<< Back to ACCSH: Meeting Minutes/Transcripts
|U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION SAFETY AND HEALTH (ACCSH)
Frances Perkins Building
Room N3437 A-D
Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Friday, March 16, 2001
|P R E S E N T
Stephen D. Cooper, Executive Director
International Association of Bridge,
Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers
1750 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Larry A. Edginton
Director of Safety and Health
International Union of Operating Engineers
1125 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Director of Safety and Health
United Union Roofers
Waterproofers & Allied Workers
1160 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Director, Safety and Health Department
International Brotherhood of Electrical
1125 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
William C. Rhoten
Director, Safety and Health Department
United Association of Journeymen &
of the United States & Canada
901 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Ahern & Associates, Inc.
5725 Kanawha Turnpike
South Charleston, West Virginia 25309
Vice President & Manager of Safety
And Health Services
5275 Westview Drive
Frederick, Maryland 21703-8306
Fretz Construction Company
P.O. Box 266784
Houston, Texas 77207-6784
Vice President Risk Control
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance
385 Washington Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Anzalone & Associates
12700 Foothill Boulevard
Sylmar, California 91324
Assistant Deputy Commissioner
Director of the Division of
Occupational Safety and Health
North Carolina Department of Labor
4 West Edenton Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Thomas A. Broderick
Construction Safety Council
4100 Madison Street
Hillside, Illinois 60612
Jane F. Williams
A-Z Safety Resources
4901 E. Kathleen Road
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
Marie Haring Sweeney, Ph.D.
Chief, Document Development Branch
Education and Information Division
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
Designated Federal Official:
Directorate of Construction
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
Robert Biersner, Esquire
U.S. Department of Labor
Assistant Commissioner, Maryland
Mr. Davis Layne
Acting Assistant Secretary
U.S. Department of Labor
Ms. Veneta Chatmon
Office of Public Affairs
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
R. Davis Layne
|ACCSH Procedures and Guidelines
|ACCSH Business (members)
| - Scheduling
- Travel Presentation
- Workgroup review (Assignments)
MR. KRUL: I know that many of you planned on this being a national holiday and have to work on the even of St. Patrick's Day, but we do have an agenda that will go to noon time. We hope to adjourn the meeting by noon. The Secretary will be here this morning to address us. Mr. Davis and Mr. Swanson have gone down to her office, and I suspect she'll be here around 9:30ish. When she comes in we'll try to finish whatever business is on the table and recognize the Secretary and have her address us. One announcement on the -- we're making a change on one of the workgroups. We're going to have Tom Broderick switch or replace Mr. Jim Ahern on the -- we're saying English as a Second Language Workgroup. We will change the name of that workgroup, I believe. But Tom Broderick will be assisting Marie and Felipe on that workgroup. Keith Goddard, are you here, sir?
MR. GODDARD: Yes.
MR. KRUL: Okay. Before I bring Keith up, Keith was going to address us in a public comment period yesterday. He could not make it. And I say again to those in the audience who would like to make any public comment, if you would submit your name, your affiliation and any subject that you wish to address and see that the Chairman gets it and we'll make a provision for time for public comment at the end. Keith is with the Maryland Secretary of Labor, Mr. O'Connor, who's a member of this committee's, office. And yesterday he had requested five to ten minutes in the public comment period to -- and I hope I get this acronym right -- OSHPA?
MR. GODDARD: OSHPA.
MR. KRUL: It's the Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association. Why don't you come up, Keith? Grab a microphone so we can hear you. And please state your name and your affiliation for the record.
MR. GODDARD: Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to address the group. My name is Keith Goddard. And I'm sort of sitting in for one of your new members, John O'Connor, who's my boss. I want to apologize for John's absence. We're in a critical time with our legislator being in session and he, as Secretary of Labor, he's fiercely guarding his budget. Extremely important matters before the General Assembly this year. I'm the Assistant Commissioner for the Maryland Occupational Safety and Health Program, so I administer that program. But I'm here to -- I asked for a few minutes to address the group on behalf of the 24 state plan state the Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association, which I serve on as chair for that association. That is a very active group that's controlled and governed by laws on a set of elected officers. And just sitting in here yesterday listening to a lot of your conversation what I'd like to do is share some of the significant differences that state plan states operate under as far as the differences between federal, OSHA, and state plan states. And for your newer members, sort of share some of the issues that are on the table before OSHPA and give you some sense and encourage you to engage OSHPA in some of the, say the Wansantee (ph) committee. Every single committee that you mentioned, the crane committee yesterday, we discuss those at our meetings and we have a lot of states that are actively pursuing agendas with gathering fatality statistics, dealing with cranes, almost every (unclear). Kevin Beauregard's representing OSHPA. His position here is he's your contact point. So he's not just here from North Carolina, he brings committee reports back to our meeting, and we'll have a meeting in June. But you talked about, yesterday, about engaging other entities. I think I'd like to encourage you to engage OSHPA in some of your discussions as far as your committee work is concerned. For the information of the newer members, I'm sure most of you -- quite a few of you operate in state plan states. I think there's a member over there from Arizona. So we have quite a bit going on where we have a representative from Arizona right now sitting with BLS on the C4 Codes Revision, which is going on right now. They're sort of parallel with your 170 committee. But there's an individual in the BLS program in Arizona that's going to represent OSHPA. So we are family. There are a lot of issues going on that I think it would behoove to sort of talk and at least share issues on. Just for the new members, I'd like you to know that state plan states operate under statutory authority in states. State law is a little bit different. We have different programs on federal OSHA. And this committee needs to be aware that states are not just laboratories for experimentation. But we have Washington State with an ergonomics standard now that's been in place. It's being challenged in the legislature right now. We have one in California. And we have issues that might come through the federal pipeline where we have a six monded (sp) option period. But we do amend federal regulations and standards as they come through to the state plan states. State plan states do 40 percent plus of the total national inspections, so it's not an entity that you want to ignore if you want to capture 170. I'll come back to the 170, I'm sorry. I'm not targeting your committee but it's not a group that you want to ignore if you want to capture the right information. We do do things differently. An example, a very current example is the OSHA 1 form where state plan states have historically been put in a check box about employee interviews and employee walk-arounds. That has not been historically a requirement on the federal 1 form, the OSHA 1 form. So state plan states, I would sort of be bias in saying that we are the leading edge. A lot of what we do sometimes we are not burdened by a lot of the federal requirements for rulemaking. And so one of the things that we're looking at that might be -- that would be of interest to this group also would be the adoption of SNRAC. You know, there are few states that automatically adopt federal standards. It's written in their law that they adopt federal standards verbatim when it happens. Most of us have to go through a hearing process. And many of amend those standards to be more stringent, and sometimes to be more effective. But we go through a hearing process that's important. So it's not -- and you're talking about half of the country doing things differently. So I just want to introduce us and introduce Kevin Beauregard as not just -- he's not North Carolina on this committee, he's representing OSHPA. So any questions that you have to him, we've tasked Kevin with bringing back to OSHPA the reports that you discuss at this meeting. So please feel free to engage him on our behalf. And I'm offering you, as Chair of OSHPA, the opportunity to invite us if you want at any point to address the group on any specific issue that you might have. There are multiple issues out there from a state plan state perspective that are different than federal OSHA. And when we meet in OSHPA we engage for OSHA to discuss some of these issues and differences because we all have one common agenda, which is protecting workers and doing it in a most effective way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. KRUL: Thank you, Keith. Questions? Owen and then Steve and Jane.
MR. SMITH: Speaking now not as a member of this committee but as a member of let's say the organized sector of the construction industry, we have a lot of heartburn with the way the recognition of these certificates, you know. We spend millions of dollars each year training our people to get a certificate. But if we cross a state line you guys say, "No. You've got to get our certificate." And all you really do is give a test for what we've already done and charge us $100 or $75 or whatever it is. And it's especially true for lead and asbestos and things of that nature. And from my point of view, and my people, and there's a lot of us, we feel that it's more a revenue enhancing scheme that really has nothing to do with safety, because we've already done our training. We have a certificate. We feel that if a guy takes a test, takes the training, takes the test, it ought to be good anywhere. We don't care what the -- we don't care what the regulation or what the rules are, just give us a standard, we'll train for it. But we don't want this other rigmarole. And since you're talking to all those guys, tell them that it's a big concern for us.
MR. GODDARD: Those two issues that you bring up are sensitive to me in Maryland as an administrative operand. Because lead in construction standard was way ahead of any federal OSHA standard or guidelines that came out, as well as our confined space. But what I want to share with you is that those two issues, lead and asbestos, are interwoven into our Maryland Department of Environment Regulations. So what you find with lead and asbestos, and we have seen some real challenges in terms of smaller contractors, lead abatement contractors, people who are dealing masonry pointing and resurfacing, refurbishing old buildings, is an extreme challenge for us because of the regulatory mandates that the environmental department and EPA impose in those two areas for lead abatement and treating asbestos. And a lot of these smaller contractors, beyond the fee for the testing, I think there's a burden of what does it cost you to capture that water blast material, put it in drums, label the drums. This is a discussion that I'm having with the small contractors that do that abatement in our state.
MR. KRUL: Can I interrupt for a second?
MR. GODDARD: Sure.
MR. KRUL: Let me try to pinpoint where he's going, and its reciprocity.
MR. GODDARD: Yeah, yeah.
MR. KRUL: And it's frustrating for contractors. This area is probably the best example; a contractor in Maryland, Virginia, or the District of Columbia has to go through three certification processes for both lead and asbestos. So that's six licenses that an individual has to get just in this area, as an example. That if a contractor is paying for that training he has to do that six times every time somebody goes in. And I think the question Owen is asking, to you and to Kevin, is that -- or is it Keith?
MR. GODDARD: I'm Keith.
MR. KRUL: You're Keith, he's Kevin. Is that you when you guys get to your next meeting, if the word reciprocity -- if there's a standard that says here's what you have to learn in order to be licensed to remove asbestos or lead, or any hazardous substance where there's a licensing requirement, why does each state, other than -- and we haven't had an answer other than it's a revenue generator -- why does each state not recognize another state when the training is exactly the same? There ought to be reciprocity so that we don't have that. And I'm taking up too much time here, but that's the point I think Owen's trying to get to. Steven and Jane.
MR. COOPER: Owen, this advisory committee has every opportunity and is required, to advise OSHA. There's a state and federal program office in this building that governs state -- the 24 state plans. The state plans are funded half and half normally, 50 percent by the federal dollar from this building and 50 percent by the state dollar. This board can take any action it would like to advise the state and federal program people here, to advise the states. And all these state plans meet, I don't know how often, quarterly at least. And a person -- if the chair or Mr. Swanson or whoever or Davis Layne -- could very easily have a representatives from this committee or through some of the department here address that particular program that -- which is -- and you're absolutely correct -- which needs to be looked at very heavily because of duplication. I love that word "reciprocity" too. But that really should be done through this committee, your problem.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
MR. KRUL: Owen, you've already won. Steve agrees with you.
MR. GODDARD: Mr. Chair?
MR. COOPER: You made a very good point in that we all forget, all of us do forget that there's 24, I think it's 24 state plans, which is almost half of the country. Right? And they do a lot of business, and we're always talking about federal OSHA and that's one of the best points I think you made. And the point I'd like to make. I know John O'Connor. And you tell him that Steve Cooper says that I understand that he had to watch the Maryland game yesterday.
MR. KRUL: Keith, did you want to respond to something?
MR. GODDARD: I just wanted to make a point to Mr. Smith here that I'm going to put that on the agenda for discussion at our next meeting. But the point I was making is that a lot of these licenses are interwoven with environmental departments and Maryland Home Improvement, which I have no jurisdiction over, which no state occupational safety and health program has the jurisdiction over to manipulate. But it certainly is an issue, a big part of the discussion on the financial burden on contractors. It wasn't the licensing so much. It's a current issue that we have with some of these smaller contractors. It's a burden of processing, the storage, disposal requirements of huge volumes always, or maintaining medical surveillance programs. A lot of these little contractors that are doing lead abatement in historic houses that have high profile jobs have paint from the 1700s that's packed with lead and have employees with -- they don't have lead medical surveillance programs. And we're in there trying to provide compliance assistance to them, and it's a huge financial burden. But I hear your point and we're going to put it on the agenda. And maybe we can come back through Kevin to say to you here's where -- one of the real challenges that we have in OSHPA is that you're dealing with 24 different statutory authorities that have different concepts, different stakeholders in each state. West of the Mississippi is different. And then you have California.
MR. KRUL: That was a good one in 50 shot there, Keith.
MR. GODDARD: But I'm encouraging this committee, I'm available. If you want I'm offering you to put us on the agenda if there's an issue that you'd like. We're going to put this on the agenda; we just did for our next meeting. We meet three times a year and we have more meetings scheduled before those meetings. We're very active. And I just thank you for the few minutes to introduce OSHPA to you.
MR. KRUL: We have a couple questions. Jane and then Kevin.
MR. GODDARD: First of all, sir, I really appreciate your comments. We have discussed state plan concerns within the 170 group as recent as this week. I totally will commit to you, based on my schedule, if you would let me know at any point in time those meetings would come with the discussion of 170 I would be more than willing to share with you our progress to date and where we're going and what our intents and hopes are for the success of that form. So I certainly welcome that information and will participate as best I can. And I will do so, as I understand from your comment. It would be best for me to go through Mr. Beauregard. And I'll make sure he has all my access numbers so he can contact me. Thank you.
MR. GODDARD: You're welcome.
MR. KRUL: Kevin.
MR. BEAUREGARD: I just wanted to quickly kind of follow up on what Keith said. When Owen was talking about reciprocal agreements, we certainly would be interested in looking at that. But I can't speak for the other states but North Carolina; all those certificates are administered out of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. And if this group wants to get some type of reciprocal agreement you're going to have to bring them to the table. And not only North Carolina's (unclear) but you're going to have to bring all 26 states. They're all housed in different areas, like Maryland's housed in a different area. And then you have to bring probably the federal Department of Environment and EPA into it because they all, like you were saying, OSHA gets funded from feds. Well those programs get funded from federal EPA and federal Department of Environment. So I think something can be worked out. But it's a little bit more complicated when you're dealing with 26 state plan states. And I think the concern of most states, the same with OSHA, would be are the requirements that are out there -- some states have more stringent requirements. And the state that has more stringent requirements is probably less likely to beg off. And North Carolina would be more than happy if everybody met North Carolina requirements to reciprocate that agreement or license. But if there was another state out there that had less stringent requirements that's where you're going to run into some problems, I think.
MR. KRUL: Owen.
MR. SMITH: This problem occurred because I had a call from the Brotherhood, I think it's New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, some bridges. And these guys were getting hit with these certificates from each one. I started with OSHA. OSHA and EPA have an agreement. And Jim Boom was kind enough to send me a copy of it so that I could give it to my people. Because I was so irritated that next month when our legislative people hit the Hill. If they're welcome we're going to see if we couldn't get one. I've got to tell you, I feel that our pockets are being picked.
MR. GODDARD: You know, I just want to say that those states, those three states you used as an example, is interesting because they're all essentially federal states. You know, New York state plan is just public sector. A brand new member to OSHPA, New Jersey, is just public sector. And Pennsylvania is public sector. So all the federal private employers that would be involved in those three states under federal OSHA jurisdiction. So it's just -- I just need to tell you that you have be aware of all these intricacies because I would have no jurisdiction to bring that out -- it'll be a federal OSHA issue. That's not a bureaucratic dodge, you know, to escape the conversation, because it happens in Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. as well, which is a sort of split jurisdictional metro area. But that's interesting, because those three states should be able to. But I still think it's not under the OSHA jurisdiction only. You get the Departments of Environment involved and that's a complicating factor.
MR. KRUL: Keith, we want to thank you.
MR. GODDARD: Okay.
MR. KRUL: You generated some conversation here that will cause the Chairman to take some action for another workgroup here. We appreciate you coming. And I give you a small apology for not paying too much attention, even though I live up that way, to the traffic problem that you couldn't stay till the end of the meeting yesterday. So my -- the Chairman's apologies to you. I understand how plugged the BW Parkway gets. Thank you for coming.
MR. GODDARD: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. KRUL: I'd like to make a suggestion or make appointments. I think this subject matter is a little bit complicated right now. The lead issue is an EPA issue, but it's being -- there's an attempt to toss it off completely to OSHA. And I don't know if we should get too involved in that. But I think it would be worthwhile to have a workgroup that would look at the state plan, the requirements for licensing, and make some recommendations back to OSHA. And Owen, Kevin, and Steve, if you would serve on that workgroup I think it would be beneficial?
MR. SWANSON: Three more volunteers, right?
MR. KRUL: Three more volunteers.
MR. SWANSON: I'm here to announce a coup. I was going to bring back the Secretary.
MR. KRUL: And?
MR. SWANSON: I have an Assistant Secretary instead. And this is my boss, the Acting Assistant Secretary for OSHA, Davis Layne. And he was going to make a few comments anyhow. And we'll bring you up to speed on why I am sans Secretary here. Okay?
MR. LAYNE: Well, thank you, Mr. Swanson and Mr. Chairman. I'm Davis Layne, currently the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. And my day job is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. I must say, Stewart, the term "acting" these days means much more to me than it used to.
MR. LAYNE: Yes, I appreciate that "acting" part. Let me bring you up to speed with the Secretary. Mr. Swanson and I just came from her office. She is -- an issue has come up that she has to deal with at this time. However, she's quite a lady. She says, "Bring them down." And she has extended an invitation to the committee. If you would be willing to come to her office for an informal meeting at 11:30 when you adjourn, if that would be acceptable to the committee.
MR. KRUL: I think that's a very gracious invitation.
MR. LAYNE: I thought you all may be willing to accept that invitation.
MR. SWANSON: And Steve can't make it.
MR. KRUL: Well then let me go through the exercise, at least for your benefit, of introducing myself and especially the newer members of this committee to you as the Acting Assistant Secretary.
MR. LAYNE: Thank you, sir.
MR. KRUL: I am Bob Krul with the Roofers International and Chairman of this committee.
MR. BIERSNER: Bob Biersner, advising attorney.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Stu Burkhammer.
MR. EDGINTON: Larry Edginton, Operating Engineer.
MR. SMITH: Owen Smith, Painters.
MS. WILLIAMS: Jane Williams.
MR. MURPHY: Dan Murphy.
MR. SWANSON: Dan, why don't you take a couple minutes -- the new members, if you'd be so kind. Just a couple minutes and give Davis a feel for who you are and why you're here. You, in particular.
MR. MURPHY: Certainly.
MR. LAYNE: This is not part of our new targeting program.
MR. MURPHY: My name is Dan Murphy. A little bit about my background. Quite a number of years ago I got a master's degree in this stuff called safety and entered into the work environment in the mining industry. And from there I went to the power plants. And from the power plants I worked for one of the larger contractors in the southwest. And that was up until about 12 years ago. And then I went to work for a company by the name of St. Paul Companies out of Minneapolis, St. Paul. And my job there is to help the numerous contractors that we provide insurance products to deal with the element of risk.
MR. LAYNE: Okay. Well welcome, Dan.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you.
MR. AHERN: My name is Jim Ahern. I'm a Heavy Highway Contractor from Charleston, West Virginia. The Heavy Highway Industry represented by the American Road and Transportation Builders Association is always concerned about the dual effort of morality and cost as it relates to safety and accidents. With the T21 funding expanding to spending in highway construction by approximately 40 percent during the current six-year window, there will be many, many more man-hours spent out on the highways. And we're concerned about reducing the frequency and the absolute numbers of accidents and not be paralleling the increase in funding. And that's why I'm here, to represent the highway industry to achieve that goal.
MR. LAYNE: Well, thank you. Welcome, Jim.
MR. BEAUREGARD: I'm Kevin Beauregard. I've known Davis for a long time. I can't get away from him. He used to be the Region 4 Regional Administrator, so I knew him back then. He's a great guy --
MR. LAYNE: Why, thank you, Kevin.
MR. BEAUREGARD: -- and I look forward to working with you.
MR. LAYNE: I appreciate that. I've enjoyed it as well.
MR. RHOTEN: Good morning. I'm Bill Rhoten with the Plumbers and Pipefitters International.
MR. MADEROS: Good morning. I'm Manny Maderos. I'm the Director of Safety and Health for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. I started my career in California 39 years ago working for a utility company in construction and then went to work for the local union. I started getting involved with outside line contractors. Came back to Washington, D.C., as an international representative in our international headquarters. I became a Director of Safety and Health a little over five years ago. I'm involved with the National Safety Council and the Labor Construction Utility Divisions. I'm on several ANSI standards committees and ASTM. As I told the committee yesterday, our organization got started over 110 years ago when one out of every two electrical workers were being killed on the job. And that we look forward to improving the conditions of our member's lives.
MR. LAYNE: Well, thank you. Welcome, Manny.
DR. SWEENEY: I'm Marie Haring Sweeney from NIOSH. Thank you for coming.
MR. DEVORA: Felipe Devora, Fretz Construction Company, Houston.
MR. BRODERICK: My name is Tom Broderick. I'm the Executive Director of two non-profit organizations: the Chicago Lane Construction Safety Council and the Construction Safety Council. I was a construction worker for many years, since the late '60s. In the late '70s got into occupational safety and health in the construction arena. I went back to school and got a graduate degree from the same alma mater as Dan Murphy; several years later, as a matter of fact. And it's a distinct honor on the part of my organization, and for me personally, to serve on this committee.
MR. LAYNE: Well, welcome.
MR. KRUL: And the Chairman took just the opposite road that Mr. Broderick took. I went to school and then dropped out and joined the Local 74 30 years ago. But served in several capacities, Chairman of the Building Construction Trades Department on ANSI A10 A14 committees. I also served for the Division of the National Erectors Association and National Maintenance Agreement Policy Committee and co-chair on their Safety and Health Committee. So it's something for my years in the trade both working at the International and at the Local union level, especially as an Apprentice Instructor Coordinator of Safety and Health has been very near and dear. And I appreciate serving not only on this committee but the honor of being the Chairman as well.
MR. LAYNE: Very well. Thank you. Welcome all of you. I would also like to thank our members who have been with us for a while for the hard work that all of you have done, many of you over the years, serving on the committee. You provide a very valuable guidance and assistance to the agency. Those of you that are new to the committee, I want to thank you for your willingness to participate. I mean it is not an easy thing to do. I know there are often times conflicting priorities back home. But all of you play a very, very important role in assisting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in improving the workplace for the construction industry. Also, I want to thank you in advance, the new members, for the hard work that's coming your way. I assure you Mr. Swanson is not hesitant to call upon the committee and the various subcommittees of ACCSH. I can assure you, as long as my tenure is here, whether it's one day, one month, one week, one year, or whatever it is, you will continue to receive my support. And many of you I've gotten to know over the years I consider as friends. So I want to thank you for that. Right now we are in a period of transition with the agency. I've had several opportunities to meet with the Secretary to talk to about occupational safety and health. She has expressed to me, expressed publicly in her comments concerning President Bush's budget in her welcoming ceremony here in the Department of Labor where she addressed the DOL employees as a group, she has assured us of her commitment to workplace safety and health along with the other responsibilities she has in the Labor Department. My experiences on a personal level with her and her team that she's putting together have been very positive. They're eager to learn about workplace safety and health issues. And to the person they have been very, very interested in focusing -- that the Department's resources are focused on improving workplace safety and health. So I'm very, very pleased by her public support of the agency. Right now where we'll be going in the future I'm just not real sure in terms of the leadership of the Agency, the Assistant Secretary's position is currently vacant. And that will be a Presidential appointee that is confirmed by the Senate. Until that time I'm charged with the responsibility to carry on. And I will do my best to serve you well. But I really, really want to thank the committee for your support. And you know, and some of you I know come from California, Texas, and it's hard for you to get in. And there's a lot of work that goes on in the subcommittees that you put into helping us. And my real, real purpose here today is to say thank you very much for your hard work. I will come back up around a few minutes after 11:00. Maybe we can arrange a photo op as well, if you all would be willing. I don't know. I haven't said a word to her. I don't know the answer to that, okay? But I just want to give you a heads up. I don't know if we can pull that off. But if you'd be willing, that would be nice. Any issues, Mr. Chairman? Questions?
MR. KRUL: Steven.
MR. LAYNE: Mr. Cooper.
MR. COOPER: We didn't hear your qualifications.
MR. LAYNE: How about, the only one left.
MR. COOPER: I can tell you, Davis, it's a pleasure to be working over these past few years with Davis. But he came up, Mr. Chairman, the same way you did, as a CSHO, which was nice to have someone who did that work. Knowledge is acquired in the field of endeavor, sir, and area director and regional administrator. And my only question to you this morning is I don't know how you -- what you did to have to be Acting, because that's a lot of extra work, and no more money. Those SES's, you know, are all about the same; three or four levels and then you're done.
MR. LAYNE: Hey, this is one of my favorite people right here.
MR. COOPER: But you do have a lot of stroke. And any time any of these department heads, you know, get a little funny with you -- although you're just acting -- you can IGA them out to any place you want to.
MR. LAYNE: Where should I start?
MR. COOPER: Well, I'll tell you this just for fun this morning. Bruce has -- either he's got us trained or we have him trained. But the Directorate is working very closely with us, and we do appreciate it.
MR. LAYNE: Well, thank you very much.
MR. COOPER: And I hope you don't have to be acting for very long.
MR. LAYNE: I thank you, Mr. Cooper. I share your hopes.
MR. KRUL: Anyone else? Owen?
MR. SMITH: I'd like to say that I'm really pleased to be a part of this committee. It's been a very interesting few years that I've been here and I look forward to my continued service. What I'd really like to say is that when I first came I had one opinion of OSHA and its people. And I must say that I have been very much impressed by the caliber of people working for the government, the dedication of all of them, and the cooperation that I've gotten. When I've needed something for people in the field I just call and ask them for it and they send it right off. And they seem to be on top of everything and are much more sensitive than I had ever anticipated. It gives me great joy when go out and speak to my people -- and I see a lot of them, let me tell you -- that I can tell them what my opinion of the job that you guys are doing. And I congratulate you and I really want to make OSHA much more user friendly. And I'm dedicated to it. And thanks a lot.
MR. LAYNE: Well, thank you, Owen. I really, really appreciate it.
MR. SWANSON: If you feel the urge you can do that again at 11:30, Owen.
MR. KRUL: Stu Burkhammer.
MR. LAYNE: And will share with you that the Secretary in my meetings with her and her transition staff have been very, very complimentary as well of the OSHA people. And she has experience in the federal government before and I think values the civil servant. And I've been very, very pleased with that.
MR. KRUL: Stu?
MR. BURKHAMMER: You know, Davis, you can look at Acting as a glass half empty or a glass half full. It's half full because you get to work with a lot of talented people --
MR. LAYNE: That's true.
MR. BURKHAMMER: -- and a lot of class acts. And it's half empty because you get to use a lot of Excedrin bottles along the way.
MR. LAYNE: Stewart, I took an approach. A number of people asked me. They said, "Well, are you going to bring down an Acting Deputy?" -- a number of the senior managers in the agency. And I said, "No, I'm not. You are all my Acting Deputies." So that's the way I feel. It makes my job much, much easier. I have a lot of internal support. Thank you.
MR. KRUL: Well, Davis, we thank you for coming down and sharing those remarks.
MR. LAYNE: All right.
MR. KRUL: I'd like to say, as well, that even though the term "acting" is attached to it, this gentlemen here who -- on my left, Mr. Burkhammer -- who did such a great job as the Acting Chairman of ACCSH, and the gentleman to my right, I do have to say we've made a couple references, historical references over the last day regarding ACCSH, its goal and its ability to work within the agency to do the advisory and counseling job that it was intended to do. And I can say that Mr. Burkhammer and Mr. Swanson have done yeoman's jobs of getting this committee focused back on what its intention and purpose was. My dealings with Bruce over the years have taught me that he's a straight shooter. He doesn't dance people around.
MR. LAYNE: Right.
MR. KRUL: Just good. Because if you ask my wife, I'm a terrible dancer. And I like that. I just like when somebody tells you what can and can't be done and there's no fluff attached to it. And I think that's the way this committee is destined to continue to function with the spirit of cooperation from labor, management, and the public sector. And we thank you for the opportunity to serve. And we thank you for the gracious invitation to come see the Secretary.
MR. LAYNE: Maybe, Mr. Swanson, it would be more appropriate just to, after you adjourn, to come down to the Assistant Secretary's office. And we would leave collectively down there. Would that be all right?
MR. SWANSON: Fine.
MR. LAYNE: Okay. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
MR. KRUL: Thank you very much, Davis.
MR. LAYNE: Committee members, thank you. It was nice to see all of you again.
MR. KRUL: Thanks for coming. Oh (unclear) and Kelly Green, are you ready to give your report on the procedures and guidelines for the committee?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to compliment the committee on all the St. Patty's attire in recognition of this Irish gal. Mr. Chairman, we began the Advisory Committee guidelines almost two years ago. It became apparent at our meeting, as we were re-chartered, if you will, that each of us had our own ideas as to what we were to be doing and how it was to be accomplished. But none of us truly, except some of the folks that had been here for a while, had a true understanding of what the criteria was for us to be responding within our limitations and/or abilities. So what we did, after making a few blunders, it was determined that we really should go back to what our charge was and explain to all of our members what we should be doing in response to those requirements placed upon us, fulfill these functions. So myself and Mr. Cooper and Mr. Swanson and Mr. Burkhammer started meeting and having various dialogues as to what we were doing within our workgroups, what the workgroups could and could not do, and the products, how they would be delivered from the workgroup and the decorum of all of our meetings what should and should not occur. As a result of that is the document in front of you, which went through six revisions. And that really was necessary to bring in all the do's and don'ts and understandings that we had to be responsive to. At our last meeting it truly was our final revision. And what you have in front of you was adopted with one opened idol (ph). In the back of the document you will see reference to the language of 29CFR 1912. And we had several discussions at the last meeting regarding quorum. So it was determined by the committee that I would go back into the document and reference the specific items of 1912 that refer to our task, and put that reference directly in the document so that no future conversations of revising would come forth and it would be very clear where our charge had come from. That's what I have done. I don't think -- I'm sure everyone read these. I will just go down some key issues that was a learning step for us, if you will. Most of the information, as you can see, regards the meeting, the decorum of the meeting, the standards in which it came from. If you go to page 4, Attendance By Members, that was a key issue for us to be responsive to. That should a member not be able to attend the member can turn his or her voting rights to another member representing their own interest. They can do that by advising the DFO. And the Assistant Secretary would determine whether there would be too many proxies, if you will, on such matters as to impede the nature of the business. So we put that specifically in there with references to the 1912 29 because we really got hung up in the last meeting as to that entire process. So it's very clear in there now for all members to read.
MR. DEVORA: Jane?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
MR. DEVORA: There's just a typo in the second line there.
MS. WILLIAMS: Where's that?
MR. DEVORA: It says, in the second line, it says, "manage." I think it should read, "may."
MR. KRUL: The second sentence.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. We'll pick that up in the final docket. The Directorate does, in fact, have these and we can certainly have them review them with me again to make sure -- we went through these word for word. We'll do that one more time. If you see any others, please let me know. Page 5 is the quorum that I just spoke about. It's important for you to look at that. The rest in that -- Meeting Conduct -- the key item, if you will, in there is the agenda issues. Sometimes when the workgroups are informal the members, the co-chairs can deviate at their discretion. But it is always appropriate to have an agenda format of some kind, which is what we've tried to identify in here. Motions was a key understanding for the committee. And we wanted to ensure that the person on the committee making a motion understood that they would have the right to speak first to the motion, because that person can often, many times, give an understanding as to intent of the motion. And it helps the committee get through the process of interpreting their intent. The Workgroup Meetings is clearly identified as to what we should and should not be doing. One of the key issues was on page 7, Workgroup Reports. It was important to acknowledge that only the ACCSH members in attendance at a workgroup are voting members of actions by the workgroup. The public is counseled and we certainly take into consideration their views. That's why we have the workgroups. To ensure we get as much information into our determining processes as best we can. But when it comes down to a vote on any issue, it would always be the actual ACCSH members who would do that. Another issue that came as a regard, the workgroup is only issues that are discussed in a formal workgroup setting that can be considered business of the workgroup and will come to the committee. If a chairman had a conversation with a representative or anyone else outside of an appropriate designated meeting, those discussions really could not be entered into ACCSH committee as part or a product of a workgroup. That's not to say that the workgroup chairs can schedule various types of workgroup meetings via e-mail, by conference call, by whatever nature best would suit that subject for that workgroup. But most of us have found that it's better to be sitting in a room and at the table because our meetings get rather lengthy and discussion really make it very difficult to accommodate some of these on the telephone. We clarified the Directorate of Construction, their assistance to us, our understanding of patience. Because those folks have a lot to do, so many times we cannot expect them to drop their assignments to facilitate us. But as has been pointed out repeatedly, the Directorate has been incredibly responsive to every workgroup that I'm aware of in the three years and have supported us with staff, with liaison efforts, documents, anything that we really needed to have we have been able to be accommodated by the Directorate, and we thank them. We list under item 6 those types of activities that they can, in fact, assist us with upon the chair's request of Mr. Swanson. And he then will take actions accordingly. If you notice with the Directorate issues there you will not see any word that says, "he will" do these things. We made sure all "wills" were out. Seven, the Introduction Package. I think the new members have already received most of these. This document satisfies several of the items that are intended in there. I would ask you to really concentrate too on the travel issues, as Bruce said. When we get through a meeting that has had no travel conflicts, and this could be one of those meetings, it's a big accomplishment. And we do attribute that totally to Mr. Boom as well as Veneta Chatmon in guiding us all and helping us all do these.
DR. SWEENEY: Jane, may I interject on here?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
DR. SWEENEY: I think there's -- on page 10, the fourth paragraph down -- it says, "members shall return their airline tickets." It's all e-ticketed now. So that might be a moot issue. The other recommendation I have is that probably we ought to put the Department of Labor's rules and guidance's on how vouchers ought to be done. And the timeframe in which they should be to the Department and the Department should reimburse individuals.
MS. WILLIAMS: We were going to make that part of this. It was determined that it would be a separate item and it will be covered later on in the meeting because it could change more easily than this document would change. And I believe Veneta's going to be passing either a packet of that information, and that's why we referenced it rather than include the information.
DR. SWEENEY: Well how about making the change that the voucher to the Department and the repayment be made in accordance to the Department of Labor travel rules and regulations? Because I think that's -- there's some issues there.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.
DR. SWEENEY: If you don't mind.
MS. WILLIAMS: No.
DR. SWEENEY: Thank you.
MS. WILLIAMS: I will do that. I'll work with Mr. Boom to ensure that gets in there. The issue, too, on e-ticket. Even though they are e-ticket, members can, in fact, and have gotten hard copy of their ticket. Because some people still have an issue with the e-ticket in the last minute and get a little nervous. So you can go -- and it is recommended -- to get a receipt and it does allow you, if we get out of a meeting earlier or later, to have more accessibility to changing flights if you need to. So let me reconsider possibly adding language that doesn't say that exactly but would give a clear understanding of the e-ticket process.
DR. SWEENEY: Right. Right. But on the very line of page 10 it says, "Only e-tickets are permitted." So you kind of have to go through that language to make it consistent.
MS. WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
DR. SWEENEY: Thank you.
MS. WILLIAMS: We'll do that. Then, Mr. Chairman, attached is the 29 CFR 1912 that was presented to us for inclusion and making it a part thereof of this document. I do not believe we have to have any action as this has already been adopted. However, it will go on the record to acknowledge that the requests of considerations. And if the committee so directs me, I will make those changes with the Directorate and we will have another completed document reissued. And it will be the last one for this Chairman.
MS. WILLIAMS: With all respect.
MR. KRUL: Stu?
MR. BURKHAMMER: Turn back to page 7.
MS. WILLIAMS: Seven.
MR. BURKHAMMER: I think it's important to note here, to the new members of the committee, the Workgroup Report Section. Over the years we've had a continual problem with workgroup reports: how they're prepared, how they're presented, how they're distributed. And Section B on page 7 was probably the one section that Jane and Steven and Bruce and I spent more time on than any because it's paramount that the co-chairs understand this section. And especially the part about what you hand out and when you hand it out. So, please, new members, study this section, understand this section, and please follow this section, because you can get in a lot of trouble if you just willy-nilly pass out stuff. Thank you.
DR. SWEENEY: Mr. Chairman, I might also offer, if any of the new members or any member has or would like an interpretation of everything written, like seriatim or anything of that (unclear) in nature, please call me and I will be more than glad to respond to any clarification they might need.
MR. KRUL: I think that's a good suggestion. Yes, Marie.
DR. SWEENEY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to actually give a vote of thanks and congratulations to the group who put this together. I know it's been a hard fight, battle. And every time they came back there was mountains of changes. And they really have done it graciously, accepted our changes. And, really, it's to their credit and persistence and it's done.
MR. KRUL: Well I'd like to personally thank Jane for not only her work on this document but it will certainly help the new Chairman out by having an advanced copy of this to sort of get the inner workings of what this committee is supposed to be doing and, at least in some orderly fashion, I have something in front of me to go by, a blueprint to go by. I just leaned over to Bruce and I always thought the nuns and the priests did a very good job with my vocabulary. But will someone please explain to me, on the fourth paragraph on page 7, what the word "seriatim" means.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. What that means it is a parliamentarian process by which when a committee report, which can in fact be lengthy and contain multiple consideration for the committee, that you can take each paragraph or each subject matter within the report, discuss it fully, recommend changes, revision to it, get a consensus from the committee on that item, go to the next item, and continue through the report, and then adopt all changes by one motion. Because after our first meeting we found us going around the room and having 20 different opinions on paragraphs that had been discussed repeatedly. So we felt this could be a very proper use of our parliamentarian procedures, which we are governed by by our choosing to allow us to expedite the conversations and keep them all within the context of a subject at a time.
MR. KRUL: Thank you.
MR. SWANSON: Let me, if I may, as a member of the committee, but in the interest of candor here, and I suspect I will get no argument from the other committee members. You all suspect that this committee was a committee of one and not four. And your applause should be directed at Jane and not to the other named members.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. KRUL: Go ahead, Stu.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Another comment to the new members on understanding concurrence versus obstruction. A lot of times in workgroups that are confrontational or difficult, at best, sometimes it is impossible to reach consensus among those that are in attendance. Some workgroups have small attendance. Some workgroups, like Larry's, have up to 30, 40 people come to the workgroup. And with that many people it's almost impossible to get everybody in the room aligned and on the same page. So the co-chairs have to exercise sometimes restraint, sometimes action to move the workgroup forward. It's very easy to get stagnated. It's very easy to get caught up in the words. It's very easy to pound the minutia to death. So the workgroup chairs really play a tremendous role in not only facilitating the workgroup but driving the workgroup to completion or to success of their goals. And it takes a unique co-chair to do that because the co-chairs have to be aligned, number one. They have to be working in conjunction with each other and cooperation with each other. And they have to be driving the workgroup in the same direction and not have separate agendas, or the workgroup stays bogged down in life forever. So for those of you that are chairing workgroups for the first time, please keep that in mind. Also, the third paragraph on page 7 from the top, "prepares the workgroup meeting notes," please make sure that one of the two of you are given the task of preparing the notes. Please keep good notes, because the notes end up sometimes being the workgroup report. And a lot of times words that you take down -- or don't take down, maybe is a better term -- don't take, end up coming back to haunt you later when the public decides to make some comments regarding the workgroup. So please take copious notes. Please make good reports. And please control your workgroups. Thank you.
MR. KRUL: Thank you, Stu. Steve.
MR. COOPER: You know, the only reason Swanson made that comment is my name is listed above his as co-chairman. But the reason it didn't happen over the past year and a half or 18 months and didn't answer of his calls to my office was due to the fact that Jane Williams was faxing me all this information and I didn't have time.
MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, when I make these three corrections what I will do for the committee, I will just put an asterisk with a footnote "per this meeting discussions," if that's appropriate.
MR. KRUL: That would be fine.
MS. WILLIAMS: And then I'll have Mr. Boom resend these out.
MR. KRUL: That'd be fine.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. KRUL: I just sent Bruce on a wild goose chase. Jim Boom is not here. I thought I gave the revised -- oh, I have the committee workgroup -- I lied to you. We need to talk about the scheduling in the next meeting. And within that topic there have been several comments about whether we can recommend out of town meetings. There has been a suggestion for a meeting up at Dan Murphy's place up in St. Paul. There's a provision for meeting space there. And I'm going to recognize Tom Broderick in a minute too. He'd like to talk to you about a future ACCSH meeting being held in conjunction with one of his conferences. The other advisory committees that I've sat on, there was always a discussion about letting these meetings go out to other cities so that there could be other participants -- nothing against the folks in the audience here in Washington, D.C. But when you just continue to hold meetings in one spot it deprives other people from labor, from management, from the private sector, and the public in general to participate in that public comment section when you hold meetings out of town. Now I realize that this all revolves around when the new Assistant Secretary is appointed and budget considerations. But that will not preclude this committee from making recommendations to this Assistant Secretary's office that those meetings be held out of town. So I'd like some discussion on what people feel about moving those meetings to St. Paul. Yes, Stu.
MR. BURKHAMMER: For the committee's edification -- and, Mr. Cooper, you can speak to this more graciously than I can. There is precedent set for the ACCSH meeting other than in Washington. Early in the '90s they met in conjunction with the Texas Safety Association in a session in Dallas. We have met once during my tenure at the Chicago Inn Safety Conference in Chicago, we had a session in Spokane, Washington. We also had an informal session in Hawaii at the National Safety Congresses Construction Division Meeting in Hawaii. So, Mr. Chairman, there is precedent for meeting outside the beltway. I think it accomplishes a couple of three purposes: one, it touches more of our audience, more of the people that we are representing here and more of the industry, more of the construction workers. There was a terrific turnout in Chicago. The Acting Chairman didn't make Chicago, but everybody else made Chicago. We had an excellent turnout in Hawaii. I think we had, Steve, 40 some people in the audience in Hawaii. And I know in Dallas they had 30, 40 people. So it's a big draw when this committee goes out to touch the workforce and to get opinions and views from a lot of other sectors than we normally would get by just staying inside the beltway. So I think it's a good idea, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly would vote for the aspect of moving one meeting at least a year outside the beltway.
MR. KRUL: Steve.
MR. COOPER: Stu's absolutely correct in that it is good for public relations for the agency to get out west of the Potomac. And it's always a smart, if that occurs, to tie it to a safety conference of a national concern. Therefore, you get the other participants that are not normally here. One of the best things I think that the agency did years ago was when we were doing coak oven emissions. And this committee went to the steel mills and the coak ups and spent two or three days getting a real education, and came back a lot smarter. And I think it should be some type of requirement that we don't sit here and second the constitution on our lives and try and advise national regulations.
MR. KRUL: I concur. And reading previous minutes Bill Rhoten and the acting chairman, Mr. Burkhammer, that were attempting to set something up for respirator protection and hexavalent chromium exposure on stainless steel welding through some of the UA training programs. And I think those kinds of things, the coak oven, when this committee would be dealing with issues, anything that helps to educate us on the process, those types of demonstrations can be arranged and be a part of the out of town venture. It doesn't have to be -- and as Stu said -- it should be multi-prong, the reasons for going out of town. Before I forget, let me call on Tom Broderick just while we're in this discussion of having meetings out of town. Tom would like to announce the Construction Safety Conference and its dates for consideration with the -- I think it's a natural fit for this committee to go to that thing. There's a Center to Protect Worker's Rights in the building trades will be involved in that safety conference. But Tom can tell you more about it than I can.
MR. BRODERICK: I'd love to announce the exact dates, Mr. Chairman, but I believe it's the 20th through the 24th of May of 2002. And as the Chairman indicated, the Center to Protect Worker's Rights, many of you may remember back in the early '90s had a couple of national conferences on construction safety and ergonomics here in Chicago. And in their most recent five year funding cycle from NIOSH had indicated that they would do another national conference. And since our conference in Chicago has grown, and I think it was with some of the direction from the safety directors of the building trades affiliates, there's a decision not -- certainly not to make the two conferences conflict. So I got together with Bob Clesher at CBWR and we decided to do it in Chicago. And rather than subjecting people to Chicago in February we moved it to the month of May.
MR. KRUL: Thank you.
MR. BRODERICK: You're welcome. And a little bit of history here. We started doing it in January and February because it started off as a local phenomenon, I think we had maybe 100 local construction people come to the first one 12 years ago now, and it just kind of took a life of its own and grew into a major national conference. And now we get somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 attendees coming in from all over the country. I think this last one we had 44 different states represented. So it has taken a life of its own. But I think it would be a wonderful opportunity, since we would be having strong representation from the building trades and strong representation from the construction community, to have an opportunity for them to be having maybe better, better access from other locations to this committee. So I would invite the committee to consider to come to Chicago for that opportunity.
MR. KRUL: What are the dates for that again, Tom?
MR. BRODERICK: I believe it's the 20th through the 24th of May, but I'm not exactly certain.
MR. KRUL: Next year.
VOICE: Excuse me, for the record, what's the title of this conference?
MR. BRODERICK: The title is the Construction Safety Conference. And each year there's a subtitle for it, and we've not selected that at this point.
MR. KRUL: The next meeting falls within the fourth of July week, if you go by the -- fourth of July will fall on a Wednesday, so that Thursday and Friday following would be the -- and I don't have my copy of my calendar with me, but I would think the following -- yeah, the 5th and the 6th of July fall on a Thursday and a Friday, which I'm sure everyone would like to stay away from. So the 12th and the 13th of July would be the dates, or the recommended dates for the next meeting. I had discussions with Dan Murphy just briefly yesterday regarding making a recommendation that we go out to Minneapolis. And, again, I don't know if Bruce was listening when I said this conversation about holding meetings. It would just be advisory at this point until the new Assistant Secretary and the budget is looked at on when and if we -- and how far ahead we can plan for this. But I don't think there's anything wrong with at least making the initial request that the July meeting be held out in St. Paul, Minnesota, to the Acting Assistant Secretary at this point. If it's deemed that those decisions cannot be made, we can hold that recommendation for a future meeting. I don't think it's too late to -- or I can ask for advice from the Directorate for this 2002 meeting. I think that would be an excellent fit for this committee to attend Chicago.
MR. SWANSON: Well 2002, that's way too far down the road for me to even contemplate right now, Bob. And we'll have time to squeeze it in between now and then, some more conversation on that. I think it's a great fit for this committee. And obviously there's some policy decisions tied with that that's the new Assistant Secretary I'm sure would like a vote in. And we'll have an opportunity to do that. On a faster track is the July meeting. And what's the -- I know you would need some lead-time, Mr. Murphy. What's the drop dead date that you would need from us as to clearance on that if it were to be forthcoming?
MR. MURPHY: I think, Bruce, as far as facilities to hold the meetings that probably won't be an issue because we have a very large training facility. What I would be more concerned about would be getting rooms for people, because at that time of the year the city is a pretty popular place to visit. Rather than being in the middle of a blizzard, it's usually fairly nice there.
MR. BURKHAMMER: That's the non-blizzard week up there, right?
MR. MURPHY: Yeah. That's that one week we get where we don't shovel. So I would recommend St. Paul Hotel, which is right across from our training facility. And it's right in downtown St. Paul. I would think I would have to speak with Mr. Boom and get some details and at least know that by the end of April to still make it.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Okay, thank you. That's something to work with.
MR. KRUL: Larry and then Steve.
MR. EDGINTON: With respect to July -- and I don't remember but maybe somebody else here does -- I know that ANSI A10 meets either the second or third week of July. Some of us have to make -- for that. And with respect to having anymore group involvement with this, there may be some conflicts. Does anybody remember when A 10 is meeting?
MR. KRUL: It's in July. And more than likely it will be the second week.
MR. EDGINTON: I think it's that second week.
MR. MEDEROS: The 16th is the -- for A 10. The 16th or the 17th.
MR. EDGINTON: I think we moved that from the week before or something. I think we originally had that the week before and we moved that. I can't remember which one we were going with.
MR. KRUL: Steve and then Stu.
MR. COOPER: So you've pretty well settled on proposing that the advisory committee would meet sometime in July in Minnesota. Is that correct?
MR. KRUL: It's a recommendation.
MR. COOPER: Well, I think it's just -- I wonder if I should probably assist Mr. Swanson in the State of Minnesota. He's probably, you know, would need some advice on how to get around, since that's his home state -- that's a joke.
MR. KRUL: And you're volunteering.
MR. COOPER: A10 will be a lot. If Larry's correct, there'll be some people, including myself, that will be going to A10 the same date. So what dates are we really talking about?
MR. EDGINTON: A10's the following week.
MR. KRUL: The following week. A10 will be the following week following -- if this were to go -- if it were to go -- it would be -- A10 would be the following week.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Not to be a killjoy here. Assuming that by July there is an Assistant Secretary named, it might be beneficial for this committee to consider meeting here in July and then moving the fall meeting maybe out of town. Being that there would be a new Assistant Secretary, there would be some new goal for the agency. There might be a lot more benefit to having the July meeting here, if indeed that occurred, than having the fall meeting here.
MR. KRUL: How would that translate with your attempts to utilize your training facility, and it wouldn't hurt anything either way?
MR. MURPHY: Just remember, don't get too late in the fall --
MR. MURPHY: -- or it gets mighty miserable.
MR. RHOTEN: Mr. Chairman, if it gets too late in the fall or towards winter, Palm Springs is still available.
MR. KRUL: Well I don't know that we need to do anything more that -- I kind of agree with Stu that it might be a little bit too pushy in trying to get a meeting to go as early as when the new Assistant Secretary's in place. And, you know, just quite frankly maybe too much of a request for somebody coming in as a new Assistant Secretary to have a request to have an advisory committee meet out of town. Maybe meet with whoever he or she is after they're appointed and sort of introduce this committee and ourselves to them and maybe make a request, as Stu has recommended, for that following perhaps instead of looking at doing something as quickly as July. Jim.
MR. AHERN: For my personal schedule, the meeting in Washington, D.C., the 13th, 14th, is much favorable. And --
MR. KRUL: 12th and 13th? Can we get a -- Stu's recommendation, does it make more sense to the rest of the committee?
MR. RHOTEN: I think it makes a lot of sense. I think we might be a little presumptuous to decide where we're going next when we're not sure we're even going to meet.
MR. KRUL: Right. Thank you for saying what I was thinking.
MR. SWANSON: Well, you know, if we had another six weeks, I guess, before a drop dead date with the hotel for Minneapolis -- although I hear rumors that the wheels are moving faster this time than they have in the past. Six weeks might not, and probably won't give us an Assistant Secretary. So the issue would be, without an Assistant Secretary, would this Administration allow this group to meet in July in Minneapolis? And we'd have to make that call some time late April or May. That's still on the table. They clearly can pull the plug and say no on that. Or if we have an Assistant Secretary by surprise by then he can say, "I'd rather have the next meeting or I can attend it." In any event this will reach some resolution by the end of April, it has to, by the end of April or Minneapolis is out of the discussion anyhow. So I don't know if, you know, past experience for OSHA fall has come and gone also without an Assistant Secretary. I hope that that doesn't happen again. But it could well be that you have your July meeting and you plan a meeting for October and that is when the new Assistant Secretary's going to get here. So October would not be a good time to be out of the city either. This will probably solve itself by the end of April without an Assistant Secretary. I don't know who's going to make the decision to let us go to Minneapolis. It would have to go all the way to the Secretary's office probably. So that would erase Minneapolis. If there is a new Assistant Secretary, or one close, chances are that he would want you here in Minneapolis or here in -- I'm sounding like Tom now -- here in Washington so he could address you in July. And it just looks like Washington in July, but you can let the calendar solve that problem for you, it seems to me.
MR. KRUL: Seems to be practical. I was merely attempting to look at what the prospect was of having out of town meetings. Dan was gracious enough to say that he would do it. But I think we have to look at the reality of budget constraints on the agency and decision making with the transition of the appointment of a new Assistant Secretary. So we can just probably figure on having that discussion at the next meeting, once the Assistant Secretary, if the Assistant Secretary is appointed by then. Do you have someone here for a travel presentation?
MR. SWANSON: Just Veneta.
MR. KRUL: Veneta, do you want to come up here?
MR. SWANSON: Steve has Veneta here this morning. As Veneta is distributing her handouts, I passed around the table something just off the web page. Apparently there were a couple of questions from the group as to how to use or how to find the OSHA web page. And that's that little package that you have. If you've already found our web page and don't need that material, that's okay too.
MR. KRUL: Yes, Jim.
MR. AHERN: While Veneta is passing out her information, from a new member perspective, do we generally need a meeting not being certain when the next meeting is?
MR. KRUL: The former chairman will answer that for you.
MR. BURKHAMMER: That depends. Most of the time we try to schedule one or two meetings in advance. But we've had an Assistant Secretary in the realm of being able to do that. And Bruce is correct, without one it's catch as catch can. So once the new Assistant Secretary is appointed and we have a relationship, it's easy to schedule one or two meetings in advance. And we try to do that so the benefit of the committee we know where we're going to be at certain times.
MR. AHERN: And are there four meetings a year?
MR. BURKHAMMER: Supposed to be. Sometimes there's three, but other times there's four, depending on the spread.
MR. KRUL: And we were all agreed on July 12th and 13th.
MR. AHERN: Okay. Good. Good.
MR. KRUL: I mean that was the date because that falls right in between
MR. BURKHAMMER: Where is the problem? Where?
MR. AHERN: Okay. That helps me a lot.
MR. SMITH: Moving right along.
MR. KRUL: Yeah. Moving right along. And I mean I'd like to Owen, but I don't see the value in planning. If we can't plan out the May why keep it? I mean at the next meeting we'll know a lot more I think. We'll have a better handle on things. Veneta, for the record, would you identify yourself, please?
MS. CHATMON: My name is Veneta Chatmon. I'm a Program Specialist with the OSHA Office of Public Affairs. And my primary responsibility for the ACCSH committee is to assist with your travel needs. I've passed out packages to our travelers, if you noticed. I haven't given the ones that live here a package because it's a rarity that you would be required to travel for the committee. So that's why you do not have a package.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Scratch Minneapolis.
MS. CHATMON: Right. In case you are required to travel, I will provide that information to you at that particular time. There's no need to give you the package and you can't find it when the time comes to use it because you have misplaced the papers. Included in the package is information pertaining to making your travel arrangements. The policy has changed regarding me making your hotel reservation. You are to now make your hotel reservations through Wagonlit. Carlson Wagonlit Travel Agency. They're aware of this change. Included in the package is a spotlight sheet stating further details about this change.
DR. SWEENEY: But, Veneta, would you be doing room blocks?
MS. CHATMON: No. I will no longer be doing room blocks due to the policy change.
DR. SWEENEY: Okay. So it's catch as catch can.
MS. CHATMON: Right. However, if you have a problem with Wagonlit, please, by all means, call me and I will do, what's in my power to make those arrangements for you.
DR. SWEENEY: One of the problems we have had with Wagonlit is that they don't call back. And they're not very timely in responding. So my secretary's pretty good about it.
MS. CHATMON: Okay. If that problem arises, Marie, please contact me. I will handle it. I know that there are problems with Wagonlit all the time. But that's what I'm here for. So if any problem arises then please, by all means, contact me and I'll try my best to take care of it.
MR. KRUL: Yes, Jane.
MS. WILLIAMS: Veneta, that does not preclude us from making our own independent arrangements anywhere exclusive of Wagonlit, or do we have to go through them to be reimbursed?
MS. CHATMON: No. The problem is, if you make your own, and you're not offered the government rate we will not be responsible for reimbursement of the amount over the government rate.
MS. WILLIAMS: Understood.
MS. CHATMON: That's the only problem.
MS. WILLIAMS: That's in our guidelines.
MS. CHATMON: Right.
MS. WILLIAMS: I wanted to be sure we clarified it. If you go anywhere of your own choosing you will only be reimbursed what the government rate is. So there's no conflict with what our guidelines say for that issue.
MS. CHATMON: Correct.
MR. AHERN: Is there a particular regional office or any of their franchises across the country?
MS. CHATMON: I'm not sure. From what I understand, as long as it's Wagonlit -- we only use Wagonlit here in the building. But I'm sure they have other franchises that you may be able to use. I don't see where there would be a problem. I will verify this for you.
MR. KRUL: Jane.
MS. WILLIAMS: I've tried that in Arizona to have a face to face because of the problem Marie indicates, and they will only do it through the government Carlson here on the times that I've had to call them. I've had to come directly into the building and wait for them.
MR. KRUL: Comment regarding the travel?
VOICE: Yeah. If you want to get government rates, you're only going to get them from (unclear).
MR. KRUL: Steve.
MR. COOPER: You have probably noticed, since you're responsible for acquiring travel arrangements for all of us who request it, and the data that comes back for reimbursement occurs, as you're probably -- no one really has any anger towards you or you're probably friends with everyone because you're it. I did want to take this opportunity to tell you last week you helped me out and thank you very much.
MS. CHATMON: Thank you.
MS. WILLIAMS: Veneta, I have one question for you, if I may. We had put it originally in the guidelines we were to get a receipt copy upon arrival at the airline. And quickly reading through your comment sheet you made for us you're stating here that the Office of Public Affairs will pick up our ticket receipt. So may I scratch that we do not have to do that?
MS. CHATMON: Yes.
MS. WILLIAMS: And when our expenses come in to you you will be affixing them?
MS. CHATMON: Right. I'll already have them. I pick them up when I take the approved TA downstairs and they give them to me. So you don't have to worry about the receipts.
MS. WILLIAMS: So the committee will be aware then when I work with Mr. Boom on these I will delete that statement out of our guidelines that state you would have to get that receipt. Thank you.
MR. KRUL: Stu.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Jane, I would suggest you word it in the fact that the travel office picks up the receipt, so the new members know there is a receipt but it goes directly to Veneta instead of them having to worry about it. So it would be stated in there that the receipt is --
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm going to copy what she wrote.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Oh, okay.
MS. CHATMON: Any other questions? Concerns? Gripes?
MR. KRUL: You did a good job.
MS. CHATMON: Thank you.
MR. KRUL: Thank you, Veneta.
MS. CHATMON: Thank you for the time to address travel issues.
MR. KRUL: We're still waiting for the workgroup review assignments. And when Stu said to me that you put all the new workgroups on I said yes. And I know I didn't include the state plan workgroup with Owen, Steve Cooper, and Kevin Beauregard. But we can always write that in if he can't get it. Are there any other issues? Jane.
MS. WILLIAMS: I just have two items to clarify. I'll pass this around. On the Sanitation Report that I gave to you, this sheet with document the two changes that we discussed. Page 2, we changed the name of Proposed Rulemaking to Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. At the second paragraph from the bottom of page 2, strike the second sentence in its entirety and insert, "Co-chairs will recommend proponents send their questions to the director of the Directorate of Construction, Mr. Russell B. Swanson." And that totally corrected the concerns that were voiced on the Sanitation Report that was issued to you. And just for the record, on the guidelines, what I will be doing is striking three things: should an ACCSH meeting be postponed ACCSH member shall return their airline tickets and travel authorizations to the Office of Public Affairs. That will not be necessary because she will automatically void the travel authorization status, so that can come out. And the first paragraph, I'll strike the entire sentence in the beginning and start with, "The Office of Public Affairs will fax the travel authorization and itinerary to ACCSH members." And we don't have to get into the other issues because her report states that, "Only electronic tickets will be used, except when other provisions have to be made." So there is flexibility, we'll let her report govern and I'll incorporate that in there instead.
MR. KRUL: Okay. Thank you, Jane. Stu.
MR. BURKHAMMER: This morning Jim Ahern handed out to us a sheet on OSHA's Targets Midwest Roads. Jim, about three meetings ago I think, Susan Marsh of NIOSH made a presentation to ACCSH on a study that she had lead on highway and road safety. And if you don't have a copy of that or haven't seen that you might want to get with Marie and have her get in touch with Susan so you can get that. It was pretty well done. I mean (unclear) and a lot of things that they've done, a lot of studies. And it might help you a little bit with this.
MR. AHERN: Well one of the reasons why I brought that up yesterday with reference to the coding of the 170 Form, and my recollection of the reading the articles about a year ago was inaccurate because I was believing that they were responding to a history of accidents in those particular geographic areas. And it's turned out, in reading the article; it was more in anticipation of the significant increase in funding and not having a (unclear) increase in accidents.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Okay.
MR. AHERN: That's basically what the article said. So it wasn't based on a statistical analysis.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Okay.
MR. AHERN: But I appreciate your comments about how to hand things out. I understand that better now relative to these --
MR. BURKHAMMER: Okay.
MR. AHERN: But I wanted to follow through. I found that on the Internet last night. I thought it might be of interest.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you.
MR. AHERN: I guess I would be a little bit curious if it would be appropriate at a future meeting to get some feedback from that regional office on this focus program whether it had an impact or not.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Yeah. We talked about that before and I don't think that's out of line at all. I think we can ask the Chair at the next meeting to have Mr. O'Connor or one of his people to come in and share with us his information or his concepts or ideas on this. So if you'd pass that to the Chair as a recommendation for --
MR. AHERN: I'll wait for their sidebar discussion to end.
MR. KRUL: We're trying to get -- you guys can all go down to the Secretary's office, we're trying to straighten out this workgroup list so that you can take a copy home with you. Salt Lake City Construction Advisory Workgroup. You're the passwords for this committee, is what you basically end up being off the website. Is that correct?
MR. MEDEROS: I'm trying to do that.
MR. KRUL: There were no public persons that had expressed an interest in addressing anything. But since we have time before adjournment I will cautiously open that up to the public. If anyone wishes to comment on anything briefly.
MR. KRUL: No?
MR. COOPER: One last thing. Everyone on the committee has been making note of who has assisted them in the past and how nice everyone is. I just was sitting there thinking that Jim Boom does a lot of work for this committee under the direction of Mr. Swanson. He's the guy that makes all the calls and assists you in any matter. And I think it would be nice to recognize that Jim does a lot of work that may very well go unrecognized. Mr. Swanson, thank you.
MR. SWANSON: Thank you, Steve. I will make sure that's relayed.
MR. KRUL: Jim?
MR. AHERN: Mr. Chairman, during your discussion there we had a little sidebar discussion about the Engineering News Record article about the Region 5 initiative to pay closer attention to highway safety. And I asked Stu if it would be appropriate. And if I understood him correctly he said it would be to request that possibly at one of our next meetings we get a little feedback information on how that initiative is going and whether it is having any impact on hopefully a reduction in injuries in spite of the increased funding.
MR. KRUL: Since Mr. O'Connor is in charge of that, I don't what the, you know, if at the next meeting if he can give a report in person or if we can have something in writing.
MR. SWANSON: The Region owes us a report anyhow, which we are waiting with bated breath for. So I certainly anticipate it within the next 90 days and would be happy to share. And perhaps even Mr. O'Connor's or someone on his staff would come in and make a report on it. And, I'm sorry. I didn't recognize it yesterday when you brought it up.
MR. AHERN: Well I was pretty vague about what I was trying to make reference to.
MR. SWANSON: It's a Region 5 local emphasis program. And it is in effect in each of three federal jurisdiction states in Region 5 out of Chicago. So Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin all have that local emphasis program.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Mr. Chairman.
MR. KRUL: Yes, Stu.
MR. BURKHAMMER: A couple of items. I think also, a future agenda item that would be worth hearing would be the lead bridge program in New York and New Jersey. I think it's a combination of those states. They're doing all the bridge painting, cleaning, and scraping and fixing. And there's a special emphasis program out of New York on lead that I think we should hear a report on. Also, it was at two meetings ago I think, we had OTI here with us. And I think there was a resolution or discussion among the members at that time of having OTI present at each meeting so they could give us an update of where they are on their training program. And I think it would be especially beneficial to the new members to have a report from Des Plaines on what they are now and where they are in some of their programs and some of their new programs. And give the new members kind of an overview of Des Plaines and OSHA training.
MR. KRUL: OSHA Training Institute? Larry.
MR. EDGINTON: I guess I would ask the other committee members to refresh my memory. Because it seemed to me at one of our meetings when we were having conversations with OTI did we have any -- were we talking about a group to work on improving the security associated with evidence of training and that sort of stuff and how to make -- were we talking about that here or is that someplace else I was talking to somebody about that?
MR. RHOTEN: Maybe on another issue of sorts. In Chicago last year there was some stakeholders and carpenters that had made some recommendations. And I think that they had some communication with that center. In regards to better tracking of the OSHA 10 Hour Cards and a whole new system and, you know, it was pretty heavy recommendations but I think it's going to take some cooperation with the Center, actually, to see if they can go in that direction. And I understand too that they're going to delegate out or franchise out some of the responsibilities that they have because they, in fact, don't have enough resources to do -- to keep up with the demand for training now. And I've heard some rumors to that effect, but I don't know how valid they are. The consortiums form that will take over the responsibility of issuing out the OSHA 10 Hour Cards, for instance. I think that's been discussed somewhere. And maybe we need to get an update to see.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Can I make a response?
MR. KRUL: Sure. Hang on, Owen.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Bill, I think when they were here last -- and I may have had a senior moment at the time -- but I think I remember. There was some discussion about combining some of this new innovative things that we had talked with OTI about into your training workgroup. And we expanded a little bit, I thought -- and maybe I'm missing something somewhere. But I think the training workgroup that you and Owen have accepted a little bit of that responsibility to work a little closer with them and include it. I think we did do that two meetings ago or something.
MR. RHOTEN: We did.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Have you done anything on that with them since?
MR. RHOTEN: No. I haven't had any communication with them at all on it particularly. I've been kind of hoping that some of the stakeholders that had some interest would have contacted us on the committee. And I'll make an effort to contact them.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Okay.
MR. RHOTEN: And then I'll make an effort -- I'll contact the OSHA Training Institute and then see how we can work with them better.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Mr. Chairman, why don't we add that as a potential topic for the next workgroup meeting.
MR. SMITH: Bruce, I had a question.
MR. KRUL: Yes, sir.
MR. SMITH: We had, after the meeting in Chicago where we went to the training center, we had recommended that you had that satellite training program that you link all the offices together and you have the same message everybody at approximately the same time. Has there ever been any progress on that?
MR. SWANSON: I honestly can't answer that, Owen. I believe that the answer probably is that there has not been. But certainly there has been nothing that has been shared with me. This is perhaps an appropriate time for me to say that, you know, the Institute is going to have a bit of a problem that's similar to what Marthe Kent had last evening. The Institute may or may not have a better idea as to what changes they are going to be making by July meeting. They might not have that direction yet. They also have a number of initiatives that they would like to go forward with that; again, like Marthe Kent or myself, they're not going forward with them until there is somebody to talk to about getting clearance. So just a heads up.
MR. KRUL: Bill.
MR. RHOTEN: I recall that we did have some conversation on this long distance learning scenario. What we had offered, and the offer's still three, is that we've got four training facilities around the United States that are, in fact, set up for long distance learning, because we're getting into that whole area ourselves. And those are available at no charge to the Training Institute. And we verbally told them that. And if in the future they want to get in that area we would be glad to give them our facilities.
MR. KRUL: Yes. I figured the way you were looking at me you had something else.
MR. COOPER: The Institute is really important to this advisory committee for obvious reasons, and then training CSHOs in particular. And we did go up, Owen and myself and many others in this committee, last time in Chicago. And we wanted to evaluate their national commitment and training and discuss -- one of OSHA's larger problems is their travel budget to take these CSHOs across the country and train them for weeks in Chicago and talk about using the procedures to train these through audiovisual means, to transport to regional areas. One thing that I just might want to get on the transcript, the National Building Trades, for instance, and other places I do feel that in the particular trades that are represented by this committee. In construction each trade is independent in the manner in which they do their work. And the Building Trades -- and I certainly can't make a commitment for them because Mr. Krul's the Chairman, but I do feel that individuals should go up to the Institute and teach for one or two days at the Institute and help them in the training of their particular -- their CSHOs as it relates to their particular craft. Now anything that comes up here with us, those of us in the construction industry, we know a little bit about each area of concern, whether it be carpentry or steel erection or, very little about electrical maybe. But we can really help the people at the Institute by helping them with our training programs, whether they want to use that particular program or not. We have millions and millions of dollars involved in training. And that's one area that all of us at this table, but it's basically the building trades safety directors, and get up and assist them in the training. And it's always been kind of a problem. And we're not talking about funding here, Mr. Swanson, voluntarily getting up there, giving them two or three days of our own particular expertise.
MR. KRUL: And that would be a strictly voluntary thing. I can't speak totally for the Building Trades department but subsidizing, which is an excellent thing for the CSHOs, is to have the experience of people who have a lot of experience in the construction industry to help them through the learning process and knowing what to look for and the specific hazards that are trade specific and relative to the standards that exist to protect people. However, given the budgetary constraints that the Department is now facing, I would see that as something that maybe could be voiced from the leadership top down at future general precedents meetings that those trades could participate in something that Joe Adam used to do and do very well in going out to the Des Plaines center and running those programs for CSHOs. It was an excellent program. But both the Chairman of this committee and the Chairman of the Building Trades Committee will take that under advisement and see if under the new leadership of the Building Trades we could have that promoted through the (unclear) President's staff. Did you want to --
MR. SWANSON: All I wanted to comment on is just you gave a hardy endorsement to what Steve suggested. I believe that OSHA compliance officers would benefit so much in their understanding of what the construction industry feels is important on a construction site, safety and health wise, if they spent more time face to face with experienced safety and health experts from the construction community, whether it's, you know, I would certainly hope that organized labor is able to participate in this. I invite any of the associations to work with us to help bring this about, or anyone else. Just the feel for what's important and what is not important and how to get on with the day's work and see more sites, not looking for the gnats on some of these sites would be such a benefit to our -- particularly our young compliance officers.
MR. KRUL: Bill, did you want --
MR. RHOTEN: Well I think that's an excellent idea myself. And while I can't totally, all the time speak for my general president, I'm sure that he would be happy to participate in this kind of a program.
MR. COOPER: We have discussed -- we had talked about this among ourselves before and it was my opinion at that time, and still is, that it would not be funded only by the organization the individual works for. But, in reality, the Institute will have a particular week on, let's say, cranes. And they'll be being in CSHOs that inspect our job sites, whether you like that or not, and those CSHOs come in from throughout the country and attend that class, for instance, on cranes. And who would be better than those people who have spent all their life in safety and health on cranes, such as Larry in this committee, to be there with them for a day and teach them at least what they think is the correct way to go. That's what I'm getting at. As far as the funding I'm not talking about the Building Trades funding it or anyone else. Voluntary, voluntarily.
MR. RHOTEN: Well, if I could, even again on an issue like that there is long distance training centers that are set up that are available for those kind of programs.
MR. COOPER: Well, when we were up there most recently this thing was not totally funded or in place. Isn't that correct, Bruce?
MR. SWANSON: The distance learning set up? Owen just asked me about that. And I don't know the status of their enhancement program for distance learning.
MR. COOPER: And in closing let me say this. There's some -- I'm closing because it's 11:00 and I have an appointment.
MR. COOPER: Outreach. We just did the Steel Erection Standard, which I'm sure everyone's probably sick and tired of hearing about, especially those in OSHA maybe. But there needs to be a very large outreach program across the nation of with the CSHOs to ensure that they understand all they know about that subject. And this is going to come up over and over. So that's just another thing on training that we could assist the Institute, OSHA, and the industry.
MR. KRUL: Thank you, Steve. And we stalled just long enough to get the workgroup. Stu?
MR. BURKHAMMER: One final comment on Mr. Cooper's excellent suggestion about teaching. For the retired members of ACCSH that's probably a terrific idea. For those of us that still have a real job it might be somewhat difficult.
MR. RHOTEN: If I may.
MR. KRUL: Absolutely.
MR. RHOTEN: The conversation has been confined to OTI with compliance officers. If we spend a few minutes thinking outside the box, I'd be happy to act as a liaison with any and all regional administrators if we could get a couple of professionals out of the construction community and take to a regional office for an all employee meeting, for example, and spend a few hours talking about how people who live on construction sites would visual an OSHA inspection being made. I mean lets not be tied into just Chicago and just OTI.
MR. KRUL: I'll just point out just one correction to make -- or an addition to make to this under the training on the last item on the last page. Bill Rhoten and Owen Smith co-chair that workgroup. And if there are any other corrections?
MR. SMITH: On the area code for my phone is 323.
MR. KRUL: 323 for Owen Smith.
MR. SMITH: It used to be (unclear) but --
MR. KRUL: You moved.
MR. SMITH: Well, the phone company moved us and we're still fighting.
MR. KRUL: Kevin.
MR. BEAUREGARD: Yeah. The phone number next to my name for both the workgroups is not correct. It's probably somebody else's. I'm not even sure what 702 is.
MR. KRUL: 702 is Las Vegas. We can move you out there.
MR. BEAUREGARD: All right.
DR. SWEENEY: It's 919-807-2863. And there's too many letters in my name too. It's long enough as it is.
MR. KRUL: That's my chicken scratching that she was trying interpret.
MR. BEAUREGARD: Just eliminate the first G.
MR. KRUL: The first G.
MR. BEAUREGARD: Well usually I prefer my number not be listed correctly.
MR. KRUL: In most instances.
MR. EDGINTON: Mr. Chairman?
MR. KRUL: Yes, Larry.
MR. EDGINTON: Also, an additional correction as long as we're making them. On Cranes DOC staff is no longer Tony Brown.
MR. KRUL: Okay. That came off the old list. Just eliminate Tony's name from the cranes subpart N. Steven.
MR. COOPER: I guess my phone number is my old office number. I certainly hope none of you call me anyhow. That would be incorrect. And my new phone is not in, so I'm in pretty good shape.
MR. KRUL: Jim Boom isn't here, but as I understand it -- Jim. Oh yeah. As I understand it, on the OSHA site all of our e-mails and information for the committee numbers --
MR. BOOM: Your phone numbers are there but your e-mails are not.
MR. KRUL: E-mails are not.
MR. BOOM: I can put them up there if anybody wishes.
MR. KRUL: Sorry I asked.
MR. SWANSON: Stu, all right. Did we get you correct on all these committee assignments?
MR. BURKHAMMER: Yeah. I was just going to bring that up. In reference to Mr. Cooper's comment yesterday about my name lacking on the committee list, I would be more than happy to volunteer to join Mr. Rhoten in the Safety and Health Program Standard workgroup.
MR. KRUL: Very good.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Not that we're meeting, but I would happy to join.
MR. RHOTEN: I'm looking forward to you doing all the work.
MR. KRUL: Without any further burins before the committee, the Chair would like to thank everybody. I look forward to working with this committee in the future. I think it's going to be an active, progressive committee, as it has been in the past. I think we can accomplish some good things. With that, the Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn.
VOICE: So moved.
MR. KRUL: Second.
MR. KRUL: All in favor signify by the sign aye.
(Chorus of ayes)
MR. KRUL: Opposed, if any?
MR. KRUL: We stand adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.)
This is to certify that the foregoing proceedings of a meeting for the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health, held on March 16, 2001, were transcribed as herein appears and that this is the original transcript thereof.
Susan Renee Hopkins