Comment from Cole, Barry A.; Cole-Preferred Safety Consulting, Inc.

I have reviewed the (kiewit and 15 others') application and I would advocate that OSHA approve the request for Permanent Variance as written. I would further comment that OSHA desperately needs to refine the Variance application and approval (or denial) process and expedite same. Safety professionals in practice throughout America have hours sometimes for routine discussions on safety and health matters, and decsions about methods, and means to effectively work and effectively provide safety for workers. At the most there may be days to make decisions of this magnitude, and determine efficacy of equivalent safe practices, where OSHA rules do not apply, are not specific, or are impossible or create a greater hazard. There are myriad issues that fit that description. Yet few, if any safety professionals, and fewer employers and labor organizations choose to involve OSHA for any number of reasons, but a key reason is that the process is totally ineffective, and may in fact be harmful to the process they are hoping for. There is no rational reason that the enforcement branch can't render decisions to help the enforced public proceed with their work, and thier safe management of the work, in a timely fashion. Even if in the form of a temporary variance, when it requires more time, is appropriate, in my opinion. It is the fear of a political type that prevents prompt answers, and the bueauracracy that further fuels such delays. Other countries have safety and health agencies that do not take years or even months to come up with answers to safety and health questions. There are U.S. states' agencies that can render answers in a day or days. In my opinion the solicitor is often the intervenor that prevents OSHA from acting, and they should not be a party to safety and health questions and safety efficacy, Strategic postures, on how to win in court is a sad criteria to be entered into any safety and health discussion, and is unprofessional on that level.