(Andy):	Isn't that part of the unified command structure?

(Ken Botno):	It's part of IMS.

((Crosstalk))

(Ken Botno):	Well I really wanted to clear it up.

Man: 	Let me, I'm going to make a comment here. I think that just having
Nimes in IMS here covers us on so many things already. That I think that
if we try to add too much to this it's just going to be redundant. With
all due respect, are we okay with this as is then? But thanks for that
(Ken), good comment. Let's go onto, if it's all right with everybody ad
you all stop me if you need to. Let's go to number five so we can - thou
may shall establish standard terminology to transmit information to
responders, including strategic modes of operation. Situation reports,
emergency notifications of eminent hazards.

Man:	Is that not covered by common standard terminology
(unintelligible)?

Man:	Honestly, I think it would be but.

Man:	That sounds to me like explanatory language of what standard
terminology is when we were putting a summary in exclamations.

Man:	I would vote to delete that. I felt that, do we have any other
thoughts on that? All of this is important, everything is important. We
decide what stays and what goes. Same thing with six actually but.

Woman: 	I think it's redundant and if it can be put in a preamble
explanatory text somewhere else then it's making this, it's streamlining
this.

Man:	Yes. All right, anybody, is everybody okay with deleting that?

Kurt Voigt:	This is Kurt, the only thing that I see in this, in the
slide as appose to the other. Is that this is standard terminology to
transmit information. It's talking about a standard process to transmit
information to responders. Whether it be impending weather reports,
anything, those types of things. As appose to just generally and maybe,
maybe worded horribly but just actually standard problem terminology.
What the transmitted certain amount of information in a standard manner.

Man:	Let me suggest that, what's actually required here is you shall
establish standard terminology. Then the terminology is around what you
would need to transmit which is all wrapped in that stuff. I think that
that’s already probably covered in the common standard terminology
before. You could just explain, you know, EG and then include the
strategic modes of operation, situational reports, etc. is what your
communicating with standard terminology.

(Ken Botno):	I think you just defined both, separately.

Man:	Standard terminology is that you need.

(Andy):	Yes, we get the meaning of it yes.

Man:	I guess what I'm saying is that it's written poorly but one set of
standard terminology throughout the IMS system. This one is speaking to
transmitting that information in a standard manner.

Man:	Right, so would it be better to say, back on the other one, common
standard terminology for operational information? Perhaps and then this
is kind of the explanation of what operational information is or?

Woman:	Terminology (unintelligible).

Man:	That might be away from this. Okay so what's the suggestion here so
we can keep it going. I don’t know what time it is.

(Ken Botno):	3:30.

Man:	Let me suggest that back in, I don’t remember what news number is
but, in 3IA. was this common standard terminology that we amend that to
standard common terminology for operational information.

(Andy):	Sure, I'd buy that. I'll take, yes. For incident information.
Then strike all of five.

Man:	Those make sense to everybody? Okay, I think we can finish this
before 4 o'clock. Do we have any, are we going to have any public
comments. I noticed you walked in are you going to be commenting?

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	Okay. I couldn’t see your name tag from here. Okay, so we're
striking, we're adding language and adding five. Did you get that done
(Bill), I wasn't (unintelligible). All right, so let's go to six. For
you folks that are familiar with this, with the inspect command, inspect
commander. Do we have any comments on this? Does this make sense as is?
I know we had changed C if I'm not mistaken earlier. Now six would
become what number, okay, five, okay. Do we have any comments on that?

	Okay, how about five or roman numeral one. We changed some of that
language already, so are we don’t with roman numeral, one. Go ahead.

Man:	do we need six?

Man:	Okay.

(Ken Botno): 	If we're following IMS and NIMS, that’s pretty straight
forward. If you look it up it’s going to tell you what the duties and
names of manager or if you actually need to make this list all
inclusive. Should just, I'm wondering do we actually even need that and
what if only on command, you know, there only function that we've
addressed we haven’t touched on (unintelligible) other functions,
that’s not logical.

Man:	Is (Jim).

(Ken Botno): 	(Andy), I might have missed a reasoning why it's in there
(unintelligible).

Man:	Yes, that's a great challenge to (unintelligible) thanks. Do we
need this portion? Do we need to restate it basically?

Bill Hamilton:	I think, this is Bill Hamilton, I think on the one hand
if you're talking about, you know, a fire department (unintelligible). I
don’t necessarily see a work place emergency response organization
going to NIMS to find out exactly what they need to do.

(Ken Botno): 	Emergency, a work place skill support worker supplier.

Man:	Not skilled support worker.

Man:	Industrial fire brigade. Trying to get the right term.

(Ken Botno):	I would venture to guess if they were to write an IMS plan
or plans to meet this it would probably research ad come up with the
(unintelligible). I'm open for anything.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

(Ken Botno):	Hospital for everything.

Man:	I really see (Ken)'s point here is that we're listing out the
instant commander but none of the other functions. That kind of makes me
scratch my head a bit.

(Matt Debut):	This is (Matt), the only thing I would offer is the thing
(unintelligible) position on the incident. That's as just one of the
issues that we have in past firefighter fatalities that neither no one
in command or we've had individuals who are in command that have no
understanding of what it means to be in command. I think that while it
seems intuitive and redundant to say, well we're following NIMS.
Everybody should know how NIMS works. The fire services performance,
this is the performance standard. The fire service performance is
traditionally been diverse.

Man:	So I've.

(Matt Debut): 	In its application of the incident after
(unintelligible). I would just offer that if, that the one thing that
this does do is, I think it elevates the importance of the incident
command position.

Man:	Can't the entire system?

(Matt Debut):	Correct.

Man:	Starts with the in.

(Matt Debut):	Correct.

((Crosstalk))

(Matt Debut):	(Ted)'s right, we're not eliminating anything else but at
the same time in the very

((Crosstalk))

(Matt Debut):	We do talk about the need to establish a safety officer
and theoretically that's, that could theoretically come out too, though
I would not explore it.

Man:	Yes, I wouldn't either because I…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay.

(Andy):	As a compromise position with shortening a bunch of text at the
beginning of six but leaving that list (unintelligible) training and
capability, or training authority. Does that get enough of the buck
stops here kind of sentiment math that you were looking at. Kind of
shortening up things a little bit, for you.

Man:	That's covered in some of the text, like activate resources and
that would be, you know, internal or external resources.

Woman:	(Unintelligible).

(Andy):	I would say yes; you should certainly keep the first seven. The
EFO shall then take responsibility of the incident commander. You know,
DIC, shall have the qualifications, training and (unintelligible).

Man:	Does it hurt to leave it?

(Kathy Robinson):	Yes, (Kathy), it doesn’t hurt to leave it, I'm
finding this whole section to be really cumbersome. If we can simplify
it in any way, I'm all for that.

Man:	Your vote would be to leave the first sentence or leave the entire
paragraph?

(Kathy Robinson):	Well, I know we're dealing with an issue with
renumbering on the official version on ours. I would actually delete
that whole I. That capability and authority that reform at least the
following. I just think a lot of these things are in some way addressed
by saying what the components should be. Do we have the authority to
authorize anybody on an incident site to determine response strategies.
I mean, it's just making it really complicated to me.

	On the previous page it has a lot of these things in there and again I
don’t think it hurts to leave it in I just think, I think it's
redundant.

Man:	Okay. Anybody else? Have an opinion? Doc 40, we got to keep
working, same dates. I have a cat story, if, we won't get this in the
record but I have this story that I could tell you. I usually do that
after lunch to wake everybody up. It's very funny but I'm going to
refrain from that since we have somebody writing on transcript. Okay.

Woman:	My group has just conveniently not worked for about 20 minutes.

Man:	That's all right, okay. I'll tell you that before we start
tomorrow, I'll tell you the cat story. Okay, so we have some different
views on this, we'll use, so I know (Bill)'s been saying, will it hurt.
So Bill Warren, the famous author says, will it hurt, will it help, or
will it make any difference at all. That's logic I usually use. Do we
want to take it out, leave it in, will it make any difference either
way. Could it benefit, let's say it this way, could it's staying it
benefit some organizations, (unintelligible).

	Okay, if it could benefit some of the EFO's and we're hearing this
affirmative from several of the experts. I would suggest that we leave
it in and leave it as is.

(Kathy Robinson):	How is this, I would just like to personally
understand how it's different from (unintelligible) including sections
on the functions, command operations, planning logistics, and finance.
I'm not seeing how it's enhancing that. Maybe it is just the end of the
day and I'm not…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	The first.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I'll take a stab at that. First one is, that it's talking about the
components of the incident management system. These are components of
the incident management system. The second system that we're talking
about now is the incident commander. Specifically, the incident
commander, as (Matt) said, that's the leader of the entire incident.

(Kathy Robinson):	I get that, I wasn’t seeing there NCO's, just
thinking it was all just on the same plain there.

Man:	No, that's okay.

Man:	That's a valid point. That's a good point.

Man:	Let me suggest, just I think once we (unintelligible) this list is
here. It's a failure to do just about all of these in actions. As in
some point (unintelligible) or serious injuries. I think that's why
there specifically called out.

(Kathy Robinson):	I can accept that.

Man:	All right, so it is 3:40. Let's a, and we're not going to have any
public comments. We got about 30 minutes. If we're good with this as is
and it sounds like a census now, leave it okay. Thanks (Kathy), though
for bringing it up, excellent. Number seven, which will now be some
other number. Each ESO shows available (unintelligible) implement mutual
laid agreement with other ESO's, do we like that?

(Andy):	Yes.

Man:	Let me offer a suggestion on (unintelligible). We talked about just
a little bit with the skill support (unintelligible). I think that this
action actually belongs back up in the front as your developing your
plan for your community. Figuring out what resources and services etc.
sometimes you're going to say, I need to get help for more incidence.
That's your mutual aid piece. Sometimes I need to get help for certain
incidence from a skilled support employer. That, these two things should
be in parallel up in the front as your planning for your community.

Man:	Your saying, move this to E.

Man:	Yes, so I think it's still there, I think there needs to be another
one that's in parallel for, to develop written and implied agreement
with skill support employers. For necessary services (unintelligible)
type of level, yada, yada, yada. Both of those belong up in your
planning document.

Man:	Move, so your suggestion is to move ELM seven to E, I'm going to
let the team take care of that. Do we have any…

Man:	Right and add a parallel one for skilled support employers.

Man:	Okay.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	All right. Does everybody agree with that? (Matt), I see the wheels
turning, does that work for you?

(Matt Debut):	Yes, I'm fine.

Man:	Okay, then that would take us, I would assume also, A and B, 8 or.

Man:	I think.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Mutual aid agreement.

(Andy): 	Yes, I think seven I (unintelligible) begin. That's the
liability services, that’s where like the planning. When you get into
some of the operational stuff, I think that maybe should be going here.
Where the ESO has mutual aid agreements, or agreements with. Skilled
support employers, they shall address, you know, infinite management
(unintelligible) shall address.

Man:	Okay. Your saying just to move.

((Crosstalk))

(Matt Debut):	Elm seven only up there.

(Andy):	Move seven I

Man:	And seven I. then two would become.

(Andy):	I'm debating because (unintelligible) seven. (Unintelligible)
level of service.

Man:	It's referring back to E anyway. I would think you could move all
of that.

(Andy):	Yes, actually maybe all of it could go.

Man:	I think all of it could.

(Andy):	Yes.

Man:	That would take us down to A, to establish a plan for sharing of
resources. That might be a, that might need to stay.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	A and B okay, so all of that would go up to E. Now we have eight,
want to ding that surge cord back resources on a regional level but
(unintelligible) Multi agency coordination systems. (Unintelligible)
coordination's systems update the (coordinational) support between other
ESO's and jurisdictions. That go into, that's, yes. Victor, since your
leading that team, would you take that one on as well?

Victor Stagnaro:	All seven (unintelligible).

Man:	All right, that takes us up to (Ian), emergency operations. That's
a good stopping point in my opinion.

Man:	Hey Rick?

Rick Ingram:	Yes.

Man:	I think I heard my subcommittee chair there. Victor and you, we're
going to take this (unintelligible) as well.

Rick Ingram:	(Unintelligible) chairman.

Man:	Yes, co-chairs.

((Crosstalk))

Victor Stagnaro:	Seven is probably really easy. I think that if you look
at seven you got mutual aid agreements. If you just take it with other
ESO's and skill support employers. As necessary, all of these things,
you know, are appropriate there. You talk about, or we talk about this
already. You know, legal issues, technical issues, cost. There's a whole
bunch of things that are already basically written there that are
applicable to either one. You could probably just take it, you know,
again, with other ESO's or SSE's and then just move it.

Man:	Well figure it out.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	As you do that Victor you're going to come up with a new title for
that section. (Unintelligible) emergency service capability.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Well, so what kind of time frame are you all going to need for
that?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Are you doing this thing tomorrow or after tomorrow, Friday?

Victor Stagnaro:	Well, I know that, this is Victor. I know that (Bill)
and his team is going to have first crack at doing some real relation,
all that. I think, you know, I want to give him some leeway or some
opportunities to feel it. Come in here, but as soon as that portion is
done then we can certainly start getting a subcommittee. Get some
conference calls and get everybody's opinions in there and have some
broader discussions.

(Kathy Robinson):	Are you trying to turn this into an action item?

Victor Stagnaro:	IT is an action item already.

(Kathy Robinson):	Okay.

Victor Stagnaro:	Just wanted to kind of get some kind of ideas over the
next few weeks.

Man:	Don’t worry about the view. Just keep loading the wagon I think,
somebody said.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	That takes us up to (Ian) again, emergency operations. Do we want
to take it over from there tomorrow (unintelligible)? All right, any
last thoughts from anybody?

(Andy):	Yes, let me foreshadow two discussions for tomorrow. Just so you
can, you know, put on your thinking caps. Issue number one is we're
going to have our economist talk a little bit about one of the handouts
that’s in your packet. Is the breakdown based on, you know, number of
responders in both career and volunteer, based on size of municipality?
We're going to need to have the discussion about, you know, again how
small is too small, particularly among volunteer community. Then how
should we address that.

	Is that a, you're not covered or is that a, if you're below a certain
size, certain provisions don’t apply and maybe alternate provisions
do. Maybe the medical section changes, because that's one of the big
ticket items. We don’t need to have decisions but we should have some
discussions, get a sense of what people are thinking about these. We're
going to need to write something that, and this is all building towards
eventually the Surefa process, which is that small business and small
entity prospect.

	We have the guy from the small business administration here yesterday.
Eventually we're all going to ask you all to give us names of small
departments and small volunteer departments around the country. To help
us tackle this question of how do you decide what's economically
feasible for small departments and draw some lines. Want to talk about
that a little bit. It's topic number one.

	Topic number two is we're going to give you a draft outline for what
the final report of this work group is going to be. After this meeting
concludes tomorrow. We're going to have to start writing some language
to make sure that you all are comfortable and have a chance to review.
This is the report that will go from this group to Nacosh. If there
issues or topics that you think you want to make sure are written down
and memorialized to capture this group's sentiment, so that it's in the
public record. The report is the place to do it.

	Well talk a little bit more tomorrow about the report and what the
process looks like going forward. Again we have between now and the next
meeting in September to make sure that we've got a draft report that
everybody is getting comfortable with. So that by the end of the
September meeting we have something that people can live with, support
and Rick and (Lemont) can carry forward to the full Nacosh. Just start
thinking about what you're going to want in the report. That's the other
topic for tomorrow.

(Ken Botno):	We did one on, or for the last Nacosh, I think about two or
three weeks ago. That went over pretty well, I think, it was brief, but
it went over pretty well. We've practiced a little already. We do want
you to have your say in this. You've done a lot of hard work.

Man:	Rick, this is (unintelligible). I have a request if it's possible
and not a great deal of work. I get totally lost in the document
sometimes as we're bouncing so many segments. Is it possible just to get
a very brief outline, even if it's just a major letters and see if they
flow one to the other? Oh I got one, never mind.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I hadn’t seen it, thank you Lisa. There goes my gold star.

Rick Ingram:	That's all right.

Man:	Yes, I was just having so much trouble and trying to figure out if
it's going the way we want it to. I see it now and I will pay attention
and look at it,

Rick Ingram:	There are a couple of sections we moved around there but…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Tomorrow we're not here right? We're in another.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Same room.

Man:	So much closer to the cafeteria.

Man:	Okay.

Man:	All right, so take your stuff with you.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	You all will take care of the name changes?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Hello? You're adjourned for today, hello.

END

NWX-DOL OSHA

Moderator: Gretta Jameson

07-13-16/3:11 pm CT

Confirmation # 9255920

Page   PAGE  \* MERGEFORMAT  1