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.