Document ID: OSHA-2010-0001-0017
Agency: osha
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2010-02-17T05:00Z

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PRIVATE  

	MARITIME ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR

	OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (MACOSH) MEETING

	9:05 a.m. to 3:23 p.m.

	Wednesday, January 20, 2010

	Conference Room C-5521-4

	200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

	Washington, D.C.

	C O N T E N T S

                                             Page

  

Welcoming Remarks and Roll Call

  James R. Thornton, Chairman...................3

                  

Review of Minutes from September 2, 2009,

Meeting.........................................5

DSG Activities Update

  Bill Perry...................................13

Presentation on MACOSH Webpage

  Amy Wangdahl.................................25

OSHA Activities Update

  David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH,

  Assistant Secretary for OSHA.................38

Shipyard Workgroup Report and Open Discussion

  Don Raffo....................................53

Injury and Fatality Data Initiative

  Janice Windau................................86

Directorate of Enforcement Programs Update

  Patrick Kapust..............................122

Longshore Workgroup Report and Open Discussion

  Marc MacDonald..............................146

Adjourn.......................................241

	- - -

	P R O C E E D I N G S

	MR. THORNTON:  Good morning.  I would like to call the meeting to order
here.  It is January 20th and this is the Maritime Advisory Committee
for Occupational Safety and Health.

	The first order of business I would like to do is to call the roll,
please.  I am James R. Thornton, Chairman.  Obviously, I am present.

	Barry Richardson, I understand Barry had a death in the family.  We are
sorry for Barry's loss.

	Ken Smith.

	MR. [Ken] SMITH:  Here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Charles Lemon.

	MR. LEMON:  Here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Jennifer Lincoln.

	MS. LINCOLN:  Here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Stewart Adams.

	MR. ADAMS:  Here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Marc MacDonald.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Donald Raffo.

	MR. RAFFO:  Here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Ken Killough.

	MR. KILLOUGH:  Here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Alan Davis.

	MR. DAVIS:  Here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Michael Flynn.

	MR. FLYNN:  Here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you, Mike, for making it. We understand you are
under the weather a little bit, so don't shake hands with Mike.  Give
him one of those chest bumps or something like that, but don't touch
him.

	Tim Podue.

	MR. PODUE:  Present.

	MR. THORNTON:  George Lynch.

	MR. LYNCH:  Here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Les Johnson.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Present.

	MR. THORNTON:  Alton Glass.

	MR. GLASS:  Here.

	MR. THORNTON:  I draw your attention to the minutes, please.  They
should be in your package.  These are the minutes of September 2, 2009. 
I will just pause for a minute to let the Committee locate them and take
a brief second, and if you haven't looked them over, please do so at
this time.

	[Pause.]

	MR. THORNTON:  I have given everybody a moment. Are there any
corrections, additions, deletions to the minutes:

	MR. LEMON:  I was present at that meeting.  My name is not on here.

	MR. THORNTON:  I am sorry?

	MR. LEMON:  I was present at that meeting, but my name is not on here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Okay.  Thank you.

	We are going to get this for the record and then will make the
adjustment, but Chuck Lemon was present, so we need to modify this, and
so note that.

	Any other comments or corrections to the minutes?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  If not, I will take a motion.

	MR. DADDURA:  Motion that we approve the minutes.

	MR. THORNTON:  Do I have a second?

	[Second.]

	MR. THORNTON:  I have a motion and a second.  Any discussion on the
motion to accept the minutes of September 2, 2009, as amended?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Hearing none, all in favor, please signify by saying
"aye."

	[Chorus of ayes.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Opposed?  Same sign.

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  I will enter into the record as Exhibit No. 1 the
meeting minutes from September 2, 2009, and it is going to be entered
into Docket No. OSHA-2010-0001.

	MR. THORNTON:  Very good.

	At this time, I would like to also have the public identify themselves.
 We do have a microphone up here, we do have a wireless here, so if you
don't mind starting at this corner and identify yourself perhaps with
your name and affiliation.  You are going to set the bar high for us,
right now you are under great intense pressure, so do it good.

	[Laughter.]

	MR. VOS:  John Vos, Compliance Officer.

	MR. BLUST:  Steve Blust [ph].

	MR. WAINLESS:  Ira Wainless, OSHA National Office, Office of Maritime.

	MR. KING:  John King, Office of Maritime.

	MR. GARBER:  Kelly Garber, Eagle Marine Services, Seattle, Washington.

	MR. CAMPER:  Eric Camper [ph], Maritime Enforcement.

	MR. BUTLER:  Steve Butler, OSHA Maritime Enforcement.

	MR. PEDRAGON:  Joe Pedragon [ph], San Diego Region 9, Compliance
Officer.

	MR. [Jeff] SMITH:  Jeff Smith, ILWU.

	MR. DIAZ:  Adrian Diaz, International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's
Union out of Southern California, Long Beach.

	MR. WILLIAMS:  Cameron Williams, ILWU, out of the Pacific Northwest.

	MR. BURCHETT:  Tracy Burchett, ILWU, Safety Committee.

	MS. NELSON:  Theresa Nelson, Northrop Grumman, Health Executive.

	MR. ZAGAGI:  Yaniv Zagagi, Atlantic Marine Florida and NSRP Safety and
Health Committee.

	MR. AMMERSTONE:  Jim Ammerstone [ph], Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding.

	MR. SAMMON:  James Sammon [ph], Signal Administration.

	MR. FUENCH:  Jeff Fuench [ph], Metro Machine, Norfolk, Virginia.

	MR. EDWARDS:  Leo Edwards, OSHA. out of Norfolk, Virginia.

	MR. MUTTER:  Bill Mutter, Navy Crane Center.

	MR. LEE:  Stephen Lee, Press, BNA.

	MR. MADDOX:  Jim Maddox [ph], OSHA Directorate of Standards.

	MS. McGUIRE:  Stacy McGuire, Desk Officer, OSHA Standards and Guidance.

	MR. BURGIN:  Jimmy Burgin, American Equity Underwriters in Mobile,
Alabama.

	MS. WELCH:  Vanessa Welch, OSHA, Office of Maritime Standards.

	MR. PERRY:  Bill Perry, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance.

	MS. WATSON:  Danielle Watson, Office of Maritime Standards and
Guidance.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Amy Wangdahl, Office of Maritime Standards.

	MR. BURDGE:  Gavin Burdge.  I am a contractor to the U.S. Navy.

	MR. ELLIOTT:  Brian Elliott, Shipbuilders Council of America.

	MR. COMOLLI:  Paul Comolli, OSHA Maritime Enforcement.

	MR. THORNTON:  Is that all?  Did we miss anybody in the public?  I will
let Joe and Susan introduce yourselves.

	MR. DADDURA:  My name is Joe Daddura, Directorate of Office of Maritime
Standards.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  Susan Brinkerhoff.  I am from the Solicitor's Office
here at the Department.  I am counsel for the Committee.

	MR. THORNTON:  Just a little bit of a reminder. I have been talking to
the audio people that will be doing a transcript.  It looks like we have
plenty of microphones here for the Committee.

	At the time that we request public comments, I would request that the
public approach the microphone up here and please identify yourself for
the record, your affiliation, prior to giving your comment, so that we
have everything on the record.  I appreciate that.

	Also, I would remind everybody that on the back table there are
handouts associated with the meeting, so I am sure you have availed
yourselves of those, but if not, we can get extra copies.  If you see
one of us or Danielle Watson, or one of the Maritime staff, we will be
sure and get you those, as well.

	Also, at the back table, there is also a little sign-in sheet.  We
would appreciate it if you would sign in.  If you haven't, you can do it
at the break, just don't a mad rush here, but at your leisure, please
sign in, so we can have a record of your attendance here, as well.

	Before we charge off, I want to do a little checking of the agenda
here, if the Committee would pull this out, and let's just kind of
review and go over this quickly.  In just a moment, Bill Perry is going
to give a sort of an update of the Department of Standards and Guidance,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance update.

	Dorothy is on travel, so Bill is pinch-hitting for her, and will bring
us up to speed on those activities.  Later on, following that, we will
have Dr. Michaels, who is the duly appointed Assistant Secretary for
OSHA, and we are pleased that Dr. Michaels will be addressing the group
here in a few minutes.

	After Dr. Michaels' remarks, we are going to take a little break and
figure out a group photograph.  I am not sure where we are going.  I
think the last time we were up on the roof.  I remember Secretary Folke
[ph] was instrumental in directing us.  We will figure that out.

	After that, coming after the break, Janice Windau -- I hope I am
pronouncing that correctly -- with BLS will be here.  She was here
yesterday at some of the work group breakouts and did give us some
information on BLS.

	Following that, Patrick Kapust will be here talking about Enforcement
Programs update.

	Following that, Lee Anne Jillings, Deputy Director, Directorate of
Cooperative and State Programs, will be talking about Cooperative and
State Programs, and give us an update on that.

	Following that, Amy Wangdahl, with the Office of Maritime Standards,
will be talking about a presentation on the MACOSH web page.  I hope the
Committee have perhaps availed themselves time to look at the web site,
and check that out.  Amy will be giving us a update on that.

	Following lunch, the workgroups will report out. The first workgroup
will be the Shipyard Workgroup, following by the Longshoring Workgroup.

	We will have a break somewhere in there and following that, any open
public comment or closing remarks that we might have, and then finally,
adjournment.

	Any questions from the Committee on the agenda?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Very good.  We are going to charge off and Bill, do you
mind giving us an update then on what is happening with the Directorate
of Standards and Guidance.  Bill Perry.

	MR. PERRY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  No death by PowerPoint today.  I
am just going to talk a little bit and give you a little bit of an
update.

	First, I am pleased to be talking to the Committee from the other side
of the table.  I really did enjoy serving as your DFO for the last
couple of meetings. Even though I am newbie to the shipyard world,
relatively speaking, I don't have a lot of experience there, but I am
really glad that Joe is back and hand the reins over to him, but just
wanted you to know how much I appreciate the Committee's cooperation and
interest, and made me feel very welcome, so I appreciate that.

	We, in DSG, have been very busy lately given that the Agency's
regulatory program, you might have heard a little something about this,
it has been somewhat rejuvenated.  There is a lot of interest in moving
forward on a number of things that are on our regulatory agenda.

	I will just step through a couple of things that I think may be of
interest to the Committee, just to tell you where they are and what is
up and coming in the near term and a little further down the road.

	First, if you were to go to the web site of the Office of Management
and Budget, you will see two items from OSHA listed there under OMB
Review.  Both items were sent over about a week or so ago.  One item is
proposed to reinstate a column on the OSHA recordkeeping form, so that
employers could identify which recordable injuries represent
musculoskeletal disorders.  It is something that we had on the form a
while back, took it off, and now we are proposing to reinstate it.

	Our hope is that having that on the form will provide the Agency and
the public better information on the occurrence of recordable MSDs in
different industry sectors.

	The other item that is under review at OMB now is our proposed rule to
revise Subpart D, Walking and Working Surfaces for General Industry, add
a new Subpart I dealing with specifications for fall protection
equipment.

	This rule has had, needless to say, a very long history.  It was
proposed many years ago.  It was reproposed again in 2003.  This,
hopefully, the third time is the charm.  This proposal will go forward
and ultimately be turned into a revised standard.  As you know, that
standard is very much out of date, our existing one.

	Basically, this will cover slip, trip, and fall hazards, and deals with
things like ladders, rope descent systems, stairs, ramps, et cetera,
things of that nature.

	Our regulatory agenda indicates I think a March date for publication of
a proposal that will probably be a little bit longer than that given
that it just went down last week, but look for that shortly.

	A couple of large proposed rules in development that will be out this
year.  We expect one of them being Subpart F of which you are all
familiar, has a publication date, a projected date in September of 2010,
and you all know that that covers general working conditions in
shipyards, and the proposal included provisions for lockout/tagout
programs, as well.

	That record has been closed for some time.  We have evaluated the
record and are currently in our deliberation and working toward a final
rule package.  I am sorry, I think I referred to that as a proposal
before. That is a final rule that is in development to be issued around
September time frame.

	A large health standard initiative, crystal and silica again has been
around for quite a while.  We are making good, steady progress on
issuing a proposed rule for crystal and silica exposure in general
industry, constructions, and maritime industries.

	The projected date on the current agenda is July of this year.  I
understand that one of our staff members, actually, a project officer,
David O'Connor, for that project, address the Shipyard Work Group on
that.

	So, rather than steal your thunder, Don, I will let you address that,
if you would, in your report out.  I will say the most recent activity
there is that we have completed an external scientific peer review of
our health effects analysis and quantitative risk assessment.

	We are currently evaluating the very good comments we got back from
that peer review, and seeing how we have to make adjustments or revise
those documents, as well as working on the technologic feasibility,
economic analysis, and all the other parts of that proposed rule to get
it out this year.

	Some other projects in hazard communication are proposal to adopt the
globally harmonized system for hazard communication.  We published a
notice on the 29th of December, announcing our intent to hold public
hearings, I believe commencing March 2nd here in Washington.

	So, if you have an interest in that rulemaking, and that is a
rulemaking that has a very broad application, almost every industry is
in some way affected by that rule dealing with material safety data
sheet, labeling, and so forth, to harmonize our rule to the globally
harmonized system that came out of an international collaborative effort
under the U.N. some years ago.

	So, hearing is on March 2nd, and we welcome, urge your participation if
you have an interest in that rulemaking at those hearings.

	Also, a fairly small action.  We intend to publish a final action
dealing with hexavalent chromium. This is in response to a remand from
the Court.  Really, it is just dealing with an issue of how the
hexachrome final rule dealt with employee notification of monitoring
requirements.

	We have taken what the Court said to heart and are taking a second look
at that, and we will be issuing a final action in response to that
remand scheduled for next month, I think is what is on the current
regulatory agenda.

	One other thing I will talk about briefly that is in the very early
stages, but a major rulemaking initiative from the Agency dealing with
combustible dust hazards.

	We published an ANPR last fall.  The record technically closes today,
but since we are in such an early stage, continue to ask for any useful
information and data that would help us fully understand the effects of
a combustible dust standard in your respective industry sectors.

	We held stakeholder meetings here in Washington in December.  We will
be holding another round of stakeholder meetings in Atlanta next month,
I think the 17th might be the scheduled day, February, and plan to hold
yet a third round of stakeholder meetings in Chicago later in April.

	So, again, we are in the very early stages, and I think we had somebody
address both workgroups on that topic--am I right--yesterday?  Yes.  I
think Machabar [ph] from our Dust Team talked to you all about that, so
we would be interested in any feedback from either workgroup on what was
presented yesterday.

	That is pretty much the highlights, I had intended to just give you all
a quick update on.  If you have any particular questions, I am here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Questions of the Committee of Bill?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  I have one.

	MR. PERRY:  Okay.

	MR. THORNTON:  The standards process that you talked about, did you
talk about all the ones that are on the regulatory agenda or just those
that were pretty peculiar to Maritime?

	MR. PERRY:  Well, I was just hoping I would cover the ones that would
be of greatest interest.  We have a number of other initiatives on our
regulatory agenda, beryllium, for example, is another large health
standard.

	That is at an earlier stage than the silica project is, and I think
there we are intending to have a draft risk assessment peer reviewed, go
through this external scientific peer review process later this fiscal
year, so that isn't quite as far along as silica, but that is another
significant proposed rule that we have on the health standard side of
the house.

	MR. THORNTON:  And that specific question really is about the Health
Management Standard.  Is that yet on the Agency's regulatory agenda, or
is that sort of being discussed, if you will?

	MR. PERRY:  That is something that is being discussed.  It has not
appeared on the last fall agenda.  I can't speak to whether it will
appear or whether a regulatory project will appear on the next agenda.

	It is something that we know our new Assistant Secretary is interested
in promoting the growth of safety and health management systems in
general, but there has not been any decision made that I know of yet in
terms of regulatory action.

	MR. THORNTON:  The other final question is there was a lot of
discussion in at least one of the workgroups today regarding cranes and
derricks.  What does that stand or construction?

	MR. PERRY:  That is in the Directorate of Construction.  I know that
the final rule is under development, and the record had closed, it some
sometime ago now, and I am not even sure of the date, so I think that is
a final rule that is in development.

	We have analyzed the record and that team is proceeding with developing
a final rule, decisions are being made, and Dr. Michaels is involved in
those discussions, but I don't really have any specifics on it myself,
different directorate.

	MR. THORNTON:  Okay.  Any questions of the Committee?  I will allow a
couple from the public if you have any.  Let me ask it this way.  If you
have a question of Bill, could you raise your hand, so I can get some
sense?  I have one hand way in the back.  Any more hands, so I can get
an assessment of how much time?

	One in the back.  I am going to ask you, please, sir, to come up and
identify yourself.

	MR. BURDGE:  My name is Gavin Burdge.  I work for BMT Designers and
Planners, and I am a consultant or contractor to U.S. Navy OPNAV Safety
Liaison Office.

	My question is related to hand-arm vibration, whole body vibration, and
whether OSHA is going to issue any regulations on vibrations which have
been affecting European Unions since 2006 for evaluating and controlling
vibration.

	MR. PERRY:  Thank you for that.  Certainly, we are aware of the hazard,
it's an important one.  At this time, though, OSHA does not have any
plans to develop or take any regulatory action dealing with that
particular kind of exposure.

	MR. THORNTON:  Any more questions from the Committee or the public of
Bill?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  It looks like you are off the hook.  Thank you for the
report, Bill, appreciate that.

	MR. PERRY:  Thank you.

	MR. THORNTON:  Let me just do a quick time check.  We are kind of
waiting on Dr. Michaels.  We are going to adjust then slightly, out of
order, and we are going to take our 11:30 presentation and fit it in
right now.

	Let's go off the record until they get set up here just a minute.

	[Off the record.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Let's go back on the record.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  I am Amy Wangdahl with the Office of Maritime Standards.
 I just wanted to give you an update.

	Back at the May 2009 meeting we had the recommendation to create a web
site just for the MACOSH members, so we can house documents, put up
meeting information, so that is what we have working on.

	I believe everybody on the committee has submitted their applications
for the Extranet accounts. What happens now is that we are having a few
permission problems, so I don't think anybody has been able to actually
access the page, so we wanted to show you what they were looking like.

	Just to let you know, Salt Lake City is our IT office, and that is who
us creating these pages for us. They are very excited.  This is the
first time an advisory committee has come forward and said we need this.
 This is also the first time that a group of the public has been allowed
access to OSHA Extranet pages.  So, this is sort of a learning curve for
everybody.

	We have created three pages.  We have a General MACOSH Page, we have a
Longshore Work Group page, and a Shipyard page.  I printed all the
pages, you have copies of them where we are going to look at them up on
the screen.

	So, the first page, everybody on the committee will have access to
this.  This basically shows a location to show the upcoming meetings. 
As you can see, we have the three meetings of the charter up.

	We are going to have Completed Projects.  Once these projects have been
published by OSHA, they will then become an active link.  You will be
able to go to the documents, print them off.

	We are also going to house all the meeting minutes right here once they
are signed by Jim and approved by the Committee.

	Lower on the page, we actually have the Committee Chart and then all
the OSHA Contacts.  We are going to have to update this and show we just
made the DFO, but right there you will have access to all the OSHA
employees that are working with MACOSH.

	Under the upcoming meetings, you will see that January, April, and
July, they have links, so when you click on that link, for instance,
this is the January meeting, we will actually have the Federal Register
notice, the location of the meeting, all of the hotel information that
you are going to need, the link for the reservations that Danielle sets
up, and we will put some draft agendas on there, but they change so
frequently, especially the week before the meeting, we are kind of
rethinking that one, but for the April and the July meeting, which are
printed out, you will actually see we have the three days, because we
have the four in there.

	You will actually see which day we have the workgroup, which day we
have the tour, and which day we have the full committee.

	Now, the individual workgroup pages, only the workgroup and Jim
Thornton will have access to those pages, so for the Longshore group,
both pages are set up pretty much exactly the same.

	First, we will have the current working products and then the documents
that the Longshore Group has requested that the Shipyard Workgroup
review.  We put the next bullet under there, the Top Priorities.  That
is something, Marc and Don, that you will have to decide if you want to
list those.

	It is just sort of our cheat sheet that was created and where we stand
on all the top priorities created at the March 2009 meeting.  At the
bottom, we have all the Longshore Workgroup member contact information.

	MR. THORNTON:  Can you go back one slide?

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Sure.

	MR. THORNTON:  This is a sidebar, but just a question of Don and Marc,
are those fairly up to date, those cheat sheets?  They are not.  Would
you all put that on the list?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Current Work Products?

	MR. THORNTON:  Yes.  Would you do me the kind favor and put that on the
list to update?  That's all.

	MR. MacDONALD:  As soon as we get access.

	MR. THORNTON:  Okay.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  So the Shipyard Workgroup page is set up the same as the
Longshore.  The difference is only the Shipyard Workgroup has access to
this page, as well as Jim.

	Again, the current working products that we have, the documents being
reviewed by Longshore, our shipyard top priorities, and then the
workgroup members are down at the bottom.

	The only hiccup in what you requested and what we were able to give you
is that only an OSHA staff member may request a posting, so you will not
have access to actually post documents.  It's an OSHA hosted web site,
therefore, it has to be OSHA employee that requests it.

	MR. THORNTON:  Read only?

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Read only, yes.

	MR. THORNTON:  Good.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  The good news is that I am actually one of the web
officers that has been designated by Dorothy to do this, so I have a
real good relationship with them.  There is not another middle step that
we have to go through.  So, as long as Don and Marc feed Vanessa and I
the most current documents, the posting takes place within just a few
days.

	The way I envisioned this working was that, for instance, in the
Shipyard Group, we came out with some comments on one of our documents
yesterday.  I will go back and make those changes and post the most
current document onto the Shipyard Workgroup page, and then Don can
simply send out an e-mail that says review the documents on the page. 
That way, there is not e-mails going with five and six attachments.

	As we start getting into this, if we see that we need to make a change,
just let me know.  This is just an initial thought of how we thought it
would work, what would be the best sort of solution for the problems
that we were having earlier.

	Once it does get up and running, the commission date, then, the day the
charter ends.  However, with the re-chartering, some of the members will
move over to the next charter, your date just continues for an
additional two years.  There is no re-application process that you have
to go through.

	Does anybody have any questions?

	MR. ADAMS:  Mr. Chairman.

	MR. THORNTON:  Yes?

	MR. ADAMS>  This is, as she mentioned, one of the recommendations we
made at last year's meeting, and this will help us a lot in our work as
we develop our products.  It has without a doubt been improved.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  What we have to do is eventually have one page where you
can go to with the toggle button, you either want to go to the Longshore
page or the Shipyard.

	As it stands right now, everybody has two separate links, three in
Jim's case, so it is a little awkward, but Salt Lake knows that
eventually the plan is to have one page for everybody to go to.

	And this is?  Tim, please.

	MR. PODUE:  I just want to know when do you think it will be active?

	MS. WANGDAHL:  It is active in the -- the OSHA staff can actually log
on.  I am not really sure, I went in the permissions last week, and
everybody is on the right pages, so it just there is a glitch somewhere,
so I think it is just a matter of Salt Lake finding the glitch and
fixing it.  It shouldn't take any -- because everybody already has been
approved, you are listed for the proper pages, it is just a hiccup
somewhere in the system that is way above my head.

	MR. PODUE:  Okay.  Thank you.

	MR. THORNTON:  This is what I would call a pull system rather than
push, so members have to access it.  Let's say there is an update to a
document.  Okay.  Will members know -- it is a question, not a request
-- will members know that something has been added or updated?

	MS. WANGDAHL:  There is no automatic update message, no.

	MR. THORNTON:  There is no automatic.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  No, it will be really communication with Don and Marc,
and Vanessa and I, to really be on the same page.

	MR. THORNTON:  Gotcha.  So, Don could, for example, say okay, I posted
a new working document on a specific subject and perhaps an e-mail to
members to at least know it's there.  Is that the idea?

	MR. RAFFO:  Right.  I would expect that it's really almost the same
thing that we do now only it will be easier.  Instead if me saying okay,
here is the -- whether I get it from Amy or a committee member, some
revisions or comments -- rather than sending out an attachment, and this
has happened in the past where we have had so many revisions that we
lose track of what revision we are on almost, so hopefully, this will
consolidate it and make it a little bit clearer.

	MR. THORNTON:  Very good.

	MR. LYNCH:  Prior to our conference calls, on a workgroup conference
calls, this would be we would go into there prior to that.  That would
be the most up-to-date material that we will be discussing on anything.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Correct.

	MR. DADDURA:  That is what we are envisioning, yes.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Correct.

	MR. THORNTON:  Tim.

	MR. PODUE:  Are you going to let us know somehow when it is up and
running, to notify us?

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Yes.  I hope to have it within a week, and then I will
re-send everybody their particular links.  Like I said, you will only
have access to the main MACOSH and the Longshore.  Jim will have access
to all three.  If you find a broken link, if you find it's not working,
just let me know, and we will tweak it as we go. It's a learning curve
for all of us.

	MR. THORNTON:  Ken.

	MR. KILLOUGH:  Amy, have you thought about putting previous MACOSH
documents on this site?

	MS. WANGDAHL:  We have thought about it and we really wanted to stick
with this charter, but if the Committee feels that they really want the
previous charter documents -- you are talking about completed projects?

 	MR. KILLOUGH:  Project's minutes.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Sure, we can do that.  We can create a separate page for
each charter, have the minutes, and there is individual charter projects
that were completed, we could do that.

	MR. KILLOUGH:  I think it would be helpful, and then it could be
helpful for the next MACOSH group to know the previous history, minutes,
documents.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Well, the main OSHA page has a MACOSH page that has all
the meeting minutes since '95.  I don't think we actually have the
minutes that go back to '95, but I think we go back to 2000 that are on
the web site, so they could go back to the minutes, but they seem to
have it on one spot for the Committee members.

	MR. KILLOUGH:  I have seen those, but here again, one stop.

	MR. ADAMS:  One advantage to this is the PowerPoint presentations that
we develop or somebody gives, if we post those on this web site, and we
would see them not as exhibits, which they are available as PDF or
hardcopy, if you will, but actually see them as PowerPoint
presentations, which has an advantage, too.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  So, you would want the PowerPoints that are presented at
the meeting.  Okay.

	MR. THORNTON:  Other questions from the Committee, questions, comments,
requests?

	Marc.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Just comment as a subcommittee chairman, I think this
will be really good.  I have got a whole extra file where I keep track
of things that have gone out right now, and this will really help.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Good.

	MR. THORNTON:  Speaking as the Chair, thank you for being responsive to
the requests by the Committee.  I think this will make our work easier,
access better, and I think if we all work together and understand how it
works and put our energy into that, I think it will make the work of the
Committee so much easier. I appreciate all that you and the staff have
done to create a web site.

	We look forward to getting access.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Good.  Thank you.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  I am going to enter into the docket as Exhibit 2, the
MACOSH Extranet Page PowerPoint presentation.

	MR. THORNTON:  We are going to go off the record for a second.

	[Off the record.]

	MR. THORNTON:  We are going to take a break.

	[Break.]

	MR. THORNTON:  I will ask everybody to take their seats, please.  Dr.
Michaels is with us and we are happy to have him here.

	Good morning.  How are you, Dr. Michaels?

	DR. MICHAELS:  I am well, thank you.

	Could we just go around the table again for an introduction for Dr.
Michaels with the Committee, please.  Mike, you set the bar high for us.

	MR. FLYNN:  Good morning and welcome, Doctor.  I am Mike Flynn,
Director of Occupational Safety and Health with the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

	MR. GLASS:  I am Alton Glass, United Steelworkers.

	MR. LEMON:  I am Chuck Lemon.  I am with Washington State Department of
Labor and Industries.

	MR. PODUE:  Tim Podue with the International Longshoremen
Warehousemen's Union.

	MR. ADAMS:  I am Stewart Adams.  I am with the U.S. Navy for the Naval
Shipyards.

	MR. JOHNSON:  I am Les Johnson with the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers.

	MR. THORNTON:  Jim Thornton, day job is Northrop Grumann shipbuilding.

	MR. [Ken] SMITH:  My name is Ken Smith.  I represent the United States
Coast Guard.

	MR. RAFFO:  Hi.  My name is Don Raffo.  I am with General Dynamics.

	MR. KILLOUGH:  Good morning.  My name is Ken Killough.  I am with the
South Carolina Stevedore's Association and the National Maritime Safety
Association.

	MR. DAVIS:  I am Alan Davis.  I am with American Seafoods.  I am also
on the United States Coast Guard's Fishing Industry Vessel Safety
Advisory Committee and Puget Sound Shipbuilder's Association.

	DR. LINCOLN:  Good morning.  My name is Jennifer Lincoln.  I am an
injury epidemiologist with NIOSH.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Good morning.  I am Marc MacDonald.  I am Vice
President of Accident Prevention and Safety for Pacific Maritime
Association, and I am also on the National Maritime Safety Association.

	MR. LYNCH:  Good morning, Doctor.  George Lynch with the International
Longshoremen, Safety Representative.

	MR. THORNTON:  Dr. Michaels, the floor is all yours.  The Committee
here has been advising the Agency on a number of products and services
that we are working on, and we will file a report with you, so you kind
of know what we are up to, but I think the main thing we want to sort of
let you know is we are making a difference out there, we are reducing
injuries in our particular industry, and thank you so much.

	The floor is all yours.

	DR. MICHAELS:  Thank you all very much.  First, let me begin by
formally thanking you.  I have been briefed extensively by Joe and other
OSHA staff about the work that you have been doing, and it is very
impressive, and we are grateful.

	The work that you do essentially allows us to really help employers and
workers around the country prevent injuries and illnesses, and there is
no more important work than the work that you do.

	I was pleased to see Dr. Lincoln here as an epidemiologist.  My
background is in epidemiology, as well.  My training is in looking at
statistics across populations, trying to determine what are the causes
of injuries and illnesses and what we can do to prevent them.

	After doing that for a number of years, I got very interested in moving
to the other side of it, taking those numbers and seeing what we can do
with them, and so it is nice to be here with you, because I know this is
an industry which has traditionally had very high injury rates, and you
all have made the commitment to make a difference.

	Yesterday, I met with Jim, and he gave me this. I brought my own.  I
think it's very impressive, and that made me even more excited to come
here, because that is really the work that we all need to be doing.

	I can tell you a little bit about what OSHA is doing.  In some ways I
think you all probably follow it more closely, you know, for a longer
period than I have, but I have been here about a month, and I am just
getting up to speed on many of these things, and we have a very complex
organization here.

	Across the board, what we are looking at is enforcement, and I know you
are very concerned about that, and as you can imagine, across the
country, our inspectors have gotten the message coming down from the
President and from Secretary Solis that we expect our inspectors to take
enforcement very seriously.

	They go out and they look at workplaces.  They are issuing higher
citations, and we have issued the biggest fine in our history, $84
million against BP.  For the most part, we are not interested in issuing
bigger fines, what we want to do is work with you, with employers, with
unions, other groups to reduce injuries and illnesses, and so in some
ways it is a much better experience for me to be here than to be out
talking about enforcement.

	We are spending a lot of time thinking about regulations and moving
regulations forward.  I know that is a big concern to you.  We have some
regulations in the pipeline we hope to come out with pretty soon.  I
know you are interested in that.

	Until it is out, I can't really talk about it, but we think it will be
out soon and certainly once that comes out we will be able to answer
your questions about it.

	I have a real commitment to listening to stakeholders.  Fortunately, I
think in this industry, we have a very well-functioning advisory
committee, but in general, I would like to hear from all of you, from
your colleagues, from your industries, from your unions about what else
you should be doing, so I am having a meeting on February 10th called
OSHA Listens.

	I don't know if you have given out some materials on that.  It will be
an all-day meeting.  I am here in the building.  If you can come and
make a presentation, that would be great, but we are opening a docket
for anyone to essentially send in their thoughts and their comments, so
you certainly can have some input without coming to Washington is you
are from out of town.

	If you send it to us, it will get posted.  I promise to read it.  It
will also go on the web and others can read it, as well, and comment on
it.  Those are my main points.  I can answer a couple questions.  Again,
I really just want to thank you.

	Oh, the other thing, of course, a question, just to discuss what I
talked about with Jim yesterday, the executive branch system around
advisory committees required re-chartering every two years.

	I know it is some hoops that everybody has to go through, and it is a
way that the Administration ensures that committees that aren't doing a
good job don't get prolonged.  So, some committees sunset every year or
every two years, but rest assured they very much committed to this
committee and we will do everything we can to get it re-chartered.  We
think you are doing great work.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you, Dr. Michaels.  Also, I was remiss in my
recognition of people, because there is a lot of folks from across the
country here, in the audience, from Washington State to Florida, and so,
the public participation, we engage the public regularly in this
committee, and so we appreciate their attendance and participation, as
well.

	I won't identify them individually, but rest assured we have a sheet
that does identify them, so we have great representation in this group.

	DR. MICHAELS:  And if I wasn't very clear, let me also thank Joe and
the rest of the staff of OSHA that supports this committee.  I think you
also do an excellent job in keeping this going.

	MR. THORNTON:  Very good.  I am going to open it up for the committee,
questions of Dr. Michaels at this time.

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  You usually are not this bashful.  Okay.  It is not like
this when you are not here.

	DR. MICHAELS:  Everyone behaves.

	MR. THORNTON:  Right.

	Just so I can get a sense of how many people may want to ask a
question, do any members of the public have a question of Dr. Michaels
back there?  A show of hands, please.  Tim first, and then the gentleman
in the back.

	MR. PODUE:  That meeting that you are saying is on February the 10th,
is there going to be a link that we can link up if we have any comments
there?

	DR. MICHAELS:  Well, we are going to do it two different ways.  One is
we are having an open docket, so if you have something that you can send
in that is written, send it before the meeting or after the meeting, I
don't remember how long it will be open.

	We are attempting to webcast this, but I can't promise we are, so you
can listen in, but it is not going to be an interactive session where
you can call in and ask questions.  I mean if you want to make a
presentation, you do have to come, but if you send something in writing,
you will certainly be covered.

	MR. THORNTON:  The gentleman in the back, if you could come on up and
at least identify yourself, so we can get this on the record, we
appreciate it.

	MR. HARRISON:  Good morning.  I am Dan Harrison with the Hampton Roads
Shipping Association.

	DR. MICHAELS:  I am sorry, with whom?

	MR. HARRISON:  The Hampton Road Shipping Association just down the
coast a short ways.  I wanted to take a moment to mention how much we
enjoy working with this group and participating.

	I also belong to an organization called the National Maritime Safety
Association, and we are having an annual meeting in New Orleans on the
24th and 25th of June, and we would like to extend an invitation to
yourself, the Under Secretary, as well as anybody here at the conference
today.

	We are going to be covering quite a few topics on maritime safety,
longshoring, and associated items such as that.

	DR. MICHAELS:  Well, thank you.  I certainly will have to look at my
schedule.  I don't have it in front of me, but I will consider it. 
Thanks for the invitation.

	MR. HARRISON:  We will send you a letter giving you the dates and all.

	DR. MICHAELS:  Okay.  Please do that.  Great.

	MR. HARRISON:  Thanks.

	MR. THORNTON:  I have a question  if that is allowed.

	DR. MICHAELS:  Well, you are the Chair.

	[Laughter.]

	MR. THORNTON:  I know you haven't been in office for a short while, but
how about a couple of words about maybe what your priorities might be.

	DR. MICHAELS:  I would be happy to discuss my -- let's call these
initial priorities, because I really do expect to hear from our
stakeholders starting now and up through the next few months as we shape
our priorities -- but I think I have been pretty clear about where I am
going actually.

	The questions that the congressional committees asked me before I was
confirmed make that pretty clear.  My priorities are clearly to keep
enforcement going and to make it clear that OSHA is a strong public
health regulatory agency, and we expect employers to provide safe
workplaces, and we will do everything we can working with you, to make
sure that happens.

	From a regulatory point of view, I am concerned that the OSHA
regulatory process requires us to go through a long and cumbersome
process for every new regulation, and so we have to think about where
our priorities are very strategically.

	In my view, the biggest hole in the range of regulations we have is
what is often called a program standard.  I have written about this, a
lot of people have.  OSHA has been talking about this for 20 years,
probably longer, that we expect employers to assess problems that are
out there and try to fix them.

	We don't like this system where it is sort of catch me if you can, that
we can go out and find you.  We don't like to have to do that.  We
expect you to take care of that.  So, we are thinking about ways to
encourage employers to essentially have a program.

	I think when we talk to people in the industry who are committed to
safety, they all have management systems that they use to prevent
injuries from occurring, and we would like to encourage all employers to
do that.

	How we do that is really up in the air, and that is one of the things
we are looking at.  We hope to hear from people how to do that.

	Another thing we are thinking about is our recordkeeping.  We know
there are lots of problems, there are always studies coming out, and I
have certainly testified about them many times, showing that we have
incomplete ascertainment of the true injuries and illnesses that occur,
so how do we improve that.

	Again, we are looking to you all to do that, but those are some things
that we are thinking about doing, and I think down the line we will
figure out how we are going to address them.

	MR. THORNTON:  It is funny you should mention the program standard,
because I am pleased to report once again we are out there on the
leading edge, and we have developed what we commonly call our digest,
guidelines for workplace safety and health programs in the shipyard
industry.

	For your convenience I have paper-clipped these, so that you may find
them readily and know that we are out there and we have begun that
process already.

	The other thing is yesterday, our work groups had presentations by the
BLS and trying to learn a little bit more about t he capabilities of the
BLS database and how we may utilize that in terms of prioritization of
our injuries and illness, corrective actions, et cetera.

	Even later today, we will have another presentation on that, so we
agree with you that we need to do a better job of I call it "data
mining," and help us all prioritize to reduce injuries and illnesses in
the workplace, so we agree and we will support you on both points, and
the MACOSH Committee is headed in that direction.

	Don.

	MR. RAFFO:  I noticed you called out the OSHA staff and I just want to
once again recognize the great job they do putting together these
meetings, and one thing I think that has helped the Committee is we have
been able to meet around the country and bring in different people,
different groups, go on different tours to see different industry groups
that we may not know a lot of.  It helps us in this whole process.

	I think the whole concept of having MACOSH, having meetings throughout
the country in different areas, a lot of different industry groups to
come in where it may not be convenient to come to D.C. or something like
that, it adds a lot to this process, and I just want to thank all the
staff members involved in it.

	DR. MICHAELS:  That is a good point.  Thank you.

	Also, let me thank -- I know there are representatives from several
different agencies here, and I am grateful to your helping us out here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.  Mike Flynn.

	MR. FLYNN:  One other question on your view of rebuilding up the labor
liaisons throughout the different areas, national labor liaison, is that
on your list?

	DR. MICHAELS:  I know it is worth thinking about.  I know, for example,
in the Chicago regional offices actually are looking to hire a labor
liaison now, and I think in some regions we will be doing that.

	Hiring just a new labor liaison for the national office is not high up
on my priority list.  We have very little hiring authority from the
central office right now, and I think we may do with who we have. 
Sorry.  I think some regions will, but I don't think we will.

	MR. THORNTON:  Other questions from the Committee?  Alan.

	MR. DAVIS:  Sir, you mentioned that enforcement regulation, the
regulatory process are one of your concerns.  I would like to ask the
consultative services, voluntary protection program, those things, I am
hoping that they are not going to get thrown out with the bath water.

	DR. MICHAELS:  No, no.  First of all, we think they are all important,
certainly compliance systems, compliance programs are very important,
the voluntary programs that we have, we do as many compliance assistance
as we do enforcement inspections, and we are going to keep doing that. 
We think that is very important.

	We want employers to come to us and say we want to do everything we
can, and that's why we talk about programs and many things like that, to
encourage employers to find the problems themselves, and if we can help
them solve them, that is what we want to do.

	We think the best model for that is actually the BPP program, the
company's NDPP know how to do it, they have made the commitment to
putting the resources into it, and we certainly support them.

	When I was at the Energy Department, I actually ran the BPP program, I
was the one who gave out the flags and stars, and it's a great program. 
The concern we have is essentially resources.

	We have got fewer resources, we have got a lot of big programs out
there, so we are trying to weigh that out and how we are going to
support each program, but we are committed to all those programs.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Committee?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you, Dr. Michaels, for your time.  I pledge to you
MACOSH, we are going to support the Agency and those initiatives that
you outlined.

	For the public, we are going break briefly just for a photograph, and
then we will resume here in five or seven minutes.

	Thank you.

	[Break.]

	MR. THORNTON:  It is 10:30.  We are back on the record.  We are going
to adjust the agenda just slightly again due to speakers or a guest en
route.  We are going to start the Workgroup reports, so this will be the
Shipyard Workgroup Report and Open Discussion.

	It was originally slated for 12:35 on the agenda, but we are going to
start this and see how far we get along with it.  We also have a couple
other speakers that are due in, so we will take that into account as we
move forward.

	At this time, though, I want to turn it over to Don Raffo, the Shipyard
Workgroup Chair for his presentation.

	Don, the floor is yours.

	MR. RAFFO:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Once again, you need to cut me
off.  We can be as flexible as you need, so whatever comes up, we will
go through it.

	As you know, the Shipyard Workgroup met yesterday.  We covered quite a
few topics.  I am going to go through some of them.  As we start to go
through some, there are some documents that we have submitted to the
Longshoring Group for review, and the Shipyard Group has also reviewed
them, and we will probably -- well, I know we will be bringing them up
for votes.

	The first document is the Related Employment document we worked on. 
OSHA requested this information from MACOSH back at the 09 meeting.  We
worked to identify employees in the shipyard who may perform the work
outside of the scope of 1915.

	We have developed a white paper, which everyone has in their package. 
It has been completed.  It includes a table listing examples of job
tasks outside the scope of 1915.  We have gone through many iterations
back and forth within our workgroup.  We have refined it and we believe
we have completed it.

	We have submitted the document to the Longshoring Group.  They came
back with no changes, and the document is being submitted to the full
committee for acceptance.  Before we call for a vote on this, I wanted
to note, and this will be part of the record, that while this paper
covers many of the traditional jobs found in shipyards, almost every
shipyard has job functions which I can clearly tell you are not listed
in this paper.

	It was not and is not intended to include every job function in
shipyards and possible related employment activities, so it's a snapshot
of some of them.  I would guess I would call them some of the more
traditional jobs found in shipyards and some of the related employment
activities that may not necessarily fall under 1915.

	This document which everyone has, I don't have it with me right here,
but it's in the package, and I would like to make a motion that the
Committee accept this document and pass it on to the Agency.

	MR. THORNTON:  We need some way of identifying this I guess, Susan. 
What are we entering?  What are we voting on?

	MR. RAFFO:  It is a Related Employment document included in everyone's
package.

	MR. THORNTON:  Does everyone have that, the Committee members have that
in front of you?  Okay.

	Have you moved that?

	MR. RAFFO:  I did move it, Mr. Chairman.

	MR. THORNTON:  You did move it.  Is there a second?

	MR. DAVIS:  Second.

	MR. THORNTON:  Second.  Discussion on the motion?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  I am about to call for the vote.  Is there anyone that
doesn't know what they are voting on? Does everybody understand it? 
Okay.

	All in favor of the motion to accept this white paper, I guess we are
calling it?

	MR. RAFFO:  Correct.  That would be a good term.

	MR. THORNTON:  The white paper on Related Employment.

	All in favor, signify by saying aye, please.

	[Chorus of ayes.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Opposed?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Motion carried.  Thank you.

	MR. RAFFO:  Thank you very much.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  I am going to enter as Exhibit 3 in the docket, the
white paper on Shipyard Related Employment.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. RAFFO:  Next, we have another document that we have worked on, the
ship's rigging document.  Once again, this is in everyone's package. 
OSHA provided this document to the Shipyard Group a while ago.

	We have submitted changes.  They have incorporated the changes.  They
sent it back to us for a second round of review.  We reviewed it, and
all changes we made.

	We have once again submitted this rigging document to the Longshoring
Group for review.  They did not recommend any changes, and they accepted
it as written.

	Once again I would like to submit this document. Do you want to have a
special name for it, Susan, now, or do you want to wait?

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  I would just call it the ship document entitled
Rigging.

	MR. RAFFO:  I would like to once again make a motion that the Committee
accept this document and endorse it, and pass it on to the Agency for
distribution.

	MR. THORNTON:  I have a motion on the floor.  Is there a second?

	MR. DAVIS:  Second.

	MR. THORNTON:  There is a second.

	Is there a discussion on the motion?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  No discussion.

	Does everyone know what they are voting on?

	MR. RAFFO:  Yes.

	MR. THORNTON:  All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

	[Chorus of ayes.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Opposed?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Motion carried.

	MR. RAFFO:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  I will enter as Exhibit 4 the ship's document
entitled Rigging.

	MR. RAFFO:  On to our next activity.  Our next topic is Commercial
Fishing.  This started off probably at the start of the charter.  We
were talking about ways to provide some safety information to the
workers in the commercial fishing industry.

	We have batted around many, many topics, many ideas, have had many
drafts, and we are currently working on and have drafted two drafts.  We
have gone through between a fact sheet, a quick card, and different
iterations but we seem to have settled yesterday, at least on the first
two, on developing fact sheets.

	The first one we talked about was on Confined Space Safety.  We believe
that that one is probably about 90, 95 percent done.  We incorporated
some comments from our workgroup session yesterday.

	We are going to incorporate and these final comments will all go back
out to the workgroup for final evaluation and comments.  Our goal is to
submit this to the Longshoring Group in time for a vote next meeting.

	So, right now it is still a work in progress, we are well along on the
progress of this.  I personally will work for and I am pretty confident
that we can get at least the Confined Space one onto the Longshoring
Group for review and voting on the next meeting.

	We have a couple conference calls scheduled, which I will get into
afterwards, but we are pretty far along on that, and we will incorporate
comments, you know, some fairly minor comments, send it out once again,
and vote on it.

	The second one, which we are working on and not quite as far along, but
we have got a fair amount of work done on it, is a fact sheet on Fall
Protection.  Once again, these are directed at the commercial fisheries
operations, and I believe we are going towards the captains or the
masters that are in charge of these vessels as our target audience.

	We have been closely with Alan and Jennifer on these two items.

	Any questions on that?

	MR. THORNTON:  Any questions by the Committee?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  While we are going through these, the public, if you do
have a question, raise your hand, so I can see it, and we will get you
recognized, so we can keep kind of discussion in some systematic way.

	MR. RAFFO:  Another item that we are working on is ArcFlash Safety. 
This was discussed when we first reached re-chartered, one of our items
to work on.

	Once again, we have sort of gone back and forth on the best way to do
it, and we have decided as one of the next Ship's documents coming up is
on electrical safety, so we are working on providing a document on
information on ArcFlash Safety.

	This is especially important, as you know, especially on the bigger
ships, as they come in, and they start to switch over to electric
systems.  Stewart Adams is heading up that, and working on that.  We
hope to include specific hazards and abatement recommendations, and
Stewart is actually fairly far along on that.

	Do you want to add anything to that, Stewart?

	MR. ADAMS:  Just one point.  We are not trying to write the Ship's
document on electrical safety.  We are just trying to provide
information to the agencies, so when they do the electrical safety
document, they will have some information on ArcFlash that can be
included to address that hazard.

	MR. RAFFO:  Any other questions?  We are well along on that.

	MR. THORNTON:  I have got one question from the public.  Would you come
forward, Deborah, and identify yourself, please.

	MS. GABRIEL:  I am Deborah Gabriel, Director of Science and Technology
and Emergency Management.  I am the contact person for the SHIPS
documents, and so I will be working closely with you.

	MR. THORNTON:  Excellent.  Thank you.

	MR. RAFFO:  Thank you, Deborah.

	So, that is another product that we are working on.  Once again, our
goal is to be included in the Ship's document that is upcoming as a
final product.

	The next item we are working on, and we are struggling a little bit
with this, but we have talked about scaffolding and cranes.  We have
been conducting review of 1915.71, and 1926.559(g).  We have talked back
and forth about that yesterday, and the general consensus was the
Committee requests that the Agency allow MACOSH to review this product,
provide input, to develop a standard that is unique to the industry and
reflects the differences between the marine and construction industries.

	As we have discussed before, and I think a couple members can expound
on this, is we believe the maritime industry should have some say in
this document. It was a negotiated rulemaking.  We want some input onto
the standard.

	We believe that maritime cranes are different than construction cranes.
 Usually, our views in fixed locations are well established locations,
are not moved around.  They are probably inspected more frequently than
some of the construction cranes, and we intend to sort of do almost a
side-by-side review of this.

	Any comments on that from the group?

	MR. ADAMS:  Just a little bit more.  We got the 1926.55(g), which is
the Crane Suspended Personnel Platform standard, by the review of
1915.71, the Staging and Scaffolding standard for the shipyard industry.

	We are still reviewing 1915.71.  We have had some more discussions on
it yesterday, but one of the things we identified at a previous meeting
and conference calls, is that 1915.71 really doesn't do much concerning
lifting personnel from cranes.

	So, the question to the group was where would you go look, and
1926.55(g) is the construction industry standard, and it is a very
complete, a very prescriptive standard on how you have to lift people
safely in the construction industry.

	The group is still discussing it, but the group, while it may work for
the construction industry, not all the aspects of it fit into the
shipyard industry, and that is the concern with some of the other
issues.  One was on cranes and derricks, that although the hazards are
the same or appear to be the same, the feasible approaches to control
the hazards are different between industries.

	We weren't really included in the negotiated rulemaking of the
construction industry standard on the table right now, and we are not
sure that those things that fit the standard are going to do it.

	MR. THORNTON:  Okay.

	MR. RAFFO:  Thank you.

	MR. THORNTON:  Any more comments from the group? Alton.

	MR. GLASS :  I would think that shipbuilders should have their own
standard, because it is kind of confusing to shipyards when you have the
building construction standard and how it applies to us in shipbuilding.

	Some of the other comments were that some of the smaller yards may have
problems and being confused with it also.  If they could have their own
standard on exactly what they need to do in shipbuilding, I think it
would better.

	MR. THORNTON:  I guess what I am hearing is with respect to the cranes
and derricks standard, there was negotiated rulemaking.  What I am
hearing is we feel like perhaps maritime was underrepresented on that. 
We would like sort of a bite at the apple here.  What I am hearing in
the Committee, the workgroup is taking that on.

	I am also hearing that conceptually, for maritime, we would like one
set of standards inside the gate if we can, rather than have multiple
standards to apply for employers to have to decide which one applies
where.

	So, I guess what I am hearing is the workgroup continues to study this,
but recommends to allow us to advise the Agency for a standard for the
industry?

	MR. RAFFO:  That is correct.  We are still getting our arms totally
around this.  Our goal is to have something out before this charter
ends, but in summary, that is correct, we are working on that.

	MR. DADDURA:  Just for clarification, for the record, the review you
did for 1926.550(g) was with the existing standard, not the new proposed
and final rule being worked on, correct?

	MR. ADAMS:  That is correct.

	MR. DADDURA:  Okay, just to clarify that, that you did not look at the
record or anything else on the new construction cranes and derricks
standard.

	That's all I wanted to say.

	MR. RAFFO:  We did not sneak into your office and go through your
files, yes.

	MR. THORNTON:  Any more comments from the Committee?  I don't see any
hands up from the public.

	MR. RAFFO:  Okay.

	MR. THORNTON:  We will move on.

	MR. RAFFO:  The next item on sort of the filler here for this, we had a
presentation yesterday from the member of BLS.  This was really
generated at the start of our charter once again to try to decide where
the injuries and fatalities were in the maritime industry to ensure we
were looking at the proper areas in our work.

	Jennifer, we are using her on this.  I don't know, do you want to add
two cents here?  We have sort of tasked her with developing a one-page
white paper on the BLS statistics and how can they be useful or not
useful to this committee.

	DR. LINCOLN:  I don't have anything.

	MR. RAFFO:  Jennifer is heading that out, and our product will be just
a one-page paper.  I am not sure if the presentation from today is going
to differ from yesterday.  There were some pros and cons.  We had
actually a very lively discussion with the speaker yesterday, and so I
have asked Jennifer just to come up with a paper on just an overview.

	MR. THORNTON:  I guess just to kind of summarize a little bit, it had I
guess the previous subgroup's discussions.  We, the group, wondered if
the BLS data could be used even more effectively I guess in terms of
hazard priorities and where to put energy on, and I guess, so we had a
BLS person present it, both workgroups, and I guess using it here to
give a capsulized version of what she did yesterday.

	I guess the output is sort of the workgroup's sense of whether that
provides value or not.  Is that right?

	MR. RAFFO:  That is correct, you hit it right on the head.  Thank you.

	Any more comments from the Committee on the BLS data?

	[No response.]

	MR. RAFFO:  I am assuming they gave a similar one to the other group. 
Keep going?  Okay.

	Another item we worked on yesterday afternoon were fact sheets.  The
Agency presented us two fact sheets, one on ventilation during hot work,
and one on eye protection against radiant energy for welding.

	The fact sheets were developed.  We had quite a bit of discussion on
both of them.  Ira presented it to us, and he got quite a bit of
comments back just during the workgroup session yesterday.  He is going
to take those comments, incorporate them into the fact sheets, send them
out again to us for review and comment, and hopefully, get them to the
Longshoring Group hopefully by the next meeting.

	So, that they will be an item that we would have a product available
for, and to do that, there were good fact sheets, sort of quick,
concise, and there were a lot of good comments I think offered by the
Committee.

	Questions or comments by the Committee on those?

	Hearing none, we will move on.

	Silica discussion.  We had a brief presentation on silica yesterday,
that was given to the workgroup.  As we heard this morning, a standard
is being developed, and the Agency requested that any operations of
concern to shipyards be provided to them.

	The general consensus from the group was that most of the shipyards
have shifted away from using this product.  There were some questions on
blasting silica used in non-skid, but for the most part, I don't think
we heard a lot of discussion on that.

	Once again, a lot of the items where you may see silica now in concrete
and things like that, not traditional shipyard activities.

	MR. THORNTON:  I just had an off-the-cuff question, and you don't have
to -- we are not taking pictures up here -- but I was just curious, how
many shipyards out there use silica as a blast material today versus
steel grid or cold slag or walnut shells?

	I am just -- you don't have to admit it, you can see me after class --
but does anybody use silica?  Okay, thank you.

	MR. RAFFO:  No.  That's the general consensus we got yesterday, that
there was not a lot of -- most of the shipyards have shifted away from
that product.

	MR. DADDURA:  You ought to clarify that, too, Don.  It is basically
open air blasting type.  We are still using cabinets or valves and
things of that nature. So, you have to address that.  I do know that the
small shipyards down South, especially one yard in Houston, still uses
sand.  So, we do need to hear from the small players on this.

	MR. THORNTON:  Mine was not meant to be a scientific poll.  It was just
idle curiosity.

	MR. RAFFO:  Right.  Once again, my consensus was just from the members
here yesterday, not representing every shipyard throughout the country.

	Any other questions on that?  Okay.  Combustible dust was another topic
we reviewed yesterday.  We had actually two presentations on that.

	The Agency gave a short presentation on the efforts to develop a
standard for this hazard.  Clearly, it appears to have a lot of
visibility on this, and they are moving forward with a standard, a
comment as we heard closed yesterday.

	Greg Grining [ph] came down from Bath Iron Works, provided a workgroup
with a fairly extensive presentation on the issues of combustible dust
in the shipyard, and some issues associated with the current testing
methods.

	My thought is could we have Greg's, without showing it, his
presentation entered into the record?

	MR. THORNTON:  Susan needs to weigh in on this.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  Well, the presentation was not -- I don't think this
was given to everybody, is that correct?

	MR. RAFFO:  It was given to the workgroup yesterday.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  The workgroup, but was it given to the Longshore?

	MR. RAFFO:  No, it was not.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  We don't have an obligation to put it in the record.

	MR. THORNTON:  Hold just one second.  Let's go off the record unless
you want this on the record.

	[Off the record.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Let me just be clear, I don't know if we went off the
record or not, but if we did, we should be back on now.

	We are on the record.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  I am going to enter as Exhibit 5 in the docket, the
PowerPoint entitled "Combustible Dust, An Old, New Hazard," given by
General Dynamics, Bath Iron Works.

	MR. RAFFO:  That is correct, and for anyone that has not looked at it,
I thought it was a very interesting presentation.  Greg did a nice job
with that, covering a lot of different issues.

	Clearly, this could have an impact on shipyards.  We don't know what
the standard is exactly going to look like, and they are gathering
information, and I think this document provides a fair amount of
information to the Agency on some issues with shipyard and also with the
testing methods associated with combustible dust.

	MR. THORNTON:  Good.

	MR. RAFFO:  Any questions, comments by the Committee?

	MR. THORNTON:  No hands up behind you.

	MR. RAFFO:  Okay, that's good.  Moving on quickly here.  That really
covers many of the -- not many -- all of the topics we discussed
yesterday, gives an overview of the products.  We have accepted a couple
of products today.  This is really a quick summary, which, as the
chairman, you always ask us for at the end of our presentation, so I
have included it in this PowerPoint.

	All these items on this one are top priority, are the ones that we are
working on now, and I expect to complete prior to the end of the
charter.  We are well along on some of them, some of them we have a ways
to go, we are working on all of them.

	MR. THORNTON:  I encourage you to do this, because, number one, I think
it makes sense to keep track of priorities and whether we can meet the
due dates and scheduled due dates.  Sometimes we have a tendency to bite
off more than we can chew, while at the same time, we need to be able to
generate good products, too.

	So, I appreciate you and Marc sort of keeping tabs on this.  The other
thing we ought to do also, and maybe we can talk about this a little bit
more off line, but to make sure that we are communicating the activities
and the things that we are doing to the Agency.

	Sometimes I think we do things and maybe we lost track of them or
something, so perhaps this document would help us do that.

	MR. RAFFO:  Right, and Amy has helped me tremendously keeping track of
this and actually work this up.  She is aware of it, and she has
actually done a great job keeping me on track and organized, so I do
appreciate that.

	This is her effort and knowing that you asked for this, and once again,
it is just a quick summary of our currently completed document or
completed products.  Some of those were put in today and are done, and
we hope to add several others to that as we move forward in the next
couple of meetings.

	MR. THORNTON:  Now, this will be posted to the web site when you get
this done?

	MR. RAFFO:  As soon as it's working, we can put it up there.

	MR. THORNTON:  Okay.  Good.

	MR. RAFFO:  I can put this up there, or I can put up the whole
document, this whole PowerPoint, either one, whatever works.

	The last slide that I have is topics we will probably not get to, but
during our initial charter, we discussed them as topics we could work
on.  I don't anticipate us getting to any of these.  They are good
topics, and I think that speaks to your comment about topics to carry
over for future MACOSH.

	They can come back and look at these and say these are worthwhile,
these are not worthwhile, but it may not be starting from scratch, and
they will be available to everyone.

	Once again, this can be posted also, and will probably be of more use
to future committees than the existing committees, because I do not
anticipate us working on any of these right now, but once again, we had
the list of what we are doing, what we have done in items that are on
our plate.

	Any questions?

	MR. THORNTON:  Questions of the Committee or the public?

	[No response.]

	MR. RAFFO:  Thank you.  That does conclude my presentation for the
Shipyard Workgroup.  Once again, thanks to everyone on the Committee for
working hard.  We do have a couple, which is our last one -- I forgot I
had this slide -- a couple conference calls we have already scheduled. 
We found out that it appears to work a little better when we can
schedule them here, so everybody is aware of them.

	We have them scheduled already, and we actually have sort of a sense of
tentative priorities for these conference calls, things we can work on.

	Thank you.

	MR. THORNTON:  Stew, then Susan.

	MR. ADAMS:  Just for anybody, that is March 24th.

	MR. THORNTON:  Eagle eye.

	Susan.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  I was just going to enter into the record as Exhibit
6, the PowerPoint presentation entitled, "MACOSH Shipyard Workgroup
Summary," dated January 20, 2010.

	MR. RAFFO:  Can I make that correction to 24 from 34?

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  Yes.

	MR. JOHNSON:  We will all be there on that date.

	MR. RAFFO:  Okay.  Thank you.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you, Don.

	Thirty minutes ago I had no speakers, now I have plenty of speakers.  I
know Janice is here, Windau, and I hope I am pronouncing that correctly,
from BLS.  I saw Patrick in the back with the Director of Enforcement
Standards, and then Lee Anne Jillings, I saw her, but I think she may
have left, so we are running, as it were, because of our adjustments,
slight behind, but we will catch up.

	Let's take these in order, though.  Janice, if you could just set up,
up here.  I guess we are setting you up, up here.

	Are you ready?

	MS. WINDAU:  Yes.

	MR. THORNTON:  Let's kind of resume order here.  Janice Windau is with
the BLS, and she is going to give us sort of an injury and fatality data
initiative update. With that, the floor is yours, and take it away.

	MS. WINDAU:  First, I am going to go over just a little bit how we
collect our data.  The BLS census of fatal occupational injuries is
where we get our fatality data.  It covers all work-related injury
fatalities that occur in the U.S., and we do include the 200-mile
offshore economic zone for these.

	It includes the self-employed, public as well as private sector, all
industries, and we do include volunteer workers.

	The preliminary data come out in August after the reference year, and
then we have a one-time update, the final data release in April of the
next year.

	The fatality data are collected by the States, that use multiple data
sources - death certificates, workers' compensation reports, medical
examiner reports, news media reports, and we also get investigation
reports from OSHA, the Coast Guard, NTSB, Federal Railroad
Administration, and MSHA.

	Our non-fatal data comes from the Survey of Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses.  It is a sample survey of employers.  Up until this year, it
was limited to private sector, State and local government in, I think it
was about 25 or 30 States, but beginning with 2008 data, we are
collecting State and local government nationwide.

	MR. THORNTON:  Before you go on, do you want to take questions as you
go, or how do you prefer us to do it?

	MS. WINDAU:  That's fine.

	MR. THORNTON:  Is that okay?

	MS. WINDAU:  Yes.

	MR. THORNTON:  If any of the Committee has a question, just raise your
hand, so I can see you, and your back is to the public.  I promise I
won't let them get you, but if you have questions from the public, if
you will just raise your hand, so I can make note of that.

	I have a question in the back.  Yes, ma'am.  I don't know if we have
got the wireless mike, but we need some way to get you identified,
please.

	MR. DAVIS:  I will walk the mike around for you.

	MS. PARKS:  Polly Parks, Southern Recycling.

	You said that you are now going to be including State and local
government workers.  Why aren't Federal workers included in this?

	MS. WINDAU:  We are working on getting data from the Federal
Government.

	MS. PARKS:  Would that include, I mean does the exclusion include
workers at the Navy Shipyards at this point?

	MS. WINDAU:  It would include civilian workers, but when it got to
military workers, I don't believe.

	MR. THORNTON:  Okay.

	MS. WINDAU:  The survey is mandatory except for some State and local
governments.  The State and local government, whether it is mandatory or
not, is covered under the State law, and also whether they are a State
plan state.

	MR. THORNTON:  Let me ask a follow-up.  So, if it's a State plan, they
are about half and half the last time I counted, but State plan states
--

	MS. WINDAU:  They are required to submit --

	MR. THORNTON:  State plan states are, but non-State plan states are
not?

	MS. WINDAU:  It depends on the State laws.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MS. WINDAU:  The data exclude the self-employed, workers on small
farms, and as of this point, Federal workers.

	Data are based on OSHA recordkeeping laws.  Again, the date are
collected by the State agencies.  We do have State-specific data
available for 46 States and territories, and are case demographic
characteristics, which describe the incident, and gives demographic
characteristics of the workers, such as age, race, sex, like the service
and the occupation at the time.

	They are available for cases with days away from work.

	We are currently using the North American Industry Classification
System, the 2002 edition, beginning with data for 2003 and the Standard
Occupational Classification System for occupation, the 2000 version,
that again beginning with 2003 data, and we are just now beginning to
use the 2007 NAICS.

	MR. THORNTON:  So, are SIC codes, they are gone as we know it?

	MS. WINDAU:  According to our data, right.  I believe OSHA still uses
that.

	MR. THORNTON:  But BLS uses exclusively the NAICS code with these
exceptions, is that right?

	MS. WINDAU:  Right.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MS. WINDAU:  The case characteristic data are according to our
BLS-developed Occupational Injury and Illness Classification System.

	That covers nature of injury, that describes the type of injury it was,
whether it was a sprain or strain, fracture, burn, the part of the body
that was affected, whether it was the arm or body system, the head, the
event or exposure that describes what type of incident it was, whether
it was a transportation incident on the highway, explosion, and assault,
the source of injury, primary and secondary, and that includes what
injured the worker directly, and the secondary source is what other type
of equipment was involved.

	The OIICS System is currently being revised.  We hope to get a draft
out later this spring.

	MR. THORNTON:  Is it fair to say at the end of the day, all of the data
that you extract of the primary source is the 300 law?

	MS. WINDAU:  For the non-fatal data, yes.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MS. WINDAU:  If you are running across looking at our case
characteristics data, if you have any suggestions for additional
breakouts, type of incidents or type of equipment that you would like
data on, if you could get that to us fairly soon, maybe we can
incorporate that in the draft.

	Now, I will talk a little bit about the data.  This chart shows fatal
work injuries for ship building and repair from 2003 to 2008.  There
were 42 fatal work injuries during those years, and that just gives the
breakout of individual years, and again, the 2008 data are preliminary.

	This chart shows the manner in which the ship building and repairing
fatalities occurred - 21 percent were incurred in transportation
incidents, falls from ships accounted for 19 percent of the cases.

	I should mention that the chart is color coded, for example, all of the
blue wedges, the light blue wedges are transportation incidents, the
salmon colored are contact with objects and equipment, the falls are the
yellow, and so forth.

	Contacts with objects and equipment accounted for a third of the
fatalities during those years in shipbuilding, struck by fallen objects,
caught in or between 12 and 14 percent, falls to lower level accounted
for 14 percent, electrocutions and drownings each accounted for 7
percent of the cases, and the Other includes assaults and violent acts
and possibly fire and explosions.

	MR. THORNTON:  Just not putting you to the test, hopefully, I am not
trying to test you, but if someone fell from a vessel and fell into the
water and drowned, which category would that fall into?

	MS. WINDAU:  I should have mentioned that.  If the ship was on the
water, it's a fall from ship.  If the drowning includes maybe falls from
piers, or if they were diving, but transportation incidents is one of
the categories where the coders take precedence over.

	MR. THORNTON:  So, basically, if it's a fall from a vessel into the
water, that is considered a transportation incident.

	MS. WINDAU:  If the vessel is on the water.  If it's drydock, then,
it's considered a fall.

	MR. THORNTON:  I understand.  Got it.

	MS. WINDAU:  This table shows the non-fatal cases with days away from
work for shipbuilding and repair.  There were about 3,000 cases during
2008 with the median days away from work of 15.  The median days means
that half the cases were below that and half above that.

	Contact with objects and equipment accounted for 990 cases with the
median days, and something happened in the transfer.  The struck by and
struck against should have been indented to show that those were
subcategories under contact.

	Overexertion accounted for 720 cases with 14 median days away from
work, and again lifting should have been indented there.  If you look at
the median days away from work, that was 62 median days.

	Falls accounted for about 16 percent and about half of these were on
the same level and half were to the lower level.

	Bodily reaction accounted for 450 cases with a median of 21 days away
from work.

	MR. THORNTON:  What is that?  What is an example?

	MS. WINDAU:  Bending, crawling, and reaching, and the slip, trip
without fall.  Again, those should have been indented.  Those are
examples of those.  Basically, it's maybe, usually considered a
musculoskeletal type of disorder, but it didn't include an object or
equipment.

	MR. THORNTON:  All right.

	MR. FLYNN:  Is that like if you got in an awkward position?

	MS. WINDAU:  Right.  Repetitive motion types of cases accounted for 170
cases and 94 median days away from work.

	DR. LINCOLN:  Just a clarification.  Are the repetitive motion injuries
part of the bodily reaction category?

	MS. WINDAU:  No, they are separate.  I am pretty sure I have these, and
then for some reason when I e-mailed it -- did you have a question?

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  Yes, I have a question about the bodily reaction
category, the two underneath, those numbers, they don't add up to 450.

	MS. WINDAU:  I didn't show the residual categories, I just showed the
flag wasn't long enough for it to show everything, so I showed the major
categories.

	DR. LINCOLN:  Since this is extra, an additional slide than what you
showed yesterday, do we have this hardcopy?

	MS. WINDAU:  I don't know that we have got it, but we are going to get
it, and I will put it in.  We will put it in the record.

	DR. LINCOLN:  When we do that, this slide should be fixed, so that the
subcategories are indented, because it is quite confusing when you are
trying to figure out what order are these in.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  So, it's only those two categories under bodily
reactions?

	DR. LINCOLN:  No, it's every one of them.

	MS. WINDAU:  I can give you --

	MR. THORNTON:  Wait.  We have got too many discussions.  Let's do one
at a time, please.

	Janice.

	MS. WINDAU:  Yes, I can give you a correction.

	DR. LINCOLN:  Okay.

	MR. THORNTON:  What does that do for the record, though, how are we
going to -- I am fast forwarding -- when she gets done, how are we going
to deal with this?

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  I am going to enter the document that she is going to
send us or give us into the record.  So we will make sure before it goes
into the docket, that this page has been corrected.

	MR. THORNTON:  All right.  Thank you.

	MS. WINDAU:  Now, I have a couple of slides on fatal work injuries and
cases with days away from work, and marine cargo handling industry for
2003 to 2008.

	The total for these years was 69, and that just shows the breakout
throughout those years.

	This chart shows the types of incidents that resulted in fatalities in
the marine cargo handling industry, almost half for transportation
incidents, a quarter resulted from a worker being struck by a vehicle or
a piece of mobile equipment, such as a forklift.

	Falls on or from ship accounted for 12 percent, and we have a category
called non-highway incidents.  These could be fork lift turnovers or
some other type of vehicle incident.  That was in a parking lot area or
in a warehouse or some other type of place other than a public roadway.

	Contact with objects and equipment accounted for 38 percent, and 19
percent were struck by falling objects.

	Harmful substances and environments, which includes contact with heat,
electrocutions, chemical exposures, those accounted for 7 percent, and
then other types of incidents accounted for another 7 percent.

	MR. FLYNN:  Excuse me.  Are the truck accidents on the highway, are
they included, or at all?

	MS. WINDAU:  They are included in that Other transportation category
that ended up being 2 percent.

	MR. FLYNN:  That's non-highway -- oh, I see, at the very bottom.

	MS. WINDAU:  Yes.  There is supposed to be an arrow.

	MR. FLYNN:  So, that would be any truck hauling cargo anywhere from --

	MS. WINDAU:  In the marine cargo handling.

	MR. FLYNN:  Off the dock.

	MS. WINDAU:  On a couple, if they were on the dock or in the parking
lot, they would be considered a non-highway.

	MR. FLYNN:  Thank you.

	MS. WINDAU:  Here are a list of some of the sources involved in marine
cargo handling fatalities.  I don't think any of these are a surprise to
you all - trucks, plant and industrial vehicles, such as forklifts and
cranes, water vehicles.  Excuse me, cranes is under machinery, motors
and cranes.  Parts and materials.  That includes building materials, it
could include a part of a machine that is broken off, and chemicals and
containers were the source of injuries and fatalities.

	This chart shows you cases with days away from work for 2008 for that
industry.  Again, I need to provide you with a corrected copy of this. 
There were 1,760 cases with a median days away from work of 56.

	Contact with objects and equipment accounted for 30 percent of the
cases with the median days away from work of 42.  Struck by and struck
against, and caught in or between should be indented under contacts.

	Falls accounted for 300 cases with 66 median days away from work, and
again on the same level, and to the lower level should be indented
there.

	Bodily reaction cases accounted for 280 and various transportation
incidents accounted for 260 of the cases, and overexertion, that
includes lifting, pushing, and pulling objects, and holding or carrying
objects, those accounted for 230 cases.

	Here, I just wanted to show you what is on our web site and describe
some of the tables, along with our news releases, we really supplement
our tables.  These are tables of either industries or types of events
with either high rates or high case counts.

	We have special tables for repetitive motion, musculoskeletal
disorders, assaults.  We also have charts which compare different years
and different characteristics.  We have detailed tables of industry,
occupation, and these are cross-tabulated with the other case
characteristics, such as event and exposure or demographic
characteristics of the worker, the age.

	There is links to the State data and we have contracts if you want
more detailed data from the State, and we also have a respondent page
where people who have received a request to reply to the survey can get
information.

	We have what is called the Profile System.  The handout that I had
passed around includes some examples. The first sheet is a summary
profile of our summary case data.  Yesterday, in one of the work groups
there was a question about hearing loss.

	There is a category for hearing loss with data. The next page shows
cases with days away from work, the number of cases in shipbuilding and
repair for individual years along with various characteristics.

	The next table shows incidence rate for these years and for some of the
characteristics, and the last table is fatal work injuries by various
characteristics.

	On our web page, we also have a rate calculator where employers can
enter in their number of cases and hours worked, that their employees
worked, and that will calculate incidence rates for that company, which
can be compared to the industry incidence rate.

	We also from time to time have special tables with a little bit of
narrative and charts, topics of current interest, such as when there
were a number of crane fatalities, last year we put up a special page,
and mining disasters.

	We also have links to various documentation about our data.  We have
links through our code structures, and we also have a link to the staff
in case people want to request additional data or have questions.

	I just added this slide last night, and here are some maybe hints when
you are requesting data to make the data more useful.  You might want to
look at the detailed and resource tables to see how many summary cases
you have in order to target your research for which industry level you
want the data, and you can also look at the code structures to identify
what categories are available that you could request.

	You can again ask whether a summary level will do, for example, you
can, if you request ship and boat building as opposed to just
shipbuilding and repair, you will get some additional breakouts that you
won't necessarily get.

	One of the hints that we have seen is don't ask for too much in one
table.  If you ask for occupation, events, source, nature, and part in
the same table, it will be difficult to read.  So, you might want to ask
for events with cross tabulated by source for an occupation or a nature
in part.

	Here is my contact information.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you, Janice.  Questions?  I know we have taken
questions along here.  Questions by the Committee of Janice?  Marc.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Janice, I don't think you have a slide on the standard
occupations, but could you give us an idea of what is included in the
SOC as far as how granular the data is parsed?  Is the marine cargo
handling, is that the lowest SOC for our industry, or are there other
categories beneath that?

	MS. WINDAU:  Are you talking about industry or occupation?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Occupation.

	MS. WINDAU:  For occupation, I think there was a stevedore's category
in the old coding system, whereas, now, they are considered laborers,
and you would have to ask for a table for your industry, and then
occupations under there to be able to figure out for that occupation.

	There is a category, I think it's longshore equipment operators.

	MR. MacDONALD:  So, there are at least two, if not more, categories
under marine cargo handling for occupations in the SOC?

	MS. WINDAU:  I am not sure whether those -- they are not grouped
together like the laborers, they are lumped in with other types of
laborers, so you would have to request your industry, and then if you
ask for a DCAT occupation within your industry, you could see what is
available.  Then, if you wanted to go to a more detailed level, you
could request a second table, maybe by event.

	MR. THORNTON:  I have one question here from the public.  Deborah, you
need to say who you are.

	MS. GABRIEL:  Deborah Gabriel, Director, Science Technology and
Emergency Management.

	I just want a clarification of the hearing loss data for the maritime
industry.  This hasn't been updated since 2002, because it says here
this does not reflect the changes OSHA made with a separate column in
2002, the recordkeeping data, so is that correct that for this industry,
this has not been updated since 2002?

	MS. WINDAU:  No, that refers to the Federal Railroad and expiration
data, and mining data.

	MR. THORNTON:  Well --

	MS. WINDAU:  These are based on the 2002 recordkeeping changes, and
then also had 2004 hearing loss when the hearing loss was re-added to
that form.

	MS. GABRIEL:  So, clarify it.

	MR. THORNTON:  Time out one second.  Now, are you all referring to the
handout?

	MR. DAVIS:  The first page of the handout.

	MR. THORNTON:  Good.  So, we know what that is.

	MS. GABRIEL:  The first page in the handout says hearing loss data 22.1
cases, and it says there these data do not reflect the changes OSHA made
to its recordkeeping requirements effective January 2002.  Therefore,
estimates for these industries are not comparable to the other
industries.

	MS. WINDAU:  Okay.  That refers to data for mining and also railroads. 
Are you looking at Footnote 3?

	MS. GABRIEL:  Yes.

	MS. WINDAU:  That just refers to mining data, and then Footnote 4
refers to railroad data.

	MS. GABRIEL:  So, this is accurate for the maritime industry.

	MS. WINDAU:  Right.

	MR. THORNTON:  Okay.  Other questions by the Committee?  Jennifer.

	DR. LINCOLN:  Since both the non-fatal and fatal injury data contain
such a large proportion of contact injuries, can you provide the primary
and secondary sources for those?

	MS. WINDAU:  We should be able to.

	MR. THORNTON:  I think that was a yes, right?

	MS. WINDAU:  Pardon?

	MR. THORNTON:  That was a yes or it should be?

	MS. WINDAU:  Yes.

	MR. THORNTON:  Good.

	Questions of Committee or public now, more questions from the public?

	MS. WINDAU:  You wanted that both for shipbuilding separately and
marine cargo.

	MR. THORNTON:  We have one question right here.

	MR. BLUST:  Steve Blust [ph] with the IOCL.  You had a category of
containers listed for injuries.

	MS. WINDAU:  Right.

	MR. BLUST:  Because a container is an object that something is done to?
 I am curious what type of injuries the container creates.

	MS. WINDAU:  There were some struck against cases.  There was some
overexertion lifting.  I can run a table for that also if that would be
helpful.

	MR. BLUST:  Do you have a similar category for break-ball cargo?

	MS. WINDAU:  I am sorry, what did you say?

	MR. BLUST:  It may be of interest.  The general cargo or break-ball
cargo, because again, it's an object that is being handled.

	MS. WINDAU:  We don't have a specific code for that, no.

	MR. BLUST:  Thanks.

	MR. THORNTON:  Any more questions of Janice?

	MS. WINDAU:  I actually have one question of you all.

	MR. THORNTON:  That's not right.  It doesn't work that way.

	[Laughter.]

	MR. THORNTON:  But it's okay, you may ask it.

	MS. WINDAU:  Okay, I am sorry.

	MR. THORNTON:  I am just kidding.

	MS. WINDAU:  Okay.  In one of the other breakouts, there was a
discussion of whether a fall on and from ships in the water should be
considered a transportation incident or not, and that has come up in our
discussion in our revision of the OIICS codes, so if you all have any --

	MR. THORNTON:  Does the Committee have an opinion?  Would anyone like
to weigh in from the Committee on this to answer Janice's question,
which is a fall from a vessel, how it should be categorized, I guess?

	MS. WINDAU:  Whether a fall, whether it should be categorized as a
fall.

	MR. THORNTON:  Whether it should be a fall or a drowning if it's in the
water?

	DR. LINCOLN:  Or transportation?

	MS. WINDAU:  Transportation, if it's in the water.

	MR. THORNTON:  I am sorry, transportation, a fall from a vessel should
be classified as a transportation accident.

	MS. WINDAU:  The discussion came up in the shipbuilding faction, and I
can see where if somebody is repairing a ship on the water, where they
probably don't want it considered transportation, but if there is a fall
on the ship in commercial fishing, I would think you might want to
consider that to be transportation.

	MR. THORNTON:  Tim is first, Alan second.

	MR. PODUE:  We have had individuals fall off a vessel while they are
working the vessel in the longshoring industry, and not quite drowned or
got on a couple different occasions has passed in 2008.

	So, I don't know what would be the best. I think I would want to see it
reflected in marine cargo handling somewhere.  I mean you have got to
keep it specific to the jobs that they were doing.  It's my guess.

	MS. WINDAU:  Were they dry-docked or in the water?

	MR. PODUE:  No, no.

	MS. WINDAU:  If it is falls from ships that are dry-docked, it is
considered a fall.

	MR. PODUE:  An actual working vessel.

	MR. THORNTON:  Jennifer was next, and then Ken, then Marc.

	DR. LINCOLN:  In regard to whether or not it should be a transportation
versus a fall, the way that I think about these things is where is the
intervention, and the intervention isn't in a transportation, it is
coded as a transportation injury because it occurred on a vehicle, but
the intervention is fall prevention, so if they fell from the vehicle it
should be a fall.

	So, whenever we look at -- this comes up a lot when we use OIICS coding
for our commercial fishing database -- a lot of people fall off of
commercial fishing boats and drown.  We categorize all of them as a fall
because that is where the intervention is going to be, not on
transportation.

	MS. WINDAU:  Even though we have a specific code for fall from ship?

	DR. LINCOLN:  Even though.

	MS. WINDAU:  Within transportation?

	DR. LINCOLN:  Even though.  When I take your data and present it, I
will actually include those together, because it just makes more sense
for my audience.  If we are going to be talking about where can we
intervene, it makes more sense to put all the falls together, and then I
can clarify whether or not they were fall from the pier, a fall from the
vessel, a fall from scaffolding, fall into the fish hold.  All of those
require different interventions, but all the falls would be grouped
together, and not separated like that, because that is confusing to my
audience.

	MS. WINDAU:  I should mention we have other transportation sectors that
we have to consider, though.

	DR. LINCOLN:  Oh, absolutely.

	MS. WINDAU:  Garbage collectors falling from the garbage truck when it
is moving, when you are starting up.

	DR. LINCOLN:  Right.

	MS. WINDAU:  Falls from airplanes.

	DR. LINCOLN:  I understand the reason BLS does it, but I also think
that whenever we are dealing with the maritime industry sector, and
there are so many falls from a ship, that they belong together, all the
falls belong together.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Ken.

	MR. [Ken] SMITH:  I just wanted to ask a question on whether or not the
Bureau identifies whether the ship was underway or whether it's in port,
whether the action occurred during movement or when the ship was
actually at port.

	MS. WINDAU:  I am not sure we would have that detail for fatalities. 
We probably would, I am not sure about the non-fatal data.

	MR. [Ken] SMITH:  Because I think that has a bearing, too, whether or
not the ship is actually rocking in a sea way underway, as to whether or
not it is tied up at work.

	I think it might be a good idea to consider adding that type of
criteria.

	MR. THORNTON:  Marc, and then Stew.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Yes, Marc MacDonald.  Janice, I agree with both Ken and
Jennifer here.  When you have marine cargo handling, it's on a ship, and
the ship by your definition I am sure is in transportation, but it is
tied up against the dock, so really, the lesson learned, the actual
analysis is on the fall itself and why the fall occurred rather than the
fact that it was either from the ship.  I mean the fall from the ship's
main deck into the cargo hold can be just as deadly as falling from the
ship's deck to the water.

	MR. THORNTON:  Stew.

	MR. ADAMS:  Just kind of reiterating all the above.  If the vehicle --
because it's categorized as transportation -- is moving, operating
maybe.  You know, the garbage truck, a gentleman that falls off a
garbage truck while it's moving is a different issue than falling off
the garbage truck while it's still.

	Falling off of a ship into a dry dock might be the identical situation
as falling off a ship into the water tied up to the pier right next to
the dry dock, but are way different things at sea and falling off.

	The controls and hazards, and the methods of dealing with it are
different.

	MR. THORNTON:  Did that help you?

	MS. WINDAU:  I think so.

	MR. THORNTON:  I have a hand in the back here.  Wait until you have the
microphone.

	MR. BUTLER:  Steve Butler with OSHA.

	Listening to this, two things come to mind.  One is there might be a
difference between whether the person that falls is a member of the crew
of the ship, or somebody who is just there working the ship while it's
in port.

	The ship personnel are primarily engaged in obviously transportation,
whereas, the longshoreman or the shipyard guys are doing something
entirely different.

	The other point, I heard a mention that there was a difference as to
how you treat dry dock versus sitting alongside the pier.  You need to
be aware that the dry dock is also considered a U.S. navigable waters,
so should be treated no different as if it is sitting next to the pier.

	That is all I have to say.

	MS. WINDAU:  Thank you.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.  Ira.

	MR. WAINLESS:  Ira Wainless with OSHA.

	My question, Janice, is when you spoke of containers and the nature of
injuries that result when handling containers, what type of containers
were you speaking of, because you said that there were stress injuries.

	MS. WINDAU:  Those are all kinds of containers.  They can be a small
box, it can be a hose.  It can be a --

	MR. WAINLESS:  A hose?  What do you mean by a hose?  I hose is not a
container.

	MS. WINDAU:  In our coding structure, it is considered pressurized, a
pressurized hose.

	MR. WAINLESS:  Oh.

	MS. WINDAU:  I am talking off the top of my head for all industries.  I
didn't run the data for just --

	MR. WAINLESS:  Because I think most of us, when we think of containers,
are thinking of shipping containers, which have very large measurements
like 10 by 10 by 40, I guess would be a standardized container.

	MS. WINDAU:  Those would be included in those there, too, all types and
sizes.

	MR. WAINLESS:  But you see, if you include something like that in your
definition, you are not going to get a stress-related injury, because
those types of containers are handled by cranes or heavy material
handling equipment, you know.  That is what has me confused.

	MS. WINDAU:  Yes, again, we don't differentiate the size of the
container to be coded as a container, it could be a small crate, or it
could be a big container.

	MR. WAINLESS:  I see.

	MR. THORNTON:  Other questions of Janice?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Hearing none, I want to thank you.  What it sounds like
to me, sort of to capsulize, it sounds like BLS would be open to some
suggestions for fine-tuning the data reporting, because I think a lot of
people tend to use the BLS data including OSHA and ourselves and other
agencies for purposes of identifying the need to intervene or to
implement control measures.

	So, to the extent that we can provide even more granularity, so that
the data is even more useful to us, it sounds like the BLS is open to
our suggestions.

	MS. WINDAU:  Right.  Again, we are well on our way for our revisions,
so as soon as you can get any comments that you have to us, that would
be helpful.

	MR. THORNTON:  And would you be the right person?

	MS. WINDAU:  Yes.

	MR. THORNTON:  Very good.  Thank you very much, I appreciate it.  If
there are no more questions, we have got -- is Lee Anne in the house?  I
don't see her back there.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  Before we do that, I wanted to enter her two
documents in the record, and we are going to get a corrected version of
the PowerPoint presentation.

	That will be entered as Exhibit 7, and it is entitled "BLS Data for
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses." It is a PowerPoint presentation by
Janice Windau.

	Exhibit 8 will be the multi-page chart that is entitled "Number and
Rate of Non-Fatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Selected
Industries, All U.S.,  Private Industry 2008."

	MR. THORNTON:  Very good.  Thank you very much, Janice, appreciate
that.

	Now, we are going to move on to Patrick Kapust, who is going to give us
sort of the Enforcement Program's Update.

	Patrick, it's all yours.

	MR. KAPUST:  Good morning, everyone.  I am Patrick Kapust.  I am the
Deputy Director in OSHA's Directorate of Enforcement programs.  I am
happy to be here to give you an update on some enforcement programs we
have going on.

	The items I would like to cover this morning are a brief overview of
OSHA's inspection targeting system, some enforcement directives that we
have in the works and some we have recently issued, as well as the
maritime projects, and, of course, OSHA's inspection statistics to
include maritime in general industry.

	Let's start with inspection targeting.  You may be familiar with the
Enhanced Enforcement Program.  It is going to be replaced by the Serious
Violator Enforcement Program, the SVEP.

	This program is going to focus our resources on employers who have
demonstrated indifference to their obligation under the OSHA Act by
committing willful repeat or failure to abate violations in the most
severe occupational hazards.

	If an employer meets the SVEP criteria, they will be subject to
follow-up inspections and additional actions that OSHA can take against
them for falling into that program.

	This is going to be finalized very soon, so probably within the next
month or so we will be expecting this program to come out.

	MR. THORNTON:  May I ask, once those criteria are established, the
Agency will publish those?

	MR. KAPUST:  That will be in the form of a directive, and as I say, it
is in its final stages of concurrence here.

	SST 09 became effective in July of last year based on 2007 injury and
illness data where 80,000 establishments were surveyed, and it targets
establishments with high days away from work, and, of course, we have
national emphasis programs and local emphasis programs.

	Some current NEPs that we have, lead, the Lead NEP has been active
since 2001.  It was updated in the summer of 2008.  We are using better
targeting using blood leads reported by local health departments, and it
targets industries, such as painting, battery manufacturing, and scrap
metal.

	The Silica NEP has been active since 1996, and was updated in early
2008, and it targets industries, such as stonework, masonry, concrete,
and iron foundries, process safety management, oil refineries.  This
updated the Refinery NEP, which became effective in August of 2009,

	Basically, it just allowed us to continue our oil refinery inspections,
so that Region 8 can complete their inspections actually by the end of
209, and Region 6, because they had so many, they can complete theirs by
2011.

	Process Safety Management in Chemical Plants, this NEP became effective
in July of last year.  It is running as a one-year pilot.  It targets
PSM-covered chemical facilities, not refineries.  The programs
inspections, because this is a pilot, is going to take place in Regions
1, 7, and 10, however, unprogrammed inspections can take place in any of
our regions.

	Basically, the inspection strategy is for our CSHOs to go out with a
list of questions, 10 to 15 questions, that are not published publicly. 
They are dynamic questions, so they will be changing, and they will ask
these questions if the CSHO believes that they need to expand the
inspection, they will go ahead and do so, or if they believe that there
is deficiencies outside of those questions, they can go ahead and expand
that way.

	At the end of the pilot we are going to be doing an evaluation, and we
will review all the data to consider whether we want to expand it and
increase the length of that particular NEP.

	FedTarg, this is Federal targeting for Federal agencies, so we are not
leaving out our Federal partners. It began in 2008 based on a Government
Accounting Office study to target Federal workplaces.

	It follows the same structure as CSST to the extent possible.  The
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Traffic Control Tower
Monitoring, that is AIRTRAF, that examine FAA's alternate standard of
safe means of egress for airport traffic control power personnel in case
of fires or emergency.

	We do about 30 inspections each year of air traffic control towers, and
they fall into this category for those that have requested a variance
from our standard.

	Amputations.  Amputations targets 40 manufacturing SI Standard
Industrial classifications with high amputation rates and high
amputation numbers, and high number of OSHA violations related to
amputations, such as machine guarding, lockout/tagout, et cetera.

	It has been effective for three years, and we are currently in the
process of finalizing our evaluation of this directive or this emphasis
program, and that should be coming out soon, so we are looking at how
effective it was to reduce the amputations out there.

	Shipbreaking.  We continue to do about 40 inspections a year.  It
includes Navy and private companies, and we are doing a five-year review
of this NEP, which is on Steve's plate to finish in the spring.

	Flavoring chemicals.  I will discuss that in the next slide, but
combustible dusts, this targets 64 industries with high incidence of
dust explosion or dust incidents, which could cause explosions.

	Since October 2007, we have done over 1,000 Federal and State
inspections with over 5,000 violations related to this NEP.  We have
issued a STATs report on this particular emphasis program, which you can
get off our web site.

	Some NEPs under development:  primary metals, we will target metal
industries, iron and steel and SIC, 3,300.  We are looking at exposures
to noise, silica, lead, those kinds of things.

	Isocyanates.  This was our occupational asthma project, but we have
decided to focus on isocyanates basically to go along with the Green
Jobs initiative.  We have a lot of spray, polyurethane foam in Green
Jobs, so we are looking at these applications in building and
construction to see how we can target workers who may have those
exposures.

	Hexachrome.  It targets industries with past overexposures to
hexachrome including welding, blasting, does include shipbuilding and
repair, paint manufacturing will be included in that.

	That one actually is pretty close to getting out.  It's what we call on
our second floor right now, so we are expecting that one fairly soon.

	MR. THORNTON:  As you turn the slide, just a question.  Maybe you said
this earlier, but could you just describe very briefly, though, the
National Emphasis program, you know, what is it about, how are things
added, how is victory declared, and it comes off the Emphasis program,
just a thumbnail sketch.

	MR. KAPUST:  A National Emphasis program is an Emphasis program where
OSHA is targeting a certain -- it could be a certain industry, it could
be a certain hazard, it could be a -- a certain industry or hazard are
the main ones, where it's OSHA-wide nationally.  It's the Federal
States, or the regions that are controlled by -- that have Federal
States in them.  They have to adopt it.

	It is for State plans.  They are highly encouraged to adopt our
National Emphasis programs, but it us ultimately up to them.

	Basically, what we do is we want to get to -- clearly, because we have
so few resources -- we want to get to those places where we are finding
high hazards, and so, we want to do this on a broad level, and that is
why we issued National Emphasis programs.

	National Emphasis programs can continue, some of them are indefinitely
until they are changed over place, so there is no particular time frame
generally attached, but for the most part, we do an evaluation.  We try
to do an evaluation of each National Emphasis program by every three to
five years.

	Some of them do have shorter terms.  As I mentioned, the chemical PSM
National Emphasis program, that is a pilot, and it will go for a year,
so at the end of the year, we are going to reevaluate, and it will
either continue or be changed in some way, or potentially it could be
stopped, but doubtful.  That's it in a nutshell.

	For some current, recent and developing enforcement projects, H1N1,
that was recently issued.  It was issued in November, and the H1N1
directive closely follows CDC's guidelines on infection control of H1N1
in high to very high hazard health care settings, for example, those who
deal with patients with H1N1 would be considered a very high hazard.

	The Flavoring Chemicals NEP, that was just signed in October, flavoring
chemicals containing diacetyl, its aim to reduce exposures to flavoring
chemicals in facilities that manufacture food flavoring containing
diacetyl.

	Under development, we have our means of egress directive which will
reflect the changes from the standard in 2000.  Personal protective
equipment to reflect the changes in the personal protective and census
standard that was issued, just updated from last year, and the employer
payment provisions which were issued two years ago.

	Asbestos.  We are working on updating the 1996 Compliance directive for
construction, the general industry and shipyard parts will be updated
after the construction update.

	Field Operations Manual.  The Field Operations Manual constitutes
OSHA's general enforcement policy and procedures for conducting
inspections, issuing citations, proposing penalties, and so forth.

	It became effective in March of last year, and it was recently updated
in November of 2009.  There will be periodic updates.  Right now we are
working on an Industrial Hygiene chapter with sections on noise, air
contaminants, and respirators.

	We are working on the Maritime chapters, and we hope to include them in
the next update.  The Shipyard Employment section will cover these
topics:  coverage, jurisdiction, shipyard inspections, applicable
general industry standards, and, of course, it will include references
and links.

	The Marine Cargo Handling section will also cover the same topics. 
Also, other marine activities, such as commercial diving and fishing,
construction, towboats and tugboats.

	The jurisdiction directive, it combines the OSHA/Coast Guard authority
over vessels directive and the Outer Continental Shelf directive into a
single document, and Steve just told me that it was signed about an hour
ago, so we expect that to be out shortly.

	Expansive coverage of the directive to include all industries, not just
maritime, and provides recent court and legislative changes.

	Some enforcement stats from 2005 to 2009.  I am including all -- we are
into a quarter of FY 2010, but typically, for enforcement, this is
usually our slowest quarter per se, so I just wanted to give you all of
2009.

	MR. THORNTON:  In your quarter or your new year starts?

	MR. KAPUST:  October 1st.

	MR. THORNTON:  October 1st, and so hence, you are in the third quarter.

	MR. KAPUST:  Yes, but because of the holidays, and so forth, it is
typically a slower time for us.

	For 2009, FY 2009, we have conducted just over 39,000 inspections.  By
the way, that includes general industry, construction, maritime, the
whole ball of wax, and as you can see, we keep roughly that each year.

	Programmed versus unprogrammed, we continue to do more programmed
inspections to maximize our efficiency and use our resources more
effectively.  Again, the programmed inspections are our National
Emphasis programs, Local Emphasis programs, and so forth.

	Unprogrammed, that would include fatality investigations, complaints,
referrals, things of that nature, that we don't plan on going out for. 
Again, we try to do more programmed than unprogrammed.

	Our in-compliance rate has been steady, at about 25 percent for the
past few years.  That means when you have 25 percent, that means
three-quarters of the time we are finding hazards and which we are
issuing citations or violations, so that is the other way to look at
this.

	Total violations issues were just 88,000 violations issued last fiscal
year FY 09, which is roughly into where we have been in the past couple
of years.

	Total violations issued as serious.  The percent serious, it is going
up somewhat, if you look at this trend, and it may be a good indicator
that the violations we are citing are more serious and that we are
targeting more workplaces with serious hazards.

	Fatality investigations.  For the last few years, we have been right
around 1,000, and it seems to drop off especially for last year, which
is low. Obviously, we are not happy until that number is zero, but that
number, the 797 could be due to the economy, you know, that there has
been less construction, so there has been less fatalities.

	Again, we average about 1,000 a year.

	MR. THORNTON:  Is the number dropping because -- obviously, because of
the number of fatalities is dropping -- is some of that a reflection of
the employment situation?

	MR. KAPUST:  That is what I brought up.  The economy, it could be the
employment situation.  I mean we like to think that it is interventions
and people are doing things, but the honest look at that is, you know,
just the number of construction projects has been down, and if you
correlate that to -- probably our BLS person could probably explain it
better.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. KAPUST:  Top 10 most cited standards in general industry.  You look
through these, HAZCOM, respiratory protection, lockout/tagout,
electrical, powered industrial trucks, machine guarding, PPE.  These
don't change too often each year, however, general duty clause, that is
a little bit of an anomaly.

	I can't tell you which specifically general duty clause that was cited
because it could be anything where we don't have a specific standard to
cover, but for the other nine, they may change order, but this is pretty
much what we have each year.

	Just for the types of things that we may consider or that we may cite a
general duty clause, and I am not saying that these are the top ones,
but, for example, not wearing a seatbelt in a powered industrial truck
in general industry, that is a general duty clause violation.

	Construction - Top 10 most cited standards. Again, this is typical from
year to year, and a lot of fault protection type violations you see
here.

	Some enforcement steps.  This is for shipbuilding, shipbuilding and
repair and marine cargo handling.

	We conduct about 400 per year in both industries, a little bit less
last year.

	Programmed versus unprogrammed inspections, last  year we were at 61
percent programmed, and this rate is about the same as all Federal
inspections.

	Marine cargo handling, we are at 77 percent, which is clearly a little
bit higher programmed rate.

	Total violations issued, over 1,100 last year.

	Percent total violations issued as serious, again, it seems to be going
up, and it is a good indicator.  We are finding some with serious
hazards.

	Average number of violations per initial inspection, 4.6 for shipyards
and 3 for marine cargo handling.  Relatively good, the same each year.

	SST inspections by industry, we have done 11 SST, and this is SST09, by
the way, it shouldn't read FY09.

	MR. THORNTON:  And SST is?

	MR. KAPUST:  Site Specific Targeting.

	MR. THORNTON:  Very good.

	MR. KAPUST:  Average current penalty per serious violation, pretty much
in line with the average federally, you are 1,049 for ship and boat, and
$1,235 for marine cargo handling.

	Just as a side thought, OSHA is currently reviewing its penalty
structure.

	MR. THORNTON:  You mean it could be going down?

	MR. KAPUST:  Average, federally, it's a little bit less than $1,000,
and we are looking at it, and we are basically seeing if it has the
appropriate deterrent effect.  That is all I will say about that.

	MR. DADDURA:  Getting back to your inspection totals, what part do the
States play in California?  You don't take credit for their inspections,
right?

	MR. KAPUST:  No, I am sorry, these are only Federal inspections, it
does not include State funds.

	MR. THORNTON:  Stewart.

	MR. ADAMS:  Two quick questions.  My first question is right here on
this slide, is this number the original citation or original violation,
original citation number, or the number after any subsequent
discussions?

	MR. KAPUST:  This would be initial penalty average, so as it goes out,
not averaged after any settlement agreement of informal settlement, and
so forth.

	MR. ADAMS:  And then one last question was on the programmed
inspections.  What is the relationship between the citations issued for
programmed inspections versus the unprogrammed inspections?

	MR. KAPUST:  Off the top of my head, I don't know.  I would have to run
the data.  If it's a complaint inspection, a lot of times complaint
inspections, which would be an unprogrammed inspection, are hit or miss.

	It may be something that OSHA doesn't have jurisdiction over, and so
forth, so even though the complaint looks like it is valid, we don't
have a standard or we can't apply the general duty clause, so there
wouldn't be a violation.

	Again, with our targeting, we are trying to get it into those places
where we believe hazards exist, and quote, "When we find them, we are
going to issue citations."

	So, for program instructions, we would like to note, spend our
resources effectively, and that we are getting to those places in order
to reduce those hazards, and the way that we do that is issue citations
and force the employer to obey.

	MR. THORNTON:  I had one.  Did someone have a question?  Tim.

	MR. PODUE:  If you could, just the site-specific ones that you cited up
there, they showed up there, how do you determine a site-specific, how
do you do that in marine cargo handling?

	MR. KAPUST:  It is based on injury and illness data and where you felt
it compared to the national average.

	MR. PODUE:  So, is it maybe in the same terminal that is having the
problem, is that what that statistic showed?  So, you go back --

	MR. KAPUST:  For SST, we are going back, for example, we are looking at
SST-10, but we are looking at 2008 data, so it's that injury and illness
data we are looking at, not at prior inspections, but the actual illness
and injury data for that industry, and where that establishment happens
to fall in that average, are they above, where there is a criteria
cutoff, if they are above it, they could fall.

	MR. THORNTON:  I have Alan, and then Mike.

	MR. DAVIS:  Excuse me.  Alaska has a local enforcement program or
emphasis program for commercial fishing.  Those statistics aren't
included here in this data, right?

	MR. KAPUST:  No.

	MR. FLYNN:  Yes, on those penalties, you said they were penalties
pre-negotiated settlements?

	MR. KAPUST:  No, they were penalties as issued.

	MR. FLYNN:  As issued.

	MR. KAPUST:  As issued with the citation.

	MR. FLYNN:  What were the penalties after they were -- do you have that
data?

	MR. KAPUST:  I don't have that data.  That would be hard to run,
because some are changed through informal settlement, some are changed
through formal settlement, and some settlements are still going on.

	So, for FY 09, that particular establishment, they could have contested
and were in litigation, which could basically go on for several years.

	MR. FLYNN:  How about earlier data, how about data from, let's say,
2005, 2006, after the negotiated settlements?  That is a significant
number.

	MR. KAPUST:  Yes.  Right now we don't have a routine reporting system
to get at that data.  We would have to go back and really look at each
individual industry or company in order to extract that out.  I can't do
it globally the way I presented the data here.

	But, you are right, there is a difference, there is a difference.

	MR. THORNTON:  I have one quick question.  If the Agency were to
determine that the current penalty structure was an inadequate deterrent
to employers, what is the process by which it could, for example, raise
the penalty structures, what is the process to do that?

	MR. KAPUST:  Administratively, we could look at our penalty structure
the way that it is in our Field Operations Manual.  We couldn't change
the actual penalties themselves.  Congress is the one who writes our Act
and says this is what they shall be, but then how we structure that,
there can be some nuances.

	MR. THORNTON:  I understand, but, for example, if a serious maximum
penalty for a serious violation was $70,000, if the Agency determined
that it needed to be -- I am making it up -- something higher than that
--

	MR. KAPUST:  We would have to go to -- it would have to come from
Congress.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. KAPUST:  What we call the gravity-based penalty system for each
serious violation up to $7,000, or willful violation up to $70,000.  All
that is done by Congress within their -- in terms of penalty
adjustments, and so forth.

	MR. THORNTON:  For good faith and size, and all those things within the
Agency can be done within the Agency.

	MR. KAPUST:  Well, to some extent, yes, but again, that is being -- the
deterrent effect is being looked at right now.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. KAPUST:  The top 10 in ship and boat building industry, as you can
see, these are a lot of similar problems that we found in general
industry, a lot of electrical violations, as you can see.

	The top 10 in marine cargo handling, still similar as the other
industries.  Now, in here, we have two powered industrial truck
violations, 6 and 9.  The first one is for powered industrial truck. 
That is the operator training provision.

	No. 9 is for all other powered industrial truck violations like
inspections, parking, and so forth, class. Yes, good point.

	That is all I have.  I thank you for your time.  If there are any
questions, I will try to answer them.

	MR. THORNTON:  Marc.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Patrick, can you put the last slide up?  That is all I
needed.

	MR. KAPUST:  Any other questions?

	MR. THORNTON:  Les.

	MR. JOHNSON:  I did have one question.  The electrical related
citations issued in shipyards, do you know if this is onboard ships or
mainly in a facility itself?

	MR. BUTLER:  It's in both areas.  If you would like the details on
that, I can run some specifics for you if you would like.

	MR. THORNTON:  I am going to take the Committee first and then I will
come to the public.

	Other questions by the Committee?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Okay.  The public, raise your hand, please.  Yes, sir.

	MR. [Jeff] SMITH:  Jeff Smith, International Longshore Warehouse Union.

	Number one, the hazard communication, is that verbal talking or is that
something else?

	MR. KAPUST:  It could hazard communication, that could include not
having material safety data sheets.  It could be training on hazard
communication.  It could be labeling of containers.  Those types of
things would be covered within hazard communication, not just verbal.

	MR. [Jeff] SMITH:  Thank you.

	MS. PARKS:  I am Polly Parks, Southern Recycling.

	Does this include statistics for shipbreaking, or is this just really
the shipbuilding and repair?

	MR. KAPUST:  There was another slide.  This slide includes
shipbreaking.

	MR. THORNTON:  Chuck.

	MR. LEMON:  It was interesting to see that cranes made the top 5 here,
but I noticed on shipyards, that cranes wasn't even on there.  I though
that was interesting.

	MR. KAPUST:  Well, it was 104, so 110, it may have been number 11.  It
just wasn't in the top 10.

	MR. THORNTON:  Jennifer.

	DR. LINCOLN:  Thank you for summarizing all of this, and so since you
spent a lot of time putting these numbers together and looking at the
information that is collected, have you come up with an idea of what you
wish the industry had like as a resource, you know, where we talk all
the time about what this committee should be working on for some sort of
educational material or review of the standard, or whatever.

	I was wondering, based on your in-depth review of putting this
information together, if something revealed itself that you wish either
enforcement officers could have in the field, or you wish that industry
had more information about.

	MR. KAPUST:  Well, I think we are addressing these as they go along. 
We are putting out guidance documents.  All of our field folks are being
trained on any of our emphasis programs, and they get this data, too, so
they are aware of what kinds of hazards they are finding in these
particular industries.

	Again, part of being of this committee, finding out what you folks
need, where you folks are finding problems, all that is taken into
consideration when Steve does his targeting plans, what he brings to us
in terms of vision for the Office, what we need to cover that the
industry is asking for.

	There is a lot of stuff we have put on the Internet in regards to
hazards, these types of hazards, so I guess I didn't glean anything in
particular in this case, because it is sort of an ongoing, that's what
we do.

	That is part of our regular office activities.

	MR. DADDURA:  Patrick, excuse me.  Can you get Steve to explain the
Steering Committee, the Maritime Steering Committee, and how it plays a
role in this?

	MR. BUTLER:  One of the things we have done over the past I guess about
nine or 10 years now, we started around in a serious way with minutes of
meetings and being somewhat structured, brought together what we call a
Maritime Steering Committee.

	It has representatives from each of our Directorates.  It has field
representatives from 8 of our 10 regions.  The other two don't have
significant maritime activity.  It is kind of our internal agency brain
trust.

	That committee, since the year 2000, currently has developed 60 new
products.  Many of those were per the request of MACOSH and its
predecessor industry group, CSAC, as I recall.

	So, we do listen to what you ask us to do.  We get together
collectively, sort that out, and we take action on those, ships that
hazturbate [ph] in the summers for longshoring and marine terminals, the
fatal fact videos, and other products, even our directives we consider
to be products out of that particular Steering Committee.

	Some of the more notable things that that committee has brainstormed
and took action on, the tool bag directive.  You guys, as a committee,
were talking about one-stop shopping, and it was from the standpoint of
a standards approach, which I think we would all agree would be ideal,
but as time wore on, we felt that we weren't going to see that possibly
within our professional lifetimes, so we said why don't we tackle this
through a directive to at least bring it all together.

	That is what we have done, I think everyone has been reasonably
satisfied with that document.  It helps both OSHA people stay consistent
and fair in their enforcement, helps industry know what their
responsibilities and duties are, saves everyone time.

	The same thing with marine cargo handling toolshed directive.  So,
directives fall into that, are e-tools, which you look at all the
e-tools that are on the OSHA web site, and it is over 100 e-tools, and
clearly, the best one is the shipyarding tool.

	We put a lot of time and effort into that, and a lot of people from
MACOSH and from ASA, SCA, NSRP members worked on that, contributed
photos, helped us review it, and that was a very good joint effort.

	So, to answer your question, we are taking this stuff, we are
addressing these specific hazards through various training outreach
enforcement tools, directives, which include both enforcement and
policy, and I think we have done a reasonably good job.

	Maybe the next time we brief the Committee, I can give you a briefing
specifically on the Maritime Steering Committee and a summary of the
products.  We have the products listed, it has got 60 items on it now,
and we are continually adding new stuff.

	I have got new things to add just from this MACOSH meeting.  So, we can
brief you on that.  It might bring that into better focus.

	MR. THORNTON:  Committee?  Public?  Yes, ma'am.

	MR. BURDGE:  Gavin Burdge, British Maritime Technology.  I was
wondering if your data includes inspections and citations the government
owned and operates installations?

	MR. KAPUST:  No, I don't think that we included 1960 data on this one.

	MR. THORNTON:  Right up here.

	MS. PARKS:  Polly Parks, Southern Recycling.

	Is this Maritime Steering Committee, does it interact with the State
folks who were, you know, this stuff devolves down to the State level?

	MR. BUTLER:  It interacts only from the standpoint that our field
representatives may get information via their regional offices that they
represent, but as a direct liaison between the Committee and the State
offices, no.

	MR. FAVAZZA:  Pete Favazza, ILW.

	On No. 2 and No. 3, together you have over 200 violations.  Are those
related to cranes or crane-rated machinery?  That is what I am looking
at when I look at this stuff.

	MR. KAPUST:  It could be anything, it doesn't necessarily have to be
related to a crane.  It could be related to any kind of electrical
equipment there or any kind of machine guarding issue that we found on
site.

	MR. THORNTON:  Just one more.

	MR. [Jeff] SMITH:  Jeff Smith, International Longshoreman Warehouse
Union, and I don't want to drag this on any longer.

	No. 6 and No. 9, you have got the two and you explained them.  Either
one of those two, are those citations against the operator?

	MR. KAPUST:  They are citations to the employer, whoever the employer
was.

	MR. [Jeff] SMITH:  Thank you.

	MR. THORNTON:  Committee questions?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Public?  Oh, one more.

	Marc.

	MR. MacDONALD:  We have had as lot of discussions on that last slide. 
Is there a way to get the breakdown by citation?

	MR. KAPUST:  I am sorry, like go further into, let's say --

	MR. MacDONALD:  Just what citations were actually --

	MR. KAPUST:  We can do that, we have that capability.  If you contact
me, I can see what I can pull up for you.  Like, for example, if you
were interested in specific machine guarding, we can break it down to
you as far as which paragraph within machine guarding.

	MR. MacDONALD:  That's correct, yes, that is what I am looking for.

	MR. KAPUST:  Yes, we can, if you get that to us, we will get it to
Steve to look at.

	MR. THORNTON:  Any more from the Committee? Public?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you, Patrick, and thank you, Steve, for your
presentation.

	Susan, of course?

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  I will enter into the docket as Exhibit 9, the
PowerPoint presentation entitled, "MACOSH OSHA Enforcement Update
January 2010."

	MR. KAPUST:  Thank you.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you very much.

	MR. THORNTON:  We are going to break for lunch.  Be back here at 1:30. 
Marc, will you be ready at 1:00? You will be ready at 1:30.  Then, we
will have Lee Anne come on at 2:30.  So, be back at 1:30, so we are in
recess until 1:30.

	[Luncheon recess from 12:27 p.m. to 1:36 p.m.]

	MR. THORNTON:  We are back on the record.  We are going to have the
Longshore Workgroup report out, and Marc MacDonald has the floor.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Mr. Chairman, if we can, before I get started, in your
package, and for Susan especially, we have three documents that we will
be discussing, and two of them at least will be going into the record,
so I want to make sure that everybody has the documents at hand to
streamline the report, because Mr. Chairman has told me to keep within
40 minutes.

	The first is a document that looks like this, that says, "Guidance
Document for the Safety of Workers Involved in Intermodal Container
Repair."  The Rev date on that document, at the very bottom, is 1-19-10.
 So, that should be in your package, so just please keep that handy.

	The second one is called "Guidance Document for Traffic Lane and
Personal Safety Zone," that looks like this, and has the Rev 1-19-10 at
the very top.

	The third document we will discuss probably won't take any action on it
today, but at least everybody will have a discussion, is the Quick Card
working on the apron or highlining of Marine Terminals, and again the
Rev date on that is 1-19-10 right at the very top.

	So, those three documents are the latest that you all should have for
reference.

	With that, we had a very busy workgroup and also intersession.  We had
phone meetings on November 12th and December 17th where we worked on
documents in between the Working Group, and then we came together
yesterday as did the Shipyard Working Group.

	Yesterday, we had the Agency presentations from BLS, and we got a much
better understanding of the data breakdown and some of the limitations
there.  I think we thought that BLS had much more detail, but we at
least have a better understanding of what else in the level of detail of
the documents data that we can ask for.

	The same thing with combustible dust.  That was a good presentation,
Matt gave us a good presentation, a good understanding of OSHA intent. 
There is some overlap with longshore marine cargo handling on the bulk
products and we will make sure that information gets back to our members
for possible comment.  So, that was good.

	Then, we had some focused topics, and this is just the overview here. 
We worked on the Container Repair Guidance document.  We worked on the
Traffic Lane Safety Zone Guidance document.  We had a Quick Card that we
were discussing for the worker safety and the apron area.

	We worked on photos with Vanessa for the Break Bulk guidance document,
container rail safety, and dealing safely with stuck cones.  I will go
through each one of these in a little bit more detail as we go forward.

	So, first, the guidance document for the Safety of Workers Involved in
Intermodal Container Repair, and that is this document here.  Just a
little bit of history. Basically, Chuck took the lead on developing the
draft document, and then we brought that into the Committee and
discussed, refined, discussed, refined over the three months.

	I mean we discussed that on the Working Group's calls and stuff like
that between September and December. We got it out the shipyard in a
timely fashion, and got their comments on this document, and considered
them, incorporated some, not all, but some, and we sent it out again.

	Yesterday, we made some final minor edits and we have that for review
for presentation today.  At the last minute, and I apologize for this, I
was told, well, you are supposed to have Word tracking on the changes. 
Well, this is in Publisher, it is not in Word, so Word tracking on the
changes was difficult.

	But just so you know where we made the changes, if you refer to the
document, on the very first sentence we had "The purpose of this
document is to help employers to."  We took out the words "employers
to," just the purpose of this document is generic, help everybody, not
just the employers, but employers and employees to identify the hazard. 
So, we took "employers to" out of that and made it more neutral.

	We edited, the second sentence said, "The stress with repair
procedures."  It was just some grammatical changes there, not any
changes in intent.  It currently reads:  "Repair procedures of
intermodal containers are not specifically covered by Occupational
Safety and Health standards or other national consensus standard."  We
stopped, put a period there.

	So, the second sentence now says, "OSHA is publishing this guide to
assist employers with their duty to ensure the safety of employees who
repair these containers."  So, it was just a grammatical clarification,
if you will, and hopefully, a little bit better reading.

	Steve was out in the audience, Steve Butler was out in the audience
helping us with some of these grammatical changes.

	Anyway, like, for instance, the second one down there is "shouldn't." 
We had 'nt, so now it reads "should not."  On the third page, near the
sawhorse, if you take a look at that page, we were interchangeably using
design load and safe working load.  We basically took it out, took the
words "design or design load" out and we are talking now about safe
working load.

	So, the wording right now says, "Once manufactured, these stands should
be proof-load tested or certified to at least 125 percent of the safe
working load.  The stands should be marked by the manufacturer,
inspected, and tested dates, and the safe working load. We had design
load in there before.  We are talking really about safe working load. 
So, that was a good clarification we made on the third page.

	But those were the minor edits on this.  What this document does is it
gives you a roadmap of all of the 1917 and a couple 1910 regulations
that apply to the elements that might be used for container repair
whether it's welding, whether it's blasting, whether it's grinding, but
it is focused on container, intermodal container repair.

	This document is unique.  We haven't had anything like this before, and
I think it's a good document, and so with that, I will make a motion to
the Committee that the Committee consider to accept the guidance
document for the safety of workers involved in intermodal container
repair, the revised version 1-19-10 developed by the Longshore Working
Group and recommend that OSHA publish the guidance document.

	MR. [Jeff] SMITH:  I second.

	MR. THORNTON:  I have a motion and a second to accept this document. 
Discussion by the Committee?

	Jennifer.

	DR. LINCOLN:  Thank you.  I think that the document looks very succinct
and the photograph, it's illustrative, it shows I think the
illustrations that are needed.

	The only further comment I have is whenever we put out a document like
this, I was wondering if we should always try to put "for more
information, see."  I would assume that something like that would come
in to play whenever OSHA goes through and reviews this, but probably
putting some sort of a "for more information, see this web site," or
something like that.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  I think that there is a lot of boilerplate language
that goes into guidance documents.

	DR. LINCOLN:  That goes in like that.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Jennifer, just for your reference, too, we added
references that we found that we thought were pertinent on the fourth
page.  So, there is nothing cookbook in this that we have, but we did
include some references, and we also alluded to the ICL guidance in the
first page, right there in the second paragraph.

	MR. THORNTON:  I had a question.  This can be a very short discussion,
but in one of the slides, you suggested that once manufactured, these
stands should be proof-load tested or certified to at least 125 percent
of the designed load, but you replaced that I guess with safe working
load?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Correct.

	MR. THORNTON:  What was the thinking, let me tell you, because I would
assume the manufacturer would rate these at X pounds, okay, whatever
that was.  So, are they not synonymous as the design load and the safe
working load, necessarily two different numbers?  Do you understand my
question?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Yes.

	MR. THORNTON:  Okay.

	MR. MacDONALD:  The answer to that question is this.  Some of these
stands are homemade.  They are overbuilt, they are built with what could
be components that they have in the yard there, so it is not so much
that they are designed, if you will, but they are built out of
traditional methods and traditional materials, so then they are tested
with safe working load as opposed to purpose built stands that would
have a design feature in them, but some of them are built, you know,
basically, at the repair facility using --

	MR. THORNTON:  Readily available materials.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Readily available materials, historically robust
standards.

	MR. THORNTON:  I understand.  Thank you.

	Alan.

	MR. DAVIS:  Along those lines with a piece of equipment like this, is
the safe working load a 1 to 5 factor of its design load, or is it not
that standard rule of thumb?

	MR. MacDONALD:  I would think if it's design, that is probably correct,
but if it's just manufactured and tested to a safe working load, then, I
can't answer that question.

	MR. THORNTON:  We are still in the discussion period on the motion.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Having said that, I will say this.  There has been no
requirement to test these in the past, so we have got a standard for
testing in here, as we go forth.

	MR. DAVIS:  I understand.  Where my question comes from is in rescue. 
You have a rope that is rated for 1,000 pounds.  You are only allowed to
put 200 pounds a person on it.  So, I was wondering if there was that
same 20 percent or 1 to 5 factor applied in this type of equipment, just
as a general question, in which case it should be tested to the design
load instead of safe working load.

	MR. MacDONALD:  If some of these are home built, which some of them
are, and they overbuilt as home built, this was a way to prove their
safe working loads as a guidance document.

	MR. THORNTON:  Any more comments or questions from the Committee?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  I am about to call the question. Does everybody know
what they are voting on, which is acceptance of this guidance document
and to summarize.

	All in favor signify by saying "aye."

	[Chorus of ayes.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Opposed?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  I will enter this document as Exhibit 10 in the
docket, and it is entitled, "Guidance Document for the Safety of Workers
Involved in Intermodal Container Repair," and it's dated 1-19-10.

	MR. MacDONALD:  The next document I would like to talk about is the
Guidance Document for Traffic Lanes and Safety Zones.  Again, this is
the situation where there is nothing in the OSHA regulations on traffic
lanes and safety zones, and when we collected measurements of terminal
safety zones countrywide, back in July and August, we found that there
was a huge variation between the safety lanes and safety zones in the
terminals we checked.

	One of the things that we came up with was that most of the lanes were
measured for 8 foot where if you put a truck and chassis through them,
they would stay within the traffic lane, but if you used a bomb cart, a
bomb cart or a basket chassis.  It has flanges on each side, they hang
out to the side.  They could be 9 feet wide or 9'6, so you have to make
sure that the traffic lanes are wide enough for those chassis.

	Further, we went through and defined performance language for safety
zones to protect the people that are working on the highline or the
apron under the crane.

	So, anyway, we took a look at this.  We really hammered this wording
out, and made it as succinct as we could, and also as performed-based as
we could.  We sent it to the Shipyard Working Group, and we have a final
document here for presentation.

	Yesterday, we had one little edit to this document.  We just changed
the title to include the words Guidance Document in the top, and then we
didn't change anything else in the document that was circulated for
review, but that is the only change that is in this 1-19-10 document
that we have got here.  Again, this is kind of unique.

	We looked at international standards as well as domestic standards.  It
doesn't appear that there is any guidance on this either domestically or
internationally, and so I think we are head of the power curve here.

	So, with that, I would ask the Committee to accept the Guidance
Document for Traffic Lanes and Safety Zones with the revised date of
1-19-10 that we developed, and recommend that OSHA publish the guidance
document.

	MR. THORNTON:  Is that in the form of a motion?

	MR. MacDONALD:  That is the form of a motion.

	MR. THORNTON:  Second?

	PARTICIPANT:  Second.

	MR. THORNTON:  I have a second motion and a second to accept this
particular guidance document.

	Discussion by the Committee?  Mr. Glass.

	MR. GLASS:  Is it because it's a guidance document that we don't have
specific sizes of lanes to go by?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Yes.  The answer to your question is cranes vary in
gauge between 50 gauge or 50 feet and 100.  Some gauges are 83 feet.  It
depends on the crane.  The other factors that enter into it is some
terminals have smaller, 50-gauge cranes on the same bulkhead rail as the
100-gauge crane, so you have two cranes that are working side by side,
one with a greater range than the other.

	So, we made this as performance language to try to deal with all these
varieties of layouts in the different terminals.

	MR. THORNTON:  Tim.

	MR. PODUE:  I would like to add in here that if your containers are 8
feet wide, and like Marc was saying, your bomb carts, your chassis can
only be 8 feet wide, but when you are utilizing a bomb cart, they are
really 9'6 for the room.  They are 9'6 to 10 feet, so it is not really
-- most of the terminals in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are
basically they are fit, they are right around that.

	Your truck lanes that we are looking for, we actually made a
recommendation when we were working on this would have been 10 foot for
the truck lane, and 8 foot for the safety lane, and you have got other
equipment that fits in within the safety lanes when you are dealing with
the work.

	So, I am sure Marc is getting to it.  Ultimately, we were looking
possibly to push this thing to a standard at some point, and this is
getting it started and going in that direction, I think was the thinking
there.

	So, you can't get away from it.  I mean some of the things are
consistent, and you have got to actually fit the safety to whatever --
to the crane overall than you would making the crane to the safety.  It
works the other way.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Other comments or questions about by the Committee?  Marc.

	MR. MacDONALD:  I would say this. With these guidances, it essentially
limits the number of lanes under a 100-gauge crane five, and it
essentially limits the lanes under a 50-gauge crane to two, and that is
a pretty significant change for some of the ports.

	So just using the performance language as you have, you have a result
that at least in those two broad parameters falls into that range.

	MR. GLASS:  So, when you go to a standard, that will be more specific
on sizes of lanes and sizes of safety zones?

	MR. MacDONALD:  If you went to a standard, it would depend on how the
standard was written, but it could have minimum dimensions to it, or a
standard could be written in performance language, as well.

	MR. THORNTON:  Alan.

	MR. DAVIS:  I did like what you just said, because that gave me, as
somebody that doesn't work on those types of docks, a much clearer
picture that when I am looking at a 50-foot crane, there should only be
two traffic lanes, and when I am looking at a 100-foot spread, there can
maybe be five squeezed.

	MR. MacDONALD:  That's between the legs.  I mean there may be others in
the back as well, depending on if they have room in the back, and
depending on how the crane is built.

	MR. THORNTON:  Other questions by the Committee?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  I am ready to call the question. Does everybody know
what they are voting on?  Okay.

	All in favor of the motion please signify by saying "aye."

	[Chorus of ayes.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Opposed?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  I will enter this document as Exhibit 11 in the
docket, and it is entitled, "Guidance Document for Traffic Lane and
Personnel Safety Zones," dated 1-19-10.

	MR. MacDONALD:  And to complete Tim's thought, this is a guidance
document.  We understand it's a guidance document.  It is written in
performance language. We think it's a huge step forward because this was
created where nothing existed before.  We just had nothing.  So, the two
things I think that NMSA will do is, one, will take it and push it into
the international regime at IACH. That is the International Association
of Cargo Handling. Just tell them this is what we submitted at MACOSH.

	Also, there is an American Society of Professional Engineers that has a
subspecialty in terminal design, and we checked with them, too, and they
have no guidance there.  So, this document will also kind side-doored
into that organization, as well.

	So, what OSHA needs to do with this, I mean right now we are
recommending guidance.  In the future, if you feel that it needs to be a
performance standard and regulation, then, that is up to OSHA.

	I don't know if you want to add anything more to that, Tim.

	MR. PODUE:  That's good.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Moving right along, one of the interesting aspects of
the Committee is that we are not bound by convention or any kind of
limits, but when we discussed the traffic lanes and the safety zones, we
said, hey, there ought to be some guidance and some information for the
people that are working in these traffic lanes and safety zones, and it
kind of gives you an idea of how hectic and tight it can be.

	You can really see the flanges on what we call t the bomb cart or the
basket chassis right there, so they stick out to the side, and there is
one in the front for the front 20, and there is one in the back for the
back 20 on either side.

	Then, the cone boxes are in the safety zone as well where the shoes or
the cones or semi-automatic twist locks, whatever you want to say, come
off the containers, and they are collected for backload or back delivery
to the ship.  So, this is kind of the setting that the people are
working in, in the traffic lanes and safety zones.

	So, we discussed the idea that we ought to have a Quick Card for these
folks to give them information on what to look out for when they are
working in these traffic lanes, so that is what we did.

	We had hoped to have that for approval today. It is not quite there. 
We didn't get the opportunity to give it to the Shipyard Workgroup, but
I wanted to present it anyway today, so that everybody will know what is
coming up.

	Like I said, it is really pretty well done.  We have got it.  It is in
your package, and the reason I said use the paper, because you can't
read it on the thing, and the only addition we made during our workgroup
meeting this time is we added this updated graphic to it with the person
having PPE on, and everybody was pretty happy with that graphic, and
then we also added the words control their speeds.

	The tractor drivers need to position the equipment so that it stays
entirely within the traffic lane, and then also control their speed as
they go through especially when they pass employees.

	So, I think we have hit on a number of different points, almost to the
point this is busy, but I think it is very important that all of the
individual points we were trying to make are in one document, and this
could be a Quick card, it could be used for gangway safety talk or
whatever.

	Anyway, I think you will see this next time.  The yellow highlight will
be removed from it, and we will ask for a motion on this at the next
meeting in Newport.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  I am going to enter that document as Exhibit 12 in
the docket, and it a draft Quick card entitled, "Working on the apron or
highline in marine terminals," and it is dated 1-19-10.

	MR. MacDONALD:  And as I said, the Shipyard Workgroup comments are
solicited.  I don't know if, Don, if you want me to send it out
electronically, I will, but we will try to finalize it in Newport.

	MR. RAFFO:  Yes, I do have one member who is not here, so I would
appreciate it if you would send it out electronically.  Then, we can all
have it.  I don't anticipate any problems getting any comments to you
quickly.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Vanessa gave us a little bit of a turn when we got in
there.  We had discussed the break-ball cargo handling safety document,
and that has been previously submitted, but in the course of getting it
ready for publication, Vanessa asked us to review some photos to go into
that document, and we did.

	We had a good time trying to pick the photos, which ones were better,
and I tried to pick out little things like on that yacht photo there,
there is a person without a hard hat in the upper lefthand middle of
that picture.

	We said we have got to crop that, but anyway, that is the kind of fun
we had with this particular document.  Vanessa has requested additional
pictures which we are going to forward to her.

	Another document that we discussed was container rail safety guidance. 
Again, if you take a look in 1917, there is very little on rail safety,
and it is primarily box cars and flat cars.  It is for break-ball cargo.

	Predominantly, the rail movements that we have today are done in the
container terminal.  So, we are working on a container rail safety
guidance document.

	This is a pretty complex document.  We spent a lot of time just going
through the definitions, the glossary that we had in front, and then we
have got an idea to put together a rail safety plan as part of this
document.

	There were a number of things we have still got to review.  There are a
number of things we have still got to research.  We are hoping to have
this ready for April, but if not, we will at least give you an update on
April, because this is a pretty substantial document.

	This picture, you can kind of see it, and for those of you that are not
familiar, you have well cars that can take a container in the well and a
container on the top, and you can imagine these are loaded with top
handlers like you see in the foreground.

	Then, each container has to be coned between the lower and the upper,
so you have got two docalofs [ph] up there walking along beside the cars
or mounting the cars or dismounting the cars, trying to put these cones
in as they go along.

	So, just be aware we are resolving that.  We also discussed a white
paper that was received during this time regarding speed on the
terminals, and the white paper proposed to require speedometers to be
installed on all the pieces of equipment.

	The Longshore Working Group discussed this paper, we made some
observations on corrections.  We discussed the scope and the intent and
the options for the paper, and quite frankly, we had some differing
opinions on how to proceed.

	So, it was discussed the paper could be rewritten and resubmitted for
review. It was discussed the paper might be presented here from the
podium.  I don't know, Tim, if you want to make any comments on that or
not, but I will give you the opportunity here.

	MR. PODUE:  Things went a little sideways on this issue, the way I
felt, and I don't think we are still certain on which direction and how
we are going to deal with this.  I will say this, that I want to have it
read here from the public standpoint for us, just to get it on the
record, and by no means is this paper the way it is presented.  The only
alternative to addressing speeding on our docks, it is not the only way.

	But we have been up and down and all around on this issue, and it seems
that we keep getting put in a box on the issue.  So, we wanted to try to
move it ahead and maybe us sitting here having it read at the podium by
one of our members here might help us get there is what we are looking
at.

	We tried to discuss alternative means besides a speedometer, and it
seems that we just can't really get into it.  If it goes back to the
Committee, we will have to deal with it there I guess, there is no need
to air all that out here.

	That is all I have to say on it.  Thank you.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Thank you.

	MR. THORNTON:  What is your pleasure?  What do you want to do?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Well, this is my report.  There is about four
documents, I am just giving you statuses on, and this is the status on
this one.

	MR. THORNTON:  This is one of the four that you are giving the status. 
Okay.

	Tim.

	MR. PODUE:  You know, in all honesty, I was going to let Marc make his
presentation and see how he came out with his presentation, and we were
going to read it either way.  So, that is in the report.  Like I said,
we can get back into discussions when we meet again or in our conference
calls.

	MR. THORNTON:  What would you like to do?

	MR. PODUE:  Let us finish the report and let out guy get up.

	MR. MacDONALD:  The next topic that we have taken on is safety guidance
dealing with stuck cones, and again, this is a very important aspect for
us.

	For those of you who are not familiar with semi-automatic twist locks,
that is a picture of one up there. It has got some moving parts, that
yellow piece twists, and it snaps in place when the container is landed
on it. To get it unlocked, you pull that yellow knob with the wire.

	Well, sometimes the yellow knob breaks off, sometimes the wire breaks. 
Sometimes it jams internally, so you can get yourself in a situation
where those things somehow get stuck.  Sometimes they are put in
upside-down, sometimes they are put in backwards, so there is a number
of issues.

	I put the picture of the ship on there because what you need to
understand is that between each and every box, there is 4 of those
semi-automatic twist locks.

	So, the stuck one might be in that second silver box from the top right
on the outboard side, where it may or may not be easy to get to it.  So,
in our discussions, we just started, this is the basic discussion point,
we started with this one.

	We had an outline, we worked on the outline.  The access really comes
to the fore very, very quickly about how do you get somebody up there
safely to access the stuck cone, one, and then, two, to make sure that
that person is not in the bite when the container is finally released. 
It may be released with a pop, if you will, or it --

	MR. DAVIS:  Dynamically.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Yes, dynamically.  We have had fatalities with
releasing stuck cones where the container comes free -- I won't use the
word broken free -- come free and swung, and that is not a good thing if
you are in between that container and a rigid piece of the ship
structure.

	So, this is a very important document.  I think we have got a good
start on it.  We are taking this back obviously and continue discussions
intercessionally and then try to come up with something.

	With that, that completes the report.  I stand open for any questions,
and make a motion that the Committee accept the Longshore Working Group
report.

	MR. PODUE:  Second.

	MR. THORNTON:  I have a motion to accept and a second.  Discussion on
acceptance of the report?  Mike.

	MR. FLYNN:  I have a question on the report just on the rail cars.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Yes.

	MR. FLYNN:  Is there any FRA jurisdiction with those cars?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Yes.  One of the things that we have got to do a little
bit more research on is the controls, and the markings on the rails. 
One of the things that we try to be very, very careful with is to
isolate the spurs, so that you don't have any moving trains come down
the spur where there is a thick strain that is being worked.

	The FRA has regulations on how to lock out those rails and lock out
those spurs, and they have prescribed signals, and we have got to make
sure we have got the right signals and research that.

	MR. FLYNN:  And that will be incorporated into your guidance.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Yes.  The other thing that we had is the FRA has put
out a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking just on working around passing
trains, and we have got that in the queue to review just to see if there
is anything in that, that might apply.  That is more of one train
passing another or a work crew rather, I should say, at speed when they
are working on the rail bed on a throughway, not so much on a terminal,
but we will see if there is anything applicable.

	MR. THORNTON:  Where we are, we have a motion and a second.  Oh,
comment.

	MR. RAFFO:  I have more of a procedural question.  Clearly, Mr.
MacDonald thinks of everything here.  We submitted our Workgroup report.
 We did not seek full approval of the Committee, and if we should have
done that, I would request maybe at this time that the motion be
withdrawn and re-presented to include both reports in the name of
efficiency.

	MR. THORNTON:  Let's do it this way.  If it's agreeable -- who seconded
that?  Would you mind -- we are just thinking out loud here -- if you
withdrew and you withdrew, then, it's okay.  I would prefer we had
separate motions rather than him making a motion to accept your report. 
Do you see what I am saying?

	MR. DAVIS:  We could just do the one on the floor and then do that one
--

	MR. THORNTON:  We could do that.  Then, the answer is no, we won't do
what you suggested.

	MR. MacDONALD:  That is not a problem.

	MR. THORNTON:  All right.  So, we have a motion on the floor, we have a
second, and we have discussion.

	Jennifer.

	DR. LINCOLN:  I am bringing this up for discussion because I am
confused.  When we were talking about the speeding, there was some it
seemed like controversy or discussion, or conflict, that we were going
to talk more about that, or it was a secret, and it was going to be
discussed in committee?

	MR. THORNTON:  Let me help you out.

	DR. LINCOLN:  Thank you.

	MR. THORNTON:  And you correct me, either of you, there was some
discussion about speeding in the terminals, and this is work that was
ongoing, it is one of four I guess areas that were intended to be
guidance documents, but are in different forms of discussion completion.

	What we heard was a comment that said at the conclusion of Mr.
MacDonald's report, that in order to provide additional information,
that it was possible that someone from the public may offer us some
additional language, and that that would be forthcoming at the
conclusion of Mr. MacDonald's report.  Is that right?

	MR. PODUE:  Yes.  We are still working on the issues, reducing speed, I
hope.

	MR. THORNTON:  It will be okay.  I am not trying to patronize you.

	DR. LINCOLN:  I don't feel like I am being patronized.

	MR. THORNTON:  But you would tell me if you were.

	DR. LINCOLN:  Oh, you would know.

	[Laughter.]

	MR. DAVIS:  I can assure you.  It is still a work in progress.

	DR. LINCOLN:  I understand.  Thank you.

	MR. THORNTON:  We have a motion and a second, and we are in the
discussion on the motion.

	Any more discussion?  Does everyone know what they are voting for,
which is acceptance of the Longshore Workgroup report out.

	I am going to call for the question.

	All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

	[Chorus of ayes.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Any opposed?

	[No response.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Are there any more motions to be brought at this time?

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  Before we do that, I am just going to enter the
document as Exhibit 13 in the docket, the Longshore Workgroup report
dated 1-20-10.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Correct, and Danielle has a copy of that.

	MR. RAFFO:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that the
Committee accept and we already have it listed as an exhibit, the
Shipyard Workgroup report out dated January 20, 2010.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Second.

	MR. THORNTON:  I have a second.  We are in the discussion period.  Is
there any discussion by the Committee on that?

	Is there any discussion on the motion which is acceptance of the
Shipyard Workgroup report?

	No more discussion.  Does everybody know what they are voting on?

	All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

	[Chorus of ayes.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Opposed?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

	Deborah, you had something?

	MS. GABRIEL:  Yes.

	MR. THORNTON:  Would you identify yourself?

	MS. GABRIEL:  I am Deborah Gabriel, Director of Science, Technology,
and Emergency Management.

	I want to bring to your attention a product that I think this group
would be interested in.

	I am sure you are aware of the Longshoring and Marine Terminal,
abatement summaries that are on the OSHA web  right now, and we updated
five new summaries, and we changed the title based on input from NIMSA
and the group to Longshoring and Marine Terminal Fatal Facts.

	These are from actual OSHA case files, and NIMSA helped us draft this. 
It basically talks about the incident, it talks about references OSHA
standards, and it provides control measures that will help alleviate the
problems.

	We received all in-house clearance on this, and including the
Solicitor's Office, and the next step is to direct this to the Office of
the Assistant Secretary to complete the process and for their approval
to publish it on the OSHA web.

	So, hopefully, that will be coming out on the web site in the near
future once we receive the Assistant Secretary's approval on it.

	I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. MacDONALD:  I have a question for Deborah, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

	MR. THORNTON:  You may.

	MR. MacDONALD:  With the updates of the Fatal Facts and the approval,
will the next step be to come up with some finances for the fatal videos
like the Shipyard has, and was long promised to the Longshore side?

	MS. GABRIEL:  Perhaps the funding for it we will be able to entertain
that idea.

	MR. THORNTON:  Use the microphone, Deborah.

	MR. MacDONALD:  On the record.

	MR. THORNTON:  On the record.

	MS. GABRIEL:  I don't want to be on the record.

	Perhaps with funding, we may be able to look into that possibility, but
I can't say anything concrete on that.

	MR. MacDONALD:  The marine cargo handling industry, Mr. Chairman, would
certainly appreciate that.

	MR. THORNTON:  So noted.

	At the conclusion of Mr. MacDonald's report, are there any more
comments from either the Committee or the public?

	Yes, sir, please identify yourself.

	MR. FAVAZZA:  My name is Pete Favazza.  I am from the ILW Co-Safety
Committee.

	I would like to read into the record ILW's position on speeding and
speedometers on our terminals, if I may.

	MR. THORNTON:  Yes.

	MR. FAVAZZA:  Speedometers and haulage equipment on marine terminals
submitted by the International Longshore and Warehousemen's Union.

	The Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health,
January 20, 2010 meeting.

	Introduction.  Currently, there is no OSHA regulations that explicitly
requires marine terminal companies to install and maintain functional
speedometers in haulage equipment.  In the absence of such a regulation,
many companies cover up speedometers or instruct manufacturers to not
install them in haulage equipment.

	Including both container handling and non-container handling in
vehicles, these practices have caused, and if not corrected, will
continue to cause marine terminal work-related injuries and fatalities.

	These practices also violate existing OSHA regulations.  There is no
question that marine terminal's traffic accidents are a serious problem,
and excessive speed is a major contributing factor to such accidents.

	It is the legal obligation of marine terminals and companies to ensure
that vehicle operators are able to, and do, follow posted speed limits
and written traffic rules.

	Companies fail to meet this obligation when they do not provide
operators with vehicles equipped with speedometers.  An OSHA regulation
requiring that companies provide speedometers in all haulage equipment
would decrease the risk of traffic-related injuries and fatalities.

	It would also ensure that marine terminal companies comply with the
existing OSHA regulations.

	Under discussion:

	A.  Marine terminal traffic accidents are a serious problem, and
excessive speed is a major contributing factor to these accidents. 
Traffic accidents are a serious problem in marine terminals.  With their
fast-paced operations and large, heavy equipment, indeed, over half of
all work-related fatalities that occur in marine terminals in the U.S.
from 2005 to 2008 were caused by traffic accidents including a total of
27 traffic-related fatalities during the four-year period.

	Speed is a major contributing factor in many of these fatal accidents,
for example, in one traffic accident or incident, a forklift operator
was killed when he fell out of a tipping forklift and was crushed by the
rollover bar.

	The operator made a sharp turn at excessive speed, which cause the
forklift to turn over.

	In another accident where speed was a major contributing factor, a
straddle carrier operator was killed when the vehicle tipped over and
crushed him.

	The operator who was using the carrier to transfer containers was
traveling at a high rate of speed with a loaded container.  When the
carrier started crossing railroad tracks, located on a curve in a road,
the vehicle tipped over.

	Those are just a couple of illustrated examples of type of
speed-related traffic accidents that occur every year at our marine
terminals.

	B.  Companies fail to meet their obligation to ensure that speed limits
are observed when they do not provide vehicle equipped with functional
speedometers.

	The Occupation Safety and Health Act already requires that the employer
shall direct motor vehicle operators to comply with any posted speed
limits and other traffic control signs or signals and written traffic
instructions in marine terminals.

	Employers must ensure that employees know and follow applicable OSHA
vehicle requirements.  Companies that do not install and/or maintain
functional speedometers in all powered operated equipment fail to comply
with these OSHA mandates.

	Maximum speed limits at marine terminals have been set and posted by
the port authorities with the goal of helping individuals to avoid
traffic accidents and prevent or reduce work-related fatalities and
injuries.

	Port tariffs, which are issued by the port authorities, and provide the
official rules and regulations governing ports typically include
provisions of governing safe driving speed requirements.

	For example, the San Diego unified port district tariff requires that
no person operate a vehicle in or around the marine terminal areas at a
greater speed than 10 miles per hour unless posted otherwise.

	Similarly, the Port of Long Beach tariff prohibits vehicle operators
from driving at a rate of speed greater than 10 miles per hour unless
otherwise posted.

	By denying vehicle operators the ability to ascertain their speeds,
companies prevent their employees from following posted speed limit
signs and their written tariff rules issued by port authorities in
direct violation of the Act.

	Moreover, these limits were set by this dangerous to drive in excess of
the posted speeds.  By requiring the marine terminal workers to operate
vehicles that are not equipped with speedometers, companies not only
expose operators to personal liabilities provided in the law, but expose
them and other people in their proximity to the risk of substantial harm
and death.

	This is a violation of OSHA's general duty clause.  The general duty
clause, 29 CFR 1903.1 provides that every employer must furnish his
employees employment and a place of employment which are free from
recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious
physical harm to his employees.

	In order to comply with their general duty to furnish a place of
employment free from recognized hazards, companies must ensure that
vehicle operators operate haulage equipment in a safe manner.  Companies
fail to comply with this regulation when they cover their speedometers
or instruct manufacturers not to install them.

	The Act also provides vehicles used to transport employees within the
terminal shall be maintained in safe working order, and safety devices
shall not be removed or made inoperative.

	By failing to provide speedometers in all vehicles, companies are also
in violation of this safety mandate.  Employers that cover their
speedometers in vehicles that include a device at the time of purchase
may also be in violation of existing OSHA regulations that permit
modifications to powered industrial trucks when those regulations might
affect vehicle safety.

	29 CFR 1917.43(b)(1) provides after October 3, 1983, modifications such
as counterweights, by adding counterweights that might affect the
vehicle's capacity or safety shall be performed without either the
manufacturer's prior written approval or the written approval of a
professional engineer experienced with the equipment who has consulted
with the manufacturer, if available.

	Similarly, 29 CFR 1910.178(a)(4) provides that modifications and
additions -- and this is to pit -- which affect capacity and safe
operation shall not be performed by the customer or user without
manufacturer's prior written approval.  Therefore, to the extent that
marine terminal operators cover speedometers without prior written
approval from the vehicle manufacturer or a professional engineer, they
act in violation of these OSHA regulations, as well.

	C.  An OSHA regulation prior to inclusion, speedometers for haulage
equipment would ensure that companies provide marine terminal workers
with a safe working environment and comply with current OSHA standards. 
Speed is a currently major contributing factor in traffic-related
injuries and fatalities.  Requiring that all haulage equipment be
equipped with speedometers will help individuals avoid traffic accidents
and prevent or reduce work-related injuries and fatalities caused by
excessive speed, because it will allow them to ascertain the speeds at
which they drive.

	Moreover, a requirement that speedometers be installed and maintained
would ensure compliance with the existing OSHA regulations.  As
discussed above, the Act already demands compliance with all posted
tariffs, traffic signs, and written traffic rules.  In the absence of
speedometers, such compliance is impossible.

	Compliance with the proposed regulation would not place an undue burden
on the companies required to comply.  This is particularly true in light
of the fact that installation of speedometers is an available option in
all vehicles.

	It is the ILW's understanding that unlike West Coast port employers,
the East Coast ports take no objection to ensure that all haulage
equipment contains speedometers.  The Union understands further that
those employers that object in installing speedometers is based on
unwarranted concerns that doing so would decrease the rate at which work
is completed.

	That position essentially amounts to a concern that compliance with
already established safety standards and regulations (as opposed to
speed limits and read traffic rules), decreased efficiency and safety
considerations can't be discarded.

	The ILW's position is not that marine terminal speed limits should be
lowered, but only that they should be observed in the interest of the
worker safety and compliance with current safety standards.

	A regulation requiring maintenance of functional speedometers in all
haulage equipment would achieve this result.

	Now, there have been a few changes in this, and within the next four
days we will electronically send it to Vanessa, and it will be at your
disposal at that time.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  Did you read the document as it is going to be
submitted?

	MR. FAVAZZA:  Yes, as it is going to be submitted in the next four or
five weeks.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  What you just read into the record really is just
going to reflect exactly the document that you will send in?

	MR. FAVAZZA:  I am sorry?

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  What you just read is going to be what you send to us
with all the corrections.

	MR. FAVAZZA:  Yes.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  Okay.  I will ask that you -- I am going to submit
that to the docket as Exhibit 14, but I would ask you to please read the
title, because I don't think that I got it.  I just need the title of
the document.

	MR. FAVAZZA:  You need the title of this document?

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  Yes.

	MR. FAVAZZA:  The title of the document is a white paper, Speedometers
in Haulage Equipment on Marine Terminals.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  Thank you.  I see I have a copy of it here, submitted
by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.

	MR. FAVAZZA:  Yes.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  Okay.  Thanks.

	MR. THORNTON:  Very good.  Any more comments from the public?

	MR. BUTLER:  Steve Butler from OSHA.

	I just wanted to say something in response to what Marc had talked
about with the videos and the fatal fact sheets.  The concept
originally, we were looking at doing fatal fact sheets for both, which
at the time were called hazard abatement summaries.

	Then, we had the opportunity that we could do a video for one of them. 
We had never done a video before, we didn't even know if we could do it
and make it effective.  We ultimately decided to do that for Shipyards.

	Well, there was a similar number like at the time in Longshoring and
Marine Terminals.  We had 37 scenarios, had a similar number for
Shipyards, somewhere in the 35-40 range.  The reason it is such an odd
number is we went back and looked at I think it was a 15-year segment
and looked, on a case by case, looked at all the fatalities, and it so
happened that there were 37 distinct ways that they had figured out how
to kill themselves in that industry during that period, the same in
Shipyards.

	That 37 represents 100 percent of the accidents as we knew them at that
time.  Since then, your industry, via MACOSH, has identified -- and NMSA
-- identified five additional scenarios, so we went ahead and added
those in, so now you have 42.

	So, you have eventually something for every way there is a fatality. 
So, although it doesn't appear to present as well as the video, it is
much more complete and comprehensive, and we actually have a light thing
that we are trying to get finished in Shipyards, because they have the
videos, but they don't have something for all their different ways they
have fatalities.

	It would be like if we could do a video for Longshoring 8, 16, maybe 8
to start with, and maybe do a second one for 16, and try to get the list
complete.  As you know, we are working on that.  It's a project that is
way up the priority list, but I wanted to explain that, that the concept
here on these fatal facts for Longshoring was to have something for
every accident, and we do have that in the mill also for Shipyards.

	So, it would be nice if we could have a little bit for both, so on the
one hand, it doesn't have, for lack of a better word, it is not as sexy
as the video, but they are more comprehensive, more detailed, and they
cover all of your potential fatalities, which is the intent of this,
unlike construction, he just picks one and does it every quarter. We try
to take a more holistic approach, and I think that has worked very well
for that industry.

	I just wanted to mention that

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. [Ken] SMITH:  May I make a comment?

	MR. THORNTON:  Yes, you may.

	MR. [Ken] SMITH:  I just wanted to comment on the presentation that was
given, because I know that Mr. Podue made a very important point when he
said that he didn't want this to die out.  He would hope that it would
continue, or at least discussion of the issue would continue.

	I have got a couple of questions here.  One is that I don't think the
Committee is exactly sure what you are asking, what ILWU would like to
ask MACOSH or OSHA to do with the information that he provided.  That is
one question that I think that you should answer just because it is your
position on what you foresee, in your own mind, what you would like to
have OSHA or the Committee do with that information.

	My observation, what I would recommend in the absence of what is going
to be presented, would be that the MACOSH, the Committee possibly look
at preparing a guidance document for controlling excessive speed on
marine terminals.

	I believe that we have agreement within the Working Group that speed is
an issue that we can all work to kind of -- you know, to control.  There
wasn't necessarily agreement on what instrument would be best to do that
or why instruments were being used in the ways they were, but in
general, I think our committee or our working group agreed that
excessive speed does kill, and perhaps that would be one option of
moving forward to address the control of excessive speed.

	So, I would just like to make that point, and then I would certainly
like to know what ILWU would like the Committee to do with the
information.

	MR. FAVAZZA:  Pete Favazza, ILW.  I believe it was stated in that white
paper, that we would like to see a standard or regulation come out of
this with speedometers in our haulage equipment.

	The second question.  I would like to see the Committee hash it out and
make a recommendation to OSHA to make it a standard that there will be
speedometers in our haulage equipment, and possibly start working on it.

	We have been working on it, and come to some consensus by next meeting.

	MR. THORNTON:  George.

	MR. LYNCH:  George Lynch, International Longshoreman.  In speaking with
the ILW, and representing the ILA, speed is something that we are very,
very concerned about, but a comprehensive, as I have mentioned to -- we
spoke with Tim last evening, and there are a variety of things that we
do use.

	We use speed bumps, we use radar lights, we use enforcement, lowering
speed limits, we are at a 15 in all of our terminals, addressing those
issues comprehensively comes up with a variety of solutions, a variety
of proposals that can help reduce the fatalities and injuries.

	I think working together, working collectively, there are a variety of
things, and speedometers being an indicator that needs to be looked at,
because it helps a person, it's a reminder, it's a tool, it's a device,
and also looking at what the manufacturers recommend in the equipment
that we drive.

	The 15 miles per hour is in the manuals of some of the equipment that
we use, so it is imperative that we follow their recommendations,
because they know the capacities and the capabilities of the vehicles
that we use.  So, I think we have room for some good research and debate
that needs to be looked at for a comprehensive speed-addressing program.

	Thank you.

	MR. DADDURA:  I am totally confused.  Can you clarify your position of
why you are bringing from the full committee, when you have a workgroup
to handle such issues.  Number one.  Anybody?

	MR. FAVAZZA:  We just felt that we wanted to document it, and we wanted
it on the docket. We want it recognized at the full committee, the
emphasis, the direction that we would like to go.

	MR. DADDURA:  You mean continue work?

	MR. FAVAZZA:  Continue working and that we wanted this as a regulation,
speedometers in vehicles.

	MR. DADDURA:  So, basically, you are asking the full committee to give
you permission to continue working on the workgroup.

	MR. FAVAZZA:  We wanted the full committee to be aware of what we were
doing, and this is the direction that ILW wanted to go.

	MR. DADDURA:  Didn't Marc report out indicate that, that he is still
working on it?

	MR. FAVAZZA:  Not specifically on speedometers, but on speed.

	MR. THORNTON:  Mike.

	MR. FLYNN:  I wanted to thank you for the clarification.  I didn't know
what the issue was.  I knew speed was there, whose position it was on
the speedometers I wasn't aware of.  Now I know.  Appreciate that  I am
glad that you are going to take it back to the workgroup and work on it.

	I think a speedometer is a proven instrument to gauge someone's speed,
so I am fine with that.

	MR. THORNTON:  Mr. Glass.

	MR. GLASS:  I am still confused.  Is it that the Committee has
discussed this among themselves, and this is the issue that you all at a
deadlock at where you can't get over this hurdle, is that the reason you
brought it to the full committee?

	MR. FAVAZZA:  I think that is pretty much where we are at right now. 
We heard today that it may not move forward, so we wanted to make sure
that is just didn't die.  We want this to keep on going because it is
something very important, and you can't follow the directions of the
speed limits if you don't have a speedometer, that is basically one of
the most important things, you just don't know how fast you are going.

	The arguments that we heard from the other side just didn't stick with
us right, and didn't make much sense.  We wanted to get it on record.

	MR. GLASS:  Can I ask one other question?  Maybe it's to you, Jim.

	MR. THORNTON:  Okay.

	MR. GLASS:  I don't think that they are out of procedure to come to the
full committee if there is some type of gridlock in their committee, to
ask for this to be made a standard.

	If the two parties can't come together, then, I think the full
committee is the place that they have to come to.

	MR. THORNTON:  Do you want me to answer your question or recognize that
gentleman?

	MR. GLASS:  I want you to answer the question.

	MR. THORNTON:  The process, let me just kind of from a high level,
explain what I believe to be the process.   The work groups, we set it
out this way, so we could kind of get products and services ready for
consideration and ratification by the full committee.

	So, what just happened I think is we had a work group report.  We had
several guidance documents that the big Committee took under
consideration and adopted, meaning that they adopted the work of the
work group and then to forward on to OSHA.

	What we didn't hear is any resolution to this particular issue, in
other words, I believe it is recognized that speed does kill.  I don't
think there is an issue there.

	What my take-away is that it is how we control that, and whether it is
by exclusively speedometers, whether it's speed bumps, radar guns, you
know, the red yellow, or the signs that say your speed is 17 or
whatever.  I am not sure.  What I heard is the Committee hasn't agreed
upon how to control speed.  I don't think i it is an issue.

	I think that there is work to do here.  I am going to recognize Alan.

	MR. DAVIS:  I am not quite sure where the Marine Terminal Committee got
stuck, so I have two questions and then I can offer my services as a
neutral mediator and BS cutter.

	Are we stuck on whether speedometers are one of the key control tools
for this issue, or are we stuck on whether it should start as a guidance
document or a regulation?

	MR. PODUE:  It has nothing to do about a document, and if I can
elaborate.  Through all the discussions and our conference calls, we
seem to come to loggerheads every time we come to this issue.  We can't
really have an open debate.  I am not trying to throw anything at
anybody here, but as soon as we start moving, our position has never
been to be predominantly and only speedometers, try to deal with the
issue in the big scope of things, like George was saying.

	Everything that George brought up was talked at the table, and this was
my frustration yesterday.  It has already been discussed.  In depth?  I
won't say really in depth, because as a committee, I think we can move
forward on this.

	Chuck even asked the question when we were sitting here does it mean it
is dead, and I hope not. The problem is we can't take that next step. 
After our last conference call, and Marc had told the Committee on the
conference call that he was done with the issue of speed on the
waterfront.

	If I am wrong, and I said this yesterday, somebody please correct me. 
He was done with the issue, and I said I guess we need to go forward and
produce a white paper.  Not knowing the process, you know, it is our
first time, we are feeling our way through this thing and we have had a
little help from some of the guys on the committee on which direction to
take.

	Now, Marc said okay, well, bring yours and then I guess he is going to
produce his.  We have got to put up ours first.  So, when we put it up
yesterday, I think the Committee, I don't know personally, everything
started getting put sideways again where people started bringing the
issues up, speed bumps, and there is other means to deal with it,
control the speed, but that is not the way I saw it, because -- and I
kept throwing, I threw it back in Marc's lap.

	We have go to really -- and maybe it's a good place to say it here --
what are we going to do, because him being the Chair, to move it
forward, what do you want to do?  Our position is we want to move it
forward.

	We will deal with all the collateral issues at dealing besides
speedometers, but they will get into the discussions that we had, which
we shouldn't do here, how do we move it forward.

	Respectfully, I think that the bump in the road or the fly in the
ointment is coming from Marc, and I don't mean that disrespectful
whatsoever, that is where we are stuck in my opinion, and that is just
being candid as I can.

	MR. THORNTON:  I had Don first, then Mr. Glass, then Chuck.  Don.

	MR. RAFFO:  I have listened to this, and you have given us a fairly
detailed report on your position, and basically, it has brought up a lot
of questions which I really don't want to go into here, because at least
from the Shipyard's point of view, you guys are the experts.

	If you want us to weigh in and vote, and do this, you know, I would
think we would certainly want to hear both positions, so we can
understand the issue, but I  guess my thought is I am not sure at least
on the Shipyard side, we can come to a resolution without understanding
the process in detail, and, you know, you have come to like loggerheads
in your committee, and I am just, you know, not sure where we are going
from here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Alton.

	MR. GLASS:  I don't want to belittle this, but the issue is they have
standard speed limits, am I correct?

	MR. FAVAZZA:  Yes.

	MR. GLASS:  A speed bump don't get at the speed limit in my mind, and I
am not on your committee, the operator has to know how fast he is
traveling, and there is only one indicator to address the speed limit.

	So, again, it is not in our committee.  I do think that they brought it
in the right procedural way, I think, I don't know, to bring it to the
full committee if you have gridlock and stuff.  I will leave it right
there.

	MR. THORNTON:  Chuck.

	MR. LEMON:  As a member of the Longshore Committee, and we discussed it
a little bit yesterday, George Lynch made a valid point addressing speed
on the terminals.  I think every person on the working group and
probably every person on this committee agrees that we probably ought to
address speed, and I am very eager to write a guidance document or
assist in writing, and developing a guidance document to address that
issue.

	Obviously, speedometers will definitely be part of that document.  That
is what I think we should do, but if the issue is just whether of not we
have speedometers, I don't think we are going to get there.

	But if we address speed, I am all for it, I am ready to go. as well as
George.

	MR. THORNTON:  I want to go off the record now.

	[Off the record.]

	MR. THORNTON:  We are going back on the record.

	You wanted to comment.

	MR. [Ken] SMITH:  Yes, sir.  I think that we have the ability to move
forward on this.  I think that getting an opportunity to voice opinions
here is helpful.  I think that Mr. MacDonald had observed quite a long
time without making a comment, and we all know Marc is very smart, and
he is going to be extremely capable of moving forward and producing a
product with this.

	I think that it would be best for us to take it back to the working
group, we will continue to work on it. I think we can prepare a guidance
document of some sort, but at the same time, I think that it would be
beneficial to maybe take a vote, understanding we are not going to reach
a consensus, but at least, you know, if the working group, the majority
determines that, hey, we would like to recommend that OSHA move forward
with a regulation or we would like to propose that OSHA move forward
with a guidance document, it can be conveyed in a manner that is
conveyed in the actuality of which it was presented.

	So, I think Mr. MacDonald is willing to do that, and at the same time,
he will be able to voice any dissension that he might have with regard
to his opinion.

	I think we can move forward with this, Mr. Chairman.

	MR. THORNTON:  George.

	MR. LYNCH:  George Lynch of the ILA.

	I think Tim and all of us agree that we have a consensus of opinion. 
Why don't we take Chairman Thornton's suggestion and go back, put our
thoughts together, come up with a comprehensive statement and come back
here.

	MR. THORNTON:  Any other comments?

	[No response.]

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	The only thing, I am kindly reminded by our Designated Federal Official
is that our time is a-wasting, so you might want to think about let's
don't run the clock out.  The charter ends in September.  You know what
I am saying?

	MR. PODUE:  Yes, sir.

	MR. THORNTON:  Do you know what I am saying?

	So, I would like all the Committee. the Workgroup to deliberate.  You
have hashed this a number of times, but try to say we need to resolve
this by X, so that we don't perpetuate the thing and run the clock out.

	Do you understand my point?

	MR. PODUE:  Yes, sir.

	MR. THORNTON:  Anything more on this issue?

	[No response.

	MR. THORNTON:  Here is where we are.  It's 3:05. We have run the clock
out with at least a couple of our speakers who vowed never to come back
here again, put them on the bench.

	MR. DAVIS:  Are they the same ones that showed up late?

	MR. THORNTON:  Yeah, they are the same ones.

	It makes life good for your Chair.

	Here is where we are.  We have completed all of our agenda items.  Now,
before I sort of bring this to a close, I would like to do a couple of
things.

	First, April is a big month for us.  There are three things that are
happening that are very, very important.  The first is I would like to
recognize Pat Strickland.  Pat, stand up and let them see you.  Pat is
retiring in April.

	[Applause.]

	MR. THORNTON:  She is the one that helped you get here with your travel
and room and reservations, and all that kind of stuff, and we are going
to miss her, but she is a newlywed of 5 years, still in love and on her
honeymoon, and we are wishing her the best.

	Thank you.

	Not to be outdone, is Christie back there?  Christie Garner will be, as
I understand it, taking on Pat's job as well as some other things, and I
don't know what they are, but Christie is the one that is going to be
helping us going forward, so welcome aboard, Christie.

	[Applause.]

	MR. THORNTON:  If you can't get a plane reservation, don't call me,
call her.

	Thirdly, she told me not to do this, but Danielle, our own Danielle is
expecting, and she is going to be going out about that time, I don't
know when exactly, but if you didn't notice, Danielle will be going out
shortly, so thank you.

	[Applause.]

	MR. DAVIS:  I told her to just bring the kid.

	MR. THORNTON:  We have day care downstairs. Alan will hold the baby.

	MR. DAVIS:  Yeah, I like babies.

	MR. THORNTON:  Let's see what else have I got.

	The other thing I want to do, a reminder our charter expires September
23rd, so I want the workgroups to remember that, and put that in your
planning as you take on new assignments, et cetera, et cetera.

	I would like to ask Don, you and Marc, to make sure you keep your
matrix up to date.  What I am going to do is I am going to write a
letter to Dr. Michaels on the Committee's behalf asking, petitioning for
re-chartering, and that information will be invaluable to me as we have
ended that letter, the accomplishments of the Committee, and make the
case for re-chartering.

	You never assume anything.  You never take anything for granted, so we
are going to pound the nail home, as it were, so appreciate that.

	Remind me our next meeting is somewhere in Rhode Island, in Newport.

	MR. THORNTON:  When?

	DR. LINCOLN:  April.

	MR. THORNTON:  April, of course, the 27th through 29th, so you will be
hearing about that.

	The last thing I would like to do is we have had some really good
discussion.  I want to start over here with George, and I always like to
ask how did we do, how was the meeting, how were the work groups, it's
open mike, anything you want to say.

	I, as your chairman, appreciate your feedback, it is good for me, it is
good for the staff, it is good for planning, et cetera, so fire away.

	MR. LYNCH:  I want to thank Marc very much for his input and
leadership, and the exchanges here are all in the name of safety.  This
isn't a management agenda, a labor agenda, it's a safety agenda, and we
have that focus.

	We agree to disagree, and it has worked.  There has been a lot of
productivity there.  I think we have made some significant progress, and
we will work on this other issue, and I am sure it can be worked out. 
Thank you.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I just  want to say that I
think this is again and continues to be one of the most productive
MACOSHs we have had.  I think that the output that we have agreed to in
a consensus fashion is significant in that the policy has been developed
where there was none in some cases.  I think that that is a really
feather in the cap of the Committee, and we will stand in good stead for
safety as we go forward.  Thank you.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	DR. LINCOLN:  I think that being a part of this committee is -- I
usually only serve as an advisory role in other Federal committees like
this, and I think that being a member and seeing how the interactions
take place give a better perspective of the challenges that the
Committee faces.

	But I also think that it is important to recognize all the time that
staff spends organizing us, and the time, I have to say I really
appreciate having the dedicated time, one full day in committee, where
we can actually work.

	I think that other advisory committees don't have that luxury, and that
is something that I want to make sure that we don't.  I think that I
want to make sure that we continue to do that because we set the bar
pretty high as far as the products that the Committee wants to produce,
and it is important to allow ourselves the time to actually get the work
done.

	MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. DAVIS:  It is always a pleasure to work with colleagues and I enjoy
representing the commercial fishing and the small guys, and as the vice
chair of the committee she is referring to, I will try to do better.

	Thank you.

	MR. KILLOUGH:  I have got nothing further, Mr. Chairman.

	MR. RAFFO:  I would just like to sort of follow on a little bit what
Jennifer started, with the work groups.  We have had a couple conference
calls in between, we have had I think 100 percent participation in our
conference calls.  We have got everybody together.  I appreciate that,
working on the documents.

	I really think we have quite a few things on our plate, but I think
everyone is attainable before the end of the charter is up, and we will
do everything to work on them.  I also want to thank Marc and the
Longshoring Group for the quick turn around as we submit our documents
to them, they review them, provide comments, and then we try to do the
same for them and work through it.  I appreciate everyone's cooperation.

	Thank you.

	MR. [Ken] SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say thanks to the
working group members that I have been dealing with.  We do have a good
team and we have good leadership, and as George indicated, you know, it
is all about safety.  Coming together to work on these issues has always
been a great sense of pride for our Coast Guard, and I am very happy to
represent that organization in any way I can.

	Thank you.

	MS. BRINKERHOFF:  I would like to commend both of the chairmen of the
working group, because I have seen them, not only in the working groups,
but also here in the full committee meeting, and I think they have done
a terrific job of making sure that the issues that are discussed are
discussed openly and thoroughly and presented to the Committee that way,
too, and that really is the hallmark of a Federal Advisory Committee.

	It's not a secret committee, it is supposed to be very open and public
and transparent.  I think that both of your reports have contributed to
that effort, and I appreciate the chairman's role, too, in clarifying
sometimes statements or positions.

	It may not be clear, and you do that, and it helps, not only me and the
rest of us, but it also helps anybody in the public who can't be here
today, but might read the transcript, in addition to people who are here
from the public.

	MR. JOHNSON:  I feel like this has been a very productive meeting.  It
is a very productive committee, both workgroups are completing projects
on a regular basis, I am proud to be a part of that.

	Also, for me this has been the most informative committee meeting,
especially in regard to combustible dust.  As always, it is always a
privilege and a pleasure to serve in this capacity.

	Thank you.

	MR. ADAMS:  I would just like to re-emphasize what Lesley said.  This
group is amazing, and it is a point that we couldn't get here and talk
safety issues and come to conclusions or suggestions if it wasn't for
OSHA and it wasn't for the staff.

	The work Amy has done, and OSHA, with the Extranet web site helps to
give us tools to succeed.  The next charter and other advisory groups,
that's great.

	MR. PODUE:  This has been great, and I throw kudos to Marc again.  I
said at the last meeting in Virginia, respect the work that he does, he
does a lot of work in between.

	This has been a learning curve for me, and it has been great.  I have
served with my Executive Board and  caucus and officer for the union for
many years.  I understand how you have to go through the process to get 
where you want to be, although it might be a little bit tougher in one
of our rooms when we are dealing with our own business.

	I respect the process.  The products are great. We are putting out some
good products that haven't been there previously.  That's great, but
from the standpoint from a union member, just the labor, a person of
labor, the products are great, I think, and maybe it is being a little
bit selfish on my part to think that sometime or somewhere that we
couldn't attain and get us a standard, because ultimately, like I said
before, the layman on a job for the most part won't pick up a document
and read it.  It is up to people like myself and others that are with
me, that have been around, and passed this along, and pass on the
information, but the layman, how do you protect the layman on the job.

	You have got to give him the tools to work with, and it is up to us as
representatives of labor and also the employers that make it a safer
place to work.

	I will tell you, I put in a request from Danielle for some products
that we put out for the Quick cards. put in a request of that, and also
the Green Book, so we ought to get that for ourselves and pass that out
to our people on our own, because that is a part of what we have done,
right, I really respect it.

	Again, I am being a little bit selfish, I would love to see us get a
standard some day for the guy on the ground, or the men and women on the
ground, how's that.

	That would be a great accomplishment.  Thank you.

	MR. LEMON:  Again, I would like to echo a lot of what has been said. 
We have completed a lot of good projects, and we have a lot on our plate
to complete.  I am also excited that most of these products have never
been addressed before, container repair, it has never been addressed.

	The stuck cones is another one that we are working on.  A lot of these
issues that I get on, on the  regulatory side of Washington State, get
these phone calls, how do you address these things.  We don't have any
rules associated with it.  These guidance documents will definitely
help.

	Hopefully, one day, some of these guidance, OSHA will look at and turn
into regulations as Tim pointed out.

	But I am very pleased with the format, the processes we are doing, the
all-day meetings that Jennifer talks about, the working group, we
definitely get a lot of work done there, and our conference calls are
very beneficial.

	Again, thank you very much.

	MR. GLASS:  I find myself in a very good position.  I am next to the
last.  I haven't heard one comment that I disagreed with.  My learning
curve is now becoming straighter.  This was a very good session.  I am
glad to be here.

	MR. FLYNN:  It's unfortunate I wasn't here yesterday and under the
weather, but I think over the years watching the committee evolve and
matured.  Don does a terrific job and the conference calls, getting all
the issues on the table and hearing it out, yesterday, I am sure it was
very productive, and that dedicated data, I t think adds a lot, too, to
the committee.

	I think not having any type of adversity would just mean we are just
sitting here with a rubber stamp, so I think adversity at times is good,
and it can be productive, and down the road, especially in Washington, I
know the 	OSHA Act was probably a 30-year project in planning before it
finally was put in effect in 1971.

	We can always keep hope alive, hoping that our stuff does turn into
regulation.

	MR. THORNTON:  As the Chairman, I am really honored and proud of this
group, because when I go down there and I talk to the head of OSHA, and
I can show him something like that, that is why we do what we do. and
these aren't just numbers, these are people.

	You saw where we are still having fatalities, people are still dying
out there.  We can do better, this Committee can do better, but we are
doing better, but until that number gets to zero, we haven't done our
jobs.

	You are right.  We are not going to agree on everything, and yes, there
are different positions, hosing positions sometimes, but even with this
issue with the speedometers of whatever, I still heard respect.

	We can respect one another, respect one another's opinions, and I think
that you can disagree without being disagreeable, and that's a good
thing.

	I appreciate the work group willing to go back and give this another
shoot, because I believe in you, I know we are going to come up with a
good solution, and I know it is going to make a difference more
importantly out there on the docks and out on the waterfront.

	So, suffice as to say I want to thank the staff for making my job
easier.  I want to thank the work groups chairs who also do a great job
of harnessing all this energy and turning it into products and services.

	The people I work with, the direct staff, et cetera, et cetera, so all
of this is good, but even equally more is the public who sits out there
in those hard chairs all day listening to us, but more than that.

	I want to thank you for contributing, and we are making a difference,
and we will continue to make a difference, and as long as we are making
a difference, we don't have to worry being recharged.

	That is all I have to say.  I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

	MR. MacDONALD:  So move.

	MR. PODUE:  Second.

	MR. THORNTON:  I have a second.  All in favor can leave.

	[Meeting adjourned at 3:23 p.m.]

 

 

	OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

	1522 K Street, N.W., Suite 720, Washington, D.C. 20005

	Washington:  (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore:  (410) 752-3376

	Toll Free:  (888) 445-3376

		 page \* arabic 241