	OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION PRIVATE  

	U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

	MARITIME ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR

	OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

				

				 Frances Perkins Building

				 Conference Room S-4215, A, B & C

				 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

				 Washington, DC 20210

				 Wednesday,

	

				 November 28, 2007

 

		The meeting was convened, pursuant to notice,

at 8:55 a.m., MR. JAMES R. THORNTON, Chairman,

presiding.

APPEARANCES:

		EMPLOYER INTERESTS:

		MR. JAMES R. THORNTON

		Chairman

		Northrop Grumman Newport News Shipyard

		Building 79-1

		4101 Washington Avenue

		Newport News, VA 23607

		MR. MARC MacDONALD

		V.P. Accident Prevention

		Pacific Maritime Association

		555 Market Street, 3rd Floor

		San Francisco, CA  94105

		MR. DONALD V. RAFFO

		General Dynamics

		76 Farmholme Road

		Stonington, CT  06378

		CAPTAIN TERESA PRESTON

		Atlantic Marine Alabama, LLC

		P.O. Box 3202

		Mobile, AL  36642-3202

		MR. STEWART ADAMS

		Naval Sea Systems Command

		128 Point Fosdick Circle

		Gig Harbor, WA  98335

		MR. JAMES D. BURGIN

		National Maritime Safety Association

		Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co., Inc.

		900 Commerce Building

		118 North Royal Street

		Mobile, AL  36602

		GOVERNMENT INTERESTS:

		MR. CHARLES R. LEMON

		DOSH

		Department of Labor & Industries

		P.O. Box 44650

		Olympia, WA  98504-4650

		MR. KENNETH A. SMITH

		Vessel and Facility Operating Standards

		U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters

		CG-3PSO-2

		2100 Second Street, S.W.

		Washington, DC  20593-0001

		EMPLOYEE INTERESTS:

		MR. MICHAEL J. FLYNN

		International Association of Machinists

		  and Aerospace Workers

		9000 Machinists Place

		Upper Marlboro, MD  20772-2687

		MR. JOHN CASTANHO

		International Longshore & Warehouse Union

		466 McCall Drive

		Benicia, CA  94510

		MR. ERNEST WHELAN

		International Union of Operating Engineers

		Local 25

		463 Highway 33

		Millstone, NJ 07726

		

		DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:

		MR. DAVID WALLIS

		COMMITTEE COUNSEL:

		SUSAN SHERMAN, Esq.

		

		MACOSH COORDINATOR:

		VANESSA L. WELCH

		ALSO PRESENT:

		MR. EDWIN J. FOULKE

		Assistant Secretary

		U.S. Department of Labor

		OSHA

		MR. JOSEPH DADDURA

		Acting Director

		Office of Maritime Standards

		OSHA

		MS. DOROTHY DAUGHERTY

		Directorate of Standards & Guidance

		MR. KEN ATHA

		OSHA

		Area Director

		Mobile, AL

		

		MR. BILL PERRY

		Director

		Office of Chemical Hazards

		OSHA

		MR. MIKE SEYMOUR

		Director

		Office of Physical Hazards

		Directorate of Standards and Guidance

		OSHA

		DR. JOANNA SNYDER

		MR. TOM GALASSI

		ALSO PRESENT:

		MR. DeWITT DAVIS, IV, CIH, CSP

		Certified Industrial Hygienist

		Marine Consultant & National Safety Council

		MR. CURTIS SHAW

		APL/Eagle Marine Services

		MS. SARAH HUFFORD

		Offshore Marine Service Association

		MR. ROBERT MALLETTE

		TEEX - Professional Regulatory Trainers

		MS. DOLORES ROSE PRICE

		TEEX - Professional Regulatory Trainers

		MS. THERESA MORGAN

		Inside OSHA

		MS. JOANNA SMAJDER

		OSHA

		MR. BILL MATARAZZO

		OSHA

		MR. PAUL COMOLLI

		OSHA

		MR. PUAL ROSSI

		OSHA

		MR. DAN HARRISON

		Hampton Roads Shipping Association

		MR. IRA WAINLESS

		OSHA/Maritime Standards

		MS. AMY WANGDAHL

		OSHA/DSG

		MS. DANIELLE WATSON

		OSHA/DSG

		MR. STEPHEN BUTLER

		OSHA/OME

		MR. JEFF FACENDA

		Metro Machine Corp.

		Norfolk, VA

		MR. MICHAEL SEYMOUR

		OSHA

		MR. RICHARD ALVAREZ

		I.L.W.U. Coast Safety Commission

		Southern California

		MR. JERRY YLONEN

		I.L.W.U. Coast Safety Commission

		MR. GERARD J. DUPUIS

		DON/NAVSEA

		MR. JIM RICHARDSON

		U.S. Navy

		Navy Crane Center

		MR. ALAN TRAENKNER

		OSHA

		San Francisco, CA

		MS. ELLEN BYRUM

		BWA

		MR. PETE FAVAZZA

		I.L.W.U.  Coast Safety Commission

		

		MR. DANIEL G. MIRANDA

		I.L.W.U. Coast Safety Commission

		MR. LEO EDWARDS

		OSHA

		Norfolk, VA

		MR. RANDY WHITE

		OSHA

		Portland, OR

		MR. JOHN J. DEIFER

		OSHA

		Savannah, GA

		MR. HSIANG-JEN YEN

		OSHA - OTI

		MS. THRESA NELSON

		NSRP/Northrop Grumman

		MR. GAVIN BURDGE

		BMT Designs and Planners

		CAPT. SALVATORE AMADEO

		MTC - EDST

		MS. DEBORAH GABREY

		OSHA - DSTM

		MR. DAN HARRISON

		Director of Port Safety

		Hampton Roads Shipping Association

			I N D E X

                                                PAGE

AGENDA ITEM

WELCOME & OPEN DISCUSSION

By James R. Thornton		9	

REMARKS & PHOTO SESSION WITH ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, Edwin J. Foulke, Jr.		21

LONGSHORING WORKGROUP REPORT

By James Burgin		42, 124

SHIPYARD WORKGROUP REPORT

By Donald Raffo		253

CRANES AND FALLS WORKGROUP REPORT

By Stewart Adams		142

OUTREACH AND SAFETY CULTURE WORKGROUP REPORT

By Captain Teresa Preston		87

By Ken Atha, Area Director

  OSHA, Mobile, AL		103

REPORT ON FINAL RULE FOR EMPLOYER-PAID

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

By William Perry		180

SUBPART S UPDATE

By David Wallis		206

REPORT ON THE ERGONOMICS FOR THE PREVENTION OF MUSCULOSKELETAL
DISORDERS: GUIDELINES FOR

SHIPYARDS

By Michael Seymour		217

Accompanied by Dr. Joanne Snyder

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT UPDATE

By Tom Galassi		227

HEALTH WORKGROUP REPORT

By Marc MacDonald		273

OPEN DISCUSSION		295

CLOSING REMARKS AND ADJOURN		303

E X H I B I T S

Exhibit Number                       Marked    Received

Exhibit 1                              40         40

Exhibit 2                              44         76

Exhibit 3                              44         76   

Exhibit 4                             113        113

Exhibit 5-1                           121        121

Exhibit 5-2                           121        121

Exhibit 6                             132        132

Exhibit 7                             158        158

Exhibit 8                             158        158

Exhibit 8, as amended                 165        165

Exhibit 9                             251        251

Exhibit 10                            254        254

Exhibit 11                            254        254

Exhibit 12                            274        274                  
P R O C E E D I N G S

	WELCOME AND OPEN DISCUSSION

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right. I am James Thornton.  I'm Chairman of
the MACOSH, the Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and
Health. It's November 28, 2007.  I am pleased to open the meeting for
the MACOSH Working Group.

	The first thing I'd like to do is to call roll, then I would like to
also ask the public to identify themselves.  Do we have a wireless mic
or some way of -- how are we going to have the public identify
themselves?  Approach the mic.  Okay.

	So what I'd like to do, when it comes time to recognize the public, if
you'd just kind of form a line and maybe pull the microphone over to the
edge of the table there and speak into the microphone so we can get your
affiliation as well.

	So with that, let me call the roll. 

	James Thornton.  I am here.  James Burgin?

	MR. BURGIN:  Here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Marc MacDonald?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Donald Raffo?

	MR. RAFFO:  Here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Captain Teresa Preston?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Stewart Adams?

	MR. ADAMS:  Here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Steven Hudock?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I did get an e-mail from Steve.  Apparently there's
been some money appropriated, and he's got a good problem because he's
got some proposals to write for some NIOSH projects.  So, we're sorry
that he will be missed, but he's asked Marc to fill in in his absence
and I know Marc's going to do a great job.

	Charles Lemon?

	MR. LEMON:  Here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Kenneth Smith?

	MR. SMITH:  Here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Michael Flynn?

	MR. FLYNN:  Here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  David Tubman?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I did get an e-mail from Dave, and he has a case
coming up that requires some preparation.  So, he gives his apologies as
well.

	John Castanho?

	MR. CASTANHO:  Here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Warren Fairley?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Someone said Warren was here yesterday.  Did anyone
see Warren?  No?  No.  Okay.  Well, I got a report that he was here. 
But the record will show, Warren is absent.

	Robert Gleason?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Absent.

	And Ernie Whelan?

	MR. WHELAN:  Here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Good.

	Now, at this time I'm going to ask the public to identify themselves. 
We'll start.  Show them how it's done.  Set the bar right here.  Go
right up to the mic and maybe queue up behind so we can move this along.

	CAPT. AMADEO:  Captain Salvatore Amadeo, Marine Terminals Corporation,
East Coast.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. HARRISON:  Dan Harrison, Director of Port Safety, Hampton Roads
Shipping Association.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Everyone should come up.  So, Debra, come on up. 
Let's go in some kind of order here.  Let's start over here.  Dee,
you'll be next, and you'll be next.  So let's move it.  Okay.

	MR. SHAW:  I'm Curtis Shaw, American President Lines, Eagle Marine
Services.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. DAVIS:  DeWitt Davis, National Safety Council and independent
marine consultant.  Thank you.

	MR. ATHA:  Ken Atha, with OSHA.

	MS. PRICE:  Delores Price, OSHA Training Institute, Southwest Education
Center, Region 6.

	MR. MALLETTE:  Robert Mallette, TEEX, out of Texas.

	MS. HUFFORD:  Sarah Hufford, Offshore Marine Service Association in New
Orleans.

	MR. BURDGE:  Gavin Burdge, BMT Designers and Planners.

	MS. NELSON:  Thresa Nelson, NSRP, Northrop Grumman.

	MS. GABREY:  Deborah Gabrey, Director, Sign Technology Medicine, OSHA.

	MR. YEN:  Hsiang-Jen Yen, OSHA, OTI.

	MR. DEIFER:  John Deifer, OSHA, Savannah, Georgia.

	MR. WHITE:  Randy White, OSHA, Region 10.

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

	MR. TRAENKNER:  Alan Traenkner, OSHA, San Francisco.

	MS. BYRUM:  Ellen Byrum, writer, BNA.

	MR. FAVAZZA:  Pete Favazza, I.L.W.U. Coast Safety Committee.

	MR. MIRANDA:  Danny Miranda, I.L.W.U.

	MR. RICHARDSON:  Jim Richardson, Navy Crane Center, Portsmouth,
Virginia.

	MR. DEPUIS:  Jerry Depuis, Department of Navy, Naval Sea Systems
Command.

	MR. YLONIN:  Jerry Ylonin, I.L.W.U.

	MR. ALVAREZ:  Richard Alvarez, I.L.W.U.

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

	MR. FACENDA:  Jeff Facenda, Metro Machine.

	MR. BUTLER:  Steve Butler, OSHA, Maritime Enforcement.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Amy Wangdahl, OSHA, Maritime Standards.

	MS. WATSON:  Danielle Watson, OSHA, Maritime Standards.

	MR. WAINLESS:  Ira Wainless, OSHA, Maritime Standards.

	MR. COMOLLI:  Paul Comolli, Maritime Enforcement.

	MS. MORGAN:  Teresa Morgan, Inside OSHA.

	MR. MATARAZZO:  Bill Matarazzo, Office of Maritime Enforcement.

	MR. ROSSI:  Paul Rossi, OSHA.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I didn't catch your name.

	MR. ATHA:  Ken Atha, with OSHA.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Ken, thank you for your assistance.  That was
great.  I appreciate that.

	And I have it on some authority, and my apologies to the Court
Reporter, she was actually -- I don't know if this is a complete story,
but in the Metro and the trains and she couldn't call.  So I hope you're
fine.  I hope you're all right.  So it's good.  It's good.  She had a
good excuse.

	Okay.  Let's trace back.  We were talking about a couple of things
while we were off the record, but let's have some discussion about this
on the record.

	First, let me go and say, let's talk about the minutes.  Now, in your
packet were the minutes of August 1, 2007.  That was our meeting in
Oakland.  So you've had a chance--I guess, the committee--to review the
minutes.  I would ask for a motion to approve at this time.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  So moved.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I'd ask for a second.

	VOICE:  Second.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Any discussion, corrections, additions,
deletions at this time?

	(No response)

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

	(Chorus of Ayes)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Opposed?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	The next order of business is to just talk a little bit about the next
couple of meetings.  I reminded the committee while we were off the
record that the official charter of this version of MACOSH ended on June
26th of next year.  So we're looking, and staff and I have been talking
and planning.  What we are targeting, are a couple of meetings before
the end of the charter.

	Specifically, we're talking about, in the March time frame in New
Orleans.  We'll try to get details of that out to the committee in terms
of dates and planning and we'll try to work within your schedules and do
the best that we can to get the dates defined early and get those dates
that perhaps most people can attend, and we'll work to do that.  Then
we'll try for a meeting in June in the Boston area, same deal.  Staff
will work with us and we'll do the best we can and try to accommodate as
many schedules as we possibly can.

	So if you reflect back on where we've been, so we've kind of hit the
four corners, if you will, of the country.  We've moved around the
country a little bit so as to try to give some exposure and opportunity
for those that are traveling to make as many MACOSHs as they could.  So
I'm glad that we're able to do that.

	The other thing I'd mention is, inasmuch as our charter does conclude
officially on June 26th, we need to begin, I think, rechartering efforts
at this time so as to hopefully avoid any gap or lapse in the committee
service.  Now, we'll commence that right away.  My plan would be for me
to draft something to petition for rechartering right away.

	I'll run that through the committee for comment and surgery, et cetera,
mark-up, and then we'll send that out.  So, hopefully if we can get that
into the hands of the administration as early and as quickly as
possible, that will give them time them to work on that.  So that will
be on my "To Do" list going forward.

	Let's see.  I was remiss -- I always do this, but I always forget our
Designated Federal Official.  Dave Wallis is here, and our attorney from
the Solicitor's Office is Sue Sherman.  Did I miss, of course, the
esteemed -- the person we've come to know and mostly love --

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Joe Daddura, who is with the Office of Maritime
Standards.  So if I've missed anyone else, I apologize.

	It's about 9:04.  I'll tell you what let's do.  Go off the record a
second.

	(Whereupon, at 9:04 a.m. the meeting went off the record and resumed
back on the record at 9:05 a.m.)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  What we're going to do, let me pause here and say,
from the committee, we -- I can't remember.  Did I go over the agenda on
the record or off the record?  Off the record.  Let me do that, and then
we'll come back.

	So what we're going to do, is we've had sort of a welcome and open
discussion and talked about the executive summary.  The Assistant
Secretary will come in.  We're thinking he may be late.  So wherever we
are in our deliberations, we'll simply pause and hear from him and do
the photo session, and then we'll resume our normal agenda.

	Our Longshoring Workgroup report will be first.  There's been an
adjustment.  I'll call for the Outreach and Safety Culture Workgroup
second.  That will come, give or take, around 10:30.  Around 11:15, that
will be our Cranes and Falls Workgroup.  Then at 1:00 will be our
Shipyards, right after lunch.  The first session after lunch will be our
Shipyard Workgroup.  

	We'll have a report following that from Bill Perry on the final rule
for the PPE standard that just came out, an update from Dave Wallis then
following that on Subpart S.  Somewhere in there we'll take a break. 
Mike Seymour will be here to talk about ergonomics.  After that, around
3:00 we'll have Tom Galassi's report on the enforcement update, about
3:00. I'm sorry, about 3:30.  Then our Health Workgroup will come around
4:00.  Marc MacDonald has graciously offered to stand in for Steve
Hudock for that.

	Then we'll have some open discussion, and finally closure at 5:00. 
That's our agenda.

	What I'd like to do at this time, is ask of the committee, are there
any comments, questions, adjustments to the agenda?  Everything okay so
far?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	Let me also remind the public, there's a sign-up sheet in the back, I
guess, or it's being passed around.  I appreciate your singing in on
that, and that will accompany your identification on the record as to
your presence.

	What I'm going to do at this time, I'm going to start in, okay, with
the Longshoring Workgroup report. 

	Now, who's presenting that?  Jim?  Thank you. What I'd like you to do,
Jim, is just dive into it.  If the Assistant Secretary comes in, as I
said, we'll simply pause and come back.  I know I'm probably -- am I
hitting you too cold?  You're okay?  So let me turn the floor over to
Jim Burgin. 

	Before I do that, just for the public, let me explain to you a little
bit about process, because I think that's important.  The way we work
the MACOSH is so as to get as much participation from everyone.  We sort
of make the sausage the day before we actually do the full committee
meeting.

	So in our workgroups, they're very informal.  Anyone can participate. 
They're led by a member of this committee, each of the five workgroups. 
So the day prior to the official meeting is when kind of the sausage
gets made and we plow through the issues, we take comments.  Then the
committee -- good morning, Dorothy and Mr. Secretary.

	We're at a good time, if you'd like to address the committee.  I don't
know what you're prepared to do, but you have the floor if you'd like.

	REMARKS

	By Assistant Secretary Edwin J. Foulke, Jr.

	ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOULKE:  I have a comedy routine ready for you.

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  A song and dance?

	ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOULKE:  That, too.  We're doing “Dancing with
the Stars” here.

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Great.  Well, thank you, and welcome.

	ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOULKE:  We need a bigger room.  I'm sorry, we
don't have a big enough room for our dancing routine.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Well, I was dancing for a little while, Mr.
Secretary.  We had a little problem getting started.  Our Court Reporter
was involved in a subway accident.  So, we know the drill.

	ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOULKE:  All right.   Great.  How are you?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I'm good.  How are you?

	ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOULKE:  I'm doing well.  Thank you for having me. 
I appreciate that.  I appreciate Jim's, once again, chairing the
committee and being involved with that.  He's been actively involved
with the committee for a fairly long time.  I appreciate your company's
commitment, because they're very much involved with our PPP program, so
we appreciate that very much, too.

	And Dorothy told me -- which is Marc?  Where's Marc?  There's Marc down
there.  Okay.  She really appreciated you all letting her do the crane
thing.  I mean, that's all I hear about, is cranes.

	(Laughter) 

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  That's all we hear about as well.

	(Laughter)

	ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOULKE:  But I appreciate your hospitality.  I'm
sorry I didn't get to come to the last meeting out in Oakland, but I'm
glad you all were here today.  

	The first thing, I'll just start off by just saying thank you to each
and every one of you for being involved with this committee.  I know
that you all could be someplace else.  You all have other jobs that
require your attention that you actually probably get paid for.  We
don't pay these people, do we?  Okay, good.

	(Laughter)

	ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOULKE:  And --

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Can we talk about that?

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I mean, can we discuss that?

	ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOULKE:  You can talk about it after I leave.

	(Laughter)

	ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOULKE:  But, no.  I appreciate the fact that you
do this.  It's important. I suspect you wouldn't be here unless you
thought it was important.  So, I just want to say thank you for that.

	Now, Ken?  There he is.  Ken, you're new, I take it.

	MR. ATHA:  Yes, sir.

	ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOULKE:  Good.  Well, welcome.  They're actually a
pretty nice group.  I think you'll be all right.  But, no.  We're glad
to have you on.  I take it your first meeting was at Oakland?

	MR. ATHA:  Yes, sir.

	ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOULKE:  Okay.  Good.  But I appreciate your
agreeing to serve on this committee, too, so we're really happy to have
you.

	You all bring a wealth of experience that helps us in the maritime
industry.  This is clearly a very important area for us as we're trying
to deal with the workplace safety and health issues.  You deal with
those issues on a day-to-day basis.  You can help us.  Once again, part
of what I love about this job is that I deal with so many different
groups, businesses, labor unions, associations, all of whom are all
committed to safety and health and understand the importance of that. 

	What we're really talking about -- we might as well just get really to
the bottom line.  The bottom line is simple.  The bottom line is, people
go home safe and sound every night to their families and loved ones.  I
appreciate the fact -- and you know that, because you're doing this
every day.  The groups that you work with, you're allowing people to go
home safe and sound.

	These are people that you're not going to see. They're not going to
know what you're doing here, helping us develop the policies, the best
practices, the training programs, whatever, and providing the input to
us and the expertise to us to help the maritime industry be safer and
allow more people to go home safe and sound.  They're not going to know.
 You know what?  We're not going to know.  If you prevent someone from
being injured, you never, ever know about it, that it would actually
ever happen, when you think about it.

	So you're all not going to get any credit for it, because no one is
going to know about it.  But I appreciate it, because I know the job you
all are doing here, the fact that you're here is going to save people
from being injured.  And you know what?  You may even save people from
being killed on the job.  

	When you really think about that, what a tremendous legacy that is to
leave here, when you think about it, because protecting someone from
being killed -- man, that's just something else, because I've been there
with respect to fatalities.  I've probably handled more OSHA fatality
investigations than any lawyer in the country, and I've seen that
devastating effect.  So, just allowing us to do that is just tremendous,
so I just want to say thank you for volunteering your time for this
important work.

	I know you've probably been talking about the rechartering process.  We
are, at this time, preparing a Federal Register notice to solicit
nominations to serve on MACOSH.  Once we receive them, we'll screen them
and the Secretary of Labor will--just as you know what the process
is--make the selections and will do that.  But I would ask you just to
keep that in mind, that your participating in MACOSH in working group
meetings will be considered when we're rechartering the Advisory
Committee.

	I think one of the things we're going to do, is take a new photograph. 
I'm big on recording history type of things.  I like to remember things
of what I did and I like to be involved in the things I'm involved in. 
We do a lot of picture-taking around here, more so probably than we used
to do, because I think it's important.

	That's why we're going to take a new picture of this committee and it
will be displayed downstairs in the OSHA conference room with the other
three Advisory Committees, because I think it's important to recognize
the people that are involved in these committees and also to kind of
keep a record of what it is.  We keep the old pictures, so we'll always
have that record.

	I thought I'd give you an update, a little bit, on some of the OSHA
activities that have been going on for the past several months.  I'm
going to talk about kind of our new redesign publication page, some of
the new and revised standards, a quick look at our enforcement and
guidance efforts, our outreach training activities, and also I'm going
to talk a little bit about the Alliance programs that we've had in the
maritime industry.

	The first thing about the new publication page that we've put out, OSHA
has unveiled last week its public Web site, a newly-formatted
publication page.  It was really intended to try to once again make
everything as user-friendly as possible.  We've got a lot of great
materials.

	I've always said in the past, before I even took this job, but since I
took this job, I want OSHA to be the resource for safety and health.  I
want us to be leading the way.  I honestly believe that our Web site is
not only the best safety and health web site in the country, it's the
best Web site in the world.

	I get comments from other countries when I'm out visiting them, but
also we get a lot of visitors from other countries here.  Inevitably, at
every one of those meetings, the members of that delegation will mention
about the OSHA Web site and how they looked on the OSHA Web site in
their country, and how they've used the OSHA Web site.

	So, once again, your participation, your involvement, is helping us
have those materials on that Web site in the maritime industry.  You're
helping people, not only employees in the United States but also around
the whole world, be safe.  So we did this change because we really
wanted to make sure that we had it user-friendly and it was easy to
access, because if people can't get to the stuff -- if you have it but
can't get to it, you'll need to have it.  So we have over 300,000 visits
every month to our Web site.  

	This is probably the most popular page about getting information on
that.  So we redesigned that to make it easier for people to find stuff.
 We also have enhanced the search engine.  It now offers choices of five
ways customers can look for different products: by publication number,
by key word, alphabetically, by industry topic, and by type of
publication.  So it's all there.  We just want to make sure that it was
available to them.

	We've also adopted some other popular features that you see on other
Web sites.  We put in a new component, like most frequently viewed OSHA
publications and publications recommended by OSHA.  So once again, we're
just trying to figure out whatever we can do.  This is a small change in
the grand scheme of things, but once again, it's one step to try to help
make safety and health information and resources available to people,
make it easier to them.  

	So, we're trying to help employers prevent workplace accidents from
happening in the first place. This is partly through our education, our
compliance, and outreach.  It all pays dividends, because in the long
run, if they're using this material--and we've done surveys where we
found they actually are looking at a lot of this stuff that they're
using and aware of it, that ends up reducing people -- having companies
having injuries and illnesses and fatalities.  So, once again, it's
helping us accomplish our mission.

	Going into the standards area, on November 14, which was almost two
weeks ago, OSHA published a final rule on an important workplace safety
and health standard dealing with the employer-paid personal protective
equipment standard.  Under this rule, the employers will be required to
provide personal protective equipment, or PPE, at no cost to the
employees, except under specific circumstances.  

	The rule also clarified, or actually contains certain exceptions, for
certain types of clothing and gear and it clarified OSHA's requirement
to employees regarding payment for employee-owned PPE and replacement
PPE.  I understand Bill Perry, the Deputy Director of Standards and
Guidance, is going to give you a full report on our new payment for PPE
standard, so I think you'll find that very interesting.

	And I think you'll find, I thought Dorothy's group on Standards and
Guidance did real good.  I think it was a very balanced standard.  For
the most part, I think we've had comments on it.  We really haven't been
overly criticized on the standard.  So, I think that shows that we
really were sensitive to a balance as to all the comments that came in,
so I think we did a good job on that.

	Also during your meeting you're going to receive details on a number of
other standards and guidance products that the Agency is developing for
your industry.  I will briefly mention them, but I know that the
Standards and Guidance staff, with their expertise, will give you more
specifics on the Standards and Guidance documents that we're working on.

	One of the things that we are working on in shipyards, we recognize
working in shipyards is one of the most hazardous occupations in the
country.  To reduce those risks, we're going to propose revising our
standard on General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment.  That
proposal is going to cover several workplace safety and health issues,
although many provisions simply need to be updated and clarified on
existing requirements.  The proposed rule has cleared, I understand, OMB
and we're going to be getting that finalized to be able to publish that
revised standard, hopefully in the very near future.

	Subpart S.  The final rule revising electrical installation
requirements for general industry was published back in February of '07
and went into effect in August of '07 of this year. 

	The final rule contained a requirement to provide ground fault circuit
interrupters for temporary wiring involved in certain activities.  At
your August 1 meeting, MACOSH asked OSHA to delay enforcement of the
GFCI provision under we could clarify the standard and its requirements.
 In response to your recommendations, we are clarifying the standard as
it applies to shipyard employment.  I guess we'll be doing that in this
meeting here, to do a little bit more on that.  

	As part of our long-range review of all OSHA standards, OSHA is
considering changes to the Maritime Industry Standard, specifically
Parts 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1919.  For example, in Subpart G of Section
1915, which covers gears and equipment for rigging and material
handling, OSHA is considering revising the sling standard.  OSHA is also
considering adding definition to "ship stores" as part of 1917 and 1918.

	In the guideline areas, because shipyard work is hazardous and
physically demanding, we are developing proposed ergonomic guidelines
for shipyards.  These guidelines will provide recommendations for
shipyards to help reduce the number and severity of work-related
musculoskeletal disorders, increase employer and employee awareness of
risk factors, eliminate unsafe work practices, alleviate muscle fatigue,
and increase productivity.

	We issued these guidelines on September 11, 2007, and the comment
period is closing on November 13. OSHA will provide comments to the
Health Workgroup for their review.  Later this afternoon, I think Mike
Seymour, with the Directorate of Standards and Guidance, will be giving
a full report on the guidelines for your information there.  So, we're
going to work on that.

	Another area that we've done a lot of work in over the last several
years, is dealing with the issue of pandemic influenza guidance.  The
medical experts predict that a worldwide influenza outbreak in the
coming years will cause disease to many people.  Pretty much, the
experts agree that it's not if a pandemic influenza will occur, it's
when a pandemic influenza will occur.

	So we really are trying to make sure that we have put in place all the
information guidance that we need to have, employers need to have, the
governments need to have to be able to continue operations.  That's
really the charge that we've had, as the White House has taken the lead
on this particular issue, and really has said we want to make sure that
we're prepared to handle this pandemic when it occurs.

	Even though we don't have a pandemic right now, we want to be prepared
for it.  We want to make sure that the Federal Government continues to
operate. We want to make sure that the State and local governments
continue to operate.  We want to make sure that businesses continue to
operate during this thing.

	So, that is what we've done.  OSHA has prepared two major guidance
documents on this, one for general industry practices, and then the
other one, a more detailed one which deals with specific needs of
employees working in the health care industry.

	The guidance for general industry explains how the influenza is spread,
how employers can maintain operations, how to protect employees, steps
for low- medium- and high-risk workplaces, and tips for employees to
stay safe and healthy while traveling or living abroad for work.

	We have that information on our Web site, once again, and it links to
the National Pandemic site, the White House Web site on the pandemic. 
So there's a lot of information there.  Hopefully, I think you'll find
that the stuff that we have prepared, the guidance documents that we've
prepared, will be very helpful in allowing your businesses to continue
in operation when a pandemic influenza hits the country.

	Enforcement programs.  I'm pleased to inform you that OSHA's goal that
we set for 2007 of conducting 37,700 inspections, we exceeded that goal
by 4 percent, so we remained committed to a very strong enforcement
program.

	It's unfortunate, but there are still employers who think that exposing
their employees to safety and health hazards is just a part of doing
business.  That's kind of a sad thing in this day and age, but it's
true, because I see it pretty much every week.  I may not see it every
day, but I see it every week.

	So we're going to continue to have strong enforcement.  One of the
things we are doing, is updating the training of or CSHO employees and
making sure that they're full trained to be able to do comprehensive
inspections.  We have a number of inspection emphasis programs that are
going on right now.  We added one for butter-flavored popcorn involving
diacetyl.  We've done a national emphasis program involving all the oil
refineries.  The diacetyl one involving popcorn, we intend to inspect
all the facilities by the end of the year.  The refinery national
emphasis program, we're going to visit all the refineries in Federal and
State programs.  

	Our goal is to get those completed in a two-year period to inspect all
of them, a very specific program.  We have a number of other emphasis
programs that we're working on there and there will be some other ones
that will be announced in the not-too-distant future, so we'll be
working with them on those.

	OSHA really is committed to maintaining up-to-date and accurate
directives and other guidance materials.  OSHA's maritime directives
were issued in 2005 and 2006.  Revisions on two of these maritime
directives are close to completion, and we expect to update directives
on shipyard PPE and maritime jurisdiction in the spring of 2008.  I
think Tom Galassi is going to give a discussion about that.

	Also, I want to talk a little bit about an important part of the
mission to assist employers, and that's our outreach through training. 
We've been looking at the needs of your industry and how we can support
you through the Training Institute located in Chicago.

	This year, Region 4 has completed and presented 10- and 30-hour Train
the Trainer courses, and a 30-hour training course was designed for the
maritime industry.  I think we've got something coming up on that, too,
if I remember.  I might be able to look at that.  But I understand, on
the Region 4, the topics included shipyard employment, including ship
repair, shipbuilding, and ship breaking, maritime terminals, and
longshoring.  So we're moving on that.

	OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance Enforcement Programs and
Training and Education are collaborating to redesign the Shipyard
Process and Standards Course, course #2090.  I think we'll be working
very closely on that.

	Also, as part of that redesign, too, I understand Leo Edwards -- is Leo
here?  There he is.  Good to see you, Leo.  He's our Director in
Norfolk, Virginia.  He's part of the redesign team.  So, I appreciate
him being involved with that group.

	Finally, I would like to remind you that we have four national
alliances with the maritime industry, and those include the American
Shipbuilding Association, the National Shipbuilding Research Program,
the Shipbuilders Council of America, and the National Maritime Safety
Association.  Since the last MACOSH meeting in the summer, OSHA renewed
two of these alliances agreements.  We renewed the alliance with the
American Shipbuilding Association on August 22nd, and our alliance with
the National Shipbuilding Research Program on October 2nd.

	Through all of our alliances, we are developing for the maritime
industry a new fact sheet entitled "Safety Alert Involving
Electrocutions".  The safety alert has been designed to inform shipyards
about electrical hazards, particularly about arc flashes.  We're working
on developing this fact sheet with the assistance of three of the
alliance partnerships, along with two other alliance partners, the
American Industrial Hygiene Association and the American Society of
Safety Engineers.

	We are also working on our marine industrial safety topics page on the
OSHA Web site.  It's being updated to reflect input from OSHA and our
alliance partners.  So, we've been working very diligently on that.

	I guess I'll just finally say, once again, I know you've got a full
agenda, so I don't want to keep you all from that.  I may try to stop in
later on during your meeting.  I wish I could stay here for the whole
meeting, but unfortunately when I took this job I didn't know, my time
is not my time.  I get to go do things.  But once again, I appreciate
the work that's been put together.

	I appreciate your time and commitment, because I know it's difficult,
being away from your jobs for at least two, and possibly, some of you
all, three days, some maybe four, just the travel time involved.  But
once again, like I say, it is important.  Allowing people to go home
safe and sound to their families and loved ones is a great legacy to be
leaving behind.  So I applaud your efforts on that and I appreciate your
all being here and helping us out.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  If I could, and I guess we're going to have some
pictures here in just a second, speaking on behalf of the committee and
really the maritime community, I think the maritime community feels very
close to the Agency and the administration through a number of different
areas, whether it is MACOSH, you alluded to some of the partnerships and
alliances and some of the different areas.  

	So we interact and intersect in a number of ways which are all very
positive.  We agree mostly.  Sometimes we have to, you know, disagree,
but we can disagree without being disagreeable, type of thing.  But I
feel, back to the point on behalf of the community, very close to the
Agency.  If we have got an issue, we feel we can come forward and
discuss it openly and come to a reasonable decision on that.  

	To your point, I think we are making a difference out there.  I think
the products and services and the things that this committee is doing,
as well as the efforts that perhaps we don't see, the ones that are not
in this room, if you look at our injury rate reduction for our NACS or
SSE code, it's a pretty good thing.  If you compare that to, say,
general industry, we're making a difference out there.  So, many more
people are going home in the same condition as they came to work in than
ever, and we pledge to continue those efforts.

	I think the other thing, you alluded to the fact that it's the effect
on the family unit and how devastating an industrial accident can be. 
All of that is very true.  I think we are making a difference there.

	But I think also we're making a difference financially in terms of
reduction of Worker's Comp, which in turn allows us to have even more
jobs available for people.  So if we can sort of get in that positive
cycle, I think that's where we all are trying to get.  On behalf of the
people in this room, I do appreciate your personal support, and all of
that of the Agency as well.

	So, with that, thank you very much.  I'm not sure.  I'm going to turn
this over now to the photographer, so he's got the floor.  I'm sorry,
may I say, we're off the record.

	(Whereupon, at 9:36 a.m. the meeting was recessed and resumed back on
the record at 10:02 a.m.)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  We're back on the record.

	There's a couple of administrative things we need to do before we go
back to our agenda.  The first is, I'll turn it over to Susan.  We need
to put the minutes, I guess, officially on the record. everybody. 

	MS. SHERMAN:  Mr. Chairman, the committee approved the executive
summary of the minutes.  However, I'd like to offer them as Exhibit 1
into the record.

			(Whereupon, the document referred

			 to as Exhibit 1 was marked for

			 identification and entered into

			 the record.)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  And also, someone reminded me again,
I've been remiss.  That is, when we're doing introductions and
thank-yous, et cetera, I failed to mention the OSHA staff specifically,
Vanessa Welch--and I'm probably missing people--Amy, and other people. 
Paul is no longer with us, right?  Okay.  Whoever they are, besides
Vanessa.  Is Danielle here?  Don't forget Pat Strickland, also, for your
reservations, et cetera.  So thank you to all staff that helps us with
all the details of these meetings, which are extremely hard to put
together.

	So, everybody okay?  Ready to move into -- I guess we barely started
the Longshore Workgroup report, so I'm going to once again turn it over
to Jimmy Burgin, who's going to take us through the discussion here.

	LONGSHORING WORKGROUP REPORT

	By Mr. James Burgin

	MR. BURGIN:  The Longshore Workgroup has had four conference calls from
the previous Oakland meeting.  The purpose of the report today is to
review the RO-RO Ship Dock Safety document, the Marine Terminal Traffic
Safety document, a Flat Rack Task Sheet, which is being handed out to
the committee right now, and then to report on accomplishments of the
overall workgroup.

	To begin with, we need to take a look at the RO-RO Ship Dock Safety
document.  The committee should have two November 27, 2007 documents in
front of them. There were previous documents in the blue folder that we
got that were about two weeks old.  The documents that were on the table
today are documents that are less than 24 hours old.  So, they have
changes that were discussed during the workgroup session yesterday.

	So let's start off by the RO-RO, Roll-On/Roll-Off Ship Dock Safety.  I
want to make sure that everybody has the documents they need.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Just for the committee, Susan has something.  I'm
sorry.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Yes.  I don't have the executive summary of the RO-RO. 
Do you have another one?  Thank you.

	MR. BURGIN:  What I would suggest that the committee do, and this will
take a little bit of time, but we need to just about go through this
page by page. I will try to highlight and do a treetop version of our
discussion yesterday, but if you have questions, you may have to stop
me, because once I get on a roll I might keep going.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  What I'm going to do, just to kind of
keep some kind of order here, is I'm going to first take
comments/questions from the committee, and then allow some time for any
questions from the public.  I hope not to cut anyone off, but I guess
what I'm saying is, I'm going to kind of defer here and allow preference
to the committee for questions, and then perhaps allow for a little
discussion from the public.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Jimmy, in order to make the record clear, when you're
referring to the smooth draft, please say so.  When you're referring to
the chart, please say so.

	MR. BURGIN:  The document comparison.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Document comparison, whatever you want to call it, just
so we'll be able to tell from the transcript.

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.

	MR. BURGIN:  I think the best thing to do for everybody would be to
look at the smooth draft version, which is just a plain Word document
without columns.  I would suggest that we enter that into the record, as
well as the document comparison document.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  Why don't we enter the smooth draft in the record
as Exhibit 2, and the document comparison as Exhibit 3.

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.

	MS. SHERMAN:  And I'll mark them and give them to the Court Reporter
for inclusion in the record.

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Thank you.

			(Whereupon, the documents referred

			 to as Exhibits 2 and 3 were marked

			 for identification.

	MR. BURGIN:  Like I said before, I'm going to try to go through this
quickly.  Please follow along.  If you have questions, please stop and
talk to me.

	As a brief history, the workgroup was given a draft earlier this year,
the RO-RO Ship Dock Safety document, and was charged with providing
feedback to OSHA on the draft.  So, that's the purpose of what we're
doing here.  So we have, during the conference calls, talked about the
original OSHA draft.  You see in the comparison document, on the
right-hand side is the OSHA original language, and then the left-hand
side of the document is called the "Discussion Draft, 11/27/07".

	The discussion draft is the product of the Longshore Workgroup.  It's
the language that the Longshore Workgroup suggests to OSHA.  The
discussion draft, in the left-hand column of the comparison document, is
the very same language that's in the smooth draft version, so you can
look at the smooth draft version or you can look at the discussion draft
on the left-hand column of the comparison document, but it's the very
same language.  Okay.

	So, going forward, I will highlight where the suggested changes were. 
The first paragraph, page 1, deals with some language that we suggested
because the first language was a little bit too general.  We suggested
some more specific language and deleted the OSHA sentence that says "the
work is fast-paced, is conducted around the clock, and often in
inclement weather."  The suggested language is a little bit more
specific than what that language was.

	The next paragraph, we deleted some adjectives that were in the OSHA
original document.  The original document also talked about a group of
workers, such as seamen, lashers, cargo handlers, et cetera.  We better
defined that particular list of workers, so that's what the workgroup
did.

	The next paragraph begins, "OSHA recommends that marine cargo handler
employers..."  That paragraph, we inserted the definition from
1918.86(a), which is the definition for traffic control systems.  The
workgroup recommends that the document use the word "traffic control
systems" rather than "traffic control programs" that was in the original
document.  It makes it consistent with the 1918 standard and it also
allows for the controls to be emphasized rather than a written program.

	The next paragraph.  The workgroup felt that references to ICHCA, which
was in the original document, which is International Labor Organization
and the International Cargo Handling Coordination Association, ICHCA. 
We felt like that should be taken out of the document to make it more
United States-type operations friendly.  Also, the workgroup added that
the MACOSH has produced this document and has worked on this document.

	The next paragraph is the same.  

	Going on into the introduction.

	MS. SHERMAN:  You're now on page 2?

	MR. BURGIN:  I'm at the bottom of page 1.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.

	MR. BURGIN:  Bottom of page 1, in the "Introduction" section.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.

	MR. BURGIN:  The workgroup expanded that paragraph to make it more
descriptive of RO-RO vessels. We felt like that, overall, the document
that OSHA produced was too broad of a document.  We needed to define
better the safety controls that would be applicable to the different
types of vessels that handle roll on-roll off cargo, and also to the
different type of cargo that's being handled on these vessels.

	So you're going to see that coming through the document several times,
because the problem with the original document was that it was too broad
and it applied every safety rule as a general requirement or general
guidance to all cargo and all vessels as a whole.  So in the
"Introduction" section, still on the bottom of page 1, we added a
definition for RO-RO vessels, which is strictly straight out of 1918.2,
which provides the definition for RO-RO vessels.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Let me stop you right here, if I could.  But you're
working from the landscape document right now, or are you going back and
forth between the portrait document and the landscape document?

	MR. BURGIN:  My notes are on the landscape document, so I'm personally
working from the landscape document.

	MS. SHERMAN:  May I also clarify, you've talked about the introduction
on the bottom of page 1. However, on page 2 there is something that's
titled "Introduction", so that's a little bit confusing.

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.  I suggest that everybody follow the portrait
document, which is the smooth draft version.  I suggest that you do
that.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  That's Exhibit 2.

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.  

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  That's helpful, because I got lost, myself.  Okay.

	MR. BURGIN:  Sorry about that.

	So we are on the top of page 2, right underneath the words "Insert
picture".  There were several pictures in the original OSHA document. 
We can help supply pictures.  The workgroup can get pictures and put
them back into the document, if necessary.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Are you saying that you want different pictures than were
originally there?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes.

	MS. SHERMAN:  And why is that?

	MR. BURGIN:  To be more specific to the new language, possibly, that's
in the workgroup-suggested language.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.

	The first main paragraph, the top of page 2, is the same, no change
there.

	The next change is the paragraph that deals with RO-RO operations. 
What we tried to do, is you see on page 2, it says "Each type of ship
and each type of cargo presents different challenges."  The reason that
that's new language, the reason that we inserted that language, was to
clarify that there are many, many different types of cargo and each type
of cargo has its specific safety controls.  There are many, many types
of vessels, configurations of cargo holds in the RO-RO ships, and they
have, in a sense, their own controls.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Let the record show that Mr. Burgin is referring to page
2, paragraph 3 of the smooth document.

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.

	Another item that we took out of the original document, was references
to the Pacific Maritime Association's frequency rate in 1997.  The
original OSHA document stated that the frequency rate was: 7.1 percent
of all accidents in PMA-covered ports happened in RO-RO operations.  The
most recent statistics now reveal, in 2006, that only 0.028 percent of
all accidents in PMA-covered ports happened on RO-RO type operations.

	The workgroup has struggled with this.  It was pointed out in a
conference call that if that is -- the drastic reduction is great, but
that only covers basically the West Coast ports, the PMA ports.  So we
asked OSHA yesterday, is that because there's such a drastic reduction
in the accident frequency?  Will that be a problem in getting the
document to put out and eventually be made available to the public?  So
can we have that discussion again today?  David, would you speak to
that?

	MR. WALLIS:  I'd be glad to have that discussion.  In, I'm not sure
which year it was.  I guess it was 2005.  OMB published data quality
guidelines that all agencies have to follow.  We have to basically pull
together our own and make sure all our guidance products are based on,
basically, sound science.  So what we've had to do when we have put out
a guidance product, is go back and make sure that all the statements we
make in the documents are accurate, we have supportable information
backing all these things up.

	The other thing that the data quality guidelines require us to do, is
to make sure that when we issue guidance, there's actually a need for
it.  It wouldn't make much sense for the government to put out a
guideline on a subject that didn't pose some kind of a problem,
depending on, in our case it would be an occupational safety problem. 
If there aren't any, or very few occupational injuries related to roll
on-roll off operations, it would not be in the public's interest for the
government to spend resources developing a document on that.  

	So one of our concerns is that the original PME number showed that roll
on-roll off operations contribute significantly to employee injuries,
and now we're hearing that that's no longer the case.  That is a
concern.  What I've asked the workgroup to do, is to continue looking
for data that will help us support the need for this document.

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.

	MR. ADAMS:  Has there been any understanding or looking into why
there's been a change?  Is it just a counting anomaly?

	MR. BURGIN:  I don't know that there's been a study.  Maybe Marc could
address that.

	MR. MacDONALD:  I think it comes down to, I think, one, improvements in
safety, and then also, percentage-wise, just the growth in other forms
of transportation, containerization, for the most part.  So I think
you're talking about, one, improvements, and you're talking about, one,
just changes in the mix of cargo.

	MR. WALLIS:  I would like to add one thing.  I didn't want to imply by
my statement that we couldn't go forward with this.  All I wanted to say
is that the numbers were posing some problems for us.  As Marc noted,
these are percentages.  Maybe if we could get data behind those
percentages we would find out that the numbers of injuries were still
very high, even though the percentage of accidents were lower.

	MR. BURGIN:  All right.  

	Let's go on to page 2, "Factors That Contribute to RO-RO Related
Injuries".  Nothing really to discuss there.  It's pretty much standard.

	The top of page 3 gets into training.  This is another example where
the original document painted all training for all types of varieties of
vessels and cargo with a big, broad brush.  What we tried to do, is
specify and clarify the training that would be applied to vehicles that
are considered powered industrial trucks as opposed to cargo aboard the
vessels, and cargo could be--and we spell this out in the
document--automobiles, could be combines, could be farm equipment, could
be a variety of different heavy equipment.  

	So what we tried to do is clarify using the standard, and the standards
are referenced at 1918.98(a), which would be designating operators by
training or experience, and then, of course, the forklift, powered
industrial truck operator training standard is listed there and that
would apply only to powered industrial trucks, not to cargo.  So, the
workgroup felt strongly that we should make that clarification.

	Going on to "Fatigue" on page 3.  The workgroup felt like there was a
quote in the original document that talked about, from the Port of
Baltimore magazine, July of 2004, which we felt, again, was too broad of
a quote.  It said that employees need only 5 to 8 minutes to move
wheeled cargo on and off ships, and we felt like in some cases that's
true, but not in every case.  So, we felt like that should be taken out
of the document.

	Under "Pedestrian and RO-RO Traffic Movement and Controls", we expanded
that paragraph a little bit there.  Again, the original OSHA language
included a reference to systems.  Again, we're trying to emphasize more
controls that could be in place rather than systems.

	We added that traffic control systems, and this is, again, under
"Pedestrian and RO-RO Movement and Controls" at the bottom of page 3. 
Traffic control systems do not have to be written plans, however, they
must be implemented through signage, tape, barriers, et cetera to define
the intent for the employees of the control systems.  Again, the
language in 1918 uses the words, "traffic controls systems" rather than
"traffic control programs".  Okay.

	Moving on to the top of page 4, the first bullet point, "Seat Belts"
was referred to in the document.  Seat belts should be worn by driving
equipment covered by Power Industrial Truck, if so equipped, but the
original OSHA document required any and all vehicles that had seat belts
must be used.  

	The feedback from the workgroup was that some manufacturers of
automobiles and other types of equipment do not want persons driving the
vehicles to use seat belts or to use any other accessories on the
vehicle for fear of it getting dirty, damaged, and things like that.  So
we needed to clarify that, certainly on powered industrial trucks, yes,
but maybe not so on cargo.

	The top of page 4, the next bullet point, "RO-RO traffic should be
controlled at all times using signage, barriers, signal persons..." 
That's not language and it's part of 1917.71.

	Under "Speed Limits" in that same section, still at the top of page 4,
the original language talked about, "designated parking on RO-RO traffic
access routes should be prohibited except in suitable designated areas."
 We felt like designated areas on vessels, really, every part of the
vessel is used as a parking place to stow cargo, so that was, again, too
broad to really be applicable.

	Going on to "Vehicle Operation" in that section there, again, this is
when we tried to introduce the variety of the cargo that's handled and
the unique characteristics from vessel to vessel.  We suggested that
language there, right underneath the heading of "Vehicle Operation".

	Under "Cargo Weights", the OSHA document, the original language says,
"Cargo should not be operated or moved about the ship without a vehicle
marshall or director present."  The workgroup felt like that that is the
role of superintendents and foremen on the vessel.  It's not
specifically called for in 1917 or 1918.  Since they're doing that from
direction from their employer, again, it's not something that has to be
done.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Excuse me.  Which change did you make under "Cargo
Weights"?

	MR. BURGIN:  There was a section in the OSHA original language that
dealt with having a marshall or director present.  We took that out.

	MS. SHERMAN:  So you omitted that language?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes, ma'am.  Yes.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.

	MR. BURGIN:  OSHA also, in their original language, had a phrase that
says, in this same section, but it was taken out, "RO-RO, however,
should not be backed without supervision from a vehicle director
stationed to one side or to the rear of the vehicle being backed."  When
you're discharging automobiles, you have to go forward two feet, back up
two feet, so there's a lot of movement back and forth.  

	To say in a guidance document that people should be on one side or the
other, watching, again, is a broad brush and we tried to make it a
little bit more specific, again, going back to 1918.86(n), which deals
specifically with moving backwards and forwards.  It's more performance
language to make sure people are not in the way of the vehicles doing
that.

	Another part of the OSHA original language that we had to take out
stated "only one vehicle should travel on a ramp at a time unless the
ramp is properly marked and equipped to handle more than one direction
of travel."  We took that out because generally cars will come off a
vehicle at a good pace and there may be one car coming off the ramp when
the next car is getting on the ramp, so ramps are big and there could be
one or two cars on a ramp at a particular time.  We went back to the
standard, 1986(a), which deals with the traffic control system.  That
would handle how to have multiple cars on a ramp, if that were the case,
given a particular operation.

	The top of page 5.  The original OSHA language stated that "Vehicles
should not be operated in excess of designated speed limit."  We changed
the word "vehicles" to "cargo".  And "designated speed limit", again,
the OSHA standard is more performance language driven rather than having
any designated speed limits.  There may or may not be a designated speed
limit every single time, but that is up to the controls in place to
monitor the speed of vehicles.

	Going on to "Used Cargo", the original OSHA language used the term
"unsafe cargo".  We felt like that the cargo that we handle was not, by
itself, unsafe, so we suggested that we go with "used cargo".  OSHA also
stated in their original language that "unusual or abnormal RO-RO cargo
may need to be escorted directly on or off the ship", and we felt like
that that could lead to injury.  Employees could be struck by the cargo
if they get too close to the cargo, so we suggested that we take that
out.

	Still under "Unusual or Over-sized Cargo", the sentence that says
"Before loading or discharging unusual..." et cetera, et cetera, OSHA,
in the original language, used the term "competent person".  "Competent
person" implies several things.  "Competent person" is not listed in any
of the 1917 and 1918 rules that apply to cargo handling, so we suggested
we take that out.

	Some of the language, continuing on to page 5, is new language.  I will
not go into too much of that.

	Let's go into "Communication".  Again, the OSHA language stated that
"RO-RO operations require constant communication."  It's impossible to
do constant communication if someone is in a vehicle driving it, so we
felt like that we needed to be a little bit more specific, so we used
the word "effective communication is a key element..." and you can read
from there.

	MR. CASTANHO:  Jim, one question.  Page 5, back up to the "Unusual or
Over-sized Loads".  The second bullet, "Ensure the RO-RO cargo is
securely lashed to its transporter and is or safe to move."  The word
"or".  Should that be in there or is that a typo?

	MR. BURGIN:  Probably a typo.  Thank you.

	MR. CASTANHO:  All right.  

	MR. BURGIN:  One thing that OSHA put in the original language was just
a general statement that says "Mooring ropes should be adjusted as
necessary".  That's pretty much up to the vessel crew to do that, and
they commonly do that anyway.  The mooring ropes aren't that particular
to cargo handling.

	The "Ramps" section on the bottom of page 5.  We tried to quote the
standard that used the language in the 1918 standards.  

	Something I would like to point out on page 6, which is the first main
paragraph on page 6 that begins, "Note that some mechanical cargo is
driven..."  It's important to note that the last sentence of that
particular paragraph, that persons that have to operate the cargo using
an umbilical cord type control are not considered pedestrians because
they are mainly the operators of that equipment as it's driven on or off
the vessel.

	Under "Substance Abuse", the first sentence in the "Substance Abuse"
section is a new sentence that was added by the workgroup.  Under
elimination, there was some rewording done.  What the rewording tried to
do, is stress that lighting is something that's provided by the vessel
and it should be good.  

	The original OSHA language talked about using the sun visor in some
cases.  Again, the workgroup pointed out that a lot of the automobile
manufacturers do not want the employees using any of the accessories,
and a sun visor would be included in that.

	Under "Walking and Tripping Hazards", the workgroup tried to make it
more specific to the types of hazards that are in the vessel, keeping in
mind that the workgroup felt like the tripping hazards can change by
vessel, or even when the cargo is loaded on or off the vessel, so we try
to make it a little bit more specific.

	Under "Vehicle Stowage and Lashing/Unlashing" --

	MS. SHERMAN:  This is on page 7?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Jimmy, could we go back to the top of page 7?

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  I think your language about traveling from areas with
different lighting conditions to a bright location out-of-doors was
probably supposed to go under "Illumination" and it ended up under
"Walking and Tripping Hazards".  The first sentence, top of page 7.

	MR. BURGIN:  Good.  Thank you for pointing that out.

	Under "Vehicle Stowage and Lashing/Unlashing", the second sentence
there, the original OSHA language said that vehicles should not be
operated until they are unlashed.  I can't find exactly what the comment
was, but again, we made that more specific to the operation where
workers that are lashing or unlashing cargo are not in the vicinity of
when the vehicle is moved, when the cargo is moved.

	"Ventilation".  No major change.  Well, there were some changes, but I
don't think they were real significant.

	MR. RAFFO:  I think you have a typo there.

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.

	MR. RAFFO:  At the bottom of that sentence.  I think it should be
"persons competent in the use of test equipment".

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.

	MR. RAFFO:  I'm assuming you're not testing cargo, right?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Wait a minute, Don.  They didn't get that.  Move
closer to the mic.

	MR. RAFFO:  On the bottom of the first paragraph under "Ventilation",
it said, "These tests must be made in the area which employees are
working by persons competent in the use of test cargo..."  I believe it
should be "test equipment and procedures".

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes.  Thank you.  That's correct.  It should be
"equipment" instead of "cargo".

	The remainder of the document deals with PPE. The remainder of the
document pretty much quotes the 1918 or applicable 1910 standards.  So,
really no need to go over those.  Those are pretty cut and dry.

	With the changes, the typo changes made today, the workgroup feels like
that this is a very, very good document.  The workgroup has worked very
hard on this, has had a lot of input from a lot of different people that
handle RO-RO cargo.  We feel like it's a comprehensive document to some
degree, but at the same time it's consistent and specific to the cargo
that's being handled and the vessels that are being handled with it.  So
we would like to, as a workgroup, suggest to MACOSH that this be given
to OSHA as a recommendation that OSHA consider this for their language
for the roll on-roll off ship dock safety guidance document.

	MR. DADDURA:  Jim, before we take a vote, I've got a couple of
questions.

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.

	MR. DADDURA:  You constantly refer to "vehicles", "cargo", "equipment".
 Can we come to one of what we're talking about, whether it's cargo --
everything is considered cargo or -- because you're constantly back and
forth, back and forth.  That's one of the problems we had in developing
the document.

	MR. BURGIN:  And we recognize that.  We feel like that it should be
specific between a vehicle, cargo, or equipment.  A vehicle is basically
-- whether it's a powered industrial truck, we need to specify between
powered industrial truck and cargo.  So to that extent, the workgroup
feels strongly that we have to make that distinction.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Unless you're actually shipping the powered industrial
truck.  Then it becomes cargo, right?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes, it is cargo.  Yes.  

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I'm going to stop right here for a second and make
a couple of comments.  First, is I guess at some point I will entertain
a motion.  Okay.  But we have made, by my account, three adjustments to
the text.  Okay.  So when you offer a motion, I think it should be made
in the context of the adjusted, because we've made three adjustments in
the text.  Okay.  So when we finalize this, we'll have a smooth document
that indicates these changes.  Correct?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Now, where we are in the process, is there's
been a recommendation.  I'm ready to entertain a motion, if there is
one.

	MR. WALLIS:  May I make one comment?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes, you may.

	MR. WALLIS:  There's one thing I think that's missing here from your
discussion.  If you'll look at page 17 of the comparison document, there
were a set of additional requirements.  If you could provide a reason
for the record why you did not include that information.

	MR. BURGIN:  Because they're covered throughout the document.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	Is there a motion?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  So, I move that the document, as changed during our
discussion, with the typos and movement of text, be submitted to OSHA
for consideration as the text for the final guidance document.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  I have a motion.  Is there a second?

	VOICE:  I second the motion.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I have a motion and a second.  It's discussion
time.  Discussion by the committee.  Questions, comments, discussion by
the committee?

	MR. ADAMS:  One question.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes?

	MR. ADAMS:  And this is mostly procedure.  So if we make this
recommendation and it goes forward to OSHA, and OSHA finds something
they need to change in the document before they issue it, they won't
have to come back to the MACOSH to discuss that change, will they?  Or
will they?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  They will not have to.  It becomes OSHA's--my
word--property to consider and do with as they wish.  Is that right?

	MR. WALLIS:  Our normal process is to take the document, go through it.
 I noticed there was at least one more editorial question that I didn't
note, but that we would need to make.  Probably there are a few others. 
We would make those corrections, make any other adjustments we felt were
necessary to get through our clearance process.  

	We would put a clearance cover page on it, pass it around to the other
affected directorates in all our regions.  They would get basically one
chance to vote on it, so to speak.  They could concur with the document,
non-concur with the document with reasons, or provide a condition
concurrence, again, with reasons.

	We have to resolve the non-concurrences and the conditional
concurrences to make sure that all the affected directorates -- that we
have an acceptable document that's acceptable to the Agency.  Most of
the time when we make a change, it's because of specific Agency policy. 
Those are probably more or less cast in concrete.  I'll give you an
example.  I'm making this as a hypothetical example, not an actual
example.  There was a -- I had the example and I forgot it.  

	But say, seat belts.  Say there's a statement in here that you didn't
have to use seat belts in cargo.  If it was our policy, an Agency policy
somewhere, even if it was not a written policy but a field policy to do
that, to cite employers for not wearing seat belts, we would not be able
to keep that sentence in the document.  So, things like that.

	Then after it goes through the clearance process, then we have a
document that we could publish. It would have to go through departmental
approval and Assistant Secretary approval, but then we would have a
document we could publish. 

	There may be opportunities for some documents, depending on the
priority for the document, to bring it back to MACOSH.  However, if we
bring it back to MACOSH and you make substantive changes to it, the
document would have to go back through the clearance process.  So if
you're adding a new sentence or changing something substantive in the
document, we would have to go back through the clearance process a
second time.

	MR. ADAMS:  Okay.  Thank you.

	MR. FLYNN:  I just want to inquire, on the resources on the last page,
is there a reason why all those other resources were eliminated? 
Specifically, on the ILO and the Sleep Foundation and the Small Business
Consult.

	MR. BURGIN:  We just, again, feel like the document -- I mean, they can
be in there.  The workgroup didn't go into a lot of detail about it, but
we felt like the document basically stands on its own. If OSHA feels
like that they need to put them back in there, then I'm sure they will.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Marc?

	MR. MacDONALD:  If I could just go down a couple of these a little bit
more specifically.  The first one was the ICHCA document.  I think the
working group felt that this is MACOSH and we wanted to focus on MACOSH
input rather than ICHCA.  Maybe that's just pride of ownership, I guess,
but that is one of the reasons why that one was not recommended.

	The ILO document is a very broad document.  Again, like Jimmy says,
this is specifically for RO-RO operations, so that's one of the reasons
why, in my mind, that wasn't included.

	On the field manual, Army runs their own RO-RO type operations, but
they're not necessarily equivalent to commercial RO-RO operations.  So
in my mind, that's very specific, that's very specialized, and that's
why that one wasn't recommended to be brought forth.

	National Sleep Foundation.  We could go on and on about fatigue, but
there's a whole section on fatigue in here with the major, basic points
on the side-by-side on page 6 of what to look for, and stuff, on
fatigue.  For the general in-field use, I think that adequately covers
it.  I guess that's why that one wasn't offered.

	OSHA consultant service.  Certainly, we would encourage OSHA to put
that in and continue the good work and interaction between the agencies
there.  But, in summary, those are some of the reasons the working group
discussed as to why we didn't put in all these extra references, to try
to keep the document tight, clean, focused, and useful.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Could I ask a question?  Is there any time frame when you
contemplate you would have pictures to suggest to add to your work
product?

	MR. BURGIN:  Again, the workgroup did not specifically talk about that.
 I think it would depend on what the original language might even look
like.  If there's going to be a lot of changes, maybe if OSHA could show
us that document, then we could put pictures in at that time.  Is that
possible?  Getting pictures is not a problem.

	MS. SHERMAN:  I'd have to defer to David.  But right now, I think we
have the situation where you thought that the pictures in the OSHA
document were too general and you indicated that you could come up with
more specific pictures.  It would probably be a good idea, if it
wouldn't be too much trouble, to come up with pictures now to support
the document that you are discussing submitting to OSHA, so OSHA has
something whole that they can act upon.

	MR. WALLIS:  Just one more thing to add to that.  This is MACOSH's
recommendation.  We're not trying to push you in a particular direction
here.  But as long as you understand, if you approve the motion as it is
you're sending it as a document without pictures, but you've got place
holders for pictures.

	So what that means is, we'll end up selecting pictures, you know, and
the document may or may not come back before the committee.  So as long
as you understand that.  If you want to provide us pictures, those will
be among the ones that we can select from, but it won't be part of the
MACOSH recommendation that way.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Let me just ask a question.  So for recordkeeping
purposes, we have two documents.  We have a portrait document and a
landscape document.  With the exception of three or so changes that we
have made, the document that you're asking and you're submitting for
approval is?  Let me just clarify this.  The landscape document, the
left-hand column is identical to the portrait document.  Is that
correct?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes.  Yes, it is.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  And so --

	MR. WALLIS:  There was one difference.  You said "identical".

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Thank you.  I guess I'm trying to determine
which document that we're working from and which document you're
requesting approval on.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Mr. Chairman, I made the motion and I am asking for
approval of the smooth draft, the portrait document, as amended during
this discussion.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Okay.  It looks like this?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Yes, sir.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	MS. SHERMAN:  So that the landscape document, which is marked as
Exhibit 3, would merely be used as an illustration of the changes that
have been made to explain the portrait document, which is Exhibit 2.  Is
that correct?

	MR. BURGIN:  That's correct.  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  So where we are, there's been a motion,
there's been a second, and we are in the committee discussion/question
period.  So, Stew, did you have something?

	MR. ADAMS:  Just on the pictures.  This is back to the workgroup,
primarily.  Instead of trying to provide pictures to OSHA that they may
or may not choose to use, would it suffice to say that the original
pictures were too general and they need to go seek out and get more
specific pictures and leave it to them?

	MR. BURGIN:  The pictures that were there, we would recommend that
better pictures be inserted into the document.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  I'm going to leave it like that, I think,
because if we're going to vote for something we need a product to vote
on.  Okay.  If we leave something kind of hanging open, okay, then we're
not voting on anything.  Am I making any sense?  So, is that right?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	Questions/comments from the committee?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	I'm going to allow, if the public has comments, please raise your hand
so I get some sense of anybody that has a comment.  I've got three. 
Okay.  I'm going to allow a limited amount of this.  Okay.  So, please
come up to the table.  How are we going to do this?  I'll leave it to
the sound man.  How are we going to do this?  Approach the mic.  There
we go.  Wait.  I'm going to start from the left here.  You're first, Mr.
Davis is second, and I had somebody int he rear.  Okay.  On to the mic. 

	Would you identify yourself, please, sir?

	CAPT. AMADEO:  Yes, good morning.  Captain Salvatore Amadeo, Marine
Terminals Corporation, East.  The comment I have is, I think this is a
very good document.  It's a very good best practices document.

	The comment I have is, based on the 1997 PMA Injury Report numbers
versus the 2005 Injury Report numbers, the industry has shown great
improvements in personal safety for workers.  So I have to wonder why we
need to be regulated and put a document forward at all, given the trend
as it currently stands.  We're obviously producing our best practices,
as on this document.  So do we really need to move forward with this as
a guidance document or a regulation?  

	Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Mr. Davis?

	MR. DAVIS:  I'm DeWitt Davis.  I'm just seeking clarification on the
definition of roll on-roll off.  I'm aware of a case where a Hustler
with a trailer and a load of lumber on it was going down a ramp either
too fast or too steep, and the lumber crashed into the Hustler and
somewhat injured the driver.  Obviously this was a case of break bulk,
but it could be also that there was roll on-roll off at the same time. 
Would this application apply?  I notice there were comments that the
cargo should be tied down, and there also were comments that the ramp
should be -- you mentioned about the loading of the ramp, but not the
steepness of the ramp.

	MR. BURGIN:  That's a good point.  It illustrates the issues that we're
trying to bring out, is that it could be a break bulk ship that has a
stern ramp, and in that case the cargo coming off the stern ramp would
certainly be -- you know, this would apply to that particular part of
that vessel load or discharge.

	MR. DAVIS:  So you could have a mixed load.

	MR. BURGIN:  Absolutely.  Sure. 

	MR. DAVIS:  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	In the rear?

	MR. HARRISON:  Do I need to identify myself?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes, you do.

	MR. HARRISON:  I'm Dan Harrison with the Hampton Roads Shipping
Association.  I'd just like to say, as a member of the NMSA Tech
Committee, we work very hard at trying to look at these types of
situations to prevent accidents as well.  I think there is a lot of
expertise that's gone into the rewrite of that document to try to
improve it, and I would suggest to the committee that they consider
accepting the wording as is and have it pending final approval on the
attachments of the photos.  

	Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Okay. 

	We've heard from the committee, we've heard from the public.  Where we
are in the process, unless I hear more from the committee, I'm ready to
call the question here.  Okay.

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Does everybody know what they're voting on? 
Anybody don't --

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

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

	(Chorus of Ayes)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Opposed?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  And thank you for the work of the
workgroup.

	What I would like to do, is also have you have a final version, okay,
with those changes, because we've made some here at the table, so that
we have a final version to present.  May I suggest, just to make sure
we've captured it all, you run it through your workgroup?

	MR. BURGIN:  Sure.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  What is the pleasure of the committee?  You want to
see what he does?  Is it okay to vest this in the workgroup?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Thank you.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer at this time as Exhibit 2
the document that has been referred to as the portrait document, or the
smooth draft, into the record.

			(Whereupon, the document referred

			 to as Exhibit 2 was entered into

			 the record.)

	MS. SHERMAN:  And as Exhibit 3, the comparison chart that has been
referred to as the landscape document into the record.  I have marked
the changes that the committee has agreed to on these, although I
understand that they will come up with a clean copy.

			(Whereupon, the document referred

			 to as Exhibit 3 was entered into

			 the record.)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	The next order of business?

	MR. BURGIN:  The next order of business is a review of the Traffic
Safety guidance document.  I'd refer everybody on the committee to this
document, which is a three-column document.  The far left column is the
"Current Traffic Safety Guidance Document".  The middle column is
"Traffic Safety Guidance Document 2001".  The far right-hand column is
comments that the Longshore Workgroup has made in the October 25, 2007
conference call.  So you should be looking at a three-column,
side-by-side comparison.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Time out.  Who has it on the committee?  If you
don't have that document, raise your hand.

	(Showing of hands)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  How can we get copies?

	MR. BURGIN:  I believe it was in the blue binder.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  It's in the binder?  Wait a minute.  Time out. 
Let's go off the record.

	(Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m. the meeting was recessed and resumed back on
the record at 11:00 a.m.)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Let's go back on the record.  Okay.

	Given that all the committee members don't have copies of the document
that we're going to review, we're going to table this item and we're
going to get copies for the committee.  We're going to table it for the
moment and come back to it.

	Next item?

	MR. BURGIN:  The next item, which is a new item, deals with flat racks.
 John Castanho worked on a task statement which I would like to provide
to MACOSH.  At this point, since this is a new item, we're just
introducing this as a new item.  The MACOSH committee does not need to
-- this was handed out this morning, actually.  Matter of fact, I handed
it out at the very beginning of my workgroup report.  Yes.  Okay.  This
is a task statement that we are adding to our list of things that we're
doing, so at this point that's the extent of what MACOSH needs to do.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  So just to be clear then, in other words,
this is a draft that the committee is going to work on.  Is that what
I'm hearing?

	MR. BURGIN:  That the Longshore Workgroup is going to work on.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I'm sorry.  The Longshore Workgroup is going to
work on.  Is that correct?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Thank you.

	We had a question over here from Stew.

	MR. ADAMS:  What is a flat rack?  I've heard this before, but I need to
be reminded.  What is a flat rack?

	MR. BURGIN:  A flat rack is a type of intermodal piece of equipment to
handle cargo.  You could say it's the same thing as a flat-bed truck,
except the ends of the flat rack can be extended vertically and they
have lifting points on those vertical connections on the ends.  The ends
can be folded down as well.  So the issue here is taking empty flat
racks on and off the vessel and how they're hoisted by the container
crane.  The issue is when you stack two or three together, how do you
lock them?  How do you lock between the flat racks?  That's the issue
we're looking at.

	Yes.  John does have pictures.

	MR. CASTANHO:  Yes.  Stew, I have five pictures I can pass around the
table, so those who don't know what we're talking about can have a look
and have a better idea of what we're developing here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Next item?

	MR. BURGIN:  The next item is to report on the overall progress of the
workgroup.  As I said before, the workgroup has devoted a lot of time in
looking at the RO-RO document.  It also has devoted a lot of time in
providing comments on the Marine Terminal Traffic Safety document.  So
while we have not gone through every single item that was originally
given to us when this charter started, we have been diligent in doing a
lot of work.  

	Just to briefly go through what's been done.  The Radio Communication
document, communication between persons on board a vessel and crane
operators, has been completed.  The Traffic Safety document.  It's still
a work in progress.  You'll get a report on that in a little bit.  That
will be finished by the end of the charter.  The RO-RO document is
almost completed and will be done by the end of the charter.  It's
completed.  I wanted to point out that that's something that has been
accomplished.

	There was a topic about marine terminal pedestrians and powered
industrial trucks.  That is being covered through the Marine Terminal
Traffic Safety documents, so that's another thing that will be taken
care of, will be finished.  On-dock rail is something that we have not
addressed specifically, but the workgroup will address that before the
end of the charter.

	MS. SHERMAN:  What is that?

	MR. BURGIN:  On-dock rail operations.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Thank you.

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.  Suspended loads and hatches is another item that
was on our original list, and that will be taken care of and addressed
in some manner before the end of the current charter.  The same
situation with chassis maintenance and repair.  The workgroup will look
at that as well and produce some type of a document or recommendation
back to MACOSH.

	The two items that were given to the Health Workgroup were container
screening technologies and VACIS.  I know the Health Workgroup is
working on a fact sheet on those two items.

	Another item that was on our list was IMO ship design standards, and
that has been discussed at every workgroup conference call.  We've
gotten updates from Ken Smith on what's going on with the IMO standards.
 So there's not anything that the workgroup is bringing to MACOSH to --
well, the workgroup would like to urge OSHA to continue to be involved
in IMO issues when they're talking about design of vessels to make
vessels safer to work on.  So that is one recommendation that the
workgroup will make.  We may not make it today, but we'll make that
recommendation.

	Another item on our list was vessel crew safety.  We feel like that
should be taken off because we're more turned to stevedoring safety
rather than vessel crew safety.

	Break bulk cargo handling safety is another topic that we may or may
not look at, so that's an uncertainty.  We may or may not get to that
topic before the end of the charter.

	Maintenance and repair cross-training.  That is another topic that is a
big topic that we may or may not get to.  So I want to categorize those
between the ones that we will finish, the ones we will not finish before
the charter, and the ones that we have completed as of this date.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Any more items at this time?

	MR. BURGIN:  No, sir.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	One of the things, in constructing the letter, the Agency appears to be
going forward on rechartering the committee, but I think it's important
to get sort of a place order on the record.  So in constructing a letter
from myself petitioning for rechartering, it would be helpful, and we
talked about this a little bit on our conference call, to identify those
things that had been accomplished, and then the work to be done.

	So I would appreciate -- thanks for kind of setting the mark here, sort
of an executive summary, about what you've done and where you've planned
to go, because I would appreciate that from each of the workgroup
chairs.  That would assist me in helping constructing this draft.  So, I
appreciate that.  Okay.

	Let's do this.  Any more from the Longshore Workgroup, or any questions
from the committee?  Except, we tabled the one item.  We're going to
have to come back to that.  But we've got to use our time now.

	Susan?

	MS. SHERMAN:  Yes.  Jimmy, what did you want the committee to do with
this task statement on flat racks?  You are doing a "for your
information", or what?

	MR. BURGIN:  It's for the full committee's information only.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.

	MR. BURGIN:  It's a new --

	MS. SHERMAN:  So we don't need to add it to the record.  They're just
going to consider it and maybe we'll talk about it at some future
meeting?

	MR. BURGIN:  Exactly.  Yes.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Good.

	MR. FLYNN:  One question.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes, Mike?

	MR. FLYNN:  What was the other item besides the VACIS that you sent to
the Health Committee?

	MR. BURGIN:  It was called New Container Screening Technologies.  I'm
not sure where that phrase came from, but that's it.

	MR. FLYNN:  Okay.  Thank you.

	MR. CASTANHO:  Jim?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes, John?

	MR. CASTANHO:  If I may clarify that.  I think people get mixed up with
that misnomer.  VACIS is a brand name.  So I think the new technologies
simply referred to whatever is going to be coming down the pipeline or
off the assembly line after VACIS.  It'll have a different name, and we
don't have those names here.

	MR. FLYNN:  So it's one item, actually?

	MR. CASTANHO:  Yes.  It's kind of an emerging technology and it's going
to be its own separate item. I think that was the idea.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  It's the generic versus the brand name.  Is that
right?

	MR. CASTANHO:  Yes.  It's Pepsi versus Coca-Cola.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Got you.  All right.  

	Any more from the Longshore Workgroup?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Mr. Chairman?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Jim made mention of the work at IMO with the cargo
security.  That is pretty complex.  There's been a lot of changes in the
proposed draft annex that have undergone -- it's probably not enough
time to look at that here.  But I would think, if I could suggest, that
we take time in maybe one of the future meetings to put on the agenda,
just to update everybody in more or less detail on what's going on
there.  

	I, for one, was a little bit discouraged.  We worked hard to put in
comments on that.  A lot of people around the world have worked hard to
put in comments on that.  The draft has changed significantly since the
delegation meeting that the Coast Guard held, and industry and OSHA
attended at the advice of this committee last time.  I think at some
point we just need to regroup and reconnect with the realities of what's
going on with the international discussions with the drafts.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Anything more, remembering we've tabled one item and we'll come back to
it?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	I'm ready, I think, now to move on.  Are you ready?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  The floor is yours. We're going to move to
the Outreach and Safety Culture Workgroup report.  Captain Preston?

	OUTREACH AND SAFETY CULTURE WORKGROUP REPORT

	By Captain Teresa Preston

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Thank you.  I'm going to end my report with a
presentation by Ken Atha from our Mobile Area Office on the results of
the efforts of the Mobile Region 4 alliance on the OSHA Train the
Trainer 10- and 30-hour courses.  Ken advised me to do this so that he
doesn't eat up too much time.

	So we do have two issues that are ready to go before committee to move
on back to OSHA that are on our task sheet.  The first one, we took from
the Shipyard Committee, which was the Ships document.  Our tasking was
to determine what to do with the ergo sections and/or the entire
document.

	We went back and forth on this.  We had some people that were advocates
of "more is better" and felt like the document should go forward as it
was originally drafted.  However, that would put it through a whole new
review process at OSHA and hold it up even longer.  So we have
reluctantly -- I'm saying reluctantly.  It's not that the information
isn't out there.  

	The guidance document that Mr. Seymour came up with is going to fill
the hole.  We have a recommendation ready to go on the floor and I am
going to go ahead and make it as a motion, that the Shipfitting Ships be
published, with the following changes:

	Change #1:  Page 1, under "Musculoskeletal Disorders MSDs".  That
paragraph should be removed in its entirety.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  One second.  Let's go off the record a second.

	(Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m. the meeting was recessed and resumed back on
the record at 11:12 a.m.)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Let's once again table that.  I would ask somebody
help us, staff wise, to get copies of this.  Okay.  The next item?  Back
on the record.  Thank you.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Okay.  

	Next item, "Translating E-Tools into Spanish". On our non-English
speaking workers tasking, we narrowed it down to recommendations to OSHA
as to the priority of the top four or five e-tools for translation.  The
workgroup is moving that the full committee recommend to OSHA that the
following e-tools be translated into Spanish first, in this order of
preference by us: the Ship Prepare E-Tool; the Longshore Tool Shed
Document; the Ship Construction E-Tool; and the Shipbreaking E-Tool.  So
that's a motion on the floor to recommend to OSHA that those e-tools be
translated first.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  In that order?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  In that order.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	I have a motion on the floor.  Do I have a second?

	MR. FLYNN:  Second.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Second.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I have a second.  I'm not sure whether Mike or Marc
was first, but between the two, they had the second.  Okay.

	Discussion by the committee?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Hearing none, limited discussion by the public.  If
you have something you'd like to add, raise your hand.

	(No response)

	MS. SHERMAN:  I think that it would help us if Captain Preston or
somebody on the committee could give us the rationale as to why you
chose what you chose and why you prioritized them in the order that you
prioritized them in.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  I'd be happy to.  The four that we chose, we felt have
the most broad-based information for use by employees and employers. 
That's why we put them as the top four for translation.  When we went
out there and started looking at what OSHA has available in other
languages right now, there's not a whole lot.  

	So when we looked at what we had out there for the shipyard community
and the longshore community, there's a lot of stuff out there that could
have been translated.  So we looked at the products that you got out
there for us now and tried to select the products that we felt we'd get
the most bang for the buck in terms of translation.

	As far as the order of the four, we tried to go based on employee
population.  So we figured that the ship repair probably would, across
the board, small and large business, hit the most people with the
biggest need first, and then the other three, we just kind of tried to
divvy them up based on what we thought would be the most logical
sequence, with the same thing in mind, which is that most people that
could benefit from it would be the priority.  We're not set in stone on
that priority.  We just were asked to give a priority, so we did.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Do you happen to know if there are any employers who have
decided to translate OSHA documents themselves for distribution to their
employees?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  What I know about from the shipyard employment segment,
is that they are actually translating their own procedures and/or their
own safety instructions, but they are not translating the OSHA documents
that back those up.  So we feel like, from the standpoint of guidance
for the non-English speaking employees, it would be nice for OSHA to
kind of go along with the trend and give the backup documentation as
well.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Anything more from the committee?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Nothing more from the public?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I'm ready to call the question.

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

	(Chorus of Ayes)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Opposed?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Next item?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Leading indicators.  We have looked at a number of
leading indicators.  We started out thinking we really weren't going to
go very far on this, but we found more.  This will remain a working
topic.  We have narrowed down, what we're going to provide OSHA is some
guidance on what leading indicators are out there in successful
businesses right now in terms of safety success.

	Then we will seek OSHA's guidance on where they would like us to go
with those indicators: would they like us to do it just on a guidance
document or a fact sheet or something like that that can get it out to
the public to be able to find that information?  So that will be
completed by the end of the charter, we feel confident, it just won't
happen this meeting.

	Training for new --

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Let me stop you here.  Is there anything on that
from the committee?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Thank you.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Training for new technology.  Between Oakland and now,
we forgot that we said we couldn't complete it so we worked on it.

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Makes sense.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  What we have done right now, is identified new
technologies that we feel are somewhat lacking in having training
available to each and all.  The training may be available in the
different workplaces, but we thought these things might be areas where
some sort of OSHA guidance document might be appropriate.  We're
developing that list and coming up with a little fleshing out of the
whys, and we expect that that will also be complete by the end of the
charter, but we are not ready to report out on anything other than that
we are working on it at this meeting.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Any questions, comments on that one from the committee?

	(No response)

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Although we said we couldn't work on the courses for
OSHA, the shipyard and longshoring courses, OSHA took the initiative to
do it on their own.  We had a report out on the success of the OSHA 2060
training course that was given a couple of weeks ago, that it was
extremely well received and extremely well attended.  However, one of
the people that attended was told that they were not going to be
offering these courses very often.  

	The discussion came up in committee yesterday and OSHA said they'll
offer them as often as we like.  So we would just like to note that OSHA
took the initiative to do this without our assistance and thank them for
that, and encourage them to continue offering these courses.  We will
assist in getting them around the country so that we can increase the
attendance by industry.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  The substance abuse.  We talked about tabling it.  We
do not feel like we're making good progress, but we're going to give it
one more shot.  We'll have a final decision with what we're going to do
at the next meeting.

	E-tools and training programs for longshoring. NMSA, through their
alliance, have suggested 10 fatal fact accident descriptions to OSHA,
and OSHA has taken those for action.  That's just a report-out, it's not
a committee action.

	We did have a request based on actually what Jimmy is going to discuss
when he comes back to that table, that a lot of these outreach products,
we, as a MACOSH committee, have taken ownership of, so to speak, in
terms of trying to make them go through.  It felt like we put a lot of
effort into them.  We do know that they go through a review process.

	Sometimes that review process changes them significantly.  We would
like to move that when significant changes--i.e., of the actual
substance of the text--are made, that OSHA bring them back before the
MACOSH committee just so that we have an opportunity to comment on them
before the final draft goes out.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  You made that in the form of a motion?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  As a motion.  I did.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	Do I have a second to the motion?

	MR. BURGIN:  Second.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  

	Discussion on the motion by the committee?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Let me just clarify a little more on why this motion is
being made.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  

	CAPT. PRESTON:  This is being made -- we really feel uncomfortable in
one respect because we constantly are pushing OSHA to make things go
faster and faster, and complaining about the time it takes to move
things through.

	However, with the products that we've put a lot of work into, we feel
like it is necessary, for the people that did put that effort in, to
have a chance to look at them one more time.  So that's kind of where
we're coming from on this, is we don't want to slow the process any more
than it has to be slowed, but we would like some participatory effort at
the end.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Other comments?  Jimmy?

	MR. BURGIN:  I think that the discussion that we had was, we would just
like a last-look review, a quick review, maybe give us two weeks to
e-mail the document around to a specific workgroup, and if the comments
aren't made within that two-week deadline, then it goes with it.  It's
not to say that we would make a lot of changes.  I'm going to point out
some things in this Marine Terminal Traffic Safety document that really
need to be changed, and that's the prime example for this
recommendation.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Susan?

	MS. SHERMAN:  Jimmy, just to speak to one of the points you made, I
think that -- I'm sure David will address this also, but I think he
pointed out some of the problems yesterday in the workgroup.  But let me
just say that if OSHA were to make significant changes in a document it
would not be enough for them to just resubmit it to the workgroup,
because if MACOSH is to act on something it would have to be the full
committee.  So what this does, is we could give it to the workgroup, but
then the workgroup would have to report out to the full committee at the
next meeting, which would be whenever.  So, just as long as you
understand that in terms of procedure.

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Are you going to --

	MR. WALLIS:  I think that the motion -- I mean, it's a nice motion and
I understand the committee's desire to have us send the documents back
to the committee so that they can get one more bite at the apple.  I
understand that desire.  On the other hand, OSHA has a process for
getting the documents out. If you want us to do this, in the first place
I don't think we could do it with every document, but to the extent we
can, there are a number of different ways we could do it.  I don't think
the motion has addressed this at all.  

	One way we could do it, is after we've gotten all the comments back
from the clearance process we could provide the comments.  One option --
I'm not saying this is what I would do, I'm just saying it's one option.
 One option would be to bring the comments back to the committee, have
the committee make a recommendation on the comments, and give those
recommendations back to the Agency formally.  That would be one option.

	A second option would be, after the clearance process is finished,
we've gotten the comments, we've incorporated them, we've gotten the
document cleared through all the directorates -- oh.  I guess I should
go back and give you the advantages and disadvantages. The first method,
the advantage is, you would get an opportunity to have some solid input
in the clearance process.  

	The disadvantage is that you would not get to see -- there's still a
negotiation process between the comments we get in and the final work
product.  Using the first mechanism, you would not -- there's no way we
can involve the committee in that process, so you would be outside that
process, so to speak.  Even though you made recommendations, it could
still go back.  If the Director of Enforcement Programs said, this is
our policy, this is what we do, it's got to stay this way, then that's
what would happen.  So that's the disadvantage.

	The next approach would be to do what we do, get agreement with all the
directorates, give it back to the committee with the clear understanding
you could make your recommendations, but if we're going to make
significant changes it's got to go back out for clearance and you could
have the same route.  

	Also, the other disadvantage to that process is, it would add
significantly to the delay in getting the documents out.  Both of those
would, by the way.  I mean, either way you would need another committee
meeting before the document could go forward, and I think that's why I
said it's probably not going to happen for every document.

	My recommendation to the committee would be, if you have a preference
for one or the other or you're willing to take either one, you should
include that as part of your motion.

	MR. BURGIN:  I prefer the second alternative that you mentioned.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Yes.  I think we recognized that.  That's why I said we
reluctantly bring this motion to the floor, because we recognize that
we're delaying the process even more.  So, you know, for us, this is --
but there are some members that feel very strongly that we probably
should do it that way.  I mean, if we're going to put our signature on
it as assisting in developing these products, then we feel like we
should have one last bite at the apple.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Stew?

	MR. ADAMS:  There's a piece here, though.  We're supposedly an advisory
committee.  What we produce, as long as we communicate our concerns and
our desires and what we feel it should be like, it's up to OSHA to go do
it.  If they choose not to do it, that's their choice.  So we shouldn't
have a final stamp.  We just advise.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Did you have something?

	MS. SHERMAN:  By the way, I agree with what you just said, Stewart.  I
think that OSHA takes your recommendations very seriously, but they are
recommendations.  I was also going to suggest that perhaps Captain
Preston would consider modifying her motion, because it may not be that
every guidance product has the same degree of concern for the committee
and there may just be some special circumstances where the committee
would feel that they would want it to come back to them, such as we did
yesterday with the ergonomics business.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  So how could I modify the motion?  I mean, what we did
yesterday with ergonomics is kind of what we were looking for.  It's
just at the close of the comment period.  It's just ready to go out. 
All we did was make suggestions to the authors as to what we thought --
we actually discussed the public comments and endorsed and/or advised on
them.  So

what --

	MS. SHERMAN:  Well, that was perhaps an unusual case in that the
committee had a lot of work into it, and the Agency had made the
commitment in advance to do that.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Okay.

	MS. SHERMAN:  But I'm not so sure the Agency would be in a position to
make the commitment in advance on each and every document.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Well, I guess what I'm asking you, Susan, is what are
you suggesting we revise our motion to say?

	MS. SHERMAN:  Well, perhaps --

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Or should we do anything?  I mean, should we even put
something on the record?

	MS. SHERMAN:  I can't advise you on that.  If you feel strongly about
it, of course you can put it on the record.  But I guess I would make it
less of a blanket recommendation then, just in certain cases where
perhaps you can request it because of serious concerns, or something
along those lines.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  We're getting a little -- okay.  Mike?

	MR. FLYNN:  Well, just one comment on that.  I think it sounds like
this would be a motion that would be appropriate on a case-by-case basis
one a specific item.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Yes.

	MR. FLYNN:  Like the RO-RO.  Like, you want to see that again.  So I
would suggest, make it as the items come up.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  I withdraw my motion.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	Who was the second?  Do you withdraw?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  So the slate is clean.  

	What is it you wish to do, if anything?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  We have got the one issue tabled on ships.  I would
like to move forward with Mr. Atha's presentation.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  

	PRESENTATION

	By Ken Atha, Area Director, Mobile, Alabama

	(Showing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  While we're getting that started, while we're getting that
set up, I'm Ken Atha, Area Director of the Mobile OSHA office.  Really,
I appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee, and of course
-- as well, and let you know what's happening on probably the most
recent training development with maritime.

	It's actually a very significant development when you look at the realm
of OSHA training and a cooperative effort between industry, as well as
our Office of Training & Education and our Ed Centers.  I mean, there
are lot of players here, so that's really one of the reasons why I
wanted this opportunity. 	This is done though an alliance.  We have the
Gulf Coast Maritime Safety & Health Alliance.  That's been the Gulf
Coast Maritime Safety Association, OSHA, and also the Physical
Therapists Association as well.  We've developed several training Power
Points that are available.  We began moving into something more formal
and we wanted to send it out to the industry, so we're thinking of a
resource package. 

	We re-signed our alliance because the endeavors were working so well. 
In the interim, while we were doing this, ATN approached us, Alabama
Technology Network.  They had received a grant for some shipbuilding
training and wanted to do something even more formal than what we had
already been doing in the Gulf Coast.  That began some pretty in-depth
discussions about what we can do and how we can make this something
substantial for the maritime industry.

	In general industry and in construction, there is an OSHA 10-hour and
30-hour course that is highly well-known and recognized by the industry
and something that's been around for a while and has been very
successful.  So with that endeavor, with that in mind, we sought out to
developing the maritime 10-hour course. 

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  We sought to get approval of that through OTI, which we did
attain.  Began working with OTI, also our national office, and industry,
collecting numerous training information that is out there to develop
this 10-hour course.

	In the interim, we were trying to plan the first course.  This is
probably going to be a six-month or one-year project.  When the OSHA
Training Institute approached us and said, well, before you can teach a
10-hour you've got to have authorized trainers, that began for us the
need to look at a Train the Trainer course, which is a very in-depth
process.

	If you look at the original courses, it's two years to three years to
develop.  It takes a lot of resources to develop those courses.  So we
began to look for additional support to do this.  We also want to do a
30-hour besides the 10-hour.  We had to ask for additional commitments
from our alliance members.  We had to go out nationwide, started pooling
more resources.  Of course, we formed workgroups to handle all the extra
work.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  The University of South Florida did step up.  They are an
Education Center.  There are numerous--over 20--Ed Centers nationwide. 
They are the ones that stepped up with the willingness to do this free
of charge.  They'll help us build the Train the Trainer course.  ATN
then joined our alliance to sort of make it more cohesive, to keep it
within the alliance.  Now, we did actually mail out 150 of our original
packages of maritime information to industry.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  The success is--and I'll get to the point here--we did have
the pilot course for our Train the Trainer at the end of September.  A
very successful endeavor.  We had industry there, labor.  We had OSHA
representatives there from the West Coast and East Coast, including
individuals from Puerto Rico as well.  We validated that trainer course.
 A lot of hard work went into collecting the input from each of the
members.  After the course was done, we continued to collect the inputs.
 Those have been collated and put into the new course.  Matter of fact,
just last week I think they were finalizing the updates.

	During the course, we reviewed the 10-hour and 30-hour curriculum,
which I'll cover here quickly.  Each person that came received a CD
which covers the 10- and 30-hour Power Points.  They also got the new
MannCom Maritime book and a binder.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  That's the group that came out there.  If you're in the
industry, you'll recognize a lot of the faces up there.  Sort of hard to
see.  But again, a very diverse group up there and a lot of knowledge
came to us, so we were very fortunate to have them.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  This is really a success.  The 5400 now is a course at OTI. 
It's not offered at OTI.  It's going to be done through all the Ed
Centers.  USF is currently the only Ed Center capable of doing it.  They
also will have a 5402 update course.  As you can see, the 10- and
30-hour course numbers are there, 7615, 7617, 7618.  Those are the 10
hours.  Then the 7635, 7637, 7638, those are the 30 hours.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  The trainer course is a one-week course, 27 modules. 
Really, at that point you're taking experts from industry and you're
validating their credentials and you're also ensuring that they can
teach a 10-hour and a 30-hour.  So they're not learning a lot about
maritime, they're really going over the hazards and leading into the
standards that OSHA has to become an authorized trainer.  Again, these
will be taught by the Ed Centers.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  The one thing that we did that was different than the
current general industry and construction courses, is there's some
additional requirements as far as to be a train the trainer, as well as
the expiration date on the certification.  So, two years of industry
experience is needed, as well as two years safety and health experience,
or a degree in safety and health, or a certification.  That's to be a
trainer.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  And you will have to take an update course every four years
as well to be certified.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  Now, that's a sample of what the trainer card would look
like.  So if folks are out there and they've taken this course, they'll
have a trainer card that shows they're authorized.  If somebody wants to
hire this individual, that's the card that they would have.  It's
something that they could check with OTI or OTE on.  It will have an
expiration date.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:   The back of the card has a disclaimer, but also gives you a
clear understanding of what this card really is.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  The 10- and 30-hour.  That's really where my heart was at,
where we wanted to focus on as an alliance because we wanted individuals
out there in maritime to have the opportunity to take this kind of
10-hour and 30-hour training, so they have a requisite knowledge of
hazards.  It's not an OSHA standard course.  They're not going to learn
about OSHA standards.  They're going to learn about hazards in these
particular industries, something that will be able to come to industry
employers with some knowledge, some basic knowledge that will help
further them as they get into work.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  The same topics for the 10- and 30-hour.  Again, the length
of time is what's really critical.  Of course, the 10-hour is going to
be a very good overview, and the 30-hour is going to be more in-depth. 
In the general industry construction, typically you see a lot of workers
taking the 10-, and then supervisors taking the 30-hour course.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  There are some minimum requirements that we put in to the
10-hour.  One of the things that industry really pushed, is they didn't
necessarily think they could get 10 hours in a day done.  It's hard for
small employers to get their employees pulled away for that length of
time.  So we do have a grace period, so you can teach it in segments up
to six months.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  But that's the overview of the course.  You can see, there's
a mandatory, an optional, and an elective section.  It's different for
shipyards.  They have, on the bottom left-hand corner, more required
courses to be taught during the 10-hour than in shipyards or than in the
other maritime industries, longshoring and marine terminals.

	Intro to OSHA of course, is mandatory in all the 10-hour, so that
stays; the walking work resurface PPE, et cetera.  But again, I can get
this information to you.  We just wanted to make sure that you're aware
that this course is out there.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  The 30-hour.  As I said, two hours minimum per topic.  It's
going to be more in-depth coverage.  It gives a little more flexibility
in the elective sections.  You could spend a lot of time on one
particular topic in the 30-hour if necessary.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  And again, you can see a similar format again: same topics,
more time in the areas, again, shipyard being a little bit different.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  The student cards expire after five years.  That's very
different, because in general industry construction there's folks
carrying cards from the early '80s, and we know the industry has
changed.  So this is going to give industry an opportunity to provide
feedback to the OTI and Ed Centers on how that update course is going to
be structured and what information we want in it.  So the information
we're talking about today, the guidance documents, as those things
change, that update course is going to change as well.  So, somebody
carrying a card is going to have fairly recent updates to their
training.  Again, this will be given out by whoever is qualified.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  Again, similar format.  Again, this will specifically say
whether it's shipyard, longshoring, or the marine terminals.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:   There's the 7617.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  Again, it will have the expiration date on the back.  Again,
it will have a disclaimer, recognizing that this is 10 or 30 hours of
training.  This is not, a qualified individual can go out and work in an
industry and do the job.  It's just recognizing that they have had the
requisite hazard recognition training for your industry.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. ATHA:  Lastly, I want to make note that the first official Train
the Trainer course is the 10th through 13th in Clearwater, Florida.  You
can see there are other ones already planned by USF.  In December, there
will be about 10 other Ed Centers from around the nation attending that
first course.  

	Once they attend that first course, they'll be able to go back and
develop curriculum for their Ed Centers and we can see more Train the
Trainer courses being tied across the nation.  More trainers out there
means more 10-hour and 30-hour courses available to the industry and
available to folks to take.  So, I encourage you to look at that and
take those.

	I really appreciate having the opportunity to come before the
committee.  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, Ken.  We appreciate that.  You mentioned
perhaps providing these to the committee.  I don't know whether that
would be in the form of a Power Point, or whatever you can provide the
committee.

	MR. ATHA:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  And then, Ken, this is a question.  Can we offer,
in advance, his slides?  Can we do that?

	MS. SHERMAN:  Off the record.

	(Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m. the meeting was recessed and resumed back on
the record at 11:47 a.m.)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Back on the record.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the presentation
that we just had as Exhibit 4, and ask the Court Reporter to number each
slide as follows: 4-1, 4-2, 4-3.  I understand that the Court Reporter
is being given a CD of the presentation that we just heard.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

			(Whereupon, the document referred

			 to as Exhibit 4 was marked for

			 identification and entered into

			 the record.)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Back over to Captain Preston.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Okay.  Other than the tabled issue, the workgroup's
report-out on progress to date that you requested is that, of the
original taskings we have had, we have completed the recommendation on
industry pocket guides; we have completed the recommendation on
translation of e-tools; we have reported out on the alliance 10-hour
course and the new training opportunities available; we're working new
technology and safety; we are working the substance abuse; we are
working on the leading indicators; we have tabled root cause analysis
for this committee charter because of the SCA effort having stopped.  So
we basically have, when we complete the business today, two issues that
we are working which we expect to have complete by the end.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Questions by the committee?  Thank you for the report.  Questions from
the committee for Captain Preston?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Anything from the public?  Mr. Davis?

	MR. DAVIS:  I am DeWitt Davis.

	I wanted to bring two points to the attention of the committee. 
There's a significant effort going on in workforce development.  That
means that local activities are developing training for shipfitters,
welders, electricians in Norfolk or Hampton Roads under the Virginia
Ship Repair Association.  We have completed a rather comprehensive
introductory welding program, with the assistance of Northrop Grumman in
Newport News, and with cooperation of the smaller yards in the area.

	We're aware that this is being done on the West Coast and down in
Florida.  The NSRP is funding or working on developing workforce
development.  This is a time that safety principles ought to go into
that.  Now, that doesn't mean that the committee should have a big
discussion on it, but it should be aware of it.

	Materials that it develops should be provided or should open some kind
of channel to these groups that are doing the workforce development. 
That's the future of our program and the things that we're on the
leading edge of developing here.  They should be getting to the younger
workers that are coming into the industry as soon as possible.

	The second item I had on the leading indicators, there are a number of
people that have provided, and work has been done, on leading
indicators.  Even OSHA's own statistics group could be consulted more. 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics will provide information, privately or
individually, for certain types of comparisons.

	One of the things that was brought up yesterday, is there may be a
certain ratio between near misses and actual incidents.  Then the
National Safety Council, of which I am a representative, has a
full-blown statistic department and they work very closely in this
safety statistics world.

	In addition to that, the Coast Guard has significant safety resources. 
There has been a lot of effort made in transportation statistics, and an
alliance between the Department of Transportation and the Cambridge
research, and also in coordination with NTSB.  Each of these databases
has its own foibles and difficulties, but it does require reaching out
to them, often sitting right next to the operators, to get the
statistics you really need.  So, I commend that to the committee in
terms of leading indicators.

	In addition to that, there is some basic research that ought to be
looked at.  The National Safety Council -- Fred Manuel's written a
treatise on the fact that serious fatalities don't always correlate with
the number of minor incidents.  That may or may not be true, but there
was this theory in the past that the more little accidents you have, the
more bigger ones you're going to have.

	I think maybe when you get into this area, you kind of have to bring in
that basic research.  I'm sure that our statisticians at the Safety
Council will help, and also the experts at the BLS certainly have been
treating me personally in providing statistics.  So, it is a great
source that can be used.  A lot of times we sort of say, well, BLS never
comes out until it's too late, and you can't publish it because it's too
unique, or something.  But there is data.  It can be used.  I commend
the committee to those resources, even here at OSHA.  Thanks.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  And just to kind of piggyback on that,
if you have information to that extent, bringing that information to the
workgroups for consideration is always helpful as well.  So, thank you
very much.

	The document that we didn't have, we have now.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  And even though the document is large, the action is
small.  I think we can get it done before lunch.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Just hold that thought.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Yes.  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to correct myself.  I
misspoke before.  The CD that I referred to is actually a CD of the
course.  We will provide to the Court Reporter a paper copy or one of
those zip drive things of the presentation that was given.  I'm sorry.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thumb drive.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Thumb drive.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	I want to go off the record a second.

	(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m. the meeting was recessed and resumed back on
the record at 11:52 a.m.)

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

	CAPT. PRESTON:  What I'm passing out right now is the SHIPS that was
given to us, and marked up by us, for recommendation for the full
committee.  The second page that you're getting is the handwritten
recommended language to replace the language on page 1.

	So, going back to my original motion, I'm moving -- if you open your
document to page 2, what they're calling cover page 1, page 2, under
"Introduction", there is a paragraph marked "Musculoskeletal Disorders"
that you will see we are moving that that paragraph be removed and
replaced with the text that you see on this second handout.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  For the record, read the text of the paragraph,
please.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  "This document does not address ergonomic exposures. 
Extensive research has been done on ergonomic exposures and possible
solutions in shipyard employment.  This information is available from
the National Shipbuilding Research Program, NSRP, NIOSH, and OSHA."

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  All right.  You still have the floor.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  We are recommending -- as you page through your
document, you will note that pages 3 through 16 have been X'd through. 
We are recommending that those pages be removed from the document.  They
are all ergonomic-specific.  They are all covered in other references. 
Then we discussed page 17, because contact stress can go either way.  If
you're an ergonomist you're going to say it's an ergonomic issue, if
you're not, you're going to say it's a different kind of safety issue.

	If this is an issue for getting the document published, the committee
is not married to this page, so if OSHA wishes to withdraw that, that's
fine.  But we are recommending in this motion that all the rest of the
X'd out pages be withdrawn.  Then, finally, the rest of the document
will go forward as printed.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  So the motion is to accept the document, as
amended?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Correct.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  With the changes that have been provided
here, stated and provided.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Correct.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	Do I have a second?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Second.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I do have a second.  Okay.

	Discussion on the document?  Again, we're on the process, Shipfitting
Ships document.  Okay.

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Hearing no discussion from the committee, if you
have some discussion from the public would you raise your hand?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Hearing none, I'm going to call the question.  

	All in favor, signify by saying "aye".

	(Chorus of Ayes)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Opposed?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Motion carried.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Just to close out this discussion, as we were looking
at this document and preparing it to come back to OSHA, it was
mentioned, if you'll notice on this document it's dated December, 2005. 
There were five other SHIPS developed since this one that are sitting in
the office waiting for someone to review them.  So, we are requesting
that we go ahead and start moving through those reviews so that OSHA can
get those documents out.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the Shipfitting
document, as amended, into the record as Exhibit 5-1 and the handwritten
addendum to the document that was read into the record as Exhibit 5-2.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

			(Whereupon, the documents referred

			 to as Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2 were

			 marked for identification and

			 entered into the record.)

	MR. WALLIS:   One question for Teresa.  When you said we need to start
getting those reviews, you mean "we" the committee or "we" at OSHA?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Either way.  We just found out they're sitting there. 
The impression we --

	MR. WALLIS:  They're sitting in OSHA?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  They're sitting in OSHA.

	MR. WALLIS:  Okay.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  And the impression we were given -- "we", the
workgroup, were given was that you are waiting on us to review them.  If
that's the case, we're happy to start reviewing.

	MR. WALLIS:  Okay.  I understand.  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay. 

	Do you have anything more?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  A similar thing.  I'd like a little bit of a
summary, even if it's a one-pager, kind of outlining where you are and
the TBD, to be done, I guess, thing, so we can kind of keep score.

	One administrative thing.  Someone, like me, has torn their temporary
badge, so if you leave the building you're probably going to have a
problem.  So if it looks like that, they all look alike.

	Okay.  We're right at 12:00.  I'm going to break here.  Our break is
scheduled for one hour, to come back at 1:00.  I'm going to do that, but
let me urge you to be on time because we've got a lot to cover here.  So
we'll start promptly at 1:00.  We'll do Jimmy's item, then we'll come
back to the Cranes Workgroup.  Okay.

	We're in recess until 1:00.

	(Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m. the meeting was recessed.)

	AFTERNOON SESSION

	[1:06 p.m.]

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  We've got a lot to cover here in the
afternoon session, so I'd like to go ahead and get started.

	I guess the first thing we want to do, is complete the work from the
Longshore report.  I understand we do have some copies.  The OSHA
copier, I understand, blew up or something like that.  Is that right? 
Is there any truth to that?

	MR. WALLIS:  It didn't blow up, but it --

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  It did fail.  I think we've got enough.  

	(Pause)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Let's move along.  If I could call
everybody to order, let's get started.

	Jim, please take the lead.

	LONGSHORING WORKGROUP REPORT (Continued)

	By Mr. James Burgin

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.  The committee should have a copy of the Traffic
Safety Guidance Document side-by-side comparison table.  If you have a
copy that's got the grayed-in text in this first column and you can't
read it, this one's a little better if you can't read it.  That's the
last copy that I have.

	OSHA put on their Web site, in July of '07, a Terminal Traffic Safety
Document.  The document was a result of a draft copy that was provided
to OSHA in 2005 by the MACOSH charter at that time.  Then in '07, OSHA
put the document on their Web site.

	To look at the three columns on the side-by-side comparison table, the
current Traffic Safety Document is in the far left column.  The middle
column is the Traffic Safety Guidance Document 2000.  That should really
say 2005 instead of 2001.  So, 2005.

	The far right-hand column is the comments from our October 25, '07
conference call.  There are comments in there, and sort of the rationale
behind the comments or why the comments are proposed.  

	What this side-by-side does, it compares what we turned in in the
previous MACOSH charter to what OSHA published.  We felt like there
needed to be some clarification.  The Longshore Workgroup is asking the
full MACOSH committee to look at our comparisons and our rationales for
changes.

	We realize, since this is 31 pages, that in order for the full
committee to approve this recommendation to OSHA, which I'll make in a
minute, that you need more time to do this.  What we're suggesting is,
right now I'll hit some of the highlights, about 10 or so points.  We
would ask the committee to take it with you and read it and come back at
our next full meeting with comments.  At that next full meeting, we will
make a determination or a recommendation on what to do with the comments
that the workgroup has made.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Let me ask for a clarification to that.  So if I'm
hearing you right, you're going to hit the high spots?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes, sir.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  And you're asking, then, the full committee
to take with them this draft copy.  And are you requesting them then in
the interim, that is, between meetings, to feed you comments or are you
asking them to come to the next meeting prepared to comment?

	MR. BURGIN:  Good point.  I would ask that they feed me comments
between meetings, with the understanding that we will, at the next
meeting, do something about this, discuss it and get it off of our
table, so to speak.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes.  I'd like to recommend that we do do that so
as to make us more efficient.  If they can feed you comments in between
meetings, and you come back next time with a revised draft --

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  -- and then we deliberate on that.

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay. 

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Good.

	MR. BURGIN:  I'll start.  Again, this is just the highlights.

	Page 2, at the bottom, the bottom block down there.  The OSHA document
came back with an incident that happened where pipe fell off a flat-bed
truck and the pipe landed on an over-the-road truck driver and it
killed.  Unfortunately, it was a fatality.  That incident is a materials
handling incident.  It's not a marine terminal traffic incident.  

	So we went back and we found or we report that the bottom block, a
"real-life" incident that unfortunately happened, I think within the
last 16 or 18 months in Tacoma.  So we suggest that that incident be
substituted to the one that OSHA put in the document.  So all that's in
writing at the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3.

	Also, on page 3, the Traffic Safety Program.  Again, the workgroup
suggests that we get to, traffic safety controls be used, again, for the
same rationale that we used in the RO-RO document.

	Yes?

	MS. SHERMAN:  Traffic safety controls or traffic safety system?

	MR. BURGIN:  I'm sorry.  Traffic safety system.  Yes.  Thanks.

	Let's go to page 7.  You see in the far right-hand column some
additional language which expands the OSHA language, cell phones and
electronic equipment.  We wanted to make that a little bit more
specific.  Also, on page 7 as well, to make it more specific in the
"Improper Parking" section there, the OSHA document omitted a very
important point, which is goosenecks, which is the fronts of chassis
that may stick out from a row of parked chassis.  That is a serious
hazard if a vehicle could strike one of those and cause a bad injury. 
So, that should be put back into the document.

	Going to the bottom of page 8, we suggest a little bit more language
concerning the phenomenon of accidents occurring at the end of shifts or
just before a meal hour break.  It seems to happen on a frequent basis,
so we suggest more language along those lines.

	MR. CASTANHO:  Can I make a comment on that?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes.

	MR. CASTANHO:  Jim's right.  A prime example of that is a fatality we
recently had in Oakland, where our brother, Reginald Ross, was killed
aboard the Stuttgart Express while he was lashing.  The accident
happened approximately at 4:40 in the afternoon, basically less than
half an hour before the end of the day shift.

	So, these are real incidents.  Unfortunately, in this case it was a
fatal incident.  We're still looking into it, but it was that last half
hour where that could definitely have been avoided, but did happen,
unfortunately.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes.  Thank you.

	MR. BURGIN:  Page 9, "Substance Abuse".  The OSHA language, we just
expanded that by including not only vehicle language which is in the
OSHA language, but to pedestrian and vehicle accidents on marine
terminals.  So we wanted to get across that it's more pedestrian-related
as well, not just vehicle-related incidents.

	Then the bottom of page 9, "Independent Work", which is in the middle
column, was in the original language submitted to OSHA and left out, and
that is a big point that drivers of vehicles are not immediately
supervised.  They're on their own, so to speak, driving around the
terminal.  So, that should be put back in.

	I'm just hitting the highlights, like I said.  If anyone else on the
workgroup feels like I didn't hit the right highlight, then you're more
than welcome to jump in.

	Page 15.  Page 15, in the left-hand column, begins several bullet
points concerning safe driving techniques.  The top of page 16--and this
may be shaded in on your copy--the third major bullet point down is a
new bullet point that was added to the OSHA document that is not
practical, and we suggest that be taken out.  It reads, "Do not turn a
yard tractor when backing up."  Yard tractors have to turn in order to
back up, so that's got to be taken out.

	Page 18, under "Fatigue", the shaded part on the top of page 18.  "In
addition, employers should learn about alternative methods to transport
dangerously fatigued or drowsy employees home at the end of their
shift."  Again, we felt like that would be impossible to carry out
uniformly and the workgroup feels that should be taken out as well.  It
is, of course, not in the original language submitted through the
previous MACOSH.

	Page 21, the shaded points.  One of the bullet points says, "Avoid
placing items on rolling or moving equipment."  You can see, on page 20,
in the far right-hand column, the last paragraph down -- I'm sorry. 
Page 20, the top of the third column.  One of the things that the
workgroup felt strongly about, and the previous MACOSH felt strongly
about, was employees should not place personal articles on the exterior
of powered industrial trucks on terminals because that's just one more
opportunity for them to walk up to a powered industrial truck while it's
being operated.  When the original language was put in, that was clear.

	Then when OSHA came back with the language on the top of page 21, it
says, "Avoid placing items on rolling or moving equipment.  Loose items
can fall off the equipment and strike someone."  That's the wrong
hazard.  The hazard is that employees should not walk up to machines
that are being operated to get or place their personal items on the
machines, so we felt like that should be clarified as well.

	Then the next bullet point, "Swing Radius of the Rear Wheels of the
Forklifts."  The suggested language is on page 20 for that one.  It
talks more about the bite of the machine, so we suggest more specific
language for that.

	I think that's it as far as the top items in the overall document,
unless someone else on the workgroup feels like we need to highlight
something else.

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  So I guess what I'm hearing is, the action
is for the committee members to take under consideration and review this
document, provide comments, if any, to you.

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes, sir.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  To you, between now and the next meeting.  Then the
next meeting, you will have assembled those comments and then come back
to us with what would be considered to be a final draft for
consideration?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes.  Any comments I receive from the committee will be
brought up and discussed in the Longshore Workgroup, and the Longshore
Workgroup will come back at the next committee with a recommendation.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Very good.  Thank you.  That's great.

	So for now, I guess, are we going to receive this, then?

	MS. SHERMAN:  Mr. Chairman, I think that we should submit this into the
record to make the transcript clearer, and I'd like to propose that we
submit the Traffic Safety Guidance Document side-by-side comparison
table as Exhibit 6.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

			(Whereupon, the document referred

			 to as Exhibit 6 was marked for

			 identification and entered into

			 the record.)

	MR. BURGIN:  May I make one more Longshore Workgroup item
recommendation?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  What if I said yes?

	(Laughter)

	MR. BURGIN:  Thank you.  The Longshore Workgroup recommends that when
OSHA finishes their comments or their process of going through the RO-RO
Safety Guidance Document, that that document, at that time, be brought
before MACOSH again just to have a last-look opportunity.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	Any comments from the committee on the Traffic Safety Guidance Document
at this time?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Any comments from the public?  Yes, sir?

	MR. MIRANDA:  My name is Danny Miranda, I.L.W.U.  I just have one
clarification.  On the items you're talking about putting in the
equipment, you're also talking about equipment, not just personal
equipment.  You're talking about also equipment that we might be using,
like a crowbar?  When you talk about --

	MR. BURGIN:  A crowbar?

	MR. MIRANDA:  Yes.  Because a lot of times in our industry, what we do,
we put equipment on our forklifts when we're moving around.  So if
you're going to not allow personal items, is that --

	MR. BURGIN:  It makes sense, yes.

	MR. MIRANDA:  Okay.  I just wanted to make sure that's clear.  Thank
you.

	MR. BURGIN:  Okay.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Mr. Davis?

	MR. DAVIS:  DeWitt Davis.  I seek a little clarification here.  The
area of traffic on a terminal is really a multi-employer workplace.  In
some cases, the terminal operator and the port authority have sovereign
immunity because they're some function of the state, and in some cases
they don't.  So it all sort of ends up with the stevedores to try to
keep things straight.  

	Also, many traffic devices are established by the port, the port
police, or other functionaries that get into this.  So, I see a
difficulty in implementing this totally with all of the employers or
working functions in a terminal included.  So, the stevedores may be at
the mercy of the insufficient traffic pattern or police control, or all
kinds of things that are going on at the terminal.  I think that some
recognition of it has to be made. 

	I didn't see the comments that were made, but the general overall
picture is, I think everybody should be responsible for safety and the
other authorities should not be able to run from responsibility and
leave it with the stevedores.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Any other comments from the public?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Do you have any other items?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes, sir.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  You do?

	MR. BURGIN:  Just that other recommendation.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Oh.  Oh.  Okay.

	MR. FLYNN:  Was that a motion?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes.

	MR. FLYNN:  I'll second that motion.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Wait just a minute.  What was the motion?

	MR. BURGIN:  The motion is that when OSHA goes through their review
process of the RO-RO Safety Guidance Document that we talked about this
morning, that MACOSH be afforded the opportunity to get a last look of
that document before it's made available to the public.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  So I have a motion and a second.

	MR. FLYNN:  Second.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	Discussion by the committee?  David?

	MR. WALLIS:  I have one question.  There are multiple points in our
review process where the committee could look at it.  Basically, the
staff of the Office of Maritime takes the document from MACOSH, does
whatever it needs to do, cleans up grammatical errors and does some
other things where they feel there is additional information that needs
to be inserted to comply with our good guidance guidelines, for example,
we would do that.  So that would be one point, after we've done the
clean-up at the staff level.

	That would be one place you could look at it.  The second place would
be, as I said before, after it goes through the clearance process,
before we go through the comments, after it goes through the clearance
process, after we've processed the comments.

	And like I said, each of those carries its own burden.  If it's done at
the end, we would need to re-clear it and basically you won't get the
last bite.  The clearance process will get the last bite.

	MR. BURGIN:  I understand.

	MR. WALLIS:  So if you have a recommendation at which point, that
should be in your motion.

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes.  At some point, we want to look at it again.  I mean,
I just can't say exactly when based on your procedures.

	MR. FLYNN:  How about, whatever point they're at when we meet again?

	MR. BURGIN:  Well, it depends on how much they're going to work on it
between now and March.

	MR. BURGIN:  Just at some point --

	MR. WALLIS:  You're talking about RO-RO, right?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes.  When OSHA feels like they've made any changes to it
at some point.  I think we would look to OSHA at some point to give it
back to us.

	MR. WALLIS:  I understand.

	MR. BURGIN:  I'm sorry to be so vague.  But, yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  John?

	MR. CASTANHO:  Well, just for clarification on the document, two areas.
 The first one is page 6.  The far right-hand side, bottom box, makes
reference to the 1917.123 for lighting.  There should be a letter "a" in
parenthesis after 123 as a correct reference.  And on page 16, far
right-hand side, lower box, second sentence, there should be a letter
"a" after 1917.156.  There should be the letter "a" and then the number
"5", and 1917.156(a)7.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Both places?

	MR. CASTANHO:  That was my first note.  But let me make sure that I'm
giving you the right one.  Yes, that's correct.  The letter "a" goes
after both of those.  It's page 134 and page 135 in the Longshoring
Industry book.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Noted.  Thank you.  Okay.

	So where we are, is we have a motion on the floor, we have a second. 
The effect of the motion was that once the RO-RO document becomes as
close to final as final can be, that the committee/workgroup be
afforded--my word--a last look at it.  Is that the essence of it?

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes, sir.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay. 

	I had a motion and a second and we're in discussion.  Is there any more
discussion on the motion?  Yes, Ken?

	MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, I have a question.  I guess it relates to the
issue that we're talking about here.  But in this specific document I
noticed it's a little bit different than some of the other documents
that we've created in that we specifically call out MACOSH as being a
contributory member.  So I'm kind of wondering if that statement about
MACOSH having an active role in developing that policy, if that
statement wasn't in there, would that make any difference to the
committee with regards to allowing OSHA to move forward?  

	As was already mentioned by Mr. Adams, we are an advisory committee and
OSHA can do whatever it wants with the information that we give them. 
So I'm kind of wondering, are we holding back from allowing OSHA to move
forward because we've basically put the MACOSH stamp of approval within
the document?  That's basically my question.

	MR. BURGIN:  It's my opinion that MACOSH has done a lot of work on
this, and they did it in the previous charter.  Doesn't it help MACOSH
to be rechartered if it's mentioned in the documents?  I think that's
one of the reasons it's in there, possibly.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Mr. Chairman, if I may?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes, Marc?

	MR. MacDONALD:  I think, from my perspective, anyway, we would like to
take a last look at the RO-RO document just so there's no glaring
errors, like in Traffic Safety.  We find ourselves in the situation
there where we are asked to make comments on a guidance document that's
already out on the Web.  

	So, I think that's the procedural thing we're trying to avoid there, is
to try to make sure that any changes that were made are logical and
reflect current practices in industry and they have good, representative
examples so that we don't have a situation where we're then asking to go
back to a published document and make subsequent changes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  You're going to weigh in?

	MR. ADAMS:  Just one nice aspect of all this, if you consider it. 
Since we are an advisory committee, if we say we want to see it again,
that doesn't mean, if something comes up where it's not appropriate,
they don't have the time or, for whatever reason, they're not locked
into that.

	MR. BURGIN:  I understand.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Where we are, is we've got a motion on the
floor and a second, and we're in the discussion phase. 

	Other comments?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  I'm ready to call the question.

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

	(Chorus of Ayes)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Opposed?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. BURGIN:  I'm done.  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	I'm going to turn it over.  Now we're going to move and switch gears,
literally, and go into the Cranes and Falls Workgroup report.  Stew
Adams is going to lead us through this discussion.

	CRANES AND FALLS WORKGROUP REPORT

	By Mr. Stewart Adams

	MR. ADAMS:  Some of you may already have the two pages that are going
around.  I know the working group was provided it.  I do, too.  Good. 
Okay.

	So let's start.  I have three areas to report out on from the working
group, Mr. Chairman.  The first one is the Athena 106 accident.  If
you'll recall, at Oakland, the National Transportation Safety Board came
to the MACOSH meeting and gave a presentation on this accident,
including their conclusions and recommendations.

	They had basically two recommendations to OSHA: one was geared to OSHA
and the U.S. Coast Guard, to go work on their MOU; another
recommendation was to OSHA and the MACOSH, to develop a fact sheet to
get the word out on this particular event, so people know the hazards
involved in the locking pins on spuds.  Then also to develop a guidance
document dealing with these types of barges as far as what's expected
from occupational safety and health.

	So we had a lot of interesting turns on this. We had two meetings in
our working groups and did quite a bit of research on this one to go
track this one down.  The first comment I should make on this, if you
put this in consideration, this was brought to the MACOSH, the maritime
part of OSHA.  But if you go look at all the OSHA rules that the
Maritime Directorate controls, none of them really apply to the barge in
question.  It's not shipbuilding, ship repair, ship construction, it's
not marine terminals, it's not marine gear; none of the standards apply.
 The standards that would apply are over in the 1926, the construction
industry standard.

	But if you go look at those--that's where work barges and barges in
navigable waterways falls in the OSHA regulations--standards, most of
those standards don't apply also.  So the conclusion that we discussed
yesterday was, there really are no specific industry regulations to
these work barges that were discussed in the Athena 106 event. 

	You can see both of those conclusions, if you will, from the standpoint
of the citation that was cited from OSHA was a 5(a)(1) citation where
they didn't cite a specific standard, and the SIC code for the company
that was cited was a construction industry.  So, that kind of ties it
together.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Can I interrupt and ask one question on your
workgroup?

	MR. ADAMS:  Sure.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Was there--I'm not trying to put anybody on the
spot--an OSHA representative working in the workgroup?

	MR. ADAMS:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  In other words, jurisdictionally, not trying to put
the Agency on the spot, but they were in agreement with your analysis?

	MR. ADAMS:  Not totally.  I was trying to be very careful in the words,
because there are specific standards.  We discussed these yesterday
also, such as for a mobile crane on a barge.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	MR. ADAMS:  There are standards in the construction industry that apply
to the mobile crane, even if it's on the barge.  There are also
standards, the 1904 standards, for counting injuries and illnesses. 
Those would apply to that industry too, or that group of people.  So I
was trying to be very careful, as there are standards applied, but it
gets really hard for a safety professional--not so much the lawyer part
of it--going down to one of these barges and saying, here's a ladder. 
What does this ladder have to comply with?  Or, I'm an employer.  What
do I have to do for this ladder?

	The Coast Guard doesn't necessarily regulate it, and OSHA, in their
workplace conditions, doesn't really regulate it.  So it's an
interesting point.  How that plays into this we'll get into as we go,
but that was kind of a starting off point.

	Now, the document I provided you as the OSHA fact sheet, this was
prepared and sent to me by Joe Daddura for the workgroup to review as
answering the question or response to the recommendation from the NTSB. 
It is a fact sheet on the spud, specifically associated with spud
barges, addressing the issues of the locking pins.  It's very accurate. 
It's detailed where it needs to be detailed and it's general where it
needs to be general, and it does relate the necessary information to let
people know, you really do need to put these pins in place on these
barges when you're using them.  So that's one piece, and we'll come back
to that one in a moment.

	The other piece of this puzzle is guidance on what you would expect for
barge safety.  By saying "barge safety", I'm trying to express that in
terms of working for the employees there.  

	Now, there's another document.  This was handed out earlier.

	MR. BURGIN:  I've got it.  I have a question.

	MR. ADAMS:  Okay.  I'm sorry.  This document is an outline, if you
will, of a guideline that the Maritime Directorate is going to go work
on if we agree that this is the right approach to take.  They've put
this together.  They've looked at it and said, here's what we need to
relate.  This is what is guidance, these are the pieces the guidance
document should have in it.  If you don't have a guidance document,
they're going to go work on it. 

	The other interesting aspect of this situation or this event is, the
members of the MACOSH committee, and correct me if I'm wrong, anybody,
but I have little or no experience on barges of this type and I don't
believe anybody at the table really can reach out and touch somebody
immediately that has these kind of work barges. 

	Yes, sir?

	MR. SMITH:  Stew, I can tell you that from Coast Guard Headquarters'
perspective, we have enough resources to reach out and we can be of
assistance in regards to this matter, working with OSHA, through MACOSH.
 I know Captain Preston has probably got some comments that she could
make.  I think that we'd have industry comments as well.  But I do
believe that this is a good document.  I think it's a good starting
place.  I think that although many people might feel that these vessels
are uninspected, they're not totally uninspected.  

	No vessel that sails out there is completely uninspected.  That goes
for the recreational boats as well.  There are minimum standards of
lifesaving and firefighting that they have to meet.  But specifically
with regard to this type of construction activity on a vessel that
operates on inland waters, the Coast Guard, and I don't believe OSHA,
has specific standards that apply.  So, this is a good first step.  I
think MACOSH, more than anything, given the collective maritime
backgrounds of the people, would be best to kind of address this type of
a document.

	MR. ADAMS:  And perhaps I misspoke, because I chuckled whenever Ken
raised his hand, because the Coast Guard could have people to reach out
that could touch people on these barges.  But beyond that, from the
shipyard perspectives that I work in, we don't have these barges.  I
don't believe, from the Union's side of the world, whether you have
members that do this type of work.  You do.  So we do have some.  That's
good.  That helps a lot.

	Now, one other piece of the puzzle that came in to OSHA.  That letter
was not circulated.  It was from OMSA.  They are an association with
approximately 250 companies and they do represent people that do this
kind of work.  They were expressing a desire to work with the Coast
Guard and OSHA as OSHA develops these documents, or as OSHA develops
this, which is a positive aspect.

	So, having said all that, that's kind of where this issue lies.  A fact
sheet has been prepared.  OSHA has asked the MACOSH to look at it and
tell them if we believe it meets what the NTSB wanted and was meaning,
and if it serves its purposes.  The working group believes that it does,
and I believe, after you finish reading it, that you'll come to the same
conclusion.

	So the first recommendation of this is that MACOSH accepts the OSHA
fact sheet that's been prepared, and recommended OSHA issue it.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  I second.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I have a motion to accept the fact sheet, as
prepared by OSHA, and a second.  Is that correct?

	MR. ADAMS:  Yes.  To accept and issue it.  And that OSHA issues it.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Accept and?

	MR. ADAMS:  For OSHA to issue it.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Accept for issuance.

	MR. ADAMS:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Recommend that OSHA

issue the fact sheet.  How about that?

	MR. ADAMS:  That's a good one.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Is that better?

	MR. ADAMS:  That's better.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Do you second that?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  I second it.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay. 

	The recommendation is that OSHA issue the fact sheet as presented
before you.  Okay.  Can I have a second?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Perhaps we should identify the fact sheet and offer it
into the record as Exhibit 7.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Very good.  So I've got a motion, second. 
Discussion by the committee?  Marc?

	MR. MacDONALD:  I have absolutely no problem with this fact sheet.  The
only question or concern that I would like to bring up, is this.  We're
focusing on these securing pins as being able to hold these spud links
in an emergency situation, in case the wire breaks on the spud winch. 
The only thing I'd say is, this is a 5-ton leg and it looks like a 3/4-
or 1-inch pin.  

	So I think you've got to be careful that you say, okay, we'll use these
pins, and that pin may or may not hold that leg up depending on if that
wire breaks and you've got three or four inches or some distance for
that thing to fall, and whack.  So it's one of those things where you've
got to look at the design and engineering part.

	So while I don't disagree at all with the caution of this, I would
point out that we're going ahead with this without any kind of
engineering to say that that's adequate or not.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  So I guess your point is, the reliance on a pin is
almost a fail-safe and the real fix, I guess, is prevention of it to
fall.  Or am I hearing -- no, I'm not hearing?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Not exactly.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	MR. MacDONALD:  All my point is, a pin could be a very, very good item
to keep that spud link from breaking, but I think it's got to be
engineered properly and it may have to be lowered gently and resting in
the supported position rather than having it like a guillotine, where
you're perhaps having that wire break and then it will come down hard on
that pin and shear it.  That's my engineering analysis, back of the
napkin.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I understand.

	Captain Preston?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  I don't disagree for a minute with what Marc's saying. 
But I think if you read the way the fact sheet is presented, the pin is
presented as a fail-safe, not as the primary securing device.  NTSB, in
their investigation, said had the pin been in place with the brake set,
that it probably would have prevented.  So I think we have enough expert
testimony to back up going forward with this fact sheet.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Ernie?

	MR. WHELAN:  Just one comment I want to allude to.  In our industry, we
have one of the largest excavator dredges on the East Coast.  It's a
LeBaron 996, and the spud is 99 tons, the pin is the size of a man's
arm.  So, there are varying sizes.  But that is a very common practice. 
We deal with these spud welds every day, hundreds of men or sizes to be
considered.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I'm not trying to lead this in any direction.  So
the motion on the floor is to accept this document as written.  We've
had some other comments that say, pay attention to the pin size and
making sure it can support the load, if needed.  So I guess mine is more
of a question.  Do you wish to modify this document in light of some of
these comments?  Can I yield to Ernie and Marc, I guess, to say, do we
need to simply have this discussion on the record?  Is it your pleasure,
is it your comment that some note needs to be made on the fact sheet?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Mr. Chairman, I think I'm comfortable with just putting
the note into the record. But if OSHA takes that note in the record and
does something with it, I'm not going to object to that either.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Well, I think it's part of the record.  I think
OSHA can choose to do so if they wish.  So I think it's a very effective
way of noting a concern.  Okay.

	Jimmy?

	MR. BURGIN:  I have a concern, too.  The second bullet point on page 2.
 Did the workgroup consider the type of towing vessel?  Did the
workgroup consider using the term "commercial uninspected towing
vessel", to clarify that vessel?  Because the master of the vessel --
I'm getting the impression that we're getting out of OSHA jurisdiction
if it's any kind of vessel.  

	So if we're talking about aiming something at a master of a towing
vessel, we need to clarify what type of towing vessel, and is that
towing vessel under OSHA's jurisdiction.  If not, I would recommend that
this fact sheet, especially that bullet point, be sent to the Marine
Towing Advisory Committee of the Coast Guard to let them comment on
this.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Response from the workgroup?

	MR. SMITH:  I can comment on that.  Thank you. It just so happens that
my office is working on that towing vessel regulation project.  In
regards to that statement, I can tell you officially, that is not
incorrect and that the towing vessel regulations that are being
considered, and even the regulations that are in place now, rely heavily
upon masters making sure that their vessels are safe to sail.  So I
think this was an NTSB recommendation.  

	I personally don't feel that it's incorrect.  It would not be
inconsistent with the thought of what is being discussed, or at least
considered, for the proposed rules that are being made with regard to
towing vessels and the rules that exist currently with regard to other
vessels and the way masters are kind of viewed with the responsibility.

	MR. BURGIN:  That's a good point.  But I think my point also is, are we
getting out of OSHA jurisdiction and getting into Coast Guard
jurisdiction with that second bullet point?  Don't worry about it? 
Good.

	MR. WHELAN:  Jim, I just have one additional comment.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Ernie?

	MR. WHELAN:  On bullet point 3, one comment I have to make is that, in
our experience, we have had spuds dropped and they've ripped out the
spud well, resulting in the sinking of a vessel.  We've had spuds
dropped that sheared off and created -- we actually had two men killed,
where a spud was sheared, fell on deck, and killed two of our personnel.
 So in bullet point 3 where it says "a spud must be lowered to stop the
barge in an emergency situation", I think that has to be an extreme
situation to be considered.  

	I think the language is correct.  I fully endorse the document.  I
think it's the first one we've seen on spuds barge safety.  But again,
there are considerations that must be considered on lowering of a spud
on a moving vessel.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Okay.

	We have a motion on the floor.  We're in the discussion period.  I
guess the essence of the motion is for OSHA to publish this fact sheet
before us.  We've had some discussion, some comments.  

	Other comments?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Any comment from the public?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	I'm ready to call the question on the motion, which is to approve or to
recommend that OSHA publish the fact sheet before you.

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

	(Chorus of Ayes)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Opposed?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. ADAMS:  The next piece of this puzzle is the guidance document for
barge safety.  The document hasn't been prepared.  This is the basic
structure of what it's going to be.  There may be additions and
deletions from the areas that are addressed as it goes forward, so I
don't believe we should say "this is it" as far as the big areas.  But I
do believe that we should recommend that OSHA pursue developing and
issuing this document.  So, that's where we're at now with it.  The
working group agreed on it.  It is a tough issue, and just how this fits
into the MOU between the Coast Guard and just how all of this fits, and
it's best left to the people that write these rules.

	Now, one other piece of the puzzle that helps a lot, at least it helped
in the working group yesterday, is OMSA wants to be of assistance.  They
will be through the Coast Guard.  Ken gave that assurance yesterday. 
So, I recommend that OSHA develop a guidance document for barge safety
and that that be pursued by OSHA, and that the MACOSH recommends that.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Don't we want to assist them in that development?

	MR. ADAMS:  The MACOSH's charter is up on June 26th.  This will span
two MACOSHs.  The specifics and the details of this will really be
worked out--this is just my opinion--between the Maritime Directorate,
the Coast Guard, and with input from the associations that really are
affected here.  So I don't necessarily because we should be directly
involved in the developing of this document.  The workgroup didn't come
up with that conclusion yesterday.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Let me ask a couple of questions of clarification,
because this particular document doesn't have a header on it, and
perhaps it should.  Is this the work of the workgroup, this outline?

	MR. ADAMS:  No.  This outline was prepared by Joe Daddura's group.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  So is the workgroup recommending that OSHA
pursue development of a guidance document around this outline?

	MR. ADAMS:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  That is the recommendation?

	MR. ADAMS:  That is the recommendation.

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

	MR. ADAMS:  I so move.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  

	MR. RAFFO:  Second.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I had a second over here. I've got a motion and a
second, the effect of which is that MACOSH recommend to OSHA the
development of a guidance document around barge safety, consistent with
the outline that has been presented.  I think you'd better mark this,
right?

	MS. SHERMAN:  Yes.  Actually, I will mark this outline for guidance
document on barge safety as Exhibit 8, and at this time let me also make
sure that we get the OSHA fact sheet on spud barge safety into the
record as Exhibit 7.

			(Whereupon, the document referred

			 to as Exhibits 7 and 8 were marked

			 for identification and entered

			 into the record.)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  So where we are, is we have a motion on the
floor.  We have a second.  We're in the discussion period.  Any
discussion on the motion?  Jimmy?

	MR. BURGIN:  Can we clarify the name of this outline document?  Because
"barge safety" is too general.

	MR. ADAMS:  That's a really good point.  It was brought up and
discussed a little bit.  If we say "spud barges", then we're limited to
spud barges.  If we say "uninspected barges", then we're in the world of
uninspected barges.  But specifically, the NTSB recommendation was for
spud barge.  Should it extend beyond the single spud barge to other
types of barges?  That's a good question.

	MR. BURGIN:  If it's open-hopper barges or flat-deck barges that are
handling cargo, that's something different than I think happened here.

	MR. ADAMS:  That's true.

	MR. BURGIN:  I would suggest, we need to have a better title and make
it more focused.

	MR. ADAMS:  Okay.

	MR. BURGIN:  Because if we go into other things, we're getting into
some 1918 issues.

	MR. ADAMS:  So if we amend it to spud barge safety --

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Construction barge safety.

	MR. ADAMS:  Construction barge safety?  Okay.  	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I'm
going to ask -- wait just a minute.  I'm going to ask for -- hang with
me.  Who seconded that motion?  I'd like to respectfully request that
you withdraw, and you withdraw, because if we're going to have a new
motion, I'd prefer we have a new motion rather than try to fix this one.
 That's where I'm coming from.  Is that acceptable?

	MR. ADAMS:  Yes, sir.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you very much.

	Now, before we make a motion, did you want to speak?

	MR. WALLIS:  Yes.  My feeling is, I think the working group has talked
about the scope issue but they haven't determined what the scope is yet.
 I think you're better off leaving it broader, with the understanding
that the workgroup will determine what the scope is and figure that out,
and will present that maybe at the next meeting.  I'm a little bit
concerned about limiting it to just spud barges, and I'm even more
concerned about calling them construction barges. This is MACOSH, not
FACOSH.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  But the effect of the original motion was to
encourage OSHA to develop a guidance document.  I guess I didn't hear --
did I hear correctly that it wasn't the intent of the workgroup to
draft, if you will, that guidance document?

	MR. ADAMS:  That's correct.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  That's a slightly different twist, is it not?

	MR. ADAMS:  Yes, it is a twist.  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	MR. ADAMS:  And the reason it is framed that way, is because the
recommendation from the NTSB was for the MACOSH to develop the guidance
document, and OSHA is going to develop the guidance document.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I understand.  So where we are now, is we have a
clean slate right now.  Okay.  I'm going back to the workgroup and I'm
asking, what, if anything, do you want to do with this document?

	MR. BURGIN:  Change the name.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I have a recommendation to change the name.

	MR. BURGIN:  It's too broad.  It's just too broad.

	MR. ADAMS:  How about, there's a couple of possibilities.  We've heard
these possibilities: spud barge might be too limiting; construction
barge might infringe upon a different directorate; if you don't say
"uninspected barge", then perhaps you could infringing upon the Coast
Guard for their inspected vessels.  So what if you said "working barges"
and let the people developing the guidance document sort out the
jurisdiction?

	MR. BURGIN:  Working barges (non-cargo barges).  I'm just real
concerned about getting that cargo aspect in.  There's not a need to, in
my opinion, do this for cargo.

	MR. ADAMS:  And you're right.  In 1926, the construction industry
standard, cargo barges and barges that carry cargo are addressed and
there are standards.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  What do you want to do?

	MR. ADAMS:  What if we just said "non-cargo barges"?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  We can say anything we want.  All I'm trying to do
is to get us to say something.

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  That's all I'm trying to do.  Okay.

	MR. ADAMS:  Let's change the guidance document in its draft form to
"non-cargo working barges."

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Now, just a minute.  You've entered
this into the record.  Okay.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Yes.  If the committee makes the decision, I will change
it.  I will change the designation on the exhibit.

	MR. ADAMS:  Okay.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Can I make a suggestion?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Absolutely.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  The recognized delineation is "inspected" and
"uninspected", and the recognized delineations in terms of use, you then
get into work barges and/or other barges, which could be construction,
cargo-carrying, whatever.  So how about we title the guidance document
"uninspected work barge safety"?

	MR. ADAMS:  That doesn't solve the -- a piece of this -- maybe we're
getting too detailed here.  

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Don't forget, all of this discussion is main
chapters.  All of the background stuff, okay, that we've been talking
about is on the record and will be considered with whatever decision is
made.  So let's not forget that.

	MR. ADAMS:  The fundamental issue here is that the MACOSH agree, or not
agree, that a guidance document is needed for work barges similar to
those that were involved in the Athena 106 accident.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Right.  I understand.  Yes.

	MR. ADAMS:  So it's not so much what the outline is or what it is not,
it's the fact that we agree, as MACOSH, that OSHA needs to develop a
guidance document for barges that were similar to those that were
involved in the Athena 106.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	MR. BURGIN:  And Terri's solution is good.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  What would you like to do, Mr. Workgroup Chairman?

	MR. ADAMS:  Let's do two things.  Since they didn't this framed
correctly to start with, we've got to undo one thing.  We've got to
correct the title.  Let's correct the title on this guidance document
that's been admitted as an exhibit.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Uninspected work barge safety.

	MR. ADAMS:  So, I recommend that we amend the guidance document title
to "Uninspected Work Barge Safety".

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Wait.  So on the copy before us, it would read:
"Guidance Document: Uninspected Work Barge Safety".  Is that correct?

	MR. ADAMS:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  So that's a recommendation, that we change
that?

	MR. ADAMS:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.   And we can do that.

	MR. ADAMS:  Okay.  But you need a second.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Wait.  It wasn't a motion, it was a recommendation.

	MR. ADAMS:  I move that we do so.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Hey, see, that's different.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  I second.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I have a motion to change the title of the document
to: "Guidance Document: Uninspected Work Barge Safety".  You have a
motion and a second.  We're in discussion.

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  None from the committee.

	Are there any comments from the public?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you very much.

	I want to call the question.  All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying "aye".

	(Chorus of Ayes)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Opposed?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  

	MS. SHERMAN:  I would like to enter an amended Exhibit 8 into the
record to show that the title should be "Uninspected Work Barge Safety".

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

			(Whereupon, the document referred

			 to as Exhibit 8, as amended, was

			 marked for identification and

			 entered into the recorded.)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Would you like to do something else?

	MR. ADAMS:  Yes.  So, following the discussion we've just had, I move
that we recommend that OSHA move forward in developing a guidance
document to address barges similar to those involved in the Athena 106
accident.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  There's a motion.  Do I have a second?

	MR. LEMON:  Second.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I have a second.

	Discussion on the motion?

	MR. LEMON:  Call for the question.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.

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

	(Chorus of Ayes)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Opposed?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. ADAMS:  Whew.  That was the easy one.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  That was the easy one?  Give us a hard one.  We can
handle it.

	MR. ADAMS:  Okay.  Those were the two basic recommendations that we
came up with in the working group.  

	The other issues.  I am just going to report out where we're at on the
issues.  Please pipe up as I raise the issues as this goes forward,
because this is going to get complicated.

	Working under suspended loads.  This has been a topic since day one for
whenever we developed the working groups.  OSHA asked us, as MACOSH, to
address working under suspended loads.  OSHA believes it's an issue. 
We've had several conference calls.  We have also discussed it in each
of the MACOSH meetings we've had and had public input on it in the
working groups.

	Yes, it is an issue: people in shipyards to work under suspended loads.
 At the Oakland MACOSH, we showed a video entitled, "Destroyers Forged
in Steel", which showed such an operation going on in a place where
people were working and around a suspended load, a large hull section
that was being placed onto a ship. So where we've kind of defined and
focused the issue now, as we've been discussing it, it's an issue for
shipbuilding, it's an issue for ship repair, it's an issue for ship
dismantlement.  It's not an issue for longshoring.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Keep going.

	MR. ADAMS:  The other piece of this issue is, how do you frame this,
working under a suspended load? Are we talking about the large hull
section, major components?  Are we talking about small pieces?  The
conclusion of the group is that we could try to limit it only to new
construction of major hull sections, but the reality of it is, the issue
of working under a suspended load is anytime you're underneath a
suspended load, regardless of how large it is.

	So the standard in the shipyard industry is very specific and it really
doesn't matter how big that load is: if you're under it, you're under a
suspended load.  So we, as a working group, did not believe that it
should be restricted in a section of the industry or to a type of lift,
that it goes across the board.

	Now, where we left this at the Oakland meeting, is to go off and try to
define some type of parameters of when it would be okay to work under a
suspended load.  It's an interesting point when you consider that the
standard doesn't allow that now at all by the wording.

	So what we've identified, and we identified this with the assistance of
some individuals in NAVSEA, is that there is an alternate standard
approved by OSHA for NASA.  I need to explain that process real quick. 
NASA is a Federal agency.  As a Federal agency, they comply with 29 CFR
1960, the Federal Agency Programs of OSHA.  

	The Federal Agency Programs allow a specific and unique situation or
possibility, and that's for an alternate standard to be developed by the
Federal agency, submitted to OSHA for approval, and for OSHA to approve.
 When approved, the alternate standard is the standard that the Federal
agency uses and it is there instead of the OSHA-issued Federal
regulation. 

	In NASA's case, they have such a standard for working under suspended
loads.  NASA's situation, again, the alternate standard replaces, is
used in lieu of, the 1910 standards that prevent you from working
underneath a suspended load.  So this standard doesn't apply to the
maritime industry, this standard doesn't apply to the private sector,
but it is an example, if you wanted to go someplace and look at, what
would I have to do if I did want to work under a suspended load safely.

	Well, there is an alternate standard that OSHA has approved for NASA to
use that lists 15 things that have to be done by NASA to ensure the
safety of people that are working underneath the suspended load.  It
doesn't apply to contractors, private sector contractors working for
NASA.  It only applies to NASA employees themselves.

	There are words in the standard that say that OSHA will consider a
private contractor working to the standard a de minimis violation, but
I'm not necessarily sure those words are OSHA's choice of words there,
maybe NASA's.

	So what we posed in our last conference call of the working group is,
okay, here is a standard.  It's, don't use it as -- well, let's go use
this.  But here's 15 things that if you do, OSHA has already jumped up
in at least one context to say that if you do these things and you do it
properly, you've ensured the safety of your employees while you're doing
it, which is the goal.  So that's the starting point, now.  We have a
focus.  We know the hazards, we know the situations, we've got our
limits to the industries.

	The next piece of the puzzle is how to go forward.  The three options
that were on the table yesterday were was a proposed rule, which would
be to recommend a revision to the existing standard; the second option
would be a variance, which we determined in pretty short order wouldn't
work because it would be every shipyard, every ship preparer industry
having to submit a document to OSHA and request approval; and the third
option would be an enforcement alternative, such as the CPL, which I
mentioned in Oakland.

	Of the three options, the working group felt that going ahead and
drafting language and identifying, if these 15 things really are the
right things to do, maybe there's one more, maybe there's one less as we
go through this process of drafting a proposed rule that would have an
exception to working under a suspended load: don't work under suspended
loads, however, if it must be done, these things must be accomplished. 
So, we're off to write that proposal now.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Good.

	MR. ADAMS:  Working group members, did I miss anything from that
conversation?

	(No response)

	MR. ADAMS:  Okay.  So I expect, by the next meeting, that we will have
a formal proposal on this issue, if we can all agree on what the 15
things are, if you will.  So, more to follow there.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Good.

	MR. ADAMS:  Okay.

	The next topic, and last topic I'm going to report out on specifically
that we discussed, was the aerial work platforms issue.  Aerial work
platforms are AWPs.  We've also referred to them by brand name.  People
do refer to them by brand name, where JLG is a brand name.  The OSHA
standards that apply to these refer to them as "Vehicle Mounted
Elevating and Rotating Work Platforms".  It's the 1910 standard.  So,
these are the devices we're talking about.  

	The question at hand to the working group is, when you're working over
water, which is not addressed in the 1910 standard, do you wear a PFD or
do you tie off to the basket?  During our discussions in the working
group, I just took it to the point where it's probably the right point. 
Now, I can tell you right now, the Navy's policy is, use a PFD.  The
Naval shipyards use PFDs, and they do that based upon input from the
local area OSHA offices.

	We talked to Steve Butler from the compliance side during yesterday's
meeting and asked him what the current position is on OSHA, and his
response was that still internally they have not made an agreement on
what the right approach is.  Perhaps I didn't use the right words on
that.  They're still discussing it.  It's because the 1910 standard
doesn't address working over water at all.  That's fundamentally the
issue.

	So I'll just pose to the working group the point, and we'll leave it at
that for now, that if you're over land, the reason that you would use a
safety harness and tie off to the basket of the aerial work platform is
that it prevents you from being ejected as the aerial work platform
bounced and moved around from the accumulation of the hydraulic systems
or the boom.  That's why you tie off in these baskets.

	Now, the standard, the 1910 standard, doesn't say that either.  Okay. 
But when you get in one of these devices and go up in your basket, you
have to do certain things.  You have to assure the stability of the
platform when you're up in the air, because if you get outside of the
envelope of one of these machines, it will tip over.  There's no doubt
about it.  It happens regularly.  These aerial work platforms do tip if
the proper concerns aren't addressed.

	Over water, we're telling people to wear a PFD, because if the platform
tips over and you go into the water, you will be tied to an anchor at
the bottom of the lake, or river, or ocean.  That's why people put PFDs
on.  The concerns of being ejected are identical, if not exacerbated
when you're working over water.

	An example would be if you're on a barge, then if the barge starts
rocking, there's another motion that you wouldn't have on land.  So you
have the same concerns with being ejected.  A PFD -- people have
different numbers, but a PFD at heights doesn't provide much protection
from the impact force on the water.  

	So the point in all of that statement is, you would not allow somebody
to get into an aerial work platform on land if it was not stable.  Why
would you allow anybody to get into an aerial work platform and work
over water if your concern was it was not stable?  So the reality of
this is, you probably should be tied off whether you're over water or
over land.  If you're working over water, you might need a little extra
care in ensuring the stability of your platform.  So, the working group
will prepare a recommendation on that topic and a point paper
delineating everything I just said in much more detail.

	A problem that exists, and Captain Preston pointed this one out, is the
employees, the people that are doing this work.  There's a perception,
when they move from land to over water, that they have a different
hazard and they want to put the PFD on also.

	So, there is communication and education.  If the MACOSH goes forward
with this, that over water you have to be tied off, then there will have
to be an education and communication tool developed, such as a fact
sheet, to explain why you want to do this.  So, there will be quite a
bit of education, as a matter of fact.

	Terri?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  One of the things, we talked about making a
recommendation.  Frankly, after the discussion that we had, the
recommendation would be for OSHA to enforce the law, because that's the
way it's written right now, is that you're supposed to be tied off.  We
really know this is a dilemma.  It's not just a dilemma amongst our
employees and some of the employers, but it's a dilemma involving
different OSHA areas. 

	So we're going to continue to talk about this and work with our OSHA
contacts to determine whether or not we need to make any kind of a
motion.  But at this stage of the game, if we stick with the way the law
is written, then we are going to probably come back with a motion to
develop a fact sheet, some sort of a training tool so that employees can
understand why they ought to be tied off over water.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  So it sounds like that it's still a work in
progress.

	MR. ADAMS:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  You're necking down a little bit.  You're not quite
there, but you're getting there.

	MR. ADAMS:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Is that right?

	MR. ADAMS:  That's a very true statement for these two issues.  

	Now, I'd like to spend a few minutes and just run through the list of
items that we started with and where we're at with these.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	MR. ADAMS:  We've covered working under suspended loads.  Other issues
that we've been dealing with.  The aerial work platforms and PFDs. 
Inflatable PFDs, which we completed at the Baltimore meeting with a
recommendation, we still have scaffolding erection and disassembly on
the list which we have not even started, and most likely won't start
because that's a very detailed issue.

	Lashing platforms was left to Longshoring on the first meeting.  Marine
travel lifts, which we will, as we pursue these other two items, pick up
for our next meeting.  It's primarily a straightforward, question:
should they be regulated by OSHA?  Currently, beyond the powered
industrial trucks, there are few standards associated with it.

	Crane operator certification, we have not addressed.  ZPMC cranes, I
believe we've completed with.  Crane bypass switches have not been
addressed.  Lifting personnel with cranes.  This is the 1915 standards. 
Currently there are very detailed rules in the construction industry
standard, very limited rules in the shipyard industry standards, or the
maritime standards.  That's not true.  The longshoring standard is very
detailed, also.

	Those are the issues that we still have before us.  Many of those,
we'll move on to the next time.  I expect our working group will have
recommendations for us at our March meeting on the working under
suspended loads and aerial work platforms, and we will be moving into a
couple of these other issues then.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Any questions or comments from the committee on the Cranes and Falls
Workgroup?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Any comments from the public?  One.  Yes, sir?

	MR. BURDGE:  If I could comment on Stew, who eloquently --

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I'm sorry.  You need to identify yourself.

	MR. BURDGE:  Oh, sorry.  Gavin Burdge, BMT Designers and Planners. 
Just one comment, that Stew eloquently described with working on the
work platform. The problem is not to address the behavior of the
employee to tie off or not to tie off, to wear the PFD or not to wear
the PFD.  The problem is with using it in the design of the equipment
itself so that it doesn't create the hazard in the first place.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. BURDGE:  So if OSHA can address that, or somehow the committee can
address that.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thanks very much.  Of course, you're free to join
the workgroup when it convenes at the next time and provide input as
well, as is anyone.

	Any more for the Cranes and Falls?

	MR. ADAMS:  Just one comment, or one question, or to request one thing.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes?

	MR. ADAMS:  And it's best left for the end.  But over the past year and
a half now as we're starting approaching our last six months as a
committee, is we have made recommendations and I believe we should be
considering asking OSHA to come back at some point along the line and
tell us what their intentions are right now, anyway.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes.  What I would see--and I'm not speaking for
the Agency here--if we assemble from the workgroups our listing of what
is completed and then what is to be completed in one spot, we can ask
the Agency collectively, you know, what about this, what about this,
what about this?  So I could see multiple uses from this compendium of
actions, and we can do just that.

	MR. ADAMS:  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	Hearing none, any more?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I'm going to move on here. We're a little bit late,
but we knew this.  This happens at a wonderful time because I guess Bill
Perry has a conference call at 3:00, so I know he'll be done by 2:55
anyway.  So, Bill, you've got all the time you need, okay?

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  And he's going to talk to us a little bit about the
final rule for employer-paid PPE.  Are you using that?

	MR. PERRY:  I do have some slides.  They aren't essential to the
discussion.  I just thought it might make it a little bit easier.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  It's completely optional.  Vanessa is saying we
should move, so we will.

	REPORT ON FINAL RULE FOR EMPLOYER-PAID

	PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

	By Bill Perry

	(Showing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee and
talk about our recently issued standard for employer payment for
personal protective equipment.  I know it's a rulemaking that's been of
intense interest to many employers and employees.

	What I would like to do, is I'll just recap the history as to why we
did this standard very quickly--I know a lot of you are familiar with
it, it goes back a ways--and then just go through the provisions and the
requirements of the standard that were issued earlier this month and
hopefully leave a few minutes, in the event that there are any questions
from committee members.

	The reason why we're here and why we engaged in this rulemaking is
because of an adverse Review Commission decision in 1997 dealing with a
citation issued by the Agency for failure of the employer to pay for
certain kinds of PPE.  I believe it was welding PPE and metatarsal
protection.  That was the Union 10 case in 1997.

	Basically, it called into question a memo issued three years earlier by
OSHA to the field stating the Agency's policy that employers were
required to pay for personal protective equipment, with a couple of
exceptions.

	As you know, most of our personal protective equipment standards don't
specify who is to pay for the personal protective equipment.  They
either specify that employers are required to provide the equipment or
that employers are required to ensure that such equipment is used by
employees in order to protect them from workplace hazards.  

	So the only remedy in response to this adverse decision was really to
engage in Notice and Comment rulemaking and put out a clear policy as a
result of that.  So, of course we proposed a rule back in 1999, received
about 250 comments, went through a public hearing process.  

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  We had a limited reopening in 2004 to address a specific
issue that was raised in the original record, mostly regarding
employee-owned personal protective equipment or what some rulemaking
participants termed "PPE as a tool of the trade", and I'll talk a little
bit more about that as I get into describing the final rule for you.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  We were sued this past January by the AFL-CIO and the
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, basically for failure to
complete the rulemaking, since by then it had been over seven years
since the original proposal was issued.  

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  We asked, or the Secretary of Labor asked, the court in
March to hold the lawsuit in abeyance pending publication of a final
rule in November, and the Union basically, and the court, agreed to do
this.  So they granted us the abeyance and we did publish a final rule
on November 15.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  The scope of the final rule is very broad. It covers all
major industry sectors and amends general PPE requirements in all of the
parts of 29 CFR that contain personal protective equipment standards. 
So it does cover shipyards, marine terminals, and longshoring, those
three parts, as well as general industry and construction.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Hey, Bill, could I ask a quick question?  This will
demonstrate my ignorance, maybe.  But agriculture.  Are they still
treated separately?

	MR. PERRY:  Yes, that is true.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	MR. PERRY:  This is not covered.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  This did not apply to agriculture.

	MR. PERRY:  It does not amend any part of the agricultural standards. 
That's correct.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MS. SHERMAN:  The agricultural standards, I don't believe have any PPE
--

	MR. PERRY:  Yes.  Just to make clear for the record, the agricultural
standards, or that part, does not have general personal protective
equipment requirements.

	It is important, in looking at the scope of this rule, to understand
that this rule only deals with the issue of who pays for personal
protective equipment.  It does not address when personal protective
equipment is required by certain standards or what kind of PPE is
required by certain standards.  It does not change what is or is not a
violation of a particular PPE requirement, so we don't address that.

	If, by reason of a Review Commission decision or a court decision or
interpretations issued by the Agency over the years it's unclear whether
a certain kind of PPE is required to comply with a certain standard,
this final rule does not address that situation.  Okay.  So, just to
make clear, this is only about payment for personal protective
equipment.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  The rule also does not apply to a number of items that we
received questions on in the record, things like uniforms, caps, other
clothing worn to identify people, items or clothing worn for sanitary
purposes, just to keep people clean, but otherwise is unrelated to
protecting workers from safety or health hazards, and items worn to
protect products being produced or to protect consumers of the products
being produced, for example, hair nets for food servers or latex gloves
for food servers.

	None of those kinds of things are within the scope of this rule, since
none of those things function as protective equipment that would be
required by an OSHA standard.  Their job is not to protect the employee
from injury or hazardous exposure.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  The regulatory text, at least in the three parts of the CFR
that are of interest to this committee, we added a new Paragraph F to
the existing 1915.152 for shipyards that deals with the payment
requirements, and then longshoring added a new section, 1917.96, which
immediately follows the general PPE requirement .95, and marine
terminals added a section, 1918.106, which immediately follows that
part's general PPE requirement.

	Other than internal references to various paragraphs within each of
these parts, the paragraphs and the requirements are identical in every
case.  So what I will do, is just quickly go through the paragraphs in
the 1915 part.  Okay.  But they're exactly the same from the marine
terminal and the longshoring parts as well.

	Before I get into the specific paragraphs, those of you who remember
what we proposed, which was basically that employers would be required
to pay for all personal protective equipment required by OSHA standards,
with the exception of ordinary safety-toe shoes and prescription safety
eye wear under certain conditions, will note that there are a number of
new paragraphs in the final rule that did not appear in the proposal and
were not discussed in the preamble to the proposal.

	These extra additional paragraphs were put in to address certain issues
raised by the rulemaking participants who requested clarification with
respect to things like ordinary clothing or weather-related gear, and
you'll see additional paragraphs for that.

	Those are not really additional exceptions in the sense that the final
rule does not exempt from an employer payment requirement any protective
equipment above and beyond what we originally proposed.  So the final
rule really reflects the intent behind OSHA's proposal and the Agency
considers the final rule to be as protective as what we proposed as a
result, but you will see some additional language incorporated in the
final.

	So the basic requirement is--except as provided by these exceptions,
various exceptions that I will discuss in a moment--personal protective
equipment that is used to comply with this part shall be provided to the
employee at no cost.  You see a section of the language underlined here.
 That is just for emphasis, because the rule only requires employers to
pay for personal protective equipment that is required by other OSHA
standards.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  And you see that here in this slide, that this is a really
important point.  If the PPE is required by an OSHA standard, it falls
within the scope of this rule, if it is not otherwise accepted by this
rule.  Okay.  If the PPE is not required by an OSHA standard, then
there's no obligation on this rule for the employer to provide that PPE
at no cost to employees.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  The second paragraph deals with an exception from the
payment requirement for what is called non-specialty safety-toe
protective footwear--this includes what's commonly called steel-toed
shoes or steel-toed boots--and non-specialty prescription safety eye
wear, provided that the employer permits these items to be worn off the
job site.  This is similar to what we had proposed in 1999 to exempt
these particular items from an employer payment requirement, but we
simplified the language.  

	If you'll recall, in 1999 there were a set of three conditions that had
to be met before the PPE was exempt from the payment requirement. 
Really, what all of those criteria -- the bottom line was, if employees
could take the equipment off the job site, then it was exempted.  So, we
just simplified the language.  We hope to make the intent behind our
proposal clearer to everybody.

	Note, if the employer requires employees to keep these items--the
safety-toe protective footwear and prescription safety eye wear--at the
workplace, then the employer is required to provide these items at no
cost to the employee.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  In addition, what we mean by "non-specialty" safety-toe
footwear or prescription eye wear is that there's no other feature
designed in the protective equipment to provide additional protection
from some other hazard.  Basically, you see a couple of examples here:
prescription eyeglass inserts for SEBA, or a full facepiece respirator. 
Since those are important to ensure the proper functioning of the
respirator, that's considered integral to the protective equipment or to
the respirator and has to be provided at no cost.  Another example would
be slip-resistant or non-skid footwear, would be within the scope of the
rule.  An employer would be required to pay for these things.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  Now, the third paragraph addresses metatarsal protection,
which was raised by a number of rulemaking participants as well. 
Currently, there are two kinds of metatarsal protection that are
acceptable to OSHA where this kind of protection is required.  One, is
use of a removal metatarsal guard that's worn over a safety-toe shoe or
boot, the other, of course, is an integrated shoe or boot that's got the
metatarsal protection built into it.

	We recognize that a number of employers provided metatarsal guards, and
in that case this paragraph makes clear that where metatarsal guards are
provided at no cost to employees but employees request to use shoes or
boots with built-in metatarsal protection, that the employer is not
required to pay for the shoe or the boot in that case.  The employer
will have been deemed to have met their obligation by providing
metatarsal guards at no cost.  So, this is a paragraph that simply
clarifies that, since there are two kinds of metatarsal protection.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  However, if there is an instance where an employer requires
employees to use integrated metatarsal protection or to use shoes or
boots with integrated equipment, then the employer would be required to
pay for that since the employer is requiring that form of equipment. 
Again, all this is provided that the metatarsal protection is required
by OSHA standards.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  The fourth paragraph.  This really clarifies, again, what
was OSHA's intent in the original proposal, and in fact what's been, I
think, longstanding Agency policy, that the employer is not required to
pay for everyday clothing, including long-sleeved shirts, long pants,
street shoes, ordinary work boots, things of that nature.  

	Of course, many employers do require employees to wear certain kinds of
clothing, in part, at least, for protection against abrasions,
splinters, cuts, or protection from maybe hot material splashing on
naked skin.  So, even though such clothing may provide a protective
function, we felt that this was something that should be exempted from
an employer payment requirement.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  Similarly, employers are not required to pay for ordinary
clothing or skin creams used solely for protection from weather, so this
would include winter coats, gloves, hats, rain coats, sunglasses, and
sunscreen.  Okay.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  If weather conditions are such that really extraordinary
clothing is required, maybe clothing with heating elements built in or
things of that nature, this would not be considered to be ordinary
weather gear and, thus, the employer would be required to provide that
kind of extraordinary weather protection at no cost to the employee.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. PERRY:  Note, also, that we're only talking about weather with
respect to this fourth paragraph.  Any kind of protective clothing that
is required to protect employees from artificially generated hot or cold
environments -- oh, I just lost the slides. 

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I think you're done, Bill.

	(Laughter)

	MR. PERRY:  I'll press on.  It's going into hibernation mode here. 
Okay.  I'll press onward.

	We're talking about artificially generated hot and cold environments
where protective clothing, in that case, would have to be provided at no
cost.

	The fifth paragraph deals with who has to pay for replacement
protective equipment, and under what conditions.  This paragraph was
added to the final rule in response to a number of comments from
employers who were concerned about having to pay for protective
equipment that was frequently lost or intentionally damaged or misused.

	So the new provision reads that the employer must pay for replacement
PPE, except when the employee has lost or intentionally damaged the PPE.
 We did get some testimony in the record that this does occur.  It's a
very rare occurrence, apparently, but it does happen.  Basically, OSHA's
intent here is to permit employers to establish reasonable policies to
handle these kinds of situations where PPE is lost by an employee,
damaged through misuse or abuse.  

	There's a very nice discussion in the preamble to the final rule
regarding what kinds of disciplinary policies--and positive
reinforcement approaches as well, I should add--that OSHA would find
acceptable in these kinds of circumstances.

	The sixth paragraph, which is the next-to-last paragraph in the rule,
covers employee-owned PPE.  This is a situation I'm sure that some, if
not all of you, are familiar with where employees report to work and
bring PPE that they have purchased themselves with them on the job.  The
final rule does permit this practice.

	This is, in fact, the reason why OSHA reopened the record in 2004, was
because we got testimony from a lot of employers in a number of
different industry sectors speaking to a custom within their industry of
employees reporting for work with PPE as part of their tool kit, so
therefore this term "tools of the trade" arose.  It was not a term of
art generated by OSHA, but came out of the record itself.

	The practice seemed to vary considerably by industry, by geographic
region of the country.  There really wasn't any consistency across the
nation that we could point to that might have convinced the Agency to
allow people to continue the practice.  But basically the final rule
does permit employers to have employees bring their own PPE, and the
employer is not required to pay for the PPE, either in entirety or on
any pro rated basis, provided the employer has fulfilled their other
obligations under the PPE standards, which is to make sure that it's
effective PPE, that it's sanitary, and that it's going to protect the
employee and that it's appropriate PPE for the job.

	This paragraph also contains, or we included, explicit language to make
clear that the employer, however, shall not require employees to provide
or pay for their own PPE unless it's PPE that's been exempted by one of
the other paragraphs specifically in the final rule.  So, that's the
ordinary clothing or the weather gear that we're talking about.  There
is a prohibition about requiring employees to provide their own in this
case.

	So the employee's use of his or her PPE must be completely voluntary. 
They can withdraw use of their own PPE at any time, and the employer, as
I said, is still responsible for making sure the PPE is appropriate to
the job.

	The seventh and final paragraph of the regulatory text lays out the
effective dates.  Basically, the standard becomes effective on February
13, but must be implemented by employers no later than May 15 of 2008. 
So, the May 15 date is the key date there.  The Agency felt that that
would be sufficient time for employers to implement either
administrative procedures or whatever mechanisms it would have to
implement in order to put payment procedures in place, and would also be
sufficient time to address any collective bargaining provisions that
might need to be examined in order to ensure compliance with the rule.

	I will point out, too, while I'm on that topic, the preamble has,
again, a very nice discussion, at least in my humble opinion, about all
the different ways that are acceptable to OSHA for employers to provide
PPE at no cost.  You don't have to actually procure it and keep an
inventory.  Allowance systems are fine, and other kinds of approaches
are okay, too.  So, there's a discussion in the preamble there that
would probably be of interest.

	All of these amendments in all of the parts of 29 CFR dealing with PPE
payment contain a note to this last paragraph, that when the provisions
of another OSHA standard specify who is responsible for paying for PPE,
then the specific standard prevails over this general rule.  We have a
number of comprehensive chemical standards that specifically require
payment for certain kinds of PPE.

	We have some standards that exempt PPE from payment.  For example, the
logging boots in the general industry rules are not required to be
provided at no cost to employees.  So, anything in a specific standard
will prevail over this general payment requirement.

	That's about all I have to say in terms of what's in the standard
itself.  I guess, with the Chair's permission, if there are a few
questions, we have some time.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Thank you, Bill.  As soon as we get the
light killed where I can see -- there, that's better.

	Let me, first, thank you for presenting that.  We know this is hot off
the press.  We're all kind of reading through that and interpreting it,
so we appreciate your appearing.

	I'd open it up for questions to Bill from the committee.

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Hearing none, is there --

	MR. BURGIN:  Wait.  I'm sorry.  I wasn't quick enough.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  It's okay.

	MR. BURGIN:  If a company gives a longshoreman a reflective vest and
pays for it the first time, and this particular longshoreman doesn't
come back to work for another 6 or 8 months, or 12 months or so and he
doesn't bring his vest with him at that time and we require him to pay
for that vest -- I know that if he loses it or damages it, then he has
to pay for it.  Right?

	MR. PERRY:  Yes.  Yes, sir.

	MR. BURGIN:  Yes.  Okay.

	So what time period is allowable?  Because in the longshoring industry,
there are casual workers that may not work for extended periods of time.
 What this does, is it's going to make employers keep very good records
of these casual workers, which I guess we can do.  But is there a time
frame where we don't have to continue to keep him on the books, so to
speak?

	MR. PERRY:  No.  In fact, we deliberated on this issue rather
extensively within the Agency because we thought, well, should there be
time frames specified or some range of time frame specified for this,
and found that that wasn't the best approach, first of all because
different standards for PPE have different requirements for when the PPE
has to be replaced.  

	I think that's the key.  The question is, would the PPE have to have
been replaced anyway or shortly thereafter?  If the answer is no, then I
think that would be something that you'd want to develop a policy on for
how to handle that kind of situation.  I can't say definitively yes or
no.  I don't know where else the person is working or if they're using
that PPE, or what have you.

	That can start to get complicated and would probably call for an
interpretation from the Agency in that case.  But as a general matter,
the intent behind the final rule is if the PPE was lost or damaged
significantly ahead of its expected life.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Stew?

	MR. ADAMS:  Just on the employee-owned PPE, if it's PPE that requires
training -- if the employer's PPE is different than what the employee
brings to work, yet it requires training on it, does the employer have
an obligation to take care of that training?

	MR. PERRY:  I don't think there's anything in this final rule that
would change an employer's obligation to ensure that employees are
appropriately trained in the PPE that they're using.  If an employee is
bringing their own PPE to the work site, it's still the employer's
responsibility to make sure that the PPE is appropriate for the job and
that the employee is using it in a manner that's going to render it
effective.

	MR. ADAMS:  Okay.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Could I get a clarification?  Did I hear you say--and
it was after the computer died, so I didn't see it on a slide--if an
employee chooses to bring his or her own PPE into the job site, that
they can bring it on Monday, and then on Wednesday they can decide
they're not going to use their own any more and you've got to be
prepared to supply them with replacement PPE?

	MR. PERRY:  Yes, I believe that's what you heard.  Basically, the final
rule, as it is written, prohibits the employer from requiring an
employee to provide their own PPE at their cost.  Okay.  So, yes.  If an
employee brings PPE to the job site and the employer is fine with them
using it and it's in good shape and everything else is okay, two days
later the employee says I don't have PPE for the job, well, then the
employer is required to provide the PPE if the PPE is required by an
OSHA standard and if it's not something that was exempted by this final
rule.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Susan?

	MS. SHERMAN:  But Bill, there is nothing in the rule that would prevent
an employer from insisting that the employer provide the PPE.  Correct?

	MR. PERRY:  I'm sorry.  Say that again.

	MS. SHERMAN:  In other words, an employer can say, you can't bring your
own PPE in here, I want to supply it.

	MR. PERRY:  Of course.

	MS. SHERMAN:  There's nothing in the rule that addresses that.

	MR. PERRY:  Yes.  The employer is under no obligation to permit the
employee to bring their own PPE or use PPE that they bring to the work
site.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.

	MR. PERRY:  The employer has to permit such use.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Thank you.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Could I ask one more question on clarification?

	MR. PERRY:  Yes.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  In a multi-employer work site or a leased employee work
site, which employer do you expect to provide the PPE?

	MR. PERRY:  There's actually a very extensive discussion in the
preamble to this issue.  Let me give you the simple bottom line.  Our
intent here--because we got a lot of comments in the record about
that--was not to require, say, company A to provide and pay for the PPE
for company B's employees if company B is a subcontractor, let's say.  

	Now, having said that, in any given case the issue of who is an
employee and who's their employer is complex.  It's not as simple as
just who is issuing the paycheck.  It has to do with who's controlling
the work.  That gets very complicated, legally speaking.  In fact, we
have some discussion of that in the preamble on that very issue.

	I can't say it draws bright lines because it is a complex area and
there is a lot of case law, but at least that was our intent, was that
their prime contractor was not just expected to provide and pay for PPE
for subcontractors, which was really what most of the people coming on
the record were concerned about.  But that's with the caveat I just
mentioned.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Well, actually the reason I asked, is because our
employees feel--the leased employees, i.e., temporary employees--get a
real good deal, okay, at their expense because now I'm going to provide
all their PPE to them at no cost, I'm paying a premium for them anyway,
and they're getting everything that a company worker gets and then some.

	MR. PERRY:  Well, again, I think use of temporary labor, say, from a
temporary labor provider, for example, is something that's discussed
fairly extensively in the preamble.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Okay.

	MR. PERRY:  So, I would refer you to that.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  John?

	MR. CASTANHO:  I think I heard you say that in cases where an employer
has to pay for PPE such as steel-toed boots, that PPE would have to
remain on the job site?

	MR. PERRY:  It's actually the other way around, I think.  If the
employer requires ordinary safety shoes to be kept at the job site, for
example, because of concern that they might have chemical contamination
on them and you don't want people taking them home, in that instance,
that's what triggers the payment obligation for the employer.  Okay?

	MR. CASTANHO:  Okay.  Then what about, like in the longshoring
industry, the workforce kind of migrates from ship to ship, if you will,
so you may not have the same employee at the same terminal two days in a
row.  That individual's work boots.  Are they going to be payable by the
employer or is it still going to be coming out of his or her pocket?

	MR. PERRY:  First of all, these are steel-toed work boots, I assume?

	MR. CASTANHO:  Steel- or Kevlar-toed, yes.

	MR. PERRY:  Okay.  In that case, is the employer requiring them to be
kept at the job site?  If the answer is no, then the employer is not
required to pay for that under the exemption in the final rule.

	MR. CASTANHO:  Thank you.

	MR. PERRY:  Okay.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Any others by the committee?

	MR. BURGIN:  Is there any language in the preamble concerning, how
would the employer determine intentional damage or how would OSHA
determine that the employee -- that there was intentional damage?

	MR. PERRY:  Yes.

	MR. BURGIN:  There is?  Okay.  Good.  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  And you can read that at your leisure.

	MR. BURGIN:  I will.

	(Laughter)

	MR. PERRY:  Again, I'm not going to promise bright line, clear
definitions here.  I think, though, the discussion in the preamble
reflects that we expect employers to implement reasonable and fair
policies regarding such instances.  That's what I think we're looking
for.  But there is a nice discussion in the preamble of that.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  We're coming up on -- yes?

	MR. FLYNN:  The employer policies.  Are you expecting that to be in
writing?

	MR. PERRY:  There's no specific requirement in the rule for written
policies.

	MR. FLYNN:  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay. 

	MR. PERRY:  Thank you again.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  You're not done.

	MR. PERRY:  Oh, I'm not done?  Sorry.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  No.  You're almost done.  He's got to run to a
conference call.  One question, real quickly.

	MR. PERRY:  Sure.  Sure.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  What about an MSDS which refers to wearing some
form of PPE that is not necessarily regulated by a specific OSHA
standard?

	MR. PERRY:  Well, again, if PPE isn't required by an OSHA standard then
it's not covered under this payment rule.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	MR. PERRY:  Regardless of who else might be recommending such PPE be
worn.  Okay.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Thank you.

	MR. FLYNN:  One last question.  That brings up the general duty clause.

	MR. PERRY:  Actually, the preamble is real specific on that.  First of
all, given that we have general PPE requirements in all of these parts,
it's very unlikely we would need to invoke a general duty clause.  But
in the event that happens, the payment does not apply in that instance. 
So if OSHA were to cite 5(a)(1) for failure to use some kind of PPE,
there would be no expectation on the Agency's part that the employer
should pay for that.  Okay.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:   Now we'll let you off the hook.  Thank you, Bill. 

	MR. PERRY:  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  We appreciate it.  Hope your call goes well and you
get there in time.

	MR. PERRY:  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thanks very much.

	I'm going to do one more thing before breaking.  We're just a little
bit behind, but Dave promises to give a little time back.  So with that,
I'm going to open the floor up to Dave.  He's going to give us a Subpart
S update, and then we'll take a break after that.

	SUBPART S UPDATE

	By Mr. David Wallis

	MR. WALLIS:  I'm going to go through this very quickly.  I basically
provided all--certainly most, if not all--of this information at the
last meeting.  I mostly wanted to respond formally to the committee's
request for clarification on the GFCI rule.  

	So, I can give you a little background information.  As I'm sure you're
all aware at this point, we published our final rule revising our
general industry electrical standards on February 14, 2007.  In that
standard we had a rule in Section 1910.304(b)(3)ii that employers
provide GFCIs for certain temporary branch circuits for
construction-like activities.

	What I'm going to do, is I'm going to go through kind of like a Q&A. 
I'll talk about an issue that was raised and then our response to that
issue, what we expect or what we intend the rule to require.

	The first issue would be, what is the application of Section
1910.304(b)(3)ii?  Today, I am only going to specifically address its
application to shipyards because that's really the question here.  In a
marine terminal, there would be very, very little.  It's conceivable you
would have some application there, but I would expect it to be very
rare.  Most of the time when you get to that point in a marine terminal,
you're probably under the construction standards anyway.

	In a shipyard facility, however, you're not under the construction
standards, you're under the shipyard standards.  So if you're doing
shipbuilding, ship repair, ship breaking, OSHA would consider those
activities as construction-like activities, so when you're using
temporary wiring, GFCIs would be required.

	A second issue.  Does the provision apply to all receptacles or only
those on branch circuits?  In many typical temporary wiring
installations, one of the wiring methods frequently used is a spider box
type of installation where you've provided feeders -- a spider box will
provide a feeder circuit that supplies downstream spider boxes.  

	The downstream receptacles from one spider box to another are at a
higher voltage and current rating, and those receptacles aren't used
directly to power tools and equipment, they're only used to power
downstream spider boxes at different voltage and current ratings.  Those
are considered feeder circuits.

	The receptacles on those feeder circuits are not branch circuit
receptacles.  Those receptacles do not require GFI protection, only the
receptacles on the branch circuit, which is basically the lowest rating
in the lines.  

	If you have a line of spider boxes, when I take the lowest rating and
I'm supplying utilization equipment or extension cords, or even more
spider boxes, once I've reached the final rating, that would be
considered to be a branch circuit.  That's where you would need to
provide the GFCI protection.

	The next issue.  Does the standard recognize all forms of ground fault
protection devices or only ground fault circuit interrupters approved by
nationally recognized testing laboratories, or NRTLs?

	Basically, the standard requires ground fault circuit interrupters, and
those devices have to be approved.  So what that means is, in order for
the GFCI to meet the rule, it would have to be NRTL approved.  These
devices have a trip level of approximately 5 million amperes, and trip
at as little as a 40th of a second.

	There are other types of ground fault protection equipment.  They're
called ground fault protection for equipment, earth leakage detectors,
and similar types of equipment.  These are not acceptable substitutes
and the standard doesn't require them.  You might be able to find these
devices at higher ratings than you would normally find a GFCI, so the
standard doesn't require you to use those when you couldn't find a
normal GFCI at a certain current and voltage rating. So if I couldn't
find a 480-volt GFCI but I could find a 480-volt earth leakage detection
unit, that's not a device that meets the standard.  You would not be
required to use the GFCI.  In that case, you would have to use a short
grounding program instead.

	And the last issue I have here is, does the standard require GFCIs to
be used with branch circuits supplying temporary lighting?  The standard
requires GFCI protection for temporary circuits supplying lighting only
when those circuits also supply receptacles, so one of the concerns is,
if I put a GFCI on a temporary wiring circuit and that circuit supplies
lighting, the GFCI trips, all the lights go out.  

	The standard doesn't require it for a lighting circuit.  If there is
only lighting and no receptacles on that circuit, you don't need a GFCI.
 So if that's your concern, you should be wiring the circuits and just
providing lighting on one circuit and receptacle outlets on separate
circuits.

	That's the last clarification I have here.  I'd be glad to take
questions, if there are any.  If I missed something that is a burning
issue -- one other thing I guess I should mention, is that you had
requested us to stay the requirement.  We did not formally stay the
provision, however, we did ask our field staff to not issue citations. 
We expect to lift that informal stay sometime after this meeting.  So
you'll start seeing our compliance officers enforcing this provision. 
They haven't been up to this time.

	One other thing.  We had initially intended to issue a notice delaying
the effective date.  There were some internal discussions that pushed
back that notice and we haven't actually decided now if we're going to
bother publishing a notice.  If we do provide a notice, it likely will
contain the clarifications I've just made here at the meeting.  

	That's all I have.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Questions from the committee on the
Subpart S clarification?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Hearing none, if you're from the public and you
wish to -- oh.

	MR. ADAMS:  The assured equipment grounding protection for those
circuits where GFCI is not protected above 125, the same answers?

	MR. WALLIS:  Yes.

	MR. ADAMS:  Okay.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  If you're from the public and you wish to ask a
question, let me see who's got questions, how many I've got.  Okay.

	MS. NELSON:  Thresa Nelson, Northrop Grumman.

	Dave, could you explain just a little bit more the statement you made
concerning, if I understood it correctly, you have temporary lighting
plugged into a receptacle but there are no receptacles also included on
that temporary wiring?

	MR. WALLIS:  I didn't say it that way.  What I said was, if I have a
branch circuit, the branch circuit supplies only lighting and no
receptacles, then you don't need GFCIs.  I guess your issue is, if I'm
using spider boxes and I plug my lighting string into the spider box
that's plugged into a receptacle, technically that requires a GFCI
because it's got a receptacle.  That's a receptacle outlet for a branch
circuit.

	MS. NELSON:  Okay.  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Mr. Davis?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Before he starts, I need you to re-clarify.  So if we
want to use temporary lighting that does not have a GFCI in the queue,
so to speak, then we have to hard wire it into the spider box because we
can't plug it into a plug because that would constitute an outlet?  I'm
trying to understand.

	MR. WALLIS:  In the first place, you probably couldn't -- I certainly
wouldn't want you to hard wire it into the spider box because you
probably had to take the spider box apart and use some other unapproved
mechanism for connecting to the circuits.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  That's what I heard, though.

	MR. WALLIS:  I understand.  Technically, that's a receptacle outlet. 
I'm providing you with what our formal clarifications are.  If you want
a different answer to that specific question, that would probably need
to be addressed to our enforcement folks.  There may be some mechanism
for accommodating that situation.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  I'm trying to visualize what you said.

	MR. WALLIS:  The problem is, because it is a receptacle outlet, after
all, if it's an outlet that an employee could use, I could unplug the
string of lights and plug in a tool, then that outlet has no GFCI
protection.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Right.

	MR. WALLIS:  So, I mean, that's the Agency's concern.  If there's a
mechanism for you to ensure that only lighting is plugged into that
outlet, it's conceivable that that concern could be accommodated.  The
rule, right now, does not recognize that.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Okay.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes?

	MR. ADAMS:  I've just got to go for the gusto.

	(Laughter)

	MR. ADAMS:  And the part in Subpart S where it says where 1915 doesn't
address it, or where 1915 addresses it, Subpart S doesn't apply?  So
where 1915 addresses over-current protection and wiring circuitry for
lighting, but doesn't address GFCI, we still have to do it?

	MR. WALLIS:  Because it doesn't address ground fault protection.

	MR. ADAMS:  Okay.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Mr. Davis?

	MR. DAVIS:  DeWitt Davis.

	On the ship repair situation, there's kind of a competition for power. 
My experience has been, different coasts have different ways of creating
this network.  In one place they call it a "cow shed", I think, where
power goes in and then spider boxes come from this cow shed.  In other
places they have it hard-wired without spider boxes.  They don't trust
spider boxes very much.  So, it would seem to me -- and then just what I
heard now was a very narrow definition of what would be required, so I
would recommend that you write up this description somehow, that it be
published so that people could read and understand it.  You're saying we
should request an interpretation, I suppose.

	MR. WALLIS:  Well, if the committee would like to, I mean, you can
offer us advice on how we should interpret that situation.  If that's an
issue that the committee chooses to take up, that would be a different
mechanism other than asking for a letter of interpretation.  But in the
end, that will probably be handled by our enforcement folks rather than
the standard folks.

	MR. DAVIS:  But it's kind of an overall -- basically, I think whoever
sets up the system should do a proper hazard assessment.

	MR. WALLIS:  That's correct.

	MR. DAVIS:  And a failure mode interpretation before they've got to
sort of inject the power into this competitive system.  I had a case
where the welders didn't care for the ventilation so they kept turning
it off because there was no power.  There were two companies, the
ventilation.  The ventilation was being provided by one company and the
welders were working for another company, and they kept shutting the
ventilation off.  The result was, the total work site didn't have proper
ventilation.  So, I think that a good description that sort of deals
with the operation would be good, too.  Thanks.

	MR. WALLIS:  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.    We are a little behind.  I want to
take a break now until 3:30.  Before I do, though, let me ask Mike and
Tom, are you okay with that as far as schedule wise?  Okay.  Where is
Tom at?  I saw him.

	MR. RAFFO:  You didn't forget about us, right?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  No.  Oh, my heavens, I did forget.  I did.  Indeed,
I did forget about you.  Okay. Let me think here.  Let's go off record a
second.

	(Pause)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Let's take a break till 3:30.

	(Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m. the meeting was recessed and resumed back on
the record at 3:34 p.m.)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Are you okay if I take these two
reports and come back to you?

	MR. RAFFO:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Is that all right?  Okay.

	So then I'm going to turn the floor over to Mike Seymour, who's going
to talk to us about the report on ergonomics, prevention of
musculoskeletal disorders, and specifically the guidelines for
shipyards.

	With that, Mike, you have the floor.

	REPORT ON THE ERGONOMICS FOR THE PREVENTION OF

	MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS: GUIDELINES FOR SHIPYARDS

	By Mr. Michael Seymour

	MR. SEYMOUR:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Thank you for having us today. 


	I'm Mike Seymour.  I'm the Director of the Office of Physical Hazards
in OSHA's Directorate of Standards and Guidance.  With me today is Dr.
Joanna Snyder, who is the primary author of these guidelines, and I
thought it was important to have her at the table in case we had any
very, very nitty-gritty questions.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  In other words, if you can't answer them, Dr.
Snyder can?

	MR. SEYMOUR:  Absolutely.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. SEYMOUR:  Absolutely.

	To start off with a little bit of background, in April of 2002,
Secretary Chao announced her four-pronged approach to ergonomics that
included effective enforcement guidelines, which is what we're working
on and talking about today, research, and compliance assistance.  The
Directorate of Standards and Guidance was assigned the task of
developing the guidelines under that four-pronged approach.

	We have, to date, published three on nursing homes, retail grocery
stores, and poultry processing, and they were published in 2003 and
2004.  The fourth in that series is the guidelines for shipyards.  The
cover art for the document is behind you on the easel and it looks very,
very much like the cover art for the other three documents.  So, these
are published as kind of a series of guidelines that address ergonomics
in various industries.

	On September 11th of this year, we issued a draft document.  We
published a draft of this document for public comment.  At that time we
allowed the public 60 days to provide comment on the document and we
were pleased to see that we had a number of people write in and tell us
what their concerns were, what their compliments were--fortunately there
were a few of those--how we might improve the document when we go final
with it.

	One of the questions that you may have, and I probably ought to go
ahead and answer, is it's taken us a long time to write this document. 
This document has been in the works for a while, and there's been a
couple of reasons for that.  Number one, it's a complicated document. 
You all work in a very complex environment.  The shipyard environment is
difficult in an ergonomic sense, given that there's many small, cramped
spaces, lots of awkward postures, lots of forces that need to be dealt
with.  So, it's a complicated document.

	The other decision that we made, was we really couldn't do justice to
portray this document and this environment without using photographs,
which, frankly, are difficult to work with; getting the photographs that
were right, that were worthy of the document was a difficult task.

	In addition, we spent about a year after the other three documents--the
nursing home, poultry, and grocery documents--were published, we
received an information quality challenge under the Data Quality Act,
and it took us about a year to answer that challenge and sort through
that issue.  It obviously made sense to put this on hold during that
time until we had that resolved.  But now that's resolved, those
documents remain on our Web site and available to the public.  We're
ready to move forward with this document.

	Let me go through the document very quickly, just on a very broad-brush
level.  This document really has two sections.  The first section
describes the process for protecting employees.  It talks about the
importance of providing management support to the process.  It talks
about the importance of involving employees.  It talks about providing
training, talks about methods for identifying problems.  It talks about
implementing solutions.  It talks about addressing reports of injury and
it talks about evaluating progress.  Evaluating progress is the last
section in that process, but it is not, by any means, the least section.
 The evaluating progress is very important.

	The second section describes various solutions to what we believe,
based on our site visits, are common ergonomic issues that arise in
shipyard operations.  It is, by no means, a complete list of all the
issues that might arise, but it is what we believe to be the common ones
that occur in many shipyards.  We saw examples of these kinds of issues
that these solutions are addressed to in most of the site visits that we
conducted.

	It might be worthy of note that we actually did eight site visits to
shipyards in preparing this draft document, including some of the
smallest and some of the largest, so we really tried to, if you'll
excuse the pun, cover the waterfront of the kinds of shipyards that
exist.

	But in the solutions, I think you'll find something in the neighborhood
of 80-some photographs.  We did a before-and-after technique, where
we've tried to show the worker in an awkward posture or with his arms
over his head, or holding vibrating tools, those kinds of things.  So we
tried to show before-and-after photographs that would help sell the
reader.  And the reader that we're talking about here, the audience that
we pitched this document to is the supervisor and his employees, so we
tried to write this at a fairly basic level.

	So we're trying to illustrate with these photographs the
before-and-after, what's bad, and then what's better.  In some of these
photographs, I would actually say what's good.  But we didn't always
achieve that, because that's not always possible.  But we have shown
what we believe to be significant improvements in these risk factors.

	In addition, for each of the solutions we gave a very brief description
of what the solution is.  We talked about the advantages and we talked
about points to remember.  For some of these solutions, as was pointed
out yesterday in the workgroup that I spoke with, some of these
solutions might actually cause other kinds of safety problems, like a
pinch point or something like that.  Those kinds of issues are addressed
in these points, remember.  We had one comment that suggested that we
bolster that, and we intend to do that.

	Speaking of yesterday's meeting with the working group, we had a very
good conversation.  I suspect it lasted about an hour or so.  We got
some very good comments.  What we tried to do, is go through the record
that came in, the public comments that came in.  We highlighted those
comments that were most important.  We discussed how we were going to
address those comments.  Again, we got the input of the people on the
working group on approaches to addressing those issues that came in from
the public.

	It's our hope to take the information that came in from the public,
evaluate it.  The record on this closed, November 13th, I believe is the
date, so it's about two weeks ago.  So we've read the comments.  We're
evaluating them in detail and are starting to work on revising the
document to publish it in its final form.

	When it's finalized, it will be available not only on the Internet
site, on the Web site, but also in written form so that it can actually
be passed out on work sites.  We intend to print sufficient copies so
that people can obtain copies and pass them out to their workers and
have this document be a method for communicating with employees,
gathering their ideas.  It's our intent that this document be a
springboard for ideas on how to address specific issues on specific work
sites.

	So with that, I'd be happy to entertain any questions that you may
have.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Questions of the committee?  I know the guidelines
were recently issued, and I guess some are still evaluating it.  Some
may have had a chance to go through, some not.  But questions of the
committee?  Terri?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  This isn't really a question, it's a comment.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  The document they put together is exactly what we asked
for in terms of the audience, the presentation, the usability.  I don't
think, even going through the comments that they had, there was a whole
lot that was offered as comments, even from the write-in public that was
not just intended to improve the polish of the finished product.  I just
want to commend you guys.  You did a good job.

	MR. SEYMOUR:  Thank you so much.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes.  I think it was the pictures that did it.

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Just kidding.  Just kidding.

	Other comments/questions from the committee?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Any comments/questions from the public?  Yes, Mr.
Davis?  We're going to have to give Mr. Davis a microphone there,
please.

	MR. DAVIS:  I reviewed the document with everybody else yesterday.  I
think it's very suitable and I was very impressed with the pictures. 
Most ergonomic things have a lot of formulas, lines, and drawings.  In
this case, it was very easy to understand.

	However, I would like to say that the way it was presented, even though
it was very accurate and very suitable, it was sort of a completed
judgment.  In other words, in the first section it urged people to have
employee participation but it didn't really say how they should
participate.  In the second session, the results were given, but not the
steps that defined it.  In other words, if a worker was going to look
around his work site and come up with a recommendation, how should he
approach it?  

	The document just said "here it is, here are points to remember, here's
what it's going to cure", and that was it.  There weren't enough white
spaces in there for the reader to think about what he would do.  So, I'm
thinking that maybe a follow on to this would be a workbook format that
maybe individual companies could develop so that it encouraged people to
think in terms of hazard assessment rather than conclusions already made
up.  

	Be that as it was, I feel the document out to get out there.  The
photographs are good to have.  If we don't get something out there, then
we won't be stimulating people to come in with new ideas and programs. 
So, I commend the group in getting it done.  I think all of us are happy
with our own work, but we have to motivate others to do it, too. 
Thanks.

	MR. SEYMOUR:  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Any additional comments/questions from the public?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you very much.

	As far as I am concerned, I think it's a well-done document as well.

	MR. SEYMOUR:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  So, thank you very much.  Dr. Snyder, you're off
the hook.  Mike handled the hard ones.  Thank you for coming along
anyway.  Thank you.  All right.  

	Mr. Tom, are you ready?  May I say, while you're handing the papers
out, Tom, as I can tell, this is an even improved version of your
normally splendid presentation because you changed the slide format. 
So, thank you.  Thank you very much.  It's a good thing.

	Now, your challenge is to do this in 30 minutes or less, okay?

	MR. GALASSI:  I will begin, and not surrender any time.  If Steve can
get this up and running, all the better.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  If it will make it faster, make it run, Steve.  

	DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT UPDATE

	By Mr. Tom Galassi

	MR. GALASSI:  Let me begin by saying thank you for inviting Enforcement
Programs to give their annual update.  It is, I think, a very useful
time to have this presentation because, in terms of the field activity,
we basically look at our enforcement numbers in November, early November
around election day.

	So you're getting it hot off the presses, so to speak, just to see
where OSHA has been with respect to our activities out in the field.  We
also pulled out the maritime/marine terminals activity on the list also.
 

	So what I'd like to do, is I'll run through the numbers.  I know it's
late in the day.  We'll do it quickly.  You have the materials.  I think
you'll see this format is somewhat the same as we do from year to year. 
Then we will go into some of the activities that we've been engaged in
since we last met.  I think we've made some progress with respect to
some of our enforcement programs.

	The Assistant Secretary this morning talked about our enforcement being
strong, and certainly we agree with that.  We also used the term "fair".
 Part of fairness is consistent, and I think when you look at the slides
you'll see a consistency from year to year in our activities.  If not,
it's trending in the right direction.  So, I think that's very
encouraging.

	We also believe we have geographic consistency to some extent.  I won't
run through all those slides, but we do try to make sure each region is
consistent with the other region.

	Why don't we go to, not page 1, but the first page that has the slides.
 It's entitled, "Inspections Conducted".  As the Assistant Secretary
indicated this morning, we had a 4 percent increase in inspections this
year, 39,324.  We're getting there.  As you can see, over the last five
years we have been in the arena of 38,000 to 39,000 inspections.  We
think this is a very effective area to be in.  Our goal, based upon
calculated number of FTEs, is 37,700 from year to year.  So we've been
able to meet our other obligations in program areas, and yet exceed our
goal out there in the field.

	The next slide, entitled "Percent Programmed Versus Un-Programmed",
here you'll see a movement towards programmed inspections.  In the year
2000, if you looked at this graph it would have been 50/50, programmed
versus unprogrammed.  Currently, it's 59 percent programmed, 41 percent
unprogrammed.

	There we go.  Now this is going to be easy.

	(Showing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  So, 59 percent programmed.  We believe that any
additional inspections that we are doing are going into the programmed
arena, so basically we are not seeing more -- you can go to the next
slide.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  We're not seeing more complaint inspections.  As you can
see on this slide, we're at about 18 percent inspections.  In fact,
we're seeing a few less.  But as a whole number, inspection complaints
are pretty constant.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Percent Inspections in Compliance".  Obviously, this is
an indicator we want to see go down, indicating that we're going to
workplaces where there are hazards, there are violations, and where we
should be.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Total Violations Issued".  This is one that we hope to
see go up.  Not that we want to see violations in the workplace, but
that we should be inspecting workplaces that have violations.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Percent Violations Issued as a Serious Violation",
"serious violation" being one that could result in serious physical harm
or death.  Last year, or this year, we issued 76 percent of the
violations as "serious".

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  In a like fashion, when you add in the "willful"
designation, "repeat" and "unclassified", we're at about 79 percent of
violations issued under those classifications.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Percent Inspections Not in Compliance With Only Other
Than Serious Violations Cited".  This may be a slide only an accountant
could like, but basically for those inspections where we find
violations, how many are only other than serious?  This is a number that
we'd like to see go down.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Percent Inspections With Violations Contested".  Well,
we believe that 7 percent is a healthy number.  Obviously you don't want
to see this number too high, but we think that employers should, to some
extent, be exercising their rights to contest citations, and that 7
percent is a good number that we can kind of deal with.  Then, also,
contested citations are resources, too, that we have to put into
litigation, so we're pretty comfortable with that number.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Average Penalty Per Serious Violation".  This is inching
up.  As you may know, penalties are established by statute as far as
maximums go, and the penalty policy ultimately is in our form document
and we apply certain factors related to the size of the employer, good
faith history, but also the severity of a violation.  So, just a little
bit up, but I don't know if that's really significant.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Percent of Inspections in Construction".  You will see a
fair amount of consistency here as the Agency addresses the construction
industry, an area that I guess we see a lot of issues come out of the
BLS data every year in residential and commercial construction.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  So, Tom, does this mean that roughly 6 out of 10
inspections then are construction-related?

	MR. GALASSI:  Yes.  Yes.  Industry.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Significant Enforcement Cases".  This is an item that we
historically started tracking, and there are cases which are over
100,000 in penalty.  They can be that for a number of reasons, a lot of
serious or a couple willful, but we do see a fair amount of consistency
in this regard also.  We're at 107 this year.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  I'll be talking about this program a bit more, the
Enhanced Enforcement Program.  This year we had 719 recorded employers
under that program versus its inception year, so it has about doubled
where we were.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Fatality Investigations".  One indicator we do want to
see go down.  In fact, we do try to use this as an indicator that we're
affecting fatalities out there in industry.  As you probably know, when
BLS comes out with their numbers under CFLE and they look at, I think it
was around 5,700, a lot of those areas are covered under state plans,
perhaps, or under municipal workers or Federal -- not Federal, but
jurisdictions where we don't have an impact.  So we look at this as a
number really that shows how many fatalities we inspect, therefore, how
many fatalities we have jurisdiction over.  This year it went down just
a little bit.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I did have one question.  This is not "exactly a
one-for-one".  For example, if someone reported a heart attack which was
reported to the Agency, that may or may not be investigated, so this
doesn't necessarily mean a one-for-one.  Is that approximately right or
not?

	MR. GALASSI:  What it means, is the area director decided that there
was enough information to proceed with an investigation.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	MR. GALASSI:  So if it was, let's say, a random act of violation, we
probably wouldn't go out on it.  If it was an automobile accident that
was under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation, we
probably wouldn't go out on it.  But these are ones where there's a
work-relatedness to it.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  This is the "General Industry Tally" that we do every
year of the top 10.  The cast is the same pretty much from year to year.
 The order changes a bit.  HAZCOM has either one or two every year.  So,
there really are no surprises here.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  In a like fashion, construction.  We usually see
scaffolding, fall protection up there, excavations.  Again, the order
may change but the list is the same.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  So now we're going to move into the area of more
relevance to this group, ship and boat building and marine terminals.

	The first slide is not the best graphic, but ship and boat versus
marine cargo.  Looking at FY '07, we did over 415 inspections in that
arena, recognizing that this is about 1 percent of the Agency's
inspection workload.  However, as we all, I think, know, the inspections
-- the area offices that deal with maritime issues, it is a significant
part of their agenda, of their mission and focus, so for those offices,
it does dominate a lot of their time.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  Looking at programmed versus unprogrammed for the
ship/boat industry, as you will recall, we are at, is it 59 percent for
general industry?  So this is somewhat consistent with the overall
numbers.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Marine Cargo Handling".  The theory here is, we may not
get as many complaints in this arena.  We just don't do as much
unprogrammed activity.  Much more of it is under the arena of an SST or
local emphasis program.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Total Violations".  As you'll recall, the total for the
Agency was about 88,000, so we have 827 for shipyards, 354 for marine
cargo handling.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Percent Issued as Serious".  This is a bit below the
slide we saw for overall inspections, which was around 76 percent: 61
percent ship/boat, and 55 percent marine cargo.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Average Number of Violations Per Initial Inspection". 
It's 4.5 for ship/boat, 3.3 for marine cargo.  Our national average, I
think, is about 3.2, so this is a little high for the ship/boat arena. 
If you look at the slide, the number of violations and extrapolate, I
think you will see that we're finding more violations per inspection.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  One of the mechanisms of doing inspections in a variety
of industries is the site-specific targeting program, which I'll be
talking about.  This year we did 2,794 SST inspections.  When we get to
shipyards, boatyards and marine cargo, as you see we have quite a
drop-off, but we do have some activity in those areas.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  This is "Average Penalty".  I probably wouldn't put a lot
of stock in this number because it's such a small number.  The smaller
the data sample the more variability you could have there.  But it's
kind of in line with the other national average.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Top 5 for Boat Building".  Somewhat similar to general
industry.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  "Marine Cargo Handling".

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  So that is a 4:00-in-the-afternoon run through the data
so the eyes don't get too glazed over.  If there are any questions,
maybe I'll break now and raise them on this data.

	What I'm going to move into next, is really focusing on some targeting
programs that I think we've advanced since we last talked.  So are there
any questions on the data that come to mind right now?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  John?

	MR. CASTANHO:  Yes, I had several.  Page 2, you look in fiscal year
'07, programmed inspections are up and unprogrammed are down.  Why is
that?

	MR. GALASSI:  When you look at the data and you start drilling into it,
and I think there was another slide that indicated the percentage of
complaints, probably what I should have done is a slide of number of
complaints.  What you'll see, is the two sources of inspection are
unprogrammed, which are complaints, referrals, accidents, catastrophes,
and complaints being the big driver in unprogrammed.  

	They are staying somewhat flat, so you're not seeing additional
complaint inspections being done.  What you're seeing are more
inspections which are Enhanced Enforcement Program, more SST program,
more NEP program, and particularly more LEP programs which are up there.
 So the additional inspections that we're seeing for the 39,000
inspections are programmed, so that's bumping up the percent of
programmed inspections.

	MR. CASTANHO:  So you're saying that's because of fewer complaints?

	MR. GALASSI:  Well, I'm saying the complaints are flat, not fewer.

	MR. CASTANHO:  Okay.

	My next question, page 4.  What constitutes a "serious" violation?

	MR. GALASSI:  A serious violation is one in which the Agency can show
there is the likelihood of serious physical harm or death as a result of
that violation versus another violation.

	MR. CASTANHO:  All right.  

	My next question was on page 5.  On the fines, the top picture there. 
Do you know what percentage of those fines were actually collected?  I
know there's an appeals process and sometimes the fines are reduced.

	MR. GALASSI:  Yes, there is.  I don't know.  Just for the committee's
benefit, we propose penalties, or it's an initial penalty.  The case
goes through some sort of informal process where the company meets with
their director and the penalties can be reduced, and then it can go into
formal litigation where the penalties could be reduced further.  I don't
have those numbers of final order.

	MR. CASTANHO:  All right.  I think I've got one more.  Page 9.  The
bottom graph there.  Why is that number for marine cargo so low, only 10
compared to 1,200 for manufacturing?

	MR. GALASSI:  How about if we hold that question, because I have a
slide on the SST which will talk about how you get in the program and it
will give you pretty much a good overview of the program.  But the very
simple answer is, of the establishments that we sampled, we only found
10 that met the criteria of the SST program.

	MR. CASTANHO:  Okay.  Thank you.

	MR. GALASSI:  Well, let's move into the next slide.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  You may have heard me--I'm sure you've heard me--talk
about this before, but I'll go through it again as far as, one of our
programs that has been out now for four years, it's kind of nearing its
end and we're about to launch a revision to this program.  It's called
the Enhanced Enforcement Program.  It had its origin September 30, 2003
when we launched it.  Since then, we've done from 500 to 600 of these a
year.  I think you saw a slide where we did 719 inspections one year.

	The criteria at this time is, if you have a high-gravity, serious
violation related to a fatality, three more high-gravity, serious that
are classified as willful or repeat violation, or two or more failure to
abate violations, you are in what's called the Enhanced Enforcement
Program.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  In that program, certain things can happen to you as an
employer to make sure that you don't have violations, or serious
violations in the future, and fatalities.  That is an enhanced follow-up
inspection.  We target other establishments of that employer.  We try to
increase public awareness of the violations of the inspection.  We seek
enhanced settlement provisions, and we last, but not least, utilize
Section 11(b) of the OSH Act.  As I said, this has been around four
years.  You may have heard me talk about it before.  The thing about it
is --

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  -- when you look at what we found in the last four years,
2,129 EEP cases, 50 percent in construction, 92 percent are
fatality-related, 49 percent are fatalities in construction, and roughly
67 percent are small employers.

	When Assistant Secretary Henshaw launched this program in 2003, his
intend was that it address recalcitrant employers, employers who are
indifferent to their obligations under the OSH Act who had a history of
OSHA violations.  What the data indicates is we probably captured those
employers in this program, but we also probably captured some small
employers who had just one violation.   So, there's a need to change the
program and modify it, which we did.

	(Changing of slides)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Can I stop you one second and ask--and this will
demonstrate my ignorance with the program, which is not unusual--I see
the criteria.  You've already listed those.  So, conceivably, a
recalcitrant employer, after one inspection, if you will, would be if
the employer met these criteria, then he could be entered into, whatever
the verb is, the EEP program.

	MR. GALASSI:  Right.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Which would then subject him to the follow-up for
the actions that you listed before.

	MR. GALASSI:  Right.  Right.  Right.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  So I guess my point is, this would happen
after an initial inspection.

	MR. GALASSI:  Right.  Right.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  As opposed to, "I got you, I just don't like you,
you're in the EEP program."

	MR. GALASSI:  Right.  We don't do that, Jim.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I know that, Tom.  But I was just trying to help
you out and help the Agency look good.  

	(Laughter)

	MR. GALASSI:  Thank you.

	So as Jim said, yes.  This happens after an event, after an inspection.
 The EP inspections are the next ones that occur to ensure that that
employer is on the right road.  This does apply to all industries,
including maritime.  It has been in place since 2003.  So, based upon
what we know today the purpose has not changed, we still would like to
get recalcitrant employers, but we're revising the program to have
greater emphasis on those employers who have a history of OSHA
violations, so now it would be an employer who has a fatality with a
serious violation, but also has a history of violations with the Agency,
so it's more binary now that you have to have both.  So that would be
out on January 1 as an effective date.  I think it is available on the
Web to peruse right now.  So, we'll be moving to that on January 1st.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  Very quickly through the SST program.  We're currently
under SST '07.  How we get our establishment sites, is we survey, every
year, 80,000 employers.  We come up with a high hazard list.  That list
is roughly 14,000 high-rate employers.  We then send those employers a
letter telling them, you know, we think you have high rates, you ought
to get a consultant, or deal with your safety and health program issues.

	This year, we launched the SST '07 in May of 2007.  This is the eighth
iteration of that program.  What it does, is it provides a safety
targeting inspection list to the field to inspect, and these include
manufacturing and non-manufacturing, including the shipyards and the
maritime.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  It creates a primary, secondary, tertiary list based on
DART rates and DAFWII rates.  Like, the national DART rate is 2.4, and
1.4 for DAFWII, and we have only got to inspect on a primary list those
employers who have a rate of 11, or 9, respectively.  So getting to your
question about the longshoring and marine terminals, if they would be
above 11 or 9, then they would be inspected.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Excuse me, Tom.  Could you state for the record what DART
stands for and what DAFWII stands for?

	MR. GALASSI:  Days away from work with restricted in transfer, and
DAFWII is days away from work with injury and illness.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Thank you.

	MR. GALASSI:  This covers, as I said, the maritime industry and the
post office.  We look for about 4,300 sites every year.  We delete
certain sites, they're not in business, or whatever.  We go about 2,800.
 The rest of that, I think, is just kind of administrative things we do.

	Well, the last one is worth noting.  Because nursing homes drive the
programs so greatly with their ergonomics issues, we only do 50 percent
of them.  So, we do make an adjustment in that regard.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  Moving from the SST to other national emphasis programs,
this is kind of the list for the Agency as far as what we have
nationally.  Lead has been around for about five, six years.  Silica,
trenching.  Oil refineries, we launched this year in July.  I'll be
talking about that a little more.  Amputations.  Ship breaking, which is
one we have had in place some time, since 2000, and has been a very
successful program.  

	One we call "butter-flavored popcorn", and I'll be talking a little
more about that.  Combustible dust, which we needed to address as far as
-- this is non-grain dust, but just dust in the workplace that can
create an airborne hazard.

	Then, any piece under development, dovetailing with our refineries. 
We're going to be looking at chemical plants, dovetailing with popcorn,
looking at flavoring chemicals.  We're going to revise lead, and revise
silica.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  Oil refineries.  We launched this in July and I think
it's quite an ambitious emphasis program out there.  As a result of the
high fatality rate in this industry, and probably the most dramatic with
the Texas City BP explosion, the Agency has launched a program where
we're going to inspect all refineries in the United States over two
years.

	This totals 81 petrochemical refineries.  We devised a whole new
approach to that using a team approach, three levels of training.  It's
different than our general PSM approach to things.  This is basically
looking at process safety management compliance regarding use of
inspection priority lists.

	We have one which is a static list in which the CSHO will ask a series
of questions to ascertain compliance with PSM, and then he will have a
dynamic list--or she--and that list will be changing from week to week
so the industry can't predict what we're going to be looking at.  We're
going to prioritize.  We prioritize implementation of the programs over
paper review, so the key is to get out there and see that things are in
place as quickly as possible.  As usual, we are encouraging our state
plan states to participate because they have about 50 refineries out
there also.  So, this program is moving along.  We're committed to do
about 40 percent of the 81 this year, and I think we're moving well
along that pace.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  In a like fashion, when you're looking at process safety
management, you have the refineries, but then you have all the other
chemical plants that present highly hazardous chemicals.  This universe
can be quite large estimates, from 12,000 to 20,000, depending where you
go.  We're looking at a national emphasis program that would focus on
PSM.  

	One source of data would be the EPA chemical release data from,
perhaps, targeting.  The structure of the PSM focus would likely be
similar to the oil refinery NEP.  This obviously would be a fairly large
effort and one the Agency probably would pilot and roll out somewhat
cautiously.  But we are committed to look at chemical plants in addition
to petrochemical refineries.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  This is an issue which has been in the press for some
years.  In the manufacture of microwave popcorn, NIOSH has identified
that workers who package or who work in the mixing rooms have been
experiencing obstructive lung disease, particularly called bronchiolitis
obliterans, and it is believed that this is due to the volatile butter
flavoring used in the manufacturing of this popcorn.

	So in July of this year, the Agency launched a national emphasis
program.  That program hopes to target the locations where they
manufacture this popcorn, and I think we have about 25 to 30
establishments that we're looking at.  It would give advice on
engineering, work practice controls, PPE respirators, and also
compliance assistance and outreach.  

	One of the difficult issues with this is, there is a belief of an
association with the volatile butter flavorings in the disease, but no
one is quite certain exactly what the agent that causes it is.  You
heard the chemical "diacetyl" thrown around a lot, and it may be
diacetyl or diacetyl may be a marker.  But we are proceeding with this
national emphasis program to address this exposure in this industry and
we are working on a flavorings national emphasis program to look at the
use of diacetyl and other flavorings more broadly.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  Now getting to the more particular maritime projects. 
I'd like to commend Steve Butler, to my right here.  He has very
diligently updated and put out directives, I think, which have been very
useful to the industry, shipyards, tool shed, and other directives. 
He's been very prolific in updating these directives.

	This is kind of his priority list right now.  He's been working on the
OSHA Coast Guard authority over vessels jurisdiction directive.  Also,
now that the PPE standard is out there we'll be putting out the PPE for
shipyard employment directive, so we hope to have those two out fairly
soon.  

	Then we are working on an online database for the Part 1919 Ring Cargo
Gear Certification Program to automate the OSHA 71-72 forms.  I'm told
that this may be of historical significance in that this may be the last
Federal Government program that has forms with carbons.

	(Laughter)

	MR. GALASSI:  So, this is significant.

	(Changing of slides)

	MR. GALASSI:  With that, unless there are any questions, that's my
update.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Terri?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Tom, I just wanted to clarify.  Is the EEP the only
program in which you would target another site from a company based on
inspection from, like, plant A to plant B, or are there other programs
you use to target additional sites?

	MR. GALASSI:  Generally, there are not.  I just say "generally" because
there's always the specific way where we have an explosion, and let's
say you don't have any fatalities or we don't know what's going on, but
we happen to know that operation exists elsewhere, we're probably going
to run out and look at that operation before they're ever in a program. 
But generally, yes.  The only way we would use one location or one
inspection to go out to another one would be the EEP program.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  And a follow-up question to that is, we talk about the
emphasis programs, but have we walked completely away from programmed
inspections on a time line basis as well, or do the area offices still
generally do that?

	MR. GALASSI:  On a time line basis?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Yes.  Like, every three years, every five years, every
--

	MR. GALASSI:  Oh.  Yes.  The area offices basically address inspections
through the various rationales I've indicated, which would either be as
a hazardous industry or knowledge of hazardous operations in some area. 
But we don't have randomized lists, high hazard or cyclical lists that
we go through every five years, or whatever.  The SST provides you with
a number of establishments every year, and then that list is replaced at
the next year, and replaced with the next year.  So you could have a
company which would show up every other year if their rates were high.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  John?

	MR. CASTANHO:  So, along the same lines as what Terri just asked, the
EEP.  In longshoring, you may have one company, a stevedoring company,
that has operations at various sites, different terminals.  So under the
EEP, I guess my question would be, is it site specific or would it be
company specific?

	MR. GALASSI:  It would be company specific.  What we look for is, it
would depend on the facts underlying their entry into the EEP.  So
whatever that operation was, we would look to that company and do our
best to find out where else in that company they had that operation, and
then we'd try to investigate.

	MR. CASTANHO:  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Other questions of the committee for Tom?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Hearing none, if you have questions from the
public, if you would raise your hand so I'd get a sense of how many.

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Well, I do have a question, Tom, not to let you off
the hook.  Do you eat butter-flavored microwaveable popcorn?

	MR. GALASSI:  You know, I do.  As you can see, I'm coughing.

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, Tom.  Thank you, Steve.  We appreciate
that report.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Yes.  I'd like to enter Tom's presentation as Exhibit 9. 


			(Whereupon, the document referred

			 to as Exhibit 9 was marked for

			 identification and entered into

			 the record.)

	MS. SHERMAN:  Also, Tom, do you have a way of transferring your Power
Point to the Court Reporter?

	MR. GALASSI:  Sure.  It's on a Flash stick.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Oh.  That would probably be better.  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Thank you very much, Tom, Steve.  

	Let's move on now.  We've got two more workgroup reports.  I do
apologize for overlooking the Shipyard Workgroup.  My deepest apologies.
 So, with that, let me turn it over to Don Raffo, who's going to lead us
through the Shipyard Workgroup report-out.

	SHIPYARD WORKGROUP REPORT

	By Mr. Donald Raffo

	MR. RAFFO:  We will be passing around two documents, one labeled
"Subpart C" and another labeled "Subpart D".

	I do want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for moving us to last.  I think
the committee is sufficiently numb now that I can get them to vote on
just about anything.

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  You're actually next to last.  Marc has the honor. 
So, anyway.

	MR. RAFFO:  Okay.  As soon as everyone gets this, we'll get started. 
Okay.

	We have two different proposals that we're going to bring up today that
we're passing around.  Susan, I don't know.  It's up to you if you want
to enter them into the record now or later.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Certainly. 

	MR. RAFFO:  Certainly now or later?

	MS. SHERMAN:  Do you have a preference for which one?

	MR. RAFFO:  Well, we're going to start off on Subpart C, and D is
alphabetical.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.

	Mr. Chairman, let me enter into the record as Exhibit 10 a document
called "MACOSH Shipyard Committee Recommendations to OSHA, 29 CFR 1915
Subpart C", and as Exhibit 11, we will have "Recommendations on 29 CFR
1915 Subpart D".

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

			(Whereupon, the documents referred

			 to as Exhibits 10 and 11 were

			 marked for identification and

			 entered into the record.)

	MR. RAFFO:  Okay.

	As I start to talk about these two proposals, there's a lot of
parallels in both of them, so hopefully that will end up being a little
bit brief.  Each document basically consists of four different areas of
background or discussion which could also be a substantiation, and a
recommendation which will come out in the form of a motion.  Then in the
back is a spreadsheet with some of our thoughts, comments, and
suggestions.  I'm just going to go over fairly briefly on this first
one, Subpart C, the background and the discussion, and end up with a
recommendation and a brief discussion of the spreadsheet.

	We've had many conference calls since our initial MACOSH meeting back
almost a year and a half ago.  Through these conference calls we have
started out with the seed of an idea.  It's grown to a bush, and now
it's into a tree, I think.

	When we started off, one of the initial issues that came out in the
MACOSH discussion dealt with the paint standard, Subpart C, which is
called "Surface Preparation and Preservation", and it appeared that
there was a wide variation in the interpretation and implementation of
the standard.

	So we initially started out looking at a couple of specific areas of
the standard where we felt that improvement could be made,
interpretations differed, and it could be made better.  As we started to
move forward on this and make some recommendations, it became clear that
we could not just tweak one section without tweaking another section, so
we started out one, it grew to two, and three, and four, and five.

	Some of the substantiation we used to start realizing that this is a
bigger issue than we initially thought, was that paint solvents and
coating formulations used in the marine industry, specifically in the
shipyards, ship repair, ship building, are changing at a rapid rate.  No
longer do manufacturers put out the most toxic and flammable coatings to
prevent the rusting of steel and stop marine growth on hulls.  

	Some of our old coatings that we used to use, the Red Ledge, the coal
tar epoxies that were very toxic and flammable, are no longer in use. 
Coatings have changed at a rapid rate.  Part of the change has to do
with the Clean Air Act, where they've tried to reduce VLCs in the paint,
and that had an effect on the formulation.

	Another thing that has changed on coatings are the application methods.
 Different methods have now been developed.  No longer is the basic
spray paint gun used in all applications.  Some of the new applications
and methods have resulted in, I would say, a less dangerous, less toxic
application method or resulted in lower exposures.

	In some cases, one of which was outlined, is called HVLP,
High-Volume/Low-Pressure spray methods.  In some areas of the country,
that is required and they don't let you use the old-fashioned spray
paint method because it reduces over-spray and basically puts more paint
on the metal.

	Also, construction methods have also changed.  Modular construction,
especially in shipbuilding, has now become the norm.  Most of the
shipbuilders now build hull sections and put them together, and you saw
that in that video that was presented at the last MACOSH meeting.

	There are several areas of guidance that OSHA puts out, but the bottom
line is that the committee struggled with it, but we felt that Subpart C
needed to be reviewed and updated.  This subpart is approximately 30
years old.  Once again, we did not take this lightly because we know
it's a huge task.  We started to tweak one part, then another part, and
it required so much tweaking that we were almost starting to write the
whole standard. 

	So with that, to try to cut to the chase, our recommendation, in way of
a motion, to OSHA from the committee is, the MACOSH Shipbuilding
Committee recommends to OSHA that Subpart C be reviewed and updated,
with emphasis on Sections 1915 and 35 and 36. While the safety of the
worker is a primary concern, a performance-based standard should be
considered in subsections while maintaining some of the basic structure
or requirements in other sections.

	Many industry standards which take different options into account while
maintaining safety should be reviewed and considered in an updated
standard.  Updating of the standard will be an ongoing challenge for
both OSHA and MACOSH to work on, with a goal of providing the safest,
most cost-effective standard for the maritime industry.

	The committee recommends that in the review of this standard, OSHA use
experts in the industry when knowledge of the equipment, material, and
methods are specific to the industry.  An attached summary is provided
by the committee that illustrates some of the specific issues and
recommendations that the committee review for updating.  

	I'm not going to go over this spreadsheet line by line because we are
not making these recommendations as a verbatim recommendation. 
Basically, we outlined some sections.  If OSHA accepts this as a task,
we would say that these certain sections should have an asterisk next to
them as areas where industry has some difficulties and they should be
looked at.  We did put some proposals down, some thoughts.  We don't
plan on writing the standard, but there are some thoughts that we would
ask you to look at.

	I had a discussion with one of the audience members yesterday after
this and they said, well, maybe this one could be written a little
better or a little differently, or maybe you want it to say this.  I
agreed with her, which is why I'm not saying that these are the end-all,
the be-all.  We feel that it's OSHA job to write the standard.  We have
given some suggestions, some thoughts, and some discussions behind our
suggestions.

	So, the committee got together yesterday.  We voted unanimously that
this should be presented as our recommendation to the full committee,
that it be submitted to OSHA.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Let me just ask one clarifying question.  Maybe
it's just my version.  But I've got two documents.  One starts "Subpart
C and D". But in my Subpart C package, it also has attached a Subpart D.
 Now, so it looks like I've got two Ds.

	MR. RAFFO:  You must.  I don't have that.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  You've got two Ds? Okay.  What we have, just
for clarification, is we have your C that you just went over, and then
we have the D that you haven't gone over.  Apparently they've been
stapled together.  Plus, we have another D.

	MR. RAFFO:  Right.  There should be a spreadsheet on it that says
"Subpart C".

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Got you.

	MR. RAFFO:  That goes with Subpart C.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Got you.

	MR. RAFFO:  The one that says "Subpart D", that goes with Subpart D.  I
did not check.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I think in the copying we've got duplicated Ds.  Is
that not right?  Okay.  What you should have on C is, the last page
should be number 6.  Okay.  The last page to the item that we're
discussing now is page 6.  Okay.  So that's the item.  I just want to
make sure we're clear on that item.  So, go back.  Do you have a
recommendation, do you have a motion?

	MR. RAFFO:  I made my recommendation in the way of a motion.  But in
order to summarize my motion, I would like the MACOSH Shipbuilding
Committee to recommend to OSHA that Subpart C be reviewed and updated,
with an emphasis on Sections 1915 and 36.

	MR. FLYNN:  Second.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  We will get the paperwork straight back here.  But
I think we've got the right version here.  If you have through page 6,
you have the right one, I believe.  Okay.

	Now, I have a motion on the floor which basically restates the first
sentence under Subpart C, on page 2 of Subpart C under the
recommendation.  Okay.

	So we've got a motion, we've got a second.  We're in the discussion of
the motion.  Okay.  So, discussion on the motion by the committee?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  The summary basically says it all.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes.  I think this is -- well, I won't weigh in at
this time.

	MR. RAFFO:  Don't hold back.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I'm not.  If the public has a comment, let me see
how many we have so I can gauge. 

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Good.  All right.  

	I'm ready to call the question then.  All in favor of the motion,
signify by saying "aye".

	(Chorus of Ayes)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Opposed?

	(No response) 

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. RAFFO:  Okay.  I'll move right into Subpart D.  Subpart D is, once
again, a similar parallel where we started off.  Really, this section
started off at the initial MACOSH meeting again with what's commonly
known throughout the shipbuilding industry as the four-inch strip-back
rule.  We started working on that and we realized once again, well,
that's going to affect this and it's going to affect other sections.  

	So, as we began to work on one we expanded it to other sections of the
standard, which is commonly called "Welding, Cutting and Heating", which
is Subpart D.  Once again, we did this through many conference calls. 
We had significant help and guidance from Mr. Daddura to try to get us
through to a product that everybody could live with.

	Subpart D was developed approximately 35 years ago.  During this time,
the shipbuilding alteration and repair industry was much different than
it is today.  At that time, the standard was developed to protect
workers from airborne toxics during hot work.  These toxics generally
arose from steel used during construction and coating used to preserve
the steel.

	At that time, most of the steel that was coming into the shipyard came
in in an uncoated condition.  Most of the steels that are coming in
today are coming into a shipyard coated or primed, ready to be used and
welded right away.  They don't come in in the raw condition anymore.

	The type of steels that are used in the shipbuilding industry today are
much different than the materials that were used or the components used
35 years ago.  A concerted effort has been made by industry to reduce
the content of many toxic compounds in steel, such as lead, chrome,
cadmium, and zinc.

	Structural and chemical properties used in many of the shipbuilding
steels today are now tightly controlled.  It is generally well
understood now and documented that employee exposure to metals
containing toxic compounds in steels can have an adverse effect on
workers' health, and this is tightly controlled.

	As I spoke of before, the process of building a ship has changed.  As I
spoke before, modular construction, welding methods, welding processes
have greatly changed.  Welding methods that were rare 35 years ago are
now commonplace and used in big shipyards and little shipyards
throughout the country.  There have been significant changes in the
welding methods.

	The four-inch strip-back which initiated this whole discussion was
initially put into the standard to protect workers from exposure to
decompositions from heating coatings adjacent to hull butts during
welding, and this has evolved to all areas of the ship.  It has expanded
from just hull butts, it's initial application.

	So, once again, the challenge that developed to the committee was to
develop a modern standard which both reflects the need to control worker
exposure during hot work and to allow enhanced productivity to the
worker.  The difficulty is to publish a new standard to find the wording
which can be used that provides worker protection in all maritime
activities, ranging from shipbuilding, ship repair, ship breaking.

	Once again, there exists a wide variety of capabilities in the country
to prevent worker exposure.  Some of the bigger shipyards in the country
have industrial hygienists, have staff on site that can monitor worker
exposure.  Some of the small shipyards do not have that capability and
want a different type of standard.

	So, as a recommendation, once again we tried to work through a
35-year-old standard that applies to modern shipbuilding methods.  We
tried not to come to a general statement that says we need to review and
update this, but that's what we had to do.

	So our recommendation, which I will read, is: the MACOSH Shipbuilding
Committee recommends to OSHA that the entire Subpart D be reviewed and
updated.  While the safety of workers is a primary concern, a
performance-based standard should be considered in some sections while
maintaining some of the basic structural requirement in other sections.

	Many of the major shipyards in the nation have the ability, knowledge
and equipment to monitor employee exposure.  A performance-based
standard would allow them to protect worker exposure, while providing
the flexibility to develop procedures which enhance productivity, while
protecting the worker.

	Many of the smaller yards, without the ability to perform employee
exposure monitoring, may desire a standard which spells out a
requirement so no interpretation is needed.  A standard which will
provide worker safety and enhanced productivity should be the goal of an
updated standard.  Providing a mix of a performance-based standard with
one that contains fixed limits which permits flexibility to the industry
may be the best outcome, but would present the biggest challenge.

	Updating of the standard will be an ongoing challenge for both OSHA and
MACOSH to work on, with once again the goal of providing the safest,
most cost-effective standard for the maritime industry.  Once again, we
have an attached summary which outlines some of our initial concerns,
some discussions, and some suggestions or thoughts to OSHA.  Once again,
if they decide to take this on, an asterisk should be placed next to
those particular sections for an in-depth review.  

	So, in a nutshell, once again, my motion would be that the MACOSH
Shipbuilding Committee recommends to OSHA that the entire Subpart D be
reviewed and updated. This was once again voted on by the committee
unanimously yesterday to be put before the full committee as a product
to OSHA.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Second.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  I have a motion and a second.  

	Discussion on the motion by the committee?

	MR. CASTANHO:  One question.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes, John?

	MR. CASTANHO:  Don, I had one question.  On page 1 of the horizontal
table.

	MR. RAFFO:  Which subpart?

	MR. CASTANHO:  Subpart D, we're on right now.

	MR. RAFFO:  Right.

	MR. CASTANHO:  On your proposal, the far right-hand side, towards the
bottom you have some bold text there.  It says "Suggestion for new
definitions specific to the maritime industry".  So are you looking at
this new definition to appear in 1917 or are we --

	MR. RAFFO:  1915.

	MR. CASTANHO:  1915.  

	MR. RAFFO:  Right.  1915.

	MR. CASTANHO:  Okay.  The maritime industry.

	MR. RAFFO:  Right.  Once again, that was sort of a, I don't way to say
a late edition, but we debated that yesterday and that was once again a
late edition. Once again, I don't want these to be taken verbatim
because they are merely suggestions.  They're not a specific
recommendation as to how we're telling or suggesting OSHA word these
sections.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Other questions/comments from the committee?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Hearing none, if the public has questions, if you'd
raise your hand so I can see how many I have.  Yes, sir?

	MR. BURDGE:  Gavin Burdge, BMT Designers and Planners.  One of the
standards addresses the removal of coatings.  Was it the committee's
intent to have Air-Line respirators equal to removal of the hazard?

	MR. RAFFO:  Once again, we're not, in a sense, making specific
recommendations down to the word and the period.  What we're saying is,
initially, there is a blanket four-inch rule for coatings which started
this discussion off a year and a half ago.  We felt that there were
other options out there ranging from monitoring employee exposure for
shipyards that are capable of doing it, or for shipyards that are not
capable of doing it, to maintain the potential use of an Air-Line
respirator.  We are asking for a review of the standard, to update it
and to allow some flexibility.

	MR. BURDGE:  Okay.  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Other questions/comments from the public?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Hearing none, I'm going to call the question.  All
in favor of the motion, please signify by saying "aye".

	(Chorus of Ayes)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Opposed?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Next?

	MR. RAFFO:  Okay, Mr. Chairman.  So we've moved basically two big items
off our plate, but it doesn't mean the Shipyard Committee is on a diet.

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I hope not.

	MR. RAFFO:  We had a lively discussion yesterday on Subpart S, the
electrical standard.  We had, I guess I would say, the benefit of having
David present to us his discussion before our presentation today. 
During the break, I was sort of taken out to the wood shed --

	(Laughter)

	MR. RAFFO:  -- and said, based on his discussion, I guess it stirred up
the hornet's nest.  So, the Shipyard Committee at this point, we had it
on our plate yesterday.  We were trying to focus in on it. I think after
discussion today, we are going to fine tune it and focus in on it.  We
are not ready, I don't think, right yet to make a recommendation, but we
want to discuss with a possible potential recommendation for next time. 


	One request we had yesterday, and we talked to Joe about this, is we
request OSHA provide MACOSH the proposed CSAC Subpart L for review, the
electrical standard.  Our discussion focused, I guess, essentially on,
is a maritime electrical standard called for separately from the present
standard, the defined one? That is, I think, our general task statement
after today and after our discussions.  I just don't feel that at this
point we have a substantiation to make a recommendation, but we have a
lot more questions, I guess, than we had before.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  So to summarize, I guess, the workgroup wants to
consider the information presented by Dave and whether or not it wishes
to take action, if any.  Is that right?

	MR. RAFFO:  Yes.  My guess is we'll take some action, yes, but we're
not ready.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I'm not trying to lead you.  I'm trying to
understand what you're saying.

	MR. RAFFO:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  You're looking at it.

	MR. RAFFO:  We are looking at it.  We are continuing to look at it.  We
are trying to sharpen our focus to come to a recommendation and we'll be
working on that through our conference calls, hopefully for the next
meeting.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Well, I'd like to clarify that.  Yes, we do want to
take action.  It's just whether or not we want to ask you guys to give
us our own standard or whether or not we want to ask you guys for
further clarification.  But, yes, we do want to take action of some
sort.  Sorry. 

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  So you want something. You're not sure what it is
right now, but you're sure something's going to happen.

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Yes.  Oh, yes.

	MR. RAFFO:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Is that right?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  Oh, yes.

	MR. RAFFO:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  

	MR. RAFFO:  Okay. 

	And finally, once again, we took on another task.  OSHA has developed a
shipbreaking draft document, which has already been done, but we would
like to request that OSHA make the shipbreaking or ship scrapping
document available for review by the shipyard group.  I believe
everybody in the group received that package this morning.  We will be
reviewing and commenting on that for, once again, another product.

	So, a brief summary.  We have pulled two big items that we've worked
long and hard on off our plate today and submitted them as
recommendations, and we've added a couple more, one that we've been
working on and has been moved to the forefront a little bit, and another
new item, the shipbreaking document.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I have two comments.  One is, I want to commend the
committee.  I think you've done a lot of good work.  I think the
documents that have been presented are well organized and well stated,
and I think, in keeping with the concept of perhaps explaining or
clarifying positions of the workgroup such that the committee itself
could make decisions or posterity will understand where the workgroup
and the committee is coming from is very good, so I want to commend you
on that.

	The second is, as with the other workgroups, we'd appreciate a bit of
an executive summary to this effect so I can build this and put this
into the rechartering draft.

	MR. RAFFO:  I will get you that.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. RAFFO:  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Any more from the Shipyard Committee, questions of
Don?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Now, last, but certainly not least, the Health Workgroup.  Thank you,
by the way, for standing in in advance for Steve Hudock, who could not
make it, from NIOSH. 

	So, with that I'm going to turn it over to Marc MacDonald.

	HEALTH WORKGROUP REPORT

	By Mr. Marc MacDonald

	MR. MacDONALD:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And thank you to the audience
for your patience and persistence out there.  

	I'd like to go through the Health Workgroup report.  I plan to talk on
five topics that we discussed the other day, in short order.  One, is
the Cargo Inspection Systems Fact Sheet which is being passed around to
you right now.  Just to make sure that everybody has the correct one, it
should be revised 11/27/07. 

	We're going to talk about ergonomic guidelines a little bit.  I'd like
to talk about NIOSH noise studies, diesel emissions, and AEDs, but just
very shortly to give you an update.

	First, in our --

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  One second, Marc.  I think Susan wants to do
something.

	MS. SHERMAN:  I'd like to mark this as Exhibit 12 and submit it to the
record, the OSHA draft fact sheet entitled "Working Safely Around U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Vehicle and Cargo Inspection Systems and
Radiation Portal Monitors".

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

			 (Whereupon, the document referred

			  to as Exhibit 12 was marked for

			  identification and entered into 

			  the record.)

	MR. MacDONALD:  And I realize the audience does not have this.  We
discussed this yesterday in our workgroup and there were some
suggestions on the document which I'd like to go over today.  This is a
proposed OSHA fact sheet.  

	As Susan has noted, it's entitled "Working Safely Around U.S. Customs
and Border Protection Vehicle and Cargo Inspection Systems and Radiation
Portal Monitors".  It was brought up by members of the committee as a
concern for workers as these new items appear on the terminals.

	Let me just paraphrase the contents of the fact sheet.  U.S. Customs
and Border Protection employs several types of cargo inspection devices
on marine terminals.  The most common devices are radiation portal
monitors and mobile vehicle and cargo inspection system units.  This
fact sheet provides a brief overview on the safety of the cargo
inspection equipment.  Again, this is intended to be an overview. It's
intended to give people an idea of what Customs is doing, and the
inherent or apparent dangers of that.

	Radiation portal monitors do not emit radiation, but instead measure if
containers are emitting any radiation.  If a container is emitting
radiation, the type of radiation is further analyzed to determine the
source of the radiation, for example, ceramic tiles or fertilizers.

	Mobile Vehicle and Cargo Inspection Systems, VACIS--and this is a
trademark of the SAIC company--units use natural radiation sources such
as cesium and cobalt.  Rapiscan Eagle and Smiths units--and those are
all trade names for those types of units and they're noted on the side
of the unit when it's at the terminal--use X-rays to scan containers.

	All of these devices allow the CBP to look through the container to see
what's inside and to examine the contents of cargo containers at a
marine terminal without unloading them.  These devices all use similar
safety systems.  

	There are three primary means used to protect marine terminal workers
from radiation exposure during the operation of cargo inspection
devices: 1) the radiation beam is directed away from workers; 2) some
shielding is used to protect CBP workers who operate the equipment; 3)
controlled areas/exclusion zones are established and patrolled by CBP
around the machine to prohibit exposure of marine terminal workers.

	This third step takes advantage of the inverse square rule for
radiation exposure.  Stated simply, radiation exposure levels drop off
very rapidly with distance.  The radiation strength 10 yards from a
point source will be 100 times less than the strength of radiation 1
yard away.  The strength of radiation 20 yards from the source will be
400 times less than the radiation strength at one yard.

	CBP has established controlled areas around cargo inspection equipment
so radiation levels outside the controlled areas are so small as to be
virtually immeasurable.  Even if a worker spent their entire shift just
outside the edge of the control area for one year, the worker would
receive much less radiation exposure from cargo screening activities
than the worker would receive from one chest X-ray.

	It has been estimated that receiving a chest X-ray at a hospital
increases the risk of cancer by one million in a year.  In other words,
if one million people each got a chest X-ray, one of them will get
cancer that they otherwise would not have in a year.

	For comparison, here are some other activities that increase your risk
of dying by one in a million per year.  This is a list of one in a
million probabilities that was taken from R. Wilson, "Analyzing the
Daily Risks of Life" in a Technology Review.  For instance, smoking 1.4
cigarettes, drinking 17 ounces of wine, living two days in New York or
Boston from air pollution --

	(Laughter)	

	MR. MacDONALD:  -- traveling 300 miles by car from an accident, flying
1,000 miles by jet from an accident, flying 6,000 by jet from cosmic
radiation, and there are others in here.

	So in comparison, the risk from the CBP's cargo screening activities is
significantly less than the risk of smoking 1.4 cigarettes, taking one
cross-country jet flight, or eating 100 charbroiled steaks.

	Customs and Border Protection, a Federal agency, operates all cargo
screening devices.  CBP has determined safe operating procedures for
their personnel and to ensure any exposure to other workers is kept to
an absolute minimum, with a goal of being no exposure.  CBP personnel
are the only workers allowed within the controlled areas because of
their special training and safety equipment.

	CBP has determined the size of the controlled area at any given
facility and is responsible for preventing unauthorized workers from
entering the controlled area when the cargo screening equipment is in
use.  The size of the controlled area is designed to ensure that the
level of radiation at the edge of the controlled area should not be
measurable.  Therefore, if individuals stay outside of the controlled
area there is negligible exposure.  So, that's the fact sheet that our
working group came up with.  We had a number of people provide inputs to
this, and I would recommend that we discuss it and recommend to OSHA to
adopt it.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  So saying it in the form of a motion then,
are you offering this into the record and then your motion is to request
that OSHA publish it?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.  I make a motion that this be
offered into the record.  I think Ms. Sherman has already said this
might be Exhibit 12.  Then for the committee to recommend to OSHA that
they publish a fact sheet on this topic.

	VOICE:  Second.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Just a point of clarification.  Weren't there a couple of
sentences in this draft that were changed by the workgroup and were
incorporated in here?

	MR. MacDONALD:  That is correct.

	MS. SHERMAN:  So this document is not exactly what the workgroup
received.

	MR. MacDONALD:  No, it is not.  That's why we brought it back here to
discuss with the full committee with the new date on it.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  Could you briefly summarize for the committee the
changes that the workgroup made?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Yes.  In paragraph 3, we were using the term "VACIS" to
include all kinds of vehicle and cargo inspection systems, where it was
pointed out that VACIS is a trade name for SAIC.  So we clarified that
VACIS is an SAIC trade name, and it uses the natural radiation sources
cesium and cobalt.  We added in two other devices by name, Rapiscan
Eagle and Smiths, which are X-ray type devices.  As I noted, when they
come on the terminal they'll have those names on the sides of the unit
so people can identify them, and those units use X-rays.  So, that was
one main thing.

	The other thing was, at the bottom of the first page and the top of the
second page, there were some disjointed words there.  We wordsmithed
that paragraph, "CBP has established controlled areas around cargo
inspection equipment so radiation levels outside the controlled areas
are so small as to be virtually immeasurable."  I believe that sentence
stayed the same.

	Then we deleted one sentence and combined the next: "Even if a worker
spent their entire shift just outside of the edge of the controlled
area, the worker would receive much less radiation exposure from cargo
screening activities than the worker would receive from one chest
X-ray."  So, those were two separate paragraphs, Susan, that were
combined together, so that's one other change we made.

	Then the third change focused on just the way the wording ended.  It
was, again, a little bit of redundant wording, so we just basically
shortened up the last sentence: "Therefore, if individuals stay outside
of the controlled area, there is negligible exposure..."  It went on to
say, "from Customs screening activities..." and stuff like that.  But
those are basically the three areas where the workgroup focused and
recommended changes, and those are the three changes that were made.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Mike?

	MR. FLYNN:  Yes.  The Customs and Border Control.  You say "established
control area".  Is that a measured area?  I mean, they measure it down
to 1.4 cigarettes.  I was wondering if they have a --

	MR. MacDONALD:  Yes.  Basically, the best source for the public to know
what those areas are are the environmental assessments that they publish
based on the type of equipment they are using.  In other words, the
cesium and cobalt devices have one measured area.  The X-ray devices,
because they're more powerful, have a bigger measured area, but it is a
defined measured area.

	MR. FLYNN:  So they have a defined --

	MR. MacDONALD:  Defined measured area.  And the issue for the marine
terminals, is that they put the dimensions around one container and then
they ask you to line up 30 or 40 to do the surveys.  So, the areas
become larger because of that.

	MR. FLYNN:  For the cesium and the X-rays, are there different measured
areas?

	MR. MacDONALD:  They are very nearly similar, so the areas for those
are very similar.  But the X-rays are larger, significantly larger.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  John?

	MR. CASTANHO:  After our workgroup met yesterday I was asked two
questions about this and I didn't have an answer for either one of them,
so I want to ask now.

	Both of them are on page 2.  I guess this is just to clarify the
document.  The first question, is the second paragraph, the reference
that "it has been estimated that receiving a chest X-ray at a hospital
increases the risk of cancer by one in a million a year."  Did we have a
reference to that statement?  Do we have a source we can quote on that?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  It's the same source.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  You're having a side discussion.  Can anyone answer
John's question?

	MR. MacDONALD:  I can't answer it directly.  I would assume it came
from Wilson, but I don't know.  In other words, what you're saying is,
we should have a footnote on that.

	MR. CASTANHO:  Well, if it's the same person, maybe a footnote, yes.  I
think that would be something that would be worthwhile.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I think, if we can research it, typically footnotes
-- you may start with double quotes and end with double quotes so you
know where the reference actually started and stopped.  If we can double
check that, I think that's really your question, isn't it?

	MR. CASTANHO:  Correct.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	Do you understand, Marc?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Uh-huh.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Good.

	MR. CASTANHO:  The second question was the second-to-last paragraph. 
It starts, "So in comparison, the risk from CBP's cargo screening
activities is significantly less than the risk of smoking," and it goes
on, "smoking, jet flying, and eating 100 charbroiled steaks."

	The question that was asked is, what is the measurement of risk that
we're using in this comparison?  Is it the exposure over eight hours? 
Over one year?  It's not clear.  You're making a comparison there but
it's not clear what the exposure risk is that you're using as a base to
compare to these other risks.

	MR. MacDONALD:  The wording was intended to make the base one year.  In
other words, even if a worker spent the entire shift just outside the
edge of the control area for one year, the worker would receive much
less radiation exposure from cargo screening activities than the worker
would receive from one chest X-ray.  And then following on from there,
it was trying to relate it to the one in a million, which is one in a
million per year.  So, it is significant to one year.

	MR. CASTANHO:  That's one year, eight hours a day, 365 days a year?  I
don't mean to nitpick this thing, but I've been asked this and I don't
know.

	MR. ADAMS:  Let me help Marc out, if I can.  A worker spends their
entire shift just outside the edge of a control area for a year, so
that's one year of work for a worker, an eight-hour shift--assuming an
eight-hour shift.  It doesn't say "eight-hour shift"--and one chest
X-ray, he will receive less of an exposure than one chest X-ray.  One
chest X-ray falls into one million people, or one in a million will
develop cancer because of that.

	MR. CASTANHO:  I understand all that.  What I'm trying to determine is
what a "year" is.  Is it eight hours a day, 40 hours a week outside of
this area?  Or are we talking about standing outside of this area for
365 days?

	MR. RAFFO:  I would assume almost every study is based on an eight-hour
day, 40-hour week.  Right.  I wouldn't think it would be 365 days times
24 hours.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Susan has a question.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Yes.  In view of the questions that have been raised
based on this document, I guess I'm not sure who the drafter of this
document is, which directorate within OSHA, et cetera.  Does anybody in
the audience happen to know?

	(No response)

	MS. SHERMAN:  Because we can consult with them for the answers to some
of these questions.

	MR. MacDONALD:  The document was generated basically by the Health
Workgroup.  So I think what I'm going to do, is I'm going to retract my
motion and just take it under advisement for these last-minute questions
and then come back at the next meeting with the answers, and hopefully
final wording.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  So if I could understand, the Health Workgroup
generated this document, but it says "OSHA Fact Sheet" because that's
what they intended to present?  Is that correct?

	MR. MacDONALD:  That's correct.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  But this is not an OSHA product as of right now?

	MR. MacDONALD:  No.  Not until OSHA reviews it, blesses it, and
publishes it.

	MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  I just didn't quite understand.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I think, to clarify, I guess, my understanding is,
the Health Workgroup prepared this document, ostensibly to be issued as
an OSHA fact sheet.  If the committee--full committee-- had approved
this at this time, it would be offered as a template, as a draft for
said fact sheet, I guess.  Is that not correct?

	MS. SHERMAN:  That's my understanding.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Right.  So what I also heard then, there have been
some questions that have arisen here that the Health Workgroup needs to
take under advisement, and Marc--and someone over here seconded--has
agreed to withdraw the motion for approval of this draft, and needs a
little more time to go and research these questions.  Is that where this
is?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Yes.  I think the other thing, Mr. Chairman, I would
solicit, since there are some questions that have come up that didn't
come up in the workgroup, if there's other questions on this, people
should bring them forward so that they can be addressed and we can
finally get to a conclusion.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  What I'd like you to do then, is take the
questions that have come up from the floor here under advisement.  Okay.
 If any of the committee--full committee--has questions, further
questions, please get those to Marc.  He will then work with Steve and
take this then back to the Health Workgroup.  But at this time I'm not
hearing a motion for acceptance of this document.  Okay.  Fair?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Uh-huh.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  

	MR. FLYNN:  And, Mr. Chairman?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes?

	MR. FLYNN:  I would just like to add, I mean, I was under the
impression this was an OSHA-authored document.  These figures look kind
of familiar.  I don't know if it was from the salesmen on these
machines.

	(Laughter)

	MR. FLYNN:  But it's a 27-year-old quote.  They're using data from
1979.  I would just like to suggest that there may be more current data
that can be used as a comparison than one that's 27 years old.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	Any more questions by the committee on this?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  I had one question from the public, I think.
 Mr. Davis?

	MR. DAVIS:  DeWitt Davis.  When I looked at that list, it was rather
long.  I'm wondering how many cigarettes I should stay away from, the
equivalent.  Maybe it's two cigarettes, or one and a half cigarettes. 
So I think some of the comparisons are interesting, but they don't speak
to the formulation of what the risk is, which is rather technical.  So I
think your job of getting more current data is going to be a little
harder than you think, but there is data that applies directly to
ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.  Those examples ought to be culled
from that rather than how many glasses of wine, although I thought I
preferred the wine than the radiation.

	MR. MacDONALD:  The dilemma that we had, if I can respond to that, is
just how to put this into terms that the lay person can understand with
regard to the risk.  If you start getting into the technical side of it,
you tend to lose people.  I mean, we have had Customs and Border
Protection address this committee before on this topic.  There was a lot
of skepticism, I guess is the word, if I may use that word, on the
reaction to his presentation.  I believe it was because nobody could
relate to it directly.  This fact sheet was an attempt to try to do
that.

	MR. DAVIS:  Yes.  I think you could use examples which are based on
radiation rather than those examples, and they could be rather simpler.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Flying 6,000 miles by jet from cosmic radiation is --

	MR. DAVIS:  Well, that's a radiation example.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Living two months in a stone or brick house from
natural radiation.

	MR. DAVIS:  Yes.  Those were good.  But I just thought some of the
others would be misleading and get you into trouble.  How many drinks do
you have to have to be equal?

	MR. MacDONALD:  The comment that this is a 1979 document is well taken.
 We'll try to find something that's newer.  But the table, if you will,
was taken intact.  It wasn't like we cherry-picked, is what I'm trying
to say, so that's why you get some examples that you may not agree with.

	MR. DAVIS:  Yes.  I think you'd get in trouble with that one.  I think
you need a new list.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Stew?

	MR. ADAMS:  Just to reiterate what Marc said, we were really searching
to make something comparable so it could relate to somebody, whatever
that somebody is.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Right.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Don?

	MR. RAFFO:  Once again, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion program that
trains radiation workers throughout the country, to a much higher level
of radiation than we're talking about here, uses the same concepts,
trying to relate radiation exposure to the hazards of everyday life. 
That's what we tried to illustrate in this fact sheet.  Your exposure to
radiation from these devices can be related to the effects or dangers,
or compared to the dangers of everyday living.  That's what our goal
was, to try to teach the audience the dangers of exposure.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I'm going to declare the horse dead.  The committee
has been instructed to go back and get some more data.  They've got the
questions that they need to work through.  I think they've got the sense
of that.  So, I'm going to respectfully request that you move on to your
next item.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I will do so, because
hopefully that will be an easier one.

	(Laughter)

	MR. MacDONALD:  Item number 2 is ergonomic guidelines.  My job
reporting here was made much easier by Mr. Seymour and Dr. Snyder, who
made an excellent presentation.  They also made the presentation on
their ergonomic guidelines for shipyards at the Health Workgroup
Committee, and were very open in discussing and soliciting comments and
discussing some of the comments that they had received to try to put
them into perspective.

	I think, to a person in the workgroup, everybody thought this was a
very good document.  Again, they've already been given some kudos and
thanks for putting it together.  I think I speak for everybody in the
workgroup by saying that, again.

	We would like to make a motion that the MACOSH group accept this
document and forward it to OSHA, and recommend that it be published as
an official OSHA document.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Do I have a second?

	MR. ADAMS:  Second.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Second.

	Discussion?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  I don't know that we need to do it quite that way.  I
think all we really need is a motion to endorse the document and
encourage OSHA to get it out on the streets as quickly as possible. 
Yes? It's their document.  Why are we giving it back to them?

	MR. MacDONALD:  I will defer to Captain Preston on that and will
re-word that motion.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  We have a motion, we have a second.  We are in the
discussion period.  Okay.  So, there's a motion on the floor, we have a
second.  If you want to withdraw or do something else, you've got to
withdraw and start over.

	MR. MacDONALD:  Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw my motion and defer to
Captain Preston.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  The second and the first have withdrawn. 

	Is there another motion?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  I move that we endorse this document and encourage OSHA
to publish it as soon as practical.

	MR. ADAMS:  I second it.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  We have a motion and a second to endorse the
document and encourage OSHA to publish this as soon as practicable. 
That's the essence of the motion.

	Discussion on the motion by the committee?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Anything by the public?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you very much.  I'm going to call for the
question.   All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying "aye".

	(Chorus of Ayes)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Opposed?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Next item, please.

	MR. MacDONALD:  The next three items are just reports where there's
been no real phone calls with our group.  NIOSH noise studies.  Mr.
Hudock reported that there's nothing significant to report on those.

	Diesel emissions.  The studies there pend.  No significant work has
been done by the committee, however, we did in the workgroup discuss
that a new study is out by the American Heart Association, and it was
also noted that there's many, many new regulations that seem to be
proliferating with regard to diesel engines.

	On the AEDs, it was reported that a life had been saved on the West
Coast by the quick action of co-workers and supervision using CPR and an
AED that saved the life of a person on the West Coast marine terminal,
so that was very good.

	That concludes my report, Mr. Chairman.  At this time I can go down as
a summary of the status of where we are on the projects if you would
like.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  What is the pleasure of the committee?  Do you want
to hold on that?  Would that be okay?  What I'd like to have, though, is
that be part of your executive summary that you or Steve will forward
that sort of tells where the Health Workgroup is, what work has been
completed, what work is in progress, and we'll receive those along with
the others.  I will include that in my draft letter for recharter.  How
about that?

	MR. MacDONALD:  I will do that, Mr. Chairman.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Anything more from the Health Workgroup?

	MR. MacDONALD:  No, Mr. Chairman.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	OPEN DISCUSSION

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  What I'd like to do, I know you have the soonest, I
think, 6:55.  Anyway, we're closing in, if we can just spend a couple of
minutes kind of closing.

	I'd like to do a couple of things.  First, is this is kind of open mic.
 I always like to do this. I'm going to start on one side or the other. 
Particularly, I want to talk about process.  I constantly want us to use
our time -- our time is precious and valuable and I want to use this as
efficiently as possible.  So, I kind of want to go around the table and
ask you to make comments on process, on anything you want to talk about
in terms of our meeting and how we can make it better, or anything that
you wish to add.  I want to start over here with Ken.

	MR. SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I do have one comment that I'd
like to make.  I think that the meetings can be run a little bit more
efficiently if, at the end of the first day, the committee is allowed to
have in hand documents that they may be having to vote on on the
following day.  That way we can take them back to our rooms or homes and
review them, and then come to the full meeting ready to discuss rather
than waiting till the next meeting.  Thank you, sir.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I agree with that.  That was one of my notes.  We
need to work with staff and maybe figure out an arrangement so the work
products of the workgroups, if we modify them, we can kind of do it on
the run, so to speak, and come to the committee meeting with sort of a
final, complete document.  We'll work with the staff and we'll figure
out how to do that.  I think that's an excellent comment.

	MR. SMITH:  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  John?

	MR. CASTANHO:  I had just one brief comment, I guess.  You touched on
the sacrificing of time.  On behalf of the committee, we'd like to thank
you for being here, knowing that you just came from a funeral from your
father-in-law, I believe it was, who just passed away.  Anyone that's
lost a family member knows that's tough.  On behalf of this committee,
we appreciate you taking the time away from your family to be here.  So,
we thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you very much.  Thank you for saying so.

	MR. WHELAN:  I think, Jim, probably the only recommendation would be,
once again we're missing a couple of our labor representatives,
particularly the I.L.A. representative.  I think a phone call or a
letter would be appropriate to encourage them to participate.  They
certainly should be here.  That would be my only comment.  The other one
would be to everyone here: I hope everyone has a great holiday, and a
happy holiday.  Best wishes to everyone.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, Ernie.

	Jim?

	MR. BURGIN:  I was going to say what Ernie said.  To speak to that real
quickly, the NMSA Board of Directors is real close to the executives at
the I.L.A. and they're doing their part to push them to get and be more
active in this.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Well, any help would be appreciated.

	Don?

	MR. RAFFO:  Just a brief comment.  Once again, a lot of the work that
we do here is sort of unseen by everyone during our conference calls.  I
appreciate the help from OSHA to sort of guide and direct us to an
acceptable product that the committee can look at.  I realize scheduling
conference calls is much more difficult than I ever thought it would be,
so it's a challenge to do that.  Once again, a lot of the work goes on
behind the scenes that no one really sees here, so I want to thank
everyone here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Joseph?

	MR. DADDURA:  I'm fine.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Good.

	Susan?

	MS. SHERMAN:  No comment.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  David?

	MR. WALLIS:  I only have one comment.  My big comment is, I want to
thank the committee for coming here.  You do a valuable job.  For the
two short days you're here, you're very productive and get a lot of work
done.  

	My next item--my last one--is that I know the staff works very hard to
keep these meetings running as smoothly as possible, but we're always
open to any suggestions from all of you to improve what we do for you to
help keep the meetings productive.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Marc?

	MR. MacDONALD:  Mr. Chairman, the only suggestion I've got is that
we've got to use or rely on the conference calls almost more than the
workgroup, because if you try to -- and I agree with Ken about getting
the papers here so everybody has a chance to review them the night
before.  But in some cases, if you're doing work on the fly in the
workgroup, you're doing the corrections during the night and getting it
back out the next day.  So, I don't know.  

	There's a little bit of a conflict with that there.  So I would stress
that we should be trying to do as much as we can at the conference
calls, so that when we get to the working groups, it's more pro forma,
perhaps, and last-minute stuff rather than trying to do major editing
and stuff like that.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	Charles?

	MR. LEMON:  I would also echo on a lot of things that were already
said, such as what Ken said, and Don.  But I would mention that it is
difficult to fly across the country right after a holiday.  But other
than that, it was an experience, anyway.  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Terri?

	CAPT. PRESTON:  I am amazed we get what we get done in two days.  It's
exhausting.  I mean, it really is.  I know the staff must be killing
themselves to support us, because we just show up and do our thing. 
Thank you, guys, again.  But I guess my only frustration, and I don't
really know how to get around it, is we do a lot of the work in the
workgroup the day before, come prepared with a presentation to the
committee, but then we want to go through all the same things we went
through in the workgroup the day before.

	So we just need to make sure we set the ground rules ahead of time so
that we know what needs to be printed, what needs to be handed out, when
it needs to go to the people, because there were some assumptions made,
at least in my workgroup, that we were presenting something to the full
committee to work on, but didn't necessarily need backup because they've
had it in hand for months.  So, you know, just set the ground rules so
we all know ahead of time.  That would be great.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Mike?

	MR. FLYNN:  Thank you.  I just wanted to thank you.  For my own
personal reasons, I had to back off from leading the workgroup on the
Shipyard, and I want to thank you for getting a very competent leader,
and thank Don for stepping up and helping out.  I appreciate it.

	MR. RAFFO:  Thank you.

	MR. ADAMS:  It never ceases to amaze me how much I learn when I come
here and interact with everyone.  Don did an awesome job in the two
proposals associated that came out of the Shipyard Working Group, and he
really took the leadership on putting those two together, and all the
different activities involved.  It's a good model there as we probably
ramp our pace up to finish those things we want to get done within our
charter.  We are going to be moving faster and we're going to have to be
organized.  So, it does wear you out.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Indeed.

	Yes, Ken?  We'll go around again.  

	(Laughter)

	MR. SMITH:  Thank you.  I'd like to make a comment, and maybe a
suggestion based on what Captain MacDonald and Mr. Lemon had said. 
Obviously there is that situation where working groups may need to
revise at the end of the work day on the first day.  If the
correspondence group leaders could distribute the final draft version
that the workgroups are coming to the meetings with to the whole group
in advance, they could take a read on it before they get here and then
kind of be made aware of any minor modifications that might have been
made.  That may be a solution, kind of like the way papers are submitted
to the International Maritime Organization in advance.  Countries get a
chance to review them and make comment as they come in.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Go around again?  No?  Anyone else?

	(No response)

CLOSING REMARKS AND ADJOURN

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  If you'll allow me, I'll have the final word. 
First, I want to thank the committee.  Yes, I realize this is hard. 
These seats do get hard.  Speaking of that, not only to the committee,
but I'd like to thank the public, because I know those seats are equally
hard out there.  Sometimes when you sit there, I know you may feel some
source of frustration or wish you were involved more.

	But I want to thank you for being here, and your comments and
participation.  We welcome that.  Where we'd like to see you involved
equally is in the workgroups.  We get a lot of work done and a lot of
comments.  So, thank you for that.

	The second point.  I've been handed a calendar, and would just ask you
to begin circling your calendars.  We have a little more granularity
around our meeting schedule.  We're looking at the middle weeks of
March, which are -- the Mondays are the 10th and the 17th, as
possibilities.  So we're looking at the middle --

	MR. FLYNN:  That's Easter.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  What did I say?

	MR. FLYNN:  Easter is, I think, the 16th.  It's early.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  There it is.  It doesn't show the holidays.

	MS. WELCH:  March 23rd.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  March 23rd.  So, see there?  Who said it was
Easter?  Anyway, so it isn't Easter.  So just kind of look at those two
weeks.  The middle weeks in March, beginning with the 10th and the 17th.
 The 10th and the 17th are Mondays.  These are not final.  Just kind of
circle those two weeks.  Just pencil it in.  Then in June, the first
three weeks in June, the Mondays are 2, 9 and 16.  But these are TBD.
Just to give you a little more sense of it if you're planning a vacation
or something.  We'll try to get some dates.  

	Why are you looking at me like that?  Because I know that look.  Did I
say something wrong?

	MS. WELCH:  No.

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  All right.   So, circle those.

	The last thing I will say in closing, to finish up my comments, were
think about, when you do your summaries, what can you do in the
remaining time?  Don't bite off more than you can chew.  Look at how
much time you have left, the tasks you have in front of you, and plan
your conference calls.  I want to tell you, since the last meeting the
conference call activity has picked up, the e-mail activity, all the
communication between meetings has picked up, and I think it shows
because we are able to do this meeting in one day because of the
between-meeting work, the workgroup work, and all of that.  So, I
encourage you to continue to do that.

	The other thing, back to Ken's and somebody else's point about the
information.  Yes, this should be an approval committee rather than
making the sausage, but sometimes it is helpful and necessary to have
some of the background information and why we thought why we thought,
you know, kind of stuff on the record.  I think it helps clarify why we
move to do certain things, and motions to do certain other things.

	So, yes, I agree with you completely, there should be an approval
committee.  Sometimes that needs to be accompanied by some discussion,
just some rationale.  Now, we could have the rationale in written form
which would help even further, but that may help us be even more
efficient.

	I think, with that, that is all I have.  It is possible, we need to
think about this a little bit more.  If you find that the workgroup --
if it helps our discussions of we have a one-and-a-half or two-day
workgroup meeting to even get more granular and maybe make the sausage
even finer and better before final presentation to this full committee,
we can consider that as well.

	If you think that is time well spent, we can think about that.  I mean,
that may be something that we want to think about.  We'll figure it out.
 But just keep that in mind.  Does it make sense to add a little more
time in the workgroup so that it makes the full committee work even more
efficient?  Maybe.  Just think about it.

	With that, is there anything else?

	(No response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  If not, I'll call for a motion to adjourn.

	VOICE:  So moved.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All those in favor may leave.  Thank you.

	(Whereupon, at 5:32 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.)

	C E R T I F I C A T E

	This is to certify that the foregoing proceedings of a meeting of the
Maritime Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, held on
Wednesday, November 28, 2007, at the U.S. Department of Labor, Frances
Perkins Building, Washington, DC, were transcribed as herein appears,
and this is the original transcript thereof.

			                              			LISA DENNIS

			Court Reporter

 

 

	LISA DENNIS COURT REPORTING

	410-729-0401

	LISA DENNIS COURT REPORTING

	410-729-0401

	LISA DENNIS COURT REPORTING

	410-729-0401

		 page \* arabic 8 

		 page \* arabic 107 

