U.S. Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Advisory Committee on Construction
Safety and Health

Thursday, December 9, 2010
8:05 a.m.

U.S. Department of Labor
Room N-3437 A/B/C, Frances Perkins Building
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210


  • Frank Migliacco, Chairman
  • Ben Bare, DFO
  • Sarah Shortall, SOL
  • Eric Harbin, AFO
  • Michael Thibodeaux
  • Steve Hawkins
  • Susan Bilhorn
  • Kevin Beauregard
  • Daniel Zarletti
  • Emmett Russell
  • James Tomaseski
  • Liz Arioto
  • William Ahal
  • Thomas Shanahan
  • Walter Jones
  • Matt Gillen
  • Thomas Kavicky


  • Bill Parsons
  • David Michaels
  • Pam Susi
  • Mohammad Ayub
  • Travis Parsons
  • Dean McKenzie
  • Kevin O'Shea
  • Tony Groat
  • Wayne Creasap
  • George Kennedy
  • John Kurtz
  • Gerri Ryan
  • Eileen Beatty
  • Tom Trauger
  • Gerald Houvener
  • Fran Dougherty
  • Garvin Branch
  • Gavin Burge
  • Kelly Baker
  • Gary Riley
  • Aaron Trippler
  • Clint Bridges
  • Lori Webber
  • Christopher Cole


Pam Susi
Kevin O'Shea

  1. Introductions & Opening Remarks
    DOC Regulatory Update

  2. Work Group Committee's Report on Multilingual Issues
  3. Assistant Secretary David Michaels
  4. Silica and Health Hazards Work Group
  5. Mast Climbing Work Platforms Presentation

Green Jobs/Injury and Illness Prevention Work Group
Emmett Russell
Susan Bilhorn

Directorate of Standards and Guidance Update
Dorothy Dougherty
Michael Seymour

Diversity Women in Construction/Prevention by Design Work Group Reports
Bill Ahal

Public Comment

Tony Groat

Committee Administration



CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: I'd like to bring the meeting to order.

I'd like to get the housekeeping out of the way first, for fire drills. You can look on the side here, it tells you where to exit out through, using the stairways. Use the exits to go out to the street levels.

Shelter in place. I think it's still in this room. It's not listed anymore, but I think it's in that -- most of the stuff's in the cabinet there.

The rest room locations on both sides of the -- the men and women on both sides of this room here. I'll read the morning agenda, and before I go any further, please turn off all your cell phones and put your cell phones on vibrate.

Okay. So far this morning, we'll have the Opening Remarks going on now.

Then we have DOC Regulatory Update. Assistant Secretary David Michaels will come in and speak to us, and we'll take a break after that.

We have Silica and Health Hazard Multilingual Issues Work Group Reports. And we have a presentation on Mast Climbing Work Platform Presentation. Then we have the Committee Administration.

And then we'll break for lunch.

In the back of the room, there's a sign-in sheet for public comment that will take place this afternoon. Anybody interested, sign in, please.

And I'll mention that several times through the day.

All right, before we go any further, I'd like self-introductions, starting with Sarah, please.

MS. SHORTALL: Oh, hello. Good morning. My name is Sarah Shortall. I'm from the Office of the Solicitor, and I'm the Counsel for ACCSH.

MR. KAVICKY: Good morning. My name is Tom Kavicky, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. I am an Employee Rep of ACCSH.

MR. GILLEN: Good morning. And I'm Matt Gillen. I'm with the -- Office of Construction Safety and Health, and I'm the NIOSH rep.

MR. JONES: Good morning. My name is Walter Jones. I'm with the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund.

I'm an Employee Rep.

MR. SHANAHAN: Good morning. I'm Tom Shanahan with the National Roofing Contractors Association, and an Employee Rep.

MR. AHAL: Good morning. Bill Ahal, Ahal Preconstruction Services, Employer Rep.

MS ARIOTO: Ms. Arioto, Elizabeth Arioto, Safety and Health Consultant Services, Public Rep.

MR. TOMASESKI: Jim Tomaseski, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Employee Rep.

MR. THIBODEAUX: Mike Thibodeaux -- Employer Rep.

MR. BRODERICK: Tom Broderick, Construction Safety Council, Public Representative.

MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins, Tennessee OSHA, State Plan Representative.

MS. BILHORN: Susan Bilhorn, Jacobs Engineering, Employer Representative.

MR. BEAUREGARD: Kevin Beauregard, North Carolina Department of Labor, State Agency Representative.

MR. ZARLETTI: Dan Zarletti, Kenny Construction Company, Chicago. Also an Employer Rep with ACCSH.

MR. RUSSELL: Emmett Russell with the Operating Engineers International, and I am an Employee Rep.

MR. HARBIN: Eric Harbin, OSHA's Directorate of Construction --

MR. BARE: And I'm Ben Bare, the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Construction. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: And I'm Frank Migliacco, Executive Director of Safety and Health for the Ironworkers International and an Employee Representative. I'd like the public to give us their name and who they represent, starting over here, please.

MS. SUSI: Pam Susi, Center for Construction Research and Training.

MR. PARSONS: Travis Parsons with the Laborers' Health & Safety Fund.

MR. CREASAP: Wayne Creasap, the Association of Unique Instructors, and the National Maintenance Agreements Policy Committee.

MR. KENNEDY: George Kennedy, NUCA.

MR. KURTZ: John Kurtz, International Staple, Nail & Tool Association.

MR. RYAN: Gerry Ryan, Plasterers and Cement Masons International Union.

MS. BEATTY: Eileen Beatty, CPWR.

MR. TRAUGER: Tom Trauger, Winchester Homes.

MR. PARSONS: Bill Parsons, OSHA as Directorate of Construction, Office of Construction, Standards, and Guidance.

MR. HOUVENER: Gerald Houvener, OSHA Directorate of Construction.

MS. DOUGHERTY: Fran Dougherty, Office of Construction Services, OSHA.

MR. MCKENZIE: Dean McKenzie, Office of Construction Services, OSHA.

MR. AYUB: Mohammad Ayub, DOC, Directorate of Construction.

MR. BRANCH: Garvin Branch, Directorate of Construction, Construction Standards and Guidance.

MR. BURGE: My name is Gavin Burge. I'm here on behalf of OPNAV, US Navy Safety Liaison Office.

MS. BAKER: Kelly Baker, National Office of Job Corps, Safety and Occupational Health.

MR. GROAT: Tony Groat, the International Powered Access Federation.

MR. RILEY: Gary Riley, the International Powered Access Federation.

MR. TRIPPLER: Aaron Trippler, American Industrial Hygiene Association.

MR. HINTON: James Hinton with EZ Scaffold.

MR. O'SHEA: And Kevin O'Shea, International Powered Access Federation and Scaffold Industry Association.

MR. BRIDGES: Clint Bridges with EZ Scaffold.

MS. WEBBER: Lori Webber, Scafford Industry Association.

MR. COLE: Christopher Cole, Inside OSHA.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Ready? Okay. Thank you.

Before we go any further, I'd like to make one more announcement. Tomorrow is a travel day. So business casual clothing is accepted for the committee.

All right. Like I said, the public comment sheets in the back of the room. Anybody who wishes to speak this afternoon, please sign in your name and who you represent.

All right, the DOC Regulatory Update, Directorate of Construction.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

MR. BARE: It's a pleasure to be here this morning. My name's Ben Bare. I'm the Deputy Director of Construction, brand new with the Department.

Been here about four or five months, and it's been a great experience and I'm learning a lot. And I appreciate everybody's patience with me, and with the Directorate until we get things kind of rolling.

First, you know, to put the meeting together and get everything organized, it's been a tremendous effort on the part of Eric and his staff. And I want to just thank Eric, and all of his staff for the good work that they have done in putting this together.

It's taken a lot of work to do that. It may seem simple, sitting here now; but it takes a lot of work and a lot of coordination, and we appreciate your patience with us, and hope that we'll do this better next time, and things will come along.

If you were looking for your input and examples and recommendations on how we could improve, the Directorate of Construction has done a lot of good work over the years, and in the last few years, particularly in the area of standards making, with Cranes and Derricks.

And I wanted to take just a minute to kind of turn it over to each one of the directors to give you an update on the types of works and the activities that they've been doing for the last few years, and over the recent year or so.

So with that, I would like Eric and Bill Parsons and Mohammad Ayub to give a brief update for the committee.

MR. HARBIN: Thank you, Ben. Good morning to the distinguished members of the Committee. And I thank you for the opportunity to come and speak before you.

As you may know, the Office of Construction Services has undergone many changes over the past year. I joined the Office as Director just before the last meeting in April in Houston. And since that time, the Office has gained, in addition to myself, two more staff;

Two safety specialists, Michael Payne, who I hope you've come to meet over the last few days. He comes to us from the Manhattan Area OSHA Office. And also Damon Bonneau. He came to us from after working many years for a contractor in Honolulu, and I hope he's enjoying the weather now here in D.C.


MR. HARBIN: And he has also a 30-year career in the U.S. Air Force, so we welcome him and his experience, and I hope you get to know him over the days that follow.

I particularly would like to recognize Mr. Michael Buchet for his many years of service, working hard and diligently with you, the members of ACCSH, currently, and past members.

I've learned how much work he's actually put into it over the last years. And I very much appreciate, along with the rest of my staff, how much he's done to help the ACCSH work and move forward.

Additionally, I also want to thank the hard work that my staff has put into making this meeting take place. In particular, Fran Dougherty and Dean McKenzie, who've worked many hard months and long days to make sure this happens.

The office has been extremely busy over the previous year, and I expect that the work level will in all likelihood increase in the coming months and years.

Since the last meeting, we worked with the Department on the renewal of the charter for ACCSH, and we've also solicited for new nominees for appointments to the Committee.

The Office of Construction Services has worked closely with the other offices in the Directorate on keeping our stakeholders informed, in particular with Cranes and Derrick Standard.

We took part in the rollout of the standard by participating in a web chat, development of fact sheets on the new standard; and also we developed or worked with the other offices in the Directorate to develop a presentation, so that we could keep employers and work groups, labor groups, trade associations informed, and give them a tool to help train their members.

In particular, we've also worked with other groups to put on a webinar. Some of the ones we worked with is the AGC, Associated General Contractors, and the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, as well as Chartis Insurance Group.

This is a unique and novel approach that the Directorate of Construction has taken.

We continue to look for ways to maximize our outreach and to work with our stakeholders to ensure that the workers and employers are aware of the requirements and new standards, and any new standards that may be promulgated.

Additionally, we've participated in numerous outreach activities to keep the stakeholders abreast of the current activities that DOC, the Directorate of Construction, is working on.

We've given presentations at a number of meetings to include the National Safety Conference, that American Wind Energy Safety Conference, and the American Fire Sprinkler Association Convention, and many others.

We developed an article for the Alliance Quarterly Magazine, to keep our members of the Alliances informed. This article addressed the new requirements of the crane standard. And as time goes forward, we will continue to develop those articles, to make sure our stakeholders are informed.

The office has continued to monitor and make changes to our website. That's one of the responsibilities of the Office of Construction Services. There is a lot of information on there that we have observed to be outdated.

We've tried to update it, but as you may understand, it's a large task. And if any of you come to notice any dated material, please feel free to let me know, and we will make changes to it.

We handle any correspondence that the Directorate of Construction handles in a given month. Our Directorate alone can expect anywhere from 50 to 70 questions.

It take quite a bit of time for us to research and give a proper answer to all of those people who send us electronic correspondence. And we welcome the opportunity to reach out to folks that way.

One of our primary concerns has been to continue to work closely with our field staff, and the other national office directorates, to make sure that we have open lines of communication within our agency.

And one of our particular concerns has been trying to work with and improve our construction targeting system.

We work closely with the Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, to conduct a webinar for OSHA staff members, not only in the National Office but throughout the field offices.

And we hope that, giving that update and refresher training makes that system more user-friendly and understandable to those who use it.

We continue to monitor the effectiveness of the targeting system, and as we observe ways to improve it, we will take those steps.

Without any further questions, pending your questions, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. And unless there are questions, I'll be followed by Bill Parsons.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any questions of the Committee? Liz?

MS. ARIOTO: Liz Ariota.

I'd personally like to thank your department. They've been a great help to me. I'm sure for the rest of the committee, especially Dean McKenzie, and I wrote names down. Damon Bonneau?

MR. BONNEAU: Bonneau.

MS. ARIOTO: Right. And our friend. And they're excellent. I mean, I was here at 6:30, and they've been helping me for the last couple of days.

So let me tell you, they've worked very, very hard. So thank you, gentlemen, thank your department.

MR. HARBIN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you.

MR. PARSONS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to see you this morning.

I'm going to be brief. I have a couple of things that I'd like to talk about.

I've been a Safety and Health Professional for over 34 years now, seems like since I left home at 18. But I'm a little older than that, so it's been a little longer than that.

But during my past couple years with the Directorate of Construction, it's been my pleasure to work with you. And I've never met a more committed group of people to Occupational Safety and Health than the folks I'm looking at right now.

And I sincerely appreciate that. And it means a lot to both me, the Directorate, and the Agency that you're here to do that.

And I say that with all sincerity.

Each of you know that it takes hard work and commitment to have a good safety and health culture within an organization.

It takes hard work and commitment also within the Agency, the Directorate of Construction, and my office, to do the work that we do.

And we demonstrated that, I believe, most recently with the product that was published, which was the Cranes and Derricks final rule.

That supported by many of you who participated with the CDAC Committee, with the stakeholders, the Agency, and you know, it truly takes a team to put something like this together;

And this negotiated rule-making process was, indeed, a team effort; and it was a tough one, as all of you know.

We continue that work in the Directorate of Construction, and the Office of Construction Standards and Guidance by developing, as Eric mentioned a little bit earlier, guidance products, quick cards, fact sheets, so on.

We're also currently working on a directive that will assist compliance officers in how to enforce that new rule.

And beyond that, you know, while that took a lot of our time and effort, working on the Cranes and Derricks final rule, we were also working on the final rule for confined spaces.

And that work continues today. I think without question, I have 12 of the hardest-working, most dedicated folks that work for OSHA; and they're working hard to get this new rule put together, and to get it out.

I know questions are going to be: When's it going to be out, Bill? It's the same as the previous answers. It will be out as soon as we can get it out.

And we're working very hard to get it out.

I don't want to go into a lot of the other things that we're doing, because quite frankly, Mr. Harbin covered many of those things. We share much of the same work within the Directorate of Construction.

It's pretty hard to draw lines: This office does this and this office does this. You know, we intermingle those activities quite a bit.

But what I would like to do is entertain any questions that you might have.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any questions of the Committee for Bill? Steve?

MR. HAWKINS: You know, Bill, I don't think most people in the Safety & Health Community realize how few people actually produce those standards.

And I think sometimes those of us on the outside of OSHA, and certainly across the nation, you know, think there might be 300 people working on confined spaces -- for construction.

And we realize that Garvin and some of these other guys are doing the bulk of that work, and it's a relatively small group of people.

So I just personally -- understand more about the process. I'm really impressed with the work that your office does on the standards and development.

Just wanted to comment on that.

MR. PARSONS: Well, thank you very much, I appreciate that.

And I will say that I think many people don't really understand that we have a very limited number of people to perform these assigned duties.

And there is a lot to do. I mean, we're not talking about working on one issue. We're talking about thinking about planning working many issues at the same time, while continuing to push forward on getting out these rules.

And it does take a lot of hard work. And of course, we would love to have that 300 people, you know.


MR. PARSONS: But we're not going to get that.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions? Emmett?

MR. RUSSELL: Yeah. Just one comment.

On behalf of the operating engineers, I would like to thank OSHA for their excellent job in ruling out the Cranes and Derrick Standard, which is a very sensitive standard to my organization;

As well as I have to commend our Garvin Branch. He actually did a presentation at our Safety & Health Conference, and his presentation was extremely well received.

But again, on behalf of the operating engineers, I'd like to thank OSHA.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions? Tom?

MR. KAVICKY: Tom Kavicky with the carpenters. Bill, you've always had time to sit down and listen to our concerns and give us a little bit of guidance. And I'd like to say "Thank you for that."

I did have a question regarding the Cranes and Derrick Standard. I know you guys have been flooded with a lot of questions for interpretations.

Do you have any idea when those interpretations would start coming out?

MR. PARSONS: Well, I would expect to start seeing interpretations any time. You know, my office is currently working on putting together a plan that will require a more speedy response to interpretations.

And I think I'll probably end my statement there.

We're working very hard to get them out as quickly as we can. It helps not only the users, the people that the rule applies to; but it helps us because it allows us more time to continue the work in other areas, such as the confined spaces rule. And so on.

So the sooner we get that out, the better off everyone is.

MR. KAVICKY: Thank you, Bill.


MR. AHAL: Bill Ahal, Employer Representative.

Bill, I want to thank you, on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America, for your help, both in your current position and of course, when you were in acting positions prior to Mr. Bare being in Washington, and in taking the time to work with the AGC and its Safety & Health Committee, so that they can continue the mission of safety to the members and to the construction industry.

I know that you put a lot of time in with us, traveled to be with us at our meetings when we could; and in the absence of that, were always available, even for a tele-report.

And I can't tell you enough, and to the others in the room, how important that is to the AGC Safety & Health Committee members, and the membership, so they can maintain a safe job site for the workers.

You put in a lot of hours, and we recognize it, and we certainly appreciate it.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.


MR. TOMASESKI: Yeah. Just a question on another issue.

Those of us outside the Agency were hoping that Sub-Part B would have published yesterday; but seeing that it wasn't, any idea what's -- do you have a target date for that?

MR. PARSONS: I can't respond to Sub-Part B. Quite frankly, that's handled by the Directorate of Standards and Guidance, and they may have a representative in here today or tomorrow that may be able to respond to that.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions? Liz?

MS. ARIOTO: Liz Arioto.

Bill, I would like to thank you for always taking time out, no matter what it was -- for five minutes or ten minutes -- to listen to me and to give me so many good suggestions and advice.

So thank you very much.

MR. PARSONS: Well, I thank you all very much. Did my doctor call somebody? Or?


MR. PARSONS: I very much appreciate the comments, and I'm always here to assist in any way I can.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you, Bill.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: For the benefit of the recorder, please state your name when you come forward, and the committee also. He has your names down, but it's a little easier for him if you state your name and who you're with, so when he does his write-ups, it makes it easier.

Thank you.

MR. AYUB: Last but not the least, I'm from the Office of Engineering in the DOC. And as you know, we are a resource for all the matters concerning geotechnical engineering and civil and structural engineering.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Can you state your name for the recorder, please?

MR. AYUB: Mohammad Ayub, A-y-u-b the last name. And I'm Director of the Office of Engineering in DOC.


MR. AYUB: As you know, that our major task in the office is four-fold:

One is to provide technical assistance to the field, regional offices, and national offices, and also different directorates here.

And we do provide engineering support in writing standards, interpretation of the standards, if there are some new innovative methods in order to enhance safety.

So we try to examine it from an engineering point of view.

And our task is also to conduct investigations of major construction collapses. And you that we have so far investigated 96 major collapses.

And an article has been published this month summarizing the causes of the collapses of all the 96 incidents that we have been involved in.

If you would like to get a copy of it, please let me know, and I will get you a copy of it.

Many of you may not be aware of the fact that 20 percent of the cause of the collapses are not construction flaws; they are design flaws.

A structural design was not done properly, either in the office of the structural engineer, or in the office of the engineer retained by the contractors.

Our task is to respond to the major construction incidents within eight to ten hours of the collapse. And the manner in which it works is that the area director of the regional administrator is going to make a call here to the national office.

And then we will able to respond there within eight to ten hours. Once we go there, our task is to examine the collapse, and to stabilize that portion of the building that has not collapsed;

And also stabilize those portions of the structures, means columns, flat beams, which are in a very precarious situation.

And our job is to find whether or not there have been some violations of the OSHA standards, or violation of the generally recognized industry standards.

And of course, lastly, we are tasked to determine the cause of the collapse.

Recently, last month actually, we have completed two major incident investigations. One was the concrete silo collapse in Kansas; and the other was a bridge collapse during reconstruction in Connecticut.

We also, a month before, went to Hattie, Missouri, where there were fertilizer storage bins and there was a walkway and that walkway collapsed, and it killed two of its employees.

And once we went there and once we examined the structure, we came to the conclusion that there is an imminent danger of collapse. So we had advised the plant owner to shut off the entire facility.

And they agreed to replace the entire walkway.

I have been able to hire another structure engineer, his name is Dr. Godemo. He has a Ph.D. in structural engineering, and he's an excellent resource for me in vibration analysis, and in the dynamic analysis of the buildings, bridges, tunnels, and towers.

This is about all that we do. And any time there is some interpretation of standards, we have a role to play because we are asked to advise from the point of view of civil and structural engineering.

And we are not only helping the DOC here, but my office extends itself to all the directorates in the national office.

This will conclude my presentation. If you have any questions to ask me -- or I will be hanging around in the back -- feel free to ask.

Then I can provide to you a copy of the magazine publication that gives a synopsis of all the structural collapses that have taken place.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. Any questions? Matt?

MR. GILLEN: Gee, I'd like to really applaud the work that your office does. It's a difficult job, and it's a small office.

And I especially think it's been great that you've been able to find the time and to sort of be able to packages some of these cases together.

Because it's really, really important to get the information out there, so that others can learn from some of these, you know, important engineering issues related to collapses, et cetera.

So thank you very much.

MR. AYUB: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: That was Matt Gillen.

MR. GILLEN: Matt Gillen. Sorry.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions?

Okay. Thank you very much.

MR. BARE: Thank you. I just want to reiterate and say thank you to Bill and Eric and Mohammad for the great work that they've done, that they have done and that they do.

They have done a yeoman's job on supporting the Agency, supporting Safety & Health, supporting me. And I think they deserve a round of applause, and our thank you.

So, thank you very much.


MR. BARE: To just kind of wrap up and give you kind of an overview of where we're headed within DOC and some of the priorities that we have and things that we've been working on, I'd like to just touch on a few things.

We recognize that improvements need to be made, and we need to make better utilization of information technology sources, doing webinars, reaching out to folks, and using their information technology, the websites and so forth, to better transmit information, and get information back from our stakeholders, including ACCSH and other organizations.

So we're working to update our website, and we would appreciate ideas that you might have on how we can better utilize electronic or information technology to improve our communication with you and improve our services.

We want to be responsive and I want to try to improve our responsiveness to you, and take into consideration your recommendations and ideas that you have.

So we're looking for those, and I very much support and very much would appreciate your input on how we can improve.

We're also looking for better ways to utilize our resources in cooperation with other agencies, like NIOSH. We have been working with them on the nail gun document. And I think that's been -- it's a new approach, it's something that I think has been long overdue, and we're looking for not only working with NIOSH, but other agencies and other organizations as well, and our stakeholders.

We would like to expand and explore on how we can leverage our resources to improve our enforcement programs, particularly in construction targeting, so that we make sure that we have, when the -- officers, or compliance officers arrive at work site, that the work site is active, and it's at a stage in construction where the most prevalent and the most dangerous hazards would possibly exist.

And so we're exploring new ways and using different databases other than Dodge in some cases, or help us supplement Dodge reports in some cases, to assure that we can get to the site in a timely fashion, when we need to bring the compliance officers or enforcement folks need to be there.

But we're also looking at new ways of compliance assistance. And we still value the compliance assistance component. We'd like to work cooperatively with organizations to develop Safety & Health programs, or ways to improve Safety & Health, and get that information out, and expand that and leverage that to our stakeholders.

So with kind of that idea in mind, I just wanted to say that, you know, we do have -- we are ongoing and we have a work group working on I2P2, Injury & Illness Prevention Program.

That was primarily being led by Standards. But we are involved in the standard development. And I wanted to thank Frank for his support in pulling together a Task Force to get rolling on that, so that we have a construction component in that, and we're able to contribute from a construction standpoint to development of that standard.

As I mentioned earlier, we have worked with NIOSH and we're also getting input from other organizations about our nail gun document. We think that's an extremely important issue that needs to be addressed.

The agency has also proposed some amendments to workplace noise, and we're looking at feasible engineering controls, and a redefinition of how to enforce noisy engineering controls in our compliance efforts in that area.

Also, as Bill mentioned, we're running as fast as we can to issue compliance documents for the Cranes and Derrick Standard. We know that that's extremely important, but there's a lot of levels of review that it has to go through.

And we appreciate Emmett's support and help in that area, particularly with helping us with the rollout activities and providing us the ability to show cranes and show the exact types of equipment that would be covered by the Cranes and Derrick Standard.

And it's that type of cooperation that I would look forward to from other organizations, as we move along in developing our standards.

We still have an activity on residential construction in roofing activity and reviewing and considering changing the standard or the directive that was currently in place.

And we're moving forward on rescinding that directive. But I don't know exactly when that might happen, or what the final outcome might be.

So with that in mind, we're also moving forward on trying and develop, no matter what happens with the directive, additional compliance documents that we would issue to on our website and provide to help employers, particularly in the roofing industry, and construction industry, with fall protection techniques and ideas and how they can use personal fall protection systems in a feasible manner;

And provide that compliance assistance to the employers.

We also are working very cooperatively with other directorates, and I'm trying to improve that cooperation, so that construction is represented with any type of general industry enforcement, where that enforcement component may have an impact on construction.

And one of those areas that we've worked in is -- there's been some changes in the penalty structure, there's been some new programs that identify severe violators;

And a number of those severe violators under that program that have been identified during the construction industry, almost about 75 percent of the industries or companies that are in that program are construction, are construction employers;

And that is something that we need to take note of, and pay attention to, and try to marshal our resources to reduce the number of injuries and illnesses in construction industry.

That is kind of a red flag, I think, for us, and something that we need to focus our resources on and try to better help employers comply up front.

The prevention through design activities I think is a step in the right direction. We're also trying to use data to better target our resources and to move us in the right direction, and help us develop compliance documents, and maybe even notify employers that are in a particular high-hazard sector in advance of doing inspection activity that they are in a high - hazard section or a high-hazard industry or doing a high-hazard job that needs their attention.

And we're using the information technology to track and data analysis to identify those sectors and individual employers that may need our assistance.

So it's not just all enforcement. It's a complete package of compliance assistance, as well as enforcement programs, and using our outreach programs effectively to reduce injuries and illnesses, which is, as you know, the overall goal of the agency.

Lastly, I would just like to take a minute to thank the committee members for their excellent work that you have done and are doing. I appreciate, again, the work that you've done putting the Task Force together on I2P2 activity.

And I look forward to your continued support. I deeply value and the Agency deeply values all the work that you have done. And we need your help and support.

And so thank you. And that's all I have. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any questions? Questions on the Committee? Walter?

MR. JONES: Walter Jones, Laborers. And I just have one question. I guess we haven't met since Houston and/or a series of recommendations that the committee made at that time, and I believe at the prior meetings as well.

And is there any way that we can get an update on the status of any of those recommendations?

One that jumps off, comes to mind quickly is the sanitation recommendations that this Committee made in terms of making toilet facilities gender equal on construction work sites, so that the status -- some had thoughts of making the construction standard more in line with the general industry standard, and other recommendations that this group has made to your office?

MR. BARE: Well, I don't have an update right now. But I can work on that, and provide you. Maybe we can send out an update or get that information for you. But I'm just not prepared at this point to address that.


MS. BILHORN: Susan Bilhorn Jacobs.

Yeah, just to tag along. You know, I think there had started -- wasn't there the last two meetings, there was on the agenda, there was kind of a statusing of those actions?

You know, it would be really helpful if there was just maybe a tracking of them.

MR. BARE: Okay.

MS. BILHORN: And I know that was done the last two times. But I wasn't sure how comprehensive. Because you know, it was kind of like drawing from a memory from meeting to meeting, to recall.

So I was going through it the last couple days myself. So Walter, you and I must have doing some of the same thinking.

MR. JONES: Yeah.

MS. BILHORN: And yeah, it would be nice to track them.

MR. JONES: Okay.

MS. BILHORN: And the only reason is because we want to make sure we're in sync with the advice that we can give that can be helpful to the Agency, as opposed to running down two parallel paths.

MR. BARE: Okay.

Eric, do you have anything, by chance? Or --

MR. HARBIN: No, not off the top of my head, I don't have the list of all the recommendations. But I do realize that we updated FIDO, which tracks what the advice that the Committee gives to the Agency.

And off the top of my head, with specifically regards to Mr. Jones' comment. I don't recall that answer to the exact question with regards to the working group on women in construction.

But --

MS. BILHORN: So what's FIDO?

MR. HARBIN: FIDO is -- I may need Ms. Shortall to assist me on this -- but it's an electronic record-keeping system that keeps where we track what the Advisory Committee's recommend to the agency.

And it's not just in OSHA.

And I may have the name incorrect here. But --

MS. SHORTALL: It is FIDO.gov. It's a website maintained by the Government Accounting Office for all advisory committees. It includes things like your charters, your membership lists, all those type things.

It's also supposed to include recommendations that ACCSH has made to the Department.

Now what we do is we record all of those in the minutes, so oftentimes he'll be able to find it there.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

MS. BILHORN: But is it like, you know, Item 1(d)x? This is the action and then like a summary of the recommendations? Or is just the meeting minutes that you then go through to figure out?

MS. SHORTALL: It is not at this point a -- Recommendation A was made. This is OSHA's response to it. It's not that formal, as of yet, at least for this agency.


MR. THIBODEAUX: Mike Thibodeaux.

The last two meetings, Bill Parsons was the one who gave us those updates on what the status was with, you know, with our recommendations to the agency.

So you do recall that correctly. But it was Bill Parsons, and a specific time was set aside for him to do that for us. And I think that would be helpful to the Committee in the future.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. All right. Thank you.

MS. BILHORN: Because I believe you've been proposed specific language that could be used as a draft for quick cards, and that sort of thing.

And just really nice to know. Because if we aren't aligned, then we need to shift our focus to an area that we can provide recommendations that are useful.

MR. BARE: Mm-hmm. Absolutely. Yeah. Those are the kinds of information and what you need to better focus our resources and make sure we're on track together.

So I appreciate that.


MR. AHAL: Bill Ahal. Mr. Bare, it was about five meetings ago that I made the recommendation brought forth to this group that we would keep an update, so that efforts of this committee, if we needed to re-emphasize something.

So again, I know you're kind of new to town, and -- your position.

MR. BARE: Mm-hmm.

MR. AHAL: And since our last meeting together.

It was a regular update, that had been started a couple or three meetings ago. And that way we would know from the last meeting where that status was. We could re-emphasize it if necessary, or be assured that the agency was really far, or what they were -- so.

MR. BARE: Mm-hmm. Okay.

MR. AHAL: It was very helpful.

MR. BARE: Okay.


MS. ARIOTO: Yeah. Liz Arioto. Mr. Bare, I'm on the Diversity of Women in Construction, and the sanitation is a very important part of my --

MR. BARE: We'd --

MS. ARIOTO: I've been working on that with the work groups for 14 years. And I hate to see it go on for another 14 years.


MS. ARIOTO: So we would like to have some update on this if possible. Okay? So we could have a little at each meeting. And our meetings are spread apart, so --

MR. BARE: Okay.

MS. ARIOTO: I'm going to request that that be done.

MR. BARE: Yeah. That's very, very reasonable. So thank you.

MS. ARIOTO: Thank you.

MR. BARE: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you, Ben.

MR. BARE: Okay. Thank you.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All right. We're in a little bit of a gray area right now. We're ahead of schedule, but only by ten minutes.

And we're waiting for Dr. Michaels to come down.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: We're going to check on his availability. Otherwise, we'll start and we'll go with a work group.

MS. SHORTALL: Mr. Chair, I'd like to mark as entrant to the record, under the exhibits for the December 9-10, 2010 ACCSH meeting is Exhibit .1, the Agenda for the December 9-10 ACCSH meeting, and as .2 the schedule of the ACCSH work group meetings on December 7 and 8.




We just passed out the structural collapse during construction that Mohammad was speaking about earlier.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Mohammad, they ask is there a chance to get that electronically?

MR. AYUB: Yes.


Thank you.

MS. SHORTALL: And Mr. Chair, I'd like to mark as Exhibit 0.3 Structural Collapses During Constructions, Lessons Learned, 1990 through 2008, by Mohammad Ayub.


Matt, you say you don't have your --

MR. GILLEN: We have the quarterly meeting, we forgot to get a copy of --

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. Hold on a minute.

Multilingual issues? Tom, Mike, and Jim? Are you guys ready?

Who's going to give the report? No, wait, hold on.

Tom, are you ready on multilingual issues?

MR. BRODERICK: Oh, sure. Go ahead, we'll fill in the time with that, and then when Dr. Michaels comes in, we might have to stop you.

So we'll have the Work Group Committee's Report on Multilingual Issues. Tom, you're going to speak first?


The Multilingual Issues on Construction Work Sites Work Group met on December 7th. The Work Group began at 8:00 a.m. Both co-chairs were present, Michael Thibodeaux and Tom Broderick.

We reviewed and acknowledged the minutes from the April ACCSH meeting that was held at the Hispanic Summit in Houston.

Feedback from the Work Group on the Hispanic Summit was positive. Work Group participants described some activities that occurred as a result of the summit, including residential safety classes that were held on-site in Texas in several cities by an ACCSH member, and a guest speaker from our meeting at the summit.

The training was performed in both English and Spanish. Contractor supervisors attended the training, and most of it was hands on with scaffold, fall protection equipment, floor openings, guard rails, et cetera.

Questions were asked and answered by instructors and participants, and instructors rewarded trainees for answering questions.

The NAHB -- produced workbooks were used as handouts for residential safety training.

It was pointed out that we need to ensure workers can understand signs and barrier warnings that are commonly posted in English.

As some workers may not read either language, we she encourage wider use of universal symbols to convey safety warnings.

Where do we go from here to keep the Hispanic issue on the front burner? We discussed some regional Hispanic initiatives. Several regional Latino summits have been held and others are in planning stages.

Mexican consulates have assisted.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Tom, can I -- Dr. Michaels is here now. After he's finished, we'll go ahead back with your report.

Dr. Michaels?

DR. MICHAELS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. How are you?


DR. MICHAELS: Good morning, members of ACCSH. Well, thank you, I need no introduction any more.


DR. MICHAELS: It's nice to see all of you.

This is the first time we've met in this group since the Latino Summit in Houston in April. And so there's lots of cover since then. I know you've been very busy.

That summit was a tremendous success. And I want to thank you for your help in supporting it. Much of it focused on the construction industry and hazards facing the Latinos in the construction industry.

And since then, OSHA in really all of our regions, has followed up on the issues that were raised there: Working with consulates, with community faith-based groups, employer union groups.

We've reached out and done training. We've tried to get information out about hazards and construction to workers who are at risk for injury and fatality.

We've also issued a memo to our field staff, reminding them to ensure that when training is done, for workers -- not just in construction, but across the board -- that the training is provided in languages workers can understand.

That seems an obvious directive, an obvious choice.

But we unfortunately saw numerous situations where training occurred, training was given to workers in English, and they didn't speak English.

So we've asked that that not continue, and we will ensure that it not continue.

Driving down injuries and fatalities in construction remains a very high priority of OSHA, and I'm sure for everyone in this room.

Construction fatalities in fiscal year 2009 went down, and that's obviously a good thing. We think we contributed to that. But a slower economy and, you know, industry compliance, obviously has a big impact.

We're pleased the numbers are going down. It is great. But it's still too high. We can do better.

Fully one-third of the construction fatalities last year were due to falls from elevations, obviously. These were unnecessary, they're wasteful, we're very concerned about this. And we're pleased to be working with you to address these.

Two weeks ago, OSHA cited a steel erection contractor. We gave willful and serious violations after a worker fell from a construction site in Brooklyn.

The worker was a foreman named Luis Zaruma. He was working on top of a six-story residential building under construction. The steel beam section he was working on shifted, and he fell 50 feet to the ground, and he died.

Our inspection found that the beam hadn't been stabilized to prevent displacement. The worker lacked fall protection. His life could easily have been saved.

He was 36 years old.

I say that to remind us of our job here. Construction workers and their families should not, they cannot, and they must not, risk death as a condition of employment.

And we can't allow that to happen.

As our economy recovers -- and it is recovering and we're hoping the recovery speeds up -- we can presume that worker fatalities and injuries may start to rise, and we can't let that happen.

We know that when new workers come on to work sites, they're at greater risk; and when construction activity and economic activity picks up, the number and the rate of fatalities rises, and we have to be particularly cognizant of that, and do our best to make sure that as the economy improves, we don't see an increase in fatalities to go with the improved and increased economic statistics.

A couple of months ago in October the Labor Department under the leadership of Secretary Hilda Solis, announced our six-year strategic plan, setting goals and priorities through 2016.

The plan is based on essentially our belief, expresses our belief that, first of all, everyone in America deserves an opportunity to secure a good job;

That employers have responsibility to comply with the law and protect workers; and that all workers deserve a fair wage in exchange for a day's work, and all businesses deserve a level playing field, rather than competing against those that gain unfair advantage by breaking the law.

So that's sort of the basis of our strategic plan, and that out of those imperatives come a lot of our activities.

Now under this plan, OSHA will work very hard to reduce worker deaths associated with four leading causes: Falls, electrocutions, caught-in, caught-betweens, and struck-bys.

Our objective is to reduce these fatalities by nine percent in construction and general industry. So we're very much going to focus on those, and you'll see more and more activities around those.

We believe we can have a big impact there.

Over the next six years, we also aim to reduce, we hope by as much as 14 percent, the number of bad hazards -- and we're particularly focusing on hearing loss in construction and manufacturing; illness in general industry and construction; and we're focusing on workplace amputations.

The plan sets a goal for OSHA to remove seven percent more workers from hazards through inspections in 2016 than we did last year in 2009.

These goals are ambitious, but the results will be priceless.

Also as many of your know from attending the recent NIOSH/NORA meeting, that NORA is launching a campaign to prevent fatalities and construction.

The current plan is to launch a fall prevention campaign for construction workers. We applaud this, and we hope and we encourage ACCSH to get involved in this.

Now our next regulatory agenda has not been announced. But I can talk a little bit about our most recent accomplishments and priorities, which I think will be reflected in the regulatory agenda.

Now first before that, we have completed -- and we issued our nationwide standard on Cranes and Derricks. It went into effect on November 8th, just a month ago. I don't think I need to tell you if that happens.

We expect to complete a directive for the final rule in 2011, in June. There's no question compliance with this regulation will save lives.

Crane riggings present significant dangers for workers, and we were long overdue to modernize the standard.

We believe that employers who already have good processes and work practices will probably only need to make minor adjustments in their efforts to comply with this new standard.

But those employers who are operating outside the norm -- and I think we're not talking about anyone in this room or who is so intimately involved in -- activities that applies to, but those employers will have to comply the most.

We've made great progress, I think, on other aspects of our regulatory agenda, and we're poised to issue several more final rules very soon.

We're finalizing rules on confined space in construction workers, and we expect to complete that in November.

We're finalizing rules in electrical power transmission and distribution to protect workers from electrocution.

We're harmonizing our HAZCOM standard with international standards to improve worker comprehension of chemical hazards, and to make it easier for manufacturers and others who produce these materials to produce the same materials that can be used throughout the world.

We're continuing to push to reach other milestones. We're focused on getting a rule out to protect workers from silica exposure.

We soon will have a revised residential construction fall-proof protection directive. And in 2011, we'll begin our small business review of regulatory approaches to combustible dust hazards.

And of course, we're going to be developing compliance assistance materials on some specific construction hazards; cranes in construction, and nail guns I think you've all heard some of the thing we're doing on that.

The most important initiative we're working on, which I think will affect everybody in construction and in general industry, is our rule that we're calling the Injury and Illness Prevention Program Rule.

We've talked about this, we haven't issued it. We haven't moved into actually issuing a regulation yet. But this is part of the Department of Labor's larger plan, prevent, protect initiative.

But so it's we're doing, MSHA's doing, other worker protection agencies are doing, it represents the most fundamental change in workplace culture that we've tried to make since the passage of the OSHA Act, which, as you know, was signed by President Nixon 40 years ago this month.

With this change, with the Injury and Illness Prevention Programs, employers would be required to take an active approach to ensuring safe and healthful conditions for their workers.

So, in other words, we're asking employers not to wait until OSHA comes and makes inspection, or that workers get injured, or they get sick on the job; but that employers take a risk-based approach, look what their hazards are, identify them, and fix them, and not say we're trying to just meet OSHA's standards; we're trying to provide the safe workplace.

And I think that's what every employer in this room does. And we expect all employers to do that.

So I2P2 would cover hazards, not just in OSHA's standards, but ones that we would be using in General Duty Clause 4.

We announced this regulatory effort almost a year ago. We've had the series of stakeholder meetings -- I know a number of you have participated. We've conducted a lot of research.

We've talked to the states. There are a number of states that have programs like this, certainly California, Oregon, and Washington all have Injury and Illness Prevention Program regulations.

A lot of states have voluntary programs associated with their workers compensation systems. We've learned a great deal, we're soon to begin our small business review of that.

And I believe that the Directorate of Standards and Guidance has prepared a more detailed presentation. And you'll be receiving that some time later on in this meeting.

I want to thank you very much, because I know you've created an Injury and Illness Prevention Program, Prevention Work Group.

I think this is a very important development for us, for OSHA, for you, and for the construction workers and construction industry in the United States. I'm grateful for that.

Now hold on for one second here. Let's see if -- taking me down in size here --


DR. MICHAELS: The building industry is stepping up its solutions as well, incorporating engineering controls into construction; and I think ACCSH and its members are raising expectations for what is expected, what's desirable, and forward-looking.

I am grateful that you've put together your Prevention Through Design Work Group. It's a very exciting idea, I think it's an exciting development.

This was a novel idea a few years ago. I think its gaining wide acceptance. It has great support with its forward impact and the Building Trades Employers Association of New York, ACCSH, and others.

I think these are life-saving controls that are really moving into the mainstream, and hopefully will soon become the norm for new buildings and for renovated buildings.

I've seen that in New York, when I've been up there and looking at some of the new procedures being used. The cocooning; poured-in-place concrete buildings are being cocooned. It's very impressive.

I also went up to New York and visited the Freedom Tower, being built on the World Trade Center site with the ironworkers at impact. I was very impressed with their commitment to safety.

There was a Rebuilding for Unity Campaign there, which I was really very pleased to be a part of and to endorse their goal of zero injuries and fatalities.

We'd like to see that, we'd like to see prevention built in through design. We'd like to see labor/management cooperation in putting these construction projects together and making safety such a high priority.

Obviously, this isn't all being done voluntarily. And we have to look at ways to encourage others to get involved, who haven't seen the light and how important this is.

I also want to mention our Building Inspector Pilot Program that has recently started. It's another way we're attempting to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on construction sites.

We've been working with municipalities across the country. We don't want to turn building inspectors into OSHA inspectors. But we want them to be vigilant. When they see problems, we want them to raise them with employers, or they can call OSHA if they feel like the problems are not being addressed.

But the people are on site and they see problems, they should be able to address them. And this is something that's not just happening in the OSHA world.

Many of you have read, for example, that in considering the gigantic recall of eggs that occurred a few months ago, there were, I think, half a billion eggs that were potentially contaminated with salmonella, that were recalled.

What's sometimes not discussed in that recall is over a thousand people had already been made sick by those eggs, and that recall probably saved many lives.

But certainly it was a difficult situation for everybody involved.

Well, it turned out that inspectors from government agencies who were not in charge of protecting the health of consumers were in those egg facilities and saw some of those problems,

And didn't raise them sufficiently to have the problem dealt with early.

And that's unfortunate. I mean, in this case I think what I read was the Department of the Agriculture was in the facilities, and the Agriculture inspectors are in charge of making sure the eggs were the right size, get their size right.

But they saw some of the problems.

But the fact they were there wasn't enough to stop the eggs from being contaminated, that hasn't changed.

So you should know, just as an aside, OSHA has been working closely with the Food and Drug Administration, because FDA contacted us after that recall, because they had read that not recently, but we had been in many of those same sites and saw, you know, terrible conditions for the workers;

And of course, if workers are mistreated, it's reasonable to think that there are problems with the eggs as well.

So we are working with the FDA when we see problems. They're working with us. And this sort of across-the-government-agencies cooperation is something that we see more and more and want to encourage.

Because no government agency can be everywhere all the time. But if an agency is in a work site or in a factory or in any sort of place and sees a potential public health problem, they should alert the proper authority, so we can save lives.

So this building inspector program I think is a very good example of cooperation between agencies -- in this case, federal agencies -- and local governments. And it really is to the benefit of all of us.

So we're now evaluating this program to see if we can expand it to other cities as well.

As many of you know, we've also announced more than $10 million in grants through our Susan Harwood Training Program to 61 organizations.

Many of these focused on construction workers and construction hazards.

In addition, I think many of these organizations that we gave money to of the new grantees, are organizations very much focused on reaching the vulnerable workers, those of us who have been actively involved in Safety & Health for a long time, seen as being workers in particular need for education, workers who are not necessarily reached through the employer organizations, the trade unions; but workers who are at great risk and need to know what their rights are and how to work safely.

Enforcement, needless to say, remains a priority for OSHA, it's a proven useful deterrent. It's useful not just for the employers who are cutting corners, but it reminds good employers that they need to ensure that their work is done safely.

As I mentioned earlier, OSHA takes the level end of the playing field very seriously. We see and all the time we meet with employers, we see employers who try to do the right thing, who spend the extra money, who slow the job down, who take the extra time to make sure the work is done safely.

We can't let them be undercut by employers who don't care, who are willing to, you know, hire the untrained worker off the street, put them in situations where they can be hurt, not give them proper training, not give them proper equipment;

Not take the time to, you know, make sure they're using the proper safety equipment.

They can make a greater profit, they can sometimes get the job; but they're putting workers' lives at risk, and they're undercutting the employers who are trying to do the right thing.

So our job, among others, is to make sure the playing field is level, that employers who care enough to protect their workers aren't put at a financial disadvantage.

In FY 2010, federal OSHA did nearly 41,000 inspections, including 66 hundred health inspections.

Our state plan partners conducted an additional 57 thousand safety inspections, including 12,000 health inspections.

So close to 100,000 inspections were conducted by OSHA, federal or state, last year. We'll continue to try to do more. But obviously, given the number of work sites in the United States, we can't get out to all the work sites. We can't see all the problems that are out there.

So we have to take different approaches that will leverage our resources.

One of the things we're doing to focus particularly on those employers who we think are at most risk for workers being hurt, we belong to the Severe Violators Enforcement Program.

That's SVEP.

We have a special office that comes up with these acronyms.


DR. MICHAELS: And the pronunciation of them. So this is the SVEP program. It's part of our Scandinavian branch.

And essentially what it does is when we've identified an employer, because for things that we found in our initial inspection, and the serious problems that we saw there -- it involves more mandatory inspections of those identified employers; more mandatory follow-up inspection; intensified examination and employer's histories.

We really look at systemic problems, not just at one work site but many work sites, where they are.

We believe that rooting out these systemic problems can eventually make a huge difference in the lives of many workers.

We think these are some of the places where workers are at greatest risk.

Now we recently finished FY 2010, when we went back and counted what we did. We issued more egregious and significant cases than any time in the last decade;

Including some very highly publicized cases, obviously, the $81 million penalty against BP, following up the Texas City catastrophe. That was the largest fine in OSHA's history.

The second largest fine was the initial fine against BP, following the Texas City catastrophe.

The third largest fine in OSHA's history was issued last year. We issued it against Clean Energy and other contractors. That was a $16 million fine to several Connecticut contractors after six workers were killed and 50 workers were injured in the blast at the construction site for the power plant in Middletown, Connecticut, a blast never that never should have happened.

Our Directorate of Construction has provided engineering assistance to field offices enforcement in cases across the country.

They've just completed two major investigations of failures: The collapse of concrete silos in Russell, Kansas, and the collapse of a bridge during reconstruction in Nawgatuk, Connecticut. And they do some very interesting and high-quality work.

Penalties are one of the strategies we use to encourage hazard abatement. The fear of penalty, or the attempt to avoid getting a penalty certainly encourages many employers to abate hazards.

Penalties have meaning when they're large enough to convince employers that compliance is better than playing catch-me-if-you-can with OSHA.

Essentially what we're trying to do is change the calculus. So in October we instituted a new penalty policy. Now our maximum penalties are set by law, and they're set at a low level, that have not been updated in many years, almost two decades.

But we still control within that structure how we issue penalties and what sort of reductions we provided.

So we have instituted some new administrative changes to reduce the level of reductions in some situations to send a stronger message to employers that cutting corners is unacceptable.

We believe that if employer see they'll get more than token penalty, they're more likely to do something before the OSHA inspector arrives, or before a worker gets hurt.

Now employers fear of being publicly identified as a violator of OSHA regulations is a powerful incentive to abate hazards.

When some employers learn of others receiving OSHA citations and fines, they abate their own hazards to avoid unwelcome notoriety.

I know this is successful. I was recently at a conference where an attorney who represents employers and I were both speakers. And this attorney got up and said, "You know, OSHA is being very aggressive with its press releases."

And he said, "You know, it's being very effective."

I get calls from my clients, who ask me "How do I make sure I don't get in one of these press releases?"


DR. MICHAELS: And of course, there is an easy answer to that. Abate your hazards.


DR. MICHAELS: And that's exactly what we want. We want employers to understand that they need to abate the hazards before OSHA gets there, before someone gets there.

I didn't want to have to say, "Look, we're going to give you a big penalty." I want them to say, "Look, I didn't want to get in that situation, I want to take care of the problem now."

So I think this is controversial. I think you'll hear over the next upcoming period that some people say, "You know, this is what OSHA is, you know, calling people guilty before the trial."

But this is a standard public health and regulatory approach. It's what health inspectors for restaurants do. You know, by putting up the notice that said: This restaurant got a C rather than an A in, you know, when the health inspector came.

It's very effective.

And it's cost effective. It saves the taxpayers money, and it saves lives. You know, in our case. I don't know if the restaurant inspectors save lives, but they certainly prevent a great of gastrointestinal unpleasantness.


DR. MICHAELS: And so we like to encourage that, and we'll be doing more of that.

So we're going to continue to issue strong press releases that name employers, expose failings and detail hazards that we uncover in our inspections.

We've proposed several changes in our regulations covering our on-site consultation program. Just we went to clarify situations where my office can define sites that receive inspections regardless of their exemption status.

This is an issue for a small number of employers, with employers who are in the SHARP Program. We feel there are certain situations where our inspectors have to do inspections, even though there's been an exemption given.

And that's all detailed in our proposal.

We think it's a useful, very useful proposal. We had a federal regulatory notice. We received public comment. The comment period ended November 3rd, and now we're reviewing comments.

We've also made some changes in our Alliance Program, and we're revised the criteria for participation. And I think you're going to be hearing more of that later on today.

These revised criteria for participation in Alliances will let us better meet our strategic goals. We want to ensure that workers have a voice in the Alliance efforts.

And we want to reach constituencies most in need of OSHA's assistance. And so we want Alliances to reach out to those populations and to ensure that workers have better knowledge of what their rights are under OSHA.

So these are small changes in the Alliances program that I think will have a big impact.

But we will continue to work with and establish and support alliances with increasingly diverse groups, and not just the ones we've always worked with. But we want to include community and faith-based organizations; other groups that can reach out to workers who we normally can't reach so easily.

We greatly value the alliances we have in the construction community, and we look forward to working with all these alliances and strengthening them to prevent injuries and death in construction workers.

So let me say in closing again how much I appreciate all of your work. I know this is not your primary activity. All of you are taking time out from your regular job to do this. It's a very important contribution you make to the country.

We value your recommendations and we consider, you know, we always consider the advice that you offer.

We tried to implement your recommendations when we can, and your perspective is very valued to us and very valuable.

We've very much taken to heart President Obama's vision of government transparency and responsiveness, and so we're working with the Directorate of Construction to make sure that all the materials that you produce in your advice is not just given to us in a private way, put out on the web and posted and so everybody sees this well.

We're also trying to get our Green Job website up. We expect it's going to be up very soon. And I think it will be a really important addition to this discussion.

I should tell you that the ACCSH membership nominations are being reviewed right now. I'm reviewing them in my offices. I will be sending the recommendations to Secretary Solis shortly, since she is the one who actually makes the final decisions.

And so for some of you, this may be your last meeting. I want to thank you deeply for your service. I know you've put in a great deal of time over the years, helping us.

For others of you, I'm looking forward to continuing to work with you. Actually for all of you, I'm continuing to with you, some of you on the Committee and some not on the Committee.

But thank you again for your work, and happy holidays to all of you. And we look forward to a very productive 2011 and 2012.

So thank you very much. And I'll take a few questions if you like.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any questions? Tom?

MR. SHANAHAN: Tom Shanahan with the National Roofing Contractors.

Two things. First, I just wanted to compliment you on your staff. You know, those of us, I think especially on the employers side of the fence appreciate positions being opened and changes in staffs, and all that stuff.

And you guys had your share of that. And we really enjoyed working with everybody, and all the changes. They've been very responsive and helpful to all of us.

So thanks for that.

The second thing is I just wanted to underscore something that you had said in your presentation here.

The fact of the matter is you know, the number of deaths and everything have decreased. And of course, you tie that a little bit, as we think we all probably would, to some degree of the economic downturn.

But importantly, the fact of the matter is -- and you had mentioned it -- you know, we're all anticipating that the downturn will turn upwards. And of course, when that happens, you know, we'll all be looking forward to taking on more jobs and hiring more people.

And you know, I've been around long enough I'm happy to say to have experienced, you know, recessions and coming out of them before, and you know, worry about the accidents and injuries that tend to occur as we take it on.

It's easier to downsize, it's much harder to upsize, if you will.

And so in my speeches -- and I speak quite a bit in classes and things that I'm teaching -- I'm really talking about that to our contractors and asking them to anticipate the upturn and think about maybe hiring sooner, doing a lot of safety training ahead of time with these folks;

So that when they get on the jobs -- you know, because when people have been out of work for a long time, when owners haven't been hiring for a long time, everybody wants to take on work, everybody's excited to work.

And I think sometimes that leads to a culture of risk-taking. And we've seen that. So anything -- like I said, what we're trying to do it in our CA, what I'm trying to do personally is to be ahead of that curb and really talk to people about that.

And I just wanted to encourage the Agency -- and I'd be happy to help in any way, shape, or form -- I'm sure all my colleagues here would be too -- to get the word out a head of time, to really start thinking about this stuff, as we anticipate an upturn.

DR. MICHAELS: And you know, that's a great -- I hadn't thought about actually formally putting things out there, but maybe we should as well.

I mean, it may be a little premature. I hope not.


DR. MICHAELS: But I think you're absolutely right. We should think about how -- to just remind people of that on a regular basis.


MR. AHAL: I'm Bill Ahal, Employee Representative.

Dr. Michaels, as the co-chair of the Prevention Through Design Work Group, which met yesterday afternoon, I appreciate your comments and enthusiasm towards that effort.

I would like to ask you one question. Could you take just a few additional moments, and expound a little bit on your commitment for the Agency to help this group move forward with that opportunity to expand into, say, some nontraditional areas with other groups outside, like AIA and such like that, towards making a better, safer work site?

DR. MICHAELS: Absolutely.

I mean, unfortunately our most powerful tools is probably the bully pulpit in this case. I'd like to think we had stronger tools; but we certainly want to encourage organizations that can play an active role in prevention through design to be involved, and for the economic forces that drive it to embrace that.

Because we can talk about it all we want; but it really is something that architects, builders, others have to build with it. And we, you know, we can certainly make a strong case, but that's really all we can do is make that case, and hope they believe it.

But I try to do that in my speeches. I try to talk very much about the importance of this, that really it's a great -- I'm looking for the right word here -- it's meaningful that we don't include the protection of workers in the design of buildings.

And it's a loss, it's a poor reflection on the United States. I mean, think about this, and we'll go back to the eggs for a minute.

When we think about the, you know, what we want for the health of our children, for example, or for our health, we go into supermarkets now, and you see not only do you want eggs to be salmonella-free, but there is a great market now for free-range chickens, and cage-free eggs.

And we care deeply about, you know, the health of, you know, the chickens. But we don't care about the workers in the chicken factories.

I mean, no one says, "Let's purchase chickens where workers are at risk for carpal tunnel syndrome."

And so we have to raise these issues and say, look, we have to -- it's the right thing to do, to incorporate prevention into the design of these buildings, because we care about people being killed; and we care about workers, you know, making it home safely every night.

You know, we believe that there is some economic value as well to the developer; but I try to make this case, and I speak to different groups and raise this in a way that I think they hear us.

I mean, obviously we encourage our staff to support these activities and work closely with NIOSH, you know. And I'm glad to see Matt here, and NIOSH certainly is taking a lead in that.

We, everybody supports those activities, and NIOSH and OSHA are working probably more closely than they have in many years in terms of making it clear that we share our policies on these things.

And as we put out materials, we're for the first time co-branding them -- not for the first time, but for the first time in decades -- cobranding things, where we're saying "This comes out from OSHA and NIOSH," so it has a little bit more weight.

And so those are the things we're trying to do. And if you have suggestions of other things we can do to encourage that to happen, we certainly will do more like that.

MR. AHAL: Thank you.


MS. BILHORN: Susan Bilhorn, Jacobs Engineering.

Tagging onto a comment that Tom made, Tom, I don't know the companies that you guys represent, how many companies can actually bring on people before they have jobs? Which is the challenge.

DR. MICHAELS: Yeah, that's -- yes.

MS. BILHORN: So the one thing I was going to say.

But there is -- this is where the unions can have a far greater play, because they have a constituent that they can actually in a down time when they are fully occupied, use that time for additional training and perspective.

So that's where I think you can bring that in. Because it's really very difficult for companies to hire on with an anticipation, and you know, no work.


MS. BILHORN: Certainly when you do the ramp-up, it's like how do you bring those people on with the training that they need?

So I just wanted to follow on to that.

But I do also have a question. While there may be fewer injuries this past year, and there may be an attribution to the economy, my question is whether it's proportionately different by work hour.

Because, for example, this was a concern back with some of the quick spending on ARRA to be able to get that work going, and the workforce it would be drawing upon.

So the question is proportionately are you seeing it different?

DR. MICHAELS: Well, it's hard to discern, to pull apart all these different things. There's no question that injuries and fatalities are decreasing.

In terms of injuries, all injuries are going down a little less than serious injuries. And I'm trying to figure out what that means.

But all the studies show that for whatever reason, once you wrap up, you can expect to have a higher -- the increase in injuries will be disproportionately higher than the --

MS. BILHORN: The work hours --

DR. MICHAELS: Than the work hours that will increase. And the assumption is that's because you got people who are either well-trained or familiar with the jobs.

I was just actually on the phone yesterday with the NCCI, the National Compensation folks, who have all the data from 34 states, who were expecting this.

And they're getting ready because they're seeing exactly, you know, they've seen this over the years with economic booms and busts.

The understanding sort of what's driving these data is something that's very important to us and to NIOSH, and we're trying to wrestle with it now, because we haven't put enough time or resources into that to understand it.

But certainly we have to be prepared, given the upcoming economic upturn, which -- for historical reasons, we know that there will be an impact of that.

But I think your point is well taken. You can't hire people in anticipation, or certainly --

And so I think it will be impossible for all of us to think about ways to make sure that when the hiring is done, that, you know, the first work is done in a way that safety is particularly encouraged and observed.

MS. BILHORN: Because one of the interesting dynamics that also occurs in the business environment is that when you go through an economic downturn, everything gets reset at a lower margin.


MS. BILHORN: Which means that when you do bring people on, it's at a lower margin --

DR. MICHAELS: That's right --

MS. BILHORN: Which means you don't have as much money to invest in, et cetera.

So it's kind of an interesting dynamic from a business perspective. You know, so you can't hire on any additional, because you're actually going to be working at lower margins, because all your competition is gone into that.

So it's kind of when the economy's healthy, you've got more money to invest, because you know, you're able to move that forward.

We're resetting back to probably the '80s or early '90s actually.

DR. MICHAELS: You know, firms like yours, which have obviously, you know, large firms that keep good records, you know, really dedicated to safety, as I know Jacobs is.

And you're a recent corporate VPP recipient, and congratulations for that. I think you all are doing a terrific job.

If from your data you think you can see any trends like this that would be of interest to us, I'd love to hear more from you, you know, afterwards at some point.


DR. MICHAELS: It would be very helpful to me.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions?

I just have one, Dr. Michaels. Frank Migliacco, with the Employee Representative.

You touched on the fall regulatory agenda. Do we have any idea, a ballpark figure, of maybe when it might come out?

DR. MICHAELS: I actually -- well, I dropped the word "fall" from my discussion, because I'm hoping it comes out in the fall.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: A couple more weeks when it will be here?

DR. MICHAELS: Well, we still have a few more weeks in the fall.

But you know, this is an administration-wide agenda. So I don't know when it's actually coming out, and they aren't telling me.

But I'm hoping it comes out soon. I think we have a number of exciting things on there. And once it comes out, we'll be able to talk more concretely about taking on some of those activities.

But I'm told it's going to come out in the next few weeks. And that's my hope.


Any other questions? Thank you.

Debbie, are you going to --

(Discussion was held off the record.)

DR. MICHAELS: Well, thank you all, and thank you again for your work.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Thank you very much.


CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Tom, if you'll complete your Work Group? And then we'll take a break after that.


(Discussion was held off the record.)

MR. BRODERICK: Well, let's see. We left off -- this is Tom Broderick speaking -- talking about where do we go from here? And discussing some regional summit.

There have been several regional Latino summits, and they've had a good measure of success, a lot of participation.

The Mexican consulates in the respective areas have been very supportive in terms of assisting with speakers. And they're also a good resource to market the initiatives to the at-risk workers.

The Work Group also learned about each region having an ESL coordinator -- English as a second language, or Hispanic coordinator.

At least one is in each region of OSHA's ten regions. Anyone interested in planting a summit should check with their regional office and their ESL coordinator.

ACCSH members may volunteer to assist with planning regional summits. And as an aside, we are discussing the possibility of doing one in Region Five in the spring.

A suggestion was also made to develop fact sheets based on some of the sessions that were held at the Hispanic Summit in Houston, and that these fact sheets or data sheets that could be produced would be a good product coming from our Work Group.

And we will investigate doing that and looking back over the sessions that were held and communicated with the people who delivered those particular sessions.

In an update on agency efforts to continue to focus on Latino workers and high-hazard work, we discussed the use of 11(c) protections, or protections that workers have from retaliation for making an issue of safety and health problems at job sites.

And one of the things that was brought up is that it's very important for someone who comes forth with an 11(c) complaint that they sign the complaint and make the complaint be an official complaint that really helps the 11(c) investigators to be able to sink their teeth in it.

And if it's just a rumor or a phone call from someone who doesn't want to leave their name, it's very difficult for the agency to substantiate it.

And the group agreed that it would be good to have someone from this agency address the Work Group at our next meeting, and that's assuming that our Work Group is still intact by the next meeting.

And then we can distribute accurate information in English and Spanish about filing a complaint.

We discussed the role of the Wage & Hours Division within the Department of Labor, as it works on virtual contractors who hire day laborers without establishing proper employment requirements;

Such as workers' compensation insurance, payroll taxes, social security, and medical withholding and so forth.

The DOL Wage & Hours Group is getting involved in helping day laborers get a fair shake when doing temporary work.

It was pointed out that ten to 15 percent of the day laborers who go to work don't get paid for their work. And it was suggested that we have someone from Wage & Hours within the Department of Labor come to our next meeting to explain their perspective on this issue.

We reviewed a Construction Safety Council Harwood Grant that the Construction Safety Council has received on developing a Latino safety training resource center. And the basic elements of this multi-year grant were issued as a handout, which is found attached.

Not attached to this document right now, but it will be distributed before the end of the meeting.

We are deferring our consideration of the Work Group charge and mission statement to the next ACCSH meeting. And I think that that is prudent, because it appears as though we may have a new cast of characters who will be coming in to staff the Work Group.

So I think it's only fair that they get a shot at putting their fingerprints on the Work Group.

And in other business, we need to make sure that we pay attention to how people learn in developing new media. And also it was suggested that we be true to the title of our Work Group, multilingual.

So far we've been focusing, I think where the most pressing problem has been. And that is the Latino workforce. But it was pointed out that there are many other ethnic groups that are staffing our construction jobs, Eastern Europeans being an example that was brought up.

And then finally, we are recommending that future documents that are put out, that impact instruction, be developed in both English and Spanish.

There was some discussion about information coming out, fact sheets on signaling and rigging and on cranes, that I believe so far are being done in English.

But we also recommend that they be distributed in Spanish, as well. The Work Group adjourned at five minutes of 10:00.

Thank you.


Mike, do you have anything to add?

MR. THIBODEAUX: No. Except for one thing. We had 23 attendees at this function that -- comments about it. Especially he talked about the Eastern European workers that some regional areas I think Tom's folks in Chicago have tried to address that issue in other areas of the country, where you have a lot of those workers, and they don't speak English.

And so one thing that we talked about was not always being able to translate into those languages, but going to the signage that is universal world-wide, you know, warning signs, et cetera, would be more helpful.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Thank you. I'll entertain a motion to accept this Work Group's report. Okay.

Matt Gillen? A second?

MR. GILLEN: Second.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Tom, questions or discussions? Any questions of the Work Group?

MS. SHORTALL: I had a couple of questions about your report.

On page two of the report, under the first bullet, the word, "We can then distribute accurate information in English and Spanish," could you explain what "We" refers to?

MR. BRODERICK: I'm sorry. The first bullet -

MS. SHORTALL: The first bullet at the end of it, the paragraph below it, the last sentence is "We can then distribute accurate information in English and Spanish." Could you explain who "We" refers to?

MR. BRODERICK: Oh, regarding rights under 11(c).

MS. SHORTALL: No, no. Who does "We" refer to? Is that OSHA?

MR. BRODERICK: I'm sorry, yes.

MS. SHORTALL: All right.

My suggestion would be if they would amend their report to, say, OSHA?

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Do you agree, Tom?



All right. All in favor of accepting this report, say "aye."

(Chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Seeing none, the motion is carried. All right.

It's quarter of, we're right on time. We'll take a 15-minute break. All right.

(A brief recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Next on the agenda will be the Silica and Health Hazards Work Group. Matt, you're going to speak for the group?


(Discussion was held off the record.)

MS. SHORTALL: Mr. Chair, while Mr. Gillen gets prepared, I'd like to enter as Exhibit 4 the Approved Multilingual Issues Work Group Report from the December 7, 2010 meeting.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: So done. There we go.

All right, Matt.


So the Silica & Other Health Hazards Work Group met on December 8th from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. around noon. There were 37 attendees, and Co-Chair Walter Jones presided, and Co-Chairs Dan Zarletti and Matt Gillen assisted.

The meeting began with self-introductions, and then acceptance of the minutes from that April meeting we had.

So we first got a silica update from David O'Connor of OSHA's Directorate of Standards and Guidance. And he provided a short status report on the proposed rule for silica in construction.

And he indicated that the regulatory agenda target date for a proposal publication is February 1, 2011. And the DSG will be close to meeting this date, but expects final steps to take perhaps a few months longer.

And the proposal's almost ready for OMB, and OMB has 90 days to review the rule and return comments to OSHA.

And DSG had no specific requests for information at this time, but did remind ACCSH members that they were interested in input on what they call Table 1, the Table 1 concept for the rule.

And Table 1 involves providing employers an option to follow specified control and respirator requirements as an alternative to approaches based on --

And Co-Chair Matt Gillen reiterated the earlier work of discussion and recommendation that supported this approach, along with the work of recommendation about the importance of linking it to a silica-competent person.

We then talked about Noise & Hearing Conservation for most of the meeting. Walter Jones described how noise was an example of a construction health hazard and they needed additional Work Group discussion.

We had two speakers on the agenda. The first speaker was Scott Schneider of the Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America. And he provided a review of the ANSI standard A10.46, which covers noise and hearing conservation in construction.

His presentation provided background information about noise, including its current regulatory status, and the prevalence of hearing loss among construction workers.

He reviewed the nine provisions in the ANSI standard, including unique features such as the concept of overprotection and double protection.

And overprotection refers to the need to ensure that the hearing protection used does not interfere with communication.

And double protection referred to the use of both ear plugs and ear muffs for noise levels in excess of 105 decibels.

The Appendix in the Standard includes information about noise levels associated with common construction tasks, and the Standard describes the number of audiometric testing options that employers a pursue.

And questions and discussions addressed ambient noise consideration, the use of "should" versus "shall" language for administrative and engineering controls in the Standard, and other issues.

We then heard from Chuck Hayden of NIOSH, and he described current NIOSH efforts to promote "Buy quiet approaches to noise reduction," with both equipment manufacturers and construction contractors.

He described how equipment noise can fundamentally be attributed to either vibration or turbulent flow conditions.

He briefly described the options that engineers can take to reduce such conditions.

So Buy Quiet involves "taking the issue upstream to equipment manufacturers, and by including noise in procurement decisions to move purchasing towards best available technology."

Equipment noise is being targeted by the Europe Union Directive 2002 49EC in Europe, which is requiring equipment noise testing and noise labels for construction and other equipment.

And he also described how NASA is an example -- the National Aeronautics and Space Administration -- is an example of a U.S. organization that is currently implementing Buy Quiet.

So he then described the NIOSH Buy Quiet project, and their using this NASA Buy Quiet road map as a template for creating an approach for construction contractors.

A steering committee will provide input on contractor and other perspectives.

One important component underling Buy Quiet is the testing of the equipment. And Chuck described important testing considerations, such as testing while it's loaded versus unloaded.

Loaded would be, for example, when a saw is cutting wood, what the noise levels are, versus unloaded is when the saw is operating, but not cutting.

Other components include a user-friendly database, that contractors can use to quickly identify Buy Quiet options, and simple procurement guidance.

Questions and discussions focused on how equipment testing was done, and the considerations that would encourage contractors to pursue a Buy Quiet approach.

Given that contractors make significant equipment purchases or rentals, this represents an important options for reduction of noise levels over time.

Environmental considerations and noise ordinances are also drivers for contractors and the New York City Department of Environmental Protection requirements to use lower noise level equipment on construction jobs was discussed.

Work around noise-sensitive possibilities, such as schools or hospitals was also mentioned.

Rob Matuga of the National Association of Homebuilders made the point that the other side of the issue from Buy Quiet to Sell Quiet was also important to consider. He recommended considering approaches similar to the EPA Energy Star Label.

Work Group members indicated that awareness of noise as a hazard in construction was relatively low, compared to other issues.

In addition, there's a acceptance that construction is noisy. This is an impediment to improving conditions.

Lack of short-term effect from noise was mentioned as an additional contributor to low awareness of noise.

The group then discussed the feasible administrative or engineering controls for noise interpretation that OSHA issued in the Federal Register on October 10, 2010;

And a variety of perspectives were shared by the folks attending the meeting on how this interpretation might affect construction and noise control efforts.

This included a discussion of current OSHA targeting and enforcement efforts for noise. And Scott Schneider of the Laborers indicated that OSHA issued a low number of citations, 36, for noise in construction.

I believe this was in the last year, or something, what date it was available.

And the targeting is an issue cutting across multiple health hazards, and is a topic for future Work Group discussions.

Tina Jones of the OSHA Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management introduced David Valiente from her office, and described how their office has been charged with looking at emerging issues for OSHA.

And she indicated an interest in sharing information about potential construction hazards, and in also hearing perspectives from ACCSH members about emerging issues as well.

(Fire alarm sounds.)

SPEAKER: Everybody exit the building, please.

(Interruption to the proceedings.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All right. We'll bring the meeting back to order.

The good news, everybody got to go outside for a little bit. The bad news is, is that was your afternoon break.


CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: So you got to give and take here. Come on people.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All right. Matt, if you'll?

MR. GILLEN: Sure. I was basically at the end.

So if there were any questions people had -- I mean, we do have the two presentations, that are on the computer that we'd like to put into the record as well. We just don't have the paper copies yet.


Dan, do you have anything to add?

MR. ZARLETTI: No, nothing to add.


MR. JONES: I'm good, I think that's fine.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: At this time, I entertain a motion to accept this report from this Committee.

MR. SHANAHAN: So moved.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Tom Shanahan. Second it?



Questions? Discussion? Any questions of the Committee? Any discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor say "aye."

(Chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: The ayes have it. Motion carries.


MS. SHORTALL: Yes, I would like to mark this exhibit .5, then. The approved Silica Work Group Report from the December 8, 2010 meeting.


(Discussion was held off the record.)

MR. GILLEN: The two presentations that are on the computer, can you at a later date get those put into the record?

MS. SHORTALL: Well, we'd like to have those as soon as possible, because --

MR. GILLEN: So would we (laughing).


MR. GILLEN: I'm just kidding, but we would like to get them off and make paper copies. And we just didn't have time to do it yet. So we'll do it.

MS. SHORTALL: Oh, all right.

MR. GILLEN: We'll work with Fran to do it.


CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All right. Next up is the Mast Climbing Work Platform's presentation. Pam Susi, are you ready?

MS. SUSI: Okay, yeah. I'm just going to need the --

(Discussion was held off the record.)

MS. SUSI: Okay. So my name is Pam Susi. I'm with the Center for Construction Research and Training. And I wanted to thank the Chair, Frank Migliacco, for making time for us to talk about this topic in the Committee and OSHA.

What I'm going to talk about is really just a short presentation to introduce the new white paper that just came back from the printer this week.

And let's see, let me just forward -- okay, so I think most of you know who we are: CPWR. But those who may not, we're a private non-profit that was created by the Building Trades Department and the AFL-CIO.

And we conduct research on Construction Safety & Health issues. And since about 1990, '91, we've served as a NIOSH construction center, so that we help do outreach in terms of getting the research out there to the industry.

Our main office is in Silver Spring, but we've got staff all over the country. I live in the New Jersey/Philadelphia area. We have a staff member that lives out in Washington State.

So we're kind of spread out.

Next slide?

The reason we're focused on mast climbers is that it's been out there a while, but they're relatively new to the U.S., becoming more popular in the last 20 years or so.

It seems like the use is increasing; and although these are covered in the OSHA scaffold standard, the scafford standards don't specifically address this type of equipment.

So I think I did a word search a while back, and the only time that mast climbers comes up is in the context of referencing a non-mandatory appendix, which is, you know, going on 20 years old now;

So it's very little in there specific to that equipment, and what is in there is out of date.

And then the other thing that got out attention was that we had started receiving several calls from the painters union nationally, and then from the building trades locally;

Because in a period of one year, they had two fatal accidents in that area, both involving glazers.

And this is a picture of our Work Group. We got together in 2006, and we've been working for the past few years and coming out with these recommendations.

And now we've begun to focus a little bit more on training.

But we've got a good group, a lot of different interests represented. And Dr. Ayub is on our Committee; we've got Domenick Salvatore is an OSHA Area Director; NIOSH and others.

And we've also -- wait, too fast -- so we're co-chaired by Steve Martini with International Masonry Institute, and Jim Kinateder, who's a contractor rep out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

And we're really lucky that we have participation of, you know, the manufacturer folks, the industry folks, government. We have the chair -- Greg Janda, who's the Chair of the NCA 92.9 Group on our Committee; Kevin O'Shea, whom you'll hear from in a little bit. He's also on that group.

So we've got some really knowledgeable people.

So the goals of our group were to:

One, research the causes of accidents that have occurred with mast scaffolds; assess the adequacy of the current regs, and other consensus standards; and then make recommendations with the idea that we could try to make some difference in terms of improving safe use of this equipment.

You can go ahead.

So two years ago I came to this Committee and I presented kind of an overview in general of what some of our preliminary recommendations were. And also I think prior to that, you'd heard presentations by Dr. Ayub and also Kevin O'Shea.

So this has been kind of, I guess, on the radar here for the last couple years.

There was a motion made at that meeting to update the OSHA standards as expeditiously as possible. Because I remember Bob Kuhl, who's the most eloquent roofer I know who made that motion (laughing).

And it was carried. So I guess it would be interesting to see if there has been any motion made in that direction.

But this is the white paper, you should all have a copy of that. Its primary audience is really regulators and people who would be responsible for drawing up bid documents to try to get, you know, on jobs where this equipment is being used, it's being used safely.

It provides some background on mast climber use, the advantages, the hazards.

Our co-chair asked me to really emphasize that there are, in fact, a lot of advantages. You know, this equipment really does improve productivity.

You don't have people climbing as much in terms of the erection ideally, if it's being used correctly.

And it has some ergonomic advantages in that you could position the platform to an optimum elevation for the operator.

There's a table in the white paper that goes over the description of about, I guess it's about a dozen fatal incidents or serious injuries that have occurred over the last roughly 20 years.

So I won't really go into detail on this.

But just looking at the table -- and in many cases, they don't specify the trade involved; but you can see from the description of the accident that there was stucco workers involved in the multiple fatality in Austin.

A lot of bricklayers and quite a number of glazers are represented in that list.

So then just to summarize, going over these 12 events that involved 18 deaths, you know, one thing to note is that in the majority of these categories of contributing factors, the number of fatalities exceeds the number of incidents.

So that's the other issue that was a concern, that, you know, when there is an accident, it's often catastrophic and involves multiple fatalities.

But in going over the contributing factor, the number one cause was -- in terms of number of incidents anyway -- it was fall hazards;

Which was interesting to hear Dr. Michaels say that continues to be the number one issue in general.

Loading issues followed that, and in terms of fatalities, was actually the number one. Failure to use the correct parts or faulty configuration contributed to two of the incidents, four of the deaths;

Instability of the mast climber, while they were dismantling it, contributed to two incidents and four deaths.

And then equipment failure, which is pretty uncommon, but it occurred in one incident, and I think in that incident two things failed at exactly the same time.

If one of them had not, that wouldn't have happened, but they both happened at the same time.

So I think this kind of just talks a little bit about the white paper content. The most important part of it, though, is the recommendations for safe use.

And like I said, this was developed through a consensus process. We had a lot of discussion over a two-year period. You know, we had it reviewed by a lot of groups, including your own.

And in addition to the recommendations, there is some appendix material, which includes a detailed outline for a four-hour user training program. And that's also been developed through a consensus process.

And just to highlight some of the major recommendations, one set of recommendations deals with training, and basically says that, you know, training of a specified duration, in this case, four hours, should be required for users or for awareness level training;

And then twelve hours with user training for erector dismantlers, or 16 hours if they haven't received the awareness.

And then additional site and model-specific training is very important. And this awareness training is not at all intended to replace that, but just to provide a foundation.

So in the recommendations, we get into some content elements that we think are important to include.

And then there's a lot of discussion about engineering and administrative controls, recommendations for that. Again Dr. Ayub was a real big help in that area.

And then Chris Pan at NIOSH is also one of our Work Group folks, and he's done a lot of really stellar research in aerial lift scaffolding in the past.

So he's helped inform that whole process.

Go ahead, Travis.

Another thing that came up -- and really when I would talk to bricklayers in the field, the thing that they had seemed to raise the most concern about was that with some of this equipment they're asked to actually climb the towers like this.

And oftentimes the tower is not really designed to be climbed; or if it, it's not designed very well.

And as you can see, it's like a complete, you know, there is no incline whatsoever.

So we had a lot of discussion about this. And what we came down to was that in every case, there should be job hazard analysis required when there is any sort of vertical climbs involved, that for platforms that ideally that they be lowered, so that there is no more than a 20-foot climb.

But where for equipment reasons or the conditions of the job, it's just really difficult or impossible to lower the platform to less than 20 feet, then that there be a safe method statement required and a rest platform for every 20 feet, and that there be fall protection.

But the problem here is that apparently there is some of the manufacturers have some first-generation equipment that the way it's tied off to the building, it makes it very difficult to lower the platform without having to spend a lot of labor time removing the ties.

And it happened that our co-chair owned, I think about a hundred of those shipping units. So, you know, there was concern about requirements that would make it very difficult to use the equipment that's already out there in use.

The other thing we get into is: Define responsibilities for manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, users, and owners. Because I think Kevin can tell you about how someone might buy a piece of equipment from a manufacturer, who's not even in business any more, maybe they've gotten it through like, you know, down the chain of multiple suppliers. So there's a lot of information that kind of gets lost in the translation.

Also have specific qualifications and roles for the parties involved, such as, you know, structural personnel -- or safety personnel;

And we discussed when it's necessary that you have someone qualified and structural engineering involved.

Which it also interesting to hear what somebody said, 20 percent -- I guess it was Mohammad -- about 20 percent of the accidents involved -- collapses involved design issues, so that was -- he kind of helped reinforce that concept where we needed it.

And then, you know, the roles and qualifications of operators, users, contractor reps.

But probably the most important recommendation we make and the one that's most relevant to this group is that we -- and this is verbatim from the recommendations in the white paper -- is that the conclusion was that OSHA standards are inadequate in addressing mast climbers, and she be strengthened in accordance with the above recommendations.

The ANSI standard has been updated and is due to for publication, I think in early 2011. So we'll have an updated standard.

We've got folks from our Work Group now who are on the ANSI Subcommittee and you know, we're already working on updating that standard.

And as we do, hopefully we can try to encourage that Committee to look at our recommendations and think about kind of upgrading things. But it's also important that OSHA update their appendices too to include the current standard that's coming out.

So I just also want to acknowledge that the Building Trades Safety Committee, myself and Kevin presented to that group.

And I think there was a meeting in June where they endorsed the recommendations of the white paper. And in fact, they've established a Subcommittee, and Travis Parsons is the Chair of that Subcommittee.

And one of the things we'd like to do is work more with SIA, Scaffold Industry Association, and IPAF, International Powered Access Federation.

I want to acknowledge Lori Webber, who is back here with SIA, who really does a terrific job organizing that group, and has really been a real -- very cooperative with us in trying to work training.

And everyone here sitting next to her -- you know, even if they're not on our Work Group, they've come to meetings, and they've kind of provided feedback.

So I appreciate everyone's effort and want to acknowledge that.

And that's all I have. I mean, I'll introduce Kevin next, but before I do that, I guess I just wanted to get any feedback from the Work Group. You know, there was that question about: Has there been any followup since the recommendation was made in '08?

Is just one question I had. But what are, like any next steps that you see happening around this issue? If I may ask (laughing).

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any questions of the Committee to Pam? Matt?

MR. GILLEN: Matt Gillen. Do you have any more? This is great work. I'm really, I look forward to reading it in more detail. It's really terrific.

So we're at the point where we have guidance out there. I'm wondering, do you have any suggestions for how OSHA might look at updating the regulation?

For example, my recollection is the Scaffold Standard is structured so there's many different sections that address just the different many unique types of scaffolds.

MS. SUSI: Right.

MR. GILLEN: And it seems like it's almost a modular standard. I mean, has the group talked about how, you know, OSHA might go about adding a section to that? Or?

Any of your thoughts on that?

MS. SUSI: We haven't yet. But that probably is a good thing to think about. I mean, I'm certainly no expert on the scafford standard, but that's what I've noticed what you say, Matt, is how there's these subsections that go into a lot of great detail about specific systems with charts, and --

MR. GILLEN: Kind of like a scaffold, you know, modular.

MS. SUSI: Yeah (laughing).


MS. SUSI: So I mean, that's kind of think what's needed.

MR. GILLEN: Mm-hmm.

MS. SUSI: But you know, folks here from OSHA would probably have a better sense of how that would happen.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions?

MS. SUSI: Has there been any activity at OSHA, I wonder, since the recommendation was made in '08 about updating the standards?

MR. HARBIN: Go ahead, Mike.

MR. THIBODEAUX: We haven't received any feedback since your presentation and our recommendation back in '08.

So, you know, I don't remember Bill bringing that up at the last time that he made his update.

MR. HARBIN: I'm not aware of any movement, any changes that have occurred since your last presentation.

MS. SUSI: Okay. I know you obviously are very close to that issue. And I think we have a quote from Eric in our white paper (laughing).

(Discussion was held off the record.)

MS. SUSI: So hopefully that's going to help (laughing).

MR. HARBIN: The unfortunate reality is that you know, I do have some personal involvement in here. There is a case that occurred, where a scaffold collapsed while I was the area director in Austin, Texas. And unfortunately three workers did not go home that day.

So this presentation actually is very valuable, your material here. And I hope it will be fruitful, and we'll see what happens, going forward.

MS. SUSI: Okay. Well, thanks.

MR. PARSONS: I just --

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Travis, you want to add to Pam?


CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Give your name please.

MR. PARSONS: Yeah. Hello, Travis Parsons, the Laborer's Health & Safety Fund. Most of you know me.

I just want to reinforce a lot of what Pam was alluding to. When it comes to the mast climbers, what we're finding and we've already known, is they are a totally different animal than a regular scaffold.

Whereas they are more productive and safer a lot of times, and you know, in a lot of ways, which is why they're being used. And they do a lot of great things.

But when they fail, they collapse. And it's a catastrophe. It's not a slip-trip fall, where somebody hurt their back. It's not a strain-sprain injury. It's a catastrophe; as you can see the prevalence of the fatalities in reference to the incidents.

So as more and more use catches on and contractors realize that it's profitable to use these scaffolds in the long run -- which is what they're finding -- there's going to be more of this, I think.

So proper training and proper regulations, proper materials out there, are very vital to Safety & Health.

So that's why this is a big problem.

Like I said, they are a completely different animal than a regular old scaffold. They're built different, they're erected differently.

It takes some type of specialized training. So this really needs to be looked at. So I just wanted to reinforce that.

MS. SUSI: Okay. Thanks.


Dan first and hen Susan.

MR. ZARLETTI: Well, I was going to say a couple things. First of all, having worked from mast climbing scaffolds, and having seen some of the other options, with swing-stage scaffolds that are also elevated, I believe and I would agree with what Travis has said, that that's much safer, I think.

You know, there's a catastrophic potential with either, because you lose a swing stage that's coming down. You lose a mast climber, it's coming down.

The issue is that while it's going to catch on more and more, and it has over the last even five years versus five years ago, I think it needs to be given a sense of urgency for its regulatory issues, so that at the top of training and assessments and more investments, we need to get the regulations to these things set up, so that the design can be made with the regulations in place.

MS. SUSI: Mm-hmm.

MR. ZARLETTI: And you can build it safely as you go, or as you make them.

Probably the best illustration, I would say, is swing-stage scaffold, which is the kind that you'd see a window washer working from.

That could be a 36 to 42-inch work deck. And when you get up a couple hundred feet in the air, that can trim itself down to maybe down to maybe what looks like one or two boards across.

These mast climbers, you could have 12 feet of a deck behind you. Or nine to 12 feet. And you know, even at 200 feet, that's still like a dance floor, compared to what you're looking at on a swing stage.

So you've got perimeter guarding that's primary. You've got a much wider area to work from. It's a very sizeable product. It just has to be done right.

And that's why I think before we just keep moving forward on saying it's going to grow, it's going to grab, it's going to become a greater part of this, we should have that speed go along with the regulations; so that there isn't some place down the road in five more years when this thing becomes so popular again, that we have to go back and look at a bunch of retrofits, just to make it safe.

MS. SUSI: Right. The standards there are really behind.


MS. SUSI: And you're only getting further behind if you don't do anything else.

MR. ZARLETTI: Yeah. I think this needs to be raised up. And I would wonder if at this level at ACCSH, we could be given progress reports over time as to what's happening with the mast climbers.

So if we're meeting three or four times a year, maybe that's that many times that we should be kept in the loop as to what's going on or what's not going on, so that this thing doesn't lay dormant, but actually picks up momentum as it goes ahead.

MS. SUSI: Do you see our existing Work Group as a good forum to try to work on some of these issues you're talking about, like how to dove-tail these recommendations into a standard and so on? Or?

MR. ZARLETTI: Right. But if it's going to go to a standard, it's going to be recommended through us.

MS. SUSI: Yeah.

MR. ZARLETTI: Maybe there's a coordination media, now that we can develop between that core group and work group of yours and ours.

MS. SUSI: Yeah. That would be wonderful.


Ben is going to give us an update, Susan, what he had asked earlier. He has an update he's going to give, probably this afternoon, of everything we've recommended.

MS. BILHORN: Mm-hmm.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: So he has that and he will give it to us this afternoon.

Okay. And Susan, you're up.

MS. BILHORN: Okay. Susan Bilhorn.

Yeah, I appreciate that this looks like a really valuable tool here. And I appreciate the effort. I'm curious how this got on our agenda.

Because I think it's great stuff that is very relevant to us. How did this get on the agenda?

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Pam had called myself and asked if she could come and present again with the white paper out. And when I talked with -- at the time it was still Mike Buchet, and we worked it out.

And then since then, it's been Fran. And I worked it out -- so that's how it's back on the schedule again.

MS. SUSI: Okay. Yeah. And then Fran called me, I guess --


MS. SUSI: About a month ago, or so. Yeah.



Again, there are two things that I'm not quite sure how to approach. One is: When something like this is on the agenda, it would be really helpful to have the kind of counterpoint, you know.

So OSHA being able to say where they're at, if it's on the agenda for us to discuss. Because it's kind of I think unfortunate not to be able to have the two married, you know.

So what you guys, you know, have proposed and then the question of, you know, what's going on standards.

MS. SUSI: Mm-hmm.

MS. BILHORN: So I guess as a matter of protocol, it would be really nice to have the agenda teed up to have that marriage, you know, so that we can actually have that dialogue propagate.

So I don't know if that's a motion to -- in the coordination of the agenda, or if it's a matter just for you as chairman to maybe consider.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: No, it's just something that now I'm working with Fran now. I think it's something we'll just have to consider.


And then the second. I would like to I guess maybe put a motion. If there is an outstanding recommendation from 2008, from discussion that we had, which, you know, our historian can help us with on that --


MS. BILHORN: You know, yeah, maybe it's back to just a status every time. But more specifically maybe on this topic, you know.

So I don't know if it's a motion to revisit that motion that was made, of recommendation previously, and like Dan said, maybe hold to having this as a specific topic in future meetings.

I don't know if this might fit within the agenda of a current Work Group.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: We would have to look at the Work Group. Dean, do you have --

MR. MCKENZIE: Well, the recommendations that will happen today are from the April meeting.


MR. MCKENZIE: So the Committee is presented 13-15 recommendations a year for the last number of years.

And recently over the last couple of meetings, Bill has presented where we were on the entire list of recommendations.

If it was a Committee, you know, request, we would consider having that update again; but when the Secretary makes a decision to not act on something, or it doesn't make the regulatory agenda, it may be redundant to speak, you know, to say the same thing again.

But we can provide that --

MS. SUSI: Because I don't think there was any update at all. Right? So you haven't heard anything one way or another?


MS. BILHORN: Yeah. I don't know -- and maybe that's the point of closure. It's like, you know, decided not to act, or something that could help us with closure, to know that, you know, it was considered not something that's able to act on.

That would certainly be helpful, because then we have closure on it.

But with this topic, I'd like to see if we can't fit it into one of our work groups.

The fact that you've gained momentum, you know, with the thinking here, I think it's important to leverage that to get to the next step, in terms of the missing pieces in the standard.

MS. SUSI: Well, I have to say this work that we put together to really an enthusiastic bunch. I mean --

MS. BILHORN: It sounds like it --

MS. SUSI: To me like you know, Lori is offering her facility as a venue (laughing), and they're saying, "When's the next meeting, Sue?"

So it is a good group to kind of keep going at some level.

MS. BILHORN: Well, I hate, you know, when you got momentum like that, not to continue it. So I wonder if it wouldn't fit well within like you know --

SPEAKER: Prevention through design?

MS. BILHORN: Yeah. Prevention through design, or --

(Simultaneous conversation.)

SPEAKER: Prevention through design might be the --

MS. BILHORN: We don't have a fall protection worker --

SPEAKER: Fall protection is resident.

SPEAKER: He has a residential fall protection.

MS. BILHORN: So could we --

SPEAKER: And I agree -- this would be too big for a residential --

MS. BILHORN: Could we -- would one of the workers take it on? I don't see it happening with green.

SPEAKER: Prevention through design.

MS. BILHORN: And I don't see it happening with I2P2, which were the only two that I can -- prevention through design, would you guys take that on?

(Discussion was held off the record.)


MR. AHAL: Bill Ahal. I mean, I think it's the one that it fits into, and I don't have an objection to it, as long as we realize that the core intention was not necessarily towards equipment.

Now this is a very specialized and enlarged item. So I think it can be. We got to be careful we don't load it up and go back to where it turns out to be auto equipment, because of the momentum that we generated.

But I think it could be put as a subset of prevention by design.

MS. BILHORN: Yeah. And it might be a very specific thing for a very finite period of time to go through --

MR. AHAL: Yeah. I think it's got a life -- it looks like --

MS. BILHORN: It's got a life.

MR. AHAL: It looks like it's got a life span, a definite finite life span. Let's get the answers or get it going or get it done, or get it over with.

MR. HAWKINS: Of course, the thing about your work is it's just now gaining momentum on design through prevention. You hate to throw this in there, at this point.

MR. AHAL: As long as this doesn't dilute the initial thrust and everything that we got, because it is a bit of a diversion.

I mean, if people are interested in it, that's fine.

MS. BILHORN: Or maybe we can work outside of the framework of our formal work groups. I'd just like to see us get, you know, be able to go ahead and support looking through the requirements and say "Where could we propose language, you know, that might be considered?"

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. We can't work outside the Work Group; we have to have a Work Group.

MS. BILHORN: No, what I mean is outside of -- on a topic, members on a topic that aren't within a specific work group.

MS. SHORTALL: You could establish a work group, you --

(Simultaneous conversation.)


MS. SHORTALL: You know, have what would be considered a much more temporary work group, one that would not be a standing one for a long period of time.

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MR. GILLEN: Matt Gillen.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Hold on, wait a minute. Walter was before you.

MR. JONES: I see my time is --

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. Go ahead, Matt.

MR. GILLEN: Matt Gillen.

To me it's an interesting issue, because there's obviously groups out there have done a lot of work --

SPEAKER: A lot --

MR. GILLEN: And have really narrowed down with the issues are and what the recommendations are, and what to do about it.

And I'm sure that the better employers out there are trying to do this.

The question becomes sort of what we do here -- and we all know that OSHA has a limited bandwidth -- there's a limited number of people working on regulations -- and so there's only so many things they can do.

I mean, what are other options for dissemination, or webinars for compliance officers? What are the other options of things we can do when we have an issue like this, that's pretty ripe for some sort of action, regulatory or other?

You know what I mean? It's sort of a different issue than sort of going back to a Prevention Through Design Work Group to me.

It's sort of: What are our options for doing something and moving this further to get people using the precautions? What are the other options we have other than --

MS. BILHORN: Well, recognizing that we could form a work group that, you know, is focused specifically on this, you know --

MR. GILLEN: Make the motion and I'll second it --

MS. BILHORN: I'll motion that we form a specific work group today, or, you know, by the end of this meeting, with members identified by the end of this meeting, to specifically look at, you know, how to integrate -- let's see, let me think about this -- somebody want to pop in some words?

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Why don't you go ahead and write up a motion?


CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: And I'll go ahead and entertain Liz -- she has a question.

MS. ARIOTO: No, not a question. I was going to bring up the same thing.


MS. ARIOTO: I believe that there is a need for this. I know back in California we had many companies just shut down because they were using it improperly, whether it was a wind factor, or whether workers were climbing for -- into the buildings.

I think it would be a really --


MS. ARIOTO: I mean, it's a short duration. Because I think a lot of work's been done on this, and I would highly recommend --

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All right. Then, we'll go ahead and -- Susan, you go ahead and work up some verbiage on this.

And we have from 11:30 to 12:00 Committee Administration. And we'll put that in play there.

MS. BILHORN: Okay. Super.


MR. PARSONS: Just one final comment from me.

The work group that exists outside of this Group that did this white paper, already has a lot of common players, common organizations, that, you know, we all work together at all time across the country.

So I think the marriage between that work group and any work group formed here would already have the momentum and the products, as Matt pointed out.

So, you know, you've heard a lot of the same people, Mohammad, who is one of the directors here at OSHA is on that work group. We have other people from OSHA that we have, labor and management involved.

It's a very good and exciting work group. So I think that marriage would be easier than other things that are -- it will be like that.

MS. BILHORN: Yeah. Right. This is not something that you would want to invent (laughing) --

MR. PARSONS: Okay. So those players are already involved, from pretty much everybody represented here.



MR. JONES: I just wanted to say one quick comment. I've had to work on a couple of, develop one Safety & Health program for a guy who has a mast climbing scaffold.

And I just want to point out that whatever we decide, or whatever you guys work on, I'd like to see us definitely focus on identifying hazards and developing control strategies to reign in those hazards.

And a lot of the stuff I'm seeing is about training, how everybody has to be trained. And if we train, if we train, if we train everybody. And that's great.

And I think training is a great component. But I don't think nothing will be developing control strategies to reduce the hazards that -- or to abate the hazards.

And like some of these things that we're talking about attaching to the building or climbing up and climbing down -- how can we develop control studies to control this beyond just training somebody not to climb up it, or whatever it may be, what I'm seeing.

And a lot of recommendations are very good, I thought, in the original white paper. I haven't seen this one.

Again, whatever we work on, I just wanted to say that make sure we're looking at designing in the control strategies instead of always relying on training workers to work better.

MS. BILHORN: Mm-hmm.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. We have another presenter, who is going to present on this issue. When we ask for the motion to accept, we have a discussion-and-question period, then.

So we'll stop now. And Pam, if you'll introduce your next presenter?

MS. SUSI: Yeah. Okay.

So the next speaker, Kevin O'Shea, is someone who really I think is among, if not the, you know, definitely in the top few folks in the country who are most knowledgeable about mast climbers.

Not only that, but he's really dedicated to promoting safe use of it. And he's very active in the International Powered Access Federation, so he's got a really good awareness of what's going on in Europe, and he practices worldwide.

He's now the co-chair of the Mast Climbing Council, which is in organ, I guess, of SIA, more or less.

And he's got an interesting trade union background too, which I'm sure he won't get into today; but it makes him interesting to our group. So.

And he's been a real asset to our Work Group that came up with this white paper. So on that note, I'll let Kevin take over.

MR. O'SHEA: Good morning.


MR. O'SHEA: Kevin O'Shea. Day job: Mast Climbers, LLC, in Atlanta.

But I represent two organizations mainly: International Powered Access Federation, and the Scaffold Industry Association, which I'll describe in a little bit more detail.

I guess, as you probably guessed, I'm not a native of the U.S. I did stop at Reagan National and -- a new focus on multilingual information, in fact got my Rosetta Stone American.


MR. O'SHEA: So -- it's a very pressing point, as we go through this, is the communication.

And I even find this, when I do training hands-on, there are many phrases that I will use that are Anglified phrases that don't really mean the same thing in American -- vernacular.

So I have to be very careful about how I describe things.

And I have a presentation. My glamorous assistant, Damon, has volunteered to press the buttons.


MR. O'SHEA: So if you don't mind, I'd just like to try and do two things.

First of all, I had the opportunity three years ago to present what I felt was the initial problem that we had for our industry to this Committee.

And by way of update on what the industry has been doing in those three years, then, this presentation will cover some of the work that we've been attacking;

And some of the awareness that we've been trying to go at to the industry with regard to hazards and hazard abatement.

And I have a couple of documents that I'll hand out as I talk. And I'll explain what they are.

But if we could make a start. What I wanted to try and do initially was at least get to the stage where we understand exactly what this product is, how it has developed and what the beauty of it is.

Now Pam already touched on the last ten years an average of two deaths per year. And obviously the connotation behind that is many more near-misses, minor injury accidents, serious injury accidents, et cetera.

So I'm here today to represent a number of interests and organizations, the Scafford Industry Association.

Please, Damon.

The International Powered Access Federation.

And the other impossible part of this jigsaw is the secretariat that the SIA has of the ANSI standards, which govern the use of mast climbing work platforms.

Please, Damon.

So what is it? And why is it so popular? Just please click as I talk through, Damon. It's going to be difficult, because it's animated.

Well, you see here that the mast climber provides a clear facade. This is the MLK Junior Building in Atlanta.

And if we look at the scaffolding on the left-hand side, we can see that there is minimal destruction when it comes to working on the facade of the building.

It has a very high capacity. This unit here will probably take something like 20,000 pounds across 120 feet of the platform length, and a low-working platform.

And then last, we have the ability to move and lift materials from the ground, into position on the platform -- masonry, for instance -- without bring the machine back to ground level.

So we have a lot of flexibility, a lot of ability, a lot of capacity, and it leaves the facade relatively clear.

Workers in office buildings love mast climbers, because it doesn't black out the office. It doesn't take the sunshine away, like some other methods of access do.

And it leaves a very minimal footprint on the ground. Those mast sections that come down to the ground can be sitting on bases, which are three feet square.

So there is room on the ground also when these units are in operation.


And here is a view of what we see in the platform of a unit such as that. Perfect enclosed working platform. Ideal for material storage, high capacity, highly flexible;

And also of benefit as the reduction in repetitive strain injury. We have masons laying brick at exactly the right height. You can see the material is stored behind them, at height, so they're moving material and passing it forward to the work face, and reducing the opportunity for repetitive strain injury.


So what is it? Well, if we just click through, Damon, please, we have three essential components of the unit:

We have the mast, and then we have the platform section, and then we have the drive units, which drive the whole thing up and down the mast.

And it moves in a fashion such as this.

And the ANSI standard dictates that it's primarily used to position personnel along with their necessary tools and materials to perform their work.

And what do we have at the moment? Well, we have a design standard in A92.9, originally conceived in 1993, never been updated until recently. And it's now due for release 2011 in the first quarter.

We have some safe use regulations, which have been put together by the International Powered Access Federation and by SIA, and endorsed by both.

And the other thing we have in our armory is interpretation of 1926. Generally, Sub-Part L and M.


They can also be pretty flexible. There are very few pieces of access equipment that can access facades, such as this.

And that comes with a whole series of other considerations and engineering problems. We have multi-deck platforms, two to one machine.

Please just click on, Damon, please.

Here is an example of that in action. This is the Ray Building in St. Louis, which is the State OSHA Building. And we have a number of machines, two per mast, with overhead protection and even welfare facilities on the platform.

So we have a true -- a workshop in the sky, as some people like to call this.

And this particular job was done at night. And it was actually a pretty erie scene to see these let-up platforms a hundred feet in the air, quietly working away with workers inside them.

MR. JONES: When you say welfare, you mean like rest rooms?

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah. Yeah. There's rest rooms in there that are, yeah?

MR. PARSONS: Yeah, over two, yeah, right there.

MR. O'SHEA: There's task lighting inside, there's dust management from the work that they're doing. Yeah, there's a whole series of measures inside that working --

(Discussion was held off the record.)

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MR. O'SHEA: Please, Damon.

Here's another example. This is a job that I had designed in Nashville. What you'll see is that the mast climbers were not able to come to the ground. So I designed a special support systems to bring them out and support over the top of precast.

And again, this is something -- and one of the challenges that I have had in the last three years is identifying what level of expertise would be required to train someone to do this.

And I've had to look at the levels of expertise in some detail.


I wanted to take a look at just where the mast climber becomes important in the supply chain, for access.

Now if we look at the scaffolding, scaffolding is the eternally flexible product. It has great profiling ability, and a high capacity.

However, against booms and scissors, it's less flexible. The booms and scissors can't profile, and the booms and scissors have a low capacity.

However, scaffolding has a longer acting time, whereas booms and scissors are rental-ready on the job site.

Scaffolding has fixed levels. Booms and scissors have variable height.

Scaffolding leaves a large footprint on the ground. And booms and scissors leave a relatively minimal footprint.

Mast climbers has the flexibility of the scaffolding. It has the profiling ability of the scaffolding. And it has the high capacity ability of the scaffolding.

It also has the variable height capability of the booms and the scissors, and the minimal footprint of the booms and the scissors.

But the one thing that a mast climber is not is it's not rental-ready.

So please click on.

It's a bit like buying furniture from Ikea. Some assembly is required.


MR. O'SHEA: Okay. And if that's the way I was going to describe the opportunity and the challenge of the product, that's what we have.

I regularly buy furniture from Ikea, and I regularly take it home, and I regularly throw the instructions away, because I know how to put it together.


MR. O'SHEA: And I regularly go back to Ikea two weeks later and tell them that something was missing in the box, and I couldn't put it together.


MR. O'SHEA: Okay.

Unfortunately and obviously, when we take the attitude like that with mast climbers, the unfortunate situation is that we have an injury or a death.

But this really encapsulates one of the high-risk areas that we have.

Please, Damon.

Here are some of the numbers that we as an industry try and compile to make sense of what we have.

Estimated 84 hundred units in the U.S., and on an average utilization of 5,880 at 70 percent.

Just please click, Damon, as I go through them.

An average of three users per unit, which gives us 17,640 users a day on this equipment. Twenty-five percent of that labor could, depending on what state we are in, change every four weeks, or six weeks.

Jobs per annual on these units for: Average job duration is about two months. Average dismantles and erects per unit per job, five. And that means then that each unit is erected and dismantled about 20 times each year.

That gives us 117,600 times we move these machines up and down.

MR. GILLEN: Can you explain a little bit what you mean by "average dismantles"?

MR. PARSONS: Yeah. If we have a building that's a hundred feet square, we may cover that building with ten machines and move them three times or four times.

We may cover it with 40 machines, and cover it 100 percent of the time. In general, every time we move a machine, we dismantle it, take it to somewhere else, and re-erect it.

So when I say "erections and dismantles per year," that's the number of times on average a machine will go down and up in a year.

And that gives us -- what it tells us is that we have about 3 and a half million working hours involved in the dismantle and re-erecting of that product.

And for every ten units in the U.S., we really require one trained and certified rigger with one trainee rigger by his or her side.

So that's roughly what we have to contend with.

Just click one more time, please, Damon?

And the opportunity and the challenge that we have is the 17,640, and the fact that they will change over a number of weeks.

We have to get the safety information and the training to the people who are using the equipment. And there are a number of ways that we are looking to do this.


If we go back to something that I use regularly, which is F. E. Bird's Accident Pyramid -- coincidentally coming from Atlanta many years ago, where I am now -- those figures suggest 24 hundred near-misses annually.

And as Tom touched on, mast climber accidents are normally catastrophic, and manufacturers have a very responsible attitude in this country, and they do train.

But they lose control, and the units are resold or rented, as go down the supply chain.

Regulatory bodies are not fully aware of the hazards associated with mast climbers. Rental companies and user companies are not fully aware.

Users and operators are not fully aware.

And advice is desperate, and it's not always easy to find. This is what we had a few years ago.

Let me give you an example.

There was an accident in Texas where three people died. And I got a call from the DA. In his exact words, "I went on the Internet, and I found your name. You must be an expert. Could you come and act as an expert witness?"

I declined. Because with the work that I'm trying to do it would be counterproductive. I'm trying to encourage the bad ones and really kind of raise the whole industry again.

And then I got a call from the Plaintiff's attorneys, of the families of the people who died, asking if I would represent them.

And I declined all of those.

Then I get a call from people who call themselves experts, asking if they can come and see me for two days' training on mast climbers to be able to stand up in court and represent this family?

Now unfortunately, that's a microcosm of the challenge here in America with this equipment right now.

And let me also tell you, there is expertise out there. And I do find that. And when I find it, I accredit -- I put them through a regular set of tests, and we put them through some challenges. And our wetness machine is going up, and I go and inspect what they have done.

And if I find good responsible people, we will immediately put them through a formal accreditation process to make sure that the people are there who need the training are getting it from the right place.

And our other challenge is obviously to train everybody else who is on this equipment. Okay?

Please, Damon.

Now I came here in December of 2007. I'm back in December of 2010. And the question is now: What has happened in those subsequent few years, that we can point to as progress in our industry?

Let me start by taking the Scafford Industry Association, formed in 1972, to represent the interests of the Scafford and Access Industry.

A net work of Accredited Training Institutes in the U.S., and the secretariat of the ANSI standards, including A92.9, which is the Mast Climbing Standard.


Then we have IPAF, formed in 1983 to promote the safe use of Powered Access. Working in 32 countries. And issued is something called the Powered Access License, or PAL card. Last year there were 80,000 of these cards issued around the world, for various levels of training, accreditation, et cetera.

The reason for mentioning these organizations is that they are both not-for-profit organizations, they are both industry organizations. I work with both these organizations, and --

Please click on, Damon.

We've managed to get together, international agreement to work together on mast climbing work platform training, and the raising of awareness.

MS. SHORTALL: Excuse me. Could you identify what IPAF stands for, for the record?

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah. It stands for the International Powered Access Federation.

MS. SHORTALL: Thank you.

MR. O'SHEA: Okay.

Please, Damon.

And that has led me to work with those organizations and we've come up with a number of levels of what I would call responsibility.

And what we've then done -- and I will hand this around -- we have the Safe Use Guidelines from mast climbing work platforms, which was originally presented three years ago; and which has now been updated and endorsed now also by the SIA.

And what this document is, is the framework of something that I put together many years ago with some people in the UK, which was a British standard called BS 7981.

On the first day of ownership of the company that I had in the UK along with a business partner, a machine that had been erected by the previous owner, fell down with four people on it.

We went through a subsequent investigation company in the next six months. And what came through from that was that there was a weak design standard and there was not enough safe-use guidance.

So in an attempt to do something about that, and having had the experience of that, when I came to the U.S. eight years ago, this was what I'd decided to try and do here, was raise this awareness through those organizations.

We've come up with the operator level, which is the first level -- please, Damon -- as the person who uses the mast climber.


And then we have the mobile operator. And some of these machines will free-stand 60 feet high, maybe, which means that when they're building a big-box retail like a Walmart, where there are no windows or floor slabs or openings to tie onto -- because we tie these machines to the structure -- these units will free-stand to a certain height, and that person would be a mobile operator.


We have a demonstrator.

The demonstrator was usually what we would term the competent person on the job site, the foreman or the foreperson, who would have been formally trained to introduce the safe use of the product to a new entrance onto the job site, and to control the safe use of the product on the job site.


We have the installer, obviously who is the one who assembles and disassembles. And we have an advanced installer.

The advanced installer would take the high risk jobs, the special jobs, the structural type stuff, and work with a local engineering or another competent person or qualified person to resolve these issues, and put together a method statement and the risk statement or a hazard awareness statement for what we are going to do on the job.


And we have two categories of instructor. We only used to have one category of instructor. I got a little bit uncomfortable with that, because if one person is an instructor, it presupposes that they can train all categories.

So I decided we had to split the instructor category into A and B. Therefore, we have an advanced instructor, who is the one who trains the installation people, who are the high-riskers.

Please, Damon.

This here is just a quick animation of how we use graphics to explain in this occasion 1926's definition of the distance away from the structure; which in this case, obviously in line with the scaffold standard is 14 inches or less away. No front handrail required, and up to 18 inches for plastering.

This forms part of webinar material that we're trying to produce currently to be able to introduce this into some kind of webinar scenario.


So, where are we three years later?

Well, we obviously are still influenced by 1926 Sub-Par L&M in particular. We have a new ANSI 92.9 standard coming out in 2011. We have the IPAF guidelines for the safe use of mast climbers reviewed and endorsed by the SIA.

And this document identifies each of those people and the chain of supply: The operator, the installer, the demonstrator, the competent person.

And we have a needs analysis in this document for the skills required. We have the training requirements for those people.

We have inspection formats, et cetera. I will hand the documents out to you shortly, so you can maybe have a look at them.

The other exciting part of what were doing is we have an alliance, the SIA has an alliance with OSHA, to produce outreach material for mast climbing work platforms.

And the first product of that alliance is a tip sheet, which you see in front of you, which again I will hand out. I have copies here in a number of languages.

And that contains vital safety information for the users of this equipment.

And then we have the SIA IPAF training agreement across the USA. And we're getting busy now and finding people who require training and training them to the standard that they required to be trained.

Lastly, I'm currently working on an awareness course for OSHA personnel too, to maybe include into a webinar of some kind. It's designed to be a highly kind of animated graphic type presentation. It's a number of pieces of material, handouts, where we can do this on line, possibly, and make sure that we impact on the largest number of people in the shortest period of time.

Please, Damon.

So what's our challenges now? Well, if we go back to what we had in 2007 to wrap up, we are training in safety information and the need to get it into the hands of those who really needed it, the users.

And so now we have alliance products, we have an SIA and IPAF website. And we have outreach work. We have a full range of industry endorsed training courses for all levels of product interface.

Our second challenge was to educate regulators on the top industry safety issues. What are the real things to look for on this equipment? And we're currently working on an awareness program.

Improving guidance for mast climbing work platforms was our next challenge.

And the IPAF SIA safe-use guidelines are basically a management tool for the management of this product. If you take the IPAF guidelines for the safe use of mast climbing work platforms, and you apply it to your business, you will abate all the hazards that we have identified, as a management tool, as for the management of the product and the safe use of the product, the safe installation of the product, and it identifies the training levels.

Now what do we have to do? In my estimation, we have to do a couple of things now. We have to continue our outreach capabilities and increase those now, and get the information to where it's now required. And I think we have now also encourage employers and owners of the equipment to step up and address the training issues that they now have, having now identified and addressed the hazards that exist in our industry.

And to finish, I would like to thank you very much for letting me address the Committee. I will hand these documents out for you, please, to pass around. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All right. Do we have questions? Liz first?

MS. ARIOTO: Liz Arioto.

I know some of the accidents or fatalities were caused by overloaded equipment, you know, mast climbers?

MR. O'SHEA: Mm-hmm.

MS. ARIOTO: Has the manufacturer devised any warning or load indicators that the mast climber is overloaded? Has that been developed actually into the product?

MR. O'SHEA: They haven't yet.

And this comes into a weighted issue of powered access in general. When you have a platform that's 120 feet long, and you have various areas on the platform that will take point loads, for instance: A palate to block, a mud pan; and then you have other areas where you have maybe a 500-pound restriction on load; and then we also have the dynamic loads of loading that material onto that, and have workers moving to and from?

It's very difficult to control the overloading characteristic in that fashion. And it's very difficult to come up with something -- the industry has found it so far difficult to come up with something that will accurately control that overloading situation.

And the way that we have been working with that so far is we have identified load charts, displayed for that specific configuration, actually at the point of operation on the machine.

We also have loading information that comes through in the training of the users of this equipment.

And we even also have been working with innovative products. We have a graphic that we put inside the visor of the forklift truck.

Because one of the things that we have identified is when you are on mast climber and a forklift truck arrives on a busy job site to deliver a pallet of bricks to you, and you have to load that ten feet on either side of the mast for safety purposes, if you're up on that machine and the forklift delivers it 25 feet on the left, they will receive it 25 feet on the left, and have now overloaded the platform.

So now what we do for the specific configuration is we're working on decals that we can put on the inside of the visor on the forklift, so that the forklift operator knows where to deliver the material --

MS. ARIOTO: Hmm --

MR. O'SHEA: To the platform.

So we're working on a number of loading issues.

I'm not sure how effective we can get a safe load indicating device to be on a platform. There are a couple of platforms in Europe, which have this.


MR. O'SHEA: Varying levels of success. But the industry is trying to attack that problem. And who knows? We may come up with something.

If you look at the load chart on a machine, there are maybe three or four different loading characteristics around this platform.

MS. ARIOTO: Mm-hmm.

MR. O'SHEA: And one of the big questions that comes up was: If it's overloaded, do we cut out the ability to operate the machine?

MS. ARIOTO: Mm-hmm.

MR. O'SHEA: And the answer may well be yes.

The question is: What if it gets overloaded while it's in the air?

MS. ARIOTO: Mm-hmm.

MR. O'SHEA: You know, and that's one of our industry questions. How do we then effect a rescue, when the system is set to cut the drive on the unit?

MS. ARIOTO: Mm-hmm.

MR. O'SHEA: So we have a number of those issues. But we are really working very hard to try and get to a workable issue.

MS. ARIOTO: Mm-hmm.

MR. O'SHEA: You know, that we can design something tomorrow that no one could use. So we have to make it user-friendly. We have to make it work on a busy job site.

This is where we're trying to --

MS. ARIOTO: How did it come into the scaffold industry, like the regulation, and not maybe like the aerial lift equipment?

MR. O'SHEA: Well, I think that's just historical, to be honest. And the same thing happened in Europe many years ago.

You know, on many occasions, a product enters the market, and only becomes compatible for regulation after X amount of people have died or accidents have been highlighted.

It's unfortunate, but sometimes that's the way it happens. And so what we have now is we have such an array of information, that we have gathered in the last three years, that we now feel confident that the dissemination of this information out into the marketplace is going to radically change the performance figures on this equipment.

MS. ARIOTO: Hmm. I think it's an excellent product. I love your accent.

MR. O'SHEA: Thank you. Thank you.



MR. BEAUREGARD: Kevin Beauregard, State Agency Representative.

I have a statement and then a question that I think I heard you say that you were working on awareness course for OSHA personnel. And I just asked that when you developed that, and whether you decide to do an webinar or however you decide to disseminate that, if you can also let the state plans know about that, because we certainly would be interested in it.

MR. O'SHEA: Absolutely.

MR. BEAUREGARD: And you can contact myself or any board member on the Committee.

MR. O'SHEA: Absolutely. We've done a couple of pilot schemes. I conducted that awareness course with California OSHA in Monrovia. And then also followed it up with one in Van Nuys.

We had about 45 to 50 compliance officers involved, and it was very successful. A lot of good questions. It was a bit like myth-busters, you know? A lot of preconceived notions about how the equipment really performed, and we were able to discuss those, and be able to expose some of those misconceptions, which was very beneficial.

MR. BEAUREGARD: Well, thank you.

And the other question I have is: Have you run into any situations within any individual states regarding the applicability of elevator standards, or requirements in regards to this type of equipment, because they're being used to transfer personnel as well as material?

MR. O'SHEA: Well, you know, this is where the information dissemination is very important. Because the ANSI standards specifically says it is designed for the delivering of personnel and materials to the facade, to the place of work.

You know, any moving to and from the platform, the ANSI standard indicates that that is a personnel hoist, or something of that, or a transfer platform, or something of that nature.

The use, as defined in ANSI, does not cover that.

If that was to be the case -- that is language and for instance, the safe use guidelines -- that would say that if you had to transfer for some reason people or materials into a building, it would have to be on a one-off special basis, and it would have to be conducted under the auspices of a hazard awareness session, and report and a specific method statement compelled by a competent person;

And would be job-specific. You know?

And to give you an example of that, this is where the A92.9 standard that wasn't updated, that had lapsed, if you want to call it that -- which has now been redesigned, redrafted, and will be released in early 2011 -- I think now it's going to become important.

Because that will redefine what we all know our mast climber wet platform to be. And it says very specifically in there, it is not a hoist, it is not a personnel hoist.

You know, it specifically defines the product for what it is, and will point you in the direction of an elevator under the auspices of ANSI 10.4, if you are going to travel, you know, X number of stories and deliver people and material to a job site.

So it's not designed for that purpose.

MR. BEAUREGARD: Right. And we've run into that issue --

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah --

MR. BEAUREGARD: Utilizing this equipment for that purpose. And it's been kind of interesting trying to address that issue.

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah. And I've also run into it too. And there is no more vocal person in the U.S. than me, when it comes to making sure the people understand exactly what this equipment is for.

You know?

And I do challenge it wherever I go.

MS. SUSI: Kevin, Cal OSHA has that in --

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah. Absolutely. Cal OSHA has addressed this for some specific regulations.

They took a couple of areas of use that they felt were pertinent to California, and they redrafted something themselves that says that there is a point of entry and exit, one point, which must be defined.

MS. SUSI: Mm-hmm.

MR. O'SHEA: And they also have other small paragraphs to do with specific use that seems to be related to California.

But yeah, absolutely, they addressed this and they were able to come up with a solution to it.


MR. O'SHEA: And no one has found this advantageous also. Let me just say that. The use has been -- has not affected the use of the equipment.


MR. GILLEN: Yeah. Matt Gillen. Can you sort of give us the number of companies or suppliers that currently have this equipment available in the U.S.?

MR. O'SHEA: No (laughing). I can tell you that there are 50 manufacturers in the world.

MR. GILLEN: There's 50 manufacturers in the world.

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah. I can tell you that probably about six bona fide manufacturers in North America.

MR. GILLEN: Six in North America.

MR. O'SHEA: Most of them are in Canada.


MR. O'SHEA: There is an American manufacturer here today, EZ Scaffold, but they are very much the exception.

What we've had in this country for a long time is Canadian supply into North America and European supply into North America. The largest manufacturer in the world, Allen Maheck, is based in Holland.

You know.

And to give you an example, that company probably last year turned in about $220 million. The next largest supplying into the U.S. was $45 million.

MR. GILLEN: Mm-hmm.

MR. O'SHEA: So there's a bit of a gap.

But the products that were developed in Canada were high-value, high-capacity masonry products, which was a different development process from what the European equipment was.

So we have this interesting thing at the moment, where we have European equipment and American equipment or North American equipment working on applications that they weren't designed for.

MR. GILLEN: Mm-hmm.

MR. O'SHEA: You know?


MR. O'SHEA: Because of the competitiveness of the market.

In terms of how many people in the U.S. own this equipment, it's very difficult.

The European model says large rental companies. The company that I had in the UK that I sold to 300 rental units, that company now has 12 hundred rental units in it.

So it's a huge thing in the UK.

In America, it's owner equipment. Mason's companies will have 30 or 40 pieces of this equipment, in order to do their own work.

MR. GILLEN: Well, that's what I wanted to ask, because I thought it was really interesting in this IPAP document that if somebody came up with this concept of a supplier-competent person and a user-competent person.

MR. O'SHEA: Mm-hmm. Yeah.

MR. GILLEN: And it seems like the supplier-competent person would be important. And if mason contractors are owning their own equipment, do they not have somebody like that?

MR. O'SHEA: Well, that's just the challenge that I've been trying to address, you see.

And you're absolutely right. The supplier-competent person is the person who comes up from the rental company maybe, and conducts a sales estimate on the job.

But when it comes to a mast climber, that's the initial hazard assessment of the job site.

MR. GILLEN: That's right.

MR. O'SHEA: You know?

So the training needs for that person are actually pretty high. You know, that person needs a lot of knowledge.

And when you have a mason's company, what you tend to have is a foreman, who is able to direct other masons and training masons and tell them what to do.

The category of demonstrator that are highlight in the training is where I've been trying to aim that category; in other words, take that person who already has certain skills and knowledge and take that person and put them through a formal process of analyzing and understanding all of the hazards for the decisions that they are making on a daily basis;

In order that they can then control the safe use of that equipment on their job site on behalf of their employer.

So we have definite kinds of strategies to attack definite kinds of --

MR. GILLEN: Thanks.


MR. JONES: I have a couple questions. Does this plug a hole between -- you said, is there an ANSI standard, or not?

MR. O'SHEA: There will be.

MR. JONES: There will be?

MR. O'SHEA: In the first quarter of 2011, roughly. It's been agreed; it just has to be published.

MR. JONES: So this plugs a hole between, I guess the scaffold standard, and nothing else?

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah. That is what I tried to design that to do.

People have regulations. And they have a design standard.

MR. JONES: Mm-hmm.

MR. O'SHEA: And in the middle of that -- for instance, ANSI does not cover training.

MR. JONES: Mm-hmm.

MR. O'SHEA: You know, ANSI doesn't really talk about installers.

MR. JONES: Right.

MR. O'SHEA: You know, it's a design product.

And 1926 influences on only a number of issues for us. It influences on --; it influences on the front edge distance and the removal of hand rails, for instance;

But nowhere does it talk about inspection procedures. Nowhere does it talk about who should do them, the training they require, et cetera.

So yeah, I believe that that document you have in your hand, I believe does plug that gap. But it takes hazards that have been identified by various means.

The white paper would be another example of the identifying hazards.

And to me, that document is a management tool for the abatement of those hazards.

MR. JONES: So I guess a follow-up question -- and it wouldn't necessarily be yours, directed to you, it would probably be more directed I guess to Ben or someone above him -- would be the potential of using something like this as a 5A1 basis to, in lieu of a standard, to look at the safety associated with mast climbers.

MR. BARE: It would just depend on how widespread it becomes, if it becomes an industry standard, or knowledge --

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: They can't hear you --

MR. BARE: I think it would depend on -- you know, we have the ANSI standards, and they're probably --

MR. JONES: And you reference those when you cite --

MR. BARE: Yeah and we reference those, right.

MR. JONES: Right.

MR. BARE: And so this would have to become recognized in the same order, or with the same -- recognized with industry or recognized by a particular employer, and we'd have to show that knowledge for it to be a 4A1 situation;

Or for us to use it to cite 5A1.

MR. JONES: All right. And you can make that case, right?

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah.


Any other? Emmett?

MR. RUSSELL: Emmett Russell. One question. Most of this equipment I would think comes with equipment manuals. Do the equipment manuals have gaps in them? Or would you say that the equipment manuals are complete, but they're not used?

Can you give us some of your expertise or feeling as it relates to the equipment manual and the safety items discussed in the meeting today?

MR. O'SHEA: No, I that the equipment manual is that ANSI stipulates that the operating manual for the piece of equipment must be in the equipment itself.

So that our manual is a -- I think I said in the presentation, manufacturers are very diligent in the information they provide at that point of sale.

They have a responsibility and they attack it with great vigor. And they have good training courses and they have good information.

And one of the challenges we have is that information may well be removed from the mast climber and not replaced, or the mast climber may be sold on, or may be rented to someone else, you know, that the product changes hands through the supply chain;

And we lose the effectiveness of the original information and training. That's what we're finding.

And manufacturers themselves are actually now at the moment penalized by that, because at the moment there is no clear definition of lines of responsibility after the sale of the equipment.

But yes, absolutely, the operators' manual should be in the platform, should be consulted.

The challenge sometimes comes when someone is trained on one type of mast climber, that's driven by a rack-and-pinion device, and is the next day asked to operate a hydraulic type piece of equipment, which is not rack-and-pinion.

It may be a twin mast instead of a single mast. It may have large, planked areas at the front of the machine or the back of the machine, and other safety considerations.

And one of the challenges -- a big challenge we have is -- a mast climber is very specific to its working environment. It's never the same job twice.

So there's always a retraining situation.

And one of the big challenges I've got is making people understand at what point their training stops, and when they should require more information to do the next job that they're going to do.

And the manufacturers do provide very good information, but sometimes that is not something that crosses from one machine or one job site and one application to another.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions?

Seeing none. Sarah?

MS. SHORTALL: I have a number of exhibits to enter into the record.

As Exhibit .6, a Powerpoint Presentation on the ANSI A1046 Standard on Noise and Hearing Conservation and Construction, presented by Scott Schneider, at the Silica and Other Health Hazards Work Group Meeting;

As Exhibit .7, the Powerpoint titled Buy Quiet, presented by Chuck Hayden of NIOSH, at the Silica and Other Health Hazards Work Group Meeting;

As Exhibit .8, the Powerpoint on Mast Climbing Work Platforms, presented by Pam Suzi, Center for Protection of Worker Rights, the Committee for Construction, Research and Training;

.9, Reaching Higher, the Recommendations for Safe Use of Mast Climbing Platforms developed by the CPWR Work Group on Mast Climbing Work Platforms.

As Exhibit .10, Communication we will be receiving from CPWR granting OSHA permission to make Reaching Higher available to read and download on Line;

As Exhibit .11, Powerpoint entitled Mast Climbers and Overview presented by Kevin O'Shea, Director of Safety and Training Mast Climbers, LLC;

.12, IPAF Guidelines for the Safe Use of Mast Climbing Work Platforms, Copyright 2010;

And Exhibit .13, OSHA's and Scafford Industry Association Alliance Product Safety Tips for Mast Climbing Work Platforms.

I have a question for Mr. O'Shea. Since the IPAF guidelines are copyrighted, we cannot put them and make them available on line for anyone, unless we receive permission from IPAF.

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah.


MR. O'SHEA: Yes. So we can get you official permission.

MS. SHORTALL: Will it have to be in writing?

(Discussion was held off the record.)


MR. O'SHEA: Yeah, we can do that. Plus that's fine, we can do that.

MS. SHORTALL: Okay. That means that would be available for anyone on Internet?

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah.

SPEAKER: -- download on our sites now.

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah. Yeah.


And then with reference to the motion that Susan Bilhorn was putting together, if I captured it correctly, Susan Bilhorn moved that ACCSH Formal Work Group to examine possible ways that OSHA could address hazards related to mast climbing work platforms?

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: We need a motion to accept?

MS. BILHORN: I accept, yeah.

MS. SHORTALL: Was that capturing it correctly?

MS. BILHORN: Were you --

(Discussion was held off the record.)

SPEAKER: Could you read that back one more time?

MS. SHORTALL: Sure. Susan Bilhorn moves that ACCSH Formal Work Group to examine possible ways that OSHA could address hazards related to mast climbing work platforms.


CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Motion to accept was by Dan, seconded by someone, who? Okay, Mike?

Any questions, discussions?

MS. SHORTALL: Well, actually that would be Susan Bilhorn's motion.


MS. SHORTALL: Okay. So she moved.

SPEAKER: And Dan seconded it.

MR. ZARLETTI: I think -- correct me if I'm wrong, sir -- but this is also designed to help initiate a promulgation of a standard for mast climbing, whether it be from within or an extension of Sub-Part L, or some other place.

Isn't it my understanding that that's what ultimately you would like to see?

MR. O'SHEA: I think ultimately what we want is a way to use everything that we have.


MR. O'SHEA: You know. And I regularly begin with 1926, because it's the key document for us. And I'm a realist. I'm quite well aware of the fact that 1926 may stay the same for a while.

And that's fine, because it's become ingrained in peoples' psyche and they know exactly what we have.

One of the challenges we have is it doesn't particularly traditionally and hasn't applied to our product. So therefore the supplementary safe use guidelines, et cetera, et cetera, is an area that I would be trying to encourage basically to supplement what we have in 1926.

I think when we marry the two of those together, what we have is a successful recipe for safe use, that I'm just very keen to find the right mechanism to rule out to every area of the U.S., and to every owner, and to make them aware of the hazards that exist, and to give them a method of abatement at the same time.

You know?

MR. ZARLETTI: Well, I guess my point was this:

Right now 1926 has a Sub-Part L --

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah --

MR. ZARLETTI: That speaks specifically to scaffolds of 26 different varieties.

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah.

MR. ZARLETTI: In regards to that, if we wanted to find out the specific way of working safely with tube-and-clamp scaffolding, we would go to Sub-Part 451 and find it there.

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah.

MR. ZARLETTI: Okay. Or aerial work platforms would be in 453.

MR. O'SHEA: 453, yeah.


So my point, I guess, would be: Is this something that we would want to see it be the 27th different style of scaffold covered under Sub-Part L of 1926?

Or is it a stand-alone?

MR. O'SHEA: Okay. I see what you're saying. And I don't think it relates to scaffold particularly as a product.

If we go back to Sub-Section 453, A92.9 is already mentioned there as a design standard in the -- Standard Section.

I guess what would be my first and chosen path would be to basically take the standard, the A92.9 when it's released, and immediately give that credibility, and give this document, the safe-use document, credibility.

Then we have a design, a safe use, and a law.

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MR. O'SHEA: You know?

And I think that's going to give us all the tools that we've acquired there to abate all the hazards that have been identified.


MR. O'SHEA: You know?

MR. JONES: Exactly.

MR. BEAUREGARD: But that's not true, right? You can't really enforce the non-mandatory appendix, right? You can reference it, but you can't enforce it, right, unless you --

MR. ZARLETTI: So goes your 5A1. To go back to ANSI.

MR. O'SHEA: Well, yeah.

The thing about a 5A1 obviously is employer knowledge. You know, the demonstration of employer knowledge, given the information that's out, you know, and the supposition or the presupposition that the employer should have known, because of the information that's out.

You know.

So beginning that huge dissemination process, and using, you know, IPAF SIA, you know, using the industry organizations and the Alliance products, we seem to have a rather large vehicle for the dissemination of that information.


Well, I'm absolutely all for it. Don't get me wrong.

But I'm trying to place it.

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah.

MS. SUSI: Yeah.

MR. ZARLETTI: And that's how this Committee can work most efficiently is either having a Work Group that discusses this, or having a Work Group with a liaison that stays connected with your group.

MR. O'SHEA: Sure.

MR. ZARLETTI: So that we understand that --

MR. O'SHEA: Sure --

MR. ZARLETTI: And all the rest.

So I'm just trying to get that commonality.

MR. O'SHEA: Yep.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions or discussions?


MR. HAWKINS: The ANSI standard that you -- Steve Hawkins, Tennessee OSHA -- the ANSI standard you said would be about when, maybe?

MR. O'SHEA: Hmm --

SPEAKER: The first quarter of 2011.

MR. O'SHEA: (Off mic.)

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MS. SUSI: March 2011 --

MR. O'SHEA: March. It's the SIA or the secretariat for A92.9 standards, so March is its anticipated release date.

MR. HAWKINS: And will that be like all the ANSI standards that I'm aware of, and there would be a charge for that when you buy a copy?

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah.

MR. HAWKINS: And is there any concern in the industry that you're talking about users of this, and sometimes those ANSI standards can be as much as a hundred dollars --

MR. O'SHEA: Well --

MR. HAWKINS: Per copy, so it's hard for, you know, --

MR. O'SHEA: Well, this comes down to --

MR. HAWKINS: That's a real concern I have.

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah. I know, I understand what you're saying, and I'm comforted by the fact that the ANSI standard is a design standard.

And if you're going to manufacture a mast climber, you take ANSI 92.9.

And the reason for producing the safe-use guidelines was because as a user or as a rental company, the ANSI standard is really not very good for you.

MR. HAWKINS: Not for you?

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah.


MR. O'SHEA: So we produce those safe-use guidelines to say, "Here is how you should manage safely that product to abate all of the hazards."

So that's why I believe it's a complementary document to the ANSI standard.

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MR. HAWKINS: And those will be free?

MR. O'SHEA: Yeah. Absolutely, they're downloads on website right now.

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MS. SUSI: (Off mic) Frank, could I just add to that, too, that when we wrote our recommendation, we actually wrote it in a standard fashion, like we put "shall," this, that, and the other, so that -- ready and you could almost cut and paste --

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: That's what you did in 2008. Now, in what you have now also.

MS. SUSI: But it's also in the white paper --

(Simultaneous conversation.)


Any other questions or discussions?

MS. SHORTALL: Mr. Chair? I'd like to mark, then, as Exhibit .14, Communication from IPAF, granting OSHA permission to make the IPF guidelines on safe use of mast climbing work platforms available on line to read and download.



(Discussion was held off the record.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All in favor of accepting the motion?

(Chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: The ayes so have it.

All right.

MR. O'SHEA: Excused?

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Yes, you're excused.


CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Thank you very much.


All right. It's five after 12:00. I'd like the Committee back at 1:00.

(Luncheon Break.)

Afternoon session

MR. BARE: I'm Ben Bare, Deputy Director with the Directorate of Construction, just for the record. This morning, you asked about the update from the April meeting, of your recommendations to us.

And I have those, and I'd like to just review that, and give you a status update. ACCSH recommended that OSHA move forward expeditiously with the silica rule making. And OSHA agreed, and the rule-making is in progress.

ACCSH recommended that the Susan Harwood grant be used to provide additional training on fall protection in residential construction specific to the type of residential construction being performed.

OSHA disagreed with making this a priority. ACCSH strongly recommended that OSHA put to the top of its regulatory agenda the update of its construction standards for a sanitation standard, including updating the requirements for the number of toilet facilities on construction sites, employers must provide and update the requirement to provide separate facilities or separate toilet facilities for male and female.

And you further moved that OSHA provide ACCSH with an update at every meeting until OSHA has promulgated a final standard updating the construction sanitation standard.

OSHA is considering this recommendation.

It was also moved that OSHA consider an ANSI standard and the California OSHA standard addressing toilet and washing facilities when moving forward on this, on the previous issue, or this same issue.

And OSHA is considering this recommendation.

ACCSH strongly recommends that OSHA and NIOSH work together to collect information on federal orders and requirements relating to construction safety and health, and to develop an executive order that clearly directs federal entities to lead by example in construction safety and health by employing design of safety constructability concepts, including training for workers and supervisors and subcontractors, pre-qualifications based on demonstrated programs and performance.

This recommendation is currently in progress.

And that concludes my report on the recommendations received from ACCSH in April.



(Discussion was held off the record.)

MS. BILHORN: I'm sorry, Susan Bilhorn. Can you clarify, what does "in progress" mean? What's "in progress" mean?

I said my name already. Is that what you --


(Discussion was held off the record.)

MR. BARE: That we are considering it and we're working on that, working on developing or taking action on recommendation.

MS. BILHORN: Okay. Right.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. Any other questions?

Thank you, Ben.

MS. ARIOTO: I'm sorry, excuse me.

Liz Arioto. Could you just expand a little bit more, what you mean by "consideration"? And how long does it consideration take?

MR. BARE: Under consideration, it means that we -- or it's an item that we are looking at to consider whether to take action or not.

MS. ARIOTO: Can you give me a general idea how long that might be?

MR. BARE: I can not --

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Considering putting the gavel down, that's consideration.

MS. ARIOTO: That's consideration.



MR. BARE: I cannot.



MS. BILHORN: One more thing. Susan Bilhorn. One more thing, and I appreciate -- and I think I probably speak on behalf of everyone -- I appreciate the follow-up with that, that was good.

And you were following up from April. There are other recommendations that have been made that, you know, I think even one was mentioned back in 2008, that have yet, you know --

For example, there was a -- I know, because one of the committees I was on -- there was language put together on subcontractor selections, for a fact sheet.

And that was put, I think over a year ago.

And so there's a number of others that would be helpful. And maybe this isn't something that we necessarily -- maybe it's not the best use of time to just read all of those;

But if there were a listing of them, then maybe they could even just be given to us in advance in the meeting, or with the package at the meeting, so that we could look at it;

And if there was any questions on the progress, then we could ask. Maybe line by line.

SPEAKER: Mm-hmm.

MS. BILHORN: And you know, this was, you know, proposed the next date, this is what you just said, the statement of it's in progress.

SPEAKER: Mm-hmm.

MS. BILHORN: You know, it's in progress.

And if it was given to us, maybe in the packet, then we could look at it and see if there's any questions we have --

MR. BARE: Excellent recommendation, and I'll try to follow up on that. Yes. Excellent.

MS. BILHORN: Well, thank you.

MR. BARE: Mm-hmm. Will do.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions?

Seeing none. All right. Thank you, Ben.

We'll go ahead and start with the Work Group on Green Jobs. I think Emmett, you said you were going to speak?


The Green Job Work Group Report. We had welcome and introductions. Co-Chair, Susan Bilhorn, Matt Gillen, Emmett Russell opened the meeting, giving an overview of the goals the group would try to accomplish today.

Matt Gillen, Deputy Director for NIOSH Office of Construction Safety & Health, gave a presentation on the NIOSH perspective and activities on Green Construction.

The presentation was called Making Green Jobs Safe, and the presentation, Green Construction, was defined.

The BLS definition was: Jobs and Business that produce goods or provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources;

Jobs in which workers' duties involve making their establishments production process more environmentally friendly, or use fewer natural resources.

BLS has estimated that construction had the largest number of green establishments.

EPA definition: The practice of creating structures and using processes, that are environmentally responsible and resources efficient throughout a building's life cycle, from setting to design, construction operation and maintenance, renovation and deconstruction.

This practice explains and complements the classical building design concern of economy, utility, durability, and comfort.

Green building is also known as a sustainable or high-performance building.

In the presentation a number of reports were referenced. The Committee will obtain copies of these reports. A copy of the remainder of that presentation is attached.

Members of the Work Group discussed some of the ongoing activities in conjunction with green construction, which included: OSHA and NIOSH made some preliminary contacts with the U.S. Green Building Council.

NIOSH has generated a white paper on integrating occupational safety and health into Green Construction and plans further contacts with the UFGBC.

The concept of Green Jobs being safe jobs, all construction should be safe, whether green or other. We have safety standards in place for construction. These standards apply for most elements of Green Jobs.

The roofing industry has developed its own certification program for roofing contractors, which has a Safety & Health component. Tom Shanahan will share this information with the Committee.

For safety guidance, as it relates to the Solar Energy Industry, there are a number of guides available that contain construction rules for the solar industry;

Specifically guides for the states of California and Oregon.

OSHA standards are based on activities. There are no standards for wind energy or solar energy. There is a perception that OSHA standards do not apply to these and other green industries.

Even though OSHA standards cover most hazards, there are a few new hazards generated through Green Construction industries that may not be included in current standards and/or guidance.

Green Construction has many of the same hazards as non-Green Construction. An example would be the main hazards of wind tower construction, its heights, or walls, and confined space.

The lead system is updated every few years. Concern was expressed about opening the lead certification process to incorporate safety, given that it is just starting to gain momentum in the construction industry.

Green Jobs in Construction Work Group to some degree parallels the Prevention through Design Work Group, because many of the Green Construction hazards can be eliminated through design.

Contractors' safety records should be considered in the green points system. Guidance generated for cell towers might be an example of what can be done for Green Construction.

In some cases, Green Construction has lots of small employers, who have a lack of understanding or awareness of hazards and the appropriate safety practices similar to those developed for the cell tower industry.

This Work Group should be concerned with the safety to the life cycle of a structure, from design through construction and maintenance.

A number of hazards are the same for construction workers and building maintenance workers.

Some examples would be on the roof parapet, walls 42 inches instead of 32 inches high, using non-breakable materials for sky lights, or installing permanent sky light guards during construction.

Recognizing the lack of information on relevant standards and guidance that currently exist for the construction of green projects, the Work Group decided to focus on mapping and/or developing a matrix of life cycle of selected types of Green Construction projects to identify construction-related hazards and applicable safety standards and guidance.

In this process of mapping hazards, for which there are no existing standards and/or guidance, gaps will be identified.

Maintenance hazards that may be eliminated through design or construction will be considered.

Industry associations will be contacted to assist in this process for the technical knowledge and process solutions.

Four green projects were selected as pilots for this project. They include solar; wind turbine; installation, which should include spray; blow-in, and other types; and roofs which should include sky lights.

For the next Work Group meeting, Christine Covington of the Solar Energy Industries Association, agreed to assist the Committee in developing the construction processes and related hazards for the Solar Industry.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Thank you, Emmett.

Susan, would you have anything to add?





MR. RUSSELL: And also attached is NIOSH' presentation on Green Construction for your review.

I do have one other issue I'd like to bring up, Frank. Dr. Michaels reported to our Committee about a Green Jobs website coming up in the future for OSHA.

And I'd just like to request that when that website is instituted, could you let the ACCSH members know that the website is up and running?

Because again, that website might be important in our deliberation for this Work Group, as it relates to Green Construction.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. At this time I'll entertain a motion to accept this report.

MR. ZARLETTI: So moved.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Dan Zarletti. Second it?

MR. AHAL: Second it.


Questions or discussions? Any questions of the Group? Discussion? Okay.

All in favor say aye.

(Chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Ayes so have it.

Thank you, Emmett. All right.

I2P2? Susan, you're going to present?

MS. BILHORN: Yes. Okay. Yeah.

We were called to order on Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. And this is a new Work Group. And Tom Kavicky and I are co-chairing that.

So our agenda for the meeting was to overview OSHA's progress plans, and the request to ACCSH for the newly formed Work Group to have a better understanding of where OSHA fits into the process.

And then also to develop a Work Group charter, based on that -- objectives, charter, however you want to frame it -- but what it was we were going to do;

And then to establish an approach to achieve those.

So Mike Seymour of OSHA gave an overview. He gave us some background, talked about different, a little bit like we heard today, about considering different state programs, et cetera, in developing the -- don't laugh, you guys are going to laugh at me again, I know you are -- Injury and Illness Prevention Program, I2P2.


ALL: Got it.


MS. BILHORN: Thank you.

And of course, Mr. Seymour also said we could come up with a new name if we so wanted to recommend.

So as he was going through this, he talked between the proposed rule being framed to some extent around the six core tenants of the effective HSE Program, which are:

Management, leadership, employee participation, hazard identification, hazard control, training and education, and program evaluation.

He also talked about specific challenges they would like ACCSH's input on. And that's around multiple employee work environments, around transient work forces, and around mobile and temporary work places;

And also what documentation should be required to minimize the paperwork that's not aiding in program development implementation.

At some point in the discussion, he also mentioned that it would be of some help if ACCSH were to suggest some hazard identification tools that could be of particular value to smaller contractors.

He emphasized the prior OSHA has placed, and I think in Dr. Michaels' comments today he also did. And so that this rule-making has high priority.

He also mentioned that the next step for that rule-making is meeting with a small business community, possibly in the spring time frame, and that this would probably make the regulatory agenda in the fall of 2011.

He also talked about the fact that rule-making and guidance are being developed together, but was not sure whether they would both be issued in the same time frame, though recognizing the benefit of doing so.

We expressed appreciation, I think as a number of committee members, for the work on I2P2, recognizing that in the frame of the focus of prevention as opposed to just enforcement.

So we were encouraged by that.

I'll go to the motion Walter made in a minute as a motion; because Walter came up with a motion;

Because one of the things we heard is that it's still uncertain, the scope. And so it's construction is in consideration now; but yet it might not be; it's possible it could have been separated from this rule-making.

So actually Walter I will make the motion later -- but Walter suggested that, and we agreed that we ought to at least recommend that -- that ACCSH at least recommend that OSHA insure that construction is within the scope.

After all this discussion and recognizing that this is also -- the focus of this Work Group is on a specific rule-making, as opposed to a broader issue, we wanted to quickly frame, you know, the objective of the Work Group to keep ourselves focused on an approach to do that, in a timely manner.

So we stated the following as our charter:

The purpose of the I2P2 Work Group is to provide information on effective injury and illness prevention programs and best practices, and on effective ways to address related issues.

And the issue is around employer work sites, small employers, mobile temporary work sites, which pertain to the construction industry that ACCSH can use to provide recommendations and comment to OSHA on the I2P2 proposed rule and guidance documents.

So that's the charter of this group. And our approach to try to be timely about it is that -- and with no certainty about the next time we'll actually be together physically for a meeting -- we're going to take a look at each of the -- let's see, I am just off a little bit here.



Yeah. We want to come up with key -- we're going to focus on coming up with key activities and requirements to include in rule-making, that we would suggest, based on experience that the members have with I2P2 programs.

So it's like essential minimums that ought to be in that rule-making. And then, and any issues or concerns that should be considered in that rule-making.

And then also consider best practices that could be considered in guidance.

In preparation for the next meeting, where we want to be able to frame potential recommendations for ACCSH to make, we're going to, with the help of Fran, set up conference calls, probably two or three, where we will specifically discuss the six core tenants.

So for example, the first call, we might take two, or three.

And then we'll talk through with the members that, you know, everyone would be invited -- the members will all be invited. And then of course, it will be announced for those who signed on, who were in attendance at the meeting, who were interested parties.

And Sarah, I think I'm getting this right.


MS. BILHORN: But that would be the approach, that we have these conference calls; and in those conference calls, we have a dialogue, so we can kind of frame up what thoughts we have, so that we can continue to develop these issues and challenges and minimums that we might recommend prior to the next meeting.

Now when we get to the next meeting, we can review it in the meeting, and discuss it, and come up with recommendations for ACCSH to make to OSHA.

So that's the approach that we're going to take.

And that's the end of that.

And then I have the motion to make that Walter stated.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: And let's hold off on that.

Tom, do you have anything to add?

MR. SHANAHAN: No. Susan covered it very well, Mr. Chairman.


At this time, I'll entertain a motion to accept the Work Group's report. Matt. Second? Liz? All right.

Questions and discussions.

MR. SHANAHAN: (Off mic)

MS. BILHORN: Yes, it's a brief, that is a brief.

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MS. BILHORN: I wasn't going to try to repeat the acronym.


(Discussion was held off the record.)

MS. SHORTALL: Just trips off your tongue. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act. It's like I2P2.


MR. BRODERICK: Tom Broderick. Is this the SBREFA review required statutorily? Or this just running it by them to kind of see what the small business community is thinking?

MS. SHORTALL: No, it is statutorily required. It's Section 609 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that was added in 1995, and it requires OSHA and EPA, those two agencies, to convene small employer representative panels,

If there is a belief by the agency that the proposed rule could impose significant impacts on small business.

MR. BRODERICK: But doesn't it sound like this is happening sooner in the development of the standard process than normal?

MS. SHORTALL: Well, not really. The SBREFA Act requires that this be done at the proposal stage. Not at the final stage.

MR. BRODERICK: So they will have a draft that they would be working on?

MS. SHORTALL: Absolutely.

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MS. SHORTALL: They would have to share that with the panel and with the small employer representative, so that they could provide meaningful comment.

MS. BILHORN: We were informed that at that time the language would be available that we could also see --

(Simultaneous conversation.)


MR. JONES: Which -- silica --

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MS. BILHORN: Yeah. But the reason we wanted to gain some momentum on it in dialogue is that we wanted to be able to provide information as soon as possible, you know, any recommendations and thoughts as soon as possible;

And certainly that we wanted to also prepare our thinking, so that when the rule does come up, we can quickly respond as well.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions or discussion?

Yes, Ben?

MR. BARE: Yeah. I just wanted to say I appreciate the Committee and particularly Frank and Susan and Tom's coming together and forming the Subcommittee, recognizing the importance of this I2P2, or Injury and Illness Prevention Program.

And this is an excellent start. So thank you very much.

(Simultaneous conversation.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions or discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of accepting say aye?

(Chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Seeing none, ayes so carry.


MS. SHORTALL: Mr. Chair, at this time I'd like to enter several things into the record.

As Exhibit 15, the approved Green Jobs and Construction Worker Report from the December 7, 2010 meeting;

As Exhibit 16, a hard copy of Powerpoint entitled Making Green Jobs Safe Construction, presented by Matt Gillen, NIOSH Deputy Director of the Office of Construction Safety & Health.

Matt, did you present that at the December 7, 2010 Green Jobs in Construction Work Group meeting?


MS. SHORTALL: As Exhibit 17, the approved I2P2 Work Group Report from the December 7, 2010 meeting.


(Discussion was held off the record.)

MS. BILHORN: Yeah, we had to motion it.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Yeah. You had a motion --

(Discussion was held off the record.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: I want to also reminded you right after lunch, but the comment sheets in the back, anybody wishes to speak in the comment period, please sign in.

Now, time for your motion.

MS. BILHORN: Okay. Hmm, the motion that the Work Group proposes -- well, the motion is for ACCSH to request OSHA to ensure that construction is addressed within the scope of OSHA's rule-making and guidance on requirements on Injury and Illness Prevention Programs.


SPEAKER: Second?

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Yeah. She made the motion. Second?

MS. SHORTALL: Well, could I make sure I got the -- are you requesting that OSHA do this, or recommending that OSHA do it?

(Simultaneous conversation.)

SPEAKER: Recommending.

MS. BILHORN: Recommending.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Yeah, I thought we were --

MS. BILHORN: Oh, recommending. Okay. Recommending, recommending, yes.

So ACCSH recommends to OSHA to ensure that construction is addressed within the scope of OSHA's rule-making and guidance on Injury and Illness Prevention Programs.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. It's been seconded. Any discussion, questions?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All in favor say aye?

(Chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Seeing none, motion carries.

All right. We want to go ahead and move on with our next Work Group. It will be Power Fastening Tools and Nail Guns. Tom?

(Discussion was held off the record.)

MR. KAVICKY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Power Fastening Tools Nail Guns Work Group held its meeting on December 7, 2010. The co-chairs, Liz Arioto, and Tom Kavicky, opened the meeting at 10:10 a.m.

There were 40 participants present, including seven individuals that were on a teleconference call. A very good, lively Work Group.

Following a brief welcome and participant introductions, the co-chairs presented the Work Group agenda. We reviewed the minutes of the April 12, 2010 Work Group meeting down in Houston, and they were approved.

We began with John Kurtz of the International Staple, Nail, and Tool Association, ISANTA. John addressed the group, brought up a couple of issues that ISANTA had with the Work Group.

One of the issues was the lack of proper nomenclature and language that was being used to talk, to discuss from one nail gun to the other;

The interchangeability of parts. He wanted to let us know about that, from one nail gun to the other;

And then also the commonality of safety features between the various types of pneumatic nail guns.

John brought in a member of ISANTA, Mark Hickock of Milwaukee Electric Tools. And Mark discussed some of the issues that John had brought to the Work Group.

He did discuss accidental discharges, which we had asked John about at the last Work Group meeting to bring in one of their manufacturer reps and talk about those discharges.

And you know, talking about the discharges of the nails, and then the worker inflicted injuries were a common problem caused, in his opinion, by misuses of the tool and lack of worker training.

A Work Group member asked the manufacturer representatives what the manufacturers have done recently to improve the design of the gun. Mark again responded that the manufactures have developed and improved the tool's balance and center of gravity; which they felt was causing some of those accidental nail discharges.

He informed the Work Group that the design of the tools is very complex, and manufacturers continuously explore design considerations.

He mentioned that training workers in the proper use and appropriate application of each nail gun would impact positive ergonomic advantages.

We had a teleconference person, Denny Patterson, and Jim Nolan of the Greater Saint Louis Regional Council of Carpenters, they informed the Work Group of a survey that was created amongst their regional council carpenters.

And they developed it along with Hester Lipscomb. They gave the survey to over 3,000 carpenters in the Saint Louis region.

The survey results illustrate that the contact trip trigger nailer was responsible for up to as many as twice as many injuries and incidents as was the sequential trigger nailer.

Mr. Patterson also discussed an issue regarding high-velocity dangers of nails as they left the nail gun notes.

This high velocity played a large role in producing the seriousness of accidents and injuries.

Mark Hickock responded to this comment by noting that it is the worker misuse of the tool and lack of using best practices for the tool that caused the injury, and not the velocity of the nail.

Comment was provided by Mark Patterson, or Mr. Patterson, that some nail guns are capable of shooting up to nine nails per second.

This information was taken from one of the tool manufacturers user's manuals.

Mr. Zarletti asked if the nail guns were possibly over-engineered. The manufacturer reps -- there were two of them there -- were unaware of a nail gun delivering up to nine nails per second.

Mr. Hickock did emphasize that design modifications of newer guns would prevent this occurrence due to ergonomic changes in designs of that nail gun.

Matt Gillen, Deputy Director, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, Office of Construction, provided copies to the Work Group and presented a newly developed draft document, entitled Nail Gun Safety, a Guide for Contractors.

A copy is provided.

At the December 2000 Nail Gun Work Group meeting, it was a recommendation from the Work Group to NIOSH to develop a guidance document for contractors with the intent of reducing and eliminating nail gun injuries.

A discussion followed the presentation. Some of the comments brought by the Work Group members were -- there were issues regarding clarity among some of the language and terminology in the draft document.

Another issue was a breakdown of injuries. We asked them if they could break down the injuries for both the users on the job and off the job, we felt that would be real important to see what's happening in construction, on the job, and the homeowner;

Common links between injuries and type of work performed, listing types of hearing protection available to the user, that is exposed to the loud pulsating bursts of noise;

Comments continued with include more photos in the document. And Matt did make it clear that NIOSH is searching and asking for help in locating good photographs that they could use in this draft document.

Another issue: How to distribute this document to consumers that purchase or rent pneumatic nail guns from retail stores. It was discussed creating a website link for users to download this document off of either NIOSH or the OSHA website.

There was a thought that OSHA should alert the Consumer Product Safety Commission once this document is in a final state that it is available for their consumers.

All ACCSH Work Group members voted unanimously for NIOSH to continue developing the draft document. All of the Work Group members were encouraged to provide Matt Gillen or Danezza Quintero with their comments regarding changes, additions to the guidance document by January 15, 2011.

At that point, John Kurtz stated for the record that ISANTA objected to OSHA, NIOSH, and the Work Group discussing the draft document, Nail Gun Safety, a Guide for Contractors, during this Work Group meeting.

He felt that ISANTA, the industry representatives did not have an adequate opportunity to review the document, and provide their comments to NIOSH.

John made reference to a letter ISANTA sent on December 3, 2010, to OSHA and other committee members, and that letter is attached with this report.

Comment was directed to the manufacture representatives regarding the need for clarification of the nail gun being left unattended. Is it safe for a nail gun to be left unattended?

And really, we didn't get a whole lot of response.

Another comment was directed to the Work Group that pneumatic nail gun training must be given to the worker in an understandable manner.

The Work Group did adjourn at 12:10 p.m.


MS. ARIOTO: Do we have the attachments, Tom?

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Yeah, they're here.


(Discussion was held off the record.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Before I ask for a motion, Tom, explain to maybe some people in the audience might not know the difference between a contact trigger and subsequential trigger.

MR. KAVICKY: Contract trigger is a nail gun where you can hold down the trigger and bump-fire -- you actually bump it against the work piece, like if you're laying down sheeting on a deck, or roofing sheeting, you're installing that;

It's a very quick operation. And it doesn't require that finger being pressed every time you shoot the next nail.

The subsequential trigger is one that, whether you press the nose against the work piece, and pull the trigger, or you pull the trigger and then set the nose against it, it will discharge one nail at a time.


MR. KAVICKY: You're welcome.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to accept the Work Group's report.

SPEAKER: I move.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Bill Ahal. Second it? Tom Shanahan.

Questions? Discussion? Any questions in the room? Matt? Oh. Okay. Sarah.

MS. SHORTALL: (Off mic) Bring up with regard to that.

In the Work Group report, it says that members were encouraged to provide -- Danezza Quintero their comments regarding -- additions to the guidance document by January 15, 2011?

If any member of ACCSH provides comments directly, it would have to be in your individual capacity and not as a member of ACCSH. Since ACCSH Work Groups are only authorized to bring their opinions to the body as a whole here.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Thank you, Sarah. Matt?

MR. GILLEN: I respectfully wanted to suggest a couple of minor corrections. On page two there, where it says that in 2009 that at the Work Group meeting a recommendation was tasked to NIOSH, it is my recollection that the recommendation was to OSHA;

And that, you know, really OSHA and NIOSH are working together on this joint publication. So I just wanted to make that clear that it's a joint effort, and it is intended to be a joint publication.

If that's -- is a clarification.

And then in that third paragraph, that the date that was just mentioned, it was January 10th. The date that we were looking for those comments by --

(Discussion was held off the record.)

SPEAKER: Yeah, I saw it.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. Very good. Thank you, Matt.

Any other questions or discussion?

MR. THIBODEAUX: I just have a question --


MR. THIBODEAUX: Do you have any more copies? Because --


MR. GILLEN: Of the minutes?

MR. THIBODEAUX: Yeah. of he minutes, to go around?

MS. SHORTALL: I have a few over here.

MR. THIBODEAUX: Oh, okay, got some.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Those going to take back to California --


CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions of discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of accepting the Work Groups, say aye.

(Chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Ayes so have it.


Then I would enter into the record:

As Exhibit 18 -- excuse me, Exhibit 18, the approved Power Fastening Tools, Nail Guns Work Group Report from December 7, 2010 meeting;

As 19, the draft, Nail Gun Safety, a Guide for Contractors' Guidance, Developed Jointly by NIOSH and OSHA;

And as Exhibit 20, the Letter from ISANTA to the Directorate of Construction regarding that nail gun safety document.


All right. At this time we'll take a 15-minute break.

(A brief recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Let's see if we're on, I guess we're on.

Yeah. Our next presentation will be from the Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Dorothy Dougherty and Mike Seymour.

Dorothy? It's a pleasure to see you again.

MS. DOUGHERTY: Yeah, good to see you.

We have a slide presentation. Not that it's, you know, all that (laughing) informative, but at least you can follow along.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All right. Who's showing it?

MS. DOUGHERTY: Does anybody have it?

MR. SEYMOUR: I think we're in the process of making that happen.

MS. DOUGHERTY: Oh. It's not our fault, right?

(Laughter.) (Discussion was held off the record.)

MS. DOUGHERTY: If you'd like us to start without it, we can. It just, you know, kind of lists out some of the standards.


(Discussion was held off the record.)

MS. DOUGHERTY: Okay. Talk amongst yourselves (laughing).

(Discussion was held off the record.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: (Gavel sounds.) We're going to go ahead with the Work Group report, while we're getting the presentation set up.



The Advisory Committee on Construction Safety Health Diversity of Women in Construction Work Group was held on December 8, 2010, and it started at 8:05 and adjourned at 10:00 a.m.

There were 19 attendees, and I believe there were ten ACCSH members.

There were self-introductions, and the minutes of the April 13, 2010 meeting in Houston were distributed and approved.

The documents that were distributed for review at our meeting group will be passed out right now. So there's quite a few, so I'll just read over them.

There's the meeting agenda, there is the National Accident Prevention Association, or the IAPA-PPE for Women, Directory of Women in Construction.

There's protection updates by the SEA.

The fourth one is Women in Construction Fact Sheet, which is revised to read recommended language for the OSHA Quick Card.

Five is the IAPA Personal Protective Equipment for Women. And it's titled Addressing the Need.

And six is Labor's Health & Safety Fund of North America Life Lines. Got a female construction worker on your shopping list?

Number seven is list of PPE suppliers provided by the ISEA.

And the last one is the North Carolina Department of Labor Quick Card.

I'll make sure that we all have them. So I'll proceed.

We reviewed the agenda from the last meeting and held a brief discussion on the meeting activities.

Discussion of the North Carolina Department of Labor Women in Construction Quick Card and draft sheet. The North Carolina DOL Quick Card titled Women in Construction will serve as a good basis for a Quick Card that federal OSHA could publish.

The OSHA Quick Cards are larger; therefore it would be possible to include additional information.

After review of the North Carolina Department of Labor Quick Card and the draft sheet, and after minor revisions, the Work Group concluded they will recommend to ACCSH that ACCSH recommend OSHA produce a Quick Card titled Women in Construction.

The work of the OSHA Construction Alliance Roundtable was note, and work items from the Alliance regarding ergonomics could be added or supplement the Quick Card.

There was a presentation by Daniel Shiff, President of the ISEA, and Mr. Dan Glucksman, Director of Public Affairs, ISEA.

The presentation was focused on the importance of using PPE that correctly fits the employee, male or female.

But there are manufacturers that produce PPE items that are sized and designed to specifically fit women.

They distributed a list of ISEA members companies that offer PPE designed for women. The group discussed the issue of what opportunities there may be to get information to employers and workers.

The Work Group was informed by OSHA's staff that OSHA would probably not publish any specific single entity information on the subject.

ISEA will work with the Work Group to update the list, but it was realized that ISEA would not be expected to go outside of their membership to populate the list.

It is recommended that ACCSH recommend that OSHA develop methods to disseminate a list of manufacturers of PPE sized for women.

Such methods may include posting on the Internet, providing links, providing to regional offices, compliance officers, OTI, education centers and consultants.

This would better enable construction safety and health specialists to more readily produce construction information pertaining to the availability of equipment to employers, employees, associations, and other employee representatives.

After reviewing that North Carolina Department of Labor Quick Card and Fact Sheet, and after minor revisions, the Work Group recommends that ACCSH recommend to OSHA that production of a Quick Card entitled Women in Construction would be very beneficial.

The North Carolina Department of Labor Quick Card revised draft could be used as a basis for the OSHA Quick Card.

The work of the OSHA Consultation Alliance Roundtable was noted, and items from that Alliance regarding ergonomics could be added or serve as a supplement to the Quick Card.

Future Work Items: NIOSH has begun a study on redesigning fall-arrest harnesses for women. It was suggested and agreed to that time be put on the agenda for Matt Gillen of NIOSH to present an update on this project.

And again the meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m.

Oh, and I'd like to add one thing. Jim, my co-chair, would like to just make a statement and --

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Just get ready to ask. Yeah?

MR. HAWKINS: I'll make a motion that we accept the minutes.

SPEAKER: Second it.


MR. HAWKINS: Well, I think it is. Because you're going to make the official motion, aren't you, Jim?



CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Yeah. But I want to ask if he has anything to add.

MR. HAWKINS: Oh, sorry.


CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Do you have anything to add to the report?

MR. TOMASESKI: Hmm, let's go ahead and we'll do that first.


MR. TOMASESKI: And then I'll --

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Now I'll accept the motion to accept the minutes.

MR. HAWKINS: Motion to accept the minutes, Mr. Chairman.


MR. KAVICKY: Second.


Any discussion? Questions?


MR. TOMASESKI: I don't have anything to add to the report that's already been made. But I do want to make a motion that the Women in Construction Quick Card and the North Carolina Department of Labor --

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: We'll do the motion after we accept the --

MR. TOMASESKI: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any questions or discussions on the report?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Seeing none, all those in favor of accepting say aye.

(Chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Ayes so have it.

Now the motion.

MR. TOMASESKI: I'll try this again. This is a little lengthy, so I'll have this written out, and Sarah, I'll give it to you after I finish reading it.

But I'd like to make a motion that the Women in Construction Quick Card, the North Carolina Department of Labor Quick Card and other materials that were collected and developed by the ACCSH Diversity in Women in Construction Work Group be provided to OSHA, and that OSHA utilize these Work Group products and materials and other available resources to deliver a new OSHA Quick Card and/or Fact Sheet, and Internet page on the OSHA website addressing Safety & Health issues associated with women working in the construction industry.

MR. HAWKINS: Second.

MS. SHORTALL: No, I think --

(Discussion was held off the record.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All right. It's been seconded. Any discussion or questions on the motion?

MR. HAWKINS: I got a little discussion.

You know, the Work Groups looked at this issue two or three meetings in a row, and really want to -- I mean, I'm just wanting to voice my opinion now.

I think it truly would be important for the agency to develop a Women in Construction page on the Internet with some of this information and resources available to women who work in the construction field;

And ideally, in my mind, you would click on the "W" on the alphabet at the top, and one of the choices would be Women in Construction.

And you could have some of this, have this Fact Sheet, and hopefully a link to the Quick Card, and hopefully some other information about proper-fitting PPE, and so forth;

And start to have a page where this information as the Work Group develops additional information and products, and of course, as OSHA reviews those, it would have a place to go for Women in Construction.

We know that women are not widely represented, but the ones that are in the field should have some expectation that they have properly fitting PPE; and again, that they have separate toilet facilities, which I think we have a good motion already with OSHA there.

And I just would really like to encourage the agency to go ahead and take this and move with it.

Everyone at the Work Group felt strongly that that would be the next logical step for us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions or discussion?

MS. ARIOTO: May I ask several questions?

Sir, with regards to the list that the ISEA gave on personal protective equipment?


MS. ARIOTO: And having it listed on an OSHA web page, if I added some other companies, would there be a problem eliciting ISEA and then --

MS. SHORTALL: This is the list of people offering equipment that fits women.

MS. ARIOTO: From the ISEA association. But that's the only company --


MS. ARIOTO: Now but if I add other companies?

MS. SHORTALL: I mean, I think OSHA would have to probably review this. I mean, it has to be careful that we don't give the appearance of endorsing anyone's particular equipment --

MS. ARIOTO: That's what I --

MS. SHORTALL: Which OSHA does not do.

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MS. ARIOTO: So if I had other companies besides that, would that be okay?

MS. SHORTALL: Well, we have to first see to what extent OSHA feels it can put this --

MS. ARIOTO: Okay --

MS. SHORTALL: I mean, information about direct vendors. I mean, certainly they could probably do a link-up to ISEA. ISEA had it on their website.


(Discussion was held off the record.)

MR. HAWKINS: Yes, ma'am. That's what we talked about.

SPEAKER: That's what we talked about --



MR. HAWKINS: Possibly a link to their site, with manufacturers and distributors of PPE specifically designed for women.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any more questions or discussions on the motion?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Seeing none, all in favor of accepting the motion say aye.

Chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: The ayes so have it.

MS. ARIOTO: Thank you.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

MS. SHORTALL: Okay. Quite a stack here.

As Exhibit 21, the approved Work Group Report from the Diversity of Women in Construction Work Group Meeting on December 8, 2010;

As Exhibit 21, the Directory, Where to Find PPE for Women, from IAPA;

As Exhibit 22, Protection Update, News from International Safety Equipment Association, April 2010;

As Exhibit 23, Recommended Language for an OSHA Quick Card, Women in Construction;

As Exhibit 24, IAPA Personal Protective Equipment for Women, Addressing the Need;

As Exhibit 25, Got a Female Construction Worker on Your Shopping List? From Laborer's Health & Safety Fund of North America, December 2010;

As Exhibit 26, a list of ISEA member companies the PPE that they provide for women;

And as Exhibit 27 -- Kevin, is this now a final? North Carolina?


MS. SHORTALL: Okay. North Carolina, OSHA's Women in Construction Fact Sheet? Or Quick Card.

MR. BEAUREGARD: It's a Quick Card.

MS. SHORTALL: Quick Card.

Hmm, I do have one item on here and that is the recommendation language for the OSHA Quick Card Women in Construction.

Has ACCSH itself approved this for giving to OSHA?

MR. BEAUREGARD: This Quick Card right here recommendation?

MS. SHORTALL: Yes. Mm-hmm.

MR. BEAUREGARD: I think the Work Group with the motion that Liz just made recommended that this be provided to OSHA, and OSHA use this when they develop their own Quick Card.

MS. SHORTALL: Okay. Well, then, OSHA -- I mean, ACCSH would have to separately consider this and whether all members of ACCSH would like to recommend that.

MR. BEAUREGARD: She we do that now?

MS. SHORTALL: Well, is the computer ready for --


MS. SHORTALL: No, it's still not? Okay. There you go.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

(Simultaneous conversation.)

SPEAKER: Everybody that was at the meeting read it. The other members that weren't there didn't read it.

(Simultaneous conversation.)


MS. DOUGHERTY: No, they're still trying to get them, but I'll tell you --

SPEAKER: Oh, here it comes now.

MS. DOUGHERTY: Now I'm afraid that you guys, you know, have been waiting for them, you're really going to be let down (laughing).

They're not that great, you know, so (laughing).

(Simultaneous conversation.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. Can I have a motion on the recommended language? The recommendation by Dan Zarletti?

MR. KAVICKY: Right. Second.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Seconded by Tom Kavicky.

Discussion or questions on the Women in Construction recommendation language for the OSHA Quick Card?


(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

(Chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: The ayes so have it.

All right. Now we'll see if this works.

(Discussion was held off the record.)


MS. DOUGHERTY: So all right. So after disappointing you and not having slides for you, let me start out by saying, you know, David had mentioned the next reg agenda is to be published soon.

OSHA does not have control over that process. That's a process that is really run by OMB. And they make decisions for the whole federal government when they're going to publish the regulatory agenda for all of the regulatory agencies in the federal government.

And so the date is not something that's under control by us, and we certainly have no, you know, sort of position in stating what date that we want it.

So unfortunately for you guys, it's a difficult presentation to do. We never usually get high marks for our presentation when we have to do this the week or two before the reg agenda.

Because if we've missed current dates that are in our current reg agenda, we can't tell you what the next date is, until the reg agenda comes out.

So you'll have to bear with us a little bit, and we use a lot of terms like: Soon, sooner, very soon.


MS. DOUGHERTY: So you'll hear some of that.

So we definitely don't make any friends with the press either, because we're a little irritating with it.

But it's just one of those things with rule -making that you're just not at liberty to kind of give out the dates before the reg agenda is published.

But we'll try to give you some information.

So what we thought we would do is just go through some of the items on our current reg agenda, that we know are of interest to you, that we have probably briefed you on at some point already;

Just to kind of give you a status report and let you know where we are. Most of these are scheduled to have some publication soon.

So I'll just go through that.

The first one is beryllium. It's an item that has been on our reg agenda for a long time. It's still on there.

And the next -- the phase that was listed in the current reg agenda was to initiate peer review. One of the requirements that we have to do in rule-making is to peer review to health effects and the risk assessment and the economics.

So we are in the process -- we just actually completed the peer review of the health effects and their risk assessment.

So our next step will be to initiate the peer review of the economics section.

So I'm just here to tell you that we're on track with all this, with the current information. And the current reg agenda is accurate. And we have just completed the peer review.

Now that doesn't mean that you'll see any type of formal publication of any information like that. It's all sort of -- oh, an internal process that we do for now. And then as we proceed towards hearings and stuff, we'll have an opportunity to discuss the comments that we've received from the peer reviewer.

So it's just one of the many steps in the, you know, long list of steps in rule-making.

Silica is the next one. I know that we had Dave O'Connor from my shop attend your Work Group, and give a brief update there. And I have a couple of slides a little bit later, that I'll talk a little bit about in more detail about what we're doing with silica.

But we did meet the date for the peer review of the health effects and the risk assessment for that rule, and we are proceeding towards publishing our proposal. And that's one that you'll have to look at the next reg agenda to see what our date is.

We are anticipating doing it early.

I always like to tell people that, you know, when we do the reg agenda, we're predicting six months out where we'll be in six months;

Or even longer, or further out.

And if we were really good at it and got it every time, Mike and I would be in Vegas. We wouldn't be here.

So it's just a very difficult process of trying to think, you know, ahead, and predict out, you know, the month and for what the next step is, and how you're going to do it.

So, but we're pretty much on target with that. The proposal will be next, and it will be soon, I think, in the current reg agenda we had listed. Was it February?

And so, you know, it takes a 90-day review. This is a significant rule-making. So OMB will have it for 90 days. So it has a little bit more of review process to go through here, and it's working its way to OMB.

So it will be shortly after that.


The next one is the HAZCOM, or the GHS. We've briefed you on this one a couple of times. We've published the proposal, September 30th of '09. And we held hearings in March.

We took hearings on the road. We went to Pittsburgh. We had a really nice turnout there. We attempted to do a hearing in California. It did not have as much participation, so we ended up cancelling that hearing.

We had hearings in D.C. Good hearings. So we met the date for that one. We're analyzing all the record, putting everything together, and our next step is working towards publishing the final.

And the date for that you're going to have to wait again for the reg agenda soon, sooner, you'll see the final for GHS.


The MSD column, for those of you that have been following that. We published the proposal in January 29th of '10. We closed the comment period. We held a public meeting to go to listen to input from people.

We have submitted the final 201b, and so it's in the clearance process now with OMB. And we expect that one now to be shortly, you know, so.

Electric power generation and transition on Sub-Part V, that one is scheduled to be a final this year as well. And so we are in the final stages of completing our activities on V.

And we were having a short conversation here about Dave Wallace. He has definitely an incentive to kind of finish that one. And so we hope to have that one out in final in the early part of the year.


And then I have on the slides -- I put the hex chrome remand on there just to let people know that we did complete that, it was published June 15th of '10. It's on our website, if anyone wants to look at it.

I think everybody that followed hex chrome is familiar that we were sued. There was just one small issue about sampling data, and the posting of sampling data that OSHA was asked to look at again.

We had detracted from our usual posting requirements, and so the court asked us to look at it. And we agreed with them that we should go back to sort of the traditional requirements for posting.

And so a very minor type of rule-making.

So that was completed in June.

So the next two slides I have are just on silica. Just to kind of let people know, our proposal will be published in the early part of 2011. We're making progress, you know, in working towards that.

And we did present to ACCSH I believe I mean, the last time that you were here in D.C. And then we attended a work group in Houston, Mike and I, talked a little bit between where we were.

And so, well, we appreciated the comments that we received from ACCSH.

And once we propose, you get into a more, you know, to the formal stages then. And we'll look forward to hearing more from you, as we go forward.

And as you may recall, the Table One specifies control measures for certain construction activities. And we would really like to hear any comments that you would have about Table One, as well as the rest of the rule-making.

And I thought we would spend the rest of our time talking about the Injury and Illness Prevention Program rule-making. And then maybe at the end just see if anybody has any questions on any of the others.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

MR. SEYMOUR: Well, thank you for being here to listen to us today.

We had really a very good full conversation with the Work Group on Tuesday. And I thought we were very, very productive. And I wanted to first, before I said anything else, say thank you to that group.

It's a very committed group of people that really would like to see -- prevention programs in place to help protect American workers. And I wanted o say thank you for that at the very outset.

I went through some of the concepts that we're considering in the development of rule. And I thought I'd do the same for the full committee here today.

We've organized the current draft of our regulatory text according to core elements, which is how OSHA has done this in the past. And our 1989 guidelines certainly are VPP and sharp documents reflect that approach.

And it's the approach that is consistent with OSHA's history. Slightly different from the approach that, say, the ANSI Z10 and the OSES 18,001, the international standard taken.

They've taken a more, if you will, management oriented plan to check act approach.

But we felt that was frankly a bit complex for what we were trying to accomplish to address Injury and Illness Prevention Programs in seven and a half military work places in the nation.

But let me go through the core elements very quickly to give you some notion of what we're thinking about in them.

Before I do that, I also made a commitment and suggestion to work with the Work Group as they had their telephone calls and their conference calls. We'd be more than happy to have staff involved in that to answer questions or to help facilitate that effort.

The first core element, of course -- and I know that most of you, probably all of you, have a lot of familiarity with this -- but is management duties.

And by that, we're talking about establishing a policy that worker Safety & Health is a key objective in an organization;

Setting specific goals for the program to achieve;

Planning and allocating resources. It's difficult to accomplish anything in Safety & Health without some resources being allocated;

And assigning and communicating roles and responsibilities. If someone isn't responsible for this kind of a program, they typically don't work particularly well.

So that's what we're thinking about with respect to management duties.

In the 1989 guidelines, management commitment and employer participation were really part of the same core element.

And we felt that employee participation is so important that it really needed to be a core element of its own. And so we're working along the assumption that that's how we will proceed.

And by employee participation, we're talking about involving employees in establishing the program, involving them in maintaining and evaluating the program, making sure that employees have access to Safety & Health information;

And that employee roles in incident investigations are described and required.

And that, in our mind, gives the employees really an in, in the critical pieces of Safety & Health Injury and Illness Prevention Programs.

Under hazard identification, this is the find part of find and fix that you've heard people talk about. And basically we're saying that which hazards need to be identified, what kinds of information an employer and his employees would gather and review, in identifying hazards;

Certainly conducting work place inspections is a key element.

Investigating incidents is very important. And by that, we're talking probably not only about the incidents that result in injuries, but also those incidents that we consider near-misses, or some people call near-hits.

I think that's actually a better language.

But certainly incident investigations are important. We want people to try to identify the hazards associated with changes in the workplace. So there's some requirement, you know, we anticipate some requirement that changed management will be addressed.

Emergency hazards. And some hazard assessment and prioritization to take into account the severity of the outcome and the number of people that are actually exposed to the hazard, as a way of deciding which hazards need to be addressed on a priority basis.

Finally, we're also talking identifying tools that will help employers and employees identify hazards in the workplace. We feel strongly that many small firms, in particular, need help with doing this and being successful at it.

Under Hazard Prevention and Control, we're addressing which hazards must be controlled, again talking about priorities, and having provisions in the Injury and Illness Prevention Programs for judging the effectiveness of the controls in tracking their progress toward completion.

Education and training is important. Obviously we're addressing content and how often to train people.

And this is also interesting. We're looking at education and training from two perspectives:

One, to make sure that the people that have responsibilities under the Injury and Illness Prevention Program, make sure that they have the information to understand what those responsibilities are, and to carry those responsibilities out effectively;

And then also training for everyone else on the kinds of hazards and the controls that are being used to protect them from those hazards.

So there really is a two-tiered training issue in this.

And finally, program evaluation and improvement. Certainly, many programs that have been established in the past that are static and are not evaluated lose their effectiveness over time;

So that there is a need to continually observe how the programs perform, and identify ways of improving them, as time goes on.

By way of status of the last regulatory during the spring regulatory agenda committed the agency to doing a series of stakeholder meetings.

We accomplished that, we had stakeholder meetings in New Jersey, and Dallas, Texas. In Washington, D.C. we actually had two meetings here. There was enough demand to have us fill two rooms, and a fifth meeting in Sacramento, California.

And these were very well attended meetings.

In each of these meetings, we had somewhere 30 and 50 people around the table, actually talking to us, and probably another 50 to 100 people in the audience, listening to the conversation.

And we talked in all these meetings for the full eight hours that we allotted for the experience. And it was a very good experience.

We learned a lot, we heard a lot of perspectives. And I think that that process was good on a number of levels.

It helped us learn quite a bit from people that had implemented programs and from the state folks that had implemented programs.

And we learned a lot about what they did right, and some things about what they did wrong. And we heard a lot of broad perspectives.

We had a lot of union participation, a lot of individual employers, a lot of trade associations were involved in these meetings.

The stakeholder meeting notes: We didn't actually take transcripts of these meetings, but we have very detailed notes, and they're all up on our website at our Safety & Health Programs topics page, which is on our public website.

The instructions on how to get that topics page are here on your handout. But it's kind of small.


MR. SEYMOUR: Sorry about that.

Some of the take-home points that we learned during the stakeholder meetings -- and in some ways some of them are a little bit dichotomous -- we heard standards should be flexible, yet enforceable;

We heard that standards should be simple yet detailed. Safety committees are very effective, and yet they may run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act.

We heard management systems are desirable, yet small businesses may not implement them. We were told to write a performance standard, and yet tell employers and compliance officers exactly what's required.

Okay. And that's a big challenge.

And we heard that everyone should have a written program. And as a matter of fact, there was almost unanimity among the stakeholders at all the meetings that the Injury and Illness Prevention motion be universally applied to all employers.

And yet many people said their written programs tend to sit on the shelf.

And so writing the rule that addresses these kinds of dichotomies is going to be a challenge. But I believe we're up to it (laughing).


(Discussion was held off the record.)


And actually help from groups like this would be helpful in sorting through these kinds of competing desires.

From a construction stakeholder perspective, we had three employee representative groups of the Laborers were at the table.

The Carpenters -- Council of Saint Louis came to one of the meetings. I believe they were at our Dallas meeting of the building and construction trades, the BTCP folks were at the meetings.

And we appreciated their input.

We had eight construction trade associations. The Hispanic Contractors Association of Texas was there. Painting and Decorating Contractors of America. The National Association of Homebuilders participated.

National Electrical Contractors Association was represented. The Associated Builders and Contractors. The Associated Roofing Contractors. The Associated General Contractors of California were there.

So we had quite a few people from the construction trades providing construction perspective.

And then we had a number of individual companies there, both people that were involved in commercial construction, as well as residential construction.

So we learned a lot about construction in our stakeholder experience.

As far as the next steps are concerned, our next step is to initiate the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act Panel, that SBREFA Panel.


I wouldn't get that acronym right, if I didn't have it written down.


MR. SEYMOUR: We were hoping to have that initiated at the end of this calendar year, and it looks like that's going to lapse over into the next year a little bit.

So we're working diligently towards that goal of getting the package of information needed to initiate that process in getting it ready to go over to OMB and the Small Business Administration to initiate the Small Business Panel for this project.

I think that's it. Any questions?

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any questions of the Committee? Susan?

MS. BILHORN: Yeah. Thank you. Actually, even though we did have a good discussion on Tuesday, this was also very helpful for me.

A question on that baseline survey in health practices or the baseline health and safety practices survey that you guys are in the process of, I understand it feeds more than just this rule-making.

But I'm trying to understand the time line, if you'll have to have draft language to do the SBREFA, right?

MR. SEYMOUR: That's correct.

MS. BILHORN: Is that correct?

MR. SEYMOUR: Yes, that's correct.

MS. BILHORN: Okay. So, and the survey is going out and it hasn't gone out yet.

So you're thinking it's just maybe additional data to kind of feed the process? Or maybe?

MR. SEYMOUR: Well, this isn't a linear process.


MR. SEYMOUR: As we learn things along the way, you know, we're obviously working on regulatory language. Now when we release it as part of the SBREFA process, that will not be the final language --

MS. BILHORN: Yeah --

MR. SEYMOUR: And almost always changes between SBREFA and the proposal to some degree.

When the survey is finished, it will inform us of additional requirements we might want to change. But primarily the purpose for that survey is to help us do the economics calculations.

I mean, this survey is being managed by our regulatory analysis shop. And basically it's a survey to help us identify baseline practices with respect to in doing illness prevention programs in general, and workplace safety in general.

We do a survey like this periodically. I think every ten or 15 years or so. And that we use the information -- this one is actually geared towards I2P2 rule-making.

But the information we gather will be helpful in future rule-makings as we move forward.

MS. BILHORN: I suspect it might also be help in the guidance as well, because it might be more detailed.

Is that correct?

MR. SEYMOUR: Well, to the extent that we identify through the survey needs for particularly the kinds of guidance, certainly it could help there.

MS. BILHORN: Okay. Right. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you.

See, Dorothy, once it got started, it just flowed right out.

MS. SHORTALL: Mr. Chair, at this point, I would mark as Exhibit 29 DSG Standards and Guidance Update, presented by Dorothy Dougherty, Director of the Directorate of Standards and Guidance.


All right.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Bill, are you ready with Prevention?

MR. AHAL: I am.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. We'll go ahead and do Prevention by Design Work Group report, please.

MR. AHAL: Bill Ahal, Employee Representative.

The Prevention through Design Work Group met yesterday afternoon. We had 27 individuals in attendance.

First thing we did was approve -- the initial meeting of this group was at the ACCSH meeting in Houston earlier this year. We reviewed and approved the notes.

We then reviewed the overall charge and direction of the group, just as a reminder that it was aiming towards the hazards in the design of buildings and structures, and not necessarily in design of tools and equipment.

We had Matt Gillen give an excellent presentation basically on NIOSH efforts to date towards Prevention Through Design. He covered a number of topics: The goals of NIOSH, the stages of this; and where they were.

He also touched on similar efforts in prevention through design in Australia and the United Kingdom and we saw that, based on this information, they were significantly down the path, farther ahead with Prevention By Design programs.

NIOSH is themselves actively working on this topic. They have a conference coming up in August of 2011. And they indicated their willingness to partner with groups to promote this concept.

We then had a presentation that was put together by the Arizona Construction Training Alliance, provided by the Block Builder, Jeremy Bethancort.

However, he at the last minute could not make it. But we still had the presentation, and we viewed it, and its focus was basically showing some pictures and information about how an existing real project, how it had elements of design in it that presented hazards, not only to the construction workers by the design, but those hazards carried through to the public and the users, and then the maintenance and everything else;

And involved basically it was showing some heights of some parapets or walls on elevated seating areas in a theater.

And it was what I felt was an excellent example of how just a slight design change could have saved not only say cost, but made it much less hazardous as far as safety during construction and through its entire life cycle.

We then we had not only a presentation but a discussion and some stories from Jason Edic from Harvard. Jason works really in their Facilities Division, and he brought to us the view from academia.

And he brought some excellent examples of where Harvard University in one of their fairly recent buildings in the design of the design element where some HVAC equipment was put on elevated platforms, probably to conserve space;

And in doing so, that created a very expensive, as well as a hazardous situation for the university to have to maintain doing routine maintenance.

And again, it was a good example of how a relatively small change in the design could have produced some much more beneficial downstream effects.

He also then shared with us Harvard's, how they took that and a couple of other examples where they had seen this happen, and actually made a video, which they tried to develop a curriculum within the university to teach the concept of Prevention Through Design.

They ran into some internal resistance with their own management; however, it's interesting that in one of these examples the architect for one of the projects he was citing as an example recognized that they could have done a better job of design, and took steps to correct that.

They also had a video that they used as at teaching tool and it raised quite a bit of interesting comments once the video came out, because it brought forth this Prevention by Design, what it can mean.

Harvard, he reported also has approached other universities about this Prevention Through Design, but found little to no acceptance for furthering the concept.

So then there was some general discussion. We talked about things to focus on. A comment was made that owners could probably be a big driver in this by taking a position about the importance of Prevention Through Design;

Assuming that design professionals and everyone involved in the process would follow the lead if the owner wants this, that the owner typically gets that in a construction project.

It was discussed that the Prevention Through Design really does not exist in the design community. There was a comment made again about the owner's ability to apply pressure on the design entities to embrace this concept.

And that could lead to formal education within the design community about the Prevention Through Design concept.

A suggestion was made to use BIM, Board Information Modeling, tools, and virtual construction concepts to help mitigate some of these hazards during that design phase of a project.

Suggestion was made that the designer just simply be asked, "Why not?" when it comes to Prevention Through Design.

Question to the agency from the Work Group: What was OSHA's appropriate actions towards this effort? It was further suggested that OSHA could provide, perhaps provide guidance to the design community and owners about Prevention Through Design opportunities and techniques and the importance of that.

Owners may be more interested in the effects as it affects the building maintenance and more than construction. But we talked about how that establishes them as actually having an active stake in promoting this Prevention Through Design.

We discussed and learned that OSHA actually has an ongoing group on this effort. One of the alliances, Construction Roundtable Alliance, which is under the order of the Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs.

It was suggested that the Prevention Through Design concept, once place within the construction process for the entire projects process would be with site design, or shop drawings -- concrete form designs is an example -- that that would be in one place, but not the only place to apply the concepts.

We talked then about things that perhaps could be done as a starting point. One of those was to further develop or develop a construction safety design review process, and how beneficial that could be to the effort.

That was actually probably following through on efforts in either Australia or the UK, where they have a similar process that they've developed in their construction industry.

We talked about the importance of other groups, such as the American Institute of Architects, AIA; CURT, the Construction User's Roundtable; and the National Society of Professional Engineers.

These organizations it was talked about should definitely be invited to a future Work Group meeting.

We talked about the liability of the insurance risk management part of the industry's involvement in this, and felt that it was important that they be brought in, since they drive a lot of the current thinking about prevention through design and being a risk-shifting situation.

NIOSH has got a study ongoing by a professor at Harvard that is being worked on right now, that we're going to look into in terms of where that stands.

And comment was made that Dr. Michaels -- and I think we heard that this morning, that confirmed that -- that he would be supportive of this effort, and I think again we heard that.

And I proposed a question to him. So I think that we have that backing or we have that support.

And we closed the meeting at 2:45.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Thank you. And your co-chair was in it. Do you have anything to add?

MR. RUSSELL: Only like -- Emmett Russell -- I'd just like to add that Bill did a good job on lining up the meeting; and also that the person, Jason, giving a presentation from Harvard University, also said that he would try to do a white paper on the whole Harvard experience;

So that the industry could look at what Harvard's experience was in hopes that other owners might think about some similar activities or actions.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. At this time, I'm undertaking a motion to accept this Work Group's report.

MR. KAVICKY: So moved.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Tom Kavicky. Second? Tom Shanahan.

Questions or discussions? Any questions or discussions?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Seeing none, all in favor of accepting the Work Group's report say aye.

(Chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: The ayes so have it.

MS. SHORTALL: I have a couple questions before entering this into the record.

You mentioned in your report, Bill, that there were several presentations. Did you receive materials during that? Or were these just all oral presentations?

MR. AHAL: Well, two of them were actual disks we used on computer Powerpoints. One was oral. The one from Harvard was just an oral presentation.

MS. SHORTALL: Oral presentation?

MR. AHAL: Mm-hmm.

MS. SHORTALL: And so who were the two that were --

MR. AHAL: Matt Gillen's. And then the one that was developed by the Arizona Alliance was furnished to me, once they couldn't make it.

They had to bow out of the meeting -- so I have that. They gave it to me. We put it on Powerpoint and presented it on the screen.


Then at this time I'd like to enter into the record:

As Exhibit 30 the approve Prevention by Design Work Group Report from December 8, 2010 meeting;

As Exhibit 31, the presentation at that meeting by Matt Gillen;

And as Exhibit 32, the materials for the presentation that would have made by La Blanc.

MR. AHAL: We actually got an approval if we wanted, could use that. Or, I think Fran's got that. Fran, you got approval from Jeremy Bethancourt to do whatever you wanted to do with that?

MS. SHORTALL: All right.

So as 32, the materials from the presentation that La Blanc would have given to the Prevention Through Design Work Group.

MR. AHAL: Right.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

MS. SHORTALL: I got them

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Oh, you got them?



All right. At this time, we'll go to the Public Comment. I know the first name. I can't even tell what the second one is.

Daniel? Is he still here? From ISEA? Health & Safety?

(Discussion was held off the record.)

MS. SHORTALL: Gluckman.


MS. SHORTALL: Gluckman.


SPEAKER: He left.


How about Tony Groat from IPAF?

MR. GROAT: (Off mic.)



MR. GROAT: Good afternoon. My name is Tony Groat. I represent the International Powered Access Federation, which is IPAF.

And our association represents manufacturers, rental companies, users of powered-access equipment, which is generally aerial work platforms and mast climbers.

Kevin O'Shea is a member of our association. Tom is also a member of our association.

And we work with other associations: ARA, the American Rental Association; AEM, the Associated Equipment Manufacturers; AED, the American Equipment Distributors; and SIA, the Scafford Industry Association, to create a document, which is a statement of best practice for general training and familiarization for aerial work platform equipment.

My prior experience is 31 years in the rental equipment providing aerial work platform equipment, actually putting people in the air, with lifts, ladders, and scaffolding.

And I would say the one of the problems that we identified in the marketplace is a lack of clarity of what is appropriate operator training.

Many people say I've been trained, and you know, but hold up a card and say "I've been trained," and you know this person's been trained in 15 minutes.

And I would say if you were trained in 15 minutes, you were not trained.

The ANSI standards are really the guidelines that we used, and prior to 1999 the standard said, "Training upon delivery."

So when people dropped the equipment off and they showed them the controls on it, most people assumed that they were getting training.

And it was in 1999 when one of the standards changed over and used the term, "familiarization," and that was coined throughout the ANSI standards for aerial work platforms in 2006 that the information that's conveyed when they drop it off is just familiarizing it.

It's like when you rent a car, and go over and say, "This is where the windshield wiper control is on this one. This is how you turn on the lights on this one."

It's familiarizing you with the individual equipment and controls on it, but it's not giving you a driver's license.

The driver's license comes from training.

And really what this group did was to come together and come up with the best practices.

So in this -- and if I were to point out one of the more specific documents in here that gives you some credibility, it's on page -- I believe it's 14 (examining document).

You look in here and it says, "Length of training for general training is three to six hours, depending upon the amount of people, and the amount of categories of equipment that you're going to be training upon."

And familiarization would normally take anywhere from fifteen minutes to 30 minutes.

So really what we're trying to do is provide a guidance, a standard for the industry to say, when someone tells you that they have been trained, if here's some guidance that if they haven't met these criteria, you know that these people haven't been properly trained.

And we find consistently through the marketplace that whether you're union or you're non-union, and you're a worker in the field, most people say that "I get the training when they drop the stuff off."

And that isn't training.

And when we talked about mast climbers earlier, we talked about two fatalities a year. You're looking at 26 on average fatalities a year, with aerial work platforms.

One of the most notoriety of accidents that occurred recently was at Notre Dame University, where you had a young man who was a cameraman for the --

MS. ARIOTO: Notre Dame --

MR. GROAT: Football games at Notre Dame, you know, was up on the aerial work platform in 50-mile-an-hour winds.

Without exception -- well, we note exception are our boom type driveable units -- but without exception the norm is 28 miles per hours is the maximum wind speed that an aerial lift can be operated in the air.

So here, if this person was properly trained and was properly familiarized with that equipment and the information is on the equipment, it's there.

So really what our hope and intent is, is to try to get this available. Every one of these associations provide this free of charge on their websites.

This is a free download. We really think that this is a, you know, a core issue, that with a product that out's on the marketplace, and we would love to see, you know, and endorse, for lack of a better word, a way of getting this out further into the public's eyes, so that that misconception of what is appropriate training is in the field, so that operators are properly trained and safe when they're using these products.

Which are a common tool in all industries today.

I would further that our associations have continued to work together. We're in the process of creating another best practice document, which is for personal fall protection equipment in use with the aerial work platforms.

So when you're in a boom type lift, you're required to wear personal fall protection equipment. And the question is: Well, what is appropriate personal fall protection equipment?

In 2009 OSHA put out a letter of interpretation, which clarified that the most common used personal fall protection in the industry was a six-foot lanyard with a shock absorber.

Question came out and said, "Well, when you use that, is that okay? Because the PPE manufacturer says you need 18-1/2 feet of clearance from the anchorage point to a lower surface."

And I said "Well, don't you get in the aerial lift from the ground? So from zero feet to 18-1/2 feet you're not compliant. So no, it's a non-compliant system.

And that's what most people are using in the marketplace. So the question comes, "What is an appropriate system that we can use?"

And to try to provide that guidance, we are creating this, again, free document, that will be completed in early Q1.

I put out there that if there are other issues that our associations can collectively be of assistance with to this committee, or if we can assist you in any way on other items that are out there, I just want you to be aware that these are initiatives that were taking place, and they're available for you and the public to be using.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any questions of the Committee for Tony?

MR. JONES: We appreciate everything you're doing.

But I just want to clear one thing up. It's the employer's responsibility not to let that guy go up into a boom in that situation of over 30 miles per hour. We've had the same thing here in Washington last year with some folks falling off of a scaffold in 40-mile-per-hour wind.

And it's not the training of the employees. Actually the employer allowing work -- instructing workers.

And in the case of that individual, he was texting everybody in the world that "God, this is unsafe. Why do they have me up here?"

So, you know, we appreciate everything you're doing; but like I've been saying all day today, that you know, sometimes it's beyond training.

The employer has to accept some responsibility for the work site and creating a safe work site. And one way to do it is by knowing the rules of operation of these devices and not allowing employees to go up in them, in unsafe conditions.

MR. GROAT: We agree wholeheartedly with that.

MR. JONES: Yeah.

MR. GROAT: We do know that it is exclusively an employer's responsibility. But part of that responsibility is to provide appropriate training --

MR. JONES: Right --

MR. GROAT: And assuming that the operator's out in the field on a piece of equipment, if he has that tool, at least he has the ability himself to push the control to go down, when supervision isn't in place for him.

So it's a complementary element that we think is essential in the safe use of these products.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions? Matt?

MR. GILLEN: Yes. Matt Gillen. I had a question.

So much equipment in construction is obtained through rental associations. And I see that it's great that they're one of your partners.

And I was just wondering, so how well has that been implemented that in the average tool-rental place, when somebody is renting, you know, an aerial work platform, that the familiarization is provided?

MR. GROAT: Well, familiarization by ANSI standards, is a requirement of anyone who provides the equipment for sale, rental, lease, or any form of use, that they provide familiarization.

Familiarization encompasses basically three items. It is saying, "Here's a weather-proof box, here is the ANSI manual of responsibilities and the operator's manual in there."

Number two, "Here are the safety controls on this machine and characteristics. And here is the ground control, and here are the platform controls."

And they go over those. And it takes about ten to fifteen minutes, and that's what they provide as familiarization.

So it is information that is necessary, that is delivered to a qualified person, or the operator of the equipment.

So if a person isn't trained, it is the equivalent of going over there and saying, "Here is how the key goes into the car, but you don't have a driver's license. But you know, here's the key."

So it's a complement.

MR. GILLEN: Do some of the rental companies also get involved with training? Or make training available?

MR. GROAT: Our association has a program that we oversee. And we have one of the few programs that is third-party oversight.

And we approve instructors, we approve training centers. We approve the curriculum. We audit the programs for the delivery of all of that training that's in place.

So that's a vehicle that's in place.

We also have training that we provide, which is what we call AWP for Managers or Mast Climbers for Managers.

So that the people who are supervising these people understand what their rules and regulations and obligations are.

So, yeah, there is a wide range of training that's available.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions?

MR. GILLEN: Just a last question. Is this available as a PDF or anything on your website?

MR. GROAT: Yes, it is.

MR. GILLEN: Great. Thanks.


MS. SHORTALL: My question was related -- would you like to enter either or both of the documents referred to into the record of this meeting?

MR. GROAT: Yes, we would love to have this, which is a completed document. I can't put this in, because this is not completed, and its a work in progress.


CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions?

MR. GROAT: I believe we have copies in the back. I know Tom has more.


MR. BRODERICK: Yeah, there are plenty of original copies of that in the back. And I can bring some more tomorrow.

But however, to your point, it was my fervent hope that with the employer representatives that we have in here, and the reach that ACCSH has, that we would get this thing that's being passed around right now out;

Because when you go through it and you take a look at what the requirements are to go through this training program, it's pretty extensive.

In fact, we became one of their training sites. And it's kind of frustrating, because we have consultants in Chicago that will do a half-hour training, and give a card that someone is now okay to be an operator on an elevated work platform.

And this program that IPAF has put together, trying to get it done in a day is a challenge. And it does require hands-on, going out and being tested, that you understand how to control the machine, and so forth.

And one of my instructors, who took the training program and has a graduate degree in safety and has worked in construction, flunked the test. And he was not, then, able to get a certificate at that time.

I mean, our trainer that came from IPAP, came back and gave him another test. And I had him do a little bit of practicing in the interim.

But, you know, it seems to me that really the real deal is compared to what else is out there.

MR. HAWKINS: That's what usually done. The real deal as opposed to what's normally done.


MR. GROAT: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Oh, excuse me, I had one question.

Tony, you had mentioned the full-body harness with the six-foot lanyard, and there was a letter of interpretation?

MR. GROAT: On January 2009 there was a letter of interpretation that was issued by OSHA, answering the question about the compliance of a six-foot lanyard with shock absorber, based on the PEFE's manufacturer's recommendation that from the anchorage point to a lower surface, you need 18-1/2 feet of clearance.

So they said, "Can you use that on a aerial work platform?"

And obviously aerial work platforms, you come in from the ground level, so from ground level up to 18-1/2 foot, obviously you're going to hit a lower surface, if you're using that system and you have the full arrest that takes place.

So they said it's non-compliant.

And as I mentioned, you know, after 31 years on the rental side, I will tell you, that's the normal product that has been used in the marketplace.

And the tendency in the past has been more: Had personal fall protection on, you're okay; not wear personal fall protection, you're not okay.

And no one really clicked into what is the right fall protection. So when that question came up, the whole industry was like, "Well, we've never even been asked that question. Never even been asked the question."

So now the question would be: "How do we address that?" Because that would mean truthfully, you need to have restraint? No fall from ground up to some elevation.

And in certain situations, restraint becomes so restrictive that you can't use the aerial work platform.

So really what we're doing is coming up with options that allow you to have a dual system that allows restraint when you're in a position where you have to be concerned about lower surfaces;

And one example would be an adjustable lanyard. So it's a restraint when I'm in one position, I can lower or extend it, so I can have fall arrest; and in another position have the mobility to do my job.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. Now the anchorage pulling on a lift like that, where -- would you find that at the bottom or at the top?

MR. GROAT: The anchorage on aerial work platforms are located all over. There is no standard for where they have to be located currently in the aerial work platform.

Some of them are on the top of the guard rail, some go down as low as 18 inches. And very few of them are on the toe board, or ground level.

MR. HAWKINS: Seems like most are usually on that mid rail.

MR. GROAT: That's correct. Or the top rail to 18 inches down is really where you're going to find the majority of them.

So in that particular case, as I said, trying to come up with an answer for that was a dilemma that was kind of created, trying to come up with the answers.

So we're trying to provide a tool and guidance, so that people can do the right thing and be safe;

Because you need, as I said, to have restraint, but you also need to have arrest. So how do you achieve both of those? And we're coming up with some suggestions on how to achieve that.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. Tom? And then Steve.

MR. KAVICKY: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that Mr. Groat send us a copy, send the ACCSH Committee members a copy of that when it's finished?

MR. GROAT: We sure will.

MR. KAVICKY: So we're aware of it. We could take a look at it. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Emmett? And then --

MR. RUSSELL: Emmett Russell.

Just doing an overview of the document that was passed out, I'd like for possibly OSHA to take a look at this, and consider.

Because I think that for the typical person getting training, the document actually gives some pretty good guidance as to what true training is.

And without that guidance, someone could actually give a worker working on one of these platforms some training. And they don't have a clue whether the training is adequate or not.

But again, some of the charts and guidelines in here are very good, and I would like for OSHA to at least take a look at it, and think about using some of these materials on its website.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. We had Jim, I'm sorry.

MR. TOMASESKI: Yeah. Jim Tomaseski. I'd just like to make as comment about that letter of interpretation that you're talking about; because I think a couple things have happened since that letter was sent in.

First of all, there was a response to the letter. There was also an employer down in Florida that received a citation, that had to do a lot with the response to that letter.

That's what in a roundabout way, that's how my understanding of the compliance officer decided that's why they were going to issue the citation, because they learned about that letter.

Well, two things have happened, I believe;

One, the citation was withdrawn. And number two, the response to that letter has been redacted.

MR. GROAT: It hasn't, to our knowledge.

MR. TOMASESKI: And OSHA is working on drafting another response to that letter.

I don't know what that's going to say, of course. But you know, when we heard about this, you know, we were concerned because there's thousands of aerial lifts every single day of the week that use exactly what that letter said you're not supposed to use.

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MR. GROAT: Well, that's why I ask, because I'm working with a contractor

MR. TOMASESKI: And in certain types of aerial lifts, such as an insulated aerial lift, where you don't have rails, guard rails for your anchorage point, it creates an altogether different issue.

Because this has been an issue for many, many years. And trying to come up with a different means of fall arrest, when you're working out of especially an insulated aerial lift, has been a task.

And we thought, you know, back when I was in my tools, you know, doing this work, we just wore a little belt and stuck a lanyard on, and we were good to go.

And it's been a monumental task getting people in a harness and a shock-absorbing lanyard.

And even today, we've got people soliciting to the agency that they don't want to do that. They want to use a body belt -- or a bucket belt, as it's commonly called -- and a lanyard.

So I applaud you for trying to fix the problem, because I know there's a lot of people out there, trying to figure out "What are we going to do?"

Because if you looked at the strictest interpretation of the rule, and you're not supposed to make contact with a lower surface, how do you do that, when you're wearing that with other types of equipment in a six-foot shock-absorbing lanyard and a harness?

You got that problem there. So, it would be interesting to see how all this is going to work out.



MR. HAWKINS: Do you ever recommend removing the shock absorbing lanyard, and just going with the straight six-foot lanyard?

MR. GROAT: No, because you still have an arrest with a six-foot lanyard. If you have an arrest with a shock absorber, all you did was lower the height that he's going to fall by three feet, but throw his body into turmoil by not having a shock absorber.

You know.

MR. HAWKINS: Is there consideration given in each specific case to whether or not the anchorage point, is that the floor, the mid rail, or the top rail?

Because that would change the dynamics considerably if the anchorage point's in the floor, and you're coming up 42 inches to the mid rail, now you're fall is only a foot and a half, or so --

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MR. GROAT: Well, the answer is that you have to design the system for restraint. And the restraint system -- so fall protection is really supposed to be applied by a competent person.

So answering your question, "Do you take into account where the anchorage point is?" the answer is, "Yes, you do."

However, if you go out and we assign a fall protection device to an individual, which is a six-foot lanyard, (laughing) and he goes out to a job site, he's going to put it on whatever the anchorage is.

You know, so unless you have something that addresses the variables, you know, the answer is this simple: You must have by definition of OSHA standards, a restraint system to keep you from falling out, until you can have a distance where a fall arrest system, where when you fall out, you won't hit a lower surface.

And you know, that's the requirement, and you have to have a competent person define what that is.

And really our recommendation is using an adjustable lanyard, which is adjusted so that you're restrained when you're getting in, and you can adjust to that --

MR. HAWKINS: As you get up to your working level, which might be 30 feet in the air.

MR. GROAT: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That's correct.

And we would always recommend that you wear it as a restraint system when you're traveling, so that you don't know what the ground level's going to be.

So there are, again, a risk assessment, competent person. Define how to use that, and there's a way to address it.

MR. HAWKINS: See, that's so dependent on each application and each job site. I mean, again you're back to training.

Not to go against what you were saying, Walter, but you know, you're back to training a person to assess that hazard and adjust their lanyard, and so forth accordingly.

MR. GROAT: Well, or you can take a picture on every job site of a six-foot lanyard with a guy climbing on top of the guard rails.

So, you know, which is -- you know, we can argue this to whatever level you want, you know, because one of the things to engineer out don't allow him to move.

Don't allow him to move. And then you start losing the utility of the aerial work platform and his ability to reach the work that --

MR. HAWKINS: And I'll take -- two foot -- because the next thing I'd be really afraid of from a practice standpoint, he gets up there and he needs to step up on the mid rail and his lanyard's too short, he just unhooks it.

Now he's standing on the mid rail with no lanyard.

SPEAKER: He's not supposed to --

(Simultaneous conversation.)

SPEAKER: We'll never get home if we keep talking about this.



MS. ARIOTO: Yeah. Liz Arioto.

Is -- with like a dual life line, one short, one long?

MR. GROAT: Yes. A dual --

MS. ARIOTO: So in other words, you can --

MR. GROAT: That is one of the options where you can.


MR. GROAT: But as he said --

MR. HAWKINS: That's a good option.

MR. GROAT: Then you're in a position where he can take one off, he can put one on. Does he take the right one and pull it off and put it on when he's in the right spot?

You know, you can go then with a self-retracting life line. So now you go out there and it's when he's close and he's driving he's in restraint. But it doesn't prevent him from being with a longer lanyard, and a position where he has a lower surface, and he can be catapulted out.

Because the risk associated with the boom-type lift is not so much trying to prevent him from climbing the guard rails and jumping off; it's really saying that the design criteria of a boom-type lift is you can be catapulted out.

You can be sitting there, doing your job. A crane or a vehicle could hit you, and the moment from the boom arm can actually throw the individual out of the platform.

MR. HAWKINS: Two years ago we did a fatality like that, where a person was unloading one from lowboy. And nobody knows why, but he didn't put the ramps down.

The device was never upset really. It just drove off the end and just the action of the wheels falling off the end of the trailer and coming down on the frame catapulted him out onto the asphalt -- with the harness half on, and not tied on.

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MR. GROAT: Yeah. We have a video at our website that you can watch. We have a dummy put in a man lift. We drive over a curb. And you can see the moment that takes place on that boom lift, that the body would be thrown out.

We couldn't get anyone to volunteer to do that.


MS. ARIOTO: How about the manufacturers, can they devise a device where a person could slide? An attachment that would go --

MR. GROAT: The answer is -- Do they? The answer is: No, the don't. Could they? The answer is: Potentially.

And you know, so right now, because this is somewhat of a recent development in the industry, I mean, this has been an accepted practice, using a six-foot lanyard with a shock absorber.

I mean, if you've been in the industry, that's probably what you have in your tool box right now.

So the answer is -- is there a way about this right now? And there's one manufacturer who we're dealing with, who is trying to design an anchorage that can go onto the floor, it just goes right to the bottom floor, and there's the anchorage, and you go to an arrest system.

The problem with that is now you are talking about modifying an aerial work platform, putting on something that now we have to go to every aerial lift manufacturer to get their approval to put this on;

Because will that, where the anchor, support the load that's required, which is a design load of at least 36 hundred pounds, when that put that anchorage in that lower position?

So now where can you put that, going to every manufacturer. So you can see that this is -- and then we have how many different model machines, that we have to?

MS. ARIOTO: Mm-hmm.

MR. GROAT: So, there's a lot of initiative going into trying to find a better mouse trap to this question.

But at this point in time, we're coming up with feasible tools that are accessible today, with the anchorage systems that are on the aerial work platforms today, to make sure that people who are using them tomorrow can do it safely.


MR. HAWKINS: Just one more question.

Have you ever gotten into, on an articulating boom lift, where you get out to the extreme operating limits?

And then if you have your tile point at the top rail, potentially, and you're talking about the forces that might be generated if a person did leave the basket, and fell the six feet, and then the rip stitch lanyard started to pull out, would there ever be a chance that we would have overloaded the lift with that additional force of that person falling out at the extreme operating limits of an articulating boom lift?

MR. GROAT: I will answer the question this way. There is no standard that requires the boom lift manufacturer to design it to withstand that load.

Ironically, if you look at this, they designed the anchorage, and it's the anchorage --

MR. HAWKINS: That's my point --

MR. GROAT: So --

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MR. HAWKINS: But will the lift stay in the air if you're at that extreme, fully extended far out as you can go, and then you flip out, and --

MR. GROAT: If I were to give you a non-engineered response, the answer is I've never seen an aerial lift platform tip over, because an individual has been thrown out.

Now if it was going to go over, it was going to over, and you know, wherever he is, you know, is irrespective of that.

But the load, generally I would say that most of the manufacturers designed it so that it will not tip over. In fact, the Canadian standards do have a fall protection test in them. And most manufacturers who manufacture in Canada manufacture in the U.S. and they keep that same standard.

So I would indirectly say that you should be okay by that design criteria.

MR. HAWKINS: And you know, just one last -- I mean, this is a hazard about being flipped out with a ripped lanyard and hitting the ground, when you think you think you're in a fall, or you know, you're safe.

MR. GROAT: That's correct.

MR. HAWKINS: But that same problem exists a lot on construction sites. You see a lot of people with that same set-up, tied off in areas that they're not 18 -- you know, they don't have a distance to allow that to fully extend, if they're heavy enough to fully extend.

That's a pretty common --

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MR. GROAT: Which is indirectly why this industry, the aerial work platform industry, hasn't tried to address it, because you have the Z-359 standards, which are, you know, like a voluminous set of standards on fall protection.

And you have the fall protection standards.

And really what we've said is: Apply that best practice when you're using an aerial work platform.

But as aerial work platform experts, people come to us when they're using them, saying "What should we do for fall protection?"

So, you know, truthfully, we're extending our level of expertise into an area that really isn't ours, which is personal fall protection. You know, we're not personal fall protection equipment manufacturers.

MR. HAWKINS: And fall arrest --

MR. GROAT: And fall arrest experts.

And you know, so when we get these wide-ranging questions, you know, because of the fact that people are coming to us and they have a need, we're trying to give them a tool.

MR. HAWKINS: That's cool.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Any other questions?


MR. HARBIN: Eric Harbin, Directorate of Construction.

I just wanted to give you a follow-up with reference to a letter of interpretation that was mentioned earlier.

It's still in effect, it is under review. But it's still in effect. Just so you know.

We're reviewing the letter of interpretation regarding the height and getting from the ground to the height, and the appropriate --

MR. GROAT: I mean, you know, trying to be critical of that, of the letter of interpretation, I would say that it's quoting an OSHA standard that's in place.

I mean, I can't refute that there's 18-1/2 foot of clearance that's needed from that anchorage point, and there's a standard that says you can't hit a lower surface.

So I mean, for us and in clarity, regardless of what OSHA may say in that interpretation letter, you know, it is an issue of consideration that, you know, must be taken.


Any other questions? Thank you very much, Tony.

MR. GROAT: Thank you.


MS. SHORTALL: Can I ask a question?


MS. SHORTALL: (Off mic.) I was unclear whether Mr. Russell's comment was just a comment or a motion.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

MR. RUSSELL: Well, initially taking a quick look at the document, there's a number of aspects in the document that would let someone who was supposed to be trained -- and know and understand they were trained -- because it outlines specific items that they should be trained on-- or someone who may have been familiarized with the equipment.

But there's a couple charts in here that I think would be excellent for people to really understand where they land as it relates to training and familiarization.

And my recommendation was that if OSHA could use some of this information on their website, I think it would help those working in the industry.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Would you care to make a motion, rather than a recommendation?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes. I would not have a problem making a motion to that effect.

MR. ZARLETTI: (Off mic.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Well, he'll have to make the motion --

MR. ZARLETTI: Because we all haven't had a chance to read it. So we might not all know what it is that he's referring to.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Yes, that's true too.

MR. RUSSELL: Well, I can refer it until tomorrow, when everyone has had a chance to review.


Everybody on the Committee understand -- what I would like you to do is, this handout here, review it this evening, come back in the morning. Emmett will make a motion to have OSHA look at this and use it.

So it's a good point, Dan.

All right. Everything else for today? Any other business? Okay.

Seeing none, tomorrow morning we're going to start at 8:00.

(A brief recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All right, now we're back on the record. We're going to back with the Committee administration that we missed this morning.


MS. BILHORN: Yes? Say what?

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: You brought it up --

MS. BILHORN: Administration?


MS. BILHORN: I don't know what's all on our agenda, but I would assume one thing we probably need to talk about is future meetings.


MS. BILHORN: Generally we usually do that. And I think we try to set some time frames.

And in that past we sometimes try to marry up with if there is a specific meeting or something that's on people's minds.

So I don't know if, you know, then is this a point that, you know, if we might know the intentions? Is it three, four, shall we try to aim for?

So the intention is to move towards four?

So then we probably ought to kind of --

SPEAKER: March -- April?

MS. BILHORN: Yeah. One would have to be like a March time frame.


SPEAKER: If we start early --

MS. BILHORN: If we start to put it on the calendar as early, it certainly makes --

SPEAKER: Yeah, definitely go March, so we can get one in early.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All right. So if you're looking at March, we're looking at --

(Discussion was held off the record.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: We're looking at the first full week of March, would be the week of the 7th, which is a Monday: 14th, 21st, or 28th.

SPEAKER: (Off mic.) I missed that.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: 21st, third week.



(Discussion was held off the record.)

SPEAKER: Oh, HEC, it's HEC week for --

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay, well there you go.

SPEAKER: Annual conference.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All right, 14th.

SPEAKER: The whole --

SPEAKER: The whole week is that week.

SPEAKER: Where is it?

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MS. BILHORN: Yeah. Is there a time frame that there's anything? Because one of the things we starting doing was giving some input on some things that were in the hopper for you guys, you all.

And we actually did a review of a number of proposed drafts and stuff. Is there any time frame that marries up as far as you know right now with things that you might want us to be looking at?

Or can you say? Is that too hard to --

MR. HARBIN: Well, the primary one that comes to mind is the matter, if you would, is the nail gun document that we asked for individually if you could provide us some feedback.

But that's in January. I don't think that we have time sufficient to schedule a meeting for that.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

MR. HARBIN: But other dates, no other dates really come to mind that are --

MR. BARE: I2P2 is an item that I think -- I don't think that's really pressing.


MR. BARE: It comes to mind that I don't think it's really pressing. It's not --

MS. BILHORN: Yeah --

(Discussion was held off the record.)

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MS. BILHORN: If the draft language comes out with the SBREFA, then we need to digest that a little bit, before, yeah.

So we can continue with that regardless, so.

MR. BARE: All right --

(Simultaneous conversation.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: The 28th of March is the last week of March, the travel day would the 28th, Monday. Meeting would be the 29th, and 30th for Work Groups. March 31st and April 1st for the Full Committee.

MR. GILLEN: That's fine.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. Everybody mark that on your calendars.

MS. BILHORN: I would --

(Simultaneous conversation.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Now at this time, we're only going to do this one meeting. We're not going to schedule any of the other ones.

And the reason I say that is there's going to be new members coming aboard, and we have to take into consideration what they're travel schedules and their work schedules are also.

So this one here we can schedule.

Now if everybody's in agreement with that, if you think I'm overstepping my boundaries, let me know.

(Discussion was held off the record.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: The 28th, the week of the 28th.

MS. BILHORN: I have a very likely conflict that week. That's our business reviews for that whole week, and I can't pin it down until the executives figure that out.

So the week of the 14th is fine with me.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: They can't do it on the 14th. It has to be either that week in March or it would have to move to April.

MS. SHORTALL: It might be helpful, in case of other conflicts for at least there to be a sense of what weeks in late March and April people would be available, now, that they know of.

So that we've gathered that information.

MR. SHANAHAN: You know, what was helpful in the past is Mike had sent out a calendar and we all entered it in, and --

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: We could do that.

MS. BILHORN: Yeah. That did help. That did help, because then you could figure out --

(Discussion was held off the record.)


MR. HARBIN: If the Chairman would consider it, I'd suggest that we also try to schedule a second meeting, just in the event we might --

(Simultaneous conversation.)

MR. HARBIN: Because the reality is that, going forward in the summer many people's weeks fill up very rapidly.

But we'll send a calendar out, no problem.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Okay. And send a calendar out for two meetings, one in available dates in March, I guess, or April. And let's try June.

Eric -- to send a calendar out to all the members on the Committee, and we'll just get dates of availability.

Okay. But we don't want to go too much further, like I said, we'll have too many people.

MS. ARIOTO: When you said that was on the 14th, though, is that in Vegas?

MR. HARBIN: No, the agency is the 21st.

MS. ARIOTO: On the 21st.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: The 14th they said was -- when you get the calendar, depending on what date you're available, if we have a majority of people available, we'll do it.

We'll have to do it that way.


CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: I just didn't want to go too far in advance, because you're going to have new people coming on, and they're not -- they got to have a say on when they should be here.

All right, we'll do that.

By the next meeting, you feel as though the new appointments will be January the -- what's to shoot for?




CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Soon, sooner, or yesterday?

SPEAKER: Sooner.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Soon, sooner, or yesterday?


CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All right. And I guess that's where we're at right now, then.

MS. BILHORN: Okay. I got one more.

There was a picture taken with all of us.


MS. BILHORN: When Dr. Michaels first came in.


MS. BILHORN: But I don't recall us ever getting it, a copy.

SPEAKER: Or seeing it.

MS. BILHORN: Or seeing the copy.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: They don't want you to see it. They just want to take you picture (laughing). MS. BILHORN: To take a picture of it. Well, you know, I didn't see it posted on Facebook. But no, there was a picture taken, when it was literally the first day of his appointment.


SPEAKER: Right, it was.

MS. BILHORN: And we all met with him, and there was a great picture taken.

MR. BARE: Yeah.

MS. BILHORN: Maybe that would be a good thing to send to the members when you confirm or deny them.

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: Yeah, we used to get them, that's right.

(Simultaneous conversation.)

CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All right. Anything else for today?

Like I said, tomorrow we're going to move everybody up, and better not work on that right now. But we'll still start at 8:00 in the morning. We only have one Work Group.

And the Work Group that we have tomorrow is Educational Training OTI. Who's going to speak for that?


CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: You are? You'll be ready?


CHAIRMAN MIGLIACCO: All right. We'll do that first thing in the morning after I open it up.

All right.

(Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m. the meeting adjourned to be resumed the next day.)