U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION SAFETY AND HEALTH
(ACCSH)
Friday, August 23, 2013
Frances Perkins Building
Room C-5515
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210
Reported by: Natalia Thomas
Capital Reporting Company
PARTICIPANTS
EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES
Sarah M. Coyne
Executive Assistant Director
International Union of Painters and Allied
Trades/Finishing Trades Institute
Roger Erickson
MOST Administrator
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship
Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers
Walter A. Jones
Associate Director
Occupational S&H Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of
North America
Laurie A. Shadrick
S&H National Coordinator
United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters
EMPLOYER REPRESENTATIVES
Kristi Barber
President, Glenn C. Barber & Associates, Inc.
Kevin R. Cannon
Director of Safety and Health Services
The Associated General Contractors of America
Thomas Marrero, Jr.
National Safety Director
Tradesmen International, Inc.
Donald L. Pratt
President & CEO
Construction Education and Consultation Services of
Michigan
Jerry Rivera
National Director of Safety
National Electrical Contractors Association
STATE REPRESENTATIVES
Charles Stribling
OSH Federal-State Coordinator
Kentucky Labor Cabinet
Department of Workplace Standards
Steven D. Hawkins
Administrator
Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVE
Jeremy Bethancourt
Co-Owner and Program Director
Arizona Construction Training Alliance
FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE
Matt Gillen
Deputy Director
Office of Construction Safety & Health
CDC-NIOSH, Office of the Director
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER
Dean McKenzie
Director
Office of Construction Services
Directorate of Construction
ALTERNATE DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL
Jim Maddux
Director, Directorate of Construction
U.S. Department of Labor-OSHA
COMMITTEE SOLICITOR CONTACT
Sarah Shortall
ACCSH Counsel
Office of the Solicitor
Department of Labor
ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS
Troy Armstead
Department of the Air Force
Bob Biersner
Office of the Solicitor
Paul Bolon
OSHA DOC
Chris Brown
Directorate of Standards and Guidance
Christopher Cole
Inside OSHA
Dayton Eckerson
OSHA DOC
Chuck Harvey
OSHA
Eric Kampert
OSHA
Bruce Lundgren
SBA Office of Advocacy
Courtney Marud (ph)
OSHA
Rob Matuga
National Association of Home Builders
Michele Mihelic
American Wind Energy Association
Thad Nosal
Insurance Services Office
Michael Payne
OSHA DOC
Vernon Preston
OSHA DOC
Tom Ransdell
OSHA
Rebecca Reindel
Directorate of Standards and Guidance
Bruce Rolfsen
BNA
Scott Schneider
Laborers' Health and Safety Fund
Chris Williams
Associated Builders and Contractors
Lisa Wilson
Office of the Solicitor
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Opening Remarks/Agenda Overview
- SIP IV - Replace the definitions of "employee" and "employer" in 29 CFR 1926.32 with the definitions of those terms found in 29 CFR 1910.2
- SIP IV - Clarify the rules that an employer must ensure that a physician or other licensed health care professional must use to make a determination that a hearing loss case is not work-related under 29 CFR 1904.10(b)(6)
- SIP IV - Update the Definition of "Potable Water" in 29 CFR 1926.51(a)(6) with the newer language found in the general industry standard at 29 CFR 1910.141(a)(2)
- SIP IV - Standardize break-strength requirements for lanyards and lifelines throughout the construction and general industry standards of 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926
- SIP IV - Clarify the excavation requirements at 29 CFR 1926.651(j)(1) and (2) -- keeping loose rock and soil, and equipment and materials, away from the edge of excavations
- SIP IV - Remove requirements for chest x-rays in certain health standards, such as cadmium and inorganic arsenic, that may affect construction employees
- SIP IV - Permit digital storage of x-rays (not just film)
- SIP IV - Replace the 29 CFR 1926.64 requirements for process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals with a cross-reference to the general industry regulations at 29 CFR 1910.119
- SIP IV - Replace the outdated 29 CFR subpart W (Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection) requirements with cross-references to appropriate consensus standards
- SIP IV - Update the 29 CFR 1926.64 requirement to post emergency medical contact information in locations without 911 emergency services
- SIP IV - Amend the 29 CFR 1926.250(a)(2) requirement to post maximum safe-load limits for buildings under construction to exempt single family dwellings
- Decompression Tables
- SIP IV - Clarify the rules that an employer must ensure that a physician or other licensed health care professional must use to make a determination that a hearing loss case is not work-related under 29 CFR 1904.10(b)(6)
- SIP IV - Correct and reformat table at 29 CFR 1926.55 (Threshold Limit Values) for clarity and consistency with its counterpart in the general industry standard at 29 CFR 1910.1000
- Temporary Worker Work Group Report
- Training Outreach Work Group Report
- Open Public Meeting Motion and Discussion
- Announcement from Jim Maddux
- Adjourn
PROCEEDINGS
MR. JONES: Welcome, everyone. I would like to reconvene the ACCSH meeting for August 23rd. I'm Walter Jones. I represent the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund. I'm an Employee Rep. And I would first like the table here to introduce themselves, and then we'll do the folks on the phone, and then afterwards we'll do the folks in the audience.
So if I could start with Tom.
MR. MARRERO: Tom Marrero, Employer Rep.
MR. GILLEN: Matt Gillen, NIOSH Rep.
MS. COYNE: Sarah Coyne, Employee Rep.
MR. McKENZIE: Dean McKenzie, OSHA DFO.
MS. SHORTALL: Sarah Shortall, ACCSH Counsel.
MR. BOLON: Paul Bolon. I'm in the Directorate of Construction, in the Office of Standards.
MR. ECKERSON: Dayton Eckerson, also in the Directorate of Construction of OSHA.
MS. SHADRICK: Hi. Laurie Shadrick, Employee Rep.
MR. CANNON: Kevin Cannon, the Associated General Contractors of America, Employer Rep.
MR. RIVERA: Jerry Rivera, Employee Rep.
MR. STRIBLING: Good morning. Chuck Stribling, Kentucky Labor Cabinet, State Representative.
MR. JONES: Jeremy?
MR. BETHANCOURT: Good morning. Jeremy Bethancourt, ACTA Safety, Public Representative.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson, MOST Programs, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Employee Representative.
MS. BARBER: Good morning. Kristi Barber, Employee Representative.
MR. JONES: Steve? Okay. Scott?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Scott Schneider, Laborers' Health and Safety Fund.
MS. WILSON: Lisa Wilson, the Office of the Solicitor.
MR. COLE: Chris Cole, Inside OSHA.
MR. ARMSTEAD: Troy Armstead, Air Force Safety.
MR. WILLIAMS: Chris Williams, Associated Builders and Contractors.
MR. RANSDELL: Tom Ransdell, OSHA.
MR. KAMPERT: Eric Kampert, OSHA.
MS. MIHELIC: Michele Mihelic, American Wind Energy Association.
MR. MADDUX: Jim Maddux, with OSHA.
MR. HARVEY: I'm Chuck Harvey, with OSHA.
MR. PAYNE: Michael Payne, with OSHA.
MR. MARUD (ph): Courtney Marud, OSHA.
MR. NOSAL: Thad Nosal, the Insurance Services Office.
MR. ROLFSEN: I'm Bruce Rolfsen, with BNA, Occupational Safety and Health Reporter.
MR. JONES: Okay. I want to thank everyone for attending again today. We're just going to start with Paul Bolon. He's going to go over the SIPs information for us that he supplied. I believe there are handouts in the back of the information they're supplying.
Okay, back to you, Paul.
MS. SHORTALL: I just have a couple of quick things to go over.
MR. JONES: Oh, I'm sorry.
MS. SHORTALL: One, I would like to mark and put into the record as Exhibit Number 4 the OSHA Training and Outreach Program Evaluation questions developed by the ACCSH OTI Workgroup, and as Exhibit 5, Introduction to OSHA Course Recommendations, also developed by the OTI Workgroup.
And then on a personal, for those members who have served with Daniel Zarletti on this committee, his brother passed away very suddenly last month. I'm sure all of you were regaled with the stories about his brother's singing career. And if you want to send condolences, just send me an e-mail because I have his home address.
Thank you.
MR. BOLON: Good morning. I'm Paul Bolon. Again, I'm in the Directorate of Construction in the Office of Standards and Guidance. And next to me is Dayton Eckerson. He is the main staff person who is working on the Standards Improvement Project, Phase IV, which is the full name of what we abbreviate as SIPs IV. We're going to go through the SIPs candidate ideas that are in the table that you've got, and so we'll follow the order that's here. It's not exactly the order that was in the agenda, but it has all the items.
And I'll just mention a couple of things before we start out with the first one. At the end -- this isn't on your table, but at the previous committee meeting, we had presented an idea on replacing the decompression tables in the underground construction subpart, and we've been asked by the committee to follow up on that, and so we're going to mention that to you again, if the committee wants to make a recommendation on that.
And also near the end of this table that you have are a couple of items on x-rays, both of when they're done and storage of them. Those were also considered last time, and the committee had asked OSHA to look at a few more things, so we're going to present them again.
And, again, just to refresh everybody's memory about what the Standard Improvement Projects are, this is the fourth one, and they're not a full OSHA 6B rulemaking. We usually don't get into risks, we don't have new costs. It avoids that kind of lengthy analysis. And so what we're trying to do -- and this one is focused on the construction industry -- is to simplify regulations, clarify them, allow new methods or technology, reduce paperwork, reduce burdens on employers so long as we're not reducing employee safety. Some of the items generally are cost savings, and as I said before, they're not new costs because we don't get into a feasibility analysis and determination. And sometimes we pick up things that are more predictive that don't have new costs. So those are the criteria.
And we published an RFI back in December. We had a lot of ideas from there and a number of the ideas in this table are from there, and also the ones that we presented to ACCSH at the May meeting.
So with that, we have about 10 or 12 to go through here, and we'll go through the table that you've got.
The first candidate was to revise the definitions of "employer" and "employee." And we wanted to propose using simpler definitions of "employer" and "employee" than the lengthy ones that we've got, which are lengthy and confusing. The definitions that we're proposing are consistent with the OSH Act definitions and they're consistent with what's in the general industry definition. And again our intent here is just to simplify and make these definitions consistent so that everyone understands who is covered and what they need to do.
Are there any comments or any questions?
MR. JONES: Paul, how would you like us to handle this? Would you like for us to go through the entire document and then accept it in whole or make motions on each change? It would probably be easier if we went through one-by-one, I guess.
MR. BOLON: Yeah, but, you know, there might be some that are not --
MR. JONES: Controversial?
MR. BOLON: No, not controversial. You might cover all of those in a recommendation, and if the ones that are --
MR. JONES: All right. That's what we'll do.
MR. BOLON: All right.
MR. JONES: Any comments? Chuck?
MR. STRIBLING: Good morning.
MR. JONES: Introduce yourself, Chuck.
MR. STRIBLING: Chuck Stribling, State Representative. The proposed definitions give me significant concern, and I spoke to Mr. Hawkins, which --
Are you on the line, Steve?
MR. JONES: No, he's not.
MR. HAWKINS: I'm here.
MR. JONES: Oh, he is.
MR. STRIBLING: And I also ran it by our counsel, and they're very concerned about the proposed definitions here for "employee" and "employer." So I think maybe -- you know, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this because I know we have a lot to cover, or if you do want to spend a lot of time on it, it's however you choose to proceed, but this is one that I know I can't support, and I don't want to speak for Steve, but he may not be able to as well.
MR. HAWKINS: Can you hear me, Chuck, okay?
MR. JONES: We hear you well, Steve.
MR. HAWKINS: Okay. I want to say hello to pretty Ms. Sarah there.
(Laughter.)
MS. SHORTALL: Hi, Steve.
MR. HAWKINS: I'm sorry I don't get to be there in person. I also would like to complement Walter for the wonderful job he's done in Pete's place there.
MR. JONES: Thank you, Steve.
MR. HAWKINS: You know, many of the states -- some states do everything uniquely, and then some states like pretty much Tennessee and Kentucky pretty much pattern Federal OSHA, and we adopt the OSHA standards every 6 months. We have a procedure that we follow and we do it twice a year to make sure that we adopt all of the standards that OSHA adopts and that we're always within 6 months of them because that's a requirement of our grant. And so we do this in a wholesale fashion.
And this section that is proposed to be amended is a section that we adopt in this wholesale manner, and the definition of "employer," because it specifically says it doesn't include states and local governments as well as the United States, is a problem for us because if we adopt it in this wholesale manner that we're accustomed to and I think many other states are accustomed to, we could conceivably lose our protection of state and local government employees.
And so I did raise it to Doug Kalinowski and a couple of other folks in OSHPA, which is, of course, you all know what that is, that's the Association of State Plan States, but I couldn't help -- Chuck and I discussed it, and we couldn't help but bring it up at this opportunity in case this is like one of the few opportunities we actually get to object to it, but that is a problem for us because when we adopt that language, it could give us some problem, and I think it could give a lot of other states problems, and they may not realize it at this point, and it would be nice to get this fixed before it got too far. So thank you.
MR. JONES: Thanks, Steve.
Paul?
MR. BOLON: Yeah. I'm not quite sure if this language is adopted, then it essentially would be giving you jurisdictional problems because it's taking you out of your own authority or something? Is that it?
MR. HAWKINS: Well -- this is Steve Hawkins again -- every 6 months we adopt that language and we adopt the language that's in this standard number -- what is it? I think it's 1910.3 or 1904.3. I don't remember the exact number. I can't pull it up on my screen because I have you all on my screen, but whatever that standard number is, Paul, is included in the range of standards that we adopt every 6 months. And so if we adopted this -- let's say this change goes through and that standard does indeed change and it's worded like the proposal is worded, we would be adopting a document that says we don't have jurisdiction over state and local governments, and it's something that we do have jurisdiction over. So we don't understand why the necessity to have that language in there. I mean, if there is some compelling reason why it has to be, I guess we'll have to look at other ways around it, but in the long run, we're concerned it could cause us some kind of legal trouble with jurisdictional issues in the future.
MR. BOLON: Lisa, do you -- Lisa Wilson is from the Solicitor's Office. She is a solicitor on the SIPs project. Do you have any --
MR. JONES: One second, Lisa.
MS. WILSON: Thank you. Again, I'm Lisa Wilson, with the Solicitor's Office. I understand the state's concern. The proposed new language would be, "'Employer' means a person engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees but does not include the United States or any State or political subdivision." Obviously, that is language that is applicable to the Federal OSHA but that would exclude obviously state coverage. I think what OSHA is trying to do here is this language does come from what's in 1910.2, which states have adopted as appropriately adapted to meet -- okay, you have a different definition. Okay. I understand the concern the states want to adopt things without making changes. OSHA is trying to make this language consistent with the general industry language and really fully make it clear to employers the coverage of the Construction Act. I think perhaps we could later explore a way to make this clear within OSHA without burdening the state plans because obviously you can't lose jurisdiction over all the employees that you cover, and that was not OSHA's intent obviously to deprive anyone of any jurisdiction.
MR. GILLEN: Matt Gillen, from NIOSH. I would just like to say that I looked up the BLS statistics here and it shows that in 2011 there were 43 construction workers who worked for either the state, local, or federal government who were killed, and so this looks like it says that those workers don't get protection from the OSHA construction standards in a way if you read it, if they're not employers. That's what I would worry about, is a change like that that then excludes some workers that look like they deserve protection because they're construction workers. And so to me that's the fundamental question I have.
MR. JONES: Chuck.
MR. STRIBLING: Thank you. Your point is well taken, and just for the matter of record, in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, we do not adopt the general industry definition for "employer" and "employee." We would most certainly not adopt this proposed text. We think it could be a problem. We do adopt the present definition of "employer" and "employee," and we don't run into that issue of an employer not knowing that they're covered under the act, it's well settled, so maybe we're not having the same problem you're having.
And with regard to the definition of "employee," we talked yesterday about some issues with regard to independent contractors, temporary workers, day laborers, et cetera. The old definition makes it pretty clear it includes everybody. The new definition for "employee" makes it sound like you must be employed by the employer, and in fact it would hurt us in our enforcement efforts where we do consider employees to be -- they're to be in an employer-employee relationship, we go by the 13-part United States Supreme Court test, but this sort of makes it look like you must be employed, directly employed, by this definition. So it's also a problem for us as well.
MR. JONES: Thank you. Any other comments?
MR. BOLON: So, I mean, you don't have any alternative language here to resolve the issue. Is it more complicated than that or --
MR. STRIBLING: More complicated than what?
MR. BOLON: Well, than just, you know, suggesting some alternative language here to what we have or --
MR. STRIBLING: Yeah. I mean, I would suggest the current definitions are well settled, and, granted, they don't match up identical to general industry, but they're two different industries. In construction, we run into a much broader spectrum when it comes to the employer-employee relationship than we typically do in general industry. So I applaud the agency for trying to be as consistent as possible between the two, but this may be an instance where well is good as it is, and we can just leave it be because it is different in construction. So, no, I don't have a specific alternative to offer.
What I would do, if the agency would like an alternative, is at the next OSHPA meeting, I would send this out and seek time on the agenda for all the states to address this since that's who I represent, and see if we could come to a consensus that the group would -- and also poll the states to find out how many currently do adopt the present definition and how many would not adopt the proposed text.
MR. BOLON: Okay. When is the next OSHPA meeting?
MR. STRIBLING: Steve?
MR. HAWKINS: I think the 19th, 18th and 19th of October. Give me one second and I'll pull it up here, 22nd and 23rd of October in Nashville actually.
MR. JONES: Steve, do you have any suggested language or addendums to this proposal that could make it more palatable?
MR. HAWKINS: No, just as Chuck said, just to leave the language as it is because it's more broad than the amended language.
MR. JONES: Thank you.
MR. GILLEN: Matt Gillen, NIOSH. I don't have any language. It's hard work to do this, but I could think of four points that would be helpful to think about if OSHA wants to consider changing it. One would be to not exclude any workers currently covered by the existing definition, you know, unless there is a really compelling rationale, and, two, reflect the current complex picture in construction with temporary employees and independent contractors to try to have it be as relevant as possible to today's construction picture. Three, not create any unintended issues for state plans. And, four, not create any inconsistency with other key employee definitions used by the Department of Labor or the IRS, because they're big on this employee definition, that's a big issue there, so just checking on all those other employee definitions, it's really kind of complicated.
MR. BOLON: Yeah. Our intent was not to rattle the jurisdictional precedence and fences, and it certainly was not to remove protections from any employee that's currently covered, but we appreciate what we're hearing. And also what was the other?
MR. GILLEN: That was it.
MS. SHORTALL: I have a couple of questions to ask, Mr. Stribling. Were you indicating then that you would like OSHPA to consider this issue and they independently would make a recommendation to the agency or were you thinking that you wanted to get OSHPA's viewpoints and then at the next ACCSH meeting bring it up again?
MR. STRIBLING: Thank you. And just for the record, I know that you weren't trying to do anything like that excluding any of the states or anything like that, it was just one of those unintended consequences, things that we saw could be a problem. If the agency felt strongly about changing these definitions, I would go to OSHPA and get their feedback and then bring it back to the next committee meeting if the agency wants to proceed, but, I mean, I think what you have is good.
Just as a point -- and maybe your solicitor here might be able to think about it -- it says an "'Employer' means a person engaged in a business," well, our government's business. The word "business" in and of itself is a problem. And then the whole other part of the language becomes a problem. But the current definition says a "contractor or subcontractor," and our counsel has indicated to us that it's well established that a government who has an employee, they may not be a business, but they are contracting with that person through employment, so just the word "business" in and of itself is a problem.
MS. SHORTALL: And I also have a question for Ms. Wilson. In the proposed language for employer, is part of the rationale for the language about not including the United States or any state or political subdivision because this is giving information out to not only state plan states but other states as well?
MS. WILSON: I'm sorry, Ms. Shortall, I didn't quite understand the question.
MS. SHORTALL: Is this language here, "but does not include the United States or any State or political subdivision of a State," is that language applicable to any state that doesn't have a state plan?
MS. WILSON: If a state doesn't have a state plan, then federal OSHA is in that state doing the enforcement.
MS. SHORTALL: All right. So this language may have wanted to reflect both state plan and non- state plan states. The mechanism you use to come out from underneath this is you file for state plan status. Okay.
MR. JONES: Jerry?
MR. RIVERA: Jerry Rivera, Employer Rep. I guess I want to speak in support of the public representatives. Maybe we should afford some time for that group to review the proposed language. You know, I guess our intent is to help and not harm, and it clearly has been articulated today that this could potentially harm some of our public representatives. So I would like to support that.
MR. STRIBLING: This is Chuck Stribling again. Just thinking through what you were asking awhile ago, Ms. Shortall, I guess maybe if the agency would let us know, let the Chair know, and he could let the committee know, if they strongly feel that they need to move forward with new definitions or if they're comfortable leaving it like it is, and then we can decide a course of action from there.
MR. BOLON: Yeah. I think we've heard enough that I really think we should set this one aside, we should table it, and OSHA should have a conversation with itself, and if we really think that the clarification is a good and strong thing to do, we should figure out the language that's necessary and then engage OSHPA, and they can consider an October meeting and get some feedback to us. But this one has gotten snagged, which certainly wasn't our intention. So we need to look at it and think about it some more.
MR. STRIBLING: Thank you.
MR. JONES: Scott?
MR. SCHNEIDER: I was just wondering. I mean, it even says employer means a person engaged in a business, and employers aren't necessarily people, corporations aren't people necessarily, or people aren't necessarily corporations.
MR. JONES: All right. Next?
Do you want to start?
MR. ECKERSON: Yeah. This next one, it's Number 2 in the handout here. It's regarding the definition of work-relatedness with respect to recordkeeping in terms of hearing loss. Specifically Section 1904.10(b)(6), as it currently is, is worded -- does leave arguably a little bit of ambiguity in terms of which standards you apply. We actually don't think that there is a very good case for saying there is any ambiguity there at all, but for purposes of removing any possibility of ambiguity, we are proposing to add this additional language that specifically points to the standards set out in 1904.5 regarding the criteria for work-relatedness so there is no doubt in anybody's mind with respect to what criteria you use when you determine if a particular hearing loss is work-related.
MR. JONES: Any comments?
Kevin?
MR. CANNON: Thank you.
MR. JONES: Introduce yourself, Kevin.
MR. CANNON: Kevin Cannon, Employer Rep. I think the first part where you're identifying the rules to be followed is good and it pretty much maintains what's in the existing response to the question, but I do -- and I'll say in consulting with my members, we have a problem with the second half of what's being inserted in the highlighted, and the way we read and interpret this is pretty much saying that you're ignoring any other contributing factors, whether it's hobbies, hunting, riding bikes, or whatever the case may be, you're just totally dismissing that, and we all know that noise is not the only source of --
MR. GILLEN: Did you mean work?
MR. CANNON: Yeah. Well, I'm sorry?
MR. GILLEN: Did you mean work?
MR. CANNON: No, sorry. Work is not the only source of high noise exposure, and this pretty much says regardless of any event, it's the employer's fault for an employee suffering some sort of hearing loss.
MR. BOLON: Well, not exactly. It just means that it's recordable.
MR. CANNON: Then we own it.
(Laughter.)
MR. CANNON: Then we own it. Once it goes on the log, it's yours.
MR. BOLON: But all of that that's in the second part there about, "If an event," that's in the standards now, that's in 1904.5 now. This isn't new. There is nothing new here. It is just what it is somewhere else.
MR. CANNON: Current regulatory text in the left and then proposed, so to me that sounds like it's being expanded upon.
MR. BOLON: But it's already in 1904.5. It is the language that's already in here. I understand your concern, I really do. I know this is a complicated area that's fraught with problems, but it's new here, but it's in 1904.5 now.
MR. JONES: It's in the standard already.
MR. STRIBLING: Yeah.
MR. JONES: Go ahead, Chuck.
MR. STRIBLING: Chuck Stribling. And to Mr. Cannon's point, I hear you loud and clear. I hear you loud and clear, but that's how we enforce it, and what this is doing, it's just letting an employer see that when they read this paragraph, and so if they missed it over on this paragraph, and they thought, well, I didn't know I had to record it because he already had a hearing loss, but then they had more threshold shift, this lets them see that if it contributed, it's like Mr. Bolon said, it's already in the standard.
MR. CANNON: Well, this states that it comes from the compliance directive and not the standard.
MR. BOLON: Yeah, I apologize for that. It really is also in the standards. Can we find it, Dayton?
MR. ECKERSON: Yeah. I mean, essentially it is condensing what is in the standard now. If you look at the standard 1904.5, they've got a flowchart and they've got about three pages of text, but this essentially captures what that means.
MR. BOLON: Yeah, right in 1904.5(a), it gives this language, and the last part of that says, "Work- relatedness is presumed for injuries and illnesses resulting from events or exposures occurring in the work environment unless there is an exception," and there is a list of exceptions, which we don't really need to get into. But it's a very low bar. So if the licensed health care professional who is doing this, they're supposed to evaluate the work-relatedness of standard threshold shift, and there is a strong presumption that if there was a contribution from employment, then it becomes recordable.
MR. ECKERSON: And there is a table there that have specific exclusions for exposures that are outside the scope of the employee's duties.
MR. BOLON: Yeah.
MR. ECKERSON: You see this table here that has a very explicit list of exactly the types of things you were expressing concerns about.
MR. CANNON: And what I want to point out and if you give me time, I would like to find this language in here where it says it is not necessary for work to be the sole cause, the predominant cause, or even a substantial cause of the hearing loss, any contribution from work makes the case work-related, and I think that's where we're having the issues.
MR. BOLON: Yeah, I can understand that, but I would only say it is in the standards now. There is a presumption that if there is a contribution from work exposure, that that would make it recordable.
MR. HAWKINS: This is Steve Hawkins.
MR. JONES: Go ahead, Steve.
MR. HAWKINS: We have been actually kind of in the throes of this of late with a couple of employers, and I did really discover through the work we've done that just because something goes on the log, at least in Tennessee, does not make it compensable under the workers' comp statute. As a matter of fact, the workers' comp law in Tennessee was recently reformed, and now for something to be compensable, it has to be a preponderance of the evidence. So in this issue, we discussed at length recently with a case and whether or not -- we kind of got into the workers' comp around a little bit, and while if it contributes to -- if a hearing loss contributed -- if work exposure contributed to hearing loss, it would go on the log, but in Tennessee, for it to be a compensable injury under workers' compensation, the employee would have to be able to demonstrate that it was preponderance of the evidence, which I guess you could sum as more than likely, 51 percent, the evidence would have to show 51 percent that it was caused by work.
And so the bar for going on the log is much lower than the bar for being compensable under the workers' comp statute. And I think we all know this, workers' comp statutes are state laws, and they vary considerably from state to state, and our state just recently reformed theirs. As far as I'm aware, there is not any federal statute that oversees workers' comp, you don't seek federal approval, it's a state law and a state program, and so just to add that to the discussion, just because it goes on your log doesn't necessarily mean it's compensable under the workers' comp statute.
MR. JONES: Thank you.
Any further comment?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: Do you want to go to the next one, Paul?
MR. BOLON: Okay. The next one, down at the bottom, mentions the potable water issue. We had a number of people recommend that we fix this in the construction regs, but it actually was already fixed in SIPs III, so we don't need to take it up again.
Then with Item Number 3 in your table, it deals with the strength of lifelines, lanyards.
MR. ECKERSON: Yes. We were specifically looking at 1926.104(c). This particular regulation really is a holdover from the pre-Subpart M Fall Protection standard, and for the break-strength requirement, it uses 5,400 pounds instead of the 5,000 pounds. So we're proposing given that the Fall Protection standard across the board has 5,000 pounds as their break-strength requirement, that ANSI and ASSE standards have across the board the 5,000 pound break- strength requirement, and also the fact that we've looked through a bunch of supply catalogs, and virtually everybody puts out their lanyard specifications, and they're all 5,000 pounds. So I think if you were even trying to find a lanyard that's 5,400 pounds instead of 5,000 pounds, you probably wouldn't be able to buy one. So for that reason, we are proposing for sake of consistency to change this one section to 5,000 pounds.
MR. BOLON: Any comment? Questions?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: I want to entertain a motion to accept this recommendation.
MR. STRIBLING: So moved.
MR. JONES: Where is Sarah?
MR. RIVERA: Second.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Ms. Shortall.
MR. JONES: We'll come back in a bit.
MS. SHORTALL: I do apologize. We're going to get that on the record.
(Laughter.)
MS. SHORTALL: I do apologize.
MR. JONES: No problem. Yeah, like I say, we're going to come back to a couple of the ones that we still may want to debate. Let's try to get the ones that we are in full agreement on out of the way. It would appear to me that we might be in some sort of agreement on Number 3. I don't want to be presumptuous, so I've asked for a call to motion on accepting SIPs Number 3.
MS. SHORTALL: He already made that motion.
MR. JONES: Yeah, he already did. You were otherwise disposed. I'm trying to get you caught up.
MS. SHORTALL: I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Rivera.
MR. JONES: Or, no, it was Chuck, he proposed, and I think Jerry seconded?
MS. SHORTALL: Okay.
MR. JONES: All right. So now we're discussing. Any comment?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: All in favor?
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: All against?
(No audible response.)
MR. PRATT: This is Don Pratt on the phone. I accept that.
MS. SHORTALL: You have to poll the people on the phone.
MR. JONES: Okay. I'm new at this here. So I'm told that I have to poll the people on the phone separately. So I'm asking everyone on the phone, all in favor of accepting SIPs recommendation for a motion Number 3.
MR. HAWKINS: This is Steve Hawkins. I accept that. I agree.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson, MOST Programs. I accept.
MS. BARBER: Kristi Barber. I accept.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. JONES: Okay. Is Don Pratt on?
MR. PRATT: Yes. I accept.
MR. JONES: Okay. Good. So I think that's so moved and passed. Right?
All right, let's move on. Number 4?
MR. BOLON: Okay. Number 4 looks at the table of permissible exposure limits in the construction standard. And what we're doing here, it really just had some things that were language errors, like we still had threshold limit value, which is a holdover from the ACGIH term where it's really permissible exposure limits. We were eliminating some language that sounds advisory, we were eliminating some confusing language, and correcting a couple of the footnote errors in the table. So again there is nothing substantive here. We're trying to make the language that should be there be there and correct some of the terms. We're not changing any PELs or --
MR. JONES: I'm going to go to Chair privilege and table that one for now. We're going to move on to Number 5.
MR. BOLON: Okay.
MR. ECKERSON: Yes. This next one relates to the excavation standard, specifically 1926.651(j)(1). This particular standard -- actually, the origin of the standard dates back to 1971, and it was pretty clear there that the burden was on employers to keep loose dirt and fill materials away from the edge of excavations. And in 1989, there were some revisions of this particular provision, and it did create some ambiguity in that it made it appear that not only did the employer -- in order to have a violation of this section, not only did OSHA need to show that there was loose fill or rock soil but also that OSHA needed to show that there was a hazard created by that.
So what we're proposing to do in this revision is to go back to the idea of the excavation standard as it stood originally in 1971 and make it clear that there is not a separate hazard finding that specifically needs to be made, that any loose soil or material near the excavation is a violation of this particular provision.
MR. JONES: Any comments?
MR. BETHANCOURT: This is Jeremy Bethancourt. So is the reason that you're doing that because it's implied that the loose soil is a hazard? Is that why you're making the clarification?
MR. BOLON: That's basically it. We're trying to clarify that any equipment or loose fill next to an excavation is a hazard because the language as it is, is somewhat ambiguous.
MR. BETHANCOURT: I understand. Thank you.
MR. HAWKINS: This is Steve Hawkins.
MR. JONES: Go ahead, Steve.
MR. HAWKINS: You know, not to pick at words here, but the language is really not -- I guess it doesn't appear to me to be ambiguous. It says if it's a hazard, you have to protect, and the revision makes the assumption that any loose rock or soil is a hazard and that you have to do something to protect the employees from it. Do we have any basis for that or who made that call or what we're kind of basing that assumption going from the wording in the original, which says adequate protection has to be provided to protect employees from loose rock or soil that could fall -- cause a hazard by falling into the face, to this one that says for loose rock or soil, employers must scale it -- and, Don, I've got a separate question about that -- is there some background information that you could explain to the committee about how we made that change right there? I don't want to call it a leap, but let's call it that step in that direction?
MR. BOLON: Well, it's not based on research or empirical. I mean, we went back and looked at what the original version was, and we come across enforcement cases, and there is confusion about whether -- because the language is ambiguous as to whether something could or could not pose a hazard, and we looked at the original language that we had, and we thought it was much clearer, that we thought all materials should be kept back from the edge of an excavation, that we don't expect the employer to sit there and make an evaluation case-by- case, you know, in this particular case, yeah, we can just stack the spoil pile right next to the excavation or equipment, have equipment, right next to the excavation. We just think putting pressure on the side walls of an excavation does create a hazard and we want to take the ambiguity out of the language.
MR. JONES: Jerry?
MR. HAWKINS: Paul -- I'm sorry.
MR. JONES: No, go ahead, Steve.
MR. HAWKINS: Paul, I would submit that the one we're talking about here doesn't have anything to do with the extra weight. It's talking about the loose soil or rock that might be on the face of the excavation, and we still have the 2-foot requirement that we're going to talk about next, I guess, right here, but I don't think that this has anything to do with the extra weight on the side wall, the one we're talking about now, does it?
MR. ECKERSON: Well, the soil and loose material would put extra weight. It doesn't talk about equipment, that's a separate issue, but to the extent that loose soil weighs anything, it does put extra weight. I don't think that's arguable.
MR. BOLON: Yeah. I don't think it's the loose soil or rocks that are in the face, I mean, it's what's up on the edge of the excavation.
MR. HAWKINS: No. The original wording that's in there now says, "Adequate protection shall be provided to protect employees from loose rock or soil that could pose a hazard by falling or rolling into the excavation --
MR. BOLON: Oh, you're right, from an excavation face.
MR. HAWKINS: From an excavation face. So we're just really talking about the face of the excavation, right? We're not talking about on top. We're talking about the face, right?
MR. BOLON: Right. You're right.
MR. BETHANCOURT: That's the way I -- that was my thought. This is Jeremy Bethancourt. Steve, you're right on what some of my thoughts were about why we're changing that.
MR. HAWKINS: And, you know, I guess I'm a little bit concerned about this in that anytime you dig an excavation, a person could pretty well always argue that there is some amount of loose dirt, soil particles, on the face of that excavation. In other words, when you dig it, unless you're somewhere way down in Georgia with really, really cohesive clay, you could argue that there is always -- when you disturb soil, there is always some amount of loose soil on the face of that excavation. I mean, you could dig a trench, especially in dry weather like, you know, in the summertime, and you could take a stick or something and wipe across the face of that excavation, and there would always be some amount of soil that would fall.
So are we a little bit concerned that if we change this wording like this, it would mean you would have to always put some kind of barrier on the face of that excavation possibly because now we haven't said -- you know, if it's in cohesive clay, there is going to be some amount of loose soil there, but not enough that it's going to cause you -- in most cases, not enough that it's going to cause a hazard to an employee because the amount that could fall in is like I'm talking cupfuls here, I'm not talking about a big chunk because you already have to have protection from collapse, so we're not talking about collapse here, we're just talking about rocks or soil that might be present that could fall in, into that excavation. If it's a very small amount of dirt, a cupful or two that might just sprinkle off the side, that's not really a hazard to the employees.
Let's say that it's also got a small amount of river gravel mixed in on the side that could fall in, but the particles are so small that they're not going to cause a hazard to an employee, but if we change this wording, the hazard consideration goes out, and it just says for any amount of loose rock or soil, you have to scale it or put up a protective barrier to keep it from falling in no matter how small if you read that in the strictest terms. That looks like that might could be problematic somewhere down the line to me.
MR. BOLON: Do you have less problem with protection from the rocks?
MR. HAWKINS: Well, what we've done, if we go up to an excavation and there's -- and this happens sometimes in Tennessee, Tennessee really varies a lot from one of the state. We go from the Mississippi Delta in Memphis all the way to the Smoky Mountains, so you all are familiar with both of those kind of areas, and they are vastly different, but when you get into middle Tennessee and into east Tennessee, you can dig an excavation a lot of times, and it will be one of two ways. You'll have to blast it and you'll have just pretty much it's homogenous, and so it's all rock, or you can be digging in an area where the rock is very weathered and you can have large rocks sticking out of the side of the excavation. When we see that, we will cite this standard and tell the employer, even though you have laid this back on the required angle, and that angle, even a 45 actually looks pretty steep when you're standing there even though it will measure to be a 45, and if we see a large rock that doesn't appear to be, from what you can see, connected to anything and it's sticking out, we tell the employer, "You've got to move that rock, you can't leave that rock because that rock weighs several hundred pounds, and if that rock comes loose from this bank, it's going to fall on employee and could kill him." And so we would require that employer to remove that rock. Now, if the employer is sitting there and he grabs ahold to the rock with his backhoe and starts winching and pulling and jerking and the rock won't budge, then that rock is probably connected to a shelf and it's not loose and it's not going to fall, but a lot of times it's just a big chunk rock like, say, oh, that might fill up a pickup bed on like a mini truck, a little Nissan or whatever, and so if it's a rock like that and it's sticking out of the side, we tell the employer, "You have to move that," but when you take away this requirement for the hazard -- what if it poses a hazard? -- then you're talking about what if it's just the loose soil that's on the face of an otherwise cohesive material on the face of that excavation? are we saying every one of those has to be or only if it's enough sufficient dirt to pose a hazard to the employees?
I understand why -- you know, what's ambiguous I would say, Paul, is not the language, what can be ambiguous is whether or not that soil poses a hazard or not. The wording I don't think is ambiguous; making the decision may be, but the wording itself is not in the original standard.
MR. BOLON: Okay.
MR. JONES: Thank you, Steve.
Jerry?
MR. RIVERA: Jerry Rivera, Employee Rep. I speak in opposition for the proposed language. In many regards, I'm looking at the language that's existing, and I think it provides more direction on what is expected especially when there is a hazard, and based on the conversation that we've heard so far, it leads me to believe that again the original language provides further clarity versus the proposed language.
MR. JONES: Thank you, Jerry.
Any further comments?
MR. HAWKINS: Walter, this is Steve again. I hate to keep going on this. I agree with what Jerry said. What I actually like better is a combination of the old language and the new language. I think we should recommend to OSHA that they keep the language about whether or not it's a hazard or not because that's really true. OSHA pretty much always has to prove there is a hazard to issue a citation anyway, so that's kind of implied no matter which way the language goes. I like the proposed clarification in the bottom about must use scaling to remove the loose material and provide barricades on the face to stop any material or use other methods that provide equivalent protection. I like the clarifications that are made there with those additional words that are highlighted in yellow, but I personally think we should keep the thing that says -- the first part of the old one that says if it presents a hazard. I kind of like some kind of marriage between those two that keeps the hazard language and goes about that says, okay, once you determine it's a hazard, you have to do these things, scale it to remove loose material, put barricades up on the face to stop it from falling in or some equivalent protection like driving piles or something.
MR. BETHANCOURT: This is Jeremy Bethancourt. Steve, I appreciate all that you've said because that's kind of what I was thinking about when I asked, are we assuming it's a hazard? And so I like the fact that -- or I like if we would include the language with the old language, so I would have to support your thoughts on that.
MR. JONES: Is that a motion, Steve?
MR. HAWKINS: Well, you know, Walter, to really put it in a motion, I would have to think a little more about how to state that, but if you started with the original wording in the old standard, the standard that's in place now, "Adequate protection shall be provided to protect employees from loose rock or soil that could --," and I like the word "could," I don't think it must -- "that could pose a hazard by falling or rolling from an excavation face," and then go to "such protection" right there kind of switch to the other proposed wording, and then it says -- even if you just went with that, where it says "such protection," if you went, "for loose," and you go to the proposed one, "for loose rock or soil, employers must use scaling to remove loose material, install protective barricades at intervals as necessary on the face to stop and contain falling material or use other means that provide equivalent protection." I think it would be helpful if that were what followed the first sentence of the existing standard.
MR. JONES: We have Ms. Sarah working on that right now.
MR. HAWKINS: That's a good thing.
(Laughter.)
MR. JONES: Chuck.
MR. STRIBLING: Thank you. Chuck Stribling. I would just also suggest change the word "must" to "shall."
MR. HAWKINS: "Shall" is much more consistent with the standard. That's a good -- I agree with that, Chuck.
MS. SHORTALL: Actually, the agency has been moving to using the word "must" in recent years.
MR. JONES: And that's the direction standard organizations are now moving towards, away from "shall" and towards "must."
What about the second -- before we move on this, as Sarah puts it together, the second recommendation for Number 5? Is there any comment on that?
I'm sorry. Jerry?
MR. RIVERA: Jerry Rivera, Employer Rep. I'm okay with that second language. You know, right now as it's worded, it sounds funny, so I guess there is some editing that needs to happen, but I'm okay overall. I'm okay with it.
MR. JONES: So I'm looking for a motion to accept OSHA's recommendations for Number 5 on the SIPs, and amending their proposal for 1926.651(j)(1) to --
MS. SHORTALL: I'm not -- what I'm suggesting here is that ACCSH recommends retaining the original language at the start of 1926.651(j)(I) (sic), along with the changes OSHA proposes for the remainder of the section.
MR. HAWKINS: Yeah, and, Ms. Sarah, I agree exactly what you said. It's actually just the first sentence of the original standard that we're talking about, but that would make it a little more clear, retain the first sentence and then add what OSHA is proposing.
MR. JONES: I need a second.
MR. PRATT: Yeah, this is Don Pratt. I would second that.
MR. JONES: Discussion?
MS. SHORTALL: Do you want me to reread that motion then? Steve Hawkins moves that ACCSH recommends retaining the original language in the first sentence of 1926.651(j)(I) (sic) along with the changes OSHA proposes for the remainder of the section.
MR. PRATT: Sarah -- this is Don Pratt again -- that's not an "I," that's a "1."
MS. SHORTALL: I'm sorry, excuse me. "1." Thank you.
MR. JONES: All in favor on the phone.
MR. BETHANCOURT: This is Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Aye.
MS. BARBER: Kristi Barber. Aye.
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MR. JONES: All in favor at the table -- oh, I'm sorry. No, Kristi said aye.
All in favor at the table, denote by saying, "Aye."
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: All opposed?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: Abstains?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: All right. Let's go to Number 6.
MS. SHORTALL: Did we actually pass (j)(2)?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: No.
MS. SHORTALL: You haven't done --
MR. JONES: We didn't do -- I thought I included that. No?
MR. STRIBLING: That was (j)(1). She specifically read (j)(1).
MR. JONES: I thought -- all right. Okay. All right. We'll pull back.
I would like to entertain a motion to accept the second proposal by OSHA for Number 5 for 1926.651(j)(2) to accept that recommendation. I'm entertaining a motion.
MR. STRIBLING: So moved.
MR. JONES: A second?
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Second it.
MR. JONES: All in favor on the phone?
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Aye.
MS. BARBER: Kristi Barber. Aye.
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MR. JONES: All in favor at the table, please
22 denote by saying, "Aye."
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: All opposed?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: Abstentions?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: All right. So moved.
Let's move to Number 6. I think we have guests for this one?
MR. BOLON: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Rebecca Reindel and Chris Brown from the Directorate of Standards and Guidance need to come up and address. We need to skip to Number 10, I believe, on the cancer screening. So they'll come up and walk us through there.
MR. BROWN: Hi. My name is Chris Brown. I'm from the Directorate of Standards and Guidance.
MS. REINDEL: I'm Rebecca Reindel. I'm also from the Directorate of Standards and Guidance.
MR. BROWN: We previously presented to the committee on OSHA's plans for revising a number of standards where chest x-ray requirements were included in either initial or periodic medical evaluation provisions in the standards. The committee requested that we consult with NIOSH on this issue before moving forward. Since the last meeting, we held discussions with NIOSH and believe that we have come to a consensus on the issue. We just wanted to provide you a brief update.
We intend to revise regulatory text for five standards: cadmium, cadmium in construction, coke oven emissions, acrylonitrile, and inorganic arsenic, the last of which, plus the construction cadmium standard are the two that are of interest to the committee. We're going to revise those and remove both initial and periodic chest x-ray requirements, so employers will not be required to provide chest x-rays to employees upon initial job placement or during annual medical exams. We are also going to be revising our asbestos standards, and Rebecca will update you on that.
MS. REINDEL: So the asbestos standard will be a little different. Instead of removing the chest x-ray requirement completely, we would revise the asbestos standard to explicitly recognize digital radiography as an alternative to traditional chest x-rays. And this would also allow the digital reference images from the ILO to be included as references for the digital radiography.
And this proposal would also discuss and seek comment on the use of CAT scans as a screening tool for lung cancer, but OSHA would not necessarily propose to allow them, it would just open the discussion for that.
And one other item is storage of chest x-rays that would already exist, and there is a standard, 1910.1020, and this requires employers to maintain all medical records including records of chest x-rays previously administered, and this requirement -- even if the requirement is removed from the standards, so even if chest x-rays are not required anymore for initial and periodic exams, they would still be required to be -- any previous ones that have been taken would be required to remain stored.
And that's about it.
MR. JONES: Any comments?
Chuck?
MR. STRIBLING: A question from our distinguished colleague from NIOSH. Are we good here?
MR. GILLEN: Sure. We had some good discussions and it turns out that some of the evidence about the chest x-rays is that they really aren't that good at picking up some of these things, and so the science sort of pushes us in that direction.
MR. STRIBLING: Thank you.
MR. JONES: I entertain a motion to accept recommendation Number 10.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Move.
MR. JONES: I'm looking for a second.
MR. MARRERO: I'll second it. Tom Marrero.
MR. JONES: All in favor on the phone?
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson --
MS. BARBER: Aye.
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Aye.
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins.
MR. JONES: All in favor at the table signify by saying, "Aye."
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: All opposed?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: Abstentions?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: So moved.
All right. Thank you.
MR. BROWN: Thank you.
MS. REINDEL: Thank you.
MR. JONES: Paul, where do you want to go next?
MR. BOLON: I think we'll go back to the next item that was coming up after the loose soil, and that's the standard on Process Safety Management. Once upon a time, before there was the internet, the agency tried to put all of the possible standards that might affect construction in 1926. The Process Safety Management standard I think was published in '92 or '93. It has some effect on construction. By far the great effect is when construction employers go into a site that is a process safety site, like a refinery or a chemical manufacturer, and do construction activities. It's extremely rare for a construction employer to actually be a PSM employer.
So we wanted to reduce and simplify our regs by just putting a reference over to the Process Safety Management standard in 1910. We do this for other standards. As I think we mentioned here, the PPE standard we do this for. The PSM standard completely applies to 1926, it's just that it is so rare and unusual for a construction employer to be an actual PSM employer, to have a site, their own site, that is a PSM site, that it just doesn't seem very useful to have it
MR. JONES: Thank you, Paul.
Any comments?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: I entertain a motion to accept the recommendation.
MR. MARRERO: I'll motion.
MR. JONES: Thank you, Tom.
Second? Thank you, Sarah.
All in favor on the phone for accepting this recommendation?
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Approved.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. JONES: That's two.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Yes.
MS. BARBER: Kristi Barber. Yes.
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Yes.
MR. JONES: All at the table, please signify by saying, "Aye."
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: All in oppose, opposition, say, "Nay."
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: Abstentions?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: So moved. That was beautiful.
MS. SHORTALL: I'm assuming that accepting the recommendation, what you intend by that is that OSHA recommends that OSHA proceed with that particular --
MR. JONES: ACCSH.
MS. SHORTALL: That ACCSH -- excuse me --
MR. JONES: Recommends.
MS. SHORTALL: That's what you're --
MR. JONES: Yeah.
MS. SHORTALL: Okay. That's what the motion, the language of the motion, will reflect then.
MR. JONES: Okay. Now Number 6 is it?
MR. BOLON: Seven. Number 7. This is Vernon Preston from the DOC staff. He's the main staffer that's on the revision to the Rollover Protection Standard, or ROPS.
MR. PRESTON: Good morning. My name is Vernon Preston. With regards to Subpart W, Rollover Protective Structures, there is a lot of technical information in the standard that is really more relevant to manufacturers than employers, so what we would like to do is remove a lot of that technical language and replace it with a consensus standard, particularly ISO 3471 Earthmoving Machinery Rollover Protective Structures, Laboratory Tests, and Performance Requirements. This way we would be replacing a significant portion of the standard with a reference to the consensus standard that is more up to date and covers we think the same information that we currently do have in the standard.
MR. BOLON: So just to add a little bit, we would keep -- there are two source standards for the current ROPS provisions, and we would keep those two references for all existing equipment, and we would recommend applying the existing ISO standards to equipment, to new equipment, that is acquired after the standard takes effect. I think the ISO requirement, I believe they're at least in their second generation. I think they've been around for at least 10 or 12 years. The earlier standards, the source standards, they've actually been withdrawn, and if you go on the website and look for them, they direct people to go to the ISO standards as well.
Then there is one other small issue. I think in 2009, ACCSH considered -- and it deals with the scope. Right now, skid-steer loaders and compactors are not within the scope of the ROPS. I know in -- I think it's in our notes here -- I think in 2009, ACCSH recommended that we pick up equipment, especially -- was it compactors?
MR. PRESTON: Yes, compactors and rubber-tired skid-steer loaders.
MR. BOLON: That we pick these up and have them covered under ROPS. So that is another thing that the committee could consider, whether we should also expand the scope.
So there are really three parts here. There is removing all the manufacturer specification data and replacing it with the source standards. The second thing is picking up ROPS for new equipment with the ISO standards. And then the third thing is expand the scope to include skid-steer loaders and compactors.
I'll just mention one more thing. In 2009, when the ACCSH considered this, there was a report, and I'm pretty sure it was from NIOSH, and what it did was collect -- there were a great number of rollover accidents with skid-steer loaders, and that was one reason that the committee recommended that we pick up skid-steer loaders in the ROPS scope.
MS. SHORTALL: I have a question here, and that is, do you have proposed reg text for this third issue about expanding the scope?
MR. BOLON: I don't. We don't have reg text here. We would just --
MS. SHORTALL: Okay. But you would be including it in the scope section of 1910, that language in the scope of 1926.1000(a)(2)?
MR. BOLON: Yes. Right now there is actually kind of a placeholder paragraph in there that says that when ROPS were devised that apply to skid-steer loaders, it's anticipated that we will pick them up. So we would just add the term "skid-steer loader and compactors" to the scope.
MR. JONES: Any comments or questions?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: All right. I would like to take these in three parts then. I'll start with the last one. Is the committee prepared to propose a recommendation that OSHA -- that we recommend to OSHA they -- consistent with the recommendations of prior efforts of this committee to expand the scope to include skid loaders and compactors?
MR. GILLEN: Yes.
MR. JONES: Second?
MS. COYNE: Second.
MR. JONES: Second? All in favor on the phone of expanding the scope to include skid loaders and compactors?
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. JONES: All against on the phone?
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MS. BARBER: Kristi Barber. Aye.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Aye.
MR. JONES: Thank you.
All at the table --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: Don Pratt?
MR. JONES: Oh, Don Pratt? I thought he said yeah.
MR. PRATT: Sorry about that. I had it on mute.
(Laughter.)
MR. JONES: Oh. We heard you anyway.
(Laughter.)
MR. JONES: I'm sorry.
All in favor at the table, aye?
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: All opposed?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: Abstentions?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: All right. So the last -- we just recommended that OSHA expand the scope.
Now, your other two requests here, you're asking us to accept your language to remove the manufacturer reference information and just reference the ANSI -- or the ISO standards.
MR. BOLON: We're going to just reference -- there are actually two source standards in the subpart now, and rather than listing out all the contents of those source standards, we're just going to reference the standards, and then there are a couple of provisions in there which do not apply to manufacturers, and we would keep those, which says -- I know one of them is if you take off the rollover protection, you have to put back as good a roll -- so there are just a couple of things that don't apply to manufacturers, but all the ones that do specifically apply -- and, again, these just tell the manufacturers the testing procedures, and there is no other direct thing on construction employers.
MR. JONES: All right. I'm looking for a motion to accept the recommendation to remove that information and reference the source --
MR. BOLON: The source standards.
MR. JONES: Right.
MR. GILLEN: So moved.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: Second.
MR. JONES: Second? All right.
All in favor on the phone?
MS. BARBER: Kristi Barber. Aye.
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Aye.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Aye.
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MR. JONES: Thank you. All in favor -- oh, I'm sorry.
Jeremy?
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. JONES: All right. All in favor at the table signify by saying, "Aye."
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: All opposed?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: And abstentions?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: All right. So that passed.
Now, the last that you're asking of us is ROPS for new equipment?
MR. BOLON: Right.
MR. JONES: How should I propose that in -- is it just as the language is proposed here?
MR. BOLON: It would be very close. I mean, because it says for equipment manufactured on or after the effective date of revised schedule -- of revised standard, we need some other -- there are a few phrases missing here that these are the standards that the equipment must meet when they're tested, but --
MR. JONES: I need language. Okay, so then I will be entertaining a motion to what exactly?
MS. SHORTALL: ACCSH recommends OSHA proceeds with revising Subpart W to add requirements for compliance with ISO standards for new equipment.
MR. McKENZIE: Specifically ISO 3471 and 3449.
MS. SHORTALL: I can put those specific ones in here.
MS. COYNE: So moved.
MR. JONES: A second. I need a second.
MS. SHADRICK: Second.
MR. JONES: Sarah made the motion. Laura made the second.
All in favor on the phone?
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Aye.
MS. BARBER: Barber. Aye.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Aye.
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MR. JONES: All in favor at the table?
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: And with that, I'm going to put us on break. We'll come back at 11:35.
(Break.)
MR. JONES: Back on record now. Okay. I hope to start off where we left off, Paul, and I think that would be on Number 8?
MR. BOLON: That's right. We're going to do Number 8, which is 911 service, Number 9, low limits posting, then the decompression table, and then I think we're coming back to the hearing loss issue, Number 2.
MR. JONES: Right.
MR. ECKERSON: Yes. With regard to the 911 service, we are seeking to update this provision here. Currently, the provision provides that in areas where 911 service is not available, the telephone numbers of the physicians, hospitals, or ambulances shall be conspicuously posted. There is virtually no place in the United States now where landlines don't have 911 service; however, with the advent of wireless technology, at many construction sites it's the cell phones that are the vehicle to contact emergency information, and there is an ongoing problem with 911 service with respect to wireless, and particularly with respect to areas that are very rural or very heavy forestation, and we've looked pretty extensively at this issue, and FCC has been wrestling with how to deal with this issue for the last several years, and what they have come down with is that they require all cell carriers who are processing 911 calls to provide to the emergency responder, emergency response office, the exact location of the origination of the call.
Now, the problem is in very rural and forested areas in the country, there is not an ability for the cellular companies to triangulate, they don't have enough cell towers to be able to triangulate with any certainty the exact location of the call originator, so in those cases the FCC has created a registry and created a process whereby cellular providers in those areas that don't have the physical capabilities of giving exact information to apply for an exemption from this requirement and then they can apply either for an entire county or a portion of a county, and in that instance, that provider is exempted from having to provide the emergency information.
So when we were looking at how we would reword this, essentially we've tied into the FCC process and said whatever communication system is used by an employer to make an emergency 911 call must ensure that it's effective providing contact information for the ambulance service, and in those instances where it's a particular location that has been exempted by the FCC from providing exact location information, that the employer in those particular instances must either post conspicuously the latitude and longitude of the worksite or must have access to a landline that has 911 service that can provide the exact location of the originating call. So if you look at the language, that's kind of the concept we've captured in trying to update this whole regulation with respect to contacting emergency 911 service.
MR. JONES: What did we do before cell phones?
MR. ECKERSON: Before cell phones, we relied on the landline 911 service, and --
MR. JONES: In rural areas, what did we do?
MR. ECKERSON: Oh. We said in areas where
12 911 service wasn't available, such as rural areas, that they had to provide -- they had to post the telephone numbers of physicians, hospitals, or ambulances.
MR. BOLON: So you had to get to a landline.
MR. ECKERSON: Yeah.
MR. JONES: Kevin?
MR. CANNON: The only thing I would say -- and it's kind of along the lines when you're working in some of these areas, is if you could potentially expand just beyond longitude and latitude if there is a physical address available and some of our contractors who do highway work, you know, they're constantly moving, and some way of identifying their precise locations where the work is being performed.
Some of the things that we kicked around, and I understand that they're not available in all areas, you know, mile markers or things of that nature when you're doing highway work, but as I've heard from our members, sometimes when they're working in the most remote places, they don't have -- but just giving other options besides just longitude and latitude here.
MR. ECKERSON: Okay. So we could add language saying or other identifying information that will adequately provide --
MR. CANNON: Yes.
MR. ECKERSON: Okay.
MR. JONES: Chuck?
MR. STRIBLING: Thank you. Yeah, I would echo that. Some of them won't know their latitude and longitude. If I don't have a GPS on me, I may not know it. And the other thing is right now the proposed text is when an employer uses a combination system for contacting necessary ambulance service, I'm just sort of questioning, why is it just ambulance service?
MR. JONES: EMS, right?
MR. STRIBLING: Pardon?
MR. JONES: Are you thinking EMS?
MR. STRIBLING: Well, I'm thinking you're trying to call 911.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Emergency service.
MR. STRIBLING: Yeah, so it's an emergency service. They might be trying to call the county rescue squad or the fire department or something like that.
MR. BOLON: So just for necessary emergency services? Something like that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Mm-hmm.
MR. JONES: Jerry, did you have something?
MR. RIVERA: No.
MR. JONES: Matt?
MR. GILLEN: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: The phone? Anybody on the phone?
MR. JONES: You folks on the phone, any comment?
MR. PRATT: Yeah. This is Don Pratt. I'm concerned about this. I think that a lot of our guys that are building in rural areas, obviously, they're not going to have latitude and longitude available to them, just like was already mentioned. Obviously, for our members, a physical address is probably going to be the best way to find somebody. However, if you're working on a road crew or something like that, it could be a problem. So I don't know that we can blanket this whole thing with one statement. I think we have to spend more time in looking at, what do we really want to accomplish and how do we get there the best way?
MR. HAWKINS: This is Steve Hawkins. Just certainly I understand what OSHA is trying to do here, and it does -- I mean, we understand it, it makes sense, but really when I'm starting to think about remote worksites, logging some things like that, in Tennessee and I think probably certainly out West, I think there are lots of places where there is no cell phone service. I know there is in Tennessee. I know places right now where I go where I just don't have service, and they're not as small, they're not little pockets like you might think, sometimes it's a pretty big area. What are we expecting of an employer who might be working in an area where there is not cell phone service and certainly they're working in an area where there is not a landline, you can't tap into a landline, what do we actually expect of that employer right now?
MS. SHORTALL: I think it depends upon the standard. Login you just specifically mentioned, that's one of the reasons why they require login, that all persons be trained and certified to provide first aid.
MR. HAWKINS: Right, and we've got that same standard in the construction industry, too, basically, right? That you've got to have people there to render first aid. I guess we do. I never really thought about it. I'm assuming that we do. But as far as summoning -- you know, first aid is one thing, but that's not the same as having an ambulance, you know, medical professionals there on their way. I guess if that's the case, there is nothing we can really do about it.
MR. JONES: Steve, I was in Palm Spring desert about, I don't know, 3 or 4 weeks ago on a big solar farm, and what our contractor was doing there was giving workers stickers with their longitude and latitude GPS numbers on their hard hats because the big issue was snakes, and every trench we built, every pallet we sat down created shade, which would then create homes for critters, and so they would put these on the hard hats because you only have about 30 to 45 minutes for rescue. So when the helicopter was coming out, we could pinpoint employees, and that's what we were using out in Palm Springs, but we were relying on cell phones to call the helicopter, the Flight for Life helicopter service.
MR. HAWKINS: Okay. So I think the comment that was made earlier about using latitude or longitude or if you actually had a street address, the street address is probably more useful to the EMS 911 folks in that county than maybe your latitude and longitude is. So I guess we need to open up the language, like was said earlier, where it's whatever the most effective method would be, whether it's having the address or -- because I think all the cities in Tennessee, I think Tennessee has this now, where every municipality had to go through and decide what the name of all the roads were, which would be a bigger job than you might think because some people called a road one thing all their life, and now the city has named it something else, put up road signs, and assign house numbers. And so if you were in a rural area where you didn't have cell phone service but you did have a physical address, that would be probably the method that would bring you quicker service than the latitude and longitude possibly, but then out West, like Walter is talking about, the latitude and longitude is probably for sure the best way there, right?
MR. JONES: Yeah, it was the only way.
MR. HAWKINS: Yeah.
MR. ECKERSON: Okay. If I may take a stab then at addressing that, I would say that on Page 9 where we say, "Conspicuously post the latitude and longitude of the workplace," I propose we add, "or other identifying information which will enable emergency responders to readily locate the worksite."
MR. HAWKINS: Yeah. Something like that seems like it might be a good idea. Since these opportunities to fix stuff like this only come around so often, and that might be some good wording there. I think that sounds good.
MR. JONES: Can you reread that, please?
MR. ECKERSON: So, "Conspicuously post the latitude and longitude of the workplace or conspicuously post other identifying information which will enable the emergency responders to readily locate the worksite," the workplace, I guess.
MR. McKENZIE: Dean McKenzie, with OSHA. Should we add something like "effective" or any alternative, post an effective means, whether it's a radio, whatever it is, you have an effective means to reach your emergency services that is tested?
MR. PRATT: This is Don Pratt. What if you don't have an effective means?
MR. JONES: Get one.
MR. STRIBLING: Well --
MR. JONES: Chuck?
MR. STRIBLING: This is Chuck Stribling. This standard only applies when it -- it says when an employer uses a communication system. If you're out in the boonies and you don't have the service, you don't have the service. You're not using a communication system. You might simply get on the CB radio, which is still done in parts of Eastern Kentucky, and local police monitor that. There's an emergency channel, Channel 9. So it only applies when you use a communication system, as proposed.
MR. JONES: Kevin?
MR. CANNON: I just had a question because I have not had this experience, but how do you know when you're in one of these areas?
MR. STRIBLING: You don't have cell phone service.
MR. BOLON: You don't have any bars.
(Laughter.)
MR. BOLON: Actually, that's not quite true.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Or it might say no service.
MR. BOLON: For a cell phone, for them to locate you --
MR. JONES: Yeah, they're talking about the locator portion.
MR. BOLON: -- they need -- I believe they need either two -- three? Two or three cell tower fixes on where you're at to fix you. Otherwise, I mean, you might get voice, but you wouldn't get --
MR. CANNON: So conceivably you could have cell phone use but not the locator capabilities.
MR. BOLON: Yeah. Yeah.
MR. CANNON: So that's what I'm saying, how do you know when you're in that?
MR. ECKERSON: The FCC maintains a registry of all those locations in the country that are exempted from this, so to find that out, you would have to go to the FCC.
MR. BOLON: But to find out where you are, you can get a handheld GPS. They work everywhere, and they don't cost that much.
MR. STRIBLING: To answer Kevin's question, when you call 911, the dispatcher will instantly know where you're calling from or not, and if they don't --
MR. CANNON: Then you know you're in --
MR. STRIBLING: They'll ask. And even when they do know, they'll ask to confirm.
MR. JONES: Sarah?
MR. BETHANCOURT: This is Jeremy Bethancourt. I think to the point that was just mentioned about the handheld GPSs, and I don't know how -- if it would even be something that included any language, but, I mean, our -- darn it -- our GPSs for our automobiles, the handheld ones, those, even when they don't have any roads or anything like that, or maps, they still know where the longitude and latitude is. At least I found out here in Arizona where I sometimes don't get cell service, as was said by Steve. So there we are, that's what I had to say about that.
MS. COYNE: This is Sarah. On the very last part of your rewrite, could you read the very last sentence again, please?
MR. ECKERSON: Okay, "or other effective identifying information which will enable the emergency responders to readily locate the workplace."
MS. COYNE: Is that what we want it to say? Because the job sites I've been on have been huge, so should there be additional language or a comma, workplace and employee?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Or injured party?
MS. COYNE: Or injured party?
MR. CANNON: But that's such an unknown. You don't know where it might happen.
MR. JONES: What she's saying is that you want to locate the employee, you don't want them to locate the worksite. You can get to the worksite and it still be a 5-mile worksite, but you need to find the employee.
MR. CANNON: The incidents are unpredictable, so how are you going to -- because it has to be posted. You see where I'm going?
MS. COYNE: I've been on worksites where the ambulances showed up and the jobsite was so big, it took forever. I mean, the ambulance showed up on the jobsite like that; locating the worker is what was difficult. And I would imagine that the challenge would be 10 times more difficult in an area, rural, that we're referring to.
MR. CANNON: I mean, I do totally understand, but I'm saying as far as posting. This is saying you have to post it, and then being able to post where --
MS. COYNE: So noted.
MR. CANNON: Do you see what I mean?
MR. BOLON: I think this provision mostly is directed -- I mean --
MS. COYNE: So noted.
MR. BOLON: -- I think your point about finding the employee is good, but I guess the original thing is just directed towards getting the emergency service there.
MS. COYNE: So noted. Thank you.
MR. JONES: Jerry?
MR. RIVERA: Yes. Jerry Rivera, Employee Rep. I think a lot of the questions as far as locating the actual employee could be best addressed maybe in the emergency action plan, and this is more broad in nature.
The other aspect, more or less my comment is on the latitude, you know, it was interesting to hear the discussion of, well, the only way you find out about whether you have the ability for longitude or latitude is if you call 911 and they tell you or they ask you, or just because you have three bars, it doesn't mean you have it. I guess my challenge here is, how can we expect that employer to be able to identify that? I mean, if I know construction folks, they say, "I've got a signal, I'm good to go, I'm in compliance," when in reality they might not be. So I just want to make sure that the language you are proposing, it's kind of tough to articulate it, but we don't want to put them in a place where they don't know where the virtual boundaries are at.
MR. BOLON: Could you reference the FCC registry in some form or fashion?
MR. ECKERSON: Yeah. It is referenced on Page 8. Maybe we can provide a link to that site or something, or I don't know if we can do that in reg text, but we say in counties or portions of counties where the U.S. Federal Communications Commission exempts wireless carriers. There is like a docket number or --
MS. SHORTALL: I guess I have a question to ask concerning that, and that is, is the FCC going to long term keep those exemption areas, or is that as there are more cell towers going up, is that being revisited? In other words, are you trying to get at the FCC ones or are you just trying to get at for whatever reason there is no 911 service?
MR. ECKERSON: Well, for cellular phones, everyone -- every carrier has to have 911 service unless they apply to this FCC registry and are accepted and are listed on a publicly available location.
MS. SHORTALL: I realize that, but --
MR. ECKERSON: Over time, I don't know what period of time FCC revisits that, but I would imagine that each year the area that doesn't have 911 service shrinks probably pretty significantly. So I imagine this whole issue will be moved in 5 years or so.
MS. SHORTALL: Okay. And so is it important that we reference FCC here or just reference the notion that there isn't currently 911 service or just period?
MR. ECKERSON: The reason I think it's important to reference it is the FCC, that's the only way you can really determine whether or not you have 911 service in a particular area.
MS. SHORTALL: Is that language that is mostly put into regulations or language that you would normally find in a preamble to more fully explain a regulation?
MR. ECKERSON: Yeah, that probably would be appropriate, more appropriate, in preamble language.
MR. JONES: That's not -- then do you believe it's necessary in this case then, or is this --
MR. ECKERSON: No, I was just addressing the point about the evolution of 911 service.
MR. JONES: Yeah, okay.
MR. ECKERSON: I think what language we have here we would believe it would be best to be in the reg text, but any talk about what happens in 5 years from now with the increase in cellular technology, I think we could address that in preamble language.
MR. JONES: Don, where are you at on this? I'm not sure. Where are you at on this? Have the responses made you more comfortable?
MR. PRATT: Are you asking me?
MR. JONES: You said you had some strong concerns about this.
MR. PRATT: Yeah. I think if we give an option to the employer, I think that that will take care of most of the concern that I have.
MR. JONES: Okay. All right. Then I'm looking for a motion --
MS. SHORTALL: What you've got to do at this point is you've got several motions that are going to be necessary. One is going to be the language you're discussing here about expanding and identifying information that you can use. The second one is going to be if you want to suggest that there be something broader used than "ambulance." And then third, whether you support the notion of revising or recommending that OSHA proceed with revising this particular section of 1926.
MR. JONES: All right. Let's take the first one, expanding the language here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: So moved.
MR. JONES: So we're looking at expanding it to include other location identifiers?
MS. SHORTALL: Other types of identifying information employers may use where there is no 911 service.
MR. ECKERSON: Right.
MR. JONES: One moment.
Solicitor?
MS. SHORTALL: But this, we need a motion for it.
MR. JONES: Before I entertain a motion, I would like to hear a comment from the audience.
MS. WILSON: I apologize, Ms. Shortall. Just in your summary, the other means of providing the location and identifying information, that does apply in situations where there is 911 service, it's simply that the phone does not automatically provide the location to the service providers.
MS. SHORTALL: Okay. Then what about if we just were to have a motion that said expand the types of identifying information employers may use in an emergency situation? Would that be broad enough?
MR. ECKERSON: Beyond latitude and longitude
21 you mean, that issue.
MS. SHORTALL: Uh-huh.
MR. ECKERSON: Yeah, I think that would capture it.
MR. JONES: To include or beyond? All right. Okay. Are we good? So moved by --
MS. SHADRICK: So moved.
MR. JONES: All right. Second?
MR. PRATT: Second. Don Pratt. Second.
MR. JONES: All right. All in favor?
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. McKENZIE: The phone.
MR. JONES: On the phone, all in favor?
MR. BETHANCOURT: Aye.
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Aye.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Aye.
MR. JONES: Kristi?
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MR. JONES: Steve Hawkins. I didn't hear Kristi.
All not in favor on the phone?
MS. BARBER: I had my mute on. Dang it. Kristi Barber. Aye.
MR. JONES: Aye. Okay. All right, at the table here --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: You didn't have Jeremy Bethancourt.
MR. JONES: Oh. Jeremy, are you in or out?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: He said aye I think.
MR. BETHANCOURT: I said aye. Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. JONES: I'm sorry. That's what I thought. Okay. Back to the table here, all in favor say, "Aye."
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: All opposed.
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: Abstentions?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: Okay, so moved to expand information sources.
MS. SHORTALL: And then Roger Erickson I believe was the one who brought up the issue of ambulance, or was it someone else?
MS. SHADRICK: Chuck.
MS. SHORTALL: It was what?
MS. SHADRICK: Chuck.
MS. SHORTALL: Oh, Chuck. Okay.
MR. ERICKSON: It was not me. I'm Roger.
MS. SHORTALL: Oh, sorry.
Chuck, you brought up the ambulance. Do you have a motion you would like to make?
MR. JONES: Emergency services?
MR. STRIBLING: Yeah. I would suggest or make a motion that the agency change that text to read something along the lines broader than ambulance service.
MR. JONES: Second?
MR. CANNON: I'll second it.
MR. JONES: Thank you. All in favor on the phone?
MS. BARBER: Kristi Barber. Aye.
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Aye.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Aye.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MR. JONES: Thank you, guys.
All in favor at the table?
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: Opposed?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: Abstentions?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: All right. So moved.
And now the third motion would be what, Ms. Sarah?
MS. SHORTALL: ACCSH recommend that OSHA proceed with revising Section 1926.50(f) with the revisions ACCSH has adopted.
MR. JONES: I'm looking for a motion to accept.
MS. COYNE: So moved.
MR. JONES: Okay. Second?
MS. BARBER: Second.
MR. JONES: Kristi seconds.
All in favor on the phone?
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Aye.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Aye.
MS. BARBER: Kristi. Aye. Sorry, Steve.
MR. HAWKINS: Sorry, Kristi. I thought I was waiting until the last. Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MR. JONES: Okay. All in favor at the table say aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: I think that's all of us. Okay. Now we're going to move down to Number 9, I believe it is, Paul?
MR. ECKERSON: Right. Yeah, this last one --
MR. BOLON: It's not last.
(Laughter.)
MR. ECKERSON: I'm sorry, the last -- near the last. I'll say Number 9 is 1926.250(a)(2) requirement presently requires the posting of safe-load limits on floors within buildings and structures in pounds per square foot. The intent of this regulation is to ensure that contractors do not put unsafe loads of materials and machinery on portions of the building which could not withstand that load. We are proposing in this particular provision to exempt this requirement to post the load limits in single-family residences under construction. The main reason for that is that most of the -- almost the overwhelming majority of situations where this is an issue are not the single-family residences, it's the larger construction sites that have curing cement issues and have much larger pieces of equipment and much heavier building supplies. So in single-family residences, this really is a non-issue and we think for that reason we're proposing to put in the exemption for single-family houses.
MR. BETHANCOURT: This is Jeremy Bethancourt. I have a comment regarding the single-family residence. I would just think that it might be more prudent -- and Don can chime in here -- if we define single-family residence. And not to get into minutia, or maybe perhaps we might reference a current definition because I think that this definition would also or might also be inclusive of some light commercial type structures, what the industry recognizes as light commercial, which is the standard means and methods, and I would just want to make sure that there is not ambiguity in that. So I don't know if less is more in this instance, and I would be interested to hear what Don might think about that.
MR. PRATT: Yeah. This is Don Pratt. Yeah, there are definitions of what a single-family dwelling would be primarily in the code structure. There is also -- I believe that we have one for OSHA on what a single- family dwelling is, or maybe I'm thinking about the proposal that we made for fall protection and what would be defined as a single-family dwelling, and I would probably like to go back to that one, that definition. I would have to look it up, I don't have it here at my fingertips, but it's very clear and it does include a lightweight -- a light framing for some commercial buildings, too. So that would probably be a good suggestion.
MR. JONES: Okay. Is that -- any other comments?
Jerry? Kevin?
MR. CANNON: No, I'm good.
MR. BOLON: I'm a little concerned about light commercial just because that could be poured concrete floors or steel or something. I tend to think you might tend to have some materials that might be pretty heavy that could be stored in there. I mean, I just don't know, whereas single-family homes --
MR. JONES: Yeah, I agree, I agree, but the definition of -- is the definition of a single-family home inclusive of light commercial, Jeremy?
MR. BETHANCOURT: Well, I guess -- it wasn't that I was trying to be more inclusive and make it apply, I just think it should be -- we just shouldn't have any doubt, and on this particular issue, there seems to be a continuing dialogue as to what actually applies. Now, in my thoughts, I mean, if we're to utilize the compliance directive that I think Don was referencing that was put out in 2011, it does define a single-family residence under the criteria for fall protection, and that may assist industry in understanding where this should apply and where it shouldn't, not necessarily to light commercial, but it's more of what is the construction material that's very important, as your concern seems reasonable that, yeah, some things could be quite heavy.
I guess where I see that there could be an issue, for example, I hate to bring up the State of Arizona, where we're having some issues with that currently still, but there is that extension that is now into large apartment type structures that are predominantly wood frame, clearly not a single-family residence, it's a multi-family residence. So if that's going to be the differentiation, then I guess this definition that we have here would be okay, but there is that discussion that's currently out there. And maybe Don can add his thoughts in there, too. I just think we really want to make sure, what is the definition? And I don't know that we have that other than from several different sources, as Don was trying to think of what those words were, I think.
MR. PRATT: Yeah. This is Don again. Yeah, I agree. I mean, if we're going to put this in here, I think we really need to define what a single-family residence is. I'm not trying to be difficult, but we really need to get our arms around that.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Or at the very least, reference it as it's already written somewhere else.
MR. PRATT: Yes.
MR. BETHANCOURT: You know? I mean, I just think we should do that. We owe it to the employers that are going to want to make sure that they're compliant, to be able to say, "Okay, you're saying this, so what's the definition? Oh, okay, you're telling me to go look here for that definition." Then it's done, you know.
MR. PRATT: Yeah. This is Don again. As an example, in townhouse construction, depending on where the break is in the firewalls, each one of those townhouses could be considered to be a single-family dwelling, although we don't look at it that way, we don't think about that. Okay? But a townhouse obviously is no different than a single-family home when it comes to this.
MR. BETHANCOURT: And that's why I would be concerned about ambiguity, so, yeah, I think Don and I would -- and maybe others, I think we want it to be clear, not -- in my case, not that I'm objecting to it, but I would want it to be clear for everybody.
MR. BOLON: Well, I think where we're at right now is there is general approval for doing this for at least what most of us commonly think of single-family homes, but we're hearing that we need a clear definition for it, and I guess a couple of people have suggested that it should be broader.
MR. JONES: Well, I think what I'm hearing -- and I agree, Paul, and correct me if I'm wrong, is this is fine as long as we define what single-family dwelling is, right?
MR. BOLON: Uh-huh.
MR. PRATT: Yeah, I'm not saying it should be broader or more restrictive, I'm just saying it should be defined clearer.
MR. JONES: Yeah, that's what I thought.
Chuck, jump in.
MR. STRIBLING: Thank you. Defining a single- family residence has implications in other parts of the 1926 standards. I would most certainly want to see any proposed definition before it came out as a proposed rule.
MR. PRATT: Sure enough.
MR. STRIBLING: And the reference to where it might be defined in other -- you're talking about the CPL. Not all states adopt that CPL. Some states don't recognize that definition, so that necessarily would --
MR. JONES: Can you explain CPL for some of us that don't know?
MR. STRIBLING: Compliance directive. So that definition necessarily wouldn't work for all the state plan partners.
MR. JONES: So I'm looking at two alternatives here. One, we could table it and come back to this at another meeting when we have a better definition of single-family dwelling. Or we could go forward with this, inserting "single-family dwelling." Is that what we're saying? Without defining it.
MR. BOLON: Yeah. I think that's where we're at.
MR. JONES: Okay.
MR. BOLON: The next ACCSH meeting is in December?
MR. JONES: Oh, I don't know. We've had four. We may not get another one.
MR. BOLON: November, December.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: It's a new fiscal year.
MR. JONES: It is a new fiscal year, right. So I'm looking for some rope here, some help.
MR. McKENZIE: We've got enough rope.
(Laughter.)
MR. JONES: What do we want to do? Do we want to table this or do we want to go forward without the definition?
MS. COYNE: I make a motion to table it.
MR. JONES: We have a motion to table this.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Second.
MR. PRATT: This is Don Pratt. Let me answer the question. Go ahead. What was that?
MR. JONES: Excuse me. What did you say, Don?
MR. PRATT: Well, I was just going to say that if we went ahead and approved it with single-family, what's the process that it would take to add a definition or to change this at some date in the future if in fact we needed to expand this?
MR. JONES: Well, we would only be able to recommend --
MR. PRATT: Well, I understand that.
MR. JONES: Okay.
MS. SHORTALL: Well, it does sound like Mr. Stribling would want to see any definition of single-family residence before he would want to --
MR. JONES: Vote in the affirmative.
MS. SHORTALL: -- vote on this provision.
MR. STRIBLING: Yeah. I think the states would, yes, ma'am.
MR. BOLON: In terms of timing, I would hope our proposal would be nearly finished by the time the next ACCSH meeting has, but I think we could bring that definition to you and try and slip it in under the wire at the next one.
MR. BETHANCOURT: This is Jeremy Bethancourt. I guess I have a question for Chuck. If we approve it as it is written right now, I am thinking I am understanding that it's ambiguous enough so that the other states can interpret it under however their language is?
MR. BOLON: They could --
MR. BETHANCOURT: If I'm understanding, that's kind of what my thought is as well. We don't want it to be exclusive or inclusive, you know, it should be on its face value and everybody should know what that is for their particular area.
MR. BOLON: Right. I'll just remind everybody, we're just moving to a proposal. We will have a comment period, so we'll almost undoubtedly be changing things subject to comment. So this is not your last shot, your last crack, at this.
MR. PRATT: Okay, well, this is Don Pratt. Then let's leave it the way it is and then we can address this in the comment period.
MR. JONES: Okay. On the table, right now on the table we have a motion to table this motion. I did not get a second. Do you want to pull that and we go to a vote on the original?
MS. COYNE: Yes.
MR. PRATT: Yes.
MR. JONES: All right. So that's been rescinded.
Okay. Now we're going to go to a -- I want to entertain a motion to accept the support and recommend that OSHA move forward with Number 9, and I guess the caveat, if there is such, that you'll come back to us with a definition on single-family housing.
MR. PRATT: Yeah. This is Don Pratt. I would so move.
MR. BETHANCOURT: And I would second that. This is Jeremy.
MS. SHORTALL: Provided that motion comes back, or it's just --
MR. JONES: It will.
MR. BOLON: Yeah, this is something that we would obviously at least have to explain this in the preamble, provide a definition, if not in the reg text.
MS. SHORTALL: Okay. So proceed with revising 1926.250(a)(2).
MR. JONES: Okay. Second? No, I've already had a second. Let's go to a vote on the phone.
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Aye.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Aye.
MS. BARBER: Kristi Barber. Aye.
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MR. JONES: All right. All at the table, all in favor say, "Aye," please.
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: And opposed? Nays?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: Abstentions?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: So moved.
All right. Paul, before we go to 2 and 5, I believe --
MR. BOLON: Actually, we were going to take up quickly I hope the --
MR. JONES: Decompression?
MR. BOLON: The decompression table.
MR. JONES: That's where I want to go.
MR. BOLON: Okay.
MR. JONES: Okay. Is it 4? 4 is PELs. Yeah, we're coming back to that definitely because you've got to insert --
MR. GILLEN: It's 2 and 4, not 2 and 5.
MR. PRESTON: I'm Vernon Preston, from OSHA. With regards to the decompression tables, we spoke about this at the last ACCSH meeting, and we decided to table it to give us time to check out the availability of the decompression tables, and I just wanted to update you guys on that. First I'll say that NIOSH has a website with regards to decompression illness, and on their website they have a copy of the NIOSH tables, the French tables, and the U.K. tables that we would like to refer to in our underground construction standard.
There was another table, the German tables, that we have had some trouble getting ahold of -- I've spoken to some representatives from NIOSH. They know that they exist, they know that they have them, but they are I think old and it's difficult for them to make them out, so they told me that they would look into trying to find more up-to-date version of the tables, and if they could do that, we would work on including those also in the standard as well.
I think that's about it as far as the availability goes. What I think our approach would be is to include them in our standards by referring to them in Appendix A of Subpart S, Underground Construction, and giving the industry the opportunity to use any of the tables that would be appropriate for the work that they would be doing.
MR. BOLON: Yeah. Just to add a bit, recently we also thought there was a Brazilian table, and we found that not to be the case. I think Vernon found they were using the U.K. table.
MR. PRESTON: That's correct.
MR. BOLON: And again just a reminder, the context here is that the current OSHA table is really not sufficiently protective, and the other tables that are available are all more protective, and this has been discussed in the literature. So what we're proposing to do is to remove the OSHA table and at least for a proposal to permit the use of any of the other four tables, which we found I think are all available. They're available publicly.
MR. JONES: What is industry currently using?
MR. BOLON: My understanding is that most commonly and most of the variances are for the French table.
Go ahead.
MR. JONES: Microphone?
MR. BIERSNER: I'm Bob Biersner, with the Solicitor's Office. And we just issued a variance to Traylor Brothers to do the Blue Plains construction project here in Washington, D.C., digging a tunnel under the Anacostia and the Potomac Rivers. We just issued them a -- it's actually an interim order, which is preliminary to issuing a variance, and in that interim order we adopted the French tables, and OSHA feels extremely comfortable with those tables as being highly protective, and there is a great deal of evidence available in the research literature to support those tables. And I would encourage you -- I mean, we're going to be issuing a proposed application for this variance in the near future, and I would recommend that you pay attention to that, and I would highly recommend that at this point we look particularly at the French tables.
MR. JONES: I would like to follow that up. What is the difference between the U.K. and the French and -- is it that big of a difference? And why don't we just go with the French? Or is that problematic? Can someone spell that out for me?
Chuck?
MR. BIERSNER: I would like to say, too, that Washington State -- Bob Biersner again -- Washington State, Oregon, California, all state plan states, have also adopted the French tables for tunneling work.
MR. JONES: Are they proprietary?
MR. BIERSNER: They are proprietary, and we will look into that, but --
MR. JONES: But that's no different than ANSI, right?
MR. BIERSNER: Yeah, right, it's the same thing.
MR. JONES: Okay. Chuck?
MR. STRIBLING: Just as a point of information, Kentucky has not adopted the French table, but anyhow, it has to do with work under pressure is the reason for the updated tables. And I wholeheartedly agree the updated tables are much more protective. So I think I brought this up at the last meeting, I don't have an issue with replacing the table, but how will the employer see the table? If we tell them to go to a website --
MR. BOLON: I think we would -- well, we'll have to make provision for that.
MR. STRIBLING: Yeah.
MR. BOLON: I mean, one alternative is to post it on our website if that's possible.
MR. JONES: But don't we do that already with ANSI standards? We're always referencing ANSI standards for ACGIH and they're all copyrighted --
MR. STRIBLING: Right, I understand, but now you're taking away something that's in the standard that they can see and you're telling them, "Well, there is something else, but go over here and find it." So would there be a way that it could be included in the appendix?
And just so you know, I think I found the German table in a U.K. study last night.
MR. JONES: One second.
Dean?
MR. McKENZIE: Dean McKenzie, with OSHA. There are French national tables that are available publicly which are better than the OSHA tables. You know, some of the other tables that Vernon has identified are publicly available, and you can look at them. Now, the ones that will be an issue for us to -- a question for us to answer prior to publication will be the George's Gordone (ph) proprietary French tables. How would we reference those? Because they are for sale and they come with George's Gordone services as a company that sells them. We would have to address the issue of OSHA recommending a single source provider. Or it would be like us saying you've got to use DBI/SALA fall protection equipment. We'll have to look into that. But the publicly available tables could be there. We do need to address how we handle the proprietaries.
MR. JONES: That answers my question.
Any other comments? The phone?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: I would like to entertain a motion to accept -- recommend OSHA proceeds with updating the decompression tables to remove these outdated ones we've been relying on -- I guess I shouldn't say that -- and go forward with the French public tables. And is there another -- the U.K. tables?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: And NIOSH tables.
MR. JONES: And NIOSH tables.
MS. SHORTALL: Updated tables, if you want to
4 specify that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Say updated.
MR. JONES: Updated tables.
MR. STRIBLING: Question on --
MR. JONES: Go ahead, Chuck.
MR. STRIBLING: You said remove the table. Is OSHA intending to remove the table entirely so the tables -- what table would there be for when you're working not at pressurized, you're just doing regular non-pressurized work?
MR. PRESTON: It's my understanding that the tables that we currently have for decompression are for pressurized work, so yeah.
MR. STRIBLING: So for non-pressurized work, what table would you use?
MR. JONES: Do you need a table?
MR. BOLON: Do you need a table? I mean --
MR. JONES: Do you need a table for non- pressurized work, like right today?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: We say not in pressurized work.
MR. JONES: Yeah.
MR. STRIBLING: Okay. Okay. Never mind. I'm thinking --
MR. JONES: Yeah.
MR. STRIBLING: Okay.
MR. BOLON: Again I just also mention a couple things. There was an article published which we think is pretty authoritative that compared the tables about 8 or 10 years ago, and again the conclusion was that the new tables are better than the current OSHA table, that they all are. We were hoping not to try and differentiate between the table because that would be difficult, and since they're all better, we want to get them all in. But since this will be a proposal and have comment, if there are better tables, we can sort that out in comment and rulemaking, so --
MR. JONES: I need a second for that, my motion.
MR. STRIBLING: Second.
MR. JONES: All in favor on the phone.
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Aye.
MS. BARBER: Kristi Barber. Aye.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Aye.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MR. JONES: All in favor at the table?
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: And all against?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: So moved.
So now we'll go to Number 2. And where are we left off on that one?
MR. ECKERSON: I think in speaking during the break with Mr. Cannon, I think we've got a proposal that we can live with and that is acceptable to him; namely, if you look at Page 2 of the table, what we would amend that proposal is we would keep the specific -- we're looking at the middle box here in the table on Page 2 -- we would keep the language which cross- references specifically the 1904.5 criteria, but then we would not include the language, the rest of the language, that we were proposing to add after the sentence that ends with the OSHA 300 log. So what we're proposing is that it now read -- that the amended language, the first sentence, would read, "If a physician or other licensed health care professional determines, following the rules set out in 1904.5, that the hearing loss is not work-related or has not been significantly aggravated by occupational noise exposure, you are not required to consider the case work related or to record the case in the OSHA 300 log." End of provision.
MR. JONES: Jerry?
MR. RIVERA: I can support that.
MS. SHORTALL: Was that your motion then?
MR. RIVERA: Yes.
MR. JONES: Second?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: I second it.
MR. RIVERA: I motion to accept the language as currently proposed.
MR. JONES: Comments?
MR. BETHANCOURT: Do you need a second? This is Jeremy.
MR. JONES: We got a second. For our discussion, I'm a little amazed here.
All in favor on the phone?
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt --
MR. JONES: Hold on, hold on. Let's back up. We still have a question.
MR. GILLEN: So in your discussion during the break, there was no language you could agree to? Because it kind of talks about not -- if it's not work- related and sort of left on balance there is nothing about if it is work-related, it just talks about not. So there is nothing to balance that at all.
MR. CANNON: Well, as I understand it, the second portion of what's highlighted was pretty much summarizing what's already in 1904.5, so just leaving the reference or guiding the health care professional back to 1904.5 takes care of that because 1904.5 is -- what is it titled? "Determining Work-Relatedness."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. BOLON: Yeah, the way this question is --
MR. GILLEN: You could just say that, just end after 1904.5.
MR. BOLON: Yeah. The question in bold at the first actually it's asking the negative. What do I do if it's not work-related?
MR. GILLEN: Okay.
MR. BOLON: It really just speaks to that.
MR. GILLEN: All right. Thanks.
MR. JONES: All right. I'm sorry. We're going to go back to the vote. Everyone in favor on the phone say, "Aye."
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Aye.
MS. BARBER: Kristi Barber. Aye.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Aye.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MR. JONES: Okay. Before I say the table, could you just reread that again for me? Because I think I was walking when you said it the first time.
MR. ECKERSON: Okay, the sentence -- the answer now reads -- this is 1904.10(b)(6) -- the answer is, "If a physician or other licensed health care professional," and then it's the acronym PLHCP in parens, "determines, following the rules set out in 1904.5, that the hearing loss is not work-related or has not been significantly aggravated by occupational noise exposure, you are not required to consider the case work-related or to record the case on the OSHA 300 log." End of provision.
So in essence, we're only adding the words, the phrase, "following the rules set out in 1904.5." That's substantively the only change we're making to the first sentence.
MR. JONES: Okay. All in favor at the table signify by saying, "Aye."
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: All not in favor?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: Abstentions?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: All right. So moved. All right. Let's go to Number 4. I shut you off in mid-discussion on this. Can we just take it from the top, please, Paul?
MR. BOLON: We can take it from the top. All of the changes that we're proposing are really -- they are only editorial in nature because some of the terms -- some of the language and some of the footnotes really -- they have editorial errors. We're changing the phrase "Threshold Limit Values" because that is a phrase that ACGIH uses, it's the American Conference on Government Industrial Hygienists. And the table is really full of OSHA PELs, Permissible Exposure Limits. There is some language in there that makes it sound like meeting the PELs is only advisory. That's ambiguous and we would like to get rid of it. There is some confusing language about root of exposure and there are some errors in the footnotes. So we're not changing any of the PELs, we're really just correcting errors, I consider them editorial errors, in the table.
MR. ECKERSON: And also making it in the same format that exists in the general industry tables.
MR. JONES: Was any thought given to maybe an opportunity of updating PELs through this process or --
(Laughter.)
MR. BOLON: I started working on updating the PELs in '93 and I think I've been through two teams on it, and everyone is always searching for the "Holy Grail," the good direct way to do it. So I don't think that's going to make it.
MR. JONES: All right. Do I have any comments?
MR. GILLEN: Yeah, I would like to make some comments on this. The language you came up with I think is fine, but there is one thing that it does that I think is really highly objectionable, and that is it removes the reference to 1970 because these exposure limits are 43 years old, and that's pretty old, and unfortunately they're going to probably make it to 50, and, you know, that at least tells somebody, an interested employer or interested worker that these are old and could be a little bit out of date, and without that, they don't know that. So, you know, even though we prefer to be talking about updating the PELs every 10 years and things like that, we should be transparent, we should let people know that these are old and we shouldn't remove language that does that.
And just to give you a few examples, I just took a quick look at some of the 1970 TLVs and compared them to the most recent 2013 TLVs just to see, and, you know, these are just some examples, it's not like there aren't some of them that are the same, but there are lots of examples, like carbon monoxide in 1970 that limits 50 parts per million, and 25 parts per million in 2013; or in hexane, which is a solvent, 500 parts per million in 1970, it's 50 parts per million, 10 times lower. Hydrogen sulfide, 10 parts per million in 1970; 1 part per million today.
So, you know, the reason they changed these is because evidence came out showing that those other limits, health effects could happen at those limits. Do you see what I mean? And so there really -- they're not protective. And so we should let people know.
And so we just talked -- we just reviewed a standard that said note to Paragraph (f)(2) was part of the discussion about the wireless, and so I would like to suggest that we have a similar note and would say note to Paragraph A, and it would say these required limits originally provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, ACGIH, date from 1970. Current ACGIH and NIOSH exposure limits for many of these substances are now lower, and the 1970 limits may not be sufficiently protective of worker health. Employers are encouraged but are not required to consider more up-to-date limits when taking steps to control construction worker exposures. I think that just sort of gives people that honest message that these are kind of old and that they may -- in good practice, if they're having a problem with a chemical, that they should get another opinion and look about that. It's not at all to change the requirements but just to be more transparent about the fact that these are pretty old and many of the individual limits are out of date.
So that's the proposal I would like to put out.
MR. JONES: Is there a second?
MS. SHADRICK: I'll second it. Laurie Shadrick. I second it. I think it's a wonderful idea to put that note in there. And, again, these tables are from 1970. Everybody should be aware of that. That's a great suggestion, Matt.
MR. JONES: And the studies for these are probably from the '50s, right?
MR. GILLEN: Some of them are, yeah.
MR. BOLON: If there were studies.
(Laughter.)
MR. JONES: Okay. So I guess we're in the discussion phase of this question. I still have -- there were two issues you brought up. There is the 1970s and your note. Your motion is only dealing with the note.
MR. GILLEN: The motion would provide a note that would remedy -- it would just go on the end of the language they have, and it reinstates the fact that they're from 1970.
MR. JONES: Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure we got that.
MR. GILLEN: And it just explains it a little more explicitly what it means.
MR. JONES: So our recommendation is on -- I mean, the recommendation is on the floor. Those in favor on the phone, please signify by saying, "Aye."
MS. BARBER: Kristi Barber. Aye.
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Aye.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Aye.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MR. JONES: At the table, all in favor say, "Aye."
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: Opposed?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: I didn't see that one coming. All right. Good deal. I did not see that coming.
MS. SHORTALL: This was the motion for including that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Right.
MS. SHORTALL: And now we come to the motion for the whole recommendation.
MR. JONES: Oh, yeah. That's true, too.
(Laughter.)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: And I'll oppose that one.
(Laughter.)
MR. JONES: I'm looking for a motion to accept this recommendation from OSHA and to support it and OSHA move forward on cleaning up this rule.
MS. SHORTALL: With ACCSH's accepted language.
MR. JONES: Including the proposed language.
MS. SHADRICK: So moved.
MR. JONES: Second?
MR. GILLEN: Second.
MR. JONES: All in favor on the phone?
MS. BARBER: Kristi Barber. Aye.
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Aye.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Aye.
MR. JONES: All right. All in favor at the table, signify by saying, "Aye."
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: And all opposed?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: That was awesome. That was the best stuff we did this week, seriously.
Okay. Where are we at now?
MR. ECKERSON: Excavation.
MR. JONES: Thank you, Paul. It was fantastic working with you guys on this one. I'm elated, as you can see, at the outcome. I did not think we were going to get what we got.
MR. BOLON: Yeah, I think this will be the last batch of SIPs candidates we bring before ACCSH. We might have something to follow up on the single-family home residence definition. I've worked on most of the SIPs projects, and I don't think any of them have gone through a review by ACCSH or somebody outside. I just think it's been very beneficial to have ACCSH review these and provide comment. I think it's helped us quite a bit. So thank you for that.
MR. JONES: Thanks, Paul. Great.
Okay. What I want to go to next is our work group before I lose Thomas. I only got him for a couple of minutes, I guess. Thomas and Jeremy, Thomas Marrero and Jeremy Bethancourt, are the co-chairs of the Temporary Worker Work Group, and they have a work group report to present to us.
Thomas, before you go, do you want to jump up?
MR. MARRERO: Okay. Jeremy Bethancourt and I had several discussions yesterday regarding some suggestions we would pose to ACCSH for discussion as well as eventually to make OSHA as the agency moves forward with the temporary worker initiative.
First, we believe the initiative should be more inclusive of issues which are prevalent in the industry insofar as how workers are brought onto work sites and viewed by host and controlling employers.
Second, we believe that the committee has a greater responsibility and opportunity to assist more workers in the industry by furthering OSHA's definition of the host employer relationship and thereby responsibility to worker safety by establishing a guidance document. We suggest the language of the document can be crafted over the next few ACCSH work group meetings. As a starting point for a guidance document, we could integrate select portions of the IRS Darden Factor language. The only differences that we suggest that the language be inclusive regarding relationship of host employers versus exclusive as it relates to employees versus independent contractors.
If the whole point of the initiative is to increase worker safety through the delegation of responsibility among several employers, then we must define the true relationship in no uncertain terms between the exposing and controlling employers. It is well-known across industry and a common practice that the employees of any subcontractor can be removed by any controlling contractor and thereby under the control of the general contractor. Accordingly, should not the safety responsibility for any such employees also be shared by the controlling employer irrespective of any indemnity language imposed by general contractors to subtier contractors?
Attached on the following page is some of the language that we believe is a starting point for guidance language for this initiative.
So our motion to the committee is as follows: That ACCSH recommend that OSHA expand its temporary worker safety initiative to be more inclusive whereby all employees are provided protection under the continuing trend of our Nation's employers to utilize a temporary style/like workforce. The focus of the initiative should be not only on employees assigned to host employers through staffing firms but also those employees employed to jobs via alternative work arrangements to include, but not limited to, the use of independent contractors, construction contractors and subcontractors, part-time employees, and other work arrangements that are a variation from the standard workday, workweek, or work location, and the standard employer-employee relationship.
MR. JONES: Okay. Let's do two things. I want to get a motion to accept the Work Group report first.
MS. BARBER: Motion.
MR. JONES: All right. Second?
MR. GILLEN: I second it.
MR. JONES: All right. All in favor say, "Aye."
MS. BARBER: Aye.
MR. GILLEN: Aye.
MR. JONES: All in favor on the phone say, "Aye."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Aye.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. JONES: Very good.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Aye.
MR. JONES: I got that right. Okay. I am now looking at a motion from the Temporary Work Group. I am not going to reread it. It's as stated verbatim I guess, as Tom just said, at the bottom of the paper that we're looking at.
Sarah, is that fine?
MS. SHORTALL: Sure.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Will the committee discuss that?
MR. JONES: Yeah, I'm going to definitely do that.
I'm looking for a second to Thomas' motion.
MS. SHADRICK: I'll second it.
MR. JONES: Laurie seconds.
Let's talk about it.
Dean? Kevin?
MR. CANNON: No, Dean first, please.
MR. McKENZIE: Dean McKenzie, with OSHA. The initiative to expand this into every subcontractor all these other tiers on an initiative level is a whole different creature than what the agency is set out to right now, and defining those relationships has been a work in progress for 43 years to do. To suggest that we're going to do this through this motion is optimistic at best. I would like to see the work group consider that and try to put a little bit better definition to that.
MR. JONES: I'll be right with you, Kevin.
When you say that, Dean, what do you find problematic? Independent contractors? Construction contractors? Day laborers? What exactly are you saying?
MR. McKENZIE: Expanding its temporary worker initiative to be more inclusive, and then when you go on down beyond staffing firms, but also alternative work arrangements but not limited to these, or independent contractors, construction contractors, and subcontractors, you've just included all your construction.
MR. CANNON: Exactly. That's where I was going, that right there is everybody. You're calling everybody a temporary --
MR. McKENZIE: That's how construction works.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: Yeah, I underlined it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Yeah.
MR. JONES: Kevin?
MR. CANNON: I've said it. I mean, I'm pretty much to the point that Dean was making, that when you include the second half of the second sentence, that's pretty much calling everybody a temporary worker.
MR. MARRERO: How would you revise it? Do you have any suggestions or --
MR. CANNON: I don't have any suggestions right now, I'm just commenting. I think we just leave it to the definition that we were provided yesterday.
MR. JONES: What was that definition?
MR. CANNON: Oh, geez. You would.
MR. JONES: Sorry.
MR. STRIBLING: I'm sorry.
MR. JONES: Chuck?
MR. STRIBLING: Chuck Stribling. That was just for temporary workers, wasn't it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Yeah.
MS. SHORTALL: The definition was paid by a staffing agency --
MR. STRIBLING: Staffing, right.
MS. SHORTALL: -- and working at a host employer worksite.
MR. JONES: Yeah, I don't recall a definition. I do remember the point of emphasis was going after staffing agencies.
MR. McKENZIE: The point -- Dean McKenzie, with OSHA. The existing temporary worker initiative includes temporary workers paid by a staffing agency physically working at a host employer.
MR. JONES: Yeah. That's what I mean. They were aimed at staffing agencies, and what you are saying, you want them to expand that beyond staffing agencies.
MR. MARRERO: As Jeremy Bethancourt pointed out yesterday, too, with the piece workers, any type of alternative work arrangement, in essence it's temporary work. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics data that was included in the initial memorandum that went out stated that there were 562 fatalities in 2011 of temporary workers when in actuality, when it comes down to staffing, that's less than 1 percent of staffing. So if that makes sense. There was only, I believe, like 27 fatalities out of that 562, and for the agency to put focus on the staffing industry, I think we're limiting the resources when the problem is much bigger, so --
MR. JONES: How would you define it if you had to -- I guess you've already done it. You're defining the whole construction industry.
MR. MARRERO: I would say any type of variation from a standard employer-employee relationship.
MR. GILLEN: Is it fair to say that independent contractor is the biggest piece of that that would be useful to discuss?
MR. JONES: Or is day laborers an issue?
MR. MARRERO: I would say so, yes.
MR. CANNON: I guess the other question is, aren't some folks that are classified independent contractors really independent contractors?
MR. GILLEN: Yes, some are.
MR. CANNON: Yeah.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Some are.
MR. GILLEN: Some are misclassified.
MR. CANNON: I understand that as well, but --
MR. STRIBLING: Mr. Chair?
MR. JONES: Yes, Chuck, I'm sorry.
MR. STRIBLING: Would the co-chairs be acceptable to maybe making a recommendation for the committee to consider that maybe OSHA take a look at expanding the scope of their initiative and then maybe report back to us at the next ACCSH meeting on the feasibility of that?
MR. MARRERO: I would be okay with that.
MR. BETHANCOURT: This is Jeremy Bethancourt. I think that would be great.
MR. JONES: Yeah. I think that's what most of us are feeling. We feel that we don't know where this should go. We know it should be broader than just staffing. Day laborers, independent contractors, is where we see a lot of the issue, and how that could be addressed, I don't know if any of us at this table know, but we would like OSHA to address that. So working with Ms. Sarah and I, does anyone have a motion we could throw on the table?
MS. SHORTALL: Well, I have that Mr. Stribling is moving that ACCSH recommend that OSHA I guess take a look or revisit the definition of temporary work.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Put the mic on.
MR. JONES: I'm sorry.
MS. SHORTALL: That ACCSH recommends that OSHA take a look at expanding the definition to temporary worker and report back to ACCSH at its next meeting.
MR. STRIBLING: Well, two things. I wasn't making that motion, I was asking if the co-chairs would be okay with such a motion. I would let them make the motion since it's their work group. And I really didn't mean definition, I don't think -- if that's what I said, I'm sorry -- I meant maybe look at expanding the scope of the initiative.
MS. SHORTALL: The scope. Okay.
MR. BETHANCOURT: This is Jeremy Bethancourt. And after discussing with Tom quite a while yesterday, I wouldn't be opposed with that. I think really the whole point of our motion, being that OSHA could either accept it or not accept it anyway, was simply to get them to look at it beyond the temp agency relationships because more and more it is prevalent that what would be classified as a subcontractor are really in fact acting in the same manner as the traditional temp worker agency relationship, and so they're actually supplying a workforce in the construction industry in a similar manner.
So, Tom, I have no issue with that. If Tom thinks that that sounds reasonable, as do I.
MR. MARRERO: Yeah, I think that's reasonable, Jeremy.
MS. SHORTALL: Which is reasonable? Chuck's suggested --
MR. MARRERO: Yes.
MS. SHORTALL: Okay. So --
MR. MARRERO: With expanding the scope.
MR. JONES: Do we have to rescind his first motion?
MS. SHORTALL: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: We have a motion. Do we have to --
MS. SHORTALL: If the maker and the seconder of the motion will simply accept that, we don't have to do anything else.
MR. MARRERO: I would accept that.
MS. SHORTALL: All right. And the seconder.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Thank you.
MS. SHORTALL: All right.
MR. JONES: So we're back to --
MS. SHADRICK: I accept that.
MR. JONES: Oh, okay.
MS. SHORTALL: You made the motion?
MR. JONES: No --
MS. SHADRICK: No, I seconded it.
MS. SHORTALL: Okay. I'm sorry. Got it. Okay. Got it.
MR. JONES: Jeremy just didn't know he was on the line.
MS. SHORTALL: All right.
MR. JONES: All right. So the new motion is --
MS. SHORTALL: Tom Marrero moves that ACCSH recommend that OSHA take a look at expanding the scope of the temporary worker initiative and report back to ACCSH at their next meeting.
MR. JONES: Discussion.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Tom?
MR. MARRERO: Yes.
MR. BETHANCOURT: You know, I sort of like where that's going, but my thought is that we recommend to OSHA that they look into expanding it to include to be more reflective of how the industry currently utilizes workforce. And I don't know if that's just minutia at that point or if that's implied in what the motion says.
I guess, Ms. Sarah, is that what your thoughts are on that?
MR. JONES: I'll tell you my thoughts. I would say that's kind of what's implied, but I don't know for sure. That's the gray area that becomes difficult.
Any other thoughts?
MR. STRIBLING: Yeah. OSHA is in the room and I think they're hearing our discussion, so they hear this, and I would hope when they report back to the committee they would include what we're talking about here. But you've got to remember the staffing in this initiative, its in its infancy, barely in its infancy. There is still data maturing, and so I expect and I fully support what you're saying here, but for the agency to take on a broader scope on this, they've got to plan this out a little bit, so I would like to give them some time to think about if they can come up with an effective strategy before we tell them to go do it, you know, they're --
MR. JONES: Yeah, that's where I'm at because I have a couple of thoughts on this. One, I don't know when we look at some of our union halls, if they didn't have labor up front, how different would that look at a staffing agency in many cases? And on and on and on. And then, as Kevin pointed out, our original motion pretty much says all of construction, and I'm not sure that I'm ready for that either. I think David Michaels and his crew have had a pretty good handle on this temporary issue since its emergence, and I like the guidance that we've talked through in the last 15 minutes. I don't know that we need to get ahead of ourselves, in my opinion. So I'm happy with the motion. I would like to hear from Steve and Matt.
Well, you guys are our guys.
MR. GILLEN: Okay. My view is that the nice thing about what OSHA is doing now is there are specific groups that they can talk to, the staffing agencies, and they're having good discussions with them, whereas it might be different groups involved with expanding the concept. So I think they should continue having those discussions with those groups to make more progress because it sounds like they're doing pretty good, but then they should build upon that to maybe expand this issue because this issue isn't going away as far as flexibility and working arrangements. It's going to be an issue with us for years and years and years, and so they should be thinking about that, and we can encourage them to do that.
MR. JONES: Hey, Steve, do you have any comments?
MR. HAWKINS: I pretty much agree with what Matt said really.
MR. JONES: Okay. So let's go to a vote -- do we need to go to a vote on this motion? Okay, so we're going to go to a vote. Do you folks on the phone need to hear it again?
MR. BETHANCOURT: Yes, please. Well, I think -- this is Jeremy. We're keeping it basically as Sarah originally -- we're not going to expand it, and that was really all my point was, is just to have the discussion, do we need to or is it good enough? And I think Chuck basically addressed that. I guess if you could restate it, that would be helpful.
MS. SHORTALL: The motion is Tom Marrero moves that ACCSH recommend OSHA take a look at expanding the scope of the temporary worker initiative and report back to ACCSH at the next committee meeting.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Tom, are you all right with that?
MR. MARRERO: Yeah, I'm all right with that.
MR. JONES: And we got a second, Laurie, already.
All in favor on the phone, please signify by saying, "Aye."
MS. BARBER: Kristi Barber. Aye.
MR. PRATT: Don Pratt. Aye.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Aye.
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MR. JONES: At the table, all in favor say, "Aye."
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. JONES: All disagree say, "Nay."
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: Abstentions?
(No audible response.)
MR. JONES: All right. I think we are just --
MS. SHORTALL: We've got another group.
MR. JONES: Oh, that's right. We do. I'm sorry, Jerry. We have another -- we do have -- we have a group report here.
Bring us up to date, Jerry Rivera, where we're at and what group you're with and who your co-chairs are.
MR. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman, Jerry Rivera, with Employee Group, and our work group is the Training Outreach Work Group composed of Kevin Cannon and Roger Erickson. I would like, Mr. Chairman, based on the information that we heard here yesterday from the stakeholders, ACCSH, and some of the ACCSH members as well, I would like to make the motion that the group integrate some of the recommendations that were heard here from the stakeholders, and in the interim, for us to make this information accessible to the stakeholders for input via virtual access. I think we heard from Lisa London, that group, we failed to capture a great portion of those instructors and that valuable input. Now that the recommendations are out there, we might get some significant input. So I move a motion to bring this back to the next ACCSH committee meeting.
MR. CANNON: And if I can expand on that --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: Separately.
MR. CANNON: Okay. Never mind.
MR. JONES: Wait. I'm lost. When you say a motion to take it back?
MR. RIVERA: To continue working --
MR. JONES: Oh, we don't need a motion for that. That was just your report. Okay.
MR. RIVERA: That's right.
MR. JONES: And you're going to submit that to Sarah so she can -- at some point.
MS. SHORTALL: That will be in the minutes.
MR. JONES: In the minutes. All right.
MR. RIVERA: Yeah, we don't have any --
MR. JONES: Okay. And, Chuck?
MR. STRIBLING: Yeah. I have a motion I would like to bring before the committee to consider. I would move that all ACCSH work group meetings, whether held in person, electronically, or by telephone, be open to all ACCSH members and members of the public.
MR. JONES: Is there a second?
MR. RIVERA: Second.
MR. JONES: Discussion? When you say "be open," what does that mean? Do you mean like everyone is told that there is a work group meeting? So you want to say that maybe instead, that whenever there is a work group meeting that all other ACCSH members are informed?
MR. GILLEN: Informed by e-mail?
MR. JONES: Yeah. Go ahead.
MR. GILLEN: Informed by e-mail?
MS. SHORTALL: I think that's probably implied by what "public" means. Public open meeting or meeting that is open to the public implies that you've had to let the public know that the meeting is occurring.
MR. JONES: Okay. Then that's clear. That's fine.
MS. SHORTALL: I mean, clearly, you would have to understand that since, as Mr. Maddux said yesterday, FACA does not specifically cover committee meetings -- excuse me, subcommittee meetings, that making something public would not require publishing a Federal Register notice announcing a meeting, it would be something like putting -- something on a webpage or using e-mail for people who are interested.
MR. JONES: Okay. That's fine.
Kevin, please?
MR. CANNON: I'm sorry. Kevin Cannon. And, Ms. Sarah, if you could further help me understand. So what we've done between May and now has been Jerry, Roger, and myself with a few OSHA staff. Now if we open this up and we invite Walter, Matt, Sarah, you know, the rest of the ACCSH members, how does that --
MS. SHORTALL: Well, it would be less -- I mean, it could be an invitation, but it also could be just letting the public know, like people who were here yesterday know, that a telephonic meeting would be held and they could participate, and this is how they would participate, usually by contacting Mr. Bonneau or Mr. McKenzie so that they could get the pass code information that was necessary. But I don't think it would be anything beyond e-mailing people who had indicated an interest, which, of course, would include all ACCSH members, and then maybe putting something on OSHA's ACCSH webpage.
MR. JONES: Okay. Go ahead.
MS. COYNE: So what you're recommending is open dialogue with everyone, or would the public just be hearing only what the work group was doing? Or are you saying that whoever is on the call has input?
MS. SHORTALL: I may be wrong. I mean, were you anticipating people could participate in the meeting? Of course, OSHA regulations, as well as FACA regulations, would not permit any member of the public to vote on any recommendation that came out of a work group. The only persons who could vote would be members of ACCSH to send something to the committee, but I guess it would just be so you would hear their input, you know, sort of like the work group meetings that are held in public, it would be held in person.
MS. COYNE: Yeah. I understand.
MR. PRATT: This is Don Pratt. I would highly, highly recommend that they only participate by listening and not by participating. So I --
MS. COYNE: I agree.
MR. PRATT: I just think it would be terrible to try to have a work group and get anything done if everyone was trying to participate. So --
MR. BETHANCOURT: This is Jeremy Bethancourt. I tend to agree with you, Don. I mean, while I do value I think the part where Chuck was saying all ACCSH members should have an opportunity to be involved, and with the meetings that we've had already with the women in construction and the temporary workers, I don't think that that would be a -- it would only add to the discussion and to what we can do, and as this is still sort of a new way to do things, I think that would be beneficial to include all of us in the call, but, as Don said, I don't know that we could ever get anything done if the public actually got to contribute to it.
MR. JONES: Yeah, I was going to say something, too.
Go ahead, Jerry, please.
MR. RIVERA: Yes. Jerry Rivera, Employer Rep. Actually, I want to take a different angle to what has been heard so far. While I see that it might be a challenge to engage all stakeholders, I think in a controlled fashion that during these virtual meetings we should give access to the general public to provide feedback. What control mechanisms, whether we silence the mic, have people raise their hands, or through chat, I mean, I think it's important for us as a work group goalies to gather that information and kind of act on them. We don't need to vote on this, we just need to hear the input. That's really what we need when we're working on the work group, not being able to have the discussions among ourselves.
MR. JONES: Hold on, Kevin.
Matt?
MR. GILLEN: What I was going to say, so our experience has really been more with the face-to-face meetings, and how that's worked is these generally being a little bit of precedence, we sort of go around the table and see if ACCSH members have something to say to make sure we get to hear them first. But then we do, we get a lot of good input from the public, so I would hate to sort of go to a situation where they were just listening and not providing input. But at the same time, we've got to figure out how to make this work on the phone, and there may be some thinking, how do you do that with the phone? Let's hear from the ACCSH members first, and the timing. So we just have to think about it, but I think public input during work group meetings has really been helpful.
MS. SHORTALL: Can I just explain how we have done things here as we've moved into the WebEx generation, and this was decided by Jim earlier with precisely that concern, which was we allowed anyone who was interested to come to our meeting here, and as you see, we've been having people called on. One thing you could do -- in fact, you really need to do -- is for a teleconference meeting, you would still have to have a place in this building where part of it is held, so the OSHA staff could be there, their liaisons, and that, and you could, if you wanted to, say, "We will let anyone talk if they're physically in the room for that meeting, but if you're on the phone, at this point you may have to listen and give input later," as an element to control the traffic. There have also been meetings that we've had where we've had an open discussion on the phone and it hasn't been too bad. It's going to, I'm sure, depend on how large that group would be.
Go ahead.
MR. JONES: Kevin, I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt. I think there are two different issues here, and I don't want to mix the two.
As I understand it, there is the first issue that there were work group meetings that went on that other members of the ACCSH knew nothing of and may have wanted to participate in. That's one issue.
And then the second issue of work group meetings and public participation.
So I think the first issue we may want to deal with first is that whenever there is a work group meeting, the work group chairs inform the rest of the committee.
MR. GILLEN: And let people opt out.
MR. JONES: And let people opt out for not going. I don't know that we need a motion. I'm just saying that's something we just need to tell one another here, that if you're a work group chair and you are going to have a meeting, even though you're working out with Jim and Damon, someone needs to inform the rest of the members that there is going to be a work group meeting, and I'll decide whether I'm going to be there, and on and on and on and on and on. So that's what I'm thinking.
And then there is the secondary issue that's the motion that's on the table. My feeling is I don't have a problem with public input, but I could see it being unruly at times as well. I've been in those situations as well where I've been rolled by it. I don't have an answer for that. That to me would be up the chairs to decide whether they want to take public input or not. I wouldn't want a blanket statement saying they could listen but not input or they can talk and I have to listen. I would rather it be a situational issue.
But go ahead, Kevin, that was just me.
MR. CANNON: And I was just going to mention like WebEx, we've all done webinars. The folks that are on the phone, they're listening. If they have something they want to input, they just send it to you in a text, and then it's not deleted, you can print it out, and boom, you can address whatever action items you may have.
And the other part of it is, especially with what we're doing, we'll never get done because every time we come back and present here, there is going to be someone from the public that comes and says -- or an ACCSH member, that says, "Wait a minute, what about Slide Number 22?"
So we'll continue to make these adjustments if we don't get these folks involved in advanced of reporting and presenting here.
MR. PRATT: This is Don Pratt. I don't want to interrupt, but I've got another conference call I've got to get on. So I'm going to have to cut off.
MR. JONES: Well, I think we're about done here, Don, so thanks for joining us.
MR. PRATT: Okay. You bet. Take care, guys. Okay.
MS. SHORTALL: I do want to mention that the Administrative Conference of the United States has been exploring all these issues, moving into technology or the advisory committee meetings, and what you said there about WebEx with people participating by typing in is one of the chief things they're recommending now. In fact, not only could a meeting go on for the hour or 2 hours that you gather, you could keep the texting open or the typing open for a longer period of time in order to gather comments. So that is a chief one that the Administrative Conference is recommending now.
MR. GILLEN: Good going.
MR. BETHANCOURT: This is Jeremy Bethancourt. I just want to make it clear that my intent in my comments wasn't necessarily to preclude public comment, but it was simply to the point that we would want to find a way to not let it get unruly because, as Sarah said, I've been involved in a few conversations, as have others, on the phone where it was very productive to have many people involved. But I guess, like Kevin mentioned, having the ability to do the texting, that's a valuable way to get public comment and have it on the record. So I just wanted to put that out there.
MR. JONES: Yeah, no, I know where you're going. I just would love to leave a little flexibility for us without -- I think as Chair I'm going to leave it as a discussion and I don't know that we need to do a motion.
MS. SHORTALL: It was already a motion, and it was seconded.
MR. JONES: It was seconded? Well, then we can vote on it then or we could rescind it, but we could vote on it.
MR. GILLEN: What was the motion again?
MR. JONES: Yeah, it was -- I didn't like the motion.
Do you want to reread the motion, Sarah?
MS. SHORTALL: I don't have it. Mr. Stribling does.
MR. JONES: Chuck?
MR. STRIBLING: Yeah. While I'm getting my glasses on here and getting the motion back out, I mean, it's obviously a new time for the committee going to in- person meetings and not in-person meetings, and the motion that I made was just I thought maybe a good position for ACCSH to take, that although our meetings might not be face-to-face, they're still inclusive and we still want all members involved as well as the public. It can easily be administered like Kevin talked about with WebEx and webinars, so it couldn't be -- it would not necessarily have to be unruly.
MR. JONES: Yeah, I don't believe so either, but all our meetings are not necessarily WebEx, a lot of our meetings are going to be phone calls between about four or five of us.
MR. STRIBLING: Yeah, well --
MR. JONES: And that's going to be a lot of our meetings.
MR. STRIBLING: But we're moving into a new time and things have to change with the times, and if this is going to become the norm, then we have to sort of rethink maybe how things will be done.
MR. JONES: All right. Well, we've got a few minutes left, so throw it at me.
MR. STRIBLING: To read that again, it said, "I move that all ACCSH work group meetings, whether held in person, electronically, or by telephone, be open to all ACCSH members as well as members of the public."
MR. JONES: All in favor on the phone say, "Aye."
MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins. Aye.
MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson. Aye.
MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy Bethancourt. Aye.
MS. BARBER: Kristi Barber. Nay.
MR. JONES: Is that all of them?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: Don Pratt is gone, so --
MR. JONES: Don Pratt is gone.
At the table all in favor say, "Aye."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Aye.
MR. JONES: All not in favor?
I abstain.
MS. COYNE: I abstain.
MS. SHADRICK: I do, too.
MR. JONES: Okay. Then it passes, right?
MS. SHORTALL: Yeah.
MR. JONES: All right. Okay.
I think we have one more announcement from Jim Maddux.
MR. MADDUX: Thank you. It looks like we've lost a lot of people unfortunately, but I did want to make a short announcement that Dr. Michaels asked me to bring to the committee. OSHA has just issued about 15 minutes ago a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on silica. The website went live, it should be live now, and so it includes the regulatory text and preamble to that rulemaking, and I know that a lot of people are very interested in this rulemaking. We certainly look forward to your input and comments as we move forward. You can comment both in writing and in person. We're expecting about a 90-day comment period and a hearing next spring on the subject.
I would recommend that you remember that this is just a proposal, so the important thing right now is to take comment and for everybody to provide their views on the subject so that we can provide a final rule that will adequately protect workers that's feasible and that is based on the best available evidence.
MR. JONES: Well, it looks like the fun is beginning. Thanks, Jim.
(Laughter.)
MR. JONES: And with that, I adjourn.
(Whereupon, at 1:08 p.m., the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,ACCSH Meeting was adjourned.)
CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER
I, NATALIA THOMAS, the Court Reporter before whom the foregoing proceeding was taken, do hereby certify that the proceeding was recorded by me; that the proceeding was thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction; that said transcript is a true and accurate record of the proceeding; that I am neither related to nor employed by any of the parties to this proceeding; and, further, that I have no financial interest in this proceeding.
___________________________
15 NATALIA THOMAS
Digital Court Reporter
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION
I, DEBORAH ARBOGAST, hereby certify that I am not the Court Reporter who reported the following proceeding and that I have typed the transcript of this proceeding using the Court Reporter's notes and recordings. The foregoing/attached transcript is a true, correct and complete transcription of said proceeding.
_______________
Date
________________________
DEBORAH ARBOGAST
Transcriptionist
(866) 448 - DEPO
www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013
Capital Reporting Company
U.S. Department of Labor ACCSH Meeting 08-23-2013
| 1 1 60:3,4 130:8 143:4 1:08 168:19 10 19:18 62:12 65:8 70:6 91:21 122:11 129:17 130:6,7 104 11:21 11:35 77:13 116 12:4 12 19:18 70:6 125 12:10 129 12:16 137 12:18 13-part 27:19 15 150:4 167:20 154 12:20 155 13:4 16 9:3 169 13:6 170 13:8 18th 29:10 1904.10(b)(6 9:14 12:10 34:21 126:19 1904.3 24:9 1904.5 35:6 36:19 37:3,7 38:6 123:20 124:5 125:15,17,22 127:1,7 1904.5(a 38:9 1910 10:7 67:1 71:21 1910.1000 12:16 |
1910.1020 64:10 1910.119 11:7 1910.141(a)(2 9:19 1910.2 9:8 25:18 1910.3 24:9 1926 10:7 66:13 67:4 96:16 108:16 1926.1000(a)(2 71:22 1926.104(c 41:20 1926.250(a)(2 11:18 102:14 113:14 1926.32 9:6 1926.50(f 101:11 1926.51(a)(6 9:17 1926.55 12:13 1926.64 11:4,14 1926.651(j)(1 10:10 46:1 59:3 1926.651(j)(2 61:11 1926.651(j)(I 59:6,22 1970 129:9,21 130:3,6,8,21,22 131:19 132:12 1970s 132:7 1971 46:3,15 1989 46:6 19th 29:10 2 2 10:10 34:18 77:21 114:8,19 123:11,16,19 |
163:21 200 1:10 2009 70:12,15 71:8 2011 26:11 105:13 143:2 2013 1:6 129:22 130:5 20210 1:11 21 9:8 22 163:3 22nd 29:12 23 1:6 23rd 14:3 29:12 25 130:4 27 143:6 29 9:6,8,14,17,19 10:7,10 11:4,7,9,14,18 12:10,13,16 2-foot 49:8 3 3 41:17 43:11,13 44:15 85:3 30 85:10 300 124:1,9 127:4 3449 76:18 3471 69:13 76:17 36 9:14 4 4 17:4 45:4,5 85:3 114:16,19 127:18 43 9:19 10:7 26:11 129:10 140:3 |
45 53:9,11 85:10 48 10:12 5 5 17:6 45:20 58:15 59:2 61:10 94:16 95:15 114:8,19 5,000 42:1,3,5,9,11,14 5,400 42:1,11 50 129:11 130:4,6 500 130:5 50s 131:22 51 40:15 562 143:2,6 5-mile 91:11 6 6 22:16,19 24:7,13 60:21 62:7 69:1 64 10:17,20 68 11:7 6B 19:1 7 7 69:2 71 11:12 79 11:16 8 8 77:17,19 93:16 122:11 9 9 77:19 86:19 88:9 102:9,14 112:22 90-day 168:6 |
| 911 11:16 77:19 78:1,4,7,11,18 79:15 80:1,5,9,12 82:6 85:19 89:21 93:2 94:6,8,14,19 95:1,11 97:1,13 92 66:14 93 66:15 128:21 A abbreviate 17:22 ability 78:22 93:1 164:12 able 21:22 31:16 40:13 42:12 79:2 92:3 93:5 107:3 110:20 159:5 abstain 167:9,10 Abstains 60:19 abstentions 62:4 65:22 68:9 73:20 75:20 99:15 101:5 114:5 127:15 152:15 accept 20:13 42:18 44:8,17,19,20 45:1 59:2 61:9,11 65:7 67:12 74:3,21 101:14 112:21 120:17 124:17 133:21 138:10 146:6 147:7,9,14 acceptable 123:15 144:11 accepted 94:9 134:1 accepting 43:13 44:14 67:17 |
68:12 access 79:22 153:14 158:20 accessible 153:13 accidents 71:12 accomplish 83:13 Accordingly 137:8 ACCSH 1:4 5:16 14:3,14 17:6 19:17 31:4 59:5,20 68:16,17 70:12,15 71:9 76:14 101:10,12 109:16 111:11 114:22 135:5,9,11 136:2,15 137:17 144:14 145:7,12,14 148:4,7 151:17,19 153:9,19 154:15,17 155:3 156:8,19,20 157:10 158:2 159:13,21 161:4 163:2 165:15 166:13,15 ACCSH's 134:1 accurate 169:7 accustomed 23:6,7 ACGIH 45:10 119:7 128:5 130:20,21 acquired 70:3 acronym 126:21 across 42:3,5 48:8 51:5 137:5 acrylonitrile 63:9 |
act 20:5 26:3 27:8 159:3 ACTA 15:8 acting 146:10 action 33:19 92:18 162:18 activities 66:19 actual 67:5 92:17 actuality 143:3 actually 23:15 29:12 35:1 39:19 41:15 46:2 53:9 55:13 58:8 59:10 60:22 66:20 70:8 72:1 74:7 84:7 85:18 88:19 105:10 114:10 117:5 126:2 146:11 158:11,16 adapted 25:19 add 35:4 41:3 59:13 69:20 72:5 76:15 81:11 86:21 87:14 106:9 110:17 116:2 123:22 158:6 addendums 29:14 adding 127:6 additional 5:20 6:3 35:5 56:3 91:2 address 17:15 29:2 62:11 80:22 83:7 85:18,19 86:1,10 95:17 112:11 120:6,11 145:3 162:18 addressed 92:17 |
145:2 151:14 addressing 86:19 95:10 adequate 47:19 49:22 57:3 adequately 81:13 168:12 adjourn 13:8 168:18 adjourned 168:22 adjustments 163:4 administered 64:12 165:18 Administration 1:2 4:6 Administration,A CCSH 168:21 Administrative 163:15 164:2 Administrator 2:8 4:4 adopt 22:15,18 23:1,5,16 24:7,8,13 25:21 27:2,4,5 29:5,6 108:22 adopted 24:2,14 25:18 101:12 117:7 118:4,14 adopting 24:17 adopts 22:18 advanced 163:5 advent 78:8 advisory 1:3 45:12 128:9 163:17 Advocacy 6:19 affect 10:16 66:13 |
| affecting 25:12 affirmative 111:5 afford 33:6 afterwards 14:7 against 44:5 73:1 123:8 agencies 142:10,16,18 150:12 agency 28:16,21 31:2,10,13 33:14 58:8 66:11 100:10 136:3 140:1 142:4,13 143:6 146:7,11 149:11,20 agenda 18:4 29:1 aggravated 124:7 127:2 ago 33:14 85:3 122:11 167:21 agreement 43:9,11 ahead 37:10 39:18 47:9 49:3 110:12,16 116:20 121:8 150:5 155:6 156:21 158:14 160:20 162:12 ahold 53:19 115:9 aid 84:13,17,19 aimed 142:16 Air 5:22 15:21 Alliance 4:11 Allied 2:5 allow 19:5 64:1,7 allowed 160:5 already |
37:3,4,8,17,20 41:15 43:14,15 51:17 64:9 83:6 106:20 113:15 119:5 125:15 143:11 152:2 158:4 164:20 ALTERNATE 5:9 alternative 28:3,7,20,22 63:22 87:15 119:3 138:2 140:15 142:21 alternatives 109:8 am 111:16 139:3,5 169:7 170:2 amazed 125:1 ambiguity 34:22 35:3,4 46:8 48:22 103:20 107:16 ambiguous 47:6,12 48:10 54:15,16,17 111:17 128:10 ambulance 79:17 81:22 82:1 84:20 91:18 96:13 99:21 100:6,11 ambulances 78:5 80:14 91:17 amend 11:18 123:17 amended 23:1 29:18 124:2 amending 59:3 America 2:14 3:5 15:1 American 7:6 16:5 |
128:5 130:19 among 137:2 159:6 amount 50:18 51:1,6,12,15,21 52:2,7 Anacostia 117:4 analysis 19:3,10 angle 53:8,9 158:16 announcement 13:6 167:15,19 announcing 155:20 annual 63:15 ANSI 42:4 74:5 118:9 119:6 answer 89:20 110:11 120:2 126:19 162:6 answers 120:13 anticipated 72:4 anticipating 157:5 Anybody 82:21 anybody's 35:7 anyhow 118:15 anymore 64:14 anyone 26:7 145:4 160:5,13 anything 31:7,8 49:5,10,16 53:12 90:11 147:8 156:17 157:20 158:10 anytime 50:16 anyway 55:18 73:13 146:6 |
apartment 106:3 apologize 38:1 43:2,5 97:10 appear 43:10 46:8 47:12 53:11 appendix 115:20 119:13 applaud 28:15 applicable 25:15 32:16 application 117:12 applies 67:4 88:2,9 105:11 apply 35:1 72:3 74:11,15,17 79:7,9 94:9 97:12 105:8,16 applying 70:2 appreciate 30:18 56:14 approach 115:18 appropriate 11:12 95:7 115:22 appropriately 25:18 approval 41:2 107:21 approve 111:15 approved 67:19 110:16 ARBOGAST 170:2,14 area 37:6 53:4 84:3,4,5 86:9 91:21 94:14 95:1 112:3 148:22 areas 52:20 78:3,13,22 79:6 |
| 80:10,11,12,20 81:5 83:4 88:14 94:2 aren't 34:12,13,14 65:3 130:2 143:22 arguable 49:17 arguably 34:22 argue 50:17,22 Arizona 4:11 90:13 106:1 arms 106:18 Armstead 5:21 15:21 arrangement 142:21 arrangements 138:3,6 140:16 150:19 arsenic 10:16 63:9 article 122:9 articulate 93:10 articulated 33:9 asbestos 63:16,18,21 aside 33:21 aspect 92:20 ASSE 42:4 assign 86:8 assigned 137:22 assist 105:15 136:10 Assistant 2:4 Associate 2:12 Associated 3:5 8:4 14:22 16:1 |
Associates 2:21 Association 2:17 3:15 7:4,6 16:6 23:11 assuming 56:16 68:12 84:18 assumption 47:14,18 Attached 137:13 attending 16:16 attention 117:14 audible 41:9 42:16 44:2,6 60:18,20 62:3,5 65:21 66:1 67:11 68:8,10 72:8 73:19,21 75:19,21 99:14,16 101:4,6 114:4,6 120:15 123:9 127:14,16 133:7 134:17 152:14,16 audience 14:8 97:9 August 1:6 14:3 authoritative 122:10 authority 24:4 automatically 97:14 automobiles 90:9 availability 115:1,18 available 78:4 80:12,22 81:5 83:5 94:10 116:10,15 117:10 119:19,22 |
120:10 168:13 Avenue 1:10 avoids 19:2 aware 40:22 131:19 away 10:11 17:11 46:5 54:6 58:11 119:9 150:19 awesome 134:18 awhile 33:14 aye 44:21 60:8,9,10,11,13, 15 61:17,18,19,20,2 2 65:14,15,18 68:4 72:22 73:2,3,4,16 75:7,8,9,10,14,1 6 77:5,6,7,8,9 98:12,13,14,16,2 1,22 99:5,7,8,11 100:17,18,19,20, 21 101:20,21,22 102:1,3,5 113:17,18,19,20, 21 114:1 123:1,2,3,4,5 125:3 126:9,10,11,12,1 3,14 127:11 132:19,20,21,22 133:1,2,4 134:8,9,10,11,12 ,14 138:16,17,18,20, 21,22 139:2 152:4,5,6,7,8,9,1 1 166:18,19,20,21 167:5,6,7 ayes 44:4 60:16 62:1 65:19 68:5 |
73:17 75:17 77:11 98:9 99:12 101:2 102:6 114:2 123:7 127:12 133:5 134:15 152:12 B background 48:2 backhoe 53:20 bad 160:18 balance 125:10,12 bank 53:16 bar 38:15 40:17,18 Barber 2:20,21 15:12 44:20 60:10 61:19 65:14 68:1 73:3 75:7 77:7 98:20,21 100:17 101:17 102:1 113:20 123:2 126:11 132:20 134:8 138:12,17 152:5 166:22 barely 149:8 barricades 55:22 56:10 57:14 barrier 51:9 52:8 bars 88:17 93:3 based 48:6 55:5 153:7 168:13 basically 47:3 84:15 151:10,14 basing 47:17 basis 47:16 batch 135:5 beautiful 68:11 |
| become 166:8 becomes 31:20 38:20 148:22 bed 54:3 beginning 168:16 believe 16:18 55:7 62:12 63:4 70:5 89:4 95:8,14 99:20 102:9 104:5 114:9 136:5,9 137:14 143:5 165:21 beneficial 135:10 158:9 besides 81:10 best 83:8,13 86:14 92:17 95:14 134:19 140:5 168:13 bet 163:12 Bethancourt 4:9 15:7,8 44:21 46:21 47:7 50:11,12 56:13 60:7 61:17 65:9 72:22 75:14 77:5 90:5 98:12 99:3,7,8 100:20 101:21 103:10 105:6 106:19,22 107:15 111:14,21 113:5,18 123:4 124:20 125:3 126:13 133:1 134:10 135:17,22 138:22 142:19 144:4,17 146:2 147:11 148:9,11 151:9,20 152:7 157:22 164:4 |
166:21 better 55:13 109:9 119:20 122:12,15,17 140:6 beyond 80:21 97:20 98:3 140:15 142:17 146:7 156:17 Biersner 6:4 116:22 118:1,2,6,10 bigger 86:5 143:8 biggest 143:17 bikes 36:1 bit 34:22 40:8 43:1 50:16 51:7 69:20 116:2 129:14 135:12 140:6 149:12 159:12 Blacksmiths 2:10 blanket 83:10 162:8 blast 53:2 BLS 26:10 Blue 117:2 BNA 7:18 16:13 board 42:3,5 Bob 6:4 116:22 118:2 Boilermakers 2:9 15:10 bold 126:1 Bolon 6:6 14:15 16:17 17:17 20:16,19 21:1 24:1 25:4 28:2,6 29:7 30:15 33:20 |
36:11,17 37:3,20 38:1,9 39:2,13 41:12 42:15 45:5,21 47:3 48:6 49:18 50:4,10 52:13 54:20 62:9 66:8 69:2,20 70:20 71:18 72:1 74:6 75:1 76:3,6 77:18 80:15 82:13 88:17,19,22 89:4,10,17 92:6,9 93:13 102:11 104:19 107:20 108:8 109:13,16,20 111:9,20 112:4 113:10 114:10,13,15 116:2,7,17 118:22 119:3 121:20 122:8 125:20 126:1,5 127:21 128:20 132:2 135:4 Bonneau 156:14 boom 162:18 boonies 88:4 bottom 41:13 55:20 139:6 boundaries 93:12 box 123:18 Brazilian 116:3 break 42:5 77:13,14 107:9 123:14 125:8 break-strength 10:4 41:22 42:4 brief 63:5 |
bring 23:13 31:4,12 86:11 105:22 111:11 135:5 153:1,19 154:14 167:20 broad 29:17 92:18 97:19 broader 28:13 96:13 100:11 108:3,10 144:21 149:11 brother 17:11 Brotherhood 2:9 15:10 brother's 17:13 Brothers 117:2 brought 99:20 100:6 118:18 132:6 136:7 Brown 6:8 62:10,15,19 66:4 Bruce 6:18 7:17 16:13 budge 53:21 build 150:17 Builders 2:10 7:4 8:4 16:2 building 1:8 83:4 102:19 103:6 160:10 buildings 11:20 102:16 104:13 built 85:7 bunch 42:7 burden 46:4 burdening 26:4 burdens 19:6 |
| Bureau 142:22 business 25:11 31:17,18 32:2,4 34:12 buy 42:12 C C-5515 1:9 Cabinet 3:20 15:4 cadmium 10:15 63:8,10 California 118:3 cancer 62:12 64:6 candidate 18:1 19:21 candidates 135:5 Cannon 3:3 14:22 35:12,14 36:5,7,13,15,22 37:21 39:6 80:18 81:14 88:12 89:8,11 90:1 91:6,13 92:1,5 100:14 104:18 123:14 125:13 139:19 140:20 141:7,14,18 143:21 144:3,6 153:6,20,22 156:3 162:13 Cannon's 37:12 capabilities 79:7 89:9 Capital 1:18 capture 98:2 153:15 captured 80:4 captures 38:8 |
carbon 130:3 care 9:12 12:8 38:16 96:4 124:4 125:16,17 126:20 163:12 career 17:13 carrier 94:8 carriers 78:18 93:20 case 9:13 12:9 23:14 35:2 36:1 39:11 40:6 48:16,17 84:22 95:9 107:18 116:4 124:8,9 127:4 case-by 48:16 cases 48:9 51:13 79:4 149:20 CAT 64:5 catalogs 42:7 caught 43:16 cause 25:2 39:9,10 47:21 51:13,14 52:5 caused 40:16 caveat 113:1 CB 88:6 CDC-NIOSH 4:17 cell 78:9,17 79:2 80:6,8 83:20 84:4 85:14 86:9 88:15,22 89:5,9 90:13 94:3 cellular 79:1,5 94:7 95:16 cement 103:5 CEO 3:10 |
certain 10:15 certainly 27:4 30:17 34:6 83:15,19 84:5 108:16 168:3 certainty 79:3 CERTIFICATE 169:1 170:1 certified 84:12 certify 169:4 170:2 cetera 27:13 CFR 9:6,8,14,17,19 10:7,10 11:4,7,9,14,18 12:10,13,16 chair 33:15 45:18 144:8 161:16 164:17 Chairman 62:9 153:4,7 chairs 153:3 161:10 162:7 challenge 91:20 93:4 158:18 change 20:14 24:14,15 26:17 42:13 48:4 51:8 52:6 58:3 100:10 110:18 127:8 131:9 166:7 changed 130:9 changes 25:21 59:7,22 127:22 changing 30:1 31:11 45:17 50:14 112:7 128:3,13 channel 88:8,9 |
Charles 3:18 chat 159:1 check 115:1 checking 30:13 chemical 66:18 131:7 chemicals 11:6 chest 10:14 62:21 63:13,14,19,22 64:8,11,14 65:3 chief 163:19 164:1 chime 103:13 choose 21:20 Chorus 44:4 60:16 62:1 65:19 68:5 73:17 75:17 77:11 98:9 99:12 101:2 102:6 114:2 123:7 127:12 133:5 134:15 152:12 Chris 6:8 8:3 15:20 16:1 62:10,15 Christopher 6:10 Chuck 6:14 15:3 16:8 21:3,5,6 22:1 23:12 26:21 29:16 33:12 37:10,11 43:19 58:1,2,7 64:20 81:16 87:22 88:1 99:22 100:2,3,6 108:13 111:15 117:22 118:12 121:8 141:21,22 144:9 151:14 154:12 158:2 165:9 |
| Chuck's 146:18 chunk 51:16 54:2 citation 55:18 cite 53:7 cities 86:2 city 86:7 clarification 34:2 47:2 55:20 clarifications 56:2 clarify 9:10 10:9 12:6 19:5 47:4 clarity 12:14 55:8 classified 143:22 146:9 clay 50:21 51:11 cleaning 133:22 clear 26:2,4 27:14 37:12,13 46:3,16 59:12 104:11 107:18,19 108:1 155:13 164:5 clearer 48:13 108:11 clearly 33:9 106:4 155:15 close 76:6 co 153:2 co-chairs 135:17 144:10 145:17 code 104:4 156:15 cohesive 50:21 51:11 54:10 coke 63:8 Cole 6:10 15:20 collapse 51:18 colleague 64:22 |
collect 71:11 combination 55:13 81:21 comes 28:14 37:21 53:16 107:14 113:7 143:3 163:1 comfortable 33:18 95:20 117:8 coming 66:9 77:21 85:11 114:17 133:8,9 comma 91:2 comment 41:8 42:15 44:1 58:15 64:5 83:1 85:16 92:20 97:9 103:11 112:6,7,11 122:17,18 135:11 164:6,13 168:5,6,10 commenting 141:15 comments 20:10 21:2 28:1 35:10 46:20 55:10 64:19 67:10 72:7 104:16 120:14 124:19 129:4,6 151:2 164:1,6 168:4 commerce 25:12 commercial 103:17,18 104:13,20 105:5,17 Commission 93:19 committee 1:3 5:14 17:10 |
18:7,10,12,17 31:13 33:16 48:3 62:20 63:1,11 70:22 71:13 72:11,14 136:9 137:16 139:11 144:12 149:6 151:19 153:19 154:14 155:17 157:10 161:11 163:17 165:12 167:20 common 137:5 commonly 107:22 116:18 Commonwealth 27:2 communication 79:14 88:3,5,10 Communications 93:19 comp 40:2,3,7,19,20 41:1,6 compactors 70:13,17,18 71:7 72:6,15,21 companies 79:1 company 1:18 120:6 compared 122:10 129:21 compelling 24:21 30:4 compensable 40:1,4,11,18 41:5 compensation 40:12 |
complement 22:8 complete 170:7 completely 63:20 67:3 complex 30:5 compliance 37:22 76:16 93:8 105:12 109:4 compliant 107:3 complicated 28:4,5 30:14 37:6 composed 153:6 conceivably 23:7 89:8 concept 80:3 150:14 concern 21:8 25:10,20 37:5 96:4 105:19 160:5 concerned 21:15 25:2 50:16 51:7 83:3 104:19 107:16 concerning 94:1 concerns 39:5 96:1 conclusion 122:11 concrete 104:21 condensing 38:5 condolences 17:14 conference 128:5 130:19 163:8,15 164:2 confirm 90:3 confusing 20:3 45:13 128:11 |
| confusion 48:9 connected 53:12,22 consensus 11:12 29:3 63:4 69:12,17 consequences 31:9 consider 27:17 30:1 31:1 34:4 70:22 124:8 127:3 128:14 131:3 140:6 144:12 154:14 considerably 40:21 consideration 52:6 considered 18:17 70:12 71:9 107:10 consistency 12:14 42:13 consistent 20:4,5,8 25:22 28:16 58:5 72:13 conspicuously 78:6 79:21 86:20 87:8,10 constantly 81:1 Constitution 1:10 construction 1:3 3:11 4:11,16 5:6,7,11 10:6,17 11:20 14:16,19 17:18 18:9 19:4 26:2,12,15,19 28:13,19 30:5,7 41:15 45:7 63:8,10 66:13,15,16,18,1 9 67:5 74:19 |
78:9 84:15 93:6 103:1,4 105:18 107:8 115:7,21 117:2 131:4 138:4 140:10,17,19 141:1 143:12 146:12 149:22 158:5 consult 63:2 Consultation 3:11 consulting 35:18 contact 5:14 11:15 78:10 79:16 contacting 80:5 81:22 156:14 contain 57:15 contents 9:1 10:1 11:1 12:1 13:1 74:8 context 116:8 continue 150:15 154:3 163:4 Continued 3:2 4:2 5:2 6:2,3 7:2 8:2 10:2 11:2 12:2 13:2 continuing 105:10 137:20 contracting 32:3 contractor 31:21 85:4 137:7,8 143:17 contractors 3:5,15 8:4 15:1 16:2 27:12 30:6 80:22 102:18 136:21 137:12 138:4 140:10,11,17 |
144:1,22 contribute 158:11 contributed 37:19 40:9,10 contributes 40:8 contributing 35:22 contribution 38:19 39:10,15 control 131:4 137:8 158:21 160:16 controlled 158:19 controlling 136:8 137:4,7,10 controversial 20:18,19 conversation 33:22 55:6 conversations 164:9 Coordinator 2:16 3:19 Co-Owner 4:10 copy 115:5 copyrighted 119:7 corporations 34:13,14 correct 12:12 45:16 108:5 116:6 170:7 correcting 45:13 128:13 cost 19:8 89:19 costs 19:2,9,12 counsel 5:16 14:14 21:15 31:22 |
counterpart 12:14 counties 93:18 country 78:22 89:14 county 79:9,10 82:10 85:20 couple 16:22 18:5,15 23:10 30:21 39:20 43:7 45:13 74:10,15 108:2 122:9 135:16 149:17 course 17:7 23:10 33:19 156:18 157:6 Court 27:20 169:1,2,15 170:3,5 Courtney 6:20 16:10 cover 20:20 21:18 26:6 155:17 coverage 25:16 26:2 covered 20:9 27:8 30:2,18 70:21 covers 69:18 Coyne 2:3 14:12 72:18 76:21 90:16,22 91:5,16 92:4,8,13 101:15 110:8 112:16 156:22 157:14,18 167:10 CPL 108:22 109:2 crack 112:8 crafted 136:15 create 30:8,9 46:7 |
| 48:21 85:9 created 46:12 79:4,5 85:8 creature 140:1 crew 83:9 150:2 criteria 19:13 35:6,8 105:14 123:20 critters 85:9 cross 123:19 cross-reference 11:6 cross-references 11:11 cupful 51:21 cupfuls 51:16 curing 103:5 current 28:10 30:5 31:21 36:22 69:22 103:15 116:8 122:12 130:21 currently 29:4 30:2,18 34:21 69:19 78:3 94:19 106:2,8 116:16 121:15 124:18 148:14 cut 163:9 D D.C 117:3 Damon 161:18 Dang 98:20 Daniel 17:10 Darden 136:18 darn 90:9 |
data 71:3 142:22 149:9 date 69:18 76:8 110:18 129:14 130:20 131:12 153:1 170:14 dates 46:3 David 150:1 day 27:13 140:11 143:19 144:22 Dayton 6:12 14:18 17:20 38:3 DBI/SALA 120:9 DC 1:11 deal 78:15 117:9 133:9 161:9 dealing 132:7 deals 41:18 70:12 Dean 5:4 14:13 87:13 119:17,18 139:18,19,20 140:9 141:8 142:11 debate 43:8 DEBORAH 170:2,14 December 19:14 109:17,20 decide 33:19 86:4 161:20 162:7 decided 114:22 160:4 decision 54:18 decompression 12:4 18:9 77:20 114:12,13,21 115:2,4 120:18 121:15 |
define 103:13 105:13 106:16 108:6 137:3 143:10 defined 104:8 108:11,21 defining 108:14 109:12 140:2 143:12 definitely 114:17 139:12 definition 9:16 20:6 23:2 25:20 27:3,6,10,13,14, 22 29:5 30:3,12 31:21 34:19 103:15,16 104:10 105:4 106:7,11 107:4,5 108:2,17 109:1,5,10 110:7,18 111:3,12 113:2,12 135:7 136:11 140:7 141:16,17 142:3,9 145:8,13,20 definitions 9:5,7 19:22 20:1,4,5,8 21:7,16 28:10 30:10,13 31:11 33:17 104:3 delegation 137:1 deleted 162:17 Delta 52:19 demonstrate 40:13 denote 60:14 61:22 department 1:1 3:21 5:12,18,22 |
30:11 82:11 168:20 depend 160:19 depending 107:8 depends 84:9 deprive 26:7 Deputy 4:15 desert 85:3 deserve 26:18 DESIGNATED 5:3,9 determination 9:13 12:9 19:11 determine 35:9 56:9 94:22 determines 124:5 126:22 Determining 125:18 developed 17:6,8 devised 72:3 DFO 14:13 dialogue 105:10 157:1 difference 117:18,19 differences 136:18 different 25:19 28:12,19 52:21 63:19 106:12 107:13 118:8 140:1 149:19 150:13 158:16 160:22 differentiate 122:14 differentiation |
| 106:6 difficult 91:20,21 106:17 115:12 122:15 149:1 dig 50:16,20 51:2 52:22 digging 53:4 117:3 digital 10:19 63:21 64:1,3 169:15 direct 70:9 74:18 129:1 directed 92:7,11 direction 48:5 55:4 58:10 65:5 169:6 directive 37:22 105:12 109:4 directly 27:21 Director 2:4,12 3:4,7,14 4:10,15,17 5:5,11 Directorate 5:7,11 6:9 7:16 14:16,19 17:18 62:10,16,18 dirt 46:5 50:18 51:21 54:12 disagree 152:13 discover 39:21 discuss 64:4 139:11 143:18 discussed 23:13 40:6 116:11 discussing 44:1 96:10 146:3 discussion 13:4 41:4 59:18 64:7 |
92:22 106:8 125:1,7 130:16 132:5 136:2 148:8 149:4 151:13 154:21 158:7 160:17 164:18 discussions 63:3 65:2 136:1 150:12,15 159:6 dismissing 36:2 dispatcher 89:21 disposed 43:16 distinguished 64:22 disturb 50:22 DOC 6:7,13 7:10,12 69:3 docket 93:20 document 20:13 24:17 136:14,15,17 Don 44:7,22 48:1 59:16 60:2,9 61:15,18 65:15 67:19 73:7,8 75:8 77:6 83:2 87:18 95:18 98:7,13 100:18 101:20 103:13,22 104:2 105:12 106:9,12,14 107:7,16 110:11,14 112:9 113:3,17 123:1 125:4 126:10 132:21 134:9 152:6 157:15 158:1,10 163:7,11 167:2,4 |
Donald 3:9 done 18:16 22:9 39:22 52:15 61:2 88:7 107:6 143:11 156:5 157:20 158:11 160:3 162:14,21 163:10 166:9 doubt 35:7 105:9 Doug 23:9 Dr 167:19 driving 56:12 dry 51:3 during 63:15 123:13 125:7 158:19 159:22 duties 39:1 dwelling 104:3,6,8 107:11 108:7 109:10,11 dwellings 11:21 E earlier 70:7 85:17,22 160:4 Earthmoving 69:13 easier 20:14 easily 165:18 east 52:22 Eastern 88:7 echo 81:18 Eckerson 6:12 14:18 17:20 34:17 38:4,21 39:3 41:19 45:22 49:13 78:1 80:8,11,16 |
81:11,15 86:18 87:8 89:13 90:19 93:15 94:7,12,20 95:6,10,13 97:3,20 98:1 102:10,13 123:13 126:18 128:15 134:21 edge 10:12 46:5 48:14 49:20 editing 58:21 editorial 128:1,3,14 Education 3:11 effect 66:15,16 70:4 effective 76:8 79:16 85:22 87:14,15,16,19 90:19 149:14 effects 130:11 efforts 27:17 72:14 either 26:12 62:22 79:9,21 89:5 146:5 150:1 165:21 elated 135:2 Electrical 3:15 electronically 154:16 166:14 element 160:15 eliminating 45:11,12 else 36:21 86:7 99:21 106:20 119:11 147:8 e-mail 17:14 155:5,7,22 |
| e-mailing 156:17 emergence 150:3 emergency 11:15,16 78:10,19 79:11,15 80:5 82:7,9,13 87:1,11,17 88:8 90:20 92:11,18 97:19 100:8 emissions 63:9 emphasis 142:9 empirical 48:7 employed 27:15,21 138:2 169:8 employee 2:2 9:5 14:5,12,20 15:2,10,13 19:7,22 20:2 21:16 27:3,6,11,15 30:10,12,13,18 32:2 36:10 40:12 51:14 52:5 53:17 55:1 91:3,9,12 92:10,15,17 153:5 employees 10:17 23:8 25:12 26:6 27:17 30:6 47:16,20 50:1 52:1 54:13 57:4 63:14 85:12 136:21 137:6,9,19,22 138:2,5 employee's 39:1 employer 2:19 9:6,10 12:6 14:10 15:1 19:22 |
20:2 21:16 23:2 25:11 27:3,6,7,16 31:17 32:6 33:4 34:11 35:14 37:14 46:9 48:15 53:7,13,18,19 54:5 58:18 66:20 67:5,6 79:15,20 81:21 84:3,7 88:3 93:5 96:3 118:20 129:13 136:12 137:10 142:7,14 158:15 employer-employee 27:18 28:14 138:8 143:14 employers 19:7 26:2,16 34:12 39:21 46:4 47:22 57:12 63:13 64:10 66:16 69:10 74:19 97:1,18 107:1 136:8,20 137:2,4,20 138:1 employer's 36:9 Employers 131:2 employment 32:3 38:20 EMS 82:2,4 85:19 enable 86:22 87:11 90:20 encourage 117:11 150:22 encouraged 131:2 Energy 7:6 16:6 enforce 37:13 enforcement 27:17 |
32:19 48:9 engage 34:4 158:18 engaged 25:11 31:17 34:11 ensure 9:11 12:7 79:16 102:18 entertain 42:17 61:9 65:7 67:12 97:8 112:21 120:16 entertaining 61:12 76:13 entire 20:13 79:9 entirely 121:10 environment 38:13 equipment 10:11 47:4 48:18,19 49:15 70:1,3,16 71:5 76:2,7,11,16 103:6 120:9 equivalent 56:1,11 57:16 Eric 6:16 16:4 Erickson 2:7 15:9 44:18 65:13 67:22 73:4 75:9 77:8 98:14 99:19 100:4,19 101:22 113:19 123:3 126:12 132:22 134:12 139:2 152:8 153:7 166:20 errors 45:8,14 128:3,12,14 especially 51:3 55:5 70:16 |
162:20 essence 127:6 142:21 essentially 24:2 38:4,8 79:13 established 32:1 establishing 136:13 et 27:13 evaluate 38:17 evaluation 17:5 48:16 62:22 event 36:9,18 events 38:12 eventually 136:3 everybody 27:14 42:8 107:19 112:2,5 131:19 140:21,22 141:10 168:10 everybody's 18:20 everyone 14:2 16:15 20:8 44:13 94:8 126:8 128:22 154:22 157:1,21 everything 22:13 everywhere 89:18 evidence 40:5,14,15 65:2 117:10 130:10 168:14 evolution 95:11 exact 24:10 78:20 79:3,7,19 80:2 exactly 18:3 36:11 39:4 59:10 76:13 140:11,20 |
| example 105:22 107:8 examples 129:20 130:1,3 exams 63:16 64:15 excavation 10:9 46:1,14,18 47:5 48:15,18,19,21 49:8,20 50:3,5,6,8,17,19 51:2,5,10,20 52:16 53:1,6 54:10 57:7 134:21 excavations 10:12 46:6 exception 38:13 exceptions 38:14 exclude 25:15 30:2 excludes 26:18 excluding 31:8 exclusions 38:22 exclusive 112:1 136:20 excuse 60:4 68:17 110:13 155:18 Executive 2:4 exempt 11:20 102:21 exempted 79:10,19 89:14 exemption 79:8 94:2 103:9 exempts 93:20 Exhibit 17:4,6 exist 64:9 115:11 existing 30:3 35:17 55:3 57:18 |
70:1,2 142:12 exists 128:16 expand 71:1,6 72:14 74:1 80:20 97:17 99:17 110:19 137:17 139:21 142:17 150:18 151:11 153:20 expanded 37:2 expanding 71:17 72:20 96:10,18,20 140:13 144:13 145:13,21 146:22 148:5,13 150:14 151:18 expect 48:15 84:7 93:5 149:9 expected 55:5 expecting 84:3 168:6 experience 88:13 159:10 explain 48:3 95:4 109:2 113:11 160:2 explains 132:15 explicit 39:4 explicitly 63:21 132:16 explore 26:3 exploring 163:16 exposing 137:4 exposure 36:8 39:16 40:9 45:6,11 124:8 127:3 128:7,11 129:9 130:21 |
exposures 38:12,22 131:4 expressing 39:5 extension 106:2 extensively 78:14 extent 49:15 extra 49:6,11,14,16 extremely 66:19 117:8 F f)(2 130:15 FACA 155:17 157:6 face 47:21 49:7,19 50:5,6,7,9,19 51:2,5,9 54:9,10 55:22 56:11 57:7,15 112:2 face-to-face 159:10 165:16 fact 27:16 40:2 42:6 56:16 110:19 131:10 132:11 146:9 160:8 163:20 Factor 136:18 factors 35:22 failed 153:15 fair 143:16 fall 41:21 42:2 47:21 51:6,15,20 52:3 53:16 54:1 104:7 105:14 120:9 falling 47:21 50:2 52:9 56:11 |
57:7,15 familiar 52:20 family 11:21 103:4 104:6 108:1,15 110:17 111:4 135:7 fantastic 135:1 farm 85:4 fashion 22:21 93:14 158:19 fatalities 143:2,6 fault 36:9 favor 44:3,14 60:6,12,14 61:16,21 65:12,17 67:17 72:19 73:16 75:6,11,15 77:4,10 98:8,11,19 99:10 100:15 101:1,19 102:4 114:1 122:22 123:6 125:2 126:8 127:10,13 132:19 133:3 134:7,13 138:15,19 152:3,10 166:17 167:5,8 FCC 78:15 79:4,13,19 89:13,16 93:13 94:1,5,9,13,18,2 1 feasibility 19:10 144:15 feasible 168:13 federal 4:13 5:3,9 22:15 25:15 |
| 26:13 32:18 41:1,2 93:19 155:20 Federal-State 3:19 feedback 31:12 34:5 158:21 feel 33:16 144:20 feeling 144:20 162:2 feels 117:8 felt 31:11 FEMALE 73:7 75:4 99:2 141:3 153:21 167:2 fences 30:16 figure 34:3 159:18 file 33:1 fill 46:5,11 47:4 54:2 film 10:20 final 168:11 financial 169:9 finding 46:16 92:10 fine 108:6 129:7 139:8 155:14 156:1 fingertips 104:11 finished 111:10 fire 82:11 firewalls 107:9 firms 138:1 140:15 first 14:5 18:6 19:21 35:15 56:5 57:17 59:10,13,21 84:12,17,19 |
96:17 115:3 124:3 126:2,17 127:9 136:5 138:11 139:19 147:1 159:14,21 161:2,8,9 fiscal 109:21 110:1 five 63:7 166:2 fix 41:14 87:4 89:6 fixed 23:20 41:15 fixes 89:6 flexibility 150:19 164:16 Flight 85:14 floor 132:18 floors 102:16 104:21 flowchart 38:6 focus 137:21 143:7 focused 19:4 folks 14:7,8 23:10 82:22 85:19 93:6 143:22 151:7 162:14 163:5 foot 102:17 footnote 45:14 footnotes 128:2,12 Force 5:22 15:21 foregoing 169:3 foregoing/ attached 170:6 forestation 78:14 forested 78:22 forever 91:18 Forgers 2:10 form 93:14 |
format 128:16 forward 33:17 63:3 109:11 110:6 112:22 120:20 133:22 136:4 168:4 fourth 18:22 frame 106:4 framing 104:12 Frances 1:8 fraught 37:6 French 115:6 116:18 117:7,16,18,20 118:4,14 119:19 120:3,20 Friday 1:6 front 149:19 full 17:22 18:22 43:9 128:7 fully 26:1 95:4 149:10 fun 168:15 Fund 2:13 7:20 14:5 15:17 fundamental 26:20 funny 58:20 furthering 136:11 future 25:3 110:18 117:13 G gather 159:2 163:21 164:1 geez 141:18 general 3:5 9:18 10:6 11:6 12:15 |
15:1 20:6 26:1 27:2 28:11,15 107:21 128:16 137:8,11 158:20 generally 19:8 159:11 generation 70:5 160:4 George's 120:3,5 Georgia 50:21 German 115:8 119:15 getting 92:11 115:9 165:10,11 Gillen 4:14 14:11 26:9 29:20 30:20 36:4,6 65:1 72:16 75:3 82:19 114:19 125:7,21 126:4,6 129:5 132:1,9,15 134:6 138:14,18 143:16 144:2,5 150:9 155:5,7 159:9 161:12 164:3 165:3 given 42:2 128:17 gives 38:10 131:5 giving 24:3 32:9 79:7 81:9 85:5 115:21 glasses 165:11 Glenn 2:21 goalies 159:2 gone 135:9 167:3,4 Gordone 120:3,5 gotten 34:6 government 23:8 |
| 26:13 32:1 128:6 Governmental 130:20 governments 23:4 24:18 government's 31:18 GPS 81:19 85:6 89:18 GPSs 90:7,9 grabs 53:19 Grail 129:1 grant 22:20 granted 28:11 gravel 52:3 gray 148:22 great 66:16 71:11 117:9 131:20 135:13 144:18 153:15 greater 136:10 group 12:18,20 29:3 33:7 135:15,18,19 136:16 138:10 139:4 140:5 145:19 152:19,22 153:2,5,6,10,15 154:15 155:1,3 157:2,9,12,20 159:2,5 160:1,19 161:3,6,9,10,16, 20 166:13 groups 150:11,13,15 guess 20:15 24:22 33:5,8,14 40:14 47:11 49:9 50:15 |
58:20 84:17,21 85:21 87:12 92:10 93:4,22 105:6,21 106:6 108:2 111:15 113:1 120:19 132:4 135:16 139:6 143:11,21 145:8 148:18 151:14 157:11 164:11 guests 62:8 guidance 6:9 7:16 17:19 62:11,16,18 136:14,16 137:15 150:4 guiding 125:16 guys 83:3 100:22 115:3 135:1 150:8 163:12 H half 35:19 141:9 halls 149:18 handheld 89:18 90:7,10 handle 20:12 120:11 150:2 handout 34:18 handouts 16:19 hands 158:22 happen 58:21 91:7 130:11 happens 52:16 95:15 happy 150:6 hard 29:21 85:6,10 |
harm 33:8,10 Harvey 6:14 16:8 hate 55:12 105:22 159:16 hats 85:6,10 haven't 51:10 61:2 having 27:9 39:12 79:11 84:20 86:1 106:1 131:7 150:12,15 160:7 164:12 Hawkins 4:3 21:8,12 22:1,3,7,12 24:6 29:10,16 39:17,19 44:16 47:8,10 49:2,4,21 50:6,15 52:15 55:11 56:21 57:21 58:5 59:9,20 60:11 61:20 65:16 68:2 73:2 75:10 77:9 83:14 84:14 85:16 86:17 87:2 98:16,17 100:21 102:2,3 113:21 123:5 126:14 133:2 134:11 151:3 152:9 166:19 hazard 46:12,16 47:1,5,13,14,21 48:11,21 50:2 51:14 52:1,5,6 54:7,8,12,17 55:5,16,18 56:6,7,9,16 57:6 hazardous 11:5 health 1:2,3 2:13 3:4 4:5,16 7:20 |
9:12 10:15 12:8 14:4 15:17 16:14 38:16 124:4 125:16 126:20 130:11 131:1 168:21 hear 22:1,2 37:12 92:21 97:9 98:17 103:22 149:5 150:7 151:8 157:11 159:4,14,20 heard 33:20 55:6 73:13 81:7 153:8,11,14 158:17 hearing 9:13 12:9 30:19 34:20 35:9 36:10 37:18 39:10 40:9,10 77:21 108:1,4 124:6 127:1 149:4 157:2 168:6 heavier 103:6 heavy 78:13 105:1,20 held 63:3 154:16 156:12 157:13 160:10 166:14 helicopter 85:11,14,15 hello 22:3 help 23:12,13 33:8 110:2 156:4 helped 135:12 Helpers 2:10 helpful 29:22 57:17 151:15 160:1 |
| hereby 169:3 170:2 he's 16:17 21:11 22:9 69:3 hexane 130:5 Hey 151:1 Hi 14:20 22:6 62:15 high 36:8 highlighted 35:20 56:3 125:14 highly 11:5 117:9,15 129:8 157:16 highway 81:1,7 hobbies 36:1 hold 125:5 159:7 holdover 41:21 45:10 Holy 128:22 home 7:4 17:15 105:5 107:13 135:7 homes 85:9 105:2 108:1 homogenous 53:3 honest 131:5 hope 77:16 111:9 114:11 149:5 hoping 122:13 hospitals 78:5 80:14 host 136:8,12,20 138:1 142:6,14 hour 163:20 hours 163:21 |
house 86:8 houses 103:9 housing 113:2 huge 91:1 hundred 53:15 hunting 36:1 hurt 27:16 Hydrogen 130:7 Hygienists 128:6 130:20 I idea 18:8 46:14 87:3 131:17 ideas 18:1 19:15 identical 28:11 identified 119:22 identifiers 96:21 identify 93:6 identifying 35:15 81:2,12 86:22 87:10 90:20 96:10,22 97:12,18 ignoring 35:22 III 41:16 I'll 18:5 29:11 35:18 65:11 67:14 71:8 72:10 100:14 102:14 112:4 115:3 131:16 133:17 139:15 140:8 148:20 161:20 illness 115:4 illnesses 38:12 ILO 64:2 |
I'm 14:3,5,15 16:8,13 17:2,11,17,18 21:12 22:7 24:1 25:8 32:11 36:5 40:22 43:16,17 44:11,12,13 45:18 49:2 50:15 51:15,16 55:3 58:17,18,21,22 59:1,4 60:4,13 61:11 62:15,17 65:10 68:12 71:10 73:15 74:20 75:12 77:12 81:22 82:5 83:2,17 84:18 89:11 91:15 92:2 93:7 95:19 96:5 99:9 100:4 101:13 102:13 104:6,18,19 106:17 107:18 108:4,5,9,10 109:7 110:2 111:21 114:20 116:22 122:5 125:1 126:7 133:20 135:1 139:12,14 141:7,15,20 144:9 145:11,21 147:19 149:16,22 150:1,6 151:22 152:20 154:1 156:3 160:19,21 161:14,20,22 163:9 164:17 165:10 images 64:2 imagine 91:20 94:13,15 implications |
108:15 implied 47:1 55:19 148:16,21 155:9 implies 155:10 important 94:17,21 105:19 159:1 168:9 imposed 137:11 Improvement 17:21 18:21 Inc 2:21 3:8 incidents 91:13 include 23:3 25:13 32:14 56:17 71:7 72:15,20 96:21 98:3 104:12 115:19 123:21 138:3 141:9 148:13 149:6 156:18 158:9 included 24:12 61:4 62:21 64:2 90:8 119:12 140:18 143:1 includes 27:14 142:13 168:1 including 32:8 64:11 71:21 115:16 133:11 134:3 inclusive 103:17 105:5,7 112:1 136:6,19 137:18 140:14 165:16 inconsistency 30:9 increase 95:16 137:1 indeed 24:15 indemnity 137:11 |
| independent 27:12 30:6 136:21 138:4 140:10,17 143:17,22 144:1,22 independently 31:2 indicated 31:22 156:18 indicating 30:22 individual 131:11 Industrial 128:6 130:20 industries 28:12 industry 9:18 10:6 11:7 12:15 19:4 20:6 26:1 27:3 28:12,15 84:15 103:18 105:15 115:21 116:16 128:16 136:7,11 137:5 143:7,12 146:12 148:14 infancy 149:8,9 inform 161:10,18 information 11:15 16:18,19 32:9 48:2 69:9,18 74:4,22 78:11 79:7,11,17,20 81:12 86:22 87:10 90:20 96:11 97:1,12,18 99:18 118:14 153:8,13 156:16 159:2 informed 155:4,5,7 initial 62:22 63:12,15 64:15 |
143:1 initiative 136:4,5,22 137:15,18,22 139:21,22 140:14 142:12 144:13 145:22 148:6 149:8 151:18 injured 91:4,5 injuries 38:11 injury 40:11 inorganic 10:16 63:9 in-person 165:13 input 153:14,16,18 157:3,12 159:4,15,17,22 160:15 162:3,8,9,16 168:4 insert 114:18 inserted 35:20 inserting 109:11 Inside 6:11 15:20 insofar 136:7 install 57:13 instance 28:17 79:10 103:21 instances 79:18,21 instantly 89:21 instead 42:1,11 63:19 155:2 Institute 2:6 instructors 153:16 Insurance 7:8 16:11 |
integrate 136:17 153:11 intend 63:7 68:13 intending 121:10 intent 20:7 26:7 30:15 33:8 102:17 164:5 intention 34:6 interest 63:11 156:18 169:10 interested 103:22 129:13 155:22 160:6 168:3 interesting 92:21 interim 117:5,7 153:12 International 2:5,9 3:8 15:10 internet 66:11 interpret 35:21 111:18 interrupt 160:22 163:8 intervals 57:14 introduce 14:6 21:5 35:13 Introduction 17:7 invitation 156:10 invite 156:7 involved 150:13 158:3 163:5 164:9,11 165:17 Iron 2:9 irrespective 137:10 IRS 30:11 136:17 isn't 18:7 36:19 |
94:19 150:18 ISO 69:13 70:2,4,9 71:5 74:5 76:16,17 issue 27:7 28:3 30:12 31:1 40:6 41:13 49:15 55:18 63:2,5 70:11 71:17 77:21 78:15,16 85:7 94:16 97:21 99:20 103:3,8 105:9,22 118:19 120:1,7 143:19 145:1 146:14 150:3,18,20 161:2,5,6,8 162:1,11 issued 117:1,5 167:20 issues 25:3 27:11 30:8 39:12 103:5 106:1 132:6 136:6 160:22 163:16 issuing 117:6,12 item 41:17 64:8 66:9 items 18:4,15 19:8 162:18 it's 18:3 21:19 24:3,9,15,18 27:8,22 29:17,21 30:14 32:1 34:17,18 35:22 36:9,12,16 37:1,3,6,7,8,14,1 9,20 38:15 41:2,5 45:10 46:22 47:12 48:6 49:6,18,19 51:11,13,14,21 |
| 52:2 53:3,13,16,22 54:1,4,8,11 55:16 56:9,16 58:20 59:10 66:19 67:4 70:15 72:4 78:9 79:16,18 80:19 82:9 84:2 85:22 86:1 87:15 93:10 94:20 95:9 97:13 102:11 103:4 104:11 105:18 106:5,20 107:6 109:21 111:17 113:8 114:19 115:12 117:5 118:10 121:14 125:9 126:2,3,21 128:5 130:1,6 131:9,17 135:10,12 139:5 142:21 145:19 150:20 159:1 160:18 162:17 165:12 IV 9:5,10,16 10:4,9,14,19 11:4,9,14,18 12:6,12 17:21 18:1 I've 43:12 48:1 81:7 91:1,16 93:7 113:15 115:9 128:21 135:7 141:7 162:4,5 163:8 164:9 J j)(1 61:5,6 j)(2 60:22 Jeremy 4:9 15:6,7 |
44:21 46:21 50:12 56:13 60:7 61:17 65:9 72:22 75:13,14 77:5 90:5 99:3,4,7 100:20 101:21 103:10 105:5 111:14 113:6,18 123:4 124:21 125:3 126:13 133:1 134:10 135:16,17,22 138:22 142:19 144:17 146:2,17 147:21 151:10 152:7 157:22 164:4 166:21 jerking 53:21 Jerry 3:13 15:2 33:3,4 43:20 49:1 54:22 55:1,9,12 58:17,18 82:16 92:14,15 104:17 124:11 152:21 153:1,4 156:5 158:14,15 Jim 5:10 13:6 16:7 160:4 161:18 167:16 168:16 job 22:9 63:15 86:5 91:1 jobs 138:2 jobsite 91:17,19 joining 163:11 Jones 2:11 14:2,4 15:6,14 16:15 17:2 20:11,18,22 21:2,5,11,13 22:2,11 23:21 25:7 26:21 28:1 29:13,19 33:3 |
34:9,15 35:10,13 37:8,10 39:18 41:7,10 42:17,20 43:1,6,15,19,22 44:3,5,11,22 45:2,18 46:20 47:9 49:1,3 54:21 55:9 56:20 57:19 58:1,10 59:1,15,18 60:6,12,17,19,21 61:3,7,14,16,21 62:2,4,6 64:19 65:7,10,12,17,20 ,22 66:2,6 67:9,12,15,21 68:3,6,9,11,16,1 8,20 69:1 72:7,9,17,19 73:1,5,8,13,15,1 8,20,22 74:20 75:2,5,11,15,18, 20,22 76:4,12,22 77:2,10,12,15,22 80:6,10,17 81:16 82:2,4,16,18,22 85:2 86:16 87:7,20,22 88:11 89:2 90:4 91:8 92:14 95:8,12,18,22 96:5,17,20 97:4,8 98:3,6,8,11,15,1 7,22 99:4,9,13,15,17 100:8,13,15,22 101:3,5,7,13,16, 18 102:4,7 104:15 105:3 108:4,12 109:2,7,15,18 110:1,5,9,13,20 111:1,5 112:12,18 |
113:9,15,22 114:3,5,7,12,14, 16 116:16,21 117:17 118:5,8,12 119:5,16 120:13,16 121:2,6,8,19,21 122:3,6,19,22 123:6,8,10 124:11,15,19,22 125:5 126:7,15 127:10,13,15,17 128:17 129:3 131:15,21 132:4,13,17 133:3,6,8,15,20 134:3,5,7,13,16, 18,22 135:13 138:9,13,15,19 139:1,3,12,16 140:8 141:6,17,19,21 142:8,15 143:10,19 144:9,19 145:11 147:1,13,15,17,2 1 148:2,8,20 149:16 151:1,5 152:1,10,13,15,1 7,20 154:1,4,7,10,12, 19,21 155:6,13 156:1,21 158:12 159:7 160:21 161:13 163:10 164:15,22 165:4,9,21 166:4,10,17 167:1,4,8,12,14 168:15,18 Jr 3:6 jump 108:13 135:20 |
| jurisdiction 24:18,19 26:5,8 jurisdictional 24:3 25:3 30:16 K Kalinowski 23:9 Kampert 6:16 16:4 Kentucky 3:20 15:4 22:14 27:2 88:7 118:14 Kevin 3:3 14:22 35:11,13,14 80:17 88:11 104:17 139:18 140:8 141:6 149:21 153:6 156:2,3 159:7 160:21 162:12 164:11 165:18 Kevin's 89:20 key 30:10 kicked 81:4 kill 53:17 killed 26:13 knew 161:4 Kristi 2:20 15:12 44:20 60:10,13 61:19 68:1 73:3 75:7 98:15,18,21 100:17 101:18 102:1,2 113:20 123:2 126:11 132:20 134:8 152:5 166:22 L labor 1:1 3:20 5:18 15:4 30:11 |
142:22 149:19 168:20 Laboratory 69:14 laborers 2:13 7:20 14:4 15:16 27:13 140:11 143:19 144:22 Labor-OSHA 5:12 laid 53:8 landline 80:1,9,15 84:6,7 landlines 78:7 language 9:18 23:17 24:2,7,8,21 25:10,14,17,22 26:1 28:3,7 29:14,17,18,21 31:20 32:6,7,13,15,20 33:7 34:3 35:5 37:4 38:10 39:7 45:8,12,13,16 47:5,11 48:10,12,22 54:15 55:2,3,7,8,14,15, 19 56:8,17,18 58:19 59:6,21 68:22 69:12 71:22 74:3 76:5,12 80:3 81:12 85:21 90:8 91:2 93:9 95:2,3,7,13,17 96:9,18 111:19 123:19,21,22 124:3,17 125:8 128:2,8,11 129:6,19 132:11 134:2,3 |
136:14,18,19 137:11,14,15 lanyard 42:8,10 lanyards 10:5 41:18 large 53:5,11 106:3 160:19 larger 103:4,5 last 17:11 18:17 38:10 63:3,10 72:10 73:22 76:1 78:16 90:16,17 102:3,10,11,13,1 4 112:8 114:22 118:18 119:15 135:5 150:4 late 39:20 later 26:3 160:15 latitude 79:21 80:21 81:10,18 83:5 85:6,17,20 86:12,14,20 87:9 90:12 92:21 93:2 97:20 Laughter 22:5 36:14 43:4 57:22 73:12,14 88:18 102:12 110:4 128:19 132:3 133:16,19 168:17 Laura 77:2 Laurie 2:15 14:20 131:16 139:16 152:1 law 40:3 41:2 laws 40:20 leads 55:6 leap 48:5 |
least 40:1 70:5,6 90:12 106:19 107:22 113:11 116:13 129:12 leave 28:18 29:17 34:22 53:14 112:10 141:15 164:16,17 leaving 33:18 125:15 legal 25:2 length 40:6 lengthy 19:3 20:2,3 less 52:13 92:20 103:21 143:4 156:9 lets 37:19 let's 24:14 43:8 45:4 48:5 52:2 60:21 62:7 96:17 112:10 113:16 125:5 127:18 138:9 139:17 151:5 159:20 letting 37:14 156:11 level 139:22 liaisons 160:11 licensed 9:11 12:7 38:16 124:4 126:20 life 85:14 86:7 lifelines 10:5 41:18 light 103:17,18 104:12,20 105:5,17 lightweight 104:12 |
| likely 40:15 limit 12:13 45:9 128:4 limited 138:3 140:16 limiting 143:8 limits 11:19 45:6,11 77:19 102:16,22 128:7 129:10 130:4,11,19,21,2 2 131:3,11 line 21:10 52:11 147:22 lines 80:19 100:11 link 93:16 Lisa 8:5 15:18 25:4,7,8 153:15 list 38:14 39:4 listed 94:10 listen 160:15 162:9,10 listening 157:17 159:17 162:15 listing 74:8 literature 116:11 117:10 little 34:22 40:8 50:16 51:7 54:3 57:1 59:12 63:19 69:20 84:1 104:19 125:1 129:14 132:15 140:6 149:12 159:12 164:16 live 123:15 167:22 load 102:20,22 loader 72:5 |
loaders 70:13,19 71:7,12,14 72:4,15,20 loads 102:18 local 23:3,8 24:18 26:13 88:7 locate 87:1,11 89:1 90:21 91:9,10 locating 91:19 92:16 location 78:20 79:3,18,19 80:2 94:10 96:21 97:12,15 138:7 locations 11:16 81:3 89:14 locator 89:3,9 log 36:16 39:22 40:10,17 41:4 124:1,10 127:5 logging 83:18 login 84:10,11 London 153:15 long 19:7 25:1 94:2 108:6 longer 163:22 longitude 79:22 80:21 81:10,19 83:5 85:5,17,20 86:12,14,21 87:9 90:12 93:1 97:20 loose 10:10 46:4,11,17 47:1,4,14,20,22 49:6,13,16,19 50:1,18 51:1,12 52:7 53:16,22 54:9 55:21 56:10 57:4,11,12,13 |
66:9 lose 23:7 26:5 135:15 loss 9:13 12:9 34:20 35:9 36:10 37:18 39:10 40:9,10 77:21 124:6 127:1 lost 154:1 167:18 lot 19:15 21:17,18,19 23:18 52:17 53:1 54:1 69:8,11 83:3 92:16 145:1 159:15 165:22 166:4 167:18 168:2 lots 83:20 130:3 loud 37:12,13 love 164:16 low 38:15 77:19 lower 40:18 130:7,22 Lundgren 6:18 lung 64:6 M ma'am 111:8 machinery 69:13 102:19 Maddux 5:10 13:6 16:7 155:16 167:16,17 main 17:20 69:3 103:1 maintain 64:10 maintains 35:16 89:13 |
majority 103:2 maker 147:6 MALE 42:22 61:1 67:20 82:7,15,20 88:20 91:4 96:19 99:5 109:21 110:10 121:1,5 122:1 124:16 125:19 133:12,17 138:21 139:10 141:2,5 142:2 145:10 147:4 167:6,7 management 11:5 66:10,14 67:1 manner 23:2,5 146:10,13 manufactured 76:7 manufacturer 66:18 71:3 74:4 manufacturers 69:10 74:12,16,17 maps 90:11 mark 17:3 markers 81:6 Marrero 3:6 14:10 65:11 67:14 135:17,22 141:12 142:19 143:13,20 144:16 146:16,20,22 147:9 148:4,10 151:16,22 marriage 56:7 Marud 6:20 16:10 |
| match 28:11 material 46:18 49:14 54:10 55:21,22 56:10 57:13,15 105:18 materials 10:11 46:5 48:14 102:19 104:22 Matt 4:14 14:11 26:9 29:20 82:18 131:20 150:7 151:4 156:7 159:8 matter 27:1 40:2 52:9 55:19 Matuga 7:3 maturing 149:9 maximum 11:19 may 10:16 19:17 21:22 23:18 28:17 32:2,21 36:2 43:8 54:18 81:19 86:18 97:1,18 105:15 109:19 131:1,6 156:5 157:4 159:19 160:15 161:4,8 162:19 maybe 21:17 27:9 31:15 33:6,14 85:20 92:17 93:16 103:14 104:6 106:9 107:17 128:17 144:11,12,13 145:21 150:18 155:2 156:19 165:14 166:9 mckenzie 14:13 76:17 87:13 98:10 110:3 |
119:18 139:20 140:13 141:1 142:11 McKenzie 5:4 14:13 87:13 119:18 139:20 142:11 156:15 mean 24:21 28:2,9 31:14 34:11 36:4,6 38:4 41:5 48:7 49:19 51:2,8 76:6 83:16 89:7 90:8 91:18 92:1,5,7 93:4,6 97:21 105:1,11 106:15,22 117:12 119:3 121:20 130:12 132:18 141:7 142:15 145:20 154:22 155:15 156:10 157:4 158:1 159:1 165:12 means 25:11 31:17 34:11 36:11 38:8 57:16 87:15,16,19 97:11 103:19 132:16 155:9 meant 145:21 measure 53:10 mechanism 32:22 mechanisms 158:21 medical 11:15 62:22 63:15 64:11 84:21 meet 25:19 76:11 meeting 13:4 14:3 |
18:8 19:17 28:22 29:8 31:4,13 34:5 63:3 109:9,16 111:11 114:22 118:19 128:9 144:14 145:15 148:7 151:19 153:19 155:1,3,9,10,11, 20 156:12 157:6 160:6,9,14 161:10,17,20 163:20 168:21 meetings 136:16 154:15 155:18 157:12 158:4,19 159:11 160:1,16 161:3,7 163:17 165:13,15,22 166:1,5,13 member 157:7 163:2 members 17:9 35:18 81:8 83:7 153:9 154:17 155:3 156:8,19 157:10 158:3 159:13,21 161:4,19 165:17 166:15 memorandum 143:1 memory 18:21 Memphis 52:19 mention 18:5,11 71:8 122:8 162:13 163:14 mentioned 67:2 83:6 84:10 90:6 164:12 mentions 41:13 |
message 131:5 method 86:1,11 methods 19:6 56:1 103:19 mic 145:10 158:22 Michael 7:9 16:9 Michaels 150:1 167:19 Michele 7:5 16:5 Michigan 3:12 Microphone 116:21 mid-discussion 127:19 middle 52:22 123:18 Mihelic 7:5 16:5 mile 81:6 million 130:4,6,7,8 mind 35:8 122:4 153:22 mini 54:3 minute 163:2 minutes 85:11 135:16 150:5 154:9,10 166:11 167:21 minutia 103:14 148:16 misclassified 144:5 missed 37:15 missing 76:10 Mississippi 52:18 mix 161:1 mixed 52:3 |
| Mm-hmm 82:15 moment 97:4 monitor 88:8 monoxide 130:3 month 17:11 months 22:16,19 24:7,13 morning 15:3,7,12 17:17 21:4 69:6 mostly 92:6 95:3 motion 13:4 42:17 43:12,14 44:14 56:20,22 59:1,20 61:9,12 65:7 67:12,14 68:21,22 74:21 76:13 77:2 96:6 97:6,8,17 100:7,10 101:8,13 110:8,9 112:13,21 113:7 120:17 122:20 124:13,17 132:7,9 133:10,13,20 137:16 138:10,12 139:4,14 140:4 145:4,17,18,19 146:5 147:2,4,7,16 148:2,17 149:21 150:7 151:6,16 153:10,18 154:2,4,13 161:14 162:2 164:19,20 165:3,5,6,11,14 motions 20:14 96:8 Mountains 52:19 |
move 33:17 45:4,20 53:14 54:6 58:13 62:7 65:9 102:8 112:22 113:4 133:22 153:18 154:15 166:13 168:4 moved 42:19 45:3 61:13 62:6 66:2 68:11 75:3 76:21 94:16 96:19 98:4,5 99:17 101:7,15 114:7 123:10 127:17 134:4 160:3 moves 59:20 136:3 148:4 151:17 moving 58:9,11 63:2 81:2 112:5 145:7 163:16 166:6 multi-family 106:5 municipality 86:3 mute 73:11 98:20 myself 156:6 N namely 123:16 Nashville 29:12 Natalia 1:17 169:2,15 national 2:16 3:7,14,15 7:4 119:19 Nation's 137:20 nature 81:6 92:19 128:1 Nay 68:7 152:13 |
166:22 Nays 114:3 nearly 111:10 necessarily 34:12,13,14 41:5 64:6 105:17 109:1,5 164:6 165:20,22 necessary 34:3 39:8 57:14 81:22 82:13 95:9 96:9 156:16 necessity 24:20 negative 126:2 neither 169:7 newer 9:17 nice 23:19 150:9 night 119:15 NIOSH 14:11 26:9 29:20 63:2,4 64:22 71:10 115:3,5,10 121:1,2 130:21 Nissan 54:3 noise 36:3,8 124:7 127:3 non 32:21 103:7 121:21 non-pressurized 121:13,17 nor 169:8 norm 166:8 normally 95:4 North 2:14 Nosal 7:7 16:11 note 130:15,17,18 131:18 132:7,8,9 |
noted 92:4,8,13 notes 70:15 170:5 nothing 36:20 45:15 84:22 125:10,12 161:4 notice 155:20 167:21 notion 94:18 96:14 November 109:20 NW 1:10 O object 23:15 objecting 107:18 objectionable 129:8 obviously 25:14,16 26:5,7 83:4,6 107:13 113:11 165:12 occupational 1:2 2:13 4:5 16:14 124:7 127:2 168:20 occurring 38:12 155:12 October 29:11,12 34:4 offer 28:20 office 4:16,17 5:6,17 6:5,19 7:8 8:6 14:16 15:18 16:12 17:19 25:5,9 78:19 117:1 OFFICER 5:3 OFFICIAL 5:9 oh 17:2 21:13 50:4 |
| 54:2 60:12 73:8,13 75:11 80:11 99:4 100:3,5 107:4 109:18 133:15 141:18 147:15 152:20 154:4 old 27:13 55:14 56:5,17 57:2 115:12 129:10,14,19 131:6,11 one-by-one 20:15 ones 19:16 20:2,20 43:7,8 64:16 74:16 76:19 90:10 94:5 120:1,19 ongoing 78:11 onto 136:7 open 13:4 64:7 85:21 154:17,22 155:9,10 156:7 157:1 160:17 163:22 166:15 Opening 9:3 opinion 131:8 150:6 opportunities 23:15 87:4 opportunity 23:14 115:21 128:18 136:10 158:3 oppose 68:6 133:17 opposed 60:17 62:2 65:20 73:18 75:18 99:13 101:3 114:3 133:6 134:16 |
146:4 opposition 55:2 68:6 opt 161:12,13 optimistic 140:5 option 96:3 options 81:10 order 18:3,4 46:9 117:5,7 164:1 Oregon 118:3 organizations 58:11 origin 46:2 original 47:18 48:8,12 49:21 54:19 55:7 57:2 59:5,11,21 92:10 112:15 149:21 originally 46:15 130:19 151:11 originating 80:2 origination 78:20 originator 79:4 OSH 3:19 20:5 OSHA 6:7,11,13,15,17, 21 7:10,12,14 14:13,19 15:20 16:3,4,7,8,9,10 17:4,7 18:17 19:1 22:15,18 25:15,16,21 26:4,15 30:1 32:18 33:22 46:10,11 55:15,17 59:7,13,22 61:10 64:6 68:14 72:12 74:1 76:14 83:15 |
87:13 96:15 101:10 104:5 112:22 114:20 116:8,12 117:7 119:18,20 120:7,17 121:10 122:12 124:1,9 127:4 128:7 133:21,22 136:3 137:17 139:20 142:12 144:12 145:3,7,13 146:5 148:5,13 149:3 150:10 151:17 156:6 157:6 160:11 167:20 OSHA's 26:7 59:2 62:20 136:11 156:20 OSHPA 23:10 28:22 29:7 31:1,12 34:4 OSHPA's 31:3 others 107:17 164:10 otherwise 43:16 54:9 89:6 OTI 17:6,8 ourselves 150:6 159:6 outcome 135:2 outdated 11:9 120:19 Outreach 12:20 17:5 153:6 outside 39:1 135:10 oven 63:8 overall 58:21 |
Overhead 11:10 oversees 41:1 Overview 9:3 overwhelming 103:2 owe 107:1 P p.m 168:19 page 9:2 10:3 11:3 12:3 13:3 86:19 93:16 123:16,19 137:13 pages 38:7 paid 142:3,13 Painters 2:5 palatable 29:15 pallet 85:8 Palm 85:2,13 paper 139:6 paperwork 19:6 paragraph 37:15,16 72:2 130:15,18 Pardon 82:3 parens 126:22 PARTICIPANTS 2:1 3:1 4:1 5:1,20 6:1,3 7:1 8:1 participate 156:13,14 157:5,16,21 161:5 participating 157:17 163:18 participation |
| 161:7 particles 50:19 52:4 particular 35:9 41:20 46:2,7,19 48:17 68:14 79:18,20 95:1 96:15 102:21 105:9 112:3 particularly 69:13 78:12 117:16 parties 169:8 partners 109:6 part-time 138:5 party 91:4,5 pass 60:22 156:15 passed 17:11 45:3 75:22 passes 167:12 pattern 22:15 Paul 6:6 14:15 16:17,21 17:17 20:11 23:22 24:12 41:11 49:2,4 54:15 66:6 67:9 77:16 102:9 108:5 114:8 127:20 134:22 135:13 pay 117:14 Payne 7:9 16:9 PELs 45:17 114:16 128:7,9,13,18,21 129:16 people 34:12,13 41:14 44:9,12 70:9 84:16 86:6 108:2 129:18 |
130:13 131:5 155:22 156:11,17 157:5 158:22 160:7 161:12,13 163:18 164:11 167:18 168:2 per 102:17 130:4,6,7,8 percent 40:15,16 143:4 Performance 69:15 performed 81:3 perhaps 26:3 103:15 period 94:13,19 112:6,11 163:22 168:6 periodic 62:22 63:13 64:15 Perkins 1:8 permissible 45:6,11 128:7 permit 10:19 116:13 157:7 person 17:20 22:8 25:11 31:17 32:3 34:11 50:17 154:16 157:13 165:13 166:14 168:5 personal 17:9 personally 56:4 persons 84:12 157:9 Pete's 22:9 ph 6:20 16:10 120:3 |
phase 17:21 132:5 phone 14:7 44:7,10,12,13 60:6 61:16 65:12 67:17 72:20 73:1 75:6 77:4 82:20,21,22 83:21 84:5 86:9 88:15,22 89:9 97:14 98:10,11,19 100:16 101:19 113:16 120:14 122:22 125:2 126:9 132:19 134:7 138:19 151:7 152:3 159:19,20 160:14,18 162:15 164:10 166:1,17 phones 78:10 80:7,8 85:14 94:7 phrase 127:7 128:4,5 phrases 76:9 physical 79:6 80:22 83:7 86:10 physically 142:14 160:13 physician 9:11 12:7 124:4 126:20 physicians 78:5 80:14 pick 19:11 47:10 70:16,20 71:13 72:4 picking 65:4 71:5 |
pickup 54:3 picture 30:5,8 piece 142:20 143:17 pieces 103:6 pile 48:18 piles 56:12 pinpoint 85:12 Pipefitters 2:17 placeholder 72:2 placement 63:15 places 81:9 83:20,22 Plains 117:2 plan 23:12 32:10,16,18,21,2 2 33:1 92:18 109:6 118:3 149:12 plans 26:5 30:9 62:20 please 61:21 68:3 87:7 90:18 114:1 127:20 132:19 139:19 151:9 152:3 156:2 158:14 PLHCP 126:21 Plumbers 2:17 plus 63:10 pockets 84:2 point 23:19 26:22 31:15 37:12 39:6 90:6 92:9 95:11 96:8 117:15 118:13 136:16,22 137:14 141:8 |
| 142:9,11 146:5 148:16 151:12 154:8 160:14 164:7 pointed 142:19 149:21 points 29:22 35:5 police 88:8 political 25:13 32:8,15 poll 29:4 44:9,12 portion 69:16 79:9 89:3 125:14 153:16 portions 93:18 102:19 136:17 pose 48:11 50:2 54:12 57:6 136:2 poses 54:7,16 position 165:15 possibility 35:4 possible 28:16 30:7 66:12 119:4 possibly 51:10 86:12 post 11:15,19 79:21 80:13 86:20 87:8,10,15 92:3 102:22 119:4 posted 78:6 91:14 posting 77:20 92:2 102:15 potable 9:16 41:13 potentially 33:10 80:20 Potomac 117:4 |
pound 42:5 pounds 42:1,2,3,9,11,14 53:15 102:17 poured 104:20 PPE 67:2 practice 131:7 137:5 Pratt 3:9 44:7,22 45:1 59:16 60:2,9 61:15,18 65:15 67:19 73:7,8,10 75:8 77:6 83:2 87:18 95:21 96:2 98:7,13 100:18 101:20 104:2 106:14,21 107:7 108:9,19 110:11,15,22 112:9,17 113:3,17 123:1 125:4 126:10 132:21 134:9 152:6 157:15,19 163:7,12 167:2,4 preamble 95:4,7,17 113:12 168:1 precedence 30:16 159:12 precise 81:2 precisely 160:5 preclude 164:6 predictive 19:12 predominant 39:9 predominantly 106:4 prefer 129:16 |
preliminary 117:6 prepared 72:11 preponderance 40:5,13 present 18:18 27:5 29:5 51:20 135:19 162:22 presented 18:8 19:17 62:19 presenting 163:6 presently 102:15 presents 56:6 President 2:21 3:10 pressure 48:20 118:15 pressurized 121:12,16,22 122:2 Preston 7:11 69:3,6,7 70:18 114:20 116:6 121:14 pre-Subpart 41:21 presumed 38:11 presumption 38:19 39:15 presumptuous 43:12 pretty 22:4,14 27:14 35:16,21 36:8 46:3 50:17 53:3,9 55:17 71:10 78:14 84:2 94:15 105:1 122:10 125:14 129:10 131:11 141:8,10 149:22 150:2,17 151:3 |
prevalent 136:6 146:8 previous 18:7 64:16 previously 62:19 64:12 primarily 104:4 print 162:17 prior 72:13 120:2 privilege 45:19 probably 20:14 42:11 53:22 83:7,19 85:19 86:11,14 94:15 95:6 104:9,13 129:11 131:22 155:8 problem 23:4,16,17 27:5,9,22 31:10,19,20 32:4 35:19 43:6 52:13 78:11,21 83:10 131:7 143:8 162:3 problematic 52:11 117:20 140:10 problems 23:18 24:3 37:6 procedure 22:16 procedures 74:18 proceed 21:20 31:14 68:14 96:15 101:11 113:13 proceeding 169:3,4,5,7,9,10 170:4,5,8 proceeds 76:14 |
| 120:17 process 11:5 66:10,13,17,22 79:5,14 110:17 128:18 processing 78:18 productive 164:10 professional 9:12 12:8 38:16 124:4 125:16 126:21 professionals 84:21 program 4:10 17:5 41:3 Programs 15:9 44:18 progress 140:3 150:16 project 17:21 25:6 117:3 projects 18:21 135:8 proposal 24:16 29:14 59:3 61:10 64:4 104:7 111:10 112:5 116:13 122:16 123:14,17 131:13 168:9 propose 20:1 64:6 72:11 76:4 86:21 proposed 21:7,15 22:22 25:10 27:4 29:6 32:6 33:7 37:1 43:20 55:2,8,20 57:9,12 71:16 76:5 81:20 88:10 108:17,18 117:12 124:18 |
134:3 167:21 proposes 59:7 60:1 proposing 20:4 35:4 42:2,13 46:13 59:14 93:10 102:20 103:8 116:12 123:22 124:2 127:22 proprietaries 120:12 proprietary 118:5,6 120:3 protect 47:13,15,20 50:1 57:4 168:12 protection 11:11 23:8 26:15,19 41:22 42:3 47:19 49:22 51:17 52:14 56:1,12 57:3,8,11,16 69:4 74:14 104:7 105:15 120:9 137:19 protections 30:17 protective 11:10 52:8 57:14 69:8,14 116:9,10 117:9 118:18 130:13 131:1 prove 55:18 provide 55:22 56:1 57:16 63:5,14 78:18 79:11 80:1,13 81:13 84:12 93:16 97:14 113:12 132:9 135:11 158:20 168:10,11 |
provided 47:19 50:1 57:4 113:7 130:19 137:19 141:16 provider 79:10 120:7 providers 79:6 97:15 provides 55:4,7 78:3 providing 79:16,19 97:11 159:17 provision 46:7,19 78:2,3 92:6 102:21 111:6 119:1 124:10 127:5 provisions 63:1 69:22 74:11 prudent 103:12 PSM 66:20 67:3,5,6 public 4:8 13:4 15:8 33:5,10 120:21 154:18 155:9,10,11,19 156:11 157:1,7,13 158:11,20 159:15,22 161:7 162:3,7 163:1 164:6,13 165:18 166:16 publication 120:2 publicly 94:10 116:15 119:20,22 120:10 published 19:14 |
66:14 122:9 publishing 155:19 pull 24:10 29:11 61:8 112:14 pulling 53:20 purposes 35:3 pushes 65:5 puts 42:8 58:14 putting 48:20 66:22 155:21 156:19 Q question 26:20 32:5,12 35:17 48:1 64:21 71:15 88:12 89:20 93:22 110:12 111:15 120:2,13 121:7 125:6,20 126:1 132:5 143:21 questioning 82:1 questions 17:5 20:10 30:21 42:15 72:7 92:16 quick 16:22 129:21 quicker 86:11 quickly 114:11 quite 24:1 32:12 88:19 105:20 135:12 146:3 R radio 87:16 88:6 radiography 63:22 64:3 |
| raise 23:9 158:22 ran 21:14 range 24:13 Ransdell 7:13 16:3 rare 66:19 67:4 rather 74:8 162:10 rationale 30:4 32:7 rattle 30:16 rays 64:1 reach 87:17 readily 87:1,11 90:21 reads 126:19 ready 150:1 reality 93:8 realize 23:19 94:11 really 26:1 30:4,14 33:21 34:1 37:5 38:2,15 39:21 41:21 45:8,10 47:11 50:7,21 51:22 52:17 55:17 56:22 65:3 69:9 71:2 83:12,17 84:17,22 94:22 103:7 106:10,16,18 116:8 126:5 127:22 128:3,7,13 129:8 130:12 144:1 145:19 146:4,9 151:4,12 159:4,10 160:1,8 reason 24:22 42:12 46:22 |
71:13 94:6,20 103:1,8 118:16 130:9 reasonable 105:19 146:15,17,18 reasons 84:11 Rebecca 7:15 62:9,17 63:17 recall 142:8 recent 58:9 129:22 recently 40:3,6,22 116:3 recognize 63:21 109:1 recognizes 103:18 recommend 41:14 55:15 70:2 72:12 101:10 110:21 112:22 117:14,15 120:17 137:17 145:7 148:5,12 151:17 157:16 168:8 recommendation 18:13 20:20 31:2 42:18 44:14 58:15 61:11 65:8 67:13,18 68:13 72:12 74:21 132:17,18 133:14,21 144:11 157:8 recommendations 17:7 59:2 72:13 153:11,17 recommended 70:16 71:13 74:1 recommending 96:14 120:7 |
156:22 163:19 164:2 recommends 59:5,20 68:14,18 76:14 145:12 reconvene 14:3 record 17:4 27:1 31:7 37:17 43:3 77:15 124:9 127:4 164:14 169:7 recordable 36:12 38:20 39:16 recorded 169:4 recordings 170:6 recordkeeping 34:20 records 64:11 reduce 19:6 66:21 reduced 169:5 reducing 19:7 refer 115:7 reference 64:1 66:22 69:17 74:4,6,9,22 93:13 94:18,21 103:15 106:20 108:20 120:4 125:16 129:9 referenced 93:15 references 64:2 70:1 123:20 referencing 105:13 119:6 referring 91:22 115:19 refinery 66:17 reflect 30:4 32:21 |
68:22 reflective 148:14 reformat 12:12 reformed 40:4,22 refresh 18:20 reg 71:16,18 93:17 95:14 113:12 regaled 17:12 regard 27:10,12 78:1 regarding 34:18 35:6 103:11 136:1,19 regardless 36:9 regards 55:3 69:7 114:21 115:4 Register 155:20 registry 79:5 89:13 93:14 94:9 regs 41:15 66:21 regular 121:12 regulation 41:20 80:4 95:5 102:17 regulations 11:7 19:5 95:3 157:6,7 regulatory 36:22 63:7 168:1 Reindel 7:15 62:10,17 63:18 66:5 reinstates 132:11 related 124:9 125:10 169:8 relatedness 38:11 relates 45:22 136:21 |
| relationship 27:19 28:14 136:12,20 137:3 138:8 143:15 146:11 relationships 140:2 146:7 relevant 30:7 69:10 relied 80:8 relying 85:13 120:19 remain 64:17 remainder 59:7 60:1 Remarks/Agenda 9:3 remedy 132:10 remember 24:10 142:9 149:7 168:8 remind 112:4 reminder 116:7 remote 81:9 83:18 remove 10:14 30:17 53:18 55:21 56:10 57:13 63:12 69:11 74:3,21 116:12 120:18 121:9,10 129:19 removed 64:13 137:6 removes 129:9 removing 35:3 63:19 71:3 render 84:16 Rep 14:5,10,11,12,21 |
15:1,2 33:4 35:14 55:1 58:18 92:16 158:16 replace 9:5 11:4,9 69:12 replacing 18:8 69:16 71:4 118:19 report 12:18,20 71:9 135:19 138:10 144:14 145:14 148:6 149:5 151:19 152:22 154:5 reported 1:17 170:3 Reporter 16:14 169:1,2,15 170:3 Reporter's 170:5 reporting 1:18 163:6 represent 14:4 29:2 Representative 4:8,13 15:5,8,11,13 21:7 representatives 2:2,19 3:17 33:6,10 115:10 requested 63:1 requests 74:2 require 53:17 78:17 84:11 155:19 required 53:8 63:14 64:14,16,17 124:8 127:3 |
130:18 131:2 requirement 11:14,19 22:20 42:1,4,6 49:8 54:7 63:20 64:12,13 70:4 79:8 102:15,21 requirements 10:4,9,14 11:4,11 62:21 63:13 69:15 76:15 131:9 requires 64:10 102:15 reread 59:19 87:7 126:16 139:5 165:6 rescind 147:1 165:1 rescinded 112:19 rescue 82:11 85:11 research 48:6 117:10 residence 103:11,14 105:14 106:5,17 108:15 111:4 135:7 residences 102:22 103:4,7 resolve 28:3 resources 143:8 respect 34:19 35:8 78:12,13 80:5 responder 78:19 responders 87:1,11 90:21 response 35:17 41:9 42:16 |
44:2,6 60:18,20 62:3,5 65:21 66:1 67:11 68:8,10 72:8 73:19,21 75:19,21 78:19 99:14,16 101:4,6 114:4,6 120:15 123:9 127:14,16 133:7 134:17 152:14,16 responses 95:20 responsibility 136:10,13 137:2,9 rest 123:21 156:8 161:10,19 restate 151:15 restrictive 108:10 resulting 38:12 retain 59:13 retaining 59:5,21 rethink 166:9 review 33:7 135:9,11 reviewed 130:14 revise 19:21 63:7,12,20 141:12 revised 76:8 revising 62:20 63:16 76:15 96:14,15 101:11 113:14 revision 46:14 47:13 69:4 revisions 46:6 101:12 |
| revisit 145:8 revisited 94:4 revisits 94:13 reword 79:13 rewrite 90:17 RFI 19:14 rid 128:10 riding 36:1 risks 19:1 river 52:3 Rivera 3:13 15:2 33:4 42:21 43:18 55:1 58:18 82:17 92:15 124:12,14,17 153:1,4 154:3,6,11,20 158:15 Rivers 117:4 road 83:9 86:6,8 roads 86:4 90:11 Rob 7:3 rock 10:11 46:11 47:14,20,22 49:7 50:1 52:7 53:3,4,11,14,15, 18,20,21 54:2,4 57:4,12 rocks 49:19 51:19 52:14 53:5 Roger 2:7 15:9 44:18 65:13 67:22 73:4 75:9 77:8 98:14 99:19 100:4,19 101:22 113:19 123:3 126:12 132:22 134:12 139:2 152:8 153:6 |
156:6 166:20 Rolfsen 7:17 16:13 roll 74:14 rolled 162:5 rolling 50:2 57:7 rollover 11:10 69:4,7,13 71:11 74:13 room 1:9 149:3 160:13 root 128:11 rope 110:2,3 ROPS 69:5,22 70:14,21 71:5,14 72:3 76:2 rubber 70:18 rule 108:18 133:22 168:12 rulemaking 19:1 122:18 167:21 168:2,3 rules 9:10 12:6 35:15 124:5 126:22 127:7 run 25:1 27:7 28:13 rural 78:13,21 80:10,12 83:4 86:9 91:21 S S&H 2:13,16 safe-load 11:19 102:15 safety 1:2,3 2:13 3:4,7,14 4:5,16 7:20 11:5 14:5 15:8,17,22 16:14 |
19:8 66:10,13,17,22 136:13 137:1,9,18 168:20 sake 42:13 sale 120:4 Sarah 2:3 5:15 14:12,14 22:4 42:20 57:19 58:14 59:9 60:2 67:16 77:2 90:4,16 101:9 139:8 145:4 148:18 151:10 154:8 156:4,7 164:8 165:6 sat 85:8 savings 19:8 saw 31:10 SBA 6:19 scale 48:1 52:8 56:10 scaling 55:21 57:13 scans 64:5 schedule 76:8 Schneider 7:19 15:16 34:10 science 65:5 scope 39:1 70:13,14 71:1,7,14,17,21, 22 72:6,14,20 74:1 144:13 145:22 146:1,22 148:5 149:11 151:18 Scott 7:19 |
15:15,16 34:9 screen 24:11 screening 62:13 64:5 searching 128:22 second 25:7 29:11 35:19 36:18 42:21 58:13,14,19 59:15,17 61:10,14,15 65:10,11 67:16 70:5 71:4 72:17,18,19 75:4,5 76:22 77:1,3 96:11 98:6,7 100:13,14 101:16,17 110:10 112:14 113:5,15,16 119:16 122:19,21 124:15,16,20,22 125:14 131:15,16,17 134:5,6 136:9 138:13,14 139:14,15 141:9 152:1 154:19,20 161:6 secondary 162:1 seconded 43:20 147:18 164:21,22 seconder 147:6,10 seconds 101:18 139:16 section 22:22 23:1 34:21 42:14 46:10 59:8 60:1 71:21 96:15 |
| 101:11 seek 29:1 41:2 64:4 seeking 78:2 seem 67:7 seems 87:3 105:10,19 select 136:17 sells 120:6 send 17:13,14 28:22 157:10 162:16 sense 83:17 143:5 sentence 57:18 59:11,13,21 90:18 124:1,3 126:18 127:9 141:10 separate 46:16 48:1 49:15 separately 44:13 153:21 seriously 134:19 served 17:10 service 77:19 78:2,4,8,12 79:17 80:1,5,9,12 81:22 82:1,8,10 83:21 84:1,5 85:15 86:10,12 88:4,5,16,21 90:14 92:12 94:6,8,14,19 95:1,11 97:2,13,15 100:12 services 3:4,11 5:6 7:8 11:16 16:12 |
82:14 87:17 100:8 120:5 settled 27:8 28:10 Seven 69:2 several 53:15 78:16 96:8 106:12 136:1 137:2 shade 85:8 Shadrick 2:15 14:20 77:1 98:5 99:22 100:2 131:16,17 134:4 139:15 147:14,18 167:11 shared 137:10 shelf 53:22 she's 91:8 shift 37:18 38:18 Ship 2:9 short 167:19 Shortall 5:15 14:14 16:22 17:3 22:6 30:21 32:5,11,13,20 33:14 42:22 43:2,5,14,17,21 44:9 58:8 59:4,19 60:4,22 61:2 68:12,17,19,21 71:15,20 76:14,19 84:9 93:22 94:11,17 95:2 96:7,22 97:6,10,16,22 99:19 100:1,3,5 101:10 111:2,6 113:7,13 121:3 |
124:13 133:10,13 134:1 139:9 142:3,6 145:6,12 146:1,18,21 147:3,6,10,12,16 ,19 148:1,4 151:16 152:19 154:9 155:8,15 156:9 157:4 160:2 163:14 164:20 165:7 167:13 shot 112:8 showed 91:17,18 showing 130:10 shows 26:11 shrinks 94:15 shut 127:18 sic 59:6,22 signal 93:7 significant 21:8 69:16 153:18 significantly 94:15 124:7 127:2 signify 65:17 68:3 75:16 127:11 132:19 134:14 152:3 signs 86:8 silence 158:21 silica 167:21 similar 130:17 146:13 simpler 20:1 simplify 19:5 20:7 66:21 simply 88:6 97:13 |
146:6 147:7 164:7 singing 17:13 single 11:21 103:3 104:6 107:22 108:15 110:16 111:3 120:7 135:6 single-family 102:22 103:7,9,11,13 104:3,8 105:2,4,14 106:4,16 107:10,13 108:6 109:10,11 113:2 SIP 9:5,10,16 10:4,9,14,19 11:4,9,14,18 12:6,12 SIPs 16:17 17:22 18:1 25:6 41:16 43:13 44:14 59:2 135:5,8 sit 48:15 site 66:17 67:6,7 93:16 sites 78:9 91:1 103:4 136:8 sitting 53:19 situation 97:19 159:16 situational 162:11 situations 97:13 103:3 162:5 skid 72:15,20 skid-steer 70:13,19 71:7,12,14 |
| 72:3,5 skip 62:12 Slide 163:3 slip 111:12 small 51:21 52:2,4,9 70:11 84:1 Smoky 52:19 snagged 34:6 snakes 85:7 soil 10:11 46:11,17 47:1,14,20,22 49:7,13,16,19 50:1,18 51:1,6,12,19 52:7 54:9,16 57:5,12 66:9 solar 85:4 sole 39:9 solicitor 5:14,17 6:5 8:6 15:19 25:5 31:15 97:5 Solicitor's 25:5,9 117:1 solvent 130:5 somebody 83:8 129:12 135:9 someone 99:21 117:21 161:18 163:1 somewhat 47:6 somewhere 36:21 50:20 52:11 106:20 sorry 17:2 22:7 32:11 36:5,7 43:17 49:2 58:17 60:4,13 73:10,15 |
75:12 99:9 100:5 102:1,2,13 126:7 141:19,20 144:9 145:11,21 147:19 152:21 156:3 160:21 sort 27:20 36:10 43:10 65:5 81:22 122:17 125:10 131:5 148:11 157:12 158:8 159:12,16 166:8 sound 27:15 111:2 128:8 sounds 37:1 45:12 58:20 87:6 146:15 150:16 source 36:3,8 69:21 70:7 71:4 74:7,9,22 75:1 120:7 sources 99:18 106:12 speak 21:21 33:5 55:2 SPEAKER 42:22 61:1 67:20 73:7 75:4 82:7,15,20 88:20 91:4 96:19 99:2,5 109:21 110:10 121:1,5 122:1 124:16 125:19 133:12,17 138:21 139:10 141:2,3,5 142:2 145:10 147:4 153:21 167:2,6,7 speaking 123:13 speaks 126:5 specific 28:20 |
38:22 76:19 123:17 150:11 specifically 23:3 34:20 35:5 41:19 46:1,17 61:6 74:16 76:17 84:10 123:20 155:17 specification 71:3 specifications 42:9 specify 121:4 spectrum 28:13 spell 117:21 spend 21:17,19 83:12 spoil 48:18 spoke 21:8 114:21 spoken 115:10 spring 85:2 168:7 Springs 85:13 sprinkle 51:22 squad 82:11 square 102:17 stab 86:18 stack 48:17 staff 17:20 69:3 156:6 160:11 staffer 69:3 staffing 138:1 140:15 142:4,5,10,13,16 ,17 143:4,7 144:22 149:7,20 150:11 stakeholders 153:9,12,13 158:18 |
standard 9:19 12:15 18:21 24:8,12,15 37:8,20,22 38:5,6,18 41:22 42:3 45:7 46:1,2,3,15 53:7 54:19 57:2,3,18 58:6,10 59:11 63:10,18,21 64:9 66:10,14 67:1,3 69:5,9,12,16,17, 19 70:4 76:9 84:10,15 88:2 103:19 115:7,16 119:9 130:15 138:6,7 143:14 Standardize 10:4 standards 3:21 6:9 7:16 10:6,15 11:12 14:17 17:19,21 22:16,18 24:13 26:15 35:1,6 36:19 38:2 39:14 42:5 62:11,16,18,21 63:1,8,17 64:13 66:12 67:2 69:21 70:2,7,10 71:4,6 74:5,7,9,10 75:1 76:10,16 108:16 115:19 119:6,7 standing 53:10 start 14:9 16:16 18:6 34:16 59:6 72:10 77:16 started 57:1 128:20 starting 83:17 136:16 137:14 starts 53:20 |
| state 3:17 15:4 21:6 23:8,12 24:18 25:13,16 26:4,12 30:9 32:8,10,14,15,16 ,17,18,21,22 33:1 40:20,21 41:2,3 52:18 57:1 105:22 109:6 118:2,3 stated 139:5 143:1 statement 83:11 162:8 states 22:12,13,14 23:3,6,18 25:18,20 29:1,4 31:8 32:10,22 37:21 108:22 111:7,18 118:3 state's 25:10 States 23:4,12 25:13 27:19 32:8,14 78:7 163:15 statistics 26:11 142:22 status 33:1 statute 40:2,19 41:1,6 statutes 40:20 steel 104:21 steep 53:9 step 48:5 steps 131:3 Steve 15:14 21:10,22 22:2,6,11 23:21 24:6 29:9,13 39:17,18 44:16 47:8,9 49:3 |
50:12 54:21 55:11 56:14,20 59:20 60:11 61:20 65:16 68:2 73:2 75:10 77:9 83:14 85:2 90:14 98:16,17 100:21 102:1,3 113:21 123:5 126:14 133:2 134:11 150:7 151:1 152:9 166:19 Steven 4:3 stick 51:4 stickers 85:5 sticking 53:5,13 54:5 stood 46:15 stop 55:22 56:11 57:15 storage 10:19 18:16 64:8 stored 64:17 105:1 stories 17:12 strategy 149:14 street 85:18 strength 41:18 42:6 Stribling 3:18 15:3,4 21:4,6,14 26:22 28:5,9 29:9 30:22 31:6 33:12 34:8 37:9,11 42:19 58:2 61:5,13 64:21 65:6 81:17 82:3,5,9 87:21 88:1,15 89:20 90:2 100:9 108:14,20 109:4 |
111:3,7 118:13 119:2,8 121:7,9,17 122:4,7,21 141:20,22 142:5 144:8,10 145:7,16 149:3 154:13 165:8,10 166:3,6,12 strictest 52:10 strong 34:2 38:18 95:22 strongly 31:11 33:16 structure 104:4 structures 11:10 69:8,14 102:16 103:17 106:3 studies 131:21 132:2 stuff 87:4 134:19 style/like 137:21 subcommittee 155:18 subcontractor 31:22 137:6 139:21 146:9 subcontractors 138:5 140:18 subdivision 25:14 32:9,15 subject 112:7 168:7,11 submit 49:4 154:7 subpart 11:9 18:10 69:7 74:7 76:15 115:20 substances 130:22 |
substantial 39:10 substantive 45:15 substantively 127:8 subtier 137:12 suddenly 17:11 suffering 36:10 sufficient 54:12 sufficiently 116:9 131:1 suggest 28:10 58:3 96:12 100:9 130:17 136:14,19 140:3 suggested 29:13 108:3 146:19 suggesting 28:7 59:4 suggestion 104:14 131:20 suggestions 136:2 141:13,14 sulfide 130:7 sum 40:14 summarizing 125:15 summary 97:11 summertime 51:4 summoning 84:19 supplied 16:18 supplies 103:6 supply 42:7 supplying 16:20 146:12 support 21:21 33:5,11 56:18 96:14 112:21 |
| 117:11 124:12 133:21 149:10 supposed 38:17 Supreme 27:20 sure 17:11 22:17 24:1 65:1 71:10 86:14 93:9 95:19 103:20 106:10 107:2 108:19 132:14 139:9 148:22 149:22 159:14 160:19 switch 57:8 system 79:14 81:21 88:3,6,10 T table 9:1 10:1 11:1 12:1,12 13:1 14:6 18:2,7,14 19:16,19 33:22 38:21 39:3 41:17 45:6,14,19 60:12,14 61:21 65:17 68:3 73:6,16 75:16 77:10,20 99:1,10 101:1 102:4 109:8 110:6,8,9 112:12,13 113:22 114:13 115:1,8 116:3,5,8,12,19 118:14,20 119:15 121:9,10,11,18,1 9,20,21 122:13,14 123:6,16,18 126:15 127:10 128:6,14 133:3 134:14 145:2,5 152:10 159:13 |
162:2 167:5 tables 12:4 18:9 114:21 115:2,5,6,8,15,2 2 116:9,14 117:7,8,11,16 118:4,16,17 119:19,20,21 120:3,10,18,21,2 2 121:1,2,3,6,11,1 5 122:10,12,17 128:16 131:18 taking 24:3 119:9 131:3 talk 49:9,14 95:15 139:17 150:11 160:13 162:9 talked 27:11 130:14 150:4 165:18 talking 49:5,6,12 50:7,8,9 51:16,18,19 54:8 59:11 86:13 89:2 108:21 129:16 149:6 talks 125:9,11 tap 84:6 teams 128:21 technical 69:8,11 technology 19:6 78:9 95:16 163:16 teleconference 160:9 telephone 78:4 80:13 154:17 166:14 telephonic 156:12 |
temp 146:7,10 temporary 12:18 27:12 30:5 135:18 136:4 137:17,21 139:4 140:13,22 141:11 142:1,12,13,21 143:2 145:9,14 148:6 150:3 151:18 158:5 tend 104:21,22 158:1 Tennessee 4:5 22:14 40:1,3,11 52:17,22 83:19,21 86:2,3 term 45:10 72:5 94:2 terms 9:7 34:20,22 45:17 52:10 111:9 128:1 137:3 terrible 157:19 test 27:20 tested 76:11 87:17 testing 74:18 Tests 69:14 text 27:4 29:6 36:22 38:7 63:7 71:16,18 81:20 93:18 95:15 100:10 113:12 162:17 168:1 texting 163:21 164:12 Thad 7:7 16:11 thank 16:15 17:16 22:11 23:20 25:8 26:22 28:1 29:19 |
31:6 34:8 35:12 41:7 43:17 47:7 54:21 55:9 58:2 60:5 65:6 66:3,4,5 67:9,15,16 73:5 75:11 81:17 92:13 100:15,22 108:14 134:22 135:12 147:11 167:17 thanks 23:21 126:6 135:13 163:11 168:16 that's 18:3 20:22 22:19 23:11 24:8 26:16,20 29:2 30:12,18 34:3 36:17,18,19 37:4,6,13 39:12 42:10 45:2 47:3 49:15,17,22 50:11 51:22 54:9 55:3,17,19 56:14 57:3,21 58:6,10 60:3 64:18 66:10 67:21 68:19,21 69:4 77:18 80:3 84:11,20,22 85:12 88:19 89:11 90:14 91:6 94:21 95:8 99:9 102:7 105:18 106:5,8 107:15 108:12 109:13 111:22 112:18 114:14 115:17 116:6 118:8 119:4,9 127:8 128:9 129:2,10 131:13,20 133:15 140:20 141:1,10 142:15 143:4 144:19 |
| 145:20 146:16 148:12,15,16,21, 22 149:16 152:20 154:6 155:8,13 156:1 159:4,11 161:5,15,21 162:1,2 164:12 166:4 168:12 theirs 40:22 themselves 14:6 thereafter 169:5 thereby 136:12 137:7 there's 52:16 88:8 they'll 62:13 90:2,3 they're 16:19 18:16,22 19:9 20:5 21:15 26:16,19 27:8,18 28:12 30:11 33:17 38:17 42:9 52:4 70:5 76:11 81:1,5,8 83:4 84:1,5 89:2 107:2 116:15 119:7 122:15 129:11 130:12 131:7 132:12 146:11 149:4,15 150:12,16 160:13 162:15 163:19 165:16 they've 38:6,7 70:6,7 149:11 third 71:6,16 96:13 101:8 Thomas 1:17 3:6 135:15,16,20 139:14 169:2,15 |
thoughts 50:13 56:18 105:11 106:9 148:19,20 149:2,17 threshold 12:13 37:18 38:18 45:9 128:4 throes 39:20 throughout 10:5 throw 145:5 166:11 tied 79:13 tiers 139:22 tired 70:19 titled 125:18 TLVs 129:21,22 today 16:16 33:9 121:22 130:8 today's 30:7 Tom 7:13 14:9,10 16:3 65:11 67:15 139:6 146:3,14 148:4,9 151:16,20 tool 64:5 top 50:8 127:20,21 totally 36:2 92:1 tough 93:10 towards 58:11,12 92:11 tower 89:5 towers 79:2 94:3 townhouse 107:8,12 townhouses 107:10 Trades 2:6 |
Trades/Finishing 2:6 Tradesmen 3:8 traditional 63:22 146:10 traffic 160:16 trained 84:12 Training 4:11 12:20 17:5 153:5 transcript 169:6 170:4,6 transcription 170:1,7 Transcriptionist 170:14 transparent 129:18 131:10 Traylor 117:2 trench 51:3 85:7 trend 137:20 triangulate 79:1,2 tried 66:12 trouble 25:2 115:9 Troy 5:21 15:21 truck 54:3 true 55:17 88:19 133:15 137:3 169:6 170:7 try 30:6 43:8 111:12 122:13 140:6 157:20 trying 19:3 25:16,22 28:16 31:7 42:10 43:16 45:15 47:4 80:4 82:6,10 83:15 94:4,5 105:7 106:12,17 |
115:14 157:21 tunnel 117:3 tunneling 118:4 turns 65:2 twice 22:17 type 103:17 106:3 142:20 143:13 typed 170:4 types 39:4 96:22 97:17 typewriting 169:5 typically 28:15 typing 163:18,22 U U.K 115:6 116:5 117:18 119:15 120:21 U.S 1:1 5:12 93:19 168:19 Uh-huh 97:22 108:8 uncertain 137:3 underground 18:9 115:7,20 underlined 141:4 underneath 33:1 understand 24:20 25:9,20 32:12 37:4 39:13 47:7 54:14 81:5 83:15,16 92:1 110:22 119:8 125:13 144:6 155:16 156:4 157:14 161:2 understanding 105:16 |
| 111:17,21 116:17 121:14 understands 20:8 undoubtedly 112:6 unfortunately 129:11 167:18 UNIDENTIFIED 42:22 61:1 67:20 73:7 75:4 82:7,15,20 88:20 91:4 96:19 99:2,5 109:21 110:10 121:1,5 122:1 124:16 125:19 133:12,17 138:21 139:10 141:2,3,5 142:2 145:10 147:4 153:21 167:2,6,7 unintended 30:8 31:9 union 2:5 149:18 uniquely 22:13 United 2:17 23:4 25:13 27:19 32:8,14 78:7 163:15 unknown 91:6 unless 30:3 38:13 50:20 94:9 unpredictable 91:13 unruly 162:4 164:8 165:20 unsafe 102:18 unusual 67:5 update 9:16 11:14 |
63:6,17 78:2 80:4 115:3 updated 118:16,17 121:3,5,6 updating 120:18 128:18,20 129:16 upon 37:2 63:15 66:11 84:9 150:17 up-to-date 115:14 131:3 useful 67:7 85:19 143:18 usually 19:1 156:14 utilize 105:12 137:20 utilizes 148:15 V valuable 153:16 164:13 value 45:9 112:2 158:2 Values 12:13 128:4 variance 117:1,6,13 variances 116:18 variation 138:6 143:14 varies 52:17 vary 40:20 vastly 52:21 vehicle 78:10 verbatim 139:5 Vernon 7:11 |
69:2,7 114:20 116:4 119:21 version 48:8 115:14 versus 55:8 136:20,21 via 138:2 153:14 view 150:9 viewed 136:8 viewpoints 31:4 views 168:11 violation 46:9,18 virtual 93:12 153:14 158:19 virtually 42:8 78:6 voice 89:7 vote 111:5,6 112:15 113:16 126:8 151:5,6,7 157:8,9 159:3 165:1,2 W Wait 154:1 163:2 waiting 102:3 walk 62:13 walking 126:17 wall 49:11 walls 48:20 Walter 2:11 14:4 22:9 55:11 56:21 86:13 156:7 Washington 1:11 117:3 118:2 wasn't 34:6 80:12 105:6 142:1 145:16 164:6 |
water 9:17 41:13 ways 25:1 53:2 weather 51:3 weathered 53:5 WebEx 160:3 162:14 163:18 165:19,22 webinars 162:14 165:19 webpage 155:21 156:20 website 70:8 115:4,5 118:21 119:4 167:22 week 134:19 weeks 85:3 weighs 49:16 53:15 weight 49:6,11,14,17 Welcome 14:2 we'll 14:7,8 18:2 19:19 20:22 24:22 43:1 61:8 66:8 77:13 112:6 118:22 120:9 123:11 162:21 163:4 well-known 137:5 we're 16:16 18:1,11,18 19:3,7 20:4 22:19 23:6 25:1 27:9 30:19 39:12 42:2 43:2,7,22 45:7,15,17,19 46:13 47:3,17 49:5,9,11 50:7,8,9,14 |
| 51:18,19 59:11 63:12 74:6,9 77:18,21 91:22 96:20 102:8 103:8 105:11 106:1,15 107:20 108:1 109:12,13 112:5,20 114:17 116:11 117:12 119:6 123:18 124:2 126:7 127:6,8,22 128:3,12,13 132:4 139:7 140:4 143:7 147:13 149:6 151:7,10,11 153:2 159:5 162:21 163:10 166:6 168:5 West 83:19 86:13 we've 18:10 20:3 33:20 39:22 42:6 52:15 55:6 78:14 79:13 80:3 84:14 109:18 110:3 120:19 123:14 150:4 152:19 156:5 158:4 159:18 160:3,7,17 162:14 166:10 167:17 whatever 24:12 36:1 54:4 79:14 85:22 87:16 94:6 162:18 whenever 155:2 161:9 whereas 105:2 150:13 whereby 79:5 |
137:18 Whereupon 168:19 whether 35:22 40:7 48:9,10 54:16 55:16 70:22 86:1 87:15 93:1 94:22 96:13 154:16 158:21 161:20 162:7 166:13 whoever 157:3 whole 20:13 31:19 80:4 83:11 94:16 133:14 136:22 139:22 143:12 146:5 wholeheartedly 118:17 wholesale 22:21 23:1,5 whom 169:3 Williams 8:3 16:1 Wilson 8:5 15:18 25:4,8,9 32:6,11,17 97:10 winching 53:20 Wind 7:6 16:5 wipe 51:5 wire 111:12 wireless 78:8,12 93:20 130:16 withdrawn 70:8 withstand 102:20 women 158:4 wonderful 22:9 131:17 wondering 34:10 |
wood 106:4 worded 24:16 34:21 58:20 wording 47:18 49:21 51:8 52:6 54:17,18 57:2,9 87:5 work 12:18,20 29:21 36:4,6,7 38:11,13 39:8,11,15,21 40:9,16 81:1,3,7 89:18 109:5 115:15 116:1 118:4,15 121:13,16,17,22 122:2 124:9 125:9 135:14,18 136:7,15 138:2,5,7,10 139:4 140:3,5,16 142:21,22 145:9,19 153:5,6 154:15 155:1,3 157:2,8,12,20 159:1,5,19,22 161:3,6,9,10,16, 19 166:13 workday 138:7 worked 26:12 135:7 159:11 worker 12:18 91:19 129:13 131:1,4 135:18 136:4,13 137:1,18 140:13 141:11 142:12 145:14 146:11 148:6 151:18 workers 26:12,14,18,19 27:12 30:2 |
40:2,3,7,12,19,2 0 41:1,5 85:5 136:7,11 142:1,13,20 143:3 158:5 168:12 workforce 137:21 146:12 148:15 Workgroup 17:6,8 working 17:21 57:19 80:19 81:8 83:9 84:4,5 121:12 128:20 135:1 142:6,14 145:4 150:19 154:3 159:5 161:17 workplace 3:21 86:21 87:9,12 90:21 91:3 work-related 9:14 12:10 35:9 39:11 124:6 125:11 126:3 127:1,4 work-relatedness 34:19 35:7 38:17 125:18 works 141:1 worksite 79:22 87:1,12 91:10,11 142:7 worksites 83:18 91:16 workweek 138:7 worry 26:17 wrestling 78:15 writing 168:5 written 106:20 111:16 |
| wrong 108:5 157:4 X x-ray 62:21 63:13,20 x-rays 10:14,19 18:15 63:14 64:8,11,14 65:3 Y yellow 56:3 yesterday 27:11 136:1 141:16 142:20 146:3 153:8 155:17 156:12 you'll 53:2 113:1 yours 36:16 yourself 21:5 35:13 you've 18:2 19:20 53:13 56:14 84:16 96:7,8 114:18 120:8 140:18 143:11 149:7 155:10 Z Zarletti 17:10 |