Room N-3437
Frances Perkins Building
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

April 26, 2016

The parties met, pursuant to the notice, at 9:01 a.m.


ACCSH Committee:

North America's Building Trades Union

Arizona Construction Training Alliance

The Associated General Contractors of America

Turner Construction Company

Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Electrical Training Alliance

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Construction Services

OTS Holdings

Construction Education and Consultation Services of Michigan

International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers

National Electrical Contractors Association, Washington, D.C. Chapter

Kentucky Labor Cabinet, Department of Workplace Standards

Office of the Solicitor, Department of Labor

Special Guest:

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Assistant Secretary of Labor


National Safety Council, Occupational Safety and Health Administration Alliance,  Ellis Fall Safety Solutions, LLC

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Construction Services

PENTA Building Group

Hunt Construction Group

Laborers' International Union of North America

The Association of Union Constructors

Matrix North American Construction, The Association of Union Constructors

American Contractors Insurance Group

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Directorate of Construction

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Directorate of Standards and Guidance

National Electrical Contractors Association

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Directorate of Standards and Guidance

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Construction Services

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Construction Services

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Construction Services


5 206 206


(9:01 a.m.)

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Morning, everyone.

ALL: Good morning.

MR. STAFFORD: Let me do a head count here. So, we have eight, so we have a quorum, so let's go ahead and get started. Welcome to round two of our discussions on a construction specific program guideline. I appreciate your participation in yesterday's meeting. I think it took us a little while, from my perspective, to try to get lined out on where we were headed, but now that we got the first two sections out of the way, I'm hoping today will go a little bit smoother. We have several to get through.

So, based on our conversation yesterday, we are going to have the OSHA staff has reconciled what we've recommended as far as action items for the first two sections. I was inclined to go back and back up and take a look at that, but I don't want to get bogged down in those first two sections again.

So, I think maybe the best thing for us to do as we proceed is to go through all of the sections, maybe take a little bit of break -- I don't know

how -- you know, in terms of timing how long it takes to get it in there.

And then I would like at whatever time that is today is go back and do a quality control and have the committee and the stakeholders that are still with us later this afternoon go through all the sections one last time, so that we can see them together all in writing, and make one final fine tunement before we adjourn today.

We're on the schedule to go until 5:00. I'm not necessarily sure that we're going to go until 5:00. We're going to go as long as it takes to get the job done. Dr. Michaels is on the schedule to address us later this afternoon. I haven't talked to OSHA staff. I'm assuming that that's still the case, so we'll have to be a little bit fluid with

Dr. Michaels' schedule.

So, with that, let's go through introductions. I think we're going to go back to the past format, in terms of having stakeholders' input and have you sign up, and depending on how we progress perhaps we could have stakeholders once we go back through at the end, and if you have any particular burning desire to make a comment about a section then, maybe we could have stakeholder input after we finalize each section.

So, let's try that. If it gets a little bit unwieldy, I might have to stop that, but obviously you're here. This is important to you. It's important to us. So, we want to make every opportunity to have your comments as long as you're here with us today. So, let's start with introductions. Kevin?

MR. CANNON: Kevin Cannon, employer rep, Associated General Contractors of America.

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater, employer rep, Turner Construction Company.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt, public representative, ACTA Safety.

MR. RIVERA: Jerry Rivera, employer rep, NECA.

MR. MARRERO: Tom Marrero, employer rep with OTS Holdings.

MR. STRIBLING: Good morning. Chuck Stribling, state representative, Kentucky Labor Cabinet.

MR. HICKMAN: Palmer Hickman, employee rep, IBW.

MR. PRATT: Don Pratt, employer rep, representing the National Association of Homebuilders.

MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins, Tennessee OSHA state plan rep.

MS. WILSON: Lisa Wilson, ACCSH counsel.

MR. KAMPERT: Eric Kampert, OSHA DFO.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Thank you, committee. Nigel, for the second day in a row, we'll start with you. You like that seat, huh, in the left corner?

MR. ELLIS: Representing the power in the back of the room, Nigel Ellis representing the National Safety Council on the OSHA Alliance.

MR. FLESHER: Josh Flesher, Directorate of Construction.

MR. SVENSON: Jens Svenson, Directorate of Construction.

MR. WEBER: Rodd Weber, PENTA Building Group.

MR. MOTT: Bill Mott, Hunt Construction Group.

MR. PARSONS: Travis Parsons with the Laborers.

MR. CREASAP: Wayne Creasap, the Association of Union Constructors.

MR. HERING: Bill Hering, Matrix North American Construction and also representing the Association of Union Constructors.

MR. MURRAY: Courtney Murray, Directorate of Construction.

MR. ZETTLER: Will Zettler, Directorate of Standards and Guidance.

MR. WHEELER: Wes Wheeler, National Electrical Contractors Association.

MR. BONNEAU: Damon Bonneau, the Directorate of Construction.

MS. QUINTERO: Danezza Quintero, Directorate of Construction. Good morning.

MR. STAFFORD: Good morning.

MS. LAWLESS: Good morning. Jennifer Lawless, Directorate of Construction.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Good morning. Thanks again, everyone.

I am going to pass out to the committee one handout that we would like in the exhibit, Lisa. And this is -- I should have had it yesterday, and I'm remiss for not having it, but this last week or two weeks ago the Dodge Data Analytic, formerly

McGraw-Hill, released a study that we participated in in CPWR, and looking at Safety and Health Programs, practices and policies to build an effective safety culture or climate in the construction industry.

And if you look at that, as I mentioned yesterday, when we talk about culture or climate we're all talking about the same things generally; maybe a little bit of word changes, but we're always coming back to management leadership, worker involvement, effective communication, effective supervisor and worker training, et cetera.

And so as we go through these sections I thought it might be useful for the committee to take a look at what the survey is saying, what the contractors are saying to us about what they're doing, and where there are gaps in what they're doing. There's specific information, for example,

on --there's a whole section of slides on worker involvement, on management leadership and some of the other topics that we are going to be talking about today, so I share this with you. It's available on CPWR's website.

I didn't have enough time this morning to make copies. Some of the building trades folks have probably already seen copies. We've had Steve Jones, the main author of Data Analytic, do a presentation for the talk at the Association of Union Contractors leadership meeting a few months back. He's been at the building trades meeting at our last meeting and with the CURT folks in April, where this was formally released, to share the information, so I thought it might be useful to the committee and to the stakeholders if you haven't seen it.

So, with that, I'd like to share that with you. We were a premier sponsor of CPWR, which means we threw some money at it. We also helped Dodge in developing the questions for the survey and we get the raw data for our data center to do their own manipulation. There was also several contractor groups that are participating partners. I don't have any copy left for me, but the AGC is one of those.

SMACNA, NECA and other associations have joined in the study and for their role, it's just simply their commitment to share the study information with their member contractors, so I just thought it would be a good opportunity to share it with you. So, I think, Eric, unless you have anything or, Lisa,

any --

MS. WILSON: Sure. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to designate the Dodge Building a Safety Culture report as Exhibit 5. Thank you.

(The document referred to was marked for identification as Exhibit No. 5 and was received in evidence.)

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Did everyone on the committee get one? All right. Is there one left extra? I gave mine away too. Yeah. Let me borrow this here. I want to get into it. Okay. So, we're going to try to get in. Again, we just have to be a little bit fluid. I think we're going to take on the next section now, where we left off yesterday and talk about hazard identification and assessment.

So, as we agreed yesterday, we're going to kind of look at the OSHA document, and we have this parallel document, a draft for the committee that we're trying to align. And I don't know if anyone on the committee has had a chance to go through these action items.

If you have, if you have any suggestions or anything that you think doesn't apply to construction, in terms of what this section is saying, it's time to now share that. If you have any thoughts about whether we should delete any of these action items or just go to the parallel document and talk about other action items that we think may be appropriate for the construction industry, if there's any.

(No response.)

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, the draft document -- so, you see what was in the OSHA document. I'm not going to go through and read that again today, unless we need to. So, some additional action items in the parallel document on how to accomplish it is, "Every worker must have some basic training in hazard recognition. As a starting point, all workers should have the OSHA 10 course to be supplemented by orientation, training and toolbox talks/JSAs to cover hazards on each specific site."

The second item for consideration is, "Workers need information about potential hazards; for instance, if hazardous chemicals are used safety data sheets must be easily available and workers must have HAZCOM training so they can read the labels and SDSs and know what precautions are necessary. Access to injury logs, OSHA 300s, can also help them understand what incidents have occurred, and where hazardous conditions might need to be addressed."

And the last other bullet for consideration is, "Many times, accidents happen when workers are doing something they are not normally doing, a

non-routine task. These tasks should be approached with particular caution and require JSAs to be reviewed with special attention. Preparation should be made for emergency situations."

So, those are the other draft action items thought maybe more specific to construction, so if you have any comments or suggestions or thoughts, I'd appreciate it. Yeah, Jerry and then Tom?

MR. RIVERA: Yes. Jerry Rivera, employer representative. On this, the first bullet point, "Every worker must have some basic training in hazard recognition," where it says, "should have the OSHA 10 hour course or equivalent," I would recommend, and the reason why I add that, that might not be the right verbiage, but to acknowledge that there is like the OSHA 20-hour course for the ET&D partnership, maybe the steel erectors have something that fits that need, but it's more industry specific, so it gives a little bit of flexibility in case everybody has something industry specific in that case.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. That sounds reasonable to me. So, then, we would just modify that to say the OSHA 10 course or equivalent training. Is that right? Tom?

MR. MARRERO: That was my same comment.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Guys, I'm sorry. I've been chastised a little bit. So, we have to go back, and this is my fault. Mostly for the folks are jumping in. Let's remember for the court reporter that we need to announce who we are, and our representations. So, that's my fault. We got a little bit carried away yesterday in our meeting.

Any other comments on that first bullet? Yes, Don?

MR. PRATT: Mr. Chairman, Don Pratt, employer rep. I really question whether we should even mention the OSHA 10 or equivalent course in there. "Should have training." "Should have safety training," I would prefer.

We've got a lot of workers out there. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have it, but to put this in the document where it almost makes it it doesn't say required -- I understand that -- but it sure implies that. I'm really leery of doing that.

We have a way of self-policing our industry in the home building industry, and training our folks, and maybe sometimes we don't do a very good job of it, but at least, I think, if we just have, "should have formal safety training," I think that would suffice, but that's my feeling.

MR. STAFFORD: Any other comments or opinions? I mean, I think this was put in there, Don, because we see, you know, it's kind of industry practice, and if you look at the survey that Dodge did, I mean, on almost a significant percentage, I think 70 or so of the contractors that responded to the survey are requiring it.

As you know, we have eight states that require the OSHA 10 for construction workers, so I thought that that would be a common baseline for everyone, since that seems like it's the benchmark for the industry.

MR. PRATT: Again, Don Pratt. Mr. Chairman, that is true in commercial. That is not true in residential. I don't know of any contractor in my state that requires the OSHA 10.

A lot of people have it, because I teach the class, but I would say the vast majority of employees in my state, and I can only speak to my state, do not have the OSHA 10. So, for whatever that's worth.


MR. PRATT: Commercially, yes, a lot of contractors require it, but in residential that's not the case.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. I appreciate that, Don. Kevin, and then we'll go to Palmer.

MR. CANNON: Kevin Cannon, employer rep. I was just going to follow up with Don, and maybe just ask if you look at page 19, if that is what he was getting at under Education and Training where, you know, at the beginning, it has, "receive specialized training when their work involves unique hazards." Maybe that could be worded differently, but I think that is getting to your point, you know --

MR. PRATT: Yeah. Don Pratt. That would --

MR. CANNON: -- of seeking training that is applicable.

MR. PRATT: Yeah. Don Pratt. That would be fine.

MR. CANNON: Yeah. So, I think my point is I think it's covered later on in the document what Don is attempting to say.

MS. DePRATER: Are you saying leave this out?


MR. CANNON: No, no. I mean, I think it's fine.

MR. STAFFORD: Any other questions or comments? Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Palmer Hickman, employee rep. I was going to say, now that we've pointed out that it may be covered on page 19, that might be fine, but the "or equivalent" certainly would cover.

If the training that's being done is equivalent to the 10, it has a recognition, identification, an abatement for entry level workers. It does concern me that there's a pocket of the industry that isn't getting the OSHA 10. This might raise the awareness and help that happen, but I do think that the "or equivalent" would probably get us there.

It would disturb me again that we found a pocket that isn't getting this training, because it's very minimum. I mean, I know many people were thrilled that everybody's been through the OSHA 10, but when you look at the purpose of it, it's for entry level worker training, and it's sad that even after 20, 30 years people have been in the business that they're getting the OSHA 10 for the first time.

So, again, that doesn't help me think that we don't need to put it in there, the fact that people aren't getting it, so "or equivalent" hopefully will appease it and maybe the words on page 19 are satisfactory. Thank you.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Thank you, Palmer. Well, we'll get through it, and then we'll come back and revisit it. Yes, Don?

MR. PRATT: Yeah. Don Pratt. Just one quick thing. Who's going to determine the equivalency?


MR. HAWKINS: It wouldn't matter if it's not a requirement for OSHA.

MR. PRATT: I understand.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. I mean, Jerry, you're the one that raised this. I'm assuming you're saying that, in your mind, there's other good hazardous recognition programs other than the OSHA 10 that would satisfy this requirement. Yes?

MR. RIVERA: Jerry Rivera, employer group. There's some 10 hour courses that are industry specific, that model the 10 hour course that could be a little bit more stringent in many cases, and there might be trade association resources that could be used as supplemental. I think it gives, number one, the industry a starting point. Hey, you have the 10 hour, or something that's equivalent to that nature, if you want to make it more industry specific.

At the end of the day -- I think we talked about this yesterday -- those who don't want to do it and won't do it, but at least if they have somewhat of an equivalent that they can take to a trade association, or another industry group it might be an angle.


MR. HAWKINS: This is supposed to be a helpful document, so if you're a novice business owner, and you read this, and it says "I should train people in hazards" and it shows you the 10 hour, that's a nice little something together and say, "Oh, okay. Here's something where I can go."

You're saying hazard recognition training, but, you know, the business owner may not have any idea where to get that. If you throw the 10 hour in there, no matter how we word it, it ought to stay so the person could look in and say, "Well, okay. Let me Google that." They Google it and say, "Well, I can let my workers take this for 79 bucks or whatever." I don't care how you work it to make it, you know, more palatable to the folks and open up other opportunities, but it ought to state.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. Any other comments or suggestions? Cindy?

MS. DePRATER: Thank you.

MR. HAWKINS: Similar? Use the word similar instead of equivalent.


MR. HAWKINS: Or similar training.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. Jeremy? Please.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt, public representative. I have to agree with Steven Hawkins and others in that saying that it actually is something that people can actually find that they can do gives them some sort of a guidance on what they might be trying to provide their equivalent training to.

Like Steve says, if they don't know what they need to do, this gives them at least a baseline, because this is a recommendation document on how to improve, right, now you have to do it. It's if you want to do better this is what you should do, if I'm understanding what the whole purpose of this document is.

MR. STAFFORD: That's exactly what it is. It's a guideline, like you said. It's to guide. Yes, Cindy?

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater, employer rep. I agree the OSHA 10 is a good reference, but let's not forget the OSHA 10 is, as you point out, the basic training. But what if we were to add what the similar is, just a couple of other examples?

So, it might be something like HAZWOPER, or asbestos awareness training, depending on your specific job. If you add that to it, then you open up a little bit more of a door for them to recognize it's not just the OSHA 10, which is going to give them just very, very basic training. We all know that. So, I'm suggesting that we broaden this a little bit more, and leave the OSHA 10 in.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Yes, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: Thank you. Cindy,

that's -- Palmer Hickman, employee rep. That's certainly not a bad idea to give some examples.

I just would caution. The OSHA 10 is a carefully crafted introduction to OSHA. It covers many things, including employee rights, other things, such as the Focus Four. So, as long as we pattern it after the leading hazards, and what is in the introduction to OSHA, because that's an important concept of the OSHA 10. Thank you.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, it sounds like -- go ahead, Steve. Just introduce yourself.

MR. HAWKINS: A single point. If I were a worker and I were about to go to work for an asbestos abatement contractor, I believe I'd choose the asbestos training over the OSHA 10 --



MR. HAWKINS: -- hands down. So, I think it needs to be very broadly worded right here. So, you might get good hazard awareness training from lots of sources.

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. HAWKINS: Mention the 10 hour. Give a couple of other examples. You're trying to help somebody.

MS. DePRATER: That's it.

MR. HAWKINS: You're trying to get them to think about the hazards on the jobsite. The one thing that worries me a little bit, I think sometimes people send their workers to 10 hour training, and they go "Well, I'm glad that's done."

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. HAWKINS: And, you know, it's really not at all.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Yeah. Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to belabor this much longer, but the sentence does go on beyond OSHA 10, "to be supplemented by orientation training, toolbox talks to cover hazards on each specific site." So, it doesn't say if you've done the 10, you're all set for all the training you need to do. That's a baseline minimum, plus whatever else you need.

So, certainly, I don't disagree that there's other ways to get this basic hazard awareness, but to Steve's point, I think it's a good pointer, if you don't know, if you're not already doing it, an example of the types of things that it's a recognized training that covers many important topics, such as the

Focus Four, introduction to OSHA, and all those things that are covered there, including employee rights. Thank you.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Thank you. So, it sounds like we're going to keep it in, at least for now and broaden it, I think because this is, I mean. You know, I was thinking we have a lot of training that we've done in my organization that's in the public domain. As I said yesterday, there's a lot of resources available if we could just point them in that direction for the training that is out there, right? So, maybe this is an opportunity to -- for this to be a resource guide. Yes, Cindy?

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater, employer rep. And just to Palmer's point, totally agree with you. I'm just reading it verbatim, which says, "All workers should have." "All workers should have the 10 hour." So, broadening it, to me, makes it more palatable to, and helpful, to others. Can we ask OSHA to put in some additional pieces to this? Okay.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. Yes?

MS. QUINTERO: So, what I have right now is, "All workers should have a hazard recognition training, such as the OSHA 10 hour course, asbestos training." We can add, "or all workers should have the OSHA 10 hour or equivalent or similar," so there's two choices.


MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater. Is the Focus Four a -- you mentioned that. Kevin mentioned that. Is the Focus Four an actual course? Something? No?


(Simultaneous conversations.)

MR. STAFFORD: Go ahead, Palmer.

MR. HICKMAN: Palmer Hickman, employee rep. Yeah, it's within the OSHA 10. OSHA does provide the content if you choose to use that --

MS. DePRATER: Okay. So add the Focus Four.

MR. HICKMAN: -- as a Focus Four.

MR. STAFFORD: This is just a one hour module in the OSHA 10, right, what you're talking about?

MS. QUINTERO: It can be broadened. Yeah.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. All right. Okay.

MS. QUINTERO: So we'll delete or equivalent, similar, I guess something along that

line --

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, Chuck? Please.

MR. STRIBLING: Chuck Stribling, state plan representative. It doesn't make sense to me to put Focus Four in --


MR. STRIBLING: -- unless you're going to name all the components --


MR. STRIBLING: -- of the OSHA 10 class.

MR. PRATT: Absolutely not.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. We don't want to do that.


MR. STRIBLING: Because you already say OSHA 10.

MS. DePRATER: I was just asking. I didn't know.

MR. STRIBLING: And it should be OSHA 10 hour instead of OSHA 10. So, I don't think Focus Four is appropriate.

MR. STAFFORD: I think that's right. Yeah. Don Pratt?

MR. PRATT: Yeah. Don Pratt, employer rep. I don't want to lose "or equivalent." I don't care if the word is equivalent or similar. I don't care, but I don't want to lose that. I think that's very, very important.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Yeah. No, I think we can keep it. I think "or similar" is fine, I mean, I think as far as the wording goes. Yeah, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: To this same point, again we're nitpicking. I'm nitpicking now. Asbestos training, I think, would be covered by the hazards on each specific site, so I think even mentioning that, even as important as it is, I mean, where do we end it? Silica? Asbestos?

MS. DePRATER: Good one. Put that one in there.


MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater, employer rep. Palmer, I don't disagree. I just think that if we're trying to help people, making them aware of more programs besides just the OSHA 10 is a valid and reasonable expectation of this document.

MR. STAFFORD: Yes, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: One more shot. If we could maybe expand, "cover hazards, such as" maybe towards the end of the sentence? I think it's, "OSHA 10 hour course or similar to cover hazards such as asbestos, silica," you know, something beyond what already would be covered in the 10.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. No. I'm afraid to go down that path, because then obviously we're going to be missing some things, right?

MR. HICKMAN: The old "such as" stuff.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, "such as."


MR. PRATT: Yeah. I wouldn't go there, of course.

MR. STAFFORD: You know, I think maybe this is an opportunity, as I say, to list something, or go back to the appendix or the attachment where there are some resources on these training programs that would be available. And it should be, you know, the 10, the 10 hours basic hazardous awareness, plus specific hazardous awareness training you need based on the job task, right? Yeah, Chuck?

MR. STRIBLING: Chuck Stribling, state plan representative. Is there any desire that the introduction paragraph before the first bullet?

MR. STAFFORD: In the main document?

MR. STRIBLING: No, in the supplemental. Any desire to put it into the main document?

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. That's a good question. I like the language, personally.

MR. STRIBLING: I do too. I think it --


MR. STRIBLING: -- makes it easy to --

MR. BETHANCOURT: Understand.

MR. STRIBLING: I would say maybe add it as the opening to the language that's in OSHA's document.

MR. STAFFORD: So, it would be under Action Item. That could just be inserted as a paragraph, the first paragraph under Action Item 1? Is that --


MR. STAFFORD: Does that seem reasonable?

MR. STRIBLING: Yeah. I was thinking higher up, under where OSHA starts out, "A proactive --

MR. STAFFORD: Proactive?

MR. STRIBLING: -- process."


MR. STRIBLING: That you put this --

MR. BETHANCOURT: Before that.

MR. STRIBLING: -- before that as a lead in to what OSHA has.



MR. STAFFORD: Is everyone okay with that?

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh.


MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, Danezza, then the paragraph in the parallel dark, that first paragraph will be the first paragraph --

MR. BETHANCOURT: That was easy.

MR. STAFFORD: -- of this section. We're not deleting anything. We're just adding that paragraph. Are we good?

MS. DePRATER I guess we are.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, any other? Are we ready to move on to the next section then?


MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, again, all of these other things are good that's in there? We don't want to strike anything out for construction that's in the OSHA document?

(No response.)

MR. STAFFORD: Then we're going to move on into the OSHA document, Hazard Prevention and Control, which starts on page 16.

MS. DePRATER: I'm sorry.

MR. CANNON: Where are we?

MR. STAFFORD: All right. We're on page 16, Hazard Prevention and Control.

MS. DePRATER: We have two more bullets.

MR. CANNON: Did we skip Hazard Identification and Assessment?

MR. STAFFORD: Wait, wait, wait.

MR. CANNON: I thought we said that we were good with Hazard Identification and Assessment, or no?

MS. DePRATER: Well, you have two more bullets on the next page of your document we did not discuss.

MS. QUINTERO: So, bullet number one for the training, we're going to insert that?

MS. DePRATER: Danezza, are you asking about the every worker? You've already got that, right?

MS. QUINTERO: Yes. And on that we have just agreed every worker must have some training. That would go --

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater, employer rep. I thought that would go in the main body --


MS. DePRATER: -- rather than an action item. I thought that fit best in the main body. I'm talking about bullet number one where it says, "Every worker must have some basic training."

MR. STAFFORD: What bullet? Where are we?

MS. DePRATER: Hazard Identification.

MR. STAFFORD: I mean, I thought we'd gone through Hazard Identification and Assessment and said we were all good.

MS. DePRATER: You have two more bullets on the next page, Pete.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So you want to add those then, Cindy?

MS. DePRATER: I'm asking where we should.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman?

MR. STAFFORD: Yes, Jeremy?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt, public representative. I think one of the things that we discussed yesterday is potentially that what we're going to do is just look at the document that you did, review the document that OSHA has, and then just make changes, and then allow OSHA to try to merge the documents.

We're not going to go through the exercise of figuring out exactly where this is because that would be even more monotonous than we're already facing, right?

MR. STAFFORD: No, we're not, but as a part of this exercise too, remember we have to figure out if what's already in there is something that we think is worthy of keeping for construction because we could go back from the beginning. At the end of the day, what are we doing here if we're just adding bullets to a document that already exists? And maybe that's all we're doing, you know.

Part of the exercise is to try to understand the action items that are in here, is that applicable to construction, or not. And if we've decided that it is, and we've all looked through it and said, "Everything in this document is good for construction," then let's just go through the parallel document and decide what we would like to add and be done with it. I mean, I --

MS. DePRATER: So, Mr. Chairman --

MR. STAFFORD: Yes, Cindy?

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater. So the next two bullets that are showing on the screen, we need to decide whether those two under Hazard Identification and Assessment belong.

So workers need information about potential hazards. For example, if hazardous chemicals are used, the safety data sheets, SDS, must be easily available and workers must have HAZCOM -- I think I would spell that out, hazard communication -- training so they can read the labels and SDSs and know what precautions are necessary. Access to the injury logs, OSHA 300, can also help them understand what incidents have occurred and where hazardous conditions might need to be addressed.

MR. STAFFORD: So, are you asking, Cindy, whether --

MS. DePRATER: I actually think that's a very good bullet point with the minor correction to the hazardous communication and should be considered for this section.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Appreciate it.

MR. HAWKINS: What section?

MS. DePRATER: Hazard Identification and --

MR. HAWKINS: I know that.

MS. DePRATER: -- Assessment.

MR. HAWKINS: The top part or down under --

MS. DePRATER: I believe it belongs in Action Item Number 1.


MS. DePRATER: I'll make that recommendation.


MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, Palmer?

MR. HAWKINS: Thank you.

MR. HICKMAN: Under collect information about workplace hazards?

MS. DePRATER: Hold on. Let me move back. Yes. Collect existing information about workplace hazards, and this one starts with when workers need information about potential hazards.

MR. HICKMAN: This is really more about training then.

MS. DePRATER: Do we have a training piece in this one?

MR. STAFFORD: There will be. The training comes later, yes.

MS. DePRATER: A different core element. Okay.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. It's its own point.

MR. PRATT: Page 19.

MR. HAWKINS: Can we flag that, and have it considered for page 19 under Training? That's really what that whole paragraph is talking about, having access to logs.


MS. DePRATER: Collecting SDS sheets at the very beginning of their work process. I don't disagree with that.

MR. HAWKINS: Which is already on this.


MR. HAWKINS: SDS is already here.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, we could do that. Yes, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: One friendly amendment I hope to the bullet points. The third bullet point under that supplemental document, that preparation should be made almost, seems like it should be a separate bullet point. It seems like an independent thought from --

MR. HAWKINS: Starting with what word?

MR. HICKMAN: Preparations should be made.

MR. STAFFORD: It certainly could be a separate bullet, so why don't we make it that.

MS. DePRATER: Where would you propose it goes?

MR. STAFFORD: With the rest of --

MR. STRIBLING: Mr. Chairman?

MR. STAFFORD: It would be the last bullet. Yeah? Chuck and then Jeremy.

MR. STRIBLING: Just so that I'm understanding this in my head, because I haven't had enough coffee yet, this first bullet might be one that we think goes best on page 19.

MR. HAWKINS: The first bullet on the second page, right? The second, right?

MR. STRIBLING: Where it says, "Every worker must have some basic training." Correct. This second bullet, to me, looks like it might be something that goes on page 20, Action 3, Action Item 3.

MR. HAWKINS: That could be.

MR. STRIBLING: And the third bullet and the fourth bullet, if you make it, as Mr. Hickman suggested, another bullet that starts with preparations, could stay in this second in Action Item 4.

MR. RIVERA: That's brilliant.

MR. STRIBLING: That's my comment, Mr. Chairman.


MS. DePRATER: Both of them?

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, yeah. Does anyone have a problem with that? I mean, I think that's a good suggestion.

MR. STAFFORD: So, let Chuck give that to Danezza, so she can get that incorporated in. Yes, Steve? Please.

MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Before we leave this section, there is some stuff on page 12 under Hazard Education that really don't seem like they belong for construction.

MR. CANNON: And that's what I was getting at.

MR. HAWKINS: Before we leave this section like, for example, How To Accomplish It on Action Item 2. The first one says observe the workflow. That doesn't sound like a construction term. It sounds like an industry term. And then the second bullet says include ancillary activities, such as facility equipment maintenance. Facility maintenance is not really a construction thought. Equipment maintenance is. Purchasing and office functions.

MR. HAWKINS: That's office functions, not really belong there. Onsite contractor. That whole thing needs to be reworded or deleted.

MR. STAFFORD: Or just deleted out.

MR. HAWKINS: Deleted, yeah.

MR. STAFFORD: So what's the preference, to just delete it out or try to reword it?

MR. HAWKINS: I think we can delete the second bullet entirely --

MR. STAFFORD: Altogether? Okay.

MR. HAWKINS: -- for this purpose.

MR. RIVERA: Second bullet where?

MR. HAWKINS: Page 12, Action Item 2.

MR. CANNON: Conduct regular worksite inspections. Yes, that second bullet.

MR. STAFFORD: So we're going to delete out altogether, including ancillary activities, blah, blah, blah?


MR. STAFFORD: All right.

MR. HAWKINS: And then on the previous one, if you would strike" observe the workflow, and it would read like conduct regular worksite inspections and inspect equipment and materials and talk to workers would still be very applicable."

So, conduct regular inspections, delete "to observe the workflow." So, conduct regular inspections, comma inspect equipment and materials comma and talk to workers.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Anybody have a -- yes? Go ahead.

MR. HAWKINS: Be sure to document those.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Kevin?

MR. CANNON: Kevin Cannon, employer rep. As Jeremy pointed out yesterday, would it be wise to open up the inspect the jobsite or workplace portion with the note on the following page where it explains OSHA's requirement for construction that employers designate a competent person to conduct their frequent and regular inspections and then talk about some of these items?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Maybe make a footnote?

MR. CANNON: I mean, as part of that

intro --


MR. CANNON: -- to that section, if we're talking about construction.

MR. STAFFORD: So you're suggesting, Kevin, so I understand just like we did before is moving that note up front in the --

MR. CANNON: That note, yes.

MR. PRATT: Is there a page number?

MR. STAFFORD: We're on page 12 and 13, Don. I don't have a problem with it, you know, if that --

MR. CANNON: I mean, that kind of puts it out there.

MR. STAFFORD: Anyone else? I mean --

MR. HAWKINS: I think highlight it at home and put it forward just to the front of the thing.

MS. LAWLESS: Mr. Chairman, could you just repeat that then, what you want?

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. So, on page 12 bleeding over into 13, the italicized note, we're suggesting putting that up front, right up front under Action Item 2 before the paragraph hazards can --

MS. LAWLESS: The first three, right? For all three?

MR. STAFFORD: For all three of those, yeah.

MS. LAWLESS: All three.

MR. STAFFORD: It all goes in the introductory paragraph before hazards can be introduced.

MS. LAWLESS: So, it should go in the intro paragraph in Action Item 2?


MS. LAWLESS: Before the existing paragraph?


MS. LAWLESS: Got it.

MR. STAFFORD: Correct? Everybody? Okay.

MR. HAWKINS: Are you good?


MR. HAWKINS: So then, I think we should consider rewording the checklist. It might help things. "Typical hazards fall into several categories." Chemical and biological agents shouldn't be what we lead with in construction. It should probably be fall protection, electrical hazards, maybe list the Focus Four there.

MR. CANNON: Focus Four, yeah. That's what I was thinking.

MR. HAWKINS: Work and process flow probably not good for this. Equipment maintenance, equipment operation certainly are. So, maybe we could remove chemical and biological agents, and list the Focus Four hazards, physical agents. General housekeeping would be good to leave, equipment maintenance, everything but workflow. We might take it out.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman, Jeremy Bethancourt.


MR. BETHANCOURT: If we keep taking out workflow, I mean, a better word in construction literally is schedule, or however we say schedule, because, I mean, there are schedules that we have to maintain that may be similar in trying to get the point across about workflow.

And workflow is in here in several places, Steve, and I was trying to follow along with what you were talking about. Even in the beginning under Action Item 2, it says, "Hazards introduced over time in the workflow."

MR. HAWKINS: There is workflow in construction too. You know, you get the lumber, but it's --

MR. BETHANCOURT: They just call it something different.

MR. HAWKINS: -- worded different.

MR. BETHANCOURT: They just call it something different. They just word it different.

MR. HICKMAN: Well, it's later in that sentence, but they specifically mention scheduling in construction, if you read further in that same paragraph.

MR. HAWKINS: So, our Focus Four, our fall protection, electrical --

MR. STAFFORD: Caught in between, struck by.

MR. HAWKINS: I don't even know if you want to call it in between and struck by, because there's probably not a struck by checklist out there, so maybe just fall protection and electrical.

Fall protection is already there. Just add electrical, and then maybe strike workflow from that list. And then, the next bullet says, "Before changing workflows, making major organizational changes or introducing new equipment."

MS. LAWLESS: Did you want scheduling there?

MR. PRATT: It's in the next sentence. You might be able to strike that whole sentence.

MR. HAWKINS: So, we need to fix that second bullet, because it's not construction-like at all. Before changing workflows, major organizational changes or introducing -- introducing new equipment and materials and processes are important, I would think, and construction conflicting work schedules may create hazards, which they often do.

And it says, "Consider initiating a thorough hazard review whenever you consider facility modification." That's probably not applicable to construction, generally. "Introduce a new chemical" certainly is, "purchase or install new equipment, purchase new equipment, change in work practices." That certainly is. "Change in equipment during maintenance activities" could be, and then there's the scheduling again that should stay, review new health information.

So, I would just strike the first bullet, consider any facilities modification, because

that's --

MR. PRATT: Inapplicable.

MR. HAWKINS: Yeah. And then I would strike "before changing workflows or making major organizational changes." I would say, "Before introducing new equipment, materials or process, evaluate and plan for changes in potential hazards," kind of reword that to make it more like what we're trying to accomplish here.

MR. STAFFORD: Sounds good. Any questions or comments to that?

MS. DePRATER: That's good.

MR. STAFFORD: Everyone concur?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Would it be --

MS. DePRATER: I think that's good.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, Jeremy?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Would it serve the purpose if we actually started off, "In construction, conflicting work schedules may create hazards," and then talk about moving to the part where we just modify the beginning statement? Does that make sense to anybody else?

MR. HAWKINS: I don't think you want to elevate changes in work schedule above these other bullets, because they're similar.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Within that paragraph?

MR. HAWKINS: Yeah. Where it says changing workflows?


MR. HAWKINS: It's already there. You're just saying reword the entire sentence so you start with change in schedules?

MS. DePRATER: I agree with you.

MR. PRATT: No. I agree with Steve.

MS. LAWLESS: We need a summary of the wording when you're done.

MR. STAFFORD: Steve? Steve, could you do that again, so that they capture it?

MR. HAWKINS: Before strike changing workflows and strike making major organizational changes.

MS. LAWLESS: Got it.

MR. HAWKINS: Before and the word or. "Before introducing new equipment, materials or processes, evaluate the plan changes for potential hazards," and then strike in construction, because that's where we are.


MR. HAWKINS: So, you'd start out with, "Conflicting work schedules may create hazards --


MR. HAWKINS: -- or may also increase hazards. Consider initiating a thorough hazard review whenever you" -- strike the first bullet -- "introduce new chemicals, purchase new equipment, change work practices, change equipment during maintenance activities." And then leave the bullet about scheduling and receive new safety and health information.

MS. LAWLESS: Got it. Thank you.

MR. STAFFORD: Thank you, Steve. Any other questions or comments on that? Everyone agrees with that?

(No response.)


MR. HAWKINS: That next Action Item 3 seemed like it was pretty good to me, actually.


MR. HAWKINS: About conducting incident investigations.

MR. STAFFORD: The action item in the core document.

MR. HAWKINS: It seemed like it would flow for construction fine.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Did we determine --

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, Jeremy?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Did we determine that the bullet point three from your document was actually going to go in that section right there, in Action Item 3, How To Accomplish It?

MS. DePRATER: I had that down.

MR. BETHANCOURT: I think that's what Chuck was saying. Is that what we're doing, or suggesting?


MR. MARRERO: Actually you said page 20.

MR. STRIBLING: What were your suggestions again here?

MR. MARRERO: I think he said page 20.

MR. STRIBLING: Yeah. Chuck Stribling. Which bullet point are we talking about?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Are we saying the bullet point from Pete's document, bullet point three, and then we broke up and made another bullet point four.

MR. PRATT: "Many times"? It starts with "many times"?

MR. BETHANCOURT: "Many times," yeah.

MR. PRATT: Okay. All right.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Sorry. "Many times."


MR. BETHANCOURT: Is that where we're suggesting this go, into this section?

MR. MARRERO: Go into Action Item 4, yes.

MR. STAFFORD: You put that in there, right, Chuck, already?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Wouldn't that go in 3?

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater, employer rep. I also agree. I think it should go in 3. It's dealing with accidents.

MR. STRIBLING: I understand that, but reading the sentence, it talks about non-routine tasks. That's what the whole sentence is about.

MR. BETHANCOURT: I gotcha. Okay. You're right.

MR. HAWKINS: I think it really goes along in accident investigation, or incident investigation.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: That was what I was going to say. Action Item 4's title is 'Identify Hazards Associated With Emergency and Non-routine Situations.' That seems to be specifically what it's talking about. Thank you.

MR. HAWKINS: We'll give Palmer a bingo for that. Bingo. I agree. That's exactly where it goes.


MR. HAWKINS: Can we add that bullet then to Action Item 4?

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. I think that's been done, right? That's what Chuck was working with them on, Jennifer and Danezza on.

MS. DePRATER: And you separated the two?


MR. HAWKINS: So we have two bullet items for 4.

MS. DePRATER: Right.



MR. HAWKINS: You know, and the second part of that bullet, if we made it two bullets -- I don't know if we ever did -- that whole last paragraph --

MR. STAFFORD: On preparations?

MR. HAWKINS: Yeah. Would go there. All those thoughts would go there.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. I think you put that in, right? That's in, right?

MS. LAWLESS: That's how we have it.


MS. LAWLESS: We were open to two bullets, so the first bullet starts out, "Many times," the second bullet starts out, "Preparations," and they're both under Action Item 4. Is that correct?


MS. LAWLESS: Thank you.

MR. STAFFORD: Thank you. All right. Are we good then? We're ready to move on, everybody?

MR. HICKMAN: Perfect is close enough.

MR. STAFFORD: What's that, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: Perfect is close enough.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, let's go on then to Hazard Prevention and Control, which starts on page 17 of the core document.



MR. STAFFORD: 16 of the core document. Sorry. Okay. Any issues with -- let's see. What did I do here. So, my lead in paragraph, "In addition to identifying hazards" -- you have a couple typos there, I see.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Danezza said we don't need to worry about --

MR. STAFFORD: "You have a mechanism to get them corrected, who is responsible to follow up and make sure corrections are made. Supervisors and foremen should keep track of issues that have been raised, and make sure they are addressed and corrected. Letting problems languish inevitably means someone will get hurt, and in addition, it destroys trust and workers will get discouraged about bringing up problems. They will think it won't make any difference."

That's not worded very well. I don't know if we want to use that or not, but that was the lead in paragraph that I came up with.

MR. HICKMAN: Excuse me. This is

Chuck Stribling. It's just that last sentence. If you want to keep it, it's the last sentence that needs help.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. Well, I'll ask the committee. Do you think it's worth keeping that intro in this anywhere?

MS. DePRATER: I'd let it go.

MR. STAFFORD: You want to let it go, Cindy?

MS. DePRATER: Yeah. Cindy DePrater, employer rep. I agree with Chuck. I think taking out the last sentence, and just using the first sentence is applicable.

MR. HAWKINS: And the intro in the core document is really pretty good.

MR. STAFFORD: It's good too, yeah.

MS. DePRATER: It is. It is.

MR. STAFFORD: I mean, we don't have to use it at all, unless you think it's helpful. We could just use the intro that's in the core document, because it's good. What's your pleasure? I mean, is the core -- the intro good with you?

MR. HAWKINS: Stick with the core.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Leave the core one, yeah.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. Anybody have a problem? Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: Yeah. It's interesting that that's a sentence we want to take out, because I think that's a concept that I haven't seen really address the fact that workers will get discouraged if they see nothing happening from them bringing things up.

There's really two different concepts in that sentence. It's a long sentence. Letting problems languish is the one thought, and then the fact that folks will get discouraged if they bring things up and nothing happens. I think that's an important concept. I'd hate to lose it, so --

MR. HAWKINS: Well, let's keep it in mind. We'll put it in one of these bullets where it belongs.


MR. HICKMAN: Sounds good.

MR. STAFFORD: You know, there's no research or data to support that. That's what I think.


MR. HAWKINS: Oh, it's --

MR. HICKMAN: It's anecdotal

MR. STAFFORD: Right. You know, that's a culture issue for me. All right. So that's going to be on the tickler. We may put that in another section then.

MS. QUINTERO: And your introduction will

be --

MR. STAFFORD: We're going to stay with, for now, the introduction that's in the core document. No changes for that section, right? Everyone is okay with that?

MS. LAWLESS: The OSHA core document, or --

MR. STAFFORD: The OSHA core document.

MS. LAWLESS: Gotcha.

MR. STAFFORD: We all agree with that? Everybody likes that?

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Action Item 1, Identify control options. Investigate options for controlling each hazard, making use of available information, how to accomplish it.

I thought it was fine. Personally, I think action item applies to construction, Action Item

Number 1. Anybody have any issues, or think that needs to be removed or modified?

MR. HAWKINS: The core document?

MR. STAFFORD: In the core, yeah, Action Number 1.

MR. HAWKINS: The word facility in the second bullet, knowledge of facility, probably is not applicable to construction.

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. HAWKINS: The second bullet, get input from workers who may be able to suggest to you the solutions based on their knowledge --

MR. STAFFORD: Of the worksite?

MR. HAWKINS: -- of equipment and work processes.

MR. STAFFORD: And take that --

MR. HAWKINS: Facility is an odd one.

MR. STAFFORD: That is. Do you want to say at the worksite, or just take that out like and knowledge of equipment and the work processes?

MR. HAWKINS: I would just take out facility. Knowledge of equipment and work processes, that's pretty all-encompassing for construction activities.

MR. STAFFORD: Everybody okay with that? Danezza? Jennifer? Good?


MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Action Item 2, Select Controls. "Select controls that are most feasible, effective and permanent."

MR. HAWKINS: Not much in construction is permanent, typically.


MR. HAWKINS: That means we can leave it.

MR. STAFFORD: Well, we could certainly just take that out. I guess we could just say select controls that are the most feasible and effective and take out permanent.

MR. HAWKINS: Let's take out permanent.

MR. STAFFORD: So, "Action Item Number 2, The lead will select controls that are most feasible and effective" period. and take out permanent. The bullets are --

MS. DePRATER: No. No, not there. Back up under where it says the very sentence before how to accomplish. Select controls that are most feasible and effective.

MR. STAFFORD: And then any action items. "Plan to eliminate or control all serious hazards, use interim controls if needed while you're developing and implementing permanent controls, select controls according to a hierarchy that emphasizes engineering solutions on down to PPE basic." You know, that's all good I think.

MR. HAWKINS: It's certainly where we start most of it.

MS. DePRATER: Do you take out the word permanent there as well?

MR. CANNON: Permanent in that one, as well, in the second bullet.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Use interim controls while you are developing and implementing --

MS. DePRATER: Controls.

MR. STAFFORD: -- controls. That's okay.

MR. HAWKINS: You're going to leave it, right?

MS. DePRATER: I'm just asking.

MR. HAWKINS: Because a temporary control might be you're going to wear this respirator until we get the wet cutting fixed on the chop saw.


MR. BETHANCOURT: So, you know, that would be an interim control. A permanent solution would be get the water feed corrected to the saw blade on the chop saw. That's a pretty basic safety thing, so I would think we should leave that.

MR. STAFFORD: I think everyone agrees with that, it looks like.

MS. DePRATER: Yep. I think that's perfect.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. The last two bullets, use a combination of control options when no single method fully protects workers and consider how selected controls may impact training needs. I'm assuming that means you have to train them on how to use the controls. All okay with that?

MS. LAWLESS: Can you repeat that, Chairman, please? Use --

MR. STAFFORD: That's all fine. I think what's there is good. Just leave as is. Any other questions or issues on that?

(No response.)

MR. STAFFORD: Action Item 3, Develop and update a hazard control plan. Any questions or comments on that?

MS. DePRATER: I think that's good.

MR. STAFFORD: Any issues with the language in Action Item 3?

MR. HAWKINS: You know, is it really likely that construction is going to track progress toward completion? It almost seems like that's -- you know, when I see that I'm thinking about a hearing conservation program where we're going to implement hearing conservation controls or we're going to do engineering controls over the next 12 months. We're going to monitor our progress.

I would ask the construction professionals in the room to weigh in on whether that's an applicable bullet to what we're doing here --

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. I was going to --

MR. HAWKINS: -- on how you will track progress towards completion --

MR. STAFFORD: Right. I was going to --

MR. HAWKINS: -- because I'm just asking.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. -- raise the same thing. Yes, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we've already covered this globally with direction, but that burger flipping picture there probably doesn't lend itself well to construction. That may be where the worker came from to come into construction, but that one -- we need a different picture.

MR. HAWKINS: What you used to do before you were a mason.

MR. HICKMAN: So, I think we probably made a global recommendation already that we review the images that are there and update them to construction- like images.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. I think we've covered that up front. I mean, I think in the final document that OSHA will insert construction photos.

But back to Steve's point. I mean, you know, I don't know. Don, I'll look to you and the other contractors here. I mean, how realistic is it in construction that you're going to track your progress for completing your control plan?

MR. PRATT: Yeah. Don Pratt. I would think that we ought to take that out. You wouldn't do that.


MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater, employer rep. I agree with Don. That one should come out. I'm also thinking that there's opportunity here to start placing in your job hazard analysis wording and then there's also a piece that's missing.

And I know we have a communication section, but I still think it needs to go here, is that how are you going to communicate this plan to others around your area?

MR. HAWKINS: You know, we're going to get to Section 5. That's the place to put that, and I think it's also the place to put that bullet that we talked about about not letting it languish. That's the implementation part of this, implement what you're going to do, and that's communicate to the workers. I agree with you, and I think --


MR. HAWKINS: -- we're almost to where it would go.


MR. STAFFORD: So then for the purposes of this --

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman?

MR. STAFFORD: -- discussion, Jennifer and Danezza, for Action Item 3 on page 17 we're simply I think going to delete the last sentence in that lead in paragraph.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman, Jeremy Bethancourt. I disagree with the fact that we don't track our progress towards completing our plan, because one of the things that we have to do is come up with a plan on how we're going to address the hazards, and then verify that it's actually occurring out in the field.

And so, I'm not sure that that's the way that we would word it, but I'm not sure that removing that altogether to say that we're not going to find out whether or not what we're doing and the plan that we've put in place is actually going to work.

MR. HAWKINS: That's going to go in Section 5, Implement the Controls --

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. HAWKINS: -- on the next page, verify that what you've done works.

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Well then, I remove my disagreement if you're thinking that that's going to work there.

MS. DePRATER: It works there.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, we're going to delete that sentence. Action Item 4 in the main OSHA document, page 17, select controls to protect workers doing non-routine operations and emergencies.

MR. HAWKINS: I think tasks is more construction-like than operations.


MR. HAWKINS: Non-routine tasks and emergencies.


MR. HAWKINS: Operations might be fine too. I'm just putting it out there.

MR. STAFFORD: No. I mean, yeah. Okay. Fine. Nothing wrong with that. I think everywhere we should do that. So, we'll change that to tasks. And then any issues with the bullets?

MR. HAWKINS: The same one on the first sentence, non-routine tasks. Unplanned equipment shutdowns is probably not construction-like.

MR. STAFFORD: Where are you seeing that, Steve?

MR. HAWKINS: In that opening paragraph right there under the first action item.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. "Plan to protect workers during non-routine tasks unforeseeable, such as fires, chemical releases, hazardous material spills. So, you just want to -- yeah, that's probably so.

MR. HAWKINS: Well, the two I was wondering about is equipment shutdowns and chemical releases. I don't know if that -- we could leave it though. I mean, there's a lot of people that do construction on a refinery.

MR. STAFFORD: Doing the maintenance in particular.

MR. HAWKINS: get killed the process sometimes, so --

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Any other questions or comments on that?



MR. HAWKINS: On the bullets, the last bullet, "conduct emergency drills," does anybody in construction do emergency drills on large projects?

MS. DePRATER: Absolutely.


MR. HAWKINS: So, we'll leave that, right?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Yeah, we actually do.

MR. HAWKINS: People really do that?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Especially with good GCs.

(Simultaneous discussion.)

MS. DePRATER: I require on every, single project, two drills a year, evacuation drills. They make up their own scenario. They phone it into our 800 crisis line. We require all subcontractors of any size to participate. They are part of the crisis plan.

MR. HAWKINS: Cool. Cool.

MR. STAFFORD: That is good. And, Jeremy, obviously, the small employers are doing it too?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Well, what we do is when we're working with a big contractor that's part of the group, you know, preplanning meeting that we have, and they go over how we're going to do it, and then they'll have us practice it sometimes on these long projects that they're working on.

So, we all huddle and talk about what we learned, and whether everybody made it the way they were supposed to. Literally they plan that out.


MR. HAWKINS: I don't want to spoil the topic, but I do think it's neat how things have changed. When I first came to work and we did a fire drill, it was a big joke. Now, when that bell rings it's like everybody just --

MS. DePRATER: It's no joke.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Oh, it's not a joke.

MR. HAWKINS: -- files out there and rallies and gets counted.


MR. HAWKINS: I mean, it used to they'd ring and about half the people wouldn't even go out of the building, you know. It's different now. It really is. I think it's due to the construction doing that too.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Well, when that big foghorn blasts --

MS. DePRATER: I was on a project last week where they were literally at every stairwell. They had run a wire -- intercom system -- up and down every stairwell, and so they can stand right there at the gate. They pick up the phone, and it announces throughout the entire project what's going on. So, that's how far it's advancing.

MR. HAWKINS: Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

MR. STAFFORD: Oh, that's okay, Steve. The recorder is probably not liking it very much, but I don't care, having the conversation.

All right. Action Item 5, Implement selected controls in the workplace.

MR. HAWKINS: Here's where I think we should consider the second half of your Hazard Prevention and Control introductory paragraph, maybe not worded exactly like it is, but, "Letting problems languish inevitably means someone will get hurt. In addition, it destroys trust and workers will get discouraged about bringing up second problems. They think it won't make a difference."

That thought ought to go right here in implementation of those selected controls. That's the most important part is to do it and let people see that you've done it, so I think we should include that thought in the introductory paragraph, here. Just --


MS. DePRATER: I agree.

MR. PRATT: After hazard control plan.

MR. HAWKINS: Right. Right there on page

15 --


MR. HAWKINS: -- at the top.


MR. STAFFORD: So, it would essentially be the second paragraph under that intro. So, we'll keep, "Once you have selected hazard prevention and control measures implement according to the hazard control plan."

Next paragraph, "Letting problems languish inevitably means someone will get hurt, and in addition it destroys trust and workers will get discouraged about bringing up problems that don't get fixed," or whatever. We need to play with those words a little bit, but for now that's good enough. "That don't get addressed."

MS. DePRATER: "That don't get addressed." I agree.

MR. STAFFORD: Are you good with that, Jennifer?

MS. LAWLESS: We're good.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. And then the rest of those bullets on Action Item Number 5, "How to accomplish. Hazard control measures according to priorities established in hazard control plan." That's good. "When resources are limited, implement measures of worst first case basis." I'm not sure I like that. What does it mean when resources are limited?

MR. BETHANCOURT: We don't have to fix this?

MR. STAFFORD: That you're not going to do it?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Not fix things just because it's limited resources?

MR. HAWKINS: Yeah. I don't really like that either.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Boy, that almost sanctions making a choice.

MR. HAWKINS: It doesn't work well in an informal conference, I can tell you that.


MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. What do you think about if it's okay we just take that bullet out altogether?

MR. PRATT: Yeah. I think that's the best.

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's horrible. Do that on the regular document too.

MR. HAWKINS: Who came up with that? Oh, it was OSHA.

MR. STAFFORD: That's the OSHA core document.

MS. DePRATER: It must have been Lisa.

MR. HAWKINS: They've heard it so long, they started believing it.


MR. STAFFORD: And then, "Quick fixes" -- is that okay -- "include general housekeeping, removal of obvious tripping hazards" -- that's

fine -- "electrical cords and basic lighting." I think that --

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's fine.

MR. STAFFORD: -- last bullet is good. Okay. So, we're just, on that section, essentially just eliminating bullet number two on how to accomplish it.

Okay. Action Item 6, "Follow up to confirm that controls are effective. To ensure the controlled measures remain effective, track progress" -- and here where we're back to your issue, Jeremy. "Track progress in implementing controls, inspect controls once they are installed and follow routine preventive maintenance practices," which is basically what you were getting at, right, Jeremy?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Yeah, you have to. Yes. Thank you.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, "How to accomplish it. Conduct regular inspections, confirm that work practices, admin, and PPE use are being followed, conduct routine preventive maintenance of equipment." That's all fine.

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh.

MR. STAFFORD: "Track progress and verify --

MR. HAWKINS: There's the word facilities again.

MR. STAFFORD: Where? Oh, yeah.

MR. HAWKINS: "Routine maintenance of facilities." You might just take that out. Make it equipment and controls.

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. "Track progress and verify implementation by asking the following questions: Have all control measures been implemented according to schedule?"

MR. HAWKINS: What schedule?

MS. DePRATER: I think you just cut it off right there.

MR. STAFFORD: Can't you just say, "Have all control measures been implemented?"




MR. PRATT: Exactly.

MR. STAFFORD: "Have emergency controls been properly installed and tested?" That's, Cindy, back to yours. It sounds like that's an SO -- standard operating procedure. "Have workers been appropriately trained so they understand the controls, including safe work practices and PPE use requirements?"


MR. STAFFORD: Are controls being used correctly and consistently?

MS. DePRATER: Mr. Chairman, Cindy DePrater, employer rep.


MS. DePRATER: This is also where I would add, "Has this been shared with other contractors working in the immediate area." You don't want them just keeping their plan to themself. You want them sharing it with anybody that's within their sphere of influence.

MR. STAFFORD: You think that goes here, Cindy, with our multiemployer section, maybe?

MS. DePRATER: I don't know. It seems to be the most logical, but I'll leave that to the committee.

MR. HAWKINS: Let's stick it here. That's not a bad place for it, just that one more bullet.

MS. DePRATER: That it, one more bullet.

MR. HAWKINS: "Have you communicated" --

MS. DePRATER: "With other contractors."

MR. BETHANCOURT: Because a lot of times it may not be you that created the hazard --

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. BETHANCOURT: -- and you've got to address it with somebody else.

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Sorry. I spoke out of turn. Jeremy Bethancourt.

MR. HAWKINS: "Have the controls been communicated" --

MS. DePRATER: Been communicated.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Right. To "trade partners and other contractors."

MS. DePRATER: To trade partners.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Trade partners.

MS. DePRATER: Or "trade partners and other contractors."

MR. BETHANCOURT: Contractors.

MR. STAFFORD: Trade partners. What's a trade partner?

MR. BETHANCOURT: It's a happy way of saying people that are dictating what you're supposed to do, is it not?

MS. DePRATER: Yeah. We use it a lot, believe it or not.

MR. BETHANCOURT: We use it a lot in this.

MR. STAFFORD: A trade partner?

MS. DePRATER: Trade partners.

MR. BETHANCOURT: We do use it a lot, yeah. I do.

MR. STAFFORD: I use the DOE --

MS. DePRATER: It's a lot in design/build work when you bring in architect engineer, mechanical and electrical general contractor.


MR. BETHANCOURT: We talk about them as being partners, not --


MS. DePRATER: It's a partnership.

MR. BETHANCOURT: -- contractors.

MR. HAWKINS: So, what about, "Have the controls been communicated to other contractors in the area?"

MS. DePRATER: Okay. Fine.

MR. HAWKINS: That's pretty generic. Is that okay? "Have the controls been communicated to other contractors in the area?"

MS. DePRATER: Yeah. "Have the controls measures" -- "Have the controls been communicated."

MR. HAWKINS: We really ought to start with have, since all the other sentences all start with have.


MR. HAWKINS: "Have the controls been communicated to other contractors in the area." Have it read just like these other bullets.

MS. DePRATER: Yeah. She's trying to get it down.

MR. STAFFORD: Everybody okay with that, then? So we're going to have Danezza and Jennifer add the last bullet then on Action Item 6, have the controls been communicated to other contractors in the area.

MS. DePRATER: Perfect.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So --

MS. DePRATER: Now --

MR. STAFFORD: Yes, Cindy?

MR. CANNON: The supplemental.

MS. DePRATER: The supplemental.

MR. PRATT: Mr. Chairman, Don Pratt. We did not talk about the other three bullets on your document.

MR. STAFFORD: Right, and I'm looking at that now to see if those -- do you think that these are worthy of adding? We already have now six action items. I mean, I'm not concerned. I'm not going to say it's a concern, but at the end of the day that we're going to have a separate construction guideline that's going to be a heck of a lot bigger than the initial OSHA guideline, right?

And so, we started this conversation about very simple, direct language for construction employers. Just, in the end, having an 80 page document, is that going to be helpful or not to the construction industry? I mean, I'm just throwing it out, you know, because what we're doing is essentially taking the core document. We haven't removed much. We're generally just adding more action items to it.

And I'm not saying that that's a bad thing, but that, at the end of the day, I mean, we're going to have a very large document for construction, versus the core document for all the other industries.

MR. PRATT: Mr. Chairman?


MR. PRATT: Yeah. Don Pratt. Your three bullets, I think we've covered those.

MS. DePRATER: I think we have, too.

MR. STAFFORD: They're already in? Okay.

MR. PRATT: Yeah. So, I mean, if anybody else sees something I missed --

MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Like what Steve said yesterday, I mean, so this is a good document that we're providing. If you want to read the document, it's just like the directions for the whatever you're plugging in.

Like Steve said yesterday, they're going to read the summary, and if they really want to know how it works, don't we want to provide them with a good document, even if at times it is a little bit longer?

MR. STAFFORD: I was just raising it. I'm not saying that we don't. We'll just go through the exercise. Yeah, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bullet point three, I'll ask you to specifically identify if you think we've covered that elsewhere in the document. It's clear that you consider that important, and --

MR. STAFFORD: Well, you know, I put this in based on my reading the docket, and folks saying this is an opportunity to take advantage of a guide like this, and get into more prevention through design.

As I said yesterday, we heard when this same committee a few years back was dealing with the Safety and Health Program standard at the time, we heard from the contractor community the prequalifications of their subs based on leading indicators. Are they training their management? What kind of programs do they have? What kind of policies do they have?

All of those kinds of things are important to performance on construction sites, so this was my stab at adding something that in a program if our large contractors are saying bringing subs on their job is important to the climate and how they perform overall, this was an opportunity to put something in on prequalification.

We have developed a prequalification checklist based on that exercise that we could reference in this document, and say, "If you're interested in bringing in subcontractors or high performers when it comes to safety and health here's a checklist that you could use to evaluate their programs." Yes, Jeremy?

MR. BETHANCOURT: So, Mr. Chairman, so if I understand in thinking about prevention through design, because that's one of the items that I know that the American Society of Safety Engineers addressed in their comments to OSHA about the document, would that be a good thing to address in Action Item 1, with your comments that you've made, if the focus was to try and come up with some prevention through design aspects to this part of the document?

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater.

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's a question.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, Cindy?

MS. DePRATER: I actually think that choosing the right subcontractor fits better with coordination and communication on multiemployer worksites.

MR. STAFFORD: It may very well belong there. I mean, that's --

MS. DePRATER: I would just say consider it there. I don't know that it for sure fits, but we could shorten this tremendously by just saying, "Evaluate the right subcontractors to work with you."

MR. STAFFORD: If it's important. I mean, it may not be important.

MS. DePRATER: It is important.

MR. STAFFORD: You know, I'm just relaying. And we've got resources that if contractors are interested in that, we've developed checklists that they could use for that purpose, if this is a guide to provide resources that are available to them for free.

Is everyone in agreeance that maybe we just consider that in the multiemployer section then about how you select or prequalify subcontractors? And then, the rest of the bullets, I think if everyone agrees with Don that we've more or less covered them in certain action items, then we don't have to consider those. Everybody okay with that?

MR. HAWKINS: Uh-huh.

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. What time have we got? Do you want to take a break or do you want to get to the next section?

MS. DePRATER: Ten minutes?

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Let's have a break until 10:30. How about that? Thank you.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Let's go ahead and reconvene, please. We have a quorum.

Okay. We're ready to move on to Education and Training, which is page 19 on the core document. I really didn't have much to add in mine, so I don't think we're going to have to jump back to that parallel thing, although I must say that, through this committee, we have developed and you'll see in mine the Foundations for Safety Leadership.

I had a meeting with my Deputy up with the leadership of the Directorate of Training and Education at OSHA outside of Chicago early last week, and we've got unofficial -- well, official word. It's not official yet, but that OSHA will approve the Foundation for Safety Leadership training as an elective module in the OSHA 30, which is terrific. I mean, this is a lot of work from this committee to get that in there.

So, hence, when you look at the Dodge survey that I provided to you, and you see that 86 percent of the large U.S. construction employers are leaning on the OSHA 30 for their supervisory training, I added in the language on mine that we would like for the folks that are teaching that OSHA 30-hour to use the two and a half elective module as a part of that training program. So, that's the one difference in my bullet, in terms of the training for supervisors.

So, with that said, Education and Training. Is there an issues or problems? Have you had a chance to look at the intro section of that? You know, we don't have to go back to my parallel document, because I didn't really write an intro section to the section. I just basically wrote two action items; that workers should have the 10, supervisors should have the 30, and the supervisors as a part of that 30 should have the two and a half hour Foundations for Safety Leadership elective module in that.

Whether the committee is going to concur with that or not, you know, it's just something that I put in there, because it's now available, and we've done so much work through our training work group to try to make that happen, so I appreciate all your help on that.

So, in terms of Education and Training, any issue with the lead in paragraph, or the lead in section, "Workers who know about workplace hazards and the measures in place to control them can work more safely and be more productive. Education and training means that employers, managers, supervisors and workers will" -- and so, I don't see any, unless there's some --

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater, employer rep.


MS. DePRATER: I didn't see anything until I got to, "In addition, all workers receiving specialized training when they are assigned specific roles in managing." I took out "or operating." I don't know how they're going to operate the Safety and Health Program. I would just say, "in managing the Safety and Health Program."


MS. DePRATER: Or it could say, "in managing and implementing," but operating just doesn't seem to fit.


MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Anybody have a problem with that, of just deleting it out, then? Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: I think a statement about the same sentence. I had a different concern or question. This is not unique to construction. I'm not sure that it even works for the existing document. "In addition, all workers receive." Are they making a statement that all workers --

MR. HAWKINS: Should.

MR. STAFFORD: "Should receive."

MR. HICKMAN: -- "should receive" I think

is -- or "need to." "Should" is nonmandatory, but "need to" is more actionable. So, yeah. There's a word missing there, I think, in my opinion. "In addition, all workers need to receive specialized training," or "should." Whatever works for the committee.

MR. STAFFORD: I think that works. I think "should" is probably --

MR. HAWKINS: Should receive.

MR. STAFFORD: -- a better terminology here. So, "In addition, all workers should receive specialized training when they are assigned specific roles in managing the Safety and Health Program" and take out "or operating."

MR. HICKMAN: Yeah. Yeah.

MR. STAFFORD: You know, I don't know. Again, how often on your jobsites are you turning things over to your craft workers to manage your program?

MR. HAWKINS: But you might have a supervisor to do workplace inspection.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Well, that's what a competent person is.

MS. DePRATER: That's what a competent person is.

MR. HAWKINS: I was thinking the same thing until I -- well, maybe they're talking about like a lead man, or a --

MS. DePRATER: Nonworking foreman.



MR. HAWKINS: That kind of person saying, "Well, you need to do these daily inspections," or "You need to do your toolbox talks," and so, they would need some training on how to do that aspect of managing or implementing the Safety and Health Program.

MS. DePRATER: Competent persons.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Competent person for scaffolding.

MS. DePRATER: That would be an assigned role, for sure.


MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, we're good just with leaving it the way it is, the way we just read it then?

MR. HAWKINS: If you're talking about giving somebody training to help them understand how to bring workers, to make workers involved in your safety and health effort --

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh. That's the way I read it.

MR. HAWKINS: -- for your management system.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Then if that's the

way --

MS. DePRATER: Not in operating it.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So then, we'll just leave it at that. So again, the sentence will read, "In addition, all workers should receive specialized training when they are assigned specific roles in managing the Safety and Health Program." Okay.

MR. HICKMAN: I think we're leaving receive in.

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh.

MR. HAWKINS: Do we need to replace operating with implementing? Is that what the talk really is?

MS. DePRATER: That was my other suggestion. Yeah.

MR. HAWKINS: Managing or implementing.

MR. STAFFORD: If we're going to go with that we should probably flip that around, "Specific roles in implementing and managing the Safety and Health Program."

MR. HAWKINS: I agree.

MS. DePRATER: I agree.

MR. HAWKINS: I think that's what it ought to say.

MS. DePRATER: I agree. Perfect.


MR. HAWKINS: You can't manage it before you implement it.

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. All right. Action Item Number 1 in this section, "Provide program awareness. Provide workers and managers with basic understanding of the program structure, plans and procedures. This knowledge ensures that everyone can fully participate in program development and implementation.

"How to accomplish it. Provide training to all managers, supervisors and workers, as well as contractors, subcontractor, and temporary agency workers on safety and health policies, goals and procedures, Safety and Health Program functions, what to do in an emergency, employer responsibilities under the program, how workplace safety and health-related information will be communicated, workers' rights under the OSH Act."

MS. DePRATER: Those are all good.

MR. STAFFORD: Second bullet, "Ensure that training is provided in a language and at literary level that all workers can understand."

Next bullet, "Emphasize that the program can only work when everyone participates and feels comfortable discussing concerns, making suggestions and reporting injuries, incidents, and hazards." Everybody okay with that?

(No response.)

MR. STAFFORD: Last bullet, then, "Confirm, as part of the training, that all workers have the right to report injuries, incidents, hazards and concerns and to fully participate in the program without fear of retaliation."

MS. DePRATER: Do we need to say it twice?

MR. STAFFORD: We put that somewhere, and

I --

MR. RIVERA: Yeah, we did. I can't remember.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, Tom?

MR. MARRERO: I'm sorry. Back to bullet point number one. Where it says "temporary agency workers," can we strike agency and just put, "temporary workers," to encompass all types of temporary workers?

MR. STAFFORD: I don't see why not. Does anyone have an issue --


MS. DePRATER: That's fine.

MR. STAFFORD: -- with that because there's a lot of that.


MS. DePRATER: That's fine.


MR. PRATT: Tom, what was that again?

MR. MARRERO: The first bullet point.

MR. BETHANCOURT: "How to accomplish."

MR. STAFFORD: So, "Provide training to all managers, supervisors and workers, as well as contractors, subcontractor and temporary workers," not temporary agency workers.

Okay. Back to the last bullet then we just read. I can't remember what section, and I guess it doesn't hurt to be duplicative, but I think we had a bullet on retaliation earlier on, and I can't remember. It was probably on hazard identification, or prevention. I can't remember where that was.

MS. DePRATER: What I might suggest -- Cindy DePrater, employer rep. What I might suggest is that you just delete the last bullet, and you just in the one above it where it says emphasize, could we not just say, "Emphasize and confirm that the program," because those two seem to be a little bit duplicative. Does anybody else read it that way?

If you just say, "Emphasize and confirm that the program can only work when everyone participates and feels comfortable discussing concerns, making suggestions, and reporting injuries, incidents, and hazards."

MR. HAWKINS: It doesn't tell people, though, that they have the right, and that's what the second one really does. It might be a good idea to remind an employer not only does it work well, but the employees actually have the right to report these things to you.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Is there a problem with being duplicative in that respect, since it is so important?

MR. HAWKINS: Probably not.

MR. HICKMAN: But, again, unless there's a reason to do this for construction, I mean, trying to fix the existing document, at least in our opinion, really isn't our mission here. Just a thought.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, we say how to accomplish it, the workers' rights under the OSH Act. I'm not so sure, Cindy.


MR. STAFFORD: I think you've tightened the language up, but I'm not so sure that it harms anything to keep that if everyone is okay with it. Are we okay with that?

MS. DePRATER: It fits the page nicely.


MR. RIVERA: Symmetry.

MR. BETHANCOURT: All right. Education and Training.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Sounds good. We'll just leave that. then.

Action Item 2, "Train workers on their specific roles and responsibility in the Safety and Health Program. Additional training may be needed to ensure that managers and workers can incorporate Safety and Health Program responsibilities in their daily routines and activities. I mean, I kind of like the words. I'm really not sure --

MS. DePRATER: I'm not sure what it says.

MR. STAFFORD: -- what that means.

MS. DePRATER: "Additional training may be needed to ensure managers and workers can incorporate Safety and Health Program responsibilities."

MR. STAFFORD: Additional training may.

MS. DePRATER: It's not --

MR. STAFFORD: What do you think? I'm not sure what that adds. Additional training may be needed.

MS. DePRATER: Yeah. It's not --

MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Chairman, it looks like you have to read it in the context of the action item heading.

MS. DePRATER: I think I'd reword this.

MR. STAFFORD: So, give me an example of we're training a pipefitter on a job. He's a craft worker, and we want him to know -- him or her -- what their additional responsibilities are. What does that mean?

MR. HAWKINS: It probably wouldn't fit that, but if you're talking about, I own a plumbing contracting company, and you're talking about trained workers, everybody who works for my company is a worker.


MR. HAWKINS: And so, if you're talking about a project manager, you might have to give him some specialized training on how to implement the employee participation part of my Safety and Health Program. That's the way I would read that where it would make sense. Probably not for a pipefitter, but maybe for the supervisor, or the project manager.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, should we instead of saying worker -- and I know, Palmer. I'll get right to you.


MR. STAFFORD: Should we say that specifically and take out workers if we're talking about management here?

MR. HAWKINS: Train employees. Train employees on their specific roles. Make it more generic because workers, I think in the construction context workers means somebody who has to wash their hands when they're done.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. I mean, that's the way I always view --


MR. STAFFORD: -- the difference between a craft worker. I mean, you're starting with your front line foreman on up to the general foreman and your superintendents. Right?

You know, when we're talking about workers well, everyone has a role. In my mind, the workers are the craft workers that are putting product in place, not the foreman that's managing them, even though they are an employee and a worker, but that's how I distinguish it in my giant, sixth grade brain.

MS. DePRATER: Can I? Cindy DePrater, employer rep.

MR. BETHANCOURT: So, it should say manager?

MS. DePRATER: I would say maybe we just change this to say "Additional training may be needed to ensure that manager and workers can identify risks and hazards associated with their specific role, daily routines and activities."

MR. HAWKINS: Yeah, but that's not -- that's a good sentence, but for the purposes of this specific action item this is about training them on specific duties that you would assign.

So, you developed the Safety and Health Program for your company and you said, "Okay, the three of you guys are going to now do workplace inspections, and if that's part of your program that you're going to implement. You're going to have to give them some direction on how to do that, some training on how you want those forms completed, and when to do them and those kind of things.


MS. DePRATER: So you think this is more related to a manager's role versus how they conduct their daily task?

MR. HAWKINS: I do. I think this is people that you've identified. You've given them a specific responsibility in your Safety and Health Program that you want them to do and you're going to have to train them on how to do that.


MR. HAWKINS: Which it might be job cost or it might be --


MR. HAWKINS: -- workplace inspections or it might be training on hazards. You know, if you're going to say I'm going to designate Jerry and Tom and Jeremy, make them our trainers, and they're going to train our staff on this new procedure and Jerry goes man, I never talked to anybody -- in front of anybody

-- in my whole life. You might going to have to send him for some training on how to --

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. HAWKINS: -- conduct a class. That's the way I read that.

MR. STAFFORD: No. I do too. I mean, if you're going to have --


MR. STAFFORD: -- a foreman that's going to be responsible for doing toolbox talks or safety huddles every morning, he may need some direction on how to do that as a part of the program.

MR. HAWKINS: How to keep people's attention and how to approach it.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. Exactly.


MR. STAFFORD: Yes? Palmer and then Jeremy.

MR. HICKMAN: Yeah. To answer your question that you asked, Mr. Chairman -- Palmer Hickman, employee rep -- I think there's probably several that come to mind.

Maybe you're a fire watch. That's your designated role in the Safety and Health plan. Maybe you're the rescue person, maybe first aid. You're assigned to be the first aid competent person, the attendant in a confined space program. So, that's what I read into this when I read these words, but maybe I'm way off base, so --

MR. STAFFORD: No. I don't think you are. I think we're kind of getting there. I mean, I think this needs to be changed a little bit to say that if you're a manager or a worker, and you have a specific role in the program, whatever that is, that it needs to say it somehow like that. Yes, Jeremy?

MR. BETHANCOURT: I think I'm understanding what Palmer is saying is I don't disagree that we should keep workers in there and wherever a worker has a role, that that worker is actually part of the program, that they have where they are supposed to interact.

For example, in my organization, I teach managers their tasks, but I also teach workers that they are part of the program and that I'm going to expect them to take an active role in assisting, you know, throughout the day --


MR. BETHANCOURT: -- and so, we should be training them.

MR. STAFFORD: I agree. So, why not in that sentence just say, "Additional training may be needed to ensure that managers and workers understand their roles and can carry out their responsibilities as a part of the Safety and Health Program?"

MS. DePRATER: Right.


MR. HAWKINS: Perfectly stated.

MS. DePRATER: Perfect.

MR. STAFFORD: Yes. I'm sorry. Jerry?

MR. RIVERA: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In this section, there might be the opportunity to include, you know, reference to the safety leadership by adding, "Besides the managers, supervisors and employees."

So, the inclusion of supervisors in that definition might be more encompassing, because supervisor will be leading those safety and health efforts often, and some managers, so you want to probably try to capture that, as well.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Fair enough. So, I forgot what I just said, but we can just add "supervisors, managers and workers." Jennifer, what did I say?

MS. LAWLESS: "Understand and carry out their roles, responsibilities, daily routines, and activities." That's what we left off with before. Jerry added supervisors.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Could you read it one more time, Jennifer?

MS. DePRATER: The whole thing.

MS. LAWLESS: "Additional training may be needed to ensure that managers, supervisors and workers can understand their roles and carry out their responsibilities, daily routines and activities."

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Take out the word can, so that, "understand their roles," and I'd put supervisors in front of managers.


MR. RIVERA: Or management.

MR. STAFFORD: Is everybody okay with that, then?





MR. STAFFORD: Okay. "How to Accomplish It. Instruct workers with specific roles." Again, when we're talking about workers now I'm -- I'm sorry. Tom?

MR. MARRERO: How does "management" sound to everybody?


MR. MARRERO: Because you want it from the top down, from the owner all the way down to the --

MR. BETHANCOURT: And then it's one word.

MR. MARRERO: Yeah. So, "management and workers."

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's it. That's it.

MR. RIVERA: So, will that change --

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's everybody.

MR. RIVERA: Okay. Yeah.

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's all management.

MR. RIVERA: Including supervisors?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Right. It includes everybody.


MR. BETHANCOURT: Management.

MR. STAFFORD: Sounds good to me. You know, again I think these are just kind of playing with words, but if we just want to say "management and workers" I think that fits. I mean, supervisors, foremen, superintendents, they're all in management.

MS. LAWLESS: Is that how you want it?

MR. STAFFORD: I can't see it without my glasses, so one of you look at it, and see if that's how we want it or not.

MS. DePRATER: "To ensure that management."

MS. LAWLESS: Management.

MR. BETHANCOURT: That management and workers, and then it's everybody.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So then, "How to accomplish it." I guess based on this path we're going down, is "Instruct management and workers in their specific roles within the Safety and Health Program on how they should carry out those responsibilities." Yes, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: Can we go back up to the action item, please, because I think there, unless we've added it there, it just says workers, so we probably need to --

MR. BETHANCOURT: Management and workers. Oh, at the top? Yeah. I see now.

MS. LAWLESS: I thought we changed it to employees. Am I --

MR. STAFFORD: We changed it back and forth three or four different times, Jennifer, so it's hard.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Do you see that? Can you scroll up just a little bit?

MR. STAFFORD: I recognize it's hard for you to keep up.


MR. STAFFORD: Why don't we just say, from the beginning, "Train managers and workers." We're talking about managers and workers. Or if you want, maybe we can add the word "craft." You know, we're talking about managers and craft workers. Are we good with that? Can we just stick with managers and workers, or managers and craft workers?

MR. HAWKINS: I think --

MR. BETHANCOURT: Management.

MR. HAWKINS: -- let's use workers.

MR. STAFFORD: Just workers? Okay. All right. So, throughout, "managers and workers."

All right. So then, "How to accomplish it. Instruct managers and workers. Provide opportunities for managers and workers. As a program, institute a more formal process for determining the training needs of managers and workers responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining the program."

MR. BETHANCOURT: And then the same thing. "Train managers and workers on hazard identification."

MR. STAFFORD: Is that okay with everyone?

MS. DePRATER: I think so.

MR. STAFFORD: Jennifer? Good?


MR. STAFFORD: We're all comfortable with that? "Action Item 3, Train workers on hazard identification and controls, providing workers with basic understanding of hazards." So, again, are we talking about managers and workers, or are we just now talking about workers here?

"Providing workers with a basic understanding of hazardous recognition and control, and actively involving them in the process to help you eliminate hazards before an incident occurs." So, I'm assuming in this instance, Action Item 3, we're actually really talking about just the craft workers.

Yes, Chuck?

MR. STRIBLING: I think the core document makes a bit of a shift --

MS. DePRATER: It does.

MR. STRIBLING: -- in this whole Education and Training section. Up until now, this document, to me, has been addressed more to management. In this section, it's specifically being addressed to the workers.


MR. STRIBLING: So, you know, if we want to include managers and workers all throughout, then we should do it consistently throughout this section, or do we go with, as they've done here, shifting the focus, the discussion?

MS. DePRATER: This does feel like a shift.

MR. HAWKINS: Well, I think it is.


MR. HAWKINS: This is where you're talking about training every day people on this is what you watch for, and this is what you do when you see it. I think you're right.

MS. QUINTERO: But if you look at bullet one on how to accomplish it, it says "train managers and workers" --


MS. QUINTERO: -- so I guess the intention of the Agency was managers and workers.

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh.


MR. KAMPERT: This is Eric with OSHA, OSHA rep. So, we're having some issues about what the intentions of this section was. I was wondering, we do have some people in the general public there from DSG, and we were wondering if we could get any input from either Mark or Will, if they thought it might be helpful.

It seems like if you look at the top of the Education and Training, the very top, it does say "workers," and then under Action Item 1, it does say, "provide workers and managers." So, I think the group seems like they need some clarification.

MS. DePRATER: We do.

MR. KAMPERT: Is this intended for workers, managers and workers, and just see what the intent of what OSHA had and then can we can focus what we want to do for construction.

MR. STAFFORD: Oh, you don't have an opinion on that?

MR. HAGEMANN: Yeah. I'm not sure we can shed any light on this other, than the way it's written.

MS. DePRATER: Which is why I was getting confused. It just seems like it took a U-turn.

MR. HAGEMANN: Sorry. I got here a little late this morning, so I'm just --

MR. STAFFORD: That's fine. We don't have many more.

MR. HAGEMANN: But I don't know that I can necessarily shed any light on the different action items, and why it's management, why it's workers and how it was developed other than the fact that that's the way it is, and if you guys see a different way of writing it, then we can certainly, you know, take a look at that as well for the overall document.

MR. STAFFORD: Well, I mean, in my mind we're talking about both.


MR. STAFFORD: We're talking about managers and workers here, the people that need to be trained. And so, I think maybe part of the confusion is that even if you're a manager, I know some of them that actually work, so managers are workers too, right, and so, maybe that's part of the problem.

MR. HAGEMANN: I can see where it can be confusing using both terms, and having different action items using different terms, but, again, there were specific reasons why one action item was maybe just for workers, and others were for workers and managers, because those are certain things we want both of them to do.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. Well, I think the purpose, you know, in my mind, again, to have an effective Safety and Health Program when you're talking about training and education, you're talking about training and educating your managers --


MR. STAFFORD: -- and you're also talking about training and educating your workforce.


MR. STAFFORD: That's all part and parcel to an effective Safety and Health Program, and we just have to break that out.

So, if you go back to the very beginning of this section it says, "Workers who know about workplace hazards and the measures." That's good, but maybe we start out, "Managers and workers who know about workplace hazards and the measures in place to control them can work more safely and be more productive," or maybe we have to start wordsmithing that, but I think it's up front that we're talking about training and education for management, and we're talking about training and education for craft workers here.

We don't have a section dealing specifically with training and education for managers, and a separate section dealing with training and education for workers so they're combined, and we just have to clarify that --


MR. STAFFORD: -- in our minds. Yes, Don?

MR. PRATT: I think we should combine it all the way through, the whole document, managers and workers, and then I don't think we can go wrong.

MR. RIVERA: At least in this section.

MR. STAFFORD: I think so in this section, because it's both. I mean, we're saying -- you know, right. Okay.

MR. RIVERA: We all agree with it.

MR. BETHANCOURT: In this section.

MR. STAFFORD: Yes, Chuck? I'm sorry.

MR. STRIBLING: Chuck Stribling, state plan representative. Where you just said workers who know about workplace hazards, just change the word workers to employees --

MS. DePRATER: That's what I was going to say.

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's where we started.

MR. STRIBLING: -- because the next paragraph specifically talks about employers, managers, supervisors and workers.

MR. HAGEMANN: Right. Right.


MR. STRIBLING: So, just change that one word, workers, to employees.

MR. HAGEMANN: Yeah. So, right up front, we kind of say that this education and training is for everybody, and then throughout the specific action items, we, you know, kind of tailor it to --

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Well, right. So, I think that's a good suggestion. So, employees are inclusive of everyone, right? Management and craft workers are all employees. So, if we go back to the front, "employees who know about workplace hazards," and then it breaks it out in the next paragraph. I think that's right, Chuck.



MR. MARRERO: Tom Marrero, employer rep. I think, Chuck, that's a good suggestion, but it doesn't encompass everybody, because you also have owners, as well, that are front line individuals and they're not considered technically employees, so --

MR. STAFFORD: Who's that?

MR. MARRERO: The employer themselves, the owners.

MR. HAWKINS: If they're an LLC though or a corporation --

MR. STRIBLING: Well, if they're a corporation they're an employee.

MR. HAWKINS: Actually they are.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Unless they're a sole proprietor.

(Simultaneous discussion.)

MR. HAGEMANN: I think I'd be careful using the term employees, because throughout the document, we use workers and not employees, so we don't want to interchange the two. For this document, we're specifically using the term workers when we mean a worker, and manager is when we mean a manager, and supervisor when we mean a supervisor.

MR. STAFFORD: Yes, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: With disdain he says. Had the public commented on this section, seeing a problem with managers being excluded when only workers were mentioned?

MR. STAFFORD: I hadn't seen anything when I read through the material in the document that addressed this.

MR. HICKMAN: Do we see a distinction?

MR. STAFFORD: That doesn't mean that it's not there. I just didn't see it.

MR. HICKMAN: Yeah. Did we see a distinction here for construction? I mean, it makes sense that we do, but at the same time, I think we're supposed to constructionize this, so we're trying to think what they were thinking when they wrote.

They started with managers and workers, and then they talked about just workers. So, I don't think it does any harm, but it might be beyond our scope to start fixing, improving the existing document. Just a thought.

MR. STAFFORD: No. I appreciate that. You know, I don't know if it would be improving it, but if we're going to constructionize it, we've gone back in full circles. You know, again, if it's managers, I like Chuck's idea, but if OSHA doesn't want to use the word employees, then if we're back to managers and workers, I mean --


MR. STAFFORD: -- I think that's where we're at.

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater, employer rep. I think the fact that we're all struggling with this section does mean that there is some issue with it, and so I think we do need to take a little bit deeper look, but I think what happened is they started talking about workers in the first section, and in the very last paragraph of the first section, it literally started talking about assigned roles, and that's where it shifted.

And then the rest of the document seemed to take on this manager and supervisor and employee feel to it, so I think the fact that we're all struggling with it means that it's definitely not as clear as it needs to be, and it's beginning to feel -- that's why I was struggling with this action item too.

Steve, to your point, I was trying to say, "Okay, is this the competent person?" And maybe that's how we do this. Maybe we define this into saying examples, "such as," you know, specific to construction, "such as the competent person or the fire watch person, or the" -- add a couple of examples so it becomes at least a little more clear where we don't have to get into trying to wordsmith this to be more clear.

MR. BETHANCOURT: We already say that, though.

MS. DePRATER: I don't think they've given any specific examples. Like, for example, "Action Item 2, How to Accomplish It. Instruct" -- where we started to say instruct management and workers with specific roles, you could say, "such as the fire watch, or the competent person," if that's what we mean, "or the trainer of the 10 hour course."

Those are assigned specific roles, and not the daily activities of doing a pretask plan or a daily huddle, and then accomplishing what you set out to do that day. Maybe if we can just give a few examples throughout this portion of it, it will make more sense to all of us.

MR. STAFFORD: Anybody have any thoughts or comments to that? We can pass on this and come back. I mean, again, I --

MS. DePRATER: I don't want to get hung up on it.

MR. STAFFORD: Because we are getting hung up, I mean.

MR. HAWKINS: But, I mean, for OSHA to say that we used employers where we meant -- I mean, workers where we meant workers and managers where we meant managers, I heard what you said.

But when you go to Education and Training, we say, "Provide program awareness." We say workers and managers. Then we say, "Train workers on their specific roles and responsibilities in the Safety and Health Program." Wouldn't we also train managers?

MR. STAFFORD: Train managers. Right.

MR. HAWKINS: Are those the same roles?


MS. DePRATER: And isn't that employees?

MR. STAFFORD: And we have done that before, right?


MR. STAFFORD: I mean, okay.

MR. HAWKINS: These are good comments for the general industry document, for the master document.

MR. HAGEMANN: As well, yeah. Absolutely. And apparently there's some confusion here, so --

MR. HAWKINS: Yeah. Obviously there is, because this is -- you know, just the fact that we're struggling with it. I mean, I think we have just tossed -- it looks like we have interchanged these words several times, in even places where we probably didn't mean to, or the people who wrote it didn't probably mean to.

MR. HAGEMANN: Right. And even sometimes the action item title doesn't maybe match up with the language that's in there, so, yeah. I think we'll have to take a look at this as we go through the general industry document, and the comments that came in, and take a good, close look at this.

MR. STAFFORD: Chuck, and then Don?

MR. STRIBLING: So, as a general

session -- I'm sorry, suggestion, could we just suggest to the Agency to make it clear that it's managers and workers throughout this entire section, as Mr. Pratt suggested earlier, and instead of us trying to wordsmith every word on this, obviously they heard us and it's not clear, so let them fix it?

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, I think so.

MR. HAWKINS: I do think that's right.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. I mean, in the end, I think that's where we're coming to. We're talking about managers and workers.

MR. HAWKINS: We've only got two pages that we have to do this with, right? There's only two pages for this section?

MR. STAFFORD: On this, right. On this section, right.

MR. HAWKINS: And it does look like that managers and workers in almost every case would be

the term.

MR. STAFFORD: Would be --

MR. HAWKINS: Would be the term.


MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater. You'll have to go back and change the introduction, as well, this page 4, where it says Education and Training. This all just refers to workers.


MR. HAWKINS: Yeah, the very first page.

MS. DePRATER: Right here.

MR. PRATT: The breakout sheet.

MR. STRIBLING: The breakout.



MR. CANNON: All the way up front.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. All right. So, I mean, I think let's move on, but I think that's generally what we're talking about for our document. I don't know about other industries, but we're talking about managers, people with management responsibility, and workers.

MR. HAWKINS: And we make statements like, "Emphasize the program can only work when everyone," that's kind of workers and management.

MR. STAFFORD: And managers.

MR. HAWKINS: That's everybody. Right.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. Or we clarify that. Instead of saying everyone, we say managers and workers, depending on how it goes, right?

MR. HAWKINS: We can make that general recommendation for this section.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, we'll do that. Thank you.


MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, do you want to move on to Program Evaluation and Improvement? All right. For those of you who had looked at this, any issues with what's in here now that OSHA has done on Program Evaluation and Improvement for construction?


MS. DePRATER: I think it was fine.

MR. STAFFORD: Any issues? It all looks like it applies to construction to me, at least the intro part. Everybody okay?

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh.

MR. STAFFORD: "Action Item 1, Monitor Performance and Progress. Define appropriate metrics and indicators to measure performance. Establish and follow procedures to collect, analyze, and review performance data."

So, how would you do that? I'm in a pickup truck with my brother and one helper, and I'm going to define appropriate metrics. What does that mean to me?

MR. HAWKINS: That's that new, weird tape measure.



MR. BETHANCOURT: I mean, should we just say methods maybe, is that -- "define appropriate methods?"

MR. HAWKINS: Well, a method and a metric are two different things.

MR. BETHANCOURT: I understand.

MR. HAWKINS: A method is how and the metric is, you know, identifying what you're going to measure, I think. I don't --

MR. STAFFORD: No. I think that's right. I mean --

MR. HAWKINS: Kilometers. I know that.

MR. STAFFORD: So, again, I mean, that's

a --

MR. HAWKINS: But we've got that same issue with this whole document --


MR. HAWKINS: -- in a lot of places. So, you could throw a layman's definition in parentheses.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Well, that's what I'm saying. We need to say something. What is a metric?

MR. CANNON: Desired outcomes, I mean.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Google it and figure out what it says.

MR. MARRERO: Can you put that in the document, Google it?

MR. BETHANCOURT: As long as it's in quotes with a little R on it or TM or something like that, I think we're allowed.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So what do you want to do about this? I mean, are you okay with it? I know we're --

MR. BETHANCOURT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we should go with the suggestion that Steve had that we maybe even explain that, somehow in a footnote. We're using a word that two guys in a pickup truck are going to go, like truly?

MR. HAWKINS: But you know what? We've got to back up though. We've already said that our goal here is not to dumb, not to --

MR. STAFFORD: No. That's not a good term, but we're not trying to make this for --

MR. HAWKINS: We're not trying to take this to the pickup truck and two guys.

MR. BETHANCOURT: But if we provide a definition, are we not helping them as they move forward?

MR. HAWKINS: We can help them, but we're not trying to take this to that level, because if we are then we have to go back and start over. We don't want to do that, do we?

MR. STAFFORD: No. No, we're not. I mean, even for large contractors, I mean, these are great words.


MR. STAFFORD: And, you know, we've done research projects on metrics and measures, and in the end, you're trying to develop measures to measure the measures, right, and it gets very, very confusing.

And I'm not even sure for large contractors that we start out with this action item, saying, "Define appropriate metrics and indicators to measure performance is very valuable." Yes, Chuck?

MR. STRIBLING: Could we just say "define appropriate indicators?" Because all the rest of this is going to get into a bunch of different lagging and leading. Just leave out the term metrics.

MR. STAFFORD: I think that's a good suggestion, or just leave it out altogether, and just start with the -- Jeremy and Jerry?


MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Because I'm having a hard time already, and two conversations are not helpful to me right now.

I mean, why don't we just say, "Establish and follow procedures to collect, analyze, and review performance data," and forget the measure of the measure indicators.

MR. PRATT: Yeah. I like that.

MR. HAWKINS: Are you still up in the introduction part? That's the first place that metrics is -- it's used up there in the introduction too. "Establish, report and track metrics and indicate whether the program is effective." You could just say "evaluate" to determine if the --

MR. STAFFORD: "Program evaluation means that you establish important track metrics that indicate whether the program is effective." And so, what are you suggesting, Steve?

MR. HAWKINS: I'm for getting rid of the words "program evaluation improvement means." Strike that. Strike the next bullet, and make the second bullet just another paragraph to what's already there. "Evaluate the overall program initially and periodically, to identify efficiencies and opportunities for improvement."

MR. STAFFORD: And that would be a part of the intro, and not a bullet?


MR. STAFFORD: Everybody okay with that?


MS. DePRATER: I like it.


MS. LAWLESS: Steve, one more time, please.

MR. HAWKINS: Strike "program evaluation improvement means that you colon." Strike that. Strike the next bullet. And then you don't ever want to have one bullet, so just make that bullet the second paragraph. Unless you're Barney Fife, right? He just has one.

MS. LAWLESS: So, the second paragraph should start, "Evaluate overall program?"


MS. LAWLESS: Got it. Thank you.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. And then, "Action Item 1, Monitor performance and progress." You just want to delete that first sentence?


MR. STAFFORD: And we're going to start it with saying, "Establish and follow procedures to collect, analyze, and review performance data."


MR. HAWKINS: That's probably better, yeah. I think it is.

MR. STAFFORD: Everybody okay with that?

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

MR. STAFFORD: "Progress or performance indicators should include both leading and lagging indicators. Lagging indicators generally track worker exposures and injuries that have already occurred. Leading indicators reflect the potential for injuries and illness that have not yet occurred.


MR. HAWKINS: I'm not sure that's true.

MR. CANNON: Right. That's not.

MR. HAWKINS: I'm not sure that's a definition of a leading indicator.

MR. CANNON: No. Well, I think it can go both ways.

MR. HAWKINS: I mean, it could be.

MS. DePRATER: Well, the leading --

MR. CANNON: The leading indicator can show what's been done and what's not been done.

MR. HAWKINS: What do you and Don and -- what do you all use?

MS. DePRATER: I'll start.

MR. HAWKINS: What do you use for a leading indicator?

MS. DePRATER: So, Cindy DePrater, employer representative. So we track two types of leading indicators, both passive and active. So, how well you write the scope of a contract, and tie that to a risk mitigation plan can be a passive leading indicator. How well you staff your job for safety can be a passive leading indicator.

An active leading indicator for us can be something like how often you audit your project to identify hazards, and then mitigate those hazards.

MR. HAWKINS: That's what I thought.


MS. DePRATER: So, those are the types.

MR. HAWKINS: What percentage of your toolbox talks are you doing?

MS. DePRATER: Correct.

MR. HAWKINS: Are you doing 100 percent every week?

MS. DePRATER: Correct.

MR. HAWKINS: Training.

MS. DePRATER: How many quality JHAs and pretask plans do you see on a daily basis? Not just how many are done, but what's the quality of them, can be a leading indicator. So, you're trying to improve your own percent improvement over baseline.

How many people are wearing safety glasses that day can be an indicator. They don't have to be so finite that you can't get your arms around them. So, you start at 25 percent of the people wearing glasses. Okay. I'm going to --

MR. HAWKINS: So, PPE compliance.

MS. DePRATER: PPE compliance can be an actual leading indicator of your culture. There are lots of them.

MR. STAFFORD: So, what do you want to do here?

MR. HAWKINS: This is pretty arcane for this document.

MR. STAFFORD: I think so. It's not very helpful.

MS. DePRATER: I think it's important, though, that they recognize that there are other ways to measure besides your --


MS. DePRATER: -- lagging indicators that have already happened. The cake is baked. It's done.

MR. HAWKINS: I will tell you. I will submit this. If we think that, and I do, you better put some examples in this document about what the heck you're talking about, if you're going to talk about leading indicators to a person who might have 10 employees, and they're an excavation contractor. They're not going to know what that is.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. And it's all the things that we've talked about. In my mind, the leading indicator are things that --

MR. HAWKINS: Things that we do.

MR. STRIBLING: We do, yeah. Keep reading.

MR. HAWKINS: All right. Thank you.

MR. STAFFORD: We do what?

MR. STRIBLING: There are examples of leading indicators.

MS. DePRATER: Oh. How's that?

MR. HAWKINS: Read on. Read on, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

MR. STRIBLING: But, Mr. Chair?

MR. STAFFORD: Yes, Chuck?

MR. STRIBLING: It sounds to me what we don't like is that definition of leading indicator.

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. STAFFORD: I don't like it, but --

MR. STRIBLING: Right. I would agree with you. So, unless we have another to offer, then maybe we could suggest to the Agency to come up with something better.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. Maybe we could put that on the tickler and come back and address that at the end, because I do think that the leading indicators need a better definition.

MS. DePRATER: Something with the word proactive.

MR. HAWKINS: If we hold that until after we work our way through the --

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. I'm just saying that'll be on the tickler list in the end, because I do believe that.

All right. "Develop and track measures or indicators of progress toward established safety and health goals. Tracking lagging indicators, such as." Those are good examples. "In addition, tracking leading indicators, such as." Those all seem fine.

MR. HAWKINS: The first one does.

MR. STAFFORD: "Number of hazards and close calls reported, number and frequency of management walk throughs." These are things that you just said, right, Cindy, in this case?

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh.

MR. STAFFORD: "Number of hazards identified during inspections, number of workers who have completed required safety and health training." How about "managers and workers who have completed required safety and health training?"

MR. HAWKINS: Yeah. Yes.

MR. STAFFORD: "Number of days needed to take corrective action after a workplace hazard is identified or an incident occurs."

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh.

MR. STAFFORD: That's a good one. "Conformance to plan preventive maintenance schedules. Conformance to plan preventive maintenance schedules."

MR. HAWKINS: That's a pretty good one actually --

MS. DePRATER: It is.

MR. HAWKINS: -- even for like aerial lifts.

MS. DePRATER: Oh, sure.

MR. HAWKINS: Are you doing your PMs on your equipment like you're supposed to, brakes, all those safety devices, broken glass, you know, your crane inspections.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. How about the next one, "Worker opinion about program effectiveness?"

MS. DePRATER: Absolutely.

MR. STAFFORD: Again, how about, "Manager and worker opinions about program effectiveness?"

MR. HAWKINS: You have to do a culture assessment for that one.

MR. STAFFORD: Keep track of monitoring activities and results and analyze trends over time.


MR. HAWKINS: And then share the results for all your workers.


MR. HAWKINS: Next page?


MS. DePRATER: So, the note -- this is Cindy DePrater. I would take that note again and move it up in this section, because it does speak a little bit to the leading indicators. They can either be qualitative or quantitative.

MR. HAWKINS: Move the note to the introductory paragraph for Action Item 1 at the end.

MS. DePRATER: Right. And then I would change, and I'll just throw this out and we can wordsmith it. I would change that leading indicator sentence to say "leading indicators are proactive and can measure the successful implementation and impact of the developed program."

MR. HAWKINS: Of the program.

MR. STAFFORD: What are you reading, Cindy?

MS. DePRATER: Okay. Under Action Item 1, second paragraph, last sentence, where it says, "Leading indicators reflect the potential." We didn't like that. It's on page 21. "Leading indicators reflect the potential for injuries and illnesses that have not yet occurred."


MS. DePRATER: Okay. I suggest changing that to "leading indicators are proactive and can measure the successful implementation and impact of the developed program," and then you all can tear that up.


MS. LAWLESS: The successful implementation and?

MS. DePRATER: Successful implementation and impact --

MS. LAWLESS: Thank you.

MS. DePRATER: -- of the developed program, and then move the note up right under that.

MR. STAFFORD: Is everybody okay with that? No problems with that?

(No response.)

MS. DePRATER: You can see it up on the screen if you want to.


MS. DePRATER: You are taking out "Reflect the potential for injuries and illnesses that have not yet occurred, right? " Take that portion out. No, no, no. Leave that.

MS. LAWLESS: Oh, you want that in?

MS. DePRATER: Leave that in.

MS. LAWLESS: You want the first one in?

MS. DePRATER: Yeah. Leave in, "Progress or performance indicators should include both leading and lagging indicators. Lagging indicators generally track worker exposures and injuries that have already occurred."

MS. LAWLESS: Leading indicators are proactive --

MS. DePRATER: Correct.

MS. LAWLESS: -- and can measure the successful implementation and impact on the Safety and Health Program.

MS. DePRATER: Correct. And then, the note comes up right under that.

MR. STAFFORD: You said the success of the Safety and Health Program, right?

MS. DePRATER: That's what you're trying to do is see how well --


MS. DePRATER: -- it's being --


MS. DePRATER: Are the controls you put in place actually working. There we go.

MR. STAFFORD: So, everyone is okay with that?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Don't forget the success before S&H Program.

MS. DePRATER: Successful.

MS. LAWLESS: I have measure the successful implementation and impact of the Safety and Health Program.

MS. DePRATER: That's it.

MS. LAWLESS: Am I correct on that?

MS. DePRATER: You are correct.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Yeah.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Thank you, Cindy. Everybody okay with that?

(No response.)

MR. STAFFORD: Are we ready to move on, then?

MS. DePRATER: We are.

MR. STAFFORD: Do you want to tackle Coordination and Communication in Multiemployer Worksites before lunch?

MS. DePRATER: Were we okay with Action 2 and Action 3.

MR. HAWKINS: Were we doing to do Action 2 and Action 3?

MS. DePRATER: Page 22.

MR. HAWKINS: Let's tackle those two.

MS. DePRATER: We can tackle that before lunch.


MS. DePRATER: Verify the programs implementing and operating.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, what do you think about that? "At least once a year, evaluate the entire program to ensure that it operates as intended, controls identified" --

MS. DePRATER: I think I might change that to say beyond periodic monitoring of your program at least once a year.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Then you're telling them that they should be doing it more than once a year.

MR. STAFFORD: See, in my mind this is where it comes back to these guidelines from 26 years ago. This is a general industry setting, right? mean, we should be in construction or evaluating our program every time we implement it on a new construction site. It's not once a year.

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. BETHANCOURT: It happens so fast you have to.

MR. HAWKINS: I see your point, yeah.

MR. BETHANCOURT: From one project to the next, see what to do.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. Chuck and then Tom.

MR. STAFFORD: So could we just strike at least once a year and start with the word evaluate, or do you want to --

MR. STAFFORD: Or do you say continuously? I mean, I don't know if you want to go down that road, but if you're any contractor, large or small, if you have 10 different projects going on, you're always assessing where it is, right? I mean, you're not doing it --

MS. DePRATER: Continually evaluate the program from project to project to ensure.

MR. STAFFORD: Yes? Tom and then, Jerry, were you next or Jeremy? Tom, go ahead.

MR. MARRERO: Tom Marrero, employer rep. I was going to say, "Regularly evaluate the entire program." I think that would encompass whenever the need to evaluate would ever come.

MR. STAFFORD: So as opposed to continuously, regularly? I mean, it's --

MR. MARRERO: Continuously or at

least -- yeah.

MR. STAFFORD: So, what do you think about that, though? I mean, how do you evaluate how your program is working when you have 10 projects going on simultaneously? It's working in one job and it's not working on the other. So what kind of guidance are we trying to provide employers in that situation? Yes, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I heard someone say something similar to frequently. Regular would be if I do it every five years I'm going to do it every five years. That's regular intervals. That may not be often enough.

So, if we need something more frequently than once a year, then maybe frequently is the right word, or maybe this is an OSHA policy and that's why it's in here at least once a year. But I've heard different thoughts, but I think regularly would not mean frequently or more often than once a year, necessarily.

MR. STAFFORD: So, you don't like regularly because that can imply it's a longer period of time, and so frequently, continuously. So, again, answer my question. If I'm a contractor and I have 20 jobs, 18 are going really well, and two are going bad, what do you do to evaluate the bad?

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater, employer representative. So, what we do is we have one -- I'll start there. We have one corporate program. That does get evaluated once a year for new programs, such as silica or confined space.

During the year, if those come along, those are incorporated by reference, and then that goes out to every project, but you have projects that are continually running and unless it's a mandate they were established under this program that was written a year ago, so they're bound by contract, and so are the subcontractors to that contract.

So, if you have 20 of them running under this program, they take the corporate program, they enhance it to be project specific, owner specific, and then every single project has their own corporate hybrid program that is specific to their job.

So, in answer to your question, you have 10 of them working. You'd have to go back to those one or two projects and individually look at that program, which is very specific to that project, and find out what's not working or what was left out or what was bypassed.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So is that something that we would need to consider for construction in some kind of guidance document such as this on how we go about doing that? I mean, you know, my experience, and I'll get to you in a minute, Palmer. You can put your hand down. I know that you're in line here.

We have an organizational safety culture. Every jobsite has a specific safety climate, and in my mind, to do an evaluation and assessment of your program is somehow whatever the frequency is --

MS. DePRATER: The standard.

MR. STAFFORD: -- is understanding the assessment, so that you have your organizational safety culture carries down to the safety climate on each individual construction job. And so if you think about it in that way, how often do you need to assess what's happening on a specific construction site that your program is operating effectively?

And if it's wrong, I mean, how long does it take you to get to a point if you have 20 jobs, 18 are going well, two are not going very well at all, and we see that all the time in my organization. We get requests from large contractors that have a particular job or two that they're having issues with and they want a third party to come in and have a look-see.

And it's not very uncommon, but what would we do in terms of a guidance for any size employer, if you have a lot of jobs, some are good and some are bad? What's the guidance? How do you fix the bad? How do you do that?

MS. DePRATER: The guidance for us is to evaluate the program and the culture, because it's going to be one of those two.

So there's three areas you look at typically. It's the capabilities of the workers, how trained and educated are they; it's the environment, are the handrails up, the guardrails up, the floor holes covered; and the behavior of the workers, what is the attitude and the culture being set. Those are the three areas that we would look at on any project to find out what's wrong, because it's not usually just one thing.

MR. STAFFORD: But as opposed to the behaviors of management?

MS. DePRATER: Everyone.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Yeah, Palmer and then Jeremy?

MR. HICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to try to attempt to answer the question that you asked, and it says at least once a year evaluate the entire program.

Certainly, to your point, we would want to look at components of the program -- hazard identification, compliance, what have you -- on a frequent and regular basis as required by the OSHA standard, but the whole entire program, it's really an audit I think of the program and that seems to be consistent with most on at least an annual basis.

You could certainly do it every day. That would be at least on an annual basis. But it puts a no longer than a year, so it could be weekly. It could be monthly. It could be quarterly. But the entire program, that's what this is addressing. So, I don't disagree the components of it. The components of your program certainly need to be probably almost on an hourly basis if not minute-by-minute,

project-by-project, what have you, so --

MR. STAFFORD: In my mind, this is critical, because I think when we look at evaluation this is what separates construction from these other industries. We're not on a shop floor here. We don't have one written program that's in place, you know, for a thousand people on an assembly line. We have one written program.

And I'm not sure what the value is evaluating your written program because the bottom line is how the written program is implemented on each of your construction sites. In my mind, that's a large distinction that really separates construction out, because it's not, as Mr. Mott said yesterday, we have a nice bounded, three-ring binder with all this great stuff in our program that no one sees. The evaluation is how is it working on each one of your sites.

MS. DePRATER: So, why couldn't we enhance it to say, you know, if it is at least once a year you should evaluate your program, but maybe there's a second sentence to this that on a frequent and regular basis you should also evaluate whatever the day-to-day activities, metric results, issues and concerns.

MR. HICKMAN: Did you say metric results?

MS. DePRATER: I did. I know.

MR. HICKMAN: We're scrubbing that word.

MR. STAFFORD: What is it?

MR. HICKMAN: Metric results.

MS. DePRATER: Bad habit.

MR. HICKMAN: I'm just kidding.

MR. STAFFORD: So, maybe it's not the entire program, because, again, in my mind, that's what you have in writing. It's the evaluation, perhaps. The distinction is the implementation of the program on each of your sites. I don't know. I don't want to make this more complicated than it already is, but

I --

MS. DePRATER: No. I think you're on the right track.

MR. STAFFORD: I really think this is the difference, and I think this is where the guideline was written again for general industry, a manufacturing plan as opposed to construction sites. Yes, Chuck?

MR. STRIBLING: Would it be you're evaluating the effectiveness of your program? Implementation and effectiveness?

MR. STAFFORD: Effectiveness? Yeah, I think that would help. I think that helps get us in the right direction.

MR. HICKMAN: On an ongoing basis.

MS. DePRATER: There you go.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Ongoing, continuously, whatever the right words are.

MR. HICKMAN: "Evaluate the entire program on an ongoing basis."

MS. DePRATER: "On an ongoing basis." That's good. Yeah.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, I would go back to Action Item Number 2 and say we're going to strike at least once a year, and help me on this. We're going to evaluate --

MS. DePRATER: The entire program.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Continually evaluate.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. We're going to --

MS. DePRATER: On an ongoing basis is what he just said.

MR. MARRERO: Looking for somewhere else

to --

MR. STAFFORD: "We're going to continuously evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the program on each of your construction projects."


MR. BETHANCOURT: Because we're looking for proactive, right?

MS. DePRATER: We are, but also keeping your program updated to OSHA standards too is important.


MR. MARRERO: Tom Marrero, employer rep. I think we should also include something in there, "as jobsite conditions change," too, especially in the construction industry every minute changes on a jobsite. I think it's imperative that we include something along those lines.

MS. DePRATER: Would that go in the "How To Accomplish It"?

MR. HICKMAN: That seems to be covered in Action Item 3, bullet point three. That's a great point that Tom makes.

MR. STAFFORD: All right.

MS. DePRATER: Okay. So, the way she's got it worded up there, it says, "Continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the entire program on an ongoing basis to ensure that it operates as intended, controls identified hazards effectiveness and drives progress towards established safety and health goals and objectives."

MS. LAWLESS: Mr. Chairman, is that what you wanted in 3?

MR. STAFFORD: I'm not sure what I want at this point, Jennifer. Yeah, Palmer? Go ahead.

MR. HICKMAN: All right. Under Action Item 3 there's a note. If we move that up front more forward maybe into Action Item 2, that seems to be addressing many concerns here.

"Scope and Frequency of the Program evaluations will vary depending on the scope, complexity and maturity of the program and types of hazard it must control." So, that seems to speak to the maybe more often than once a year that may be needed to be more than just a note.

MR. HAWKINS: So, move the note from

Number 3 --


MR. HAWKINS: -- to Number 2 --


MR. STAFFORD: To Number 2.

MR. HAWKINS: -- after the introductory paragraph for Number 2.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. Sounds good.

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater, employer

rep. I would also -- we were discussing this over here -- add something about OSHA standards that change. You don't want them to miss that during the year.

So, "The scope and frequency of program evaluations will vary depending on the scope, complexity, OSHA programs, OSHA specific programs and maturity of the program" -- I would just add it somewhere in there -- "and on the types of hazards it must control."

MR. STAFFORD: Any other questions or comments on this section?

(No response.)

MR. STAFFORD: I still, personally, think we're missing it here --


MR. STAFFORD: -- and I'm kind of at this point at the end of trying to sort it out, because I really do. I mean, I think when you evaluate your program and perceptions, that it's really driven by what's happening on individual construction sites, versus what's happening in the written program. We've seen that time and time again.

MS. LAWLESS: Mr. Chairman, does that look like what you're wanting to have stated there for --

MR. STAFFORD: Jennifer, if I could see that I would tell you. You guys can -- yes, Jeremy?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman, Jeremy Bethancourt. I think one of the things that we are missing is the specific about it being on construction sites.


MR. BETHANCOURT: And that has not been addressed, and the change is that we wanted to address it on construction sites, because that's I think what your point is is that's where the changes are happening, not in our overall program.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, let's just

go --

MR. BETHANCOURT: As applied. Okay. So, "Continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the entire program as applied on the construction sites on an ongoing basis," or something like that.

MS. DePRATER: I think it's two things. I think it's the program, and then how it's effectively running on the construction site.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Maybe it needs two bullets.

MR. MARRERO: So then, do we add the entire program and site specific program?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Maybe that's the answer.

MS. DePRATER: "Evaluate your entire program and your site specific programs?"

MR. MARRERO: And your site specific program.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, Palmer? Yeah. I think that might be helpful, Tom. Yes, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what we are concerned with here in the overall Program section is probably either at least mentioned, if not addressed, in the Hazard Identification and Assessment section, so that's more of the ongoing, and that's how it starts at least in the existing document on page 11. "A proactive ongoing process to identify and assess hazards in order to fix them is a core element."

So that seems to be the day-to-day,

minute-to-minute things change. I know we've adapted this somewhat, based on your recommendations there, but I think it might be already addressed in a different section. What your concerns are are certainly very valid, but this is a different section and it's almost the overall program as opposed to the different section on Hazard Identification and Assessment.

So, if it's not already addressed certainly we need to address it, but again maybe we have at least that concept of what changes on a day-to-day basis might be covered in the Hazard Identification and Assessment portion of the program that we've already gotten past. Just a thought.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Appreciate that. Yes, Chuck?

MR. STRIBLING: So, if I understand what you're saying -- I just want to make sure I get your point right -- you're saying it's evaluating the site. It's evaluating the program at the site.


MR. STRIBLING: Not the overall program.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. That's what I'm saying, because --

MR. STRIBLING: Well, let's just say that. Let's just change this to say that.

MR. STAFFORD: But you may not agree with it.

MR. STRIBLING: I agree. I agree.

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater, employer rep. Chuck, let me just make sure I'm clear. This whole section is talking about program evaluation, right? So, are you saying strike from this action item the verification of the program itself?



MR. STRIBLING: We can keep the overall program --


MR. STRIBLING: -- as a component that needs to be evaluated --

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. STRIBLING: -- on whatever basis we say, but maybe we need to add language --


MR. STRIBLING: -- that speaks about evaluating the program --


MR. STRIBLING: -- at the site.


MR. STAFFORD: All right.

MS. DePRATER: Thank you.

MR. STAFFORD: So, let's go back to the parallel document. And I don't know if this is going to help or hurt. So, here's what I say. "The best way to see if your program is working is to ask your workers." I should have said on the jobsite.

MS. DePRATER: At the site level. The best way.

MR. STAFFORD: "If they are identifying hazards, fixing them before someone gets hurt, raising safety issues regularly and easily, or acting to stop the job if there is a dangerous situation, then you have an effective program."

That may be oversimplification, but that was my attempt to say on the job if all these things are happening, your program is probably pretty good. You have policies in place. You have written programs. Your workers are empowered to report hazards, and management is doing something about it.

MR. HAWKINS: Certainly the converse is true. If you don't have these things, you do not have an effective program.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. Whatever you do, no matter what the pretty, little book looks like in your office on your shelf.

MR. HAWKINS: And who all signs it.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. So, "How to accomplish it. You can create a short, anonymous survey." There's plenty of surveys that we can put into an appendix if employers, you know, want guidance, "where they can give you an honest picture of what is happening. You may be surprised what they say, but it's definitely the best measure of success. Where problems are identified, ask workers for help in solving them and coming up with better, safer approaches and procedures."

I guess my point is here, because we've seen this. I mean, it's going back now, but when we were involved in doing the assessment out at the Sidney Center project, where we had eight construction fatalities over a 15 month period on that jobsite and did the perception survey, if you were to talk to senior management of that employer, they would say that, "We have a great program and we have tremendous culture and everything is terrific."

But as you go down the line of the chain of command to general foreman, foreman and ultimately to the workers, the workers' foreman had significant perceptions of what was happening on that job that was different than senior management, and you could never get there if you were just looking at what the elements of what was written in a program. You could only get there by looking what was happening on that specific construction site.

MR. HAWKINS: Right. That's the climate question to those people.


MS. DePRATER: This is Cindy DePrater again. If we were to leave Option 2 as to verify the overall program is working, take this one as another action item to verify the site program is working, would that make sense?

That way you're not mixing the two. You're saying the two steps are evaluate the overall program regularly on an ongoing basis. Then you have to evaluate your site level programs for their effectiveness, as well. That's still part of your program evaluation.

So, I'm suggesting we add the site level piece as a separate action item. So, you're going to verify the program, your overall program, is implemented and operating, and then you're going to verify your site level is operating. It's two steps. It really is.

MR. STAFFORD: I know. Uh-huh.

MS. DePRATER: Just a suggestion.

MR. STAFFORD: I'm really looking at the employers here. I mean, these are your programs, right, Kevin? Speak up. Come on.

MS. DePRATER: This is what we would do.

MR. STAFFORD: We need to understand what's going on, and what you're thinking about this. I mean, these are Safety and Health Programs that management is developing that are going to involve workers in the process, and let's figure out how we're going to evaluate whether it's working.

You could, I guess, survey managers, and ask them if their own program is working. You can survey front-line supervisors, and ask them, or you can survey the workers. In my mind, as an employee representative, I think the best way to understand or evaluate whether your program is effective is talking to the guys on the deck.

MS. DePRATER: And that's where this gets to.


MR. BETHANCOURT: Pete, Jeremy Bethancourt. You know, one of the things that we did is we actually did a survey of everybody and showed them where the gap is, and what the management thinks, versus what the employees thought, and it opened up some eyes as to what was really going on, when workers thought one thing that was different from what the management thought.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. Okay.

MR. BETHANCOURT: So, providing some sort of guidance like that might be helpful if we let them know, you know, your perception is not necessarily going to be what the guys in the field are seeing, as far as safety management.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. I mean, we've all been there. If you've worked in construction, you have senior management saying one thing, and your foreman says --


MR. STAFFORD: -- "Forget that. This is what we're doing here today on my crew."


MR. STAFFORD: I mean, you know, that's --

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's exactly right.

MR. STAFFORD: -- what we're dealing with, and that's the difference in perception. So, when you're looking at a management program, and it's going through or back to our discussion who's a manager and a worker, it has to flow down.

And so how do you assess that it's really doing that, is the question in my mind. How do you evaluate that's happening? And you could look at overall written programs, Cindy, and I think that maybe we should, but, again, you know, I would almost even throw out that evaluation of what your corporate written program is, and go directly to what is happening on each of your construction projects.

MS. DePRATER: Say that again.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Well, I like his survey. I like your survey suggestion, Pete.

MR. STAFFORD: I mean, so you have a written program, and it says all the right things, but if it's not implemented -- the true evaluation in my mind is how it's implemented on the jobsite. And so, to go back and look to see what your program says about

PPE --

MR. BETHANCOURT: It doesn't matter.

MR. STAFFORD: -- I mean, while it might be important, and may be updated, the bottom line is what's happening on PPE is really only matters is what's happening on the jobsite, if you go through the hierarchy controls, and your program says you start with engineering controls all the way down to PPE, right?

MS. DePRATER: You have to start --

MR. STAFFORD: But on your jobsite, you're not doing anything about engineering controls. You're just handing out PPE.

MS. DePRATER: And that's the Action Item 3, which was the correction of the deficiencies and identifying opportunities to prove. You have to start with a baseline. If you don't have that foundation set to at least a 75 or 80 percent standard, they don't have anything to start with, and if you're not evaluating that properly, you're just throwing junk at them.

So, you have to have a foundation. You have to build from that foundation, and then you have to identify and correct, which is Action Item Number 3. I still think it's 3. It's two steps. Verify your overall program is effective just by the written word, and the way you've placed your rules, and then you can go measure those rules.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Fair enough. Yeah, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: Thank you. To get us to move on, because I think these concepts do need to be incorporated, I hear the entire program probably is problematic, so I was going to say "all components," but to be consistent with the page 4 categorization, it says "core elements," so perhaps we can say either on an ongoing --

MR. STAFFORD: Page 4. Where are you, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: On page 4.

MR. STAFFORD: I'm on page 22.

MR. HICKMAN: I understand that. So, we don't want to wait for an annual evaluation of the entire program, so I am suggesting that we evaluate the core elements on an ongoing basis. That incorporates we're looking at each component of it, not just the entire thing, only on an annual basis. We're looking at all components continuously.


MR. HICKMAN: I think that's what I'm hearing that we want to do. I'm trying to use terminology that's already in the document. On page 4, when we talk about all the components, they call them core elements. I would have called it all components, but I'm trying to be consistent with terminology, unless we changed it from core elements on page 4, where we give this overview of each component of the program. So, we want to continuously monitor all aspects of the program.

MS. DePRATER: I like that.


MS. DePRATER: All aspects.

MR. HICKMAN: That's what I'm hearing the direction we're trying to go. Pete, does that meet your intent?

MR. CANNON: But I think what Pete is saying, how do you monitor --

MR. STAFFORD: I just don't know how you do that. I mean, unless you're actually implementing the program on your project, how do you evaluate whether your written program is working?

MS. DePRATER: I think that's part of how do you accomplish that. That's within these bullets, and we can add to them if they're not all there.

MR. HICKMAN: That's the how to accomplish it.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Well, let's do it, "How to accomplish it."

MR. HICKMAN: And I think you have some great bullet points there that will get us there in your supplemental document. So we're going from --

MR. BETHANCOURT: You just do it.

MR. HICKMAN: -- monitoring all at least once a year to monitor everything continuously.

MS. DePRATER: All aspects.

MR. HICKMAN: And then how to accomplish it. We have some things that are already there. You have some things to add. I think we're all set. At least I'm hearing that's going to address the concerns here, which I think are valid.


MR. MARRERO: But I think in addition, we should put a bullet point that says, you know, ensure the effectiveness of a site program, as well, just to make sure that we got that covered, and maybe add some sub-bullet points to that.

MR. HICKMAN: And to that point,

Tom -- Palmer Hickman -- if we move that note, maybe that note could be tweaked a little bit to explain what we mean.


MR. HICKMAN: The program, maybe it's all components of the program or all whatever we call it, elements, core elements.

MR. STAFFORD: Maybe we're getting

cross-wise here, you know, in dealing with a -- maybe we make the distinction between what your overall corporate Safety and Health Program is to your site specific plan --

MR. BETHANCOURT: There you go.


MR. STAFFORD: -- and somehow we break out these action items in that way. Yeah, Chuck?

MR. STRIBLING: Maybe in this section, as Mr. Hickman suggested, we expand that note to speak directly about the importance of implementation onsite, to drive home the point you've made that we add language to this that emphasizes that this is more than just reviewing a piece of paper. I mean, this is for the construction industry, so this might be an opportunity to come up with something that's not in here to drive that home.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. Okay. So then, let's go just real quickly, so that we can take a break here for lunch and just get through the Program Evaluation, so we can come back and deal with Multiemployer Sites right after lunch. So, we have language, I think, under Action Item 2 that's been modified. I can't see it. Could you read it to me?

MS. QUINTERO: "Action Item 2, Verify the program at each jobsite." You said something at each jobsite. "Verify the program is implemented and is operating." I don't know if we want to add, you know.

MS. DePRATER: I think "at each jobsite" comes out.

MS. QUINTERO: Got it. Okay. "Continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the entire program, and your site-specific programs on an ongoing basis to ensure that it operates as intended, controls identified hazards effectively, and drive progress towards established safety and health goals and objectives."

MR. STAFFORD: I think, Cindy, that's exactly what you said.

MS. DePRATER: That is.

MR. STAFFORD: So we're, everyone, okay with that.



MS. QUINTERO: We're going to add another paragraph. That is the one for the note that was on the bottom. We put it on the introduction. "The scope and frequency of program evaluation will vary depending on the changes in OSHA standards on the scope, complexity and the maturity of the program and on the types of hazards it must control."


MS. DePRATER: I would take out "on the" because it is changes in the OSHA standards, scope --

MS. QUINTERO: Perfect.

MS. DePRATER: -- complexity. There.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Okay. So then, "How to accomplish it."


MS. DePRATER: Oh, my God.

MR. STAFFORD: Yes? I'm sorry, Chuck.

MR. STRIBLING: Is this where before we get into how to accomplish it, we want to have a paragraph or something that addresses the concept, what you've been talking about, of it's what's happening at the site?


MR. BETHANCOURT: Well, isn't that what we talk about in how to accomplish --

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. I don't know if we should put that in a paragraph, or it becomes a bullet.

MS. DePRATER: I think it's a bullet.

MR. STAFFORD: A bulleted item on how we reconcile that.


MS. DePRATER: It's a bullet.

MR. BETHANCOURT: It's a bullet.

MS. DePRATER: It's a bullet.

MR. STAFFORD: So, "How to accomplish it. Verify that the program's core elements have been fully and effectively implemented on each of your jobsites."



MR. STAFFORD: "Verify that the following key processes are in place and operating as intended. Reporting injuries, illnesses." Okay. That's fine. "Conducting workplace inspections." That's fine. "Tracking progress and controlling identified hazards to ensure that hazard control measures remain effective." I think that's okay. "Collecting and reporting the data needed to monitor progress and performance."

MS. DePRATER: And then, I would --

MR. STAFFORD: So, what is that real quick? What is the data we need to monitor performance? Are we simply talking about injury/illness data? Are

we --

MR. BETHANCOURT: Inspection reports.

MR. STAFFORD: Inspection reports. I guess my point is do we need to say as a guide what kind of data are we talking about, such as?

MR. BETHANCOURT: An example.

MS. DePRATER: Such as.

MR. STAFFORD: So, such as? Throw them out.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Inspection reports.

MR. HAWKINS: Inspection reports.

MR. MARRERO: Training.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Observations. Employee observations.


MR. BETHANCOURT: Those are leading indicators.


MR. STRIBLING: Didn't we just go through that?

MR. STAFFORD: So, inspection results.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Results of inspection.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Employee observations.

MR. STRIBLING: Didn't we just go through that --


MR. STRIBLING: -- talking about under Action Item 1 the lagging and leading indicators?



MR. STRIBLING: So, if I'm reading this book, I'm thinking that's the data we're talking about, what we just addressed.


MR. BETHANCOURT: Can we say, "As in Action Item 1?"



MR. CANNON: Or, "Such as the leading indicators identified in" --

MR. BETHANCOURT: In Action Item 1.

MS. DePRATER: In Action Item 1.

MR. BETHANCOURT: There you go.

MR. STAFFORD: And whatever it is, I mean, I think we just have to tell them what we're talking about when we talk about data collection.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Pete? Mr. Chairman?

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, Jeremy?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Now, it seems to me like, and I don't know if we put it after this, since we've said verify that key processes are in place as intended and then we're going to list that.

I think one of the things that we do need to do and to your point about the climate and the culture on the job is that we do some sort of a survey, and where we would stick that bullet item based on your number, "How to accomplish it," your bullet item, I actually thought that something similar to what you've written should be integrated somewhere, because I don't see anything in here yet that talks about surveying --

MR. CANNON: "Action Item 3, Proactively seek input." I mean, I don't know.

MR. BETHANCOURT: But that's correct deficiencies. I'm not sure if --

MR. CANNON: But that's how you identify the deficiencies.

MR. HICKMAN: Through anonymous surveys. Proactively seek input through anonymous surveys.


MR. BETHANCOURT: In Action Item 3.

MR. STAFFORD: So, we could do it in Action Item 3, and just give an example. "Proactively seek input from managers, workers, supervisors and other stakeholders on how you can improve the program," and then we could say something like, for example, for instance, "you can create a short, anonymous survey," and then reference the attachment where there are instruments that we and other folks have developed to do that, and then give them the guide. How does that sound?

MR. HICKMAN: That's good.

MR. STAFFORD: Is everyone okay with that?


MR. STAFFORD: That's where that would go?

MS. DePRATER: Yep. I'm just making sure she's catching up with us.

MR. STAFFORD: All right.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Oh, are you reading what she's doing as she's doing it?


MR. BETHANCOURT: Good for you.

MR. STAFFORD: Any other changes, then, for the Action Item 3, and how to accomplish it? All that applies? Everybody is okay with that?

MS. LAWLESS: Mr. Chairman, did we capture that as stated? Or, Cindy, since you can see it?

MS. DePRATER: You did. You did.


MS. DePRATER: "Such as leading and lagging indicators as identified in Action Item 1."

MS. LAWLESS: Thank you.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. And then, "Action Item 3, How to accomplish it," and bullet two, "Proactively seek input from managers," et cetera, et cetera,

et cetera. We're going to give a for instance, there and go back to the other document that says, "you can create short, anonymous," blah, blah, blah, and then reference the instruments in the appendix.

MS. LAWLESS: Mr. Chairman, we also have a bullet here from yesterday from Mr. Nigel Ellis that says to insert the following. "One thing may be missing on page 22, Action Item Number 3. Correct program deficiencies and identify opportunities for improvement, seek out relevant public published research to help improve safety methods.: I believe that was by Young & Beschorner. That was his reference. Do you want to incorporate that, as an example?

MR. CANNON: It's specific research.

MR. BETHANCOURT: We have to be careful who we -- we don't look like we're -- what's the right word? Endorsing. Endorsing.

MR. STAFFORD: So, you don't want to do it? Is that what you're saying?

MR. HAWKINS: Not the example.


MR. STAFFORD: Not the example.

MR. BETHANCOURT: I think the Agency tends to be concerned about that.

MR. HAWKINS: We can say published data, but not that specific one.


MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, we'll take out the example, and add the bullet, "Seek out relevant published" --

MS. LAWLESS: "Research to help improve safety methods periods?"




MS. LAWLESS: Got it.

MS. DePRATER: Are we adding the survey to the proactively --



MR. STAFFORD: I think we can just say --

MS. DePRATER: Perfect.

MR. STAFFORD: -- "for instance," or, you know --

MS. DePRATER: Perfect.

MR. STAFFORD: "You can develop, create a short, anonymous survey," blah, blah, blah.

MS. DePRATER: Bullet three, I would take out facilities.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, did you get that, Danezza?

MR. CANNON: So, maybe say --

MR. STAFFORD: So, bullet three under Action Item 3, we're going to determine whether changes in equipment, materials, key personnel or work practices trigger any need for changes for the program, and take out the word facilities.

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh. Yep.

MR. STAFFORD: Any other?

MR. HICKMAN: Are we going to take out "metrics" in the fourth bullet?

MR. STAFFORD: Fourth bullet. "Determine whether the metrics and goals are still relevant, and how you can change them to more effectively drive improvements and workplace safety and health."

MS. DePRATER: Would you just change that to indicators?

MR. HICKMAN: Indicators and goals?

MR. PRATT: What does that mean?

MS. DePRATER: You have to have some sort of metric to gauge yourself against.

MR. STAFFORD: What do you think? I mean, is that --

MS. DePRATER: Objectives? Goals and objectives?

MR. STAFFORD: I mean, when I read that, I mean, as a practical matter, you know, if you're --

MS. DePRATER: It makes perfect sense.

MR. STAFFORD: Where are your goals changing? I mean, at the end of the day, if you're striving for zero hazards, and therefore zero injuries, I mean, determine whether your goals are still relevant.

What does that mean? We're going to shift goals in midstream of a construction project, and we're going to figure out if our new goals are relevant to that jobsite? I'm not sure even what

that -- the words sound good, but I don't know what it means.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Take the bullet out.

MR. STAFFORD: What do you think? I'm just not sure what it does.

MR. BETHANCOURT: On a project, how are we changing our goals if we've planned it out? It's a goal. I sure as heck am not changing my goal.

MS. DePRATER: All of our projects have goals --


MS. DePRATER: -- to meet.


MR. BETHANCOURT: That's it. You don't change them.

MR. STAFFORD: Are you changing them? I guess --


MS. DePRATER: We're not changing them, but we're determining whether they're --

MR. MARRERO: You might be adding to it.

MS. DePRATER: -- effective.

MR. BETHANCOURT: You're never going to get rid of them.

MS. DePRATER: Maybe not relevant, but effective.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Well, if you can come up with some language, Cindy, that you think is better. I just --

MS. DePRATER: "Determine whether the metrics and goals established are effective." Let me work on that one. Let me work on that one. Let me write something down, but I think it's going to be, "Determine whether the goals and metrics -- metrics and goals -- established are being implemented to drive continual improvement in workplace safety and health." I don't know whether I can say that again or not.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. You play with that. I mean, in my mind, I mean, if you're questioning --

MS. DePRATER: "Determine whether the metrics and goals established are implemented --

MR. STAFFORD: Again, as a practical matter what is the goal --

MS. DePRATER: -- to drive improvement in safety and health."

MR. STAFFORD: -- of your program? You don't want anybody hurt on the job, right? Does that goal ever change?

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's the goal. I don't see how it changes.

MS. DePRATER: The goal doesn't change, but how you're implementing it does change, and that's through your control measures, your practices, your procedures and whether they're following it.

So, a great example is a utility line strike. You can have all the processes and procedures in place to identify that line, locate the line, do the potholing, hydro vaccing, everything, and you still hit the line. And every time we go back and look at something like that, it's typically a procedure that was not followed. Somebody missed a step and cut a corner.

MR. STAFFORD: But has your goals changed?

MS. DePRATER: The goal didn't change. I'm not saying the goal. You still have to measure it, though, to determine whether they're effective, your processes and procedures are effective.

MR. CANNON: In meeting your goals.

MS. DePRATER: And again, if you don't like goals, then --

MR. STAFFORD: No. I'm fine.

MS. DePRATER: -- "determine whether your processes and procedures" --

MR. STAFFORD: It's not that at all. I just don't understand where your goals change. You

start --

MS. DePRATER: I'm not saying the goals change.

MR. STAFFORD: It says, "Determine whether the metrics and goals are still relevant and how you could change them to more effectively drive improvements in workplace safety and health." So, how are you changing your goals midstream?

MR. HICKMAN: Let's constructionize that bullet point --

MS. DePRATER: There you go.

MR. HICKMAN: -- because it makes no sense, apparently, in relationship to a construction site.


MR. HICKMAN: If we need to keep it at all.

MS. DePRATER: You still have to measure.

MR. HICKMAN: I guess the question is what do we lose if we delete it from a construction focused document? What do we lose? It seems like the essence of it is captured in the other bullet points there.

MS. DePRATER: The thing I'm keying on is identify opportunities to improve in the heading, and if we're going to improve, we have to measure. So, that's all I'm saying is if you're going to improve, you have to have something to measure your percent improvement over baseline.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. That's fair enough. You work on some language --


MR. STAFFORD: -- Cindy, that you think would be appropriate.

MS. DePRATER: You can lose this whole thing if you want, but there still just has to be one sentence that says make sure that you are measuring the program -- if you want to say it that way,

measure -- because the program is here. "Measure the program for effectiveness to drive improvement." Pretty simple.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Fair enough.

MS. DePRATER: But let me work on it.

MR. STAFFORD: I mean, I think this whole document is about continuous improvement, so I think that's right. Okay. Before we tackle Multiemployer Worksites, why don't we take a lunch --

MR. MARRERO: Mr. Chairman?


MR. MARRERO: I'm sorry. And I know everybody wants to go to lunch. Going back to Action Item Number 2, I think we should add something in there, and I know, Palmer, you stated that it was somewhere in 3 here, in Action Item 3, but I think we need to put something in here that states, "As site conditions change ensure that the core elements are maintained."

That's not necessarily a deficiency. But it's more something that we should be implementing on a continuous basis. And within the construction industry, since there's always conditions changing, I think we should highlight that as a bullet, as a bullet point in here.

MR. STAFFORD: On How to accomplish it? A new bullet under How to accomplish it, under Action Item 2?


MR. STAFFORD: And so read it again, Tom.

MR. MARRERO: "As site conditions change, ensure that the core elements are maintained."

MR. STRIBLING: Question. I get what you're saying, but they change every, single day.

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's why it's continuous.

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. STRIBLING: Every hour. So, it's kind of like you're in a perpetual, just chasing your tail. I get what you're saying, but --


MR. STRIBLING: -- that's construction.

MR. BETHANCOURT: I feel like I'm chasing my tail right now.

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh. Sure.

MR. MARRERO: I'll just throw it out there for food for thought.

MR. BETHANCOURT: It's well taken.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. Okay. All right. Why don't we break until 1:00.

MS. DePRATER: Sounds good.

MR. STAFFORD: That gives us 50 minutes. All right. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the meeting in the above-entitled matter recessed, to reconvene at 1:00 p.m. this same day, Tuesday, April 26, 2016.)


(1:10 p.m.)

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, let's reconvene, please. A little bit behind schedule. All right. Let's move on down to the home stretch here. I know this has been a very, I guess, grueling process, but we're getting close here to the end, at least on the last section dealing with coordination and communication on multiemployer sites, so let's take that up.

So, we have the document itself, the core document. I, in my document, really didn't say a whole lot on this issue. I ran out of time and energy. So, let's just look at the core document. I mean, up front I would say that to distinguish us, the, you know, "Does This Element Apply to Me?" for a construction-specific document, that that be -- I would suggest we delete that altogether.

MR. HAWKINS: Just replace this with a yes?

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. Or we could just say yes. Right. Yeah. All right. Then --

MR. HAWKINS: If you X that out, I think we all agree with that.

MR. STAFFORD: To X out --

MR. HAWKINS: We ought to just take that --

MR. STAFFORD: I think we should just take that out. I mean, this is our, you know -- and I would go ahead and -- if you could just bear with me, I looked at it and the first sentence there, or paragraph of the lead in introduction, I

would -- here's -- I've just tweaked it a little bit.

I said, "At most construction work sites today, workers of more than one employer work alongside or interact which (sic) each other." So that would -- you know, as opposed to, "On many work sites today."

"Typically, some workers are employed by a host employer." You know, that's terminology, I think, that when we were looking this for general industry OSHA was trying to make the distinguish between the host employers versus a temporary agency or temporary workers.

In our case, in construction, if you want to call it the host employer, I think that's fine, versus the general contractor or the construction manager. But if a host employer fits the bill on what it is that we're talking about, I'm fine with leaving that, and if the committee is. It's just what you think about it.

"Typically, some workers are employed by a host employer" -- so let's go with that -- "and others by a contractor, subcontractor, temporary staffing agency, or independent or temporary workers," I would say.

MR. BETHANCOURT: You know, I would take off staffing agency, Mr. Chairman.

MR. STAFFORD: But in some cases, there are staffing agencies.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Okay. I see what you're saying. I see.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, Jennifer.

MS. LAWLESS: Leave it in?

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. So the -- again, I'm just going through this, you guys. "Typically, some workers are employed by a host employer." We're good with that. As opposed to saying contractor, general contractor, construction manager, the contractor in charge, we're calling host employer. That's fine.

"And others by contractor, subcontractor, temporary staffing agency or temporary workers."

MR. RANK: So, workers would be employed by temporary workers?

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Well, all right.


MR. HAWKINS: You see where -- is staffing agency just a wrong term now?


MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. Hold on.

MR. MARRERO: Yeah. Everybody assumes temporary workers are individuals from staffing agencies and that's a misconception, because there's a lot of different contingent workforce arrangements.

MR. STAFFORD: So, in a multiemployer site, you have temporary workers that are coming out of a staffing agency, and perhaps you have independent temporary workers that are coming to the job site, not from staffing agencies, employed by the host, employed by the subcontractors. I mean, I guess we just have to figure out how to put the language in there to cover that, on who the employer is, in this case of temporary workers.

Yeah, Jeremy?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Could we -- might I suggest where we have the comma, temporary staffing agencies, or other contingent temporary workers, or something.

MR. HAWKINS: Can you give us an example?


MR. MARRERO: Piece workers.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Yeah, piece workers.

MR. STAFFORD: You know, if you look at the data, I mean --

MR. HAWKINS: You mean in construction?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Yeah. All the time.

MR. HAWKINS: Can you give us -- I'm sorry.

MR. STAFFORD: No, I'm just going to say, Steve, I mean I think in the construction industry now we have about two million workers that are classified as independent contractors. Two million.

MR. HAWKINS: Rightly or wrongly.

MR. STAFFORD: Rightly or wrongly.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Rightly or wrongly. Yep. That's it. And they're there.

MR. HAWKINS: Well, they don't just walk up on their own volition and start to work, so somebody's telling them what to do, generally, right?

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's right, but

they -- that's true, but they do just walk up. Sometimes, they're given a job, and they do the job and they move on.

MR. HAWKINS: If they do that for your company, they're your employee, right?

MR. STAFFORD: That's right.

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's right, but they're temporary. Yeah, they're -- but they're temporary. They're in and out.

MR. HAWKINS: But they're still -- but -- they may be temporary, but I think this is talking about if they're temporary and they work for you, they're your employee for the purposes of this paragraph. Can you give me an example of somebody, a temporary -- who doesn't fit into one of these four categories?

MR. MARRERO: This is Tom Marrero, employer representative. The independent contractor that

comes -- that is hired -- that is just hired on that isn't traditionally a independent contractor with, you know, the LLC, or, you know, the worker's comp insurance or anything. He's just an individual and he's 1099, onto a job, hired --

MR. HAWKINS: So he's self-employed.

MR. MARRERO: Self-employed.

MR. STAFFORD: Self-employed. Uh-huh.

MR. MARRERO: Self-employed.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Right, but on a multi -- I'm sorry.

MR. STAFFORD: That's okay. That's all right.

MR. BETHANCOURT: But on a multiemployer job site -- when we're talking about a multiemployer job site, you are actually regulating the rest of the people that are on that job site independent of that guy, and they have responsibilities to that guy on a multiemployer job site. Am I incorrect? And so, that's what this is, this section is talking about.

MR. HAWKINS: Well then, so if we added, "and some may be self-employed," does that now catch every possible person that would be on site?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Contingency would be the best word, because it encompasses all those

different --

MR. HAWKINS: Well, we've tried to get away from terms that most folks don't -- I don't think most readers would know what you're talking about if you said that. I could be wrong. I just, I wouldn't think that most people would know contingency workers. I don't --

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Well, let's look at it again. Palmer? Palmer, go ahead.

MR. HICKMAN: Thank you. All right. So, in the context of the sentence, it said, "some workers are employed by," and we're giving examples, so we can't say temporary workers are employed by temporary workers. So either -- I'm going to suggest that we could take the whole sentence out, and would the first sentence and the last sentence make sense without those examples?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Less is more.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, right now the way -- "At most construction work sites" -- come on. We're going to have to get through this first paragraph here. "At most construction work sites today, workers of more than one employer work alongside or interact with each other." We all agree with that.

"Typically, some workers are employed by a host employer, which may be an owner or general contractor" -- I guess that's fine -- "and others by a contractor, subcontractor or temporary staffing agency." Now, temporary staffing agency is different, right, because these are temporary workers coming out of a staffing agency, versus you stopping down at the 7-11 in the morning, and getting three guys off the corner, and putting them in your pick up truck, and taking them to the job site.

MR. HAWKINS: Those are temporary workers. They belong to you.

MR. STAFFORD: Those are, but -- right, but they're not coming through an agency, I guess is the distinction. So, the --

MR. HAWKINS: So, the only thing that looks like that's missing here is a self-employed individual.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. So, I don't know. We're -- Kevin, I mean, how often on a large AGC member contractor do you have self-employed people out on your job sites?

MR. CANNON: I would say -- I mean, I can't give you a figure as how often, but it -- I would say it does happen.

MR. STAFFORD: A lot. It's -- I mean, it's a typical -- it's not surprising to see that.

MR. CANNON: No, it wouldn't be surprising but I can't, you know, give the frequency.

MR. PRATT: Mr. Chairman?

MR. CANNON: There's a lot more than what we like to admit.

MR. PRATT: In the residential field you probably have at least 50, maybe more, percent of your workers are self-employed or 1099 employees. 1099 --

MR. HAWKINS: Also known as misclassified.

MR. PRATT: Well but it doesn't matter. They're still that way, okay? I mean, I can't determine what IRS is going to do, but they are there, and they're working.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. Okay.

For the purposes of this guideline, though, I mean, if we think about it, if we have a large multi-employee project, even if it's, you know, a residential area where a lot of homes are going up, and 50 percent of the workforce out there are

self-employed, then for the specifics, you know, for the purposes of this guide, are we suggesting that the host employer be sure that those self-employed people are a part of the program, have a say in the program, have written programs and policies, all the things that we've been talking about today?

MR. PRATT: That's exactly where I'm going.



MR. PRATT: Are we going to say that? As an example, if I hire somebody to put a roof on a house, I may look up there, and there may be five independent contractors working on that roof.

MR. HAWKINS: It's almost guaranteed that those people are misclassified employees.

MR. PRATT: They're piecemeal.

MR. HAWKINS: It's almost guaranteed. You apply the employee test to those people, I would submit to you eight out of 10 times, they're misclassified employees.


MR. HAWKINS: Just because people are cheating, I don't think we ought to acknowledge that in this document. If you want to add some are

self-employed, I'm okay with that.

MR. STAFFORD: No, I think we should because we have to deal with how the self-employed are -- have fit into the program. Because I agree with you, you know, I think there's a lot of misclassification out there, but there's a lot of legitimate single

self-employed contractors.

MR. HAWKINS: One man show. One man show.

MR. STAFFORD: One man shops.

MR. PRATT: And the host employer has exposure.


MR. HAWKINS: I think we ought to add self-employed, but --

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So all right. "Typically, some workers employed by the host employers and others by a contractor, subcontractor, temporary staffing agency, or are self-employed?" Is that --


MR. BETHANCOURT: Sole proprietor? Is that the right word?


MR. HAWKINS: No, it's self-employed. You better use that. People will know what that means.


MR. MARRERO: The DOL has a definition for contingent worker, and it uses independent contractor and part time, temporary, seasonal, and lease workers, so I don't -- can we use some of that? Would it be too much?

MR. HAWKINS: Why would we when it's a seasonal worker, but during the season that they're working, they work for you, and that's already stated in here.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Yeah. I think this works better.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, I'm going to read it again and see if we're hitting here. "Typically, some workers are employed by a host employer, which may be an owner or general contractor, and others by contractors, subcontractors, temporary staffing agency, or are self-employed." Is that okay?

MR. PRATT: Yeah. I think we covered it.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. "In these settings, employers must establish mechanisms to coordinate their efforts and communicate information to ensure that all workers on site and their representatives can participate in efforts to prevent and control injuries and illness, and that workers are afforded equal protections against hazards."

MR. HAWKINS: That last part is kind of --

MR. STAFFORD: I don't like that.

MR. HAWKINS: It sounds like the 17th Amendment of the Constitution, or something. It seems odd to be right there. I don't know what that amendment is, but -- not equal -- that's strange to me. It seems strange.

MR. STAFFORD: It just seems like to me it should say, "In these settings, employers must establish mechanisms to coordinate their efforts and communicate information to ensure that all site employers and workers" -- I mean, you know, I guess -- or their representatives? I'm not even sure why that's there.

MR. RANK: We should just strike that whole sentence.

MR. HAWKINS: Not the whole sentence, I don't think. The last half of it. I don't think.

MR. PRATT: Stop right after --

MR. STAFFORD: So, what does that mean, and their representatives? That we're talking about a union shop steward?

MR. CANNON: Yeah. And then, it says it down in the bottom.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Where at?

MR. CANNON: "OSHA refers to these -- OSHA refers to just not -- but their representatives, such as labor unions."

MR. STAFFORD: Do we want to do that? I mean, to me the most important thing is, in this case, that those, the communication is amongst the employers. It's the employer's responsibility to pass that on to their own employees. If you're a

self-employed contractor, you or an employer should get that information.

I mean, you know, as someone that's -- works and likes unions, I'm not so sure why that we want to start involving shop stewards in a program standard, personally. What are the other -- Steve Rank, I'm looking at you. You're a labor representative.

MR. RANK: Yeah. I just think that it's been noted down at the bottom, and as long as it makes reference to the representative, which could be, you know, how we work in our framework.

MR. STAFFORD: I mean, it's not that it's a good thing. I'm just not saying in the guideline that we should be worried about how we're getting information to the shop stewards, or to the business manager, or agent, right?

MR. RANK: Right. I guess you could read into it several ways. That's the problem.

MR. HAWKINS: I think we would end the sentence after injury and illness. I think it seems really odd that we say, "Workers are afforded equal protection against hazards," unless -- I don't know what we're trying to convey there.

MR. STAFFORD: I don't know that either.

MR. HAWKINS: If we did, we might want to leave it, but I just don't know what the intention was when that was written.

MR. STAFFORD: It seems like we've covered that in other sections. So, if we're good with that, then, "In these settings, employers must establish mechanisms to coordinate their efforts and communicate information to ensure that all" -- are you -- are you folks good with all site contractors and workers --

MR. STRIBLING: How about --

MR. STAFFORD: -- can participate -- yeah, Chuck?

MR. STRIBLING: How about just changing workers to persons? Fits everybody. Or you can spell it out like you said. Just --

MR. STAFFORD: I guess my confusion is, in my mind, when we're talking about coordination and communication, we're talking about coordination and communications between contractors.


MR. STAFFORD: I mean, not that coordination and communication between workers is not important. This is a management guideline. I think the point is that we have to come up with ways that our contractors and multiemployer sites are talking to each other, and communicating about the program.

MR. PRATT: So, we're going to put a period after workers.

MR. HAWKINS: After illness.

MR. STAFFORD: And strike the and the --

MR. PRATT: Okay. All right.

MR. STAFFORD: I think. I'm still --

MR. HAWKINS: Maybe the goal, maybe what was intended there is that Lisa and I own a company, and Lisa's employees are protected from hazards that I create. Maybe that's what they intended to say that, for multiemployer work site.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. All right. Well, we need to move on. I mean, I guess for now, we could just leave that. I mean, I don't want to confuse it but in my -- maybe I'm the one confusing it, because in my mind, again, this is the -- coordinating amongst workers is great but, really, the idea is how we commord -- communicate amongst the contractors on a multiemployer site. It's up to each individual employee to coordinate and communicate with their own workforce.

MR. BETHANCOURT: So, we're substituting the word contractors where it says --

MR. STAFFORD: I don't know that we are, but I'm just saying, I mean, this is just my opinion, that we're talking about coordination and communication amongst contractors, I think.

MR. BETHANCOURT: It would make more sense then, to have the word "their representatives" there, too, when you substitute the word contractors.

MR. CANNON: To your point, should that ensure that each employer? Because, again, we're talking about --

MR. STAFFORD: Well, I don't know. We can wordsmith it. I guess, for now, we've taken out

the -- shortened that sentence. If you're -- see, again, this to me is where the -- this is this general industry setting when you're on the shop floor, and all the shop stewards are there along with the workforce.

But that's -- you know, that happens some ways in construction, but if we're talking about that we have to put together a program that your business agent has to be involved in coordinating amongst their members on a multiemployer site, it just

becomes -- it's very complicated, and I don't think that's what we're talking about.

I think we're talking about coordinating between the employers, not coordinating between the worker representatives and the workers.

MR. CANNON: I agree.


MR. STAFFORD: Okay. All right. So, let's move on to Action Item 1: Management Leadership. "On a multiemployer worker environment, the host employer and the contractor, subcontractor, or temporary staffing agency commit to a program that will provide the same level of safety and health protection to temporary and contract workers as to permanent workers."

So, this is where -- you know, I think that we really need to take some time on this section, because I -- you know, I -- this is where we have to make the break between, in this document, their -- in their view, a multiemployer site is where you have a host and you have temporary workers, not where you have a host, a general contractor, or a construction manager, and several tiers of subcontractors. It's not -- it's missing here.

MR. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman, Jerry, employer rep. What about if we add this language. It says, "In a multiemployer work environment, the host employer and the contractor, subcontractor, temporary staffing agency commit to a program that will provide the same level of safety and health protection" -- and here's where I insert new language -- "for all workers on site." Then strike out the remaining.

So, basically, after safety and health protection, for all workers on site.

MR. BETHANCOURT: And then you cover everybody.

MR. STAFFORD: What do you all think?

MR. RIVERA: Or for workers on site.

MR. RANK: I think that's better than what's written.

MR. CANNON: What's written currently. Kevin Cannon, employer rep. I think this is an area where, you know, it should be identified then as a partnership and not -- you know, you may be working to one program, but everybody brings something to the table. Get out of here. It's a partnership. I think, you know, Mr. Mott, you know, made that statement yesterday, and --

MR. RIVERA: I might be good with that.

MR. CANNON: I'm sorry, what's that?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Just teasing.

MR. CANNON: No, I know.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, what do you want to do here?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman, Jeremy Bethancourt. I kind of think that we ought to go with Jerry's suggestion by ending it after "health protection to all workers on site," and then we can pick up from there. Because then, it's implying everybody. All the workers from every contractor that's on the site. It doesn't matter who they're working for.

MR. RIVERA: Sure. Mr. Chairman, and I guess maybe, Kevin, I don't know if this satisfies your request, but the language above says the host employer and contractor, so it highlights -- it doesn't say explicitly there's a partnership, but it does say that these parties are involved, so it might capture it, or maybe we might want to write something towards, you know --

MR. CANNON Work together.

MR. RIVERA: -- work together.

MR. BETHANCOURT: And then, that

would -- yeah, saying something like work together.

MR. STAFFORD: Well give me some --

MR. BETHANCOURT: Well they say commit.

MR. RIVERA: We're all committing to it.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Commit to it.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, what are we doing? Do you want to make that change? Everyone agree with Jerry's suggested change for action item, the language in Action Item 1?


MR. RANK: Yes.

MR. STAFFORD: So read it, Jerry.

MR. RIVERA: After safety and health protection insert the language, "for all workers on site," and strike out to temporary and contract workers as to permanent workers.

MR. CANNON: Well, I think the, after that, to my point that I make -- Kevin Cannon, an employer rep -- the remainder of that paragraph kind of gets at what I was, you know, suggesting, so -- where it says, "each establishes their respective safety and health responsibilities and obligations."

MR. PRATT: So, you're proposing to leave that in. The balance of that paragraph.


MR. PRATT: I don't have a problem.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, we're going to put in what Jerry said, and then, the paragraph will continue, "Before the start of any on site work the host employer and contractor, subcontractor or temporary staffing agency establish their respective safety and health responsibilities and obligations," et cetera. Is everybody okay with that?

MR. MARRERO: For uniformity, should we include self-employed?

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. Okay? So, you know, going back and reading this, I'm not even sure in my mind if they're talking about the host employer. I guess that's a general contractor, but I could almost read this and think they're talking about the owner/user. The host.

MR. HAWKINS: I was thinking the -- I wondered if we ought to put general contractor in parentheses right there, or, e.g., general contractor where the host is.

MR. STAFFORD: Because why wouldn't it be host contractor, as opposed to host employer, and then we have -- what does host employer and contractor mean?

MS. WILSON: It's the general industry language. The host employer is the owner of the site.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. And we're been -- up until now we're talking about the host employers being the controlling contractor of the site, not the owner of the site.

MR. HAWKINS: That's what we're thinking of in our minds. Yeah.


MR. HAWKINS: And that wording comes

from -- several of the standards in general industry talk about a host employer. In the confined space standard, host employers have certain duties when they bring in a contractor, and for the purposes of this, it's really not applicable to what we're talking

about --


MR. HAWKINS: -- unless you replace that with the general contractor.

MR. STAFFORD: Do you want to do that, or just put that in parentheses, you think? When we say host employer, in parentheses, i.e., general contractor. Is that --


MR. RIVERA: Yeah, that might help.

MR. HAWKINS: Or e.g., for example.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. Okay.

MR. BETHANCOURT: But couldn't the general contractor be a controlling contractor? They could be a project manager, general contractor. Because that term general contractor takes on several different names in the workplace.


MR. HAWKINS: We should give a couple examples. General contractor or the managing contractor.

MR. STAFFORD: Construction manager or whatever it is.

MR. HAWKINS: Construction manager is another one.

MR. STAFFORD: All right, so we're going to do that? A few examples then when we say host employer. For example, general contractor --

MR. HAWKINS: You know, really, truly, Pete, we probably ought to get away from host employer --


MR. HAWKINS: -- because I don't think -- I mean, we need to talk to the construction folks in the room. You don't ever think -- you don't think of host employer. It's not something anybody in this room who's associated with construction thinks about.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Except that now we've got the new confined space standard, and doesn't that talk a little bit about the host employer, now?

MR. RIVERA: Yeah. Yeah, we're starting to see a lot of sprinkle --

MR. BETHANCOURT: A little -- just barely getting in there with it now. And then if there isn't one, then it's the GC kind of thing.

MR. RIVERA: Now, I will admit it has always confused me, but we're starting to see more of that language.

MR. HAWKINS: I'd rather put general contractor and put host employer in parentheses for this document.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah? Mr. Mott, you have --

MR. MOTT: Yeah. The host employer has traditionally conveyed ownership, whether it's a company or whether or not have ownership of a facility or a position. They may have a contractual obligation but there's no ownership. So, I think -- in the construction sense here, I think host would be inappropriate.

MR. STAFFORD: Host would be --

MR. HAWKINS: Would be what?

MR. MOTT: Host employer would be inappropriate --

MR. PRATT: Inappropriate?

MR. HAWKINS: You are saying inappropriate, right?

MR. MOTT: Inappropriate.

MR. HAWKINS: Not -- yeah. Yeah.

MR. STAFFORD: And that's what

basically -- Steve, that's what just, you just said. So okay. Then let's change that. Is everybody agreeing on that?

MR. RIVERA: Well, and I don't know. I guess I'm trying to think that, what the intent is because there is an exchange of information that occurs between that host contractor with that, you know, contractor coming on site that might be relevant to the safety and health of workers, like if, particular safety health issues that are unique to that facility.

So, it's acknowledging that that coordination happens at the front, end and that it's disseminated downstream. So, I don't know if --

MR. HAWKINS: Well, if you want to do that, then we go back up into this general requirement, the introductory paragraph, and say "Typically, some workers employed by a host employer, general contractor, other contractors, subcontractors." If you're going to do what Jerry's talking about, they ought to be a separate entity.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Well you're the employers of the group. Which way do you want it? What makes most sense for --

MR. CANNON: Yeah, I think what Steve said.

MR. BETHANCOURT: What Steve said is more applicable in the industry. Jeremy Bethancourt.

MR. PRATT: I agree. I concur.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, did you get that then? Steve? No?


MS. LAWLESS: Some, this is how it's reading in my world. "Typically, some workers are employed by host employers, owners, general contractors, and other subcontractors or temporary staffing agencies." Are we leaving in, or self-employment? Are we leaving that in in that one sentence? Okay. So then, it has to be "host employer, general contractor, owner, subcontractor, temporary staffing agency or are


MR. STAFFORD: No, I don't think that's right. I mean, I think the owner comes out of there. I mean, the owner certainly wouldn't come in after the host and general contractor.

MS. LAWLESS: So, you want to remove the owner? You just want to have the host as the owner?

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's what it sometimes is, and otherwise it's not.

MR. STAFFORD: Yes, take owner out, Jennifer.

MS. LAWLESS: Take the owner out. Okay.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. So, I'm going to ask you to read that again.


MR. STAFFORD: Why don't you do that.

MS. LAWLESS: Typically, some workers are employed by a host employer, general contractor, contractor, subcontractor, temporary staffing agency, or are self-employed.

MR. STAFFORD: Is that okay? I'll go along with it. I still don't like it, because to me, you know, the host employer sounds too much, like the owner, if that's what we're talking about. If we're talking about a -- a contractor, why don't we say a host contractor, versus a host employer? Then we go to contractor, subcontractors. What's the difference between a host employer and a host contractor?

MR. MARRERO: Mr. Chairman, we -- from the temporary worker initiative, you see host employer in all their documents and so forth, and I think that's just more of a controlling of workers, not necessarily an owner.


MR. MARRERO: I think that's how it's being portrayed here.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Jerry, and

then --

MR. RIVERA: Yeah. The way I've, we've used it, and I'm not talking about everybody, but the way I understand it is that host employer is the owner of that facility and that host contractor could be that general, GC on that end. So, again, the host employer would be that facility owner in that --

MR. STAFFORD: All right. See, well I --

MR. RIVERA: I've seen the language.

MR. STAFFORD: -- agree with that, Jerry, but I don't think that's my -- it's not explicit. In my mind we're talking about the contractor that's in charge of the job, not the owner, right? If we're talking about the owner, that changes things. Then we're put -- and OSHA, by the way, doesn't regulate owners. So, what are we saying about the owner?

MR. RIVERA: I would just add this last point, again reaffirming that there is an exchange of information that happens in certain facilities, like Patrick [PHONETIC] chemical, pharmaceutical. Where there are some unique hazards, that exchange of information is critical.

Thus, that's acknowledging that that communication does have to occur between that host employer or that contract employer, so that it could be sent downstream. Again, just one example.

MR. STAFFORD: I agree, and I think that's absolutely true, at least particularly in a lot of the work that our folks do in turnaround jobs and those kinds of things, but if we've if you're saying that the host employer is the owner, why don't we just say owner? It's confusing. It's confusing to me. Are we talking about the owner, or a contractor?

MR. RIVERA: I'm good with owner.

MS. WILSON: Right. I think it's just

the -- they have to be an employer to be regulated by the OSH Act, and it's whoever, you know, has the control of the facility, whether they own it, or lease it, or whatever.


MS. WILSON: Right? Who has the information varies, you know, so there's a reconstruction job --

MR. RANK: Mr. Chairman?

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah? Steve? Go ahead, Steve.

MR. RANK: There are some owners that have very hands on, some owners that take direct control on what happens on their sites.



MR. RANK: Exxon Mobil. I mean, my gosh, they are over everybody, so in that case -- that's true.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. I don't even know what to say, Jennifer, on where we're at with this, to be quite frank with you. You know, this is -- we don't have anything specific. Let's move on to Action Item 1. I'll come back and we can hopefully look at that language. I'm still not clear that we're talking about a host employer.

If the host employer is the owner, I don't understand why we don't say owner. We recognize that the owner is not regulated by OSHA, but in certain circumstances, the owner takes control over their job. In other circumstances the owner doesn't. That's why they contract it out, right?

They don't know about construction. They want a construction firm to come in and do the job for them and they're hands off. So, we can't tie everything that we know, the up front and a guideline, that the owner's going to be taking control of the safety and health of what's happening on that job site.

MS. DePRATER: But I'd say it certainly makes it more simplistic, doesn't it? Just say --

MR. STAFFORD: Owner, if that's what we're talking about, as opposed to host employer.

MS. DePRATER: Just say owner.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, Travis? Quickly.

MR. PARSONS: Yeah. Changes defer back to OSHA's already established multiemployer policy that's in the new compliance base standard. They have two different definitions for these type things that you're talking about. They already have a policy in place. I'd ask OSHA to take a look at that when they redo this document for construction.

MR. STAFFORD: I think that's a good suggestion. Did you have a comment?

MR. SKOGLAND: I do. Blake Skogland. I don't think we're trying to list here who we're regulating, we're just saying who on this work site is a worker and who might be employing them. If you're saying that no host employer, no owner employs people on the work site, then maybe they shouldn't be included here.

But I -- we're not trying to say we're regulating owners, we're just saying sometimes owners or host employers and people on the work site. So, that -- and it's just a list of who might be the employers.


MR. PARSONS: Then there's a clear definition in the new confined space standard for what we're talking about.

MR. STAFFORD: Well we need to take a look at that. So, anybody from OSHA have that definition, by chance?

MS. DePRATER: Can I add something, Pete?

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, Cindy? Please.

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater. To your point, there actually are times -- I'm just thinking out loud now -- there are times when the owner will bring in their facilities management people, or the FF&E, furniture, fixtures and equipment people, or their restaurant people to -- we built the building, now they're going to install the restaurant.

They're not working under us, they're working beside us, but they're hired directly by the owner. So, there may be instances where the owner is bringing in other contractors to do work right alongside this group of people.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. No, I agree with that. I think as long as we're talking about a system, a guideline in which -- that we can ensure that all contractors are communicating and sharing information, that's the goal.

They don't have to be working on the same assignment, but there could be three or four different things going on in the same facility where you have different contractors. The point is that you have to figure out a system by which they can communicate, and coordinate together on what's going on. That's what we're trying to do, and not a very good job of it. All right.

So, the -- it would be great if we had the definition, and I appreciate you pointing that out. Under the confined space rule, how OSHA defines this, Travis, general contractor in a multiemployer site, would be helpful.

"Action Item 1: Management Leadership. In a multiemployer work environment, the host

employer" -- again, are we -- "the owner and the contractor, subcontractor or temporary staffing agency commit to a program that will provide the same level of safety and health protection to temporary" -- you know, I don't even -- we got to blow this whole section up, and I don't really have the energy to rewrite this. If you folks want to, have at it. I'll be glad to sit here and listen to you.

Yes, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: Maybe we could just put a general note here for OSHA to look at this in the eyes of how they see the construction environment, and what these parties are called. I mean, the problem with picking a definition from subpart (A)(a), it applies only to subpart (A)(a). I know subpart (V) also talks about host, and that, but those definitions are only applicable to those subparts. They wouldn't be standard-wide definitions.

I mean, they might help us come up with some words, but I don't think those definitions would apply outside those subparts.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. No, I appreciate. Again, I think we're getting bogged down in the definitions, and it's easy to do, but the bottom line is if you have 10 contractors on one construction site, how do you communicate and coordinate? That's what we're trying to do. Forget host employer, host contractor, owner this, owner this.

MR. HICKMAN: If we were allowed to say

it -- we would say all parties if we were allowed to say all parties, but we're probably not allowed to say all parties, we probably have to stick with employees, and what have you.

So, I think maybe a general note,

Mr. Chairman, just to have OSHA consider using language that's consistent with their verbiage in a construction environment. Doesn't sound like we have the resources here to know what that is. We've spent a good amount of time trying to understand what those are and what they mean by these terms, and I don't know that we have the expertise.

We have a lot of folks from Directorate of Construction here that probably understand what the words might need to be. I think we delayed long enough for somebody to come back with a definition in subpart (A)(a).

MR. SKOGLAND: Blake Skogland. Under the Confined Spaces Construction Standard, it says, "Host employer means the employer that owns or manages the property where the construction work is taking place."

"Note to the definition of host employer: If the owner of the property on which the construction activity occurs has contracted with an entity for the general management of that property, and is transferred to that entity, the information specified earlier in this subpart, OSHA will treat that contracted management entity as a host employer for as long as that entity manages the property.

"Otherwise, OSHA will treat the owner of the property as the host employer. In no case there will be more than one host employer."

But for this it's different. We're talking about host employers with employees for the purposes of this. This is different requirements.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. Okay. Well, we appreciate that.

MR. SKOGLAND: Thank you.

MR. STAFFORD: So, where do you want to take this? What do you want to do with this at this point?

MR. STRIBLING: We can't say "all parties," but can we say "all entities?"

MS. DePRATER: I was going to go to entities. I was thinking about that.

MR. STRIBLING: I'm just trying to come up with something that encompasses everybody. Like you said, Pete, if there's 10 people, 10 contractors, how do you get 10 contractors communicating and coordinating? Can we say "all entities?"

MR. STAFFORD: Well, I think that's a good alternative, potentially. Entities is not bad.

MR. PRATT: Let's put that in there for now and move on.


MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, what do you want to do? Let's move on, or stop. We'll -- I'll adjourn --

MS. DePRATER: Can I --

MR. STAFFORD: -- this meeting --

MS. DePRATER: Can I suggest something?

MR. STAFFORD: -- if we need to, because we're really, at this point, just not getting anywhere.

Yes, Cindy?

MS. DePRATER: I was going to say I can suggest something in here, because if this really does go to management leadership, it should say something about, "In a multiemployer work environment, the owner should coordinate a meeting" -- and I'm just going to give you language that you can work with later -- "the owner should be coordinating a meeting with the contractors under their control to come up with a program, a common safety program, Safety and Health Program, so that they're all working under a standard." Some sort of a standard of execution.

You don't have to get into same level of safety. You know, "Before the start of work on any site, the owner and all contractors should review the program. You're not going to establish their respective programs, you're going to review the common program and you're going to implement it to the best of your ability on the project." That's what management leadership is going to do.

MR. STAFFORD: What are you reading, Cindy?

MS. DePRATER: It's --

MR. CANNON: She's paraphrasing what it said.

MS. DePRATER: I'm paraphrasing, at this point.

MR. STAFFORD: Paraphrasing what?

MR. CANNON: What is actually under Action Item 1.


MS. DePRATER: That's what you're trying to accomplish, not this verbatim. You're trying to get the owner to call a meeting -- you're shaking your head, but -- you know what? I'm going to stop, because you're clearly frustrated.

MR. STAFFORD: See, I don't agree with that. I mean, I think in some instances you do, but in some instances, you don't. There are owners that are, have contractors in because they don't want anything to do with it. I'm having a custom home built.

MS. DePRATER: But what is the best management practice?

MR. STAFFORD: I know nothing about construction. I'm giving it to Cindy DePrater construction company. I'm going to Florida for three months until you build my house, and I'm coming back. I don't want any responsibility for coordinating, or talking to you, or your subcontractors.

MS. DePRATER: I'll bet you're there when I'm installing every piece of tile in your bathroom.

MR. STAFFORD: I'm not. I don't want to see it, all right? Right.

MS. DePRATER: I'll bet you you are.

MR. STAFFORD: Yes, Steve? Then we'll go to Tom.

MR. RANK: Steve Rank. You're absolutely right, Pete. I can't name the retail chains, but there are some large retail stores built nationwide that want absolutely nothing to do with these big, million square foot, 40 foot high bay, single-story structure buildings, okay?

And you're right, they want nothing to do with it, so they hire construction manager, a controlling contractor, a general contractor, and they just take it right off their hands and that's it. So, you're right, we do have those cases.

MR. STAFFORD: But on the other hand, we have very active owners, particularly in turnaround, that are there. I mean -- so, but -- so what do we do? I mean --

MS. DePRATER: I think it should be, in this case, what is the best management practice we want to emulate? You spoke earlier to the OSHA 10. We want everybody to take OSHA 10, because we think that's the right thing to do. What is the right thing to do here? If it's not to have the owner engaged, let's say so.

MR. STAFFORD: I mean, I think that you have to figure out a guideline for owners that want to be engaged, how that works, versus when you contract it out and the owner is a silent owner. You know, I think that there's differences there.

MS. DePRATER: Right.


MR. MARRERO: Can we just say all

employers --

MR. STAFFORD: For what purpose here?

MR. MARRERO: -- instead of host employer, contractor. Just to make it less complicated.

MS. DePRATER: All employers who are contracted for the job?

MR. BETHANCOURT: All employers on site.

MR. MARRERO: All employers.

MS. DePRATER: All employers on site?

MR. CANNON: I.e.? Did you want to say contractors such as?

MS. DePRATER: That's fine.

MR. STAFFORD: And that will include your staffing agencies and independent contractors.

MR. MARRERO: If you're an employer.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Wow, Tom. You figured it out.

MS. DePRATER: I'm actually okay with that.

MR. BETHANCOURT: All employers.

MR. STAFFORD: So, if you look at action item number one, all employers commit to a program that will provide the same level of safety and health

protection --

MS. DePRATER: To everyone.

MR. STAFFORD: We've got to take out to all site workers.

MS. DePRATER: To all workers.

MR. STAFFORD: "Before the start of any on site work, the host --

MS. DePRATER: The employers. No. Employers.

MR. STAFFORD: -- all employers establish their respective safety and health responsibilities and obligations" -- I guess that works to the extent, but we're still not getting to the coordination part, the communication between employers.

MR. CANNON: Kevin Cannon, employer rep. I guess my question is, you know, for action item one, is management leadership the right title? I mean, because we're talking about preplanning and coordinating before work starts.

MS. DePRATER: What would you call it, Kevin?

MR. CANNON: I don't know.

MS. DePRATER: Problem, solution.

MR. CANNON: Yeah. But, I mean, you know, because what we're asking is for each of the groups to come together and have a discussion amongst themselves about what their responsibilities are.


MR. BETHANCOURT: So, would we have

maybe -- well, that's when we get to the bullet points, right, how to do that.

MS. DePRATER: Well maybe that's just program coordination, which is --

MR. BETHANCOURT: Just move down to that. Move to the bullet points.

MR. CANNON: And that's what I'm saying. That action item number one should be "Coordinate your programs."

MR. BETHANCOURT: It says that, right? Coordinate safety and health information.

MR. CANNON: But it's titled management leadership.

MR. RIVERA: Program coordination.

MR. CANNON: But it's titled management leadership.

MS. DePRATER: Program coordination.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Right. Got ya.

MR. CANNON: You see what I'm saying?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Right. It's just got the wrong -- maybe it's got the wrong title.

MS. DePRATER: I would just say it's program coordination.

MR. STAFFORD: On Action Item 1, Cindy?


MR. STAFFORD: So Action Item 1 is program coordination.

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh. And then your language, which says all employers. And you all captured that?

MR. STAFFORD: Are you -- is everyone good with that?

ALL: Yes.

MS. DePRATER: Then it moves to the bullets of how you do that.

MS. LAWLESS: Excuse me. Cindy, then we'd have to go back to page 4 and change the elements.

MS. DePRATER: We do. We have to go back to page 4 and just change -- well the action items are not necessarily listed on page 4.

MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we're changing the title of this core element --


MR. HICKMAN: -- coordination and communication.

MS. DePRATER: No. Just the action item.

MR. HICKMAN: I was going to -- I was wondering if we needed to change this to program coordination and communication, but I'm looking to see if communication is communicated in this action item.

MS. DePRATER: First bullet.

MS. DePRATER: We're only changing --

MR. HICKMAN: So, it's probably program coordination and communication.

MS. DePRATER: Yeah. We're just going to change the Action Item Number 1 title from Management Leadership to Program coordination.

MR. BETHANCOURT: And that's what we've talked about in this section.

MS. LAWLESS: And then the first sentence is as such: "In a multiemployer work environment, all employers commit to a program that will provide the same level of safety and health protection to all employees."

MS. DePRATER: Correct. And then continuing on: Before the start of any on site work, employers will establish their --

MS. QUINTERO: Sorry, Cindy, but the actions in this section go directly to the core elements. The one is the core element one, the two is the core element two, the three is the --

MR. CANNON: I mean I understand that, but does it necessarily fit?

MS. DePRATER: Does it have to --

MR. CANNON: Yeah. Because we're --

MS. DePRATER: Let me look at it. "Control measures." So, that's an easy one to change. Again, we'll say on page 4 under communication and, coordination and communication of -- multiemployer work sites: "All employers will coordinate on work planning and scheduling to identify and resolve any conflicts that could impact safety and health." You can do away with the host employer.

MS. QUINTERO: Say it again. I'm not following you. Under management leadership?

MS. DePRATER: Are you on page 4?

MS. LAWLESS: No. You're down here.


MS. LAWLESS: Right here. This one right here, "the host employer" blah, blah, blah, blah, scratch.

MS. DePRATER: Yeah. The employers -- all employers --

MS. LAWLESS: Coordinate.

MS. DePRATER: -- will coordinate.

MR. STRIBLING: You don't need the will.

MS. DePRATER: You don't need will? Okay. Fine. And then the second bullet, again, you just lose host and contract. Workers from both, or workers from all employers are informed -- all workers are informed. Better? "All workers are informed about the hazards," dot, dot, dot. So, does that clean that up enough to make this title in Action 1: Program Coordination? You all can tell us that, right, later?

MS. WILSON: I mean, OSHA will take all of this under advisement.


MS. WILSON: I think she's right that it needs titled, coordinate with the titles of the core elements, but if you think it doesn't fit, tell us what you think it should be.

MS. DePRATER: I think Action 1 is not management leadership, it's -- if what -- if the true meaning of the paragraph is what it sounds to me, like coordination of programs, and I think to everybody else, it is program coordination.

MR. HICKMAN: That's our suggestion.

MS. DePRATER: That's our suggestion.

MR. RIVERA: And that's one of the core elements, coordination and communication.

MS. DePRATER: Yeah. Now we've got to read through how do we accomplish that coordination.

MR. RIVERA: Yeah. Coordination and communication most important.

MS. DePRATER: So, here. We're going to start changing the how to accomplish this.

MR. STAFFORD: Or if that's even the right thing to do.

MS. DePRATER: I think it's just number one so far, Pete. Instead of keep temporary and contract workers, it's going to say, "communicate to workers." We're just going to take out temporary and contract.

MR. STAFFORD: Or contractors. I rewrote it to say "communicate to all contractors, subcontractors, and temporary workers, the commitment to provide the same level --

MS. DePRATER: Same level. And that's the key.

MR. STAFFORD: -- of safety and health protection."

MS. DePRATER: I like that.


MS. DePRATER: Did you capture that?

MS. QUINTERO: No. Where are we?

MR. STAFFORD: We're on how to accomplishment on action item number one that's now coordination and not management leadership.

MR. RANK: They're going to change that action item title now?

MS. DePRATER: That's -- yes. That's going to change to program coordination. That's our recommendation.

MR. STAFFORD: I don't really want to do this.

MS. DePRATER: Now, you haven't changed everything there. Let's see what the language is. No, back to page -- 24. Go back to page 24.

MR. PRATT: Three, three.

MR. BETHANCOURT: What are your thoughts, Pete?

MR. STAFFORD: My thoughts are that we should have broken out in work groups and had, and just rewrite this section for construction and stop doing this, and I'm willing to do that, and pass it out to the committee if we have the time. I'm asking OSHA that. That -- to sit here and do this, I think, is not very productive to me, personally, as trying to chair this thing.

I don't mind having an open discussion about it but I would much prefer just to go back and rewrite this section and share it with the committee, and then give something on OSHA after we have time to look at it, and read it, and then comment back and forth on it, as opposed to getting in here, talking about these kinds of changes that are -- we're obviously not agreeing very much on this, personally. If we have the time.

I guess, Eric, I'm asking you that. Do we have the time for ACCSH -- I'll take the lead on the redrafting this section, and giving out to everyone to share with it in that way, versus trying to do this around this table at this minute. Lisa or Eric?

MR. KAMPERT: I'm not sure I understand what you're asking me, and I have a --

MR. STAFFORD: I think this whole section needs to be rewritten, and I didn't have time to do it before this meeting, and it's clear that no one else had the time to do it before this meeting either. I just think it would be much more productive if we could, ACCSH, as a committee, draft up something, and share it amongst each other and come up with a new section on multiemployer work sites.

I mean, in other words, I don't think we're going to walk out of here at 3:00, or 4:00, or 5:00 and anyone around this table feel extremely comfortable about this section. We need more time to absorb it and comment on it. I'm not sure, you know, how best to do that with OSHA, but --

MR. KAMPERT: I'm not sure if we actually have that time --

MR. KAMPERT: -- and also --

MR. BETHANCOURT: We have three hours.


MR. KAMPERT: To send it out ever, and everyone get their comments and then we coordinate it all together?

MR. STAFFORD: I guess I'm just suggesting is a work group for those of you that -- if it's the full committee, that's great, but I think that we need some time to rewrite this section, and share it amongst each other, and give ourselves an opportunity to go back and forth.

Besides getting bogged down on definitions and word changes, it just doesn't seem to me, and maybe I'm just getting old and I recognize that, but it's become a very frustrating process for me right now to try to chair this kind of discussion.

We have four or five different conversations going on at once, we have two or three different people doing different things, and I feel like I don't have control of it, is what I'm saying. And I don't feel that we're being very productive as an advisory committee right now.

MR. KAMPERT: Okay. Well, if we meet at full committee, then that's a whole nother ACCSH, so we, I don't know if we can just all come together.

MR. STAFFORD: I don't want to do that. I would just like to take some time and rewrite action items for this section and share amongst the committee and come up with a new section. That gives us time to put pen to paper and think about it.

MS. WILSON: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we take a brief break, and talk about this and what, you know, OSHA's schedule is for getting this guidance out, and whether, you know, there could be additional time for the committee.


MS. DePRATER: I would agree. This is Cindy DePrater. I would hate -- and I understand your frustration, I do, but rewriting it in a vacuum, sending it around does not allow this committee to then comment publicly, and on record, and that's my only concern is I think, I still think we'd have to come back together, and go through this again, even after that process.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. I'm not going to say whether I agree or disagree with that. You know, whatever OSHA wants to do. This is your advisory committee, so just tell us what you want to do.

MS. WILSON: Okay, but I think we

hear -- you know, this process is not always easy, and I think we hear everyone's frustration with it.

MR. STAFFORD: I appreciate that, Lisa, but we've got to move beyond that. I'm suggesting if you think that -- what time is it? All right. If you folks think in the next three hours we can hammer out this multiemployer section starting over, then let's do it.

MS. DePRATER: It's your call. You're the chairman.

MR. STAFFORD: But if you think that we can. I mean, we can't even get past the basic definitions of what we're talking about here and no one's obviously had time to look at it before this meeting to think through what this really means to our industry.

MR. KAMPERT: What's going to say that we have time going forward?

MR. STAFFORD: Well I can't speak for the rest of the committee but I'll commit, as the

Chairman --

MR. KAMPERT: Well, they can speak for themselves.

MR. STAFFORD: -- I'll take the time to write the draft of what I think is something that we could all start to work from. I know they can speak to them, for themselves, Eric. They clearly are, have no problem doing that, so you don't need to tell me that the committee can speak for themselves. I get that.


MR. STAFFORD: Okay? I'm just -- I don't think we're being very productive, and I wanted -- you know, I'm willing to go through it and sit here for the next three hours and talk about word changes and action items if that's what the committee would like to do. So, what would -- what's your pleasure?

MR. CANNON: Kevin Cannon, employer rep. I think more time, as Pete has recommended, would be helpful. In our opinion, you know, many, if not all, of AGC members were, you know, pretty much already accepting and implementing, you know, the core elements.

This is one that was new and it is mentioned so in the announcement, you know, this is a new core element in here. I think this is the one that would impact construction the most, so giving more time to make sure we get it right would, in my mind, be the right thing to do.

MR. STAFFORD: No, I understand the FACA issues, and we have X number of people here if we have to, you know, send comments out and share it broadly with stakeholders that are in this room or whatever that takes. Or I'm willing to -- if you -- look, I mean, you guys are on the committee.

I've taken a stab at drafting up some action items to the extent that I had time to, since this was the last one in this new document. I've simply ran out of time. I've got a day job, too, like the rest of us, and so I just haven't had time to look at this section in detail.

We're floundering here, I think, and so we can either unflounder over the next three hours and straighten it out, or take a breather and take a crack at trying to draft up something and then share it. And it won't take long. I don't think that we need to have another ACCSH meeting to come back and talk about it, but we can share it together, and come up with a draft that we all think is appropriate for construction.

Now, if you want to take a break to talk about that, we can take a break to talk about that, or we can continue. I'm asking the committee. I'm looking you all in the face and saying do you want to continue this or not? Yes or no? Who wants to continue?

MR. HICKMAN: There you have it.

MR. PRATT: Mr. Chairman?

MR. STAFFORD: Wait a minute. Don, go ahead, and then Jeremy.

MR. PRATT: My suggestion would be let's take two weeks, go back home, think about these things, you're going to be thinking about it, let us get our comments down -- I don't have a comment on every single section. I do have comments on certain paragraphs.

I'd like to get those comments to you, okay, in the next two weeks, and then you, if you have the time, put a draft document together, circulate it to all of us, and then maybe we can have a conference call to finalize it.

MS. WILSON: Right. I mean right. Again, you know, potentially FACA issues. Definitely a work group can work together on this, but -- right -- I suggest we take the brief break, and talk with OSHA about, you know, what its timing is on this document and what we could, how we could work with the committee.

MR. STAFFORD: That sounds good. We'll take a break. Ten minutes.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

MR. STAFFORD: I had a little chat with the OSHA staff, and I think -- and again, I'm open, this is your committee, our committee -- I think that we're really getting bogged down on this section. We didn't have a -- I, personally, and possibly -- had a lot of time to take a look at this section.

And this is -- in my mind, when this first guideline came out this was the most exciting new section, because it included multiemployer sites that the '89 guideline did not include, and therefore it included construction, if you think about it in that way.

But we obviously haven't had a lot of time, and I'm struggling, obviously. And I'm sorry to express my frustration, because I do get frustrated when it seems like as the chair my -- our committee goes around in circles. I think that's a bad job by the chair, where you can't kind of keep the discussion flowing and going, so most of the frustration is with myself. So, let me apologize to you up front.

In talking to the agency, instead of trying to wordsmith a section that was clearly written for an industry, with OSHA's mind set at the time, thinking about a host employer and temporary workers, that's what this section is really written for, if you read it in detail.

Of course, in our industry, the

multiemployer setting is much more than a general contractor and a temporary worker, whether it's through a staffing agency, whether it's a contractor that's classified or misclassified as self-employed, because we're in the world of a multiemployer setting where we have construction managers, owners that are actively involved, other owners that are not.

We have general contractors, we have job sites where there are multiple general contractors, we have job sites where there are no general contractors, we have construction managers that do not have one employee of their own. So, it's a very different dynamic than what we're trying to deal with on this document for all industries.

So in talking to the staff, instead of trying to wordsmith, I think, and trying to fit something that doesn't fit our industry, and come up with the right words and getting bogged down in kind of definitional issues, we decided that it would be most helpful, I think, that if we could just come up with basic concepts on what we think need to be included in a multiemployer section for the purposes of this exercise, and then we can work -- and, hopefully, OSHA can take those concepts -- and they have a lot of talented staff here that could take what we think are important and they could do the word smithing in the next round of a draft for construction.

So, I think that's the best way to proceed, if you concur. I mean, I'm open for any of your comments or feedback now, but I think that that -- for now I think that we need to just come up with and stop going through the board and lining out, and underlining, and deleting, and adding back, Jennifer and Danezza. That we just come up with concepts in a multiemployer setting on what we really want, are trying to accomplish.

For me, again, and from my perspective, that is in a multiemployer work setting, whether you have a controlling contractor or not, but you have more than one contractor that is on a job site.

What is important in terms of these contractors sharing information with each other, communicating about their programs, and making sure that information flows down through each of their respective workforces, so everyone on the job site knows what the program is, the plan is, and know how they fit into that I think is where we need to be. So if you have any questions or comments about -- yeah? I'm sorry, Eric. Go right ahead.

MR. KAMPERT: Yeah. Eric, OSHA. If I can jump in. So I want to thank Pete for his due diligence to carry us this far. I think this is a good time to change our attack. So we won't be going line by line but, you know, maybe if Danezza and Jen could even just put up on the board -- we'll be almost more brainstorming at this point.

We want to look for the concepts -- you guys are the experts -- the concepts that are out there, any problem areas that are out there with temporary workers, and any best practices. Think about them. We can jot them down, we can put them in those different categories, maybe talk about all one at once or just shoot from the hip. I'll kind of leave that up to Pete.

But that's what we're looking for. We want to have your expertise. We don't want to go away with this, you know, just worrying about who OSHA has coverage over and definitions. I think definitions is a good part that we will probably put into the section, because I notice it's a problem, but if we can get your feedback. So, thank you, Pete.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, let's start. I mean, so if we had -- so let's just take a hypothetical. We're on a construction site, and we have a very active owner who is engaged and has certain requirements that they are calling for, and we have one general contractor and five layers of subs.

This is a hypothetical. What do we want to happen on that job site? What are the important things that we need to consider in a multiemployer site coming down from the owner, through the GC, through the five subs that we think is important in terms of coordination and communication on Safety and Health Programs? Yes, Jeremy?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman, Jeremy Bethancourt. I think one of the first things that occurs that I'm used to is that you always have a preconstruction meeting. And that's the best way to get that information from all those different entities. Hopefully, this is what you envision when you said brainstorming.


MR. BETHANCOURT: That's what you do. I mean, that's what I'm used to. That's one of the first things I ask about when I find out that we've gotten a contract. I say, "When is the precon," so that I know when I need to be there to start sharing information amongst the other trade partners, as we call them out West.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. So, at a precon, what do you do? What would be a guide for a Kevin Cannon, who's a new subcontractor that's on your job.

That's -- this is his first time. What does he need to prepare himself when he comes to your precon?

MR. BETHANCOURT: One of the first things that occurs is that, as the general contractor, I would share my site-specific safety plan with those subcontractors. Part of sharing that site-specific safety program, I would then ask them, "What is your safety program? Let's learn a little bit about what you're doing in your organization. I've showed you what I'm doing in my organization." Then there's that expectation that I've now conveyed to Kevin Cannon construction.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So then, that seems like, to me, is a reasonable number one action, that you have a preconstruction conference, and the first thing you do as an action item, you share, as the general contractor, your site-specific Safety and Health Program plan. Tom's saying no.

MR. MARRERO: No, I'm sorry. That was in reference to him.


MR. MARRERO: To Chuck.

MR. STAFFORD: Is that -- yeah, Don?

MR. PRATT: Don Pratt, representing employers. That may work for a moderate or large contractor, but for the small guys, they're not going to have a precon meeting. I mean, I'm not saying we shouldn't have it in here, I'm just saying that that's not reality. What I'm looking at in this document is to make it so user-friendly that it's reality. That people are going to use it.

I'm not worried about the big contractor. He's already doing this stuff. I'm worried about the guy that we can't reach in the field. The guy that is out there, he's doing his own thing, he's been doing it for 25 years. He doesn't care about something like this. We've got to make this so user-friendly that it's going to apply to him.

The big guys are going to do their own thing anyhow. The Turners of the world are going to do their thing. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a document, I'm just saying that -- I mean, having a precon meeting for a small contractor, he's going to look at and say, "What's this all about?" I mean, he won't even understand what it is.

I'm talking about guys that employ one, two, three, maybe 10 people. They're not going to go through this kind of a document and make it useful for them. I'm trying to figure out a way that we can reach those guys with some safety to change their way of thinking, to help them along the way, and develop a program for them that they can take and utilize it in their own businesses.

And multiemployer workers are huge in our industry. Every job we do have multiple layers of this. I'm thinking of a way that we can reach out and touch them. That's why I'd ask for, you know, a couple of weeks to think about -- this is probably the one area that affects our industry more than anything else, the home building industry, and I just -- it scares me to think that we're going to come up with a document that will never be used.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Appreciate that.

Danezza, and then Jeremy, and then --

MS. QUINTERO: I'm doing the outline, so if, by continue brainstorming, I can plug it in the different sections. For example, right now we have the large general contractor, but I think that they do share site-specific with subcontractor.

So, if it's in a scenario for small contractors -- for construction and communication, what do we communicate with them, when it's a small contractor? So, we can -- and that way you can then compare the outline with what we have in place, and decide what you have, and what you don't have. But I think the brainstorm will be a --

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Sounds good. Jeremy, and then Palmer.

MR. BETHANCOURT: So, to follow up, one of the things that I do experience regularly is literally a small crew, and that is their company. Literally three gives, four guys. And that's what they're doing. They show up to do a specific task.

And so, while I -- where I say a precon meeting, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to pull people in and all sit in an office for however long, and interact. It literally could occur out on a job site on a slab in the residential building industry, where you're talking about the options that are going to be in a house. Here are the things that you're going to have to go through. It's going to have to be conveyed to that small entity.

MS. LAWLESS: So, it's a coordination meeting.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Yeah, coordination meeting. Something that says here's the things you need to watch out for or whatever, you know.

And I'll literally say, "Okay, welcome to the job, you're a, you're the third tier from the top or wherever, fifth tier from the top, so this is your task now, you know, here's what I need you to be aware of, here are the hazards on this job, here are the things you need to be aware of, this is what the general contractor expects from you, this is what you need to make sure that you're doing."

Safety is a part of that conversation and the things that they need to be aware of. Make sure your folks all come with the correct PPE, make sure that your, you know, ladders are in good condition, that your fall protection equipment is correct, and that you're tying off -- I mean, that can occur

in -- when I say precon, it could be informal. It doesn't have to be this big thing, but it is a interaction between the small group, and, a lot of times, myself or our superintendents even.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. It's a coordination of --

MR. BETHANCOURT: It's coordination, and it can occur in a small setting with the two guys in the pick up truck.


MR. HICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple general observations. This is great. I think that OSHA just gave us some more finite direction that you're just looking for how this needs to differ in construction. From what I heard so far in this section, it was more terminology that we were getting hung up on. Someone else might dispute, including our chairman, but that seemed to be the problem.

So, generally speaking, I think OSHA would want to recognize that the terminology needs to change to be representative of what the multiemployer work site policy is for construction. It also needs to, I think, in my opinion, has to match what their standards are now. Certainly subpart (A)(a) was mentioned, so some new terminology there, new requirements there.

I'll speak to subpart (V). I'm more familiar with that from the electrical industry. They talk about host employer there as well, and the exchange of information that needs to occur between a host and subcontractor.

So, I think that whatever OSHA develops also, not only the terminology has to match the construction industry as it exists in a multiemployer work site policy, but they have to, of course these guidelines have to meet, match their standards. So, they can't be directing -- the guidelines can't be going down a different path than their existing rules, especially their more current rules, like subpart (A)(a) and subpart (V).

So, that's just generally what I think OSHA should do. The terminology seems to be problematic. It seemed to be general industry. A peg trying to fit into a construction hole.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. Thank you, Palmer.

MR. HICKMAN: Because I think at the end of the day whatever Jeremy, and Don, and others will say will look very much like what's in here, as far as the exchange of information. Everyone needs to be protected, regardless of who they work for, we have to tell about each other's hazards, we have to train.

So, I think as a structure element, we're going to hear this all sound pretty much like what's in here as an outline, but I think it's the terminology that needs to be tweaked.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Thank you, Palmer.

Any other questions or comments on that?

(No response.)

MR. STAFFORD: So, other than the coordination that we started down this road of our hypothetical and we had this precon meeting, is there next steps that we should think about in terms of action items in terms of coordinating on a

multiemployer site?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman?

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, Jeremy?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Another one of the things that occurs that we deal with, again, in residential building, so we'll have a builder rep, one guy or gal comes up and tells us -- not only do they relay the information about safety equipment and things that we needed to do on the job, but many times, there's going to be many trades on the site, and so, as part of that, they -- there's a schedule.

So as part of our role out I guess, for lack of a better way of saying it, part of that is, "Here's the schedule, here's who's scheduled to come in on this date. You know, they'll be potentially on top of you. You -- if there's going to be some issues and we run behind, then we need to coordinate with them, so that we all know that we're not interfering with each other's tasks, where that could be problematic."

If somebody's working on a roof, say, and then somebody comes in underneath them, there's now hazards that could occur. So, when you have other trades, there's coordination that has to occur, and that's usually discussed with the general contractor down to one-tier trades, subcontractor and so forth down the line.

So, that communication goes back and forth down a line. So, we're told something about schedule, then if we're having issues, we relay that back up the line.


MR. BETHANCOURT: I think that's something that needs to be addressed if it hadn't been written on there. But it's important that we acknowledge there are schedules, and that does play a part in how we're -- or an important part about the communication that occurs.

MR. STAFFORD: As an action item then, if we're thinking about scheduling in a -- again, we keep coming back to small residential construction sites. What does that mean? You coordinate in -- every -- in huddles or safety meetings every morning? How does that work?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Literally as simple as phone calls to each other, you know. Text messages nowadays. We'll do text messaging to each.

I'm -- you know, "Here's where my schedule is, call for inspection, we're getting out of the way, we've got this particular trade."

You know, I'll have post-tension folks show up while there's somebody working on a roof and they'll start pulling cables. There's a serious safety issue going on when you get something like that happening. So, you know, that kind of communication there, you know, we then relay that -- just an

example -- to the general contractor. "Hey, do you need us to pull off this job?"

This communication is not occurring, so I mean, there's -- that's something that's important is that everybody understands that best practice is we're all supposed to communicate with each other when we're going to do something that's potentially hazardous.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. Yeah, I guess I'm just getting --

MR. BETHANCOURT: Did I answer your question? I'm sorry.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. I'm just getting at while we say that we can communicate in terms of an action item as a guide for small employers, you know, how you do that. I mean, you can say you need to communicate, but what are the mechanisms for which is best practices that you do that?

Yes, Cindy?

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater, employee rep. Couple of things that you can do is hold a weekly, just make it a standard weekly coordination meeting. Identify one point of contact, so that whoever is communicating is not communicating with Kevin, and Kevin doesn't do anything with it, when my real contact was Jeremy, and I should have told him what was going on, because he's part of the coordination group. If you don't do that, you lose some of the coordination.

And then, a third piece would be document your communications. So, three bullet points under that is just document, identify a specific contact for coordination, usually that's the supervisor, you would hope, and then hold weekly meetings.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. Any other questions or comments on this issue? Yes, Jeremy?

MR. BETHANCOURT: That is a -- I mean I'm not discounting your spot, but, I mean, that is a good best practice. I don't know that that's actually even going to be practical in a small employer setting.

MS. DePRATER: It may not.

MR. BETHANCOURT: I mean, these people are running, chasing their tail a lot.

MS. DePRATER: And I get that. I'm just trying to figure out how --

MR. BETHANCOURT: So, just throwing out an idea of how to make it work. It's a good best practice for sure.

MS. DePRATER: How do you give them better ideas to become better contractors?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Yeah, they gotta know. You're right.


MR. BETHANCOURT: Got to give them ideas, I guess. Sharing phone lists --


MR. BETHANCOURT: -- with all the different tiers.

MS. DePRATER: Absolutely. For emergencies.

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's one of the things that we've done. We've said, "Look, here's phone lists." Something as simple as posting signs that even say the phone number of the contact.

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

MR. BETHANCOURT: That's a way to communicate. We post a sign, you know, of this is a controlled zone or danger zone, and we list the name of the foreman on the job. Then when somebody comes in -- go. I'm sorry. Kevin?

MR. CANNON: No, no. You're fine.

MR. BETHANCOURT: You know, that's one of the things that we've done, posting the phone numbers right there. I know on a lot of job sites in, at least in the Southwest, and Arizona specifically, they have dust control issues as a result of other legislation, not necessarily related to OSHA, and there are phone numbers listed right on the -- literally big signs, four by eight signs that say "Here's the responsible party," and it's generally the superintendent on that site. So, there's a phone number right there that folks can know to communicate with.

So, looking for signage in the community sometimes or on the job site is potentially one way that we could communicate better about issues going on on the job.

MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh.

MR. BETHANCOURT: I don't know. Again, I'm just brainstorming. Throwing out ideas.

MR. STAFFORD: That's what we're doing

and --

MR. BETHANCOURT: These are the things that I've experienced.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, Don?

MR. PRATT: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Don Pratt. I've got to leave, catch a plane, but here's what I'm hoping that's going to happen with this document is that we're going to be able to get it, take a look at it, send it out to various people and shareholders and make sure that this is the document we want to have OSHA publish.

You know, I'm not saying we're going to have a decision in that, I'm just saying that we need to vet it properly and take the time to do that. It seems to me like this thing is getting rushed through, and I don't understand why. This is a very, very serious, important document. We want to make sure it's done right. I'm really, really concerned that I want it used by 95 percent of our members, and not just five percent.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. Okay.

MR. PRATT: So, with that, I have to leave. I apologize. I've got to get home.

MS. DePRATER: Safe travels.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Yeah. Thanks, Don. I appreciate it.

MR. PRATT: All right.

MR. STAFFORD: Yes? Steve Rank?

MR. RANK: Steve Rank. Pete, you said earlier that you were excited about having this new category in here, because there wasn't any, one many years ago. There is reason to be excited, because that controlling entity, or contractor, whatever you're calling that, really dictates the tone of the project, okay?

We're talking about all these people communicating and the best person to facilitate that communication is that owner or representative that's hiring subcontractors that are coming to that job site, where they talk about training and talk about fall protection. They can talk about substance abuse on the side, they can talk about all this stuff.

You know, I could tell you that the general contractors have done a really good job in making this happen, and so, it's been working flawlessly when we have problems.

The example you got about post-tensioning, that's, you know, who we go to. If I've got people trying to work on a deck when I'm doing

post-tensioning, pulling those tendons, who do I go to? I go to that general contractor to say, "Pull those other trades off or I'm leaving." Now that's because they have the authority to control those other subcontractors, but I don't.

As a steel erector, a reinforcing contractor, I don't have the authority to tell another contractor what to do, but the controlling contractor that represents that owner sure as the hell does. So, that's where we've had all our success is working with these good general contractors, coming up with a site plan, implement it, and if we've got problems we go to them, okay? So, I don't know.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, Jeremy?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman, to his point, I think that is part of what we can do with this section in here is to get the general contractors to realize this really is your responsibility and you have the ability to make some really good improvements on job site safety if you will just embrace this. If we can simplify it somehow or constructionize it somehow, so that they understand here's some steps that you can do, just do this.


MR. CANNON: I mean the way that's being stated is that, you know, the end all, be all is the general contractor and that's -- you know, again, you guys -- yes, we do control the site, but you have your plan as the steel erector, you know, you have your plan as the electrical contractor.

You know what you're doing, so to say that, you know, it all stops with us, I just -- I mean, yes, correcting things that are brought to our attention, of course, but it just sounds like you're implying that everything falls within, you know, the authority.

MR. STAFFORD: You know, I think we have

to --

MR. BETHANCOURT: I don't want to get into a debate.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. I mean, I -- well, it's interesting, and we've had this discussion on a lot of different issues about, you know, the controlling contractor, but I think in this context that if we could stop thinking about the responsibility or the liability and what role the general contractor has in communicating is, would kind of distinguish that. I mean, it's just talking

about --

(Simultaneous discussion.)

MR. BETHANCOURT: It's just the supporting of it.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. Communication.

MR. BETHANCOURT: You guys provide such a great example. Chair, we got the report. GCs could provide such a great example of how to lead how the job would want to go. Not liability or responsibility, but -- if I'm misinterpreting this --


MR. BETHANCOURT: -- somebody let me know.


MR. BETHANCOURT: But that's what I think this is, would be a good document for.

MR. STAFFORD: Well, I mean that's what I'm saying. I mean, that's why I think this, our section in here is so different than this, because there are examples of construction sites that we have to think about, too, if we're going to do action items when they're, for an example, when I'm an owner, and I have five subcontractors and there is no general contractor, right?

And so, what are the best practices or how do you communicate or coordinate in that kind of an example?

MR. BETHANCOURT: And to the point --

MR. STAFFORD: I'm just saying. I mean, I'm not necessarily defending my colleague, Kevin Cannon,

here --

MR. BETHANCOURT: No, no, no, no. Well I think, to the --

MR. STAFFORD: -- but I'm saying that there's other multiemployer settings where it's, the responsibility for coordination and communication is not always just with the general contractor.

MR. BETHANCOURT: You know, I like the word controlling contractor, creating employer. I get used to those, the creating employer, control -- right. Because then it seems very clear in my mind who that is. In many instances it very well may be the employer that I represent sometimes, where they hire a sub tier. Well, look, that person just became a controlling employer. They're not the general contractor, but they are a --

MR. CANNON: That's what I just said a few minutes ago.

MR. BETHANCOURT: I understand, but what I'm saying is -- well I -- we're -- in a linear world, I might have to add more to it, Kevin. But we have situations whereby the controlling employer for another employer tier down the line may not be the general contractor, and so, isn't this document going to help that person also understand where their place is in this, what their role is potentially, to get the controlling employer to understand that they have responsibilities down the line?

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. I mean, I think so. Again, this is a little bit different. I think we're prepared to have this discussion. I mean, I think maybe we've come up with the different scenarios in our industry where there, on multiemployer sites, what those are.

And when you have a construction manager that has no employees, you know, and has

10 -- whatever the numbers are, and go down the list of scenarios of multiemployer sites, and maybe come up with some action items for each of those different scenarios. Might be helpful. I don't know but, you know --

MR. BETHANCOURT: We can give examples then, right?

MR. STAFFORD: This would be examples. I mean, if we're coming up with multiemployer -- this is my problem in trying to figure out this section. It's only really written for general industry, and the relationship between the host and the temporary worker. That is only one of many, many, many different multiemployer work sites that we have in construction.

MR. BETHANCOURT: So, we just brainstorm and give out ideas, Mr. Chairman? Is that the goal?

MR. STAFFORD: I mean, that's the goal now are conceptually on how we do that.

MR. BETHANCOURT: It seems a little happier of --


MR. BETHANCOURT: -- a goal.

MR. STAFFORD: I know. I mean, I don't know if we have time to do that, or even if we want to go through that exercise is come up with different scenarios in our industry on what multiemployer work settings look like. Is that worth doing?

MR. HICKMAN: That sounds more like a training component that would supplement the rule. That they would build some kind of training to sort of flesh out these examples of the types of things -- I don't know that that could -- you know, here's an example of five subs with, working directly for an owner or -- I don't know.

I think the guidelines are to be general in nature, consistent with the terminology. I mean, I don't know there's anyone here that hasn't worked under the multiemployer work site policy understands it, but that doesn't matter because the people that are reading it probably don't.

So, however we -- you know, that -- there's already training tools for that inside the 10 and 30 and, you know -- I don't know.


MR. STAFFORD: Training tools for coordinating on -- go ahead, Steve. Yeah.

MR. HICKMAN: Multiemployer work site policy.

MR. HAWKINS: You know, I was thinking. For our BPP and SHARP sites, one of the things that we require is that they address outside contractors in their Safety and Health Program.

And so, if you call a construction firm to come and dig a pit in the middle of your plant to install a new machine that's got to have a six foot deep footer. and you're just working off a four inch slab, you're bringing in a heavy piece of equipment, we say to our BPP and SHARP sites, if you want to be in this program, you have to have a component in your Safety and Health Program that fleshes out how you're going to handle this interruption.

Because that's what construction is in a general industry setting. It's an interruption to your day to day operations. It presents unique challenges. You say -- we say you have to manage that. And so, that's why this is in here, and I think you've already pointed that out.


MR. HAWKINS: When you start thinking about coordination on a construction site, it's, I think we did exactly right to wipe the slate clean, and to tell OSHA, "When it comes to this section, you're going to have to start over. There's no way to fix this to make it fit. There's no way to wordsmith this, because it's a completely different thing." I know it's overused, but it is apples and oranges, really.


MR. HAWKINS: It's not anywhere close. And so, when you start thinking about how to cover communication on a multiemployer construction site, I can see that being Cindy's job where it's really formalized, and then you can see it being where it just happens that two of us, Lisa and I, wind up working side by side on this house job, and it's just a manager who's never been to the site before, and I'm digging the foundation, and I'm laying block, and she's she's digging the basement and the footers, or something.

And so, I'm just -- I went through all that to say this: Where do we even start with instructions?

Do they even -- what is it that we want to happen? If I'm an employer, and I'm a 15 man masonry contractor, 25 man masonry contractor, manning the mankind seems to work, like men and women, and

so -- because I have a friend that owns one of those, and when I sign his citations, you know, it's never, it's always bad because I know I'm going to get that phone call, right? But I sign them anyway. I'm really glad to. But he's doing better. Anyway, neither here or there.

But he finds himself plugging into lots of places, and so what does he really need to do to communicate his hazards to the people around him? I mean, if he really manages his hazards well, he doesn't have much of anything to communicate to them. If he's got his guardrails up, if he's got his tow boards up, if he's managing access underneath his scaffolds, if he's got all his people in hard hats, he's mixing his concrete, he doesn't have a whole lot to communicate to anybody else on that site.

So, just in -- just at the thousandth, hundred-thousandth foot level, the highest level at all, what is it that we're telling my friend who owns Mark One Masonry? What does he -- what do we want to tell him to do right here?

I don't know that we're -- I don't know that we have to tell -- we need you to tell industry in this document what you need to do if you bring somebody from the outside into your workplace, but what do I really need to tell Mark One Masonry? What do you need to have in a written program about communicating? I mean, I'm starting to wonder if we have -- we're -- do we really tell him anything?

MS. DePRATER: Cindy DePrater. A couple of things. You do want to communicate hazards if there are hazards to communicate, but it also goes back to what's been bought in the project. So, even on the smallest project, residential project, you know, when they're working on the roof, for example -- let's take it to the smallest and then we'll take it to the largest.

MR. HAWKINS: Right. Okay.

MS. DePRATER: So, from the smallest contractor, who's going to put up -- on a second story, you know, who's going to put up the handrail? Where did that get bought? You know, so, there is a coordination piece with the owner on who is paying for what.

Typically, handrails and guardrails on a house project for the second story, you know, they go up, they build the temporary stairs out of wood, they have the landing platforms, but now you're on a second story with no walls yet. So, there is a coordination there of just different materials being brought in, when you're going to bring them in, who's going to install them for protection of the workers.

MR. HAWKINS: A responsibility assignment.

MS. DePRATER: A responsibility assignment.

MR. HAWKINS: More than communication.

MS. DePRATER: Correct.

MR. HAWKINS: It's really who's going to do it.

MS. DePRATER: Yeah. Then the second piece of that is how do you communicate that among the workers, as to who -- you know, if you walk up to the edge of something, you know, when do you stop work? Obviously immediately. And then, how does that get corrected? Who do you report that to so it gets corrected?

Now, you go to the opposite extreme. The same thing applies. On a multi-story high rise building, that coordination of who's going to buy the handrails and guardrails is number one, and then, who's going to maintain them after that contractor. The steel contractor might put them up, but when he leaves, who's going to --

MR. HAWKINS: Somebody takes the cable down to fly something in --


MR. HAWKINS: -- who's going to --

MS. DePRATER: Who's going to maintain them? Where does that fall to?

MR. HAWKINS: That's the kind of thing -- and so, what Cindy's saying, I think we should, for the sake of this discussion, abandon the

multiemployer work site policy that OSHA, that we all know what it says, because that only decides who gets a citation when something goes wrong.

MS. DePRATER: Right. Right.

MR. HAWKINS: That really has no place in this document. Controlling all that stuff -- you know, you're talking about controlling, creating, correcting, and exposing. That is all -- that's an OSHA document about who gets a citation. It shouldn't really even be brought up in this section, right?

MS. DePRATER: I think this becomes really short. I don't think there are six action items in this, I think there's maybe two: program -- well, I think there's program coordination that we started working on, you know, there is a coordination of your program, but I, and I think there is a coordination at the project level, which you were mentioning and you might want to elaborate on that. It involves some of these things that we're talking about right now.

MR. HAWKINS: When you create a hazard that's uncontrollable, like carbon monoxide, if you're running a generator on the second story wide open, it's not a problem --

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. HAWKINS: -- right? But if you happen to be running that thing in the basement, and your workers are up on the third story, and you, you're running a generator and it's running a compressor, right, or you're running a gasoline engine that's running a compressor, and you're running nail guns up on the third floor, you're not exposed to the hazard of --

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. HAWKINS: -- carbon monoxide. If a guy goes into that basement to do some interior waterproofing, or he's going to go and clean up the concrete down there with a grinder, now he's exposed to my generator, and my carbon monoxide that I'm emitting, but none of my employees are exposed to it.


MS. DePRATER: And they haven't been trained on it, maybe.

MR. HAWKINS: Right. So, one of things that this communication piece should probably say is, it should talk about if you're creating a hazard that would affect other workers, you need to communicate that hazard to the other workers on the site, to the other contractors on the site.

So if we're talking about giving OSHA a bullet list of here's some thoughts about what to do right here, if you create a hazard that exposes other workers to your hazard, even though you're not exposed to it you need to communicate that hazard to them. And give some examples, like paint fumes, like --

MS. DePRATER: Noise.

MR. HAWKINS: -- like noise, like --

MR. STAFFORD: Fall hazards. I mean --

MS. DePRATER: Fall hazards.

MR. HAWKINS: -- carbon monoxide, like atmospheric hazards, which could include silica exposure. You might have your -- Eric might be my grinder guy, and I've got him medically fit to wear a respirator, I've got him down in the basement grinding, I've got it as wet as I can be or whatever, maybe I can't do it wet for some reason, and so I protected him, but if other guys come in there to do some painting on the floor while he's in there grinding, they're exposed to silica, and they don't even know it.


MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. HAWKINS: So, in the ideal world, which is what we're trying to create here or move it toward that, if I'm Eric's employer, I would tell the other workers, "Hey, we got silica exposure, you all don't need to come in here until we've finished and get this cleaned up." So, communicating hazards that you create to others would be a component. Okay. Another component would be if you are exposed to a hazard that you can't control, this communication piece would say you need to go to the general contractor --

MS. DePRATER: Right. Right.

MR. HAWKINS: -- and seek a correction. We would want to tell a newbie who's trying to design a program, these are some things. You create a hazard, tell others about it. Your workers are exposed to a hazard that you can't control, we believe that needs to be escalated to the general contractor, as well as the contractor creating the hazard.

So, what other kinds of communication things around safety and health are likely to happen on a project so we can communicate to OSHA, "These are some thoughts that you would put into this section." That's two, right?

MS. DePRATER: Emergency evacuations.

MR. HAWKINS: That's right. The general contractor needs to be told that if you're going to have, if you're going to do emergency evacuations, you need to communicate that to all contractors and employees on the site. That's a good example of communication. But see, you've got communication going different directions and that's why it's so hard to do this section, I think, in construction.

So, examples, that might be a good way to break it up. Examples of general contractor communications to other employers on the site, and employees on the site, sub to sub type communications, sub back to general type communications. Kind of make it a triangle of all three directions, and give examples --

MS. DePRATER: That's a good idea.

MR. HAWKINS: -- of things that need to be communicated to other entities and other workers on the site.


MS. DePRATER: Uh-huh. It's a good idea.

MR. HAWKINS: The general contractor should communicate -- if you're writing this document, general, they should communicate who's responsible for correcting hazards, like guardrails. If you've created it, and you take it down, who's going to be responsible for putting it back up? Those are examples of --

MS. DePRATER: Or in a union environment, who do you notify to put it back up? Under union agreements you might not be able to put it back up yourself.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. Okay. No, that's right.

Yeah, Palmer?

MR. HICKMAN: Thank you. Steve, you're doing a great job of reciting the multiemployer work site policy. It sounds like I'm reading right from the OSHA 500 manual that I teach. I'm a trainer for that. It's just you're describing exactly what the multiemployer work site policy does, and the examples they use, in the OSHA 500 manual that the instructors use to teach a 10 and 30. So, that's a great resource for OSHA to look at. Get it from DTE and --

MR. HAWKINS: Well, and to use that document to flesh out communication. But don't talk about it about to create controlling, and exposing and that.

MS. DePRATER: Right.

MR. HAWKINS: I think it should talk about it in general terms.

MR. HICKMAN: In general terms.

MR. STAFFORD: Communication and coordination.

MR. HAWKINS: Because what happens with the multiemployer work site policy is when these communications that we're talking about don't happen, or they do happen and people don't take appropriate action, that's when OSHA comes in, or TOSHA comes in and starts issuing citations and fines to people who should have taken action to do things if this communication didn't take place, or if it did and, no action was taken as a result.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. Right.

MR. HAWKINS: So, we're trying to pre-empt that. We're going one step back, right, Palmer? Going one step back and saying, "These are things that communicate down from the general to the sub, from sub to sub, and then from subs back to the general, or temporary workers, or --

MR. STAFFORD: Whatever that means.

MR. HAWKINS: -- even self-employed for that point."

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. Right. No, I think that's good. I think that -- yeah, Jeremy?

MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. But aren't we basically saying the same thing? Without talking about the multiemployer policy, aren't we basically trying to give guidance to people what, ahead of time, so that they don't have that problem --

MR. HAWKINS: That's exactly what we're trying to do.

MR. BETHANCOURT: -- before the break. So, what do we call them? I mean, in order to be consistent -- that was the only reason I used those words, because those are, that's the consistency that I have, and a lot of people do.

MR. HAWKINS: Yeah, but we don't -- I don't think we use those words, because that's OSHA's document that we use for citations.

MR. BETHANCOURT: So, what words do we use?

MR. HAWKINS: Use general contractor, you use subcontractors, you talk about --

MR. BETHANCOURT: And that's --

MR. HAWKINS: -- creating hazards. You're creating a hazard that you can't control that are going to be exposed to other workers, you communicate that to the other people who are affected by your work. If you're the general contractor, you put down your expectations to your subs. If the subs have issues that they can't control, you send that back up to your general contractor and seek their help.

You're trying to tell them to do this communication, this circle or this triangle of communication, and you flesh that out in this document.

MR. BETHANCOURT: I wouldn't disagree with that. Thank you for helping me to find the words but, or helping everybody to find the words. I think that's a good point to make. That way people realize what they have to do ahead of time, and how they have to communicate, in a happy way.

MR. HICKMAN: Even to that point,

Mr. Chairman -- Palmer Hickman here -- in the training module, they talk about legitimate defense, but I, when I teach it, I teach it in a different spin. Not that it's more like how you would not be cited as an employer, I teach people how you would prevent people from being exposed to the hazards.

So, use that legitimate defense steps to get, to back it up, so you don't get to that point. As a last resort, you move your folks. Make sure you notify of the hazard, communicate. After you've done these six or seven things, you won't get a citation, but take it back a step as a teaching. How do you not get to that point I think is Steve's point.

MR. HAWKINS: And tell them if you're doing this to avoid a citation you have missed the boat, so bad you need to go back to the dock, dude. You need to go all the way back. I mean, I don't talk about --

MR. STAFFORD: You didn't miss the boat, you missed the ocean.

MR. HAWKINS: Yeah. Yeah. You know, you're sitting -- you're on dry land in a boat. You can't go anywhere like that.


MR. HAWKINS: So, that's one we don't want to use, the -- I don't want to use the multiemployer work site citation policy to section this out.


MR. HAWKINS: You don't want to put that in here.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. No, I think we all agree to that, I think. I think that's good. Any other questions or comments then?


MR. STRIBLING: I had one. I know this is, right now it's titled "Coordination and communication on multiemployer work sites," but if you just look at it from a multiemployer work site concept, we had spoke earlier about prequalification. Is that something that would come into play here, where we're talking about multiemployer work sites?

I don't know that we put it in the document anywhere to this point, which I think it's worth mentioning as a way to be a part of your Safety and Health Program. You may have a process for prequalification.

MR. STAFFORD: No, it didn't get in there. We were thinking about this section as the place where it belongs, and so maybe is in there, some resources that CS -- Steve?

MR. HAWKINS: And that is something for the agency to consider, inclusion of prequalification.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. We could add that to the appendices. There's some documents that we've developed through this committee, as a matter of fact. Any other questions or comments then on multiemployer section?

I'm going to -- Eric, I mean, do you think this discussion is enough that you're, that OSHA has enough to think about, or how we could assist in kind of writing some action items based upon these general concepts that the group's thrown out?

MR. KAMPERT: Eric with OSHA. Yeah. No, I think this is great discussion. I would ask when there are problems out site, on site with

multiemployer, what's the causes?

MR. CANNON: Lack of communication.

MR. STAFFORD: Communication.

MR. KAMPERT: And that is solved by?

MR. HAWKINS: Communication.

MR. STAFFORD: That's it.

MR. HAWKINS: Well, for us, we solve it with a citation, but short of that, yeah, it's solved with communication. So, if you're going to be flying something over, you communicate that to people, to clear this area, because we're about to fly these forms over the top of your heads.

MR. STAFFORD: That's right. Uh-huh.

MR. MARRERO: Enforcement.


MR. HAWKINS: I do think it's also a really good place to reassert the fact that general contractors are ultimately responsible for safety and health on the site, especially -- Don's out of the room. Now would be a good time to sneak that in there.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. Okay.

MR. HAWKINS: Now we could get what we really want, Mr. Chairman. No. But I think it is a good time to say that they are responsible for coordinating safety and health on the job site.


MR. HAWKINS: The general contractor has that responsibility.


MR. HICKMAN: And we acknowledge that.


MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. When it-- right.

MR. HICKMAN: For coordination.

MR. STAFFORD: For coordination and communication.


MR. STAFFORD: And that's what we're talking about. I think that's good. I'd agree we could put that back in.

MR. HICKMAN: Not assuming the responsibility to, you know, implement someone's program --

MR. HAWKINS: So, if you're a novice to this and you're reading something, and it says, "Here are things to consider" -- you know, again, I don't want to -- I'm going to repeat myself.

General contractor, they communicate their expectations. Sub to sub, and sub to the general, you also communicate what your hazards are, as they occur that you can't control that might affect others. And then, if there's issues that can't be resolved between sub to sub, that's when you seek the input of the general to control that hazard and help you control it.

MR. STAFFORD: Or help it. Uh-huh.

MR. HAWKINS: If you can't control it, or it's beyond the scope of your authority to cover it, in this communication step you encourage subcontractors to seek the assistance of the general contractor to solve this issue that you don't have the authority or the ability to solve.

MR. STAFFORD: Right. I don't think there's, anyone could argue with that. I don't think. Kevin? Yeah. Okay.

MR. HAWKINS: So, what more could we add to that --

MR. STAFFORD: I'm not sure we can add more to that. I mean, you know -- hold on.

MS. LAWLESS: I don't know if you need to.


MR. HICKMAN: We hold these truths to be self-evident. To steal a phrase

MR. STAFFORD: Kevin, do you have a --

MR. CANNON: Yeah. As I was mentioning to you, it just sounds like this particular section could be just talking about two areas, program and coordination, and then the communication of the hazards and allow OSHA to fill in the blanks.

MR. HAWKINS: And you could do that, "If you're a GC, you should," and start listing bullets. "If you're a subcontractor, you should," and start listing bullets.


MR. HAWKINS: "If you're a sub of a sub, you should," and list some bullets. And talk about those, that circle of communication that we've talked about. Down, over, and back up, depending on what the names are at the time.

MR. STAFFORD: All committee that's left agree with that? I mean is that something, OSHA, that you can take and do, or can we help you with that, or at this point --

MR. KAMPERT: I would like to have that list because I think what happens is whenever you say the should -- I think Mr. Mott mentioned it yesterday. When you have a whole bunch of people on site, everyone says, "It's not my job."

MR. STRIBLING: Yeah. Mr. Chair, and I think the communication is critical, absolutely critical, but there's more to it than that. There's the walk the walk. And what happens when there's a breakdown? I mean, there has to be some --

MR. CANNON: Accountability.

MR. STRIBLING: Thank you. There has to be accountability. So, I think this should, accountability, should be part of the discussion on multiemployer as well.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. Okay. Fair enough. I will agree with that. So, I'm just try -- I'm looking at Eric. So, I mean, is this enough for this, or is there more that needs to be done on this discussion? So, we all agree with that, I think, if we have those three general elements. That that's what we think this section could include for construction.

Is that enough for OSHA, or do you want us individually to submit some of these things that Steve was talking about to --

MR. KAMPERT: No, I think if we flesh this out -- I don't know. Is it worth just glancing back at the document? I mean, not to dig into it, but just mentioning hazard identification and assessment, hazard prevention and control.

MR. STAFFORD: No. Yeah, no. I think at the end of this exercise, once we get through this section, is we want to go back very quickly, and look at the action items for all the other sections, to kind of be sure that we've hit it all and it's been captured for, starting with management leadership.

MR. HAWKINS: See, that's where -- okay. When you start with management leadership, that's where you might say, "General contractor, management contractor, managing contractor," whatever those are. That might be the section instead of -- that's who's going to provide leadership.

On most construction sites, if you have a GC, they're going to provide the safety and health leadership most of the time. Would you agree with that, Kevin? Most of the time.

MR. CANNON: Most of the time.

MR. HAWKINS: If you're running a job,

who --

MR. BETHANCOURT: I'm not allowed to comment on general contractors, but most of the time, yes, that's who we look to.

MR. STAFFORD: Well, see we can go back real quickly, and, if you want to, look at management leadership.


MR. STAFFORD: Now I'm not so sure that we want --

MR. HAWKINS: We're not trying to make it perfect, we're just trying to give some ideas.


MR. HAWKINS: One idea would be management leadership, and you could flesh out the fact that most of the time that's the general contractor.

MR. STAFFORD: Uh-huh. You know, if we could just go through them, if it's okay. If -- just start on the screen, and go through each of the sections with the action items to be sure we're all comfortable with it. I'm not sure we need another break at this point. I'd just like to get through this and knock it out.

MR. HICKMAN: So, page 23, action item one, is that where we are? Page 23, action item one?

MR. STAFFORD: No. We're going from the beginning.

MR. HICKMAN: The very beginning.

MR. HAWKINS: All the way.

MR. STAFFORD: I'm on management leadership, page number six in the master document. See what we've -- just run through, for quality control, the action items that you've captured.


MR. STAFFORD: Yes, Chick (sic)?

MR. STRIBLING: I just wanted to point out when we went over program evaluation and improvement, we didn't take into consideration your suggestions. Just throwing that out there so that if anybody saw something in there they felt strongly about, you might want to bring it up as we go through this.

MR. STAFFORD: When we get to that section. Or maybe then if -- you know, once we get this and it's back in OSHA's hands, you have the parallel document, if there's things that we've missed in incorporating some of those in the main document, I mean, OSHA's free to take a look at that, and add or delete as you see fit. How about that?

MS. LAWLESS: Mr. Chairman, just for clarity, we are starting at the beginning of the OSHA document on page 6 and working through all of the --

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. Well, I would just like to very quickly, yes, Jennifer, just run

through --

MS. LAWLESS: Okay. Just clarifying.

MR. STAFFORD: -- management leadership and just hit all the action items that we've agreed to. So, just make sure that we're all comfortable.

MS. LAWLESS: Okay. Thank you.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, we did some word changings in the intro. I think we picked it up. So, management leadership, starting on page 6.

MR. HAWKINS: No additional comments?

MR. STAFFORD: I can't see it.

MS. QUINTERO: Okay. The first paragraph, this guideline, we --

MR. STRIBLING: No. We're going to page 6.

MR. STAFFORD: I just want to go through the action items for each section that we've agreed to, because we said that we would go back and do one final quality control.

MS. QUINTERO: Action item one. We add a new bullet. "Communicate policy to all workers when they first come on the site. Utilize resources available to construction employers, such as sample written policy and program included in appendix." Last I know, that was somewhere else and we decide to incorporate.

Action 2. Nothing.

Action 3. We add after the first paragraph: "Resource and needs will vary depending on your organization size, complexity." And starting point in program development: "resource and needs might include capital equipment and supply, staff time, training, access to information and tools," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

MR. STAFFORD: That was just the note there. Right.

MS. QUINTERO: Exactly. The note was relocated there. Action 4, bullet one. We add an example, "such as competent and qualified person." And we eliminate: "ensure that the leadership and local management share the same safety and health performance." And we eliminate: "set an example for workers by following," blah, blah, blah, blah.

We add three new bullets. "All management reps on site (owners, supervisor, and foremen) must follow all safety rules, and continue.

Next bullet. "Conduct weekly or daily toolbox talks on safety and health," appendix, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Third bullet. "Every worker should get an orientation when they first come on the job site that focuses on safety and the potential hazards of the specific site," blah, blah, blah, blah.

MR. HICKMAN: So, these were moved in from Exhibit 4, I think.

MS. QUINTERO: Yes, that's correct. Exhibits. That's it under that section. Now we go to worker participation.

On the intro, bullet one, we delete design and implementation.

The last paragraph, fifth line from the bottom up, we delete "as can mandatory the drug testing after reporting injury." That drug testing section, we delete that.

Action item one. We add, maybe this is a note from somewhere, I'm not sure, but: "Your worker are the first line of defense, they might spot hazards before you do, so it is extremely important that they are engaged and empowered to act, to take action if they see a hazard," blah, blah, blah, blah.

MR. HICKMAN: From Exhibit 4. Yeah.

MS. QUINTERO: Yes. And then we add an example to the sixth paragraph: "Workers are often best position to identify safety and health hazards, such as unsafe conditions" -- okay -- "close call, near misses, and actual incidents." That's it for Action 1.

Action 2. Nothing. Anyone have something?

Action 3, we have one new bullet. "Since workers often have the best idea on how to do the work safely, daily planning meetings, huddles, tool box talks," blah, blah, blah, blah.

We add another bullet. So, in this section we add one, two, three, four new bullets.

The first one is: "Since worker often have the best idea."

Second one: "Workers can also support the program throughout participation."

Third: "For particularly hazardous tasks, a job safety analysis or JSA."

And the last one: "When accidents do happen, it is important to understand all the factors that contribute to it." And for sure, we copied this

from --

MR. HICKMAN: Exhibit 4.

MS. QUINTERO: Exactly. Worker participation. Action 4. Nothing under Action 4. If someone has something, let me know.

Under Action 5, I don't have anything under Action 5.

Now we move to hazard identification and assessment. We have this. This was moved from Exhibit 4. "Does everyone on the site know a hazard when they see one? How do we make sure that they do?" Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Action 1. Nothing new under Action 1.

Action 2. We add a new paragraph. "You might need to devote more time and resources to identifying and understanding more complex hazards, such as," blah, blah, blah, blah.

The note that was on the bottom, we move it up. "OSHA requires that construction employers designate a competent person to conduct regular and frequent inspections." Yeah, we don't want note, we just want, you know, that to be a --


MS. QUINTERO: And the same thing for the second note. We move it here. "See Appendix A, implementation tools, and," blah, blah, blah, blah.

We remove, "Hazards can be introduced over time as the work processes change." We remove workload.

MR. MARRERO: You removed some general industry terms, I believe.

MS. QUINTERO: Yeah. We removed chemical agents, biological agents. We add: full protection, electrical hazards. We just say that we need to add more construction terms in this section.

MS. LAWLESS: And we removed workflow bullet.

MR. STAFFORD: We had moved, yeah, the bullet that started out, "Include ancillary activities in these inspections."

MS. QUINTERO: Yes. Exactly. Yeah. You're seeing here that it's crossed out.


MS. QUINTERO: Next bullet. Before, we remove changing work flows, making major organizational changes. So before intro -- the paragraph is going to read: "Before introducing new equipment, materials, or processes, evaluate," blah, blah, blah, blah.

Then the next sentence. We removed in construction. The sentence will start: "Conflicting work schedules might also create hazards."

Then the note that was there, we removed that note.

MR. STRIBLING: Took out the first bullet.

MS. LAWLESS: We also removed, "Consider any facility modifications," from the first bullet.

MS. QUINTERO: Exactly. Yes. That's correct.

Action number three. Nothing.

Action number four. We add two new bullets on how to accomplish it. "Many times accidents happen when workers are doing something they are not normally doing," blah, blah, blah, blah.

Next bullet, "Preparation should be made for emergency situation. Who will call 911? Are emergency supplies available in the truck or the site? Emergency, like a fall, can happen on any site at any time."

That note is going to be removed after that? Do you know?

MS. LAWLESS: The emergency plans?


MS. LAWLESS: I have nothing listed there.

MS. QUINTERO: Okay. So, for now, it stays there.

Action 5. I have nothing on the hazard identification assessment Action 5.

Hazard prevention and control. I don't have anything on the introduction.

Action 1. The only thing I have is on bullet number -- one, two, three. On third bullet, the words, two words, "the facility," was removed.

Action 2, first sentence. "Select controls that are most visible and effective." And we remove and permanent.


MS. QUINTERO: Action 3. Last sentence under Action 3, the introduction, "Track your progress." The word completing was removed.

Action 4.

MR. STRIBLING: Well, Action 3, isn't there a bullet removed?

MS. QUINTERO: I don't have a bullet removed.

MR. STRIBLING: Plan how --

MS. QUINTERO: Anyone else?

MS. LAWLESS: Yes. I --


MR. STRIBLING: Yeah. I had, "Plan how you will track progress toward completion," was removed.

MR. BETHANCOURT: Yeah, that was.

MS. QUINTERO: Okay. Perfect. The Action 4 --

MR. STRIBLING: And one --

MS. LAWLESS: And the new construction picture.

MS. QUINTERO: Yeah. That's --

MR. RANK: That's a global change.

MR. STRIBLING: But one other thing. Back up. In Action 1, in the second bullet, I had that the word workplaces was going to be changed.

MR. STAFFORD: You had? What did you have, Chuck? I'm sorry.

MR. STRIBLING: Second bullet. "Investigate control measures used in other workplaces," change the word workplaces.

MS. QUINTERO: To what? Change that --

MR. STRIBLING: I don't know. I think we said work sites.

MS. QUINTERO: Okay. Action --


MS. QUINTERO: -- 4, first sentence. "Plan to protect workers during non-routine tasks". And remove operations.

Under how to accomplish --

MR. STRIBLING: Wait a minute. Also remove unplanned equipment shutdowns.

MS. LAWLESS: Same paragraph.

MS. QUINTERO: Uh-huh. Got it. How to accomplish it. Develop -- bullet one. "Develop process, procedures to control hazards that might arise during non-routine tasks. Eliminate operations. That's the only thing I have under that.

Five. Under introduction add a new paragraph. "Letting problems languish in a inevitably means someone," blah, blah, blah, blah.

How to accomplish. Remove bullet number two, "When resources are limited increment measures." So, we remove that.

Action number six. Under how to accomplish, the one, two, three, four, fifth bullet. "Have all controls measures being implemented." Then remove "according to schedule."

MS. LAWLESS: And in the third bullet you're also going to remove facilities. Conduct routine preventative maintenance of equipment. Remove facilities.


MS. QUINTERO: And then we add a new bullet that says, "Have the controls be communicated to other contractors in the area?"

Education and training. We start that paragraph with managers and workers, rather than workers.

A comment. A generic comment. "This education and training section needs to be developed for managers and workers. Those two words need to be incorporated throughout education and training section."

Last paragraph under the introduction. "In addition, all workers should receive a specialized training when they are assigned a specific role in implementing and managing" -- delete or

operation -- "the Safety and Health Program."

Action 1: How to accomplish it. Tom said remove the word agency. It's temporary workers only.

And we add a new bullet. "Every worker will have some basic training in hazardous conditions. As a starting point, all workers should have a hazard recognition," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Action 2. Training. The same thing. Managers and workers. It says, "Additional training might be needed to ensure that managers and workers understand their roles and carry out their daily routine and activities."

How to accomplish it. "Instruct managers and workers."

Second bullet. "Provide opportunities for managers and workers."

Third bullet. As the program evolves, institute a more formal process for determine (sic) the training needs for managers and workers responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining the program."

Action 3. "Train managers and workers. Introduction," blah, blah, blah. "Providing managers and workers." Nothing else.

Under how to accomplish it, one new bullet. "Workers need information about potential hazards. For example, if hazardous chemicals are used, the safety data sheets must be instantly available," blah, blah, blah, blah.

Program evaluation and improvement. We remove on the introduction section, "Program evaluation and improvement means that you."

First bullet was removed. "Establish report and track metrics." That was removed.

Action item one. First sentence was removed, "Define appropriate measures and indicators to measure performance."

Second paragraph. We add -- I add after leading indicators, "please provide a more clear definition and examples. After leading indicators, please provide a more clear definition and example."

I also said, "Leading indicators are proactive and can help measure -- and can measure the successful implementation and impact of the Safety and Health Program." I delete -- then we delete the rest of the sentence.

We add a new paragraph. "Indicators can be either quantitative or qualitative. Select indicators that are measurable and that reflect the program goals and identify areas of concerns."

How to accomplish. Nothing -- yeah. Hold on. How to accomplish. We eliminate the note.

Now we go to action item number two. We delete, "at least once a year." We're going to use the word, "Continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the entire program and newer site-specific programs on an ongoing basis to ensure that it operates," blah, blah, blah, blah.

Second paragraph, "The scope and frequency of program evaluation will vary depending on changes in OSHA standards, scope, complexity," blah, blah, blah, blah.

"How to accomplish it. Verify that the program core elements have been fully and effectively implemented on each of your job sites." At the end of the last bullet, "Collecting and reporting the data needed to monitor progress and performance, such as lagging and leading indicators, as identified in action item one."

Action item three, third bullet. Remove the word facilities.

Fourth bullet, "Determine whether the measures and goals are implemented" -- there's some grammar issue here -- "are implemented are still relevant and how you could change them to more effectively drive improvements in workplace safety and health.

"Danezza will ask Cindy." Cindy's not here. Cindy was going to rewrite that paragraph or provide us some language, so.

And, "Seek out relevant safety and health public research to help improve methods." That was from Nigel. And remove the note.


MS. QUINTERO: And we're to the last one here. Coordination and communication. We remove --

MS. WILSON: I'm sorry.

MS. QUINTERO: Go back?

MS. WILSON: Yeah. Go back to three, please.

MS. QUINTERO: I have to ask Cindy. She was going to provide us the language on that one.

MS. WILSON: Right. Is it also not where we're adding about a short anonymous survey?


MS. WILSON: Which is in --

MR. CANNON: That was the second bullet. Just adding that on to the --


MR. CANNON: -- of the second bullet, where it says, "For instance develop or create a --

MS. QUINTERO: So, under, "Proactively seek input from --

MR. CANNON: "Input from managers, workers, supervisors, and other stakeholders" --

MS. QUINTERO: Okay. Read it for me. So, at the end -- you're getting through the program.

MR. CANNON: Yeah, at the end of the program.

Pete, what was it? For instance?

MR. STAFFORD: It's in my document. I just can't find the page relevant --

MR. CANNON: Yeah. "For instance, you can create a short anonymous survey, or they can give you an honest picture of what is happening." I don't know if you want to go on to say, "you may be surprised what they say," but, you know.

MR. STAFFORD: It's in Exhibit 4, Jen.

MR. CANNON: Under program evaluation.

MR. STRIBLING: I had one other thing.


MR. STRIBLING: In this same section, back under action item one, it's several bullets -- well, on page 21 it says, "Worker opinions about program effectiveness." Did we -- we talked about, but did we change that to manager and worker?

MR. CANNON: And worker. Yeah.

MR. STAFFORD: And workers.

MR. CANNON: Yeah, manager and worker.

MR. STRIBLING: And then, you go three more up and says, "Number of workers who have completed" --

MS. QUINTERO: Wait, wait. Action item one. Not on the introduction. You are -- you --

MR. CANNON: How to accomplish it.

MS. QUINTERO: On how to accomplish?



MS. QUINTERO: So, that will be bullet number?

MR. STRIBLING: Well, it's several down. It says, "Worker opinions about program effectiveness."

MS. QUINTERO: Yes, I got it. About program effectiveness. Uh-huh. What else?

MR. STRIBLING: It should be manager and worker.

MS. QUINTERO: Perfect. Okay.

MR. STRIBLING: Then you go three bullets up, it says number of workers. I think we decided number of managers and workers.


MS. QUINTERO: Uh-huh. Good. Anyone else?

(No response.)

MS. QUINTERO: Okay. Coordination and communication. We removed that whole section of, "Does This Element Apply to Me." Okay. Let's see that we do this. Okay.

The introduction paragraph. We start: "Most construction." Then, we're not going to worry about this definition. We going to ask the agency to look at the compliance regulation for general contractor definition. Be careful that the definition only apply to one -- not only apply to one specific regulation. It might not apply outside that subpart, so we have to be careful with that.

Can we use the term "all parties," or "all entities"? So, every time that we talk about who in there --

MR. HICKMAN: I think we might have moved on beyond that, in a subsequent thought to all employers and all workers.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. I think on this section, Danezza, we got out of the word smithing, and just in our last, and our last issue was just general concepts that we shared.

MS. QUINTERO: Okay. So, Palmer, how the first paragraph is going to read: "Typically, some workers are employed by"? Or that whole section is going to be rewritten.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. I think that we don't need to do, go through this exercise. I think that --

MS. QUINTERO: We're going to work on that section.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. I mean, we have the general concepts.

MS. QUINTERO: So, we're going to work in this whole introduction section.

MR. STAFFORD: The whole section --

MS. QUINTERO: The whole section. Okay.

MR. STAFFORD: -- needs to be redone. Yeah.

MS. QUINTERO: So, for that section -- okay. Perfect. No problem. And for that section, that's for the section that we created an outline that I put together in what I have for -- in where I have, for example, things, such as communication. If you create the hazard, you are responsible to communicate the hazard to assisting --

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. I think this --

MS. QUINTERO: That whole --

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah, that whole thing. I mean I think the principles are communication, coordination, responsibility, and back to what Steve said in this section, from general contractor to subcontractor, from sub back to general, from sub to sub, et cetera. That's kind of -- that's the section.

MS. QUINTERO: Right. So, I think we agree to everything before that section. All the others are completed.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. So we're blowing that up, the multiemployer section for construction, right, basically is what we're going to do.


MR. STAFFORD: Any other questions or comments?

MR. RANK: Yeah. Pete?

MR. STAFFORD: Anybody? Yeah, Steve?

MR. RANK: You know, I don't think you left anything out.

MS. QUINTERO: Thank you.

MR. STAFFORD: Yeah. That's good.

Lisa, or?

MS. WILSON: Yeah. I would recommend that the committee have a motion recommending that OSHA consider, you know, the changes that you have

agree -- you know, the changes that you have put into the document.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. That's fine with me. Entertain a motion to that effect. Anybody would like to make that motion?

MR. STRIBLING: So moved.

MS. WILSON: Okay. So --

MR. STAFFORD: Someone make a motion. Chuck? Please.

MR. STRIBLING: I'm sorry. Chuck Stribling. So moved.

MR. BETHANCOURT: What she said.

MR. STAFFORD: We need to frame the -- in the form of a motion.

MR. RANK: Mr. Chairman, could we add as part of that motion that the unfinished piece of business also, you know, we have an opportunity to fix. I mean, I want to make sure that that's not left out.

MR. STAFFORD: Well, what -- maybe we should do that in two separate actions --

MR. RANK: Because I want to make sure

that -- because of the --

MR. STAFFORD: -- okay, so, to make it clear. All right. So, let's start over. Lisa, frame up a motion that one of these folks are going to move, and hopefully second.

MS. WILSON: I would suggest ACCSH recommends that OSHA consider the changes to the guidance document that the committee agreed to.

MR. HAWKINS: I think that was what Chuck moved. I second Chuck's motion.

MR. STAFFORD: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. STAFFORD: Those -- okay. Very good. All right. Steve, frame your motion up about work that's still to be done.

MR. RANK: Yeah. Just consideration for a motion that the coordination and communication of multiemployer work sites, that any unfinished business, that we want to make sure that we're involved in whatever surfaces, and we can have a look at. You know, I want to make sure. It's very important.

MR. CANNON: That would be two things. That OSHA rewrite it, and then the second part would be have --

MR. RANK: Include us. Yes.

MR. CANNON: In the review.

MR. RANK: Have us review the draft that they come up with.

MR. STAFFORD: All right. So, let's redo that a little bit. So, I want to make a motion that this committee today, in concept, laid out an outline for what the multiemployer section looked like, and the motion is that the ACCSH have an opportunity to review that section once OSHA drafts it. Do we have a second?

MR. RANK: Second.

MR. STAFFORD: We've had a motion and a second. Any discussion?

(No response.)

MR. STAFFORD: All those in favor signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. STAFFORD: Opposed?

(No response.)

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Carries that. Any other action items required, Eric or Lisa?

(No response.)

MS. WILSON: Okay. I think we're good. I think Dr. Michaels is going to come speak to us.

MR. STAFFORD: I think somebody at the OSHA staff should probably go down and let Dr. Michaels know the committee is getting ready to adjourn. I think he was scheduled to be here in about an hour and our business is finished. Okay. We'll break until 4:00.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

MR. STAFFORD: Well, Dr. Michaels, you have come at the end of a long day and a half. I'm sorry our committee's dwindled down a little bit, but we appreciate you taking the time to visit with us.

DR. MICHAELS: I would've come a little earlier, had I known. I'm sorry. How are you? First, I came up for a couple things.

One is to, at least those of you who are still here, but really all of you, I want to thank you for your work, not just today, but on this committee, which is really a, you know, phenomenally valuable committee, and gives us a great deal of insight, advice, and helps us move forward. So, we're grateful for your participation. We know no one pays you for this, so it's really great.

I also wanted to thank -- and let me, in particular, thank Pete as the Chair of this committee. I'm really grateful that you continue to do that.

MR. STAFFORD: It's no problem, David.

DR. MICHAELS: It's very important for us that you do this, and I think all of you are having a big impact. I want to thank our staff, Eric for helping to staff this committee, and the other folks from the Directorate of Construction, who really have really moved mountains. And I've seen the great work that they do. And we're grateful for that, as well.

I know you spent the day on issues about safety and health management programs. My understanding is you've made great progress. They're obviously some tough issues, but, you know, we heard from many of you and from others that the construction industry was special enough and different enough that we should have a document specific to the industry.

And this is the first time we're doing that so we know, of course, there are going to be some bumps in the road, but it sounds like you've made progress. You know, you don't have to resolve all the issues today. That's up to us to resolve, so -- but we certainly will take your advice very seriously.

Let me also thank Lisa Wilson, and the folks from SOL who've been supporting this effort, because both here and across all of our work SOLs, really sort of a key part of all of our work.

So, I just wanted to mention three things which have, you haven't discussed and I'm going to make sure that got mentioned. One is early May we have our Fall Safety Stand-down. This is something that really has come out of the Directorate of Construction, and they've really built it. And this is the third year we're doing it, and it's really become an important institution.

You know, last year, there were almost 900 deaths -- excuse me -- 2014, there were almost 900 deaths in the construction trades. 900 too many, obviously. More than a third of those were caused by falls.

Now we also have far too many falls outside of construction, but in construction is a particularly significant hazard, and everything we can do to save those lives is what we should be doing. So, the Safety Stand-down is coming up. I know all of you are deeply involved.

Jeremy, I just saw those photographs you sent me from billboards in Arizona. Thank you for that. Really, everybody's involved and it's been great.

Last year, we reached about two and a half million workers in all 50 states, and actually, internationally, there was a lot of pick up of this all over the world. We'll continue to do that. This year our goal is five million workers. We've been meeting with employer groups, unions all across the country.

We just -- I just came back from a meeting with the Air Force that's going to involve hundreds of thousands of workers and stand-downs around the world not just, obviously, in construction, but they do a lot of work where people can fall when they're repairing airplanes, and doing things like that.

So, we are very excited about this. We think it'll have an impact. We have, I think, a very well-functioning certification program. We encourage employers to log in and download certificates of participation. They don't have to actually log in, but just download certificates of participation, and give us their feedback. So, that's the first thing. Thank you all for your support on that.

I couldn't have this meeting without talking about our silica standard. So many people at -- in OSHA and the solicitor's office worked very hard on that, and so many of you participated and gave us data, and helped us put together what we think is a useful standard.

We obviously think that the construction industry will mostly use Table 1. That was why we wrote it. It's written based on all the meetings we've had with the construction industry and the building trades for, you know, more than a decade, where employers tell us they don't want to have to measure their exposures, they want to just know what they can do to be safe.

And we know enough about silica that we could put together this table with your input. And we think that Table 1, we expect it to be widely-used. In fact, the message we're putting out now is, you know, "You don't have to wait for 13 months from now when it goes into effect." I mean, you should be protecting workers from silica exposure now. It's not a legal requirement, but you certainly should be doing it and Table 1 certainly helps you get there.

There's always controversy, and, obviously, there are some folks who put out press releases and lawsuits saying, you know, they disagree with it. You know, I've been following the history of OSHA standards for quite a few years. I've written a great deal on this. I have a number of articles, and it's, you know, chapters in my book.

And you go back and you look at OSHA standards from the beginning, there's a pattern you always see, and I think we saw it this time. When we first issue a standard, the folks who will be regulated instinctively don't want to see regulation, and I understand that. I mean that's the -- you know, that's -- it's a natural reaction. And so, they hire people to tell us that it's -- and this is always the same discussion.

In fact, you can go back to vinyl chloride in 1974 and 1975, where you had experts say, you know, "The vinyl chloride standard," which is going to prevent people from getting angiosarcoma of the liver, that -- and there's a fabulous New York Times article with exactly this quote, saying, "the vinyl chloride standard is medically unnecessary, technologically unfeasible, and will result in the loss of up to 2.2 million jobs". So, that was 1974. You know, 40 something years ago.

So, of course, what was interesting about that is, you know, we said that the production of polyvinyl chloride -- which is used in many materials, you know, in vinyl, you know, building materials, in records -- remember records -- shower curtains. I mean vinyl is everywhere. Certainly vinyl siding is, everyone still sees around.

Well, the vinyl industry used to make polyvinyl chloride out of the vinyl chloride monomer in these big processes where tanks were closed, but there was a lot of opening of tanks, and the vinyl chloride would get released into the air.

Within a year of our issuing a standard reducing exposure to one part per million, which is a dramatic, dramatic difference from the previous standard, far more than we're doing with silica, within a year, the engineers of American industry figured out how they could enclose the processes, and make their factories more productive, and more efficient, and more profitable.

So, there's an article in Chemical Week in 1976 saying, "PVC comes out of jeopardy into jubilation." And not a single job was lost, and angiosarcoma caused by exposure to vinyl chloride has disappeared.

So, we expect to see the response that we always get, which is, "Don't do this, you don't have to do it, you can't do it, it's going to kill jobs," but the history shows that not only are our -- the costs that are estimated by employers way, you know, large over estimates.

That -- the true cost of many of our standards is far lower than what employers estimate, but they're lower than OSHA estimates, because OSHA's estimates can't take into account the fact that we drive technology.

Engineers will look at this now, and they'll say, "Well, all of a sudden we're going to have to protect people from silica exposure, we're going to come up with new ways to do that," and it will be more effective and less expensive than things that we based our standard on.

So, I promise you five years from now we'll be looking at this and we'll be saying, "Boy, this was easy to do." Not only that, 10 years from now we will forget that there was an OSHA standard that made us do this.

The best example, I think, is the

blood-borne pathogen standards that OSHA promulgated in 1991. You know, this was after about 10 years of the AIDS epidemic. HIV exposures in hospitals, in medical centers, in doctors' offices, dentists' office was a real risk. Hepatitis B was a big problem. There were -- used to be somewhere about 15,000, 16,000 cases of hepatitis B every year in hospitals in the United States.

So, OSHA issued a standard requiring things like sharps containers. You have to wear gloves

in -- if you're a hospital employee. We heard from dentists when we did our hearings saying, you know, "If you make me wear gloves, I won't be able to practice dentistry." Now I can't imagine -- the gloves that they're wearing are mittens, maybe, but when was the last time anyone here went to a dentist who didn't wear gloves?

And I could tell you, you could ask most dentists do they remember this, the reason they're wearing gloves is OSHA requires it, or the reason they have sharps containers is because OSHA requires it. No one even remembers there's an OSHA standard, but we changed the world that way.

And that's what will happen on construction sites with silica. And ten years from now everybody will be working much more safely. We will have eliminated many, many cases, prevented many, many cases of silicosis and lung cancer, and no one will even remember that all this new equipment was purchased and used and used more efficiently and effectively because of the OSHA standard.

And so, I think you've all made an important contribution to that, and I'm really honored to have been part of this process.

So, finally, I just want to mention that on Thursday of this week is Worker's Memorial Day. It's also the 45th anniversary of OSHA, and it's not a coincidence. President Nixon signed the OSHA Act in December of 1970, and gave the Department of Labor until April 28, 1971 to start.

Some years later, when activists -- and I remember, actually, George McDonald from the Transport Workers Union who came up with this idea said, you know, "We should have a day to remember workers who have been killed." And he said, "Well, we

should -- what day do we choose?" There was no obvious date, so he said, "Let's do it on the anniversary of OSHA."

It's now a worldwide activity, and certainly most people in the world have no idea it's also OSHA's birthday. You go to Australia, you go to England, all over Europe, the International Labor Organization has, you know, it's Worker Safety Day, or Worker's Memorial Day, depending on where you are.

It's a day where there will be observances all over the country remembering why we do this work, often involving the families of workers who have been killed, reminding us that no one should have to sacrifice their life for a job.

In some ways it's, you know, it really is part of the Bill of Rights. The ultimate right every worker has is to be able to work without getting hurt. We're the people, OSHA, the employers, the unions, everybody here are the people who make that happen.

So, I'm grateful for the work that all of you do, this committee, what you do, you know, in your paid jobs, what else. You know, all the work that you do. I think you make a big difference. So, I want to thank you again. If anyone has any comments or questions, I'm happy to take them.

MR. STAFFORD: Thank you very much, Dr. Michaels. We always appreciate you joining us.

Anyone have any questions or comments for Dr. Michaels? Just let me first say -- I'm sorry. Jeremy, did you?



MR. BETHANCOURT: I have a comment to make to Doctor --

MR. STAFFORD: Go ahead then.

MR. BETHANCOURT: So, Dr. Michaels, first I'd just like to thank you. As my second term as a member of ACCSH is coming to an end, I just wanted to thank you and the agency for giving me the opportunity to come here and participate with these fine folks here, and help to promote safety in our workplace throughout our country.

I wanted to make sure that I gave a special thank you to my wife, Jennifer, who has been allowing me to come here for all of these years. She does sacrifice quite a bit, as I'm sure most of our spouses do. So, I just wanted to say that. Especially since it's our anniversary today. Put that on the record.

DR. MICHAELS: Well, and I want to thank you for your contribution. It's been great. Lovely to also get, meet your family when you bring them here. It's a treat for us.


MR. STAFFORD: I think Jeremy just wanted that on the record. That he thanked his --

MR. BETHANCOURT: Right. I just scored with my wife.

MR. STAFFORD: That he thanked his wife.

MR. BETHANCOURT: I just showed her now on the public record.

DR. MICHAELS: That's right.

MR. BETHANCOURT: I professed my love.

MR. STAFFORD: Any other questions or comments for Dr. Michaels?

(No response.)

MR. STAFFORD: Again, David, thank you very much. I mean, you could be -- should be commended on the silica standard. I know what work the agency put into that, and it's a really big deal and it was great to see. I know there's some folks in this room that, we had different opinions on it, but -- and you're right. I mean, I think if you look at the standard in Table 1, in terms of what we try to do, or what you try to do for the industry and make it easy for construction employers to prevent exposure to silica, is right on.

I must say, not in my role as the chair of this committee, but in my role in my other job at the Building Trades, watching the process, going through the rulemaking process, this, your staff just did a tremendous job. As a citizen of this country, seeing our government work, in particular with this silica standard, was just great. And I really, truly appreciate your work and all the work of your staff.

Yes, Steve?

DR. MICHAELS: And I do, too.

MR. HAWKINS: Dr. Michaels, I think some things were pulled from the reg agenda when the agency really focused on the silica. Do you know what might be -- I mean, I'm interested in the walking working surfaces.

DR. MICHAELS: Yes. Yeah. Our plan is

to -- we have every intention of issuing walking working surfaces, or fall protection for general industry while I'm here, and I only expect to be here until January, so --


DR. MICHAELS: -- that's the plan.

MR. HAWKINS: I think we'd love to see --

DR. MICHAELS: Yeah. No, we -- and we would, too.

MR. STAFFORD: Any other questions or comments? Just one last comment, David. I know in your, the revised guideline that we've been looking at, I just wanted to give you a heads up now, even though OSHA put in a new section on multiemployer sites for construction, we basically blew that section up today for construction --


MR. STAFFORD: -- so that we're going to start over with the agency on things that we think apply to construction, and our unique nature of our industry.

DR. MICHAELS: Well, we certainly heard the message that, I don't want to say it's unique, but construction is different than general industry, and that you need a document that focuses on construction, and that's why we have an advisory committee, and that's why we look forward to getting your advice.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. All right. Thanks again.


MR. STAFFORD: Any other -- all right. Thank you very much, Dr. Michaels, for being here.

DR. MICHAELS: Thank you so much.

MR. STAFFORD: I think -- we have, I believe, one public comment. I think -- Bill,

Mr. Mott, did you sign up, or was that from --

MR. MOTT: I did but I've waved it off. We're fine.

MR. STAFFORD: You waved it off. Okay.

Uh-huh. Okay. All right. Any other questions or comments?

Yeah, Kev?

MR. CANNON: Okay. Kevin Cannon, employer rep. I just wanted to revisit, you know, my question yesterday. And I think -- about the enforcement and how this is going to play, based on Eric's comments as, you know, not knowing the relationship that this guidelines will play with 1926-20(b).

So, I mean, if -- once we are provided with the opportunity to review whatever is done with that section that we blew up, if we could get some information about, you know, or clarification from Directorate of Enforcement, or the Solicitor's office, or from somewhere as to how this will play out.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. I mean, that's -- I don't know if you want to respond to that, Eric, but that's -- we -- the comment's on the record.

MR. KAMPERT: Yeah. Eric with OSHA. We'd love to -- you know, these are guidelines. We aren't sure, as we said before, exactly how it's going, and we hope to have some sort of guidance, you know at some point to help --

MR. STAFFORD: All right. Let me just say, Kevin, as you know being a long time member here,

we -- there's -- just because we took a motion and made a formal recommendation doesn't necessarily mean that OSHA has to do that.

And so, with the timing of the agency and trying to get the core document for all industries out and construction, it's just really the liberty of the agency, in terms of what they want to give back to us, or what the next steps are from their perspective. And it may be we'll see a guideline without seeing it until it's published, right? So that we understand that.

MR. CANNON: Well, at least an understanding as --


MR. CANNON: -- it relates to the enforcement.

MR. STAFFORD: Okay. Appreciate it. Any other questions or comments?

(No response.)

MR. STAFFORD: I want to thank the committee. I know it's been a long day and a half, and I appreciate your efforts, all of you. Thank the stakeholders that have been with us. Thank you very much. Meeting is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the meeting in the above-entitled matter adjourned.)



CASE TITLE: Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health

HEARING DATE: April 26, 2016
LOCATION: Washington, D.C.

I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Date: April 26, 2016


Maya Hester
Official Reporter
Heritage Reporting Corporation
Suite 206
1220 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-4018