U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

MARITIME ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (MACOSH)

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Frances Perkins Building

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

PRESENT:

James R. Thornton, Chair

Amy WANGDAHL, Designated Federal Officer

Jennifer Levin, Committee Counsel, DOL

Daniel R. Harrison, American Society of Safety        Engineers

Solomon Egbe

Kristine Gilson

Kelly J. Garber, Longshoring Workgroup Chair

Lesley E. Johnson, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Robert Godinez, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers

Tim Podue, Marine Chemist Association

Amy Sly, Marine Chemist Association

Donald Raffo, Shipyard Workgroup Chair

Karen Conrad, North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners Association

LCDR John F. Halpin, MD, MPH, National Institute for Occupational Safety
& Health

Kenneth A. Smith, US Coast Guard

James S. Rone, Washington State Department of Labor & Industries

David Doucet, OSHA Region 6

Dr. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary for OSHA

Robert Swick, OSHA Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs	A G
E N D A

      											 PAGE

Opening Remarks, Roll-call, Introduction of 		   5

	MACOSH Members, Jim Thornton, MACOSH chair

Introduction of Public Participants, Jim Thornton,  17

	MACOSH Chair/Public Participants

Review of Minutes from the MACOSH meeting in		  20

	Washington, DC, April 16, 2014, Full Committee

Agenda, Jim Thornton, MACOSH Chair				  23

Update on US Coast Guard activities, Ken Smith	  25

CSHO Update, David Doucet, OSHA Region 6			  62

Brief Comments, David Michaels, PhD, Assistant	  79

	Secretary for OSHA

Luncheon										  87

Overview of OSHA's Whistleblower Protection		  88

	Program, Robert Swick, OSHA Directorate of

	Whistleblower Protection Programs

Longshoring Workgroup Report and Committee		 117

	Discussion, Kelly Garber, Longshoring

	Workgroup Chair

Shipyard Workgroup Report and Committee	  		 144

	Discussion, Don Raffo, Shipyard Workgroup

	Chair

Open discussion, Closing Remarks, Adjourn,		 174

	Full Committee

Motions:  Page 21, 139, 143, 150, 155, 159, 161, 173

	E X H I B I T S

Exhibit 14 - 4/16/2014 MACOSH meeting minutes		22

Exhibit 15 - Coast Guard presentation 			61

Exhibit 16 - Video presentation					79

Exhibit 17 - Whistleblower Protection Program	    116

		    Handouts

Exhibit 18 - Longshore Workgroup report		    144

Exhibit 19 - Pedestal Crane Safety on 		    150

		    Commercial Fishing Vessels

		    document

Exhibit 20 - Surface Preparation and 		    155

		    Preservation

Exhibit 21 - Hazards During the Repair and 	    159

		    Maintenance of Refrigeration

		    Systems on Vessels

Exhibit 22 - Shipyard Workgroup report		    174

	P R O C E E D I N G S  [9:08 a.m.]

	OPENING REMARKS, ROLL-CALL,

INTRODUCTION OF MACOSH MEMBERS

		MR. THORNTON:  This is Jim Thornton, Chairman of the MACOSH Committee.
 It is Wednesday, August 20th. We're here at 200 Constitution Avenue for
our fall meeting, I guess we're going to call it, of the MACOSH
Committee.

		There's a couple of administration items I wanted to go over first.

		As far as the emergency evacuation procedures, we have two options
here.  This is a shelter in place facility, so we can either remain here
or we'll take the stairs down.

		My best advice is just try to keep up with me and you'll be just fine.
 So, do what I do, and we'll be just fine.

		Let's see.  We'll go over the agenda in just a minute, but the first
order of business I want to go over now is I just want to make a couple
of open remarks for those members and people that are in the audience.

		I'm very humbled and proud to be the chair of this committee, because
I tell you, we've done some wonderful things, and I think at the end of
the day, we -- the things and the products and the services that we
produce helps send people home safely at night in the maritime and
longshore industry.

		So, as your chair, I'm always humbled to do that, and I can tell you,
between meetings, there's been a ton of work that has been done, and
you're going to see that presented today.

		Yesterday, for those -- you know, we call that the sausage-making day,
where the sausage gets made, and it's pretty ugly sometimes, but this is
where we bring the sausage to market, and so, I think everybody,
including the public, is going to see the fruits of the labor of the
committees and the prime work that has been done.

		So, I want to say in advance thank you for all that you've done.

		Now, let's go over the roll-call, and then -- a couple of things I
missed.

		First, there is a sign-in sheet in the back, on one of the tables.  I
didn't sign in, but it's back there on the table.  Nick said somebody
stole the pen. So, if you stole the pen, put the pen back.

		If you don’t see a pen, you're free to use your own pen to please
sign in back there.  We'd like to have a record, and make sure you spell
your name properly and legibly.  We use that as part of keeping the
record.

		Also, another administrative item -- and I know this group is very
much used to this, but perhaps the public is not.

		We have different types of microphones.  So, we've experimented with
some.

		If you recall, the last meeting was the push to talk, and we finally
got that right after about eight hours and all of that.  These are --
they're ones you just pull up to you and speak.  So, you don’t have to
push any buttons and anything like that.

		The same way with the public.  I'm going to ask the public to come up
and identify themselves, and when you do, the first time, at least, I'm
going to ask you to come by the microphone, and when you identify
yourself, please spell your last name so we can make sure that we
attribute any remarks to you, especially the good ones.

		You want the good remarks attributed to you. So, make sure we get your
name right there.  First and last.  First and last.  So, spell your
first name and last name.  Thank you.

		And with that, I'm going to go ahead and call the roll for the
committee.  So, please respond when I call your name.

		Ken Smith.

		MR. SMITH:  Present.

		MR. THORNTON:  James Rone.

		MR. RONE:  Here.

		MR. THORNTON:  Lieutenant Commander John Halpin.

		LCDR HALPIN:  Here.

		MR. THORNTON:  Kristine Gilson.

		MS. GILSON:  Here.

		MR. THORNTON:  And she's a new member of the committee.  We're going
to talk about that in just a moment.

		George Lynch.

		I understand George is having some personal health issues, and we wish
the best for him.  So, all the best to George.

		Les Johnson.

		MR. JOHNSON:  Present.

		MR. THORNTON:  Tim Podue.

		MR. PODUE:  Present.

		MR. THORNTON:  Robert Godinez.

		MR. GODINEZ:  Here.

		MR. THORNTON:  Kelly Garber.

		MR. GARBER:  Here.

		MR. THORNTON:  Don Raffo.

		MR. RAFFO:  Present.

		MR. THORNTON:  Solomon Egbe.

		MR. EGBE:  Present.

		MR. THORNTON:  And Solomon is a new member of the committee, and we're
going to -- I was going to talk about that in a moment.

		Karen Conrad.

		MS. CONRAD:  Here.

		MR. THORNTON:  And I'm Jim Thornton and I'm present, and also present
are the DO, Amy, and Jennifer Levin, who is from our Solicitor's office.

		Who did I miss?

		MR. HARRISON:  Dan Harrison.

		MR. THORNTON:  Your chairman is in error.  I apologize.  Let me
correct my -- so, I announced myself.

		MS. SLY:  Present.

		MR. THORNTON:  And Dan Harrison.  Thank you very much for reminding
me.  A lot of stuff going on.  Okay.

		So, then I'm going to go over the agenda in a moment, but I'm going to
recognize Amy, who has some remarks that she wants to make as the DFO.

		So, Amy.

		MS. WANGDAHL:  Good morning.

		I just wanted to recognize Solomon and Kristine.

		For those that may not know, we had two members resign after our
previous meeting in April.  That was Chris McMahan, who went on -- he is
now working for the War College, I believe, in Rhode Island, and Arthur
Ross actually retired, and he is enjoying his retirement right now.

		So, Solomon and Kristine were nominated and appointed by the Secretary
of Labor.

		So, we appreciate them coming onto the committee, and they both have
been involved MACOSH in previous meetings, so they're familiar with all
the great work that you do, and as soon as I finish, I think Jim is
going to ask them to just say a couple of words.

		So, I just wanted to say on behalf of the agency we appreciate you
coming in and stepping up to the plate, and we expect great things from
you.  We know from the interaction we've had in the past that you'll
just do great on the committee.

		I also wanted to thank the OSHA staff.  You know, we were kind of late
getting our meetings together, and there was a tremendous amount of work
that went into our last meeting, and then again prior to this meeting.

		So, specifically, Daniel Watson and Vanessa Welch.  I wanted to thank
them.

		Each of the committees had at least four conference calls in between
meetings.  That’s a tremendous amount of work on behalf of the
committee and then also my staff, and I think you'll see the number of
recommendations coming out just from such a short time is a tremendous
amount of work from an advisory committee.  So, I just wanted to thank
them.

		And then, in front of you, you have your packets that you received
yesterday, but we also added some additional documents this morning.

		One is the minutes, which we're going to vote on in just a couple of
minutes, but we also gave you all of the -- we've had four previously
recommended documents by MACOSH actually published since the April
meeting.

		So, we've laid those out on the table for you.  The public has copies
in the back.  So, please help yourself to that.

		And we have a tremendous amount of work that’s going to be coming
forward this afternoon.

		So, I just wanted to take a minute and say thank you on behalf of the
agency for all the hard work that you do as an advisory committee, and
we say you're the hardest working, and we don’t just say it, you
actually -- you prove it every meeting.

		So, I just wanted to say thank you very much for that.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you, Amy.

		Maybe Kristine, if you wouldn’t mind introducing yourself, and just
say a couple of words about your background so people know you a little
bit.

		MS. GILSON:  I work for the Maritime Administration.  I'm in the
Office of Environment.  One of my functions is dealing with ship
disposal, doing the environmental and safety for that.  We have several
ship disposal facilities here in the U.S. that we keep track of.

		I also deal with ship disposal in the international arena, at the
International Maritime Organization.

		I'm the chair of the working group for ship disposal at the Marine
Environmental Protection Committee, and I also am the chair of the
correspondence groups that are done during the intercessional period,
and right now, with that we're just working on technical guidelines.
The convention has already been done.

		I also do a lot with tiger grants within DOT. I do the NEPA, the
National Environmental Policy Act, environmental work that’s done on
that.

		My background is I'm a geologist, a registered environmental manager,
and a certified hazardous materials manager, and I've been working for
the Maritime Administration for nine years.  Before that, I was in the
private sector.

		That’s it.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you very much.

		I'd like to discuss fracking with you later, since you're a geologist,
so -- your take on that.

		Not to put you on the spot, Solomon, but if you would, tell us --
share the mike there and tell us a little bit about yourself, as well.

		MR. EGBE:  Okay.  I'm Solomon Egbe.  I'm the health system
environmental director for Ports America Chesapeake.  I run the health
safety and environmental department.

		I'm also a member of the Baltimore Port Alliance Environmental
Committee, a member of the NMSA Technical Committee.

		My background -- I went to SUNY Maritime.  Sorry, Kingspointers.

		I'm also a lawyer from New York law School, and I've been with Ports
America for the last 13 years.  		Before that, I worked for V-Ships,
which is a ship management company, one of the largest, for eight years.

		Mostly, right now, I'm mostly focused on safety -- how can I put it?

		We have two types of safety programs that we run at Ports America.

		You have the process safety side of it and the behavioral safety.  I'm
actually the leader in both sides.

		So, my terminals are the test facilities for the larger company, and
we operate in about 50-something different -- 80 different locations and
about 40-something different ports.

		So, that’s it.

		I'm glad to be here.  I've been involved in MACOSH on the outskirts
for a while.  So, I think I'm glad to be one of the members of the
committee.

		Thank you.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you very much, and we're very pleased to have
both of you step up and volunteer your time.  I mean nothing but this,
but usually the rookies get all the assignments.

		So, when they give you homework, you know, they're going to give you
-- pick on you a little bit. Just kidding.  Just kidding.  Pleased to
have you here.

		Okay.  What I'd like to do now -- this is going to be an experiment
here.  I'd like the public to file by this microphone right here.  I'd
like you to, you know, distinctly say and spell your first and last
name.

		Oh, you've got the wireless.  You've been holding out on me.  You
didn't tell me that.  All right.

		Let's pass the wireless around, and whoever is first is going to set
the bar.  So, you know, let me see what you've got, okay?

INTRODUCTION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS

		MR. SHAW:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the  committee.
My name is Curtis Shaw.  I represent the Pacific Maritime Association.
C-u-r-t

-i-s, S-h-a-w.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you, Curtis.  Welcome.

		MR. ALLEN:  Good morning.  My name is Ron Allen.  I'm with Signal
Administration.  I work out of the New Orleans, Louisiana, area.
That’s R-o-n A-l-l-e-n.

		MS. PARKS:  Polly Parks with EMR Southern.  Polly, P-o-l-l-y, Parks,
P-a-r-k-s.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		MR. HAMILTON:  I'm Bill Hamilton with OSHA, Bill, B-i-l-l, Hamilton,
H-a-m-i-l-t-o-n.

		MS. LINDY:  Hi.  I'm Shannon Lindy with OSHA.  S-h-a-n-n-o-n,
L-i-n-d-y.

		MS. NISHIMURA:  Katie Nishimura with OSHA Region I.  K-a-t-i-e,
N-i-s-h-i-m-u-r-a.

		MR. VOS:  John Vos, OSHA Region 4.  J-o-h-n, V-o-s.

		MR. MUTTER:  Bill Mutter with the Navy Crane Center.  Again B-i-l-l,
M-u-t-t-e-r.

		MS. HOLLOWAY:  Vanessa Holloway, OSHA.  V-a-n-e-s-s-a,
H-o-l-l-o-w-a-y.

		MR. CARR:  Nicholas Carr.  I'm with OSHA, also.  N-i-c-h-o-l-a-s,
C-a-r-r.

		MR. GLUCKSMAN:  Dan Glucksman, International Safety Equipment
Association.  So, that’s D-a-n, space, G-l-u-c-k-s-m-a-n.

		MR. DEWEASE:  Good Morning.  Dan, D-a-n, Dewease, D-e-w-e-a-s-e.  I am
the new area director in Norfolk, Virginia, Region 3.

		MR. PAULI:  Good morning.  Matthew Pauli, M-a-t-t-h-e-w, P-a-u-l-i,
compliance officer, Region 10, Anchorage Area Office.

		MR. RASNAKE:  Good morning.  Gary Rasnake, NAVSEA headquarters here in
D.C.  G-a-r-y R-a-s-n-a-k-e.

		MR. COMOLLI:  Good morning.  Paul Comolli from OSHA, Office of
Maritime Enforcement here in National, and that’s P-a-u-l,
C-o-m-o-l-l-i.

		MR. DOUCHET:  Good morning.  My name is David Doucet.  I am with OSHA
Region 6.  David, D-a-v-I-d, Doucet, D-o-u-c-e-t.  Thank you.

		MR. ZACHARY:  Good morning.  My name is Acie Zachary.  My first name
is A-c-i-e, the last name Zachary, Z-a-c-h-a-r-y.  Also with OSHA.

		MR. DE ANGELIS:  Good morning.  I'm Richard De Angelis with OSHA's
Office of Communications.  That’s R-i-c-h-a-r-d, D-e, space,
A-n-g-e-l-i-s.

		MS. WATSON:  Danielle Watson with OSHA.  D-a-n-i-e-l-l-e, W-a-t-s-o-n.

		MR. PERRY:  Good morning.  I am Bill Perry, director of standards and
guidance at OSHA, also spelled B-i-l-l, P-e-r-r-y.

		MR. ROSSI:  I'm in witness protection, so I'm going to pass.  Paul
Rossi, P-a-u-l, R-o-s-s-i, with OSHA Office of Maritime Enforcement.

		MR. KING:  John King, J-o-h-n, K-i-n-g, Office of Maritime
Enforcement, OSHA.

		MR. Michael PODUE:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee members.  My
name is Michael Podue, M-I-c-h-a-e-l, P-o-d-u-e, and I am with the
International Longshoreman's and Warehouse Union.

		MR. THORNTON:  You're not related to that guy over there.

		MR. Michael PODUE:  Maybe a little.

		MR. THORNTON:  Is that it?  Did we get everybody.  Okay.

REVIEW OF MINUTES FROM THE MACOSH MEETING IN WASHINGTON, DC, April 16,
2014

		Then, next order of business, I want you to pull out of your packet
the minutes of Wednesday, April 16th.

		Now, these took us a little bit of time to get these together.  So,
I'd like each of you to take just a moment and just -- we're going to
allow a little bit of time for you to flip through these.

		I've looked at them myself and, you know, I reviewed them with staff,
and I have approved them administratively.  However, if there is
something in error, we'll go back and fix it if there are corrections to
be made.

		So, please take a moment and I'm going to just pause.  I don't know
that I'm going off the record, but I'm just going to pause here for a
couple of minutes and let you peruse these minutes.  If anyone is
uncomfortable with that, let me know.

		Otherwise, when someone feels the spirit, I will also entertain a
motion.

		(Participants examining document.)

		MS. GILSON:  Mr. Chairman, I would move that the minutes of the April
16th meeting be accepted as written.

		MR. THORNTON:  I have a motion to accept the minutes of April 16th as
written.  Do I have a second?

		MR. JOHNSON:  I second.

		MR. THORNTON:  I've got a second.  Any adjustments, corrections,
additions, deletions, or discussion of the minutes?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Hearing none, I'm going to call the question.  All in
favor of the approval of the minutes of April 16th, please signify by
saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Any opposed, like sign.

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.  The motion is carried.

		MS. LEVIN:  The minutes from the April 16, 2014, MACOSH meeting will
be marked and entered into the record, OSHA Docket No. 20130007, Exhibit
14.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		The other thing -- let me make two other administrative comments.
We'll do better on the minutes, getting those out.  I feel
uncomfortable, you know, asking you to review the document here, but it
just had to be this way.

		But we will make adjustments and we'll get them out in advance and
give you plenty of time to take a look at them.  So, apologize for that.

		The other thing I want to talk about just briefly is the next meeting.
 The budget situation is a bit unclear at this time.

		Now, it is our hope that we will have another full committee meeting
before the end of the year.  So, we're working on that.

		We need to get the budget situation to be clear just a little bit
more, but it is our desire and hope to do that.

		In the meantime, however, I do want to encourage you to continue with
your monthly calls and working on the products and services that you've
been working on.  So, just, you know, hold tight.  We'll get that nailed
down as quickly as possible.

		We know you're busy people and you have schedules.  So, just hold
tight, and we're working on it.

AGENDA

		MR. THORNTON:  Now, if you'll pull out your agenda, I'd like to walk
through that.  We did have one person with a conflict, so we've had to
adjust the agenda based on, you know, some scheduling conflicts there.

		So, as soon as we sort of finish up these administrative matters, Ken
Smith is going to give us an update on some of the U.S. Coast Guard
activities, and around that time, we'll take a brief break, morning
break.

		Following that, David Doucet is going to give us a CSHO update on
activities that are happening in Region 6, and Dave, perhaps we can get
you queued up during the break and all that stuff, and avoid any
downtime there.

		Now, fortunately, we're very pleased that Dr. Michaels will be joining
us briefly around 11:00.  So, Dave, we want you to kind of gear up to be
finished somewhere in there, and if for some reason Dr. Michaels gets
here early, we may want to pause.

		We're just going to have to play that by ear, but apparently Dr.
Michaels was due to be out of the country but is in town, so he would
like to address the committee briefly, give or take, around 11:00
o'clock, and we'll just play that by ear.

		I want to take a little bit of an earlier lunch today.  You see that
lunch is scheduled from 11:30 to 12:30, and that’s to accommodate some
of our speakers' schedules.

		So, at 12:30, we'll have an overview of the whistleblower protection
program, Laura Seeman and Robert Swick, from the Directorate of
Whistleblower Protection Programs.

		So, they're going to give us an update on what is happening there, and
then we'll move into kind of the -- you know, the meat of the program,
and that’s where we'll have our Longshoring Workgroup and Shipyard
Workgroup report-outs, and we'll start that with Kelly about --
somewhere in the 1:00 o'clock range and then followed immediately by Don
and the Shipyard Workgroup breakouts, and on those areas, the committee
chair will present what the committee's been working on.

		If there are matters that need full committee approval and motions to
be -- accompanying motions, they will be presented at that time, and
then we'll take that business on, and then it is possible, even likely,
that we'll break a little bit earlier today, given our adjustment in the
schedule.

		So, let me ask, any questions on the agenda?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.  All right then.

		Ken, just for the public -- most of them know you -- give a couple of
sentences about yourself.  Everybody knows you're the Coast Guard guy,
but maybe a little more.

UPDATE ON US COAST GUARD ACTIVITIES

		MR. SMITH:  My name is Ken Smith.  I work in the Office of Vessel and
Facility Operating Standards at Coast Guard headquarters, which is under
the Commercial Regulations and Standards Directorate.

		I served 22 years in the Coast Guard, retired in 2004, spent most of
my time in the marine safety field doing marine inspections on
commercial ships.

		I was stationed in Honolulu, Norfolk area, spent some time with the
Coast Guard Marine Safety Center as a branch chief for the machinery
division.  			My work at Coast Guard headquarters involves developing
Federal regulations and policies related to the commercial maritime
industry.

		I also am a member of the delegation that goes over to IMO to work on
container-related issues.

		It's now called the Carriage of Cargoes and Containers, CCC, used to
be Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes, and Containers.

		That’s pretty much about it.

		I started working as a civilian with the Coast Guard shortly after
retirement in 2004, and so, I've been working in my current position for
about 10 years.

		Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good morning, and good morning, members of
the committee and general public.

		I'm just going to give a presentation today about some of the work
that we're doing in the Coast Guard, mostly what's been related to the
interests of this committee.

		I'm not going to get into the details of other topics that we're
working on, but I've focused this presentation on those things that I
thought were most relevant to this group.

		So, the Federal Government puts out what they call a regulatory agenda
twice a year, once in the spring and then in the fall, and it outlines
the current regulatory projects that the agencies are working on, not
just the Coast Guard but every Federal agency, and whatever work that
they're working on.

		Our current agenda for the spring had 55 different rulemaking projects
on it, and we're working on -- in some form, either a proposed rule, a
notice of proposed rule, or a final rule, and so, I've focused on four
areas that I felt were relevant to this group of individuals based on
their backgrounds.

		We have a rulemaking project that has not been published yet,
regarding seafarers' access at marine terminals, which is intending to
allow for the terminal operators to make sure that seafarers have access
outside of that facility, and so, that project is just getting started.

		It's not been published yet, so the only thing that the public really
has to look at is the regulatory notice and the agenda, but it will be
published at a later time.

		MR. THORNTON:  Could I ask a question?

		MR. SMITH:  Yes, sir.

		MR. THORNTON:  What's a seafarer?  What do you consider a seafarer in
this context?

		MR. SMITH:  People that go to sea.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.  All right.

		MR. SMITH:  Merchant mariners that work on the sea.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.

		MR. SMITH:  This is another one.  This has been published as an NPRM,
so the industry is aware of it.  It's the TWIC -- Transportation Worker
Identification Credential, card reader requirements.  There's been a lot
of controversy over this rule.  So, it's been a little slow in coming to
finalization.

		It was first published in March of 2013 as an NPRM.

		So, what happens after agencies publish a rule, they accept comments.
Those comments are reviewed.

		The rules are changed and modified, and then a slew of economists and
legal staff look over these documents to make sure of how they are going
to be impacting the industry.

		This one here, I added because I know that OSHA's requirements refer
to personal flotation devices as Type I, Type II, and Type III, Type IV.
 The Coast Guard is moving away from that system.

		So, we first published this rule in 2013, in August, and I think
they're pretty close to putting out something on this rule.  It's going
to move to a different internationally accepted system.  Here in the
U.S. we've always gone by the different types of PFDs. We're going to
move to a different system for labeling.

		Cargo securing on vessels operating in U.S. waters.  This is a
rulemaking that I'm personally involved with.

		We've had requirements from the international community since 1997 to
require that cargo securing manuals be on every U.S. ship that -- every
ship that’s subject to SOLAS that’s over 500 gross tons.

		We put out a policy document back in 1997 to kind of bridge that gap,
but we were never able to finalize it.  We're just getting around to it
now.

		I think many of our projects were put on hold after September 11th,
and we've changed our focus.  A lot of the things that we were working
on at the time got put on hold, and now we're just kind of crawling
around to get out of that hole that we were in.

		So, this will incorporate what's already been in use within the
maritime community.  It will just formalize it into Federal regulations.

		So, a little bit about IMO activity and what's coming up here.

		Like I said, the new committee name is Carriage of Cargoes and
Containers.  Last year, the IMO underwent a reorganization, and they
joined several committees together, and what used to be the DSC
subcommittee had merged with the Bulk Liquids and Gases Subcommittee to
form this new committee.

		The first session of this group will be meeting next month, in
September.  I will be attending, and I'll be also chairing a working
group for container safety.

		We will hold a public meeting -- they call it a ship coordinating
committee meeting -- August 27th.  That will be next week.  It will be
at the DOT headquarters.  It's open to the public if anybody wants to
attend.

		Some of the agenda items that we're going to be looking at coming up
in September that I feel were related to our work with the subcommittee
-- there's revised guidelines for the packing of cargo transport units.

		Cargo transport units are basically containers.  These guidelines have
been around a long time, but they're being updated and revised.  The
group that actually developed the guidelines was kind of a tri-part
group of individuals.  It involved people from the International
Maritime Organization, the International Labor Organization, and the
U.N. ECE.

		So, over the course of time, they’ve developed that document, and
it's now being -- it's nearing finalization.  Some finalized work will
be done at IMO.  Some countries have suggested some changes that will be
reviewed at that time.

		Implementation of a global ACEP database.  ACEP stands for Approved
Continuous Examination Program, and the guys that work around containers
know that -- they see that quite a bit, on just about every container
that they handle.

		It's a process whereby these containers, rather than having to be
pulled out of service after 30 months at a time, they continually get
inspected in a program that allows them to remain in service and then to
get a visual exam and a good exam whenever they're capable of doing it.

		So, what has happened is that finding out the identification of who a
ACEP belongs to has been kind of difficult and troublesome for folks
that are working in the industry, especially port workers that might
find a container that might have damage to it and they want to try and
get in touch with the persons that are responsible for the container.

		Well, this database will allow every nation to globally access the
database free of charge to obtain information related to a flag
administration's approval of a ACEP-approved program.

		A proposal has been submitted, also, regarding the guidelines for
withdrawal of approval for containers.  This relates to the actual
designs of containers.

		In the United States, we have what we call delegated approval
authorities, and these are authorities that review container designs,
and they also review prototype -- they do prototype testing of the
containers.

		So, after they’ve given the approval, the questions have been raised
about what's the process if we find a container that does not meet its
-- or has some design defect after the fact, and so, the goal of this
group will be to review those -- some guidelines on procedures that can
be followed by everyone.  It's kind of like standardizing within the
international community a process for withdrawing an approval.

		An update on the report concerning counterfeit refrigerants.  I think
folks may have remembered, a couple years back, not long ago, really,
that there were some deaths attributed to working with the refrigerants
on certain containers.

		I know out on the west coast and east coast, it became quite a
concern, and so, IMO had looked at some of the root causes, you know,
tried to identify ways to prevent that from happening again, and this
report relates to that, and it's not been finalized, but it's still in
the works.

		MR. PODUE:  Tim Podue, ILW.

		It's still a bit of an issue.  We test cans, occasionally hear when
there are questionable cans that come up on the west coast -- they found
a can in May in Tacoma that had some bad refrigerant in it, actually had
the potential to explode.

		It was at a high level, over 50 percent of contaminated gas.

		So, if and when this report comes out, how is that going to affect us?
 Are we going to -- is that going to affect us in any way?

		MR. SMITH:  I don’t think it will affect you. I can't really say for
sure what the report's going to have in it.  I don't remember exactly
what the details were.  I know the IICL -- are you familiar with IICL at
all?

		MR. PODUE:  No.

		MR. SMITH:  The International Containers Leasers Association?

		MR. PODUE:  No.

		MR. SMITH:  But they are the ones that are basically working to get
this report out.  It should have recommendations on what things may be
done in order to help prevent, you know, contaminated refrigerant from
getting into the system.

		I think, pretty much, one of the things that came out of the review
that was done on the -- initially, one of the recommendations was that,
when you purchase refrigerant at a marine terminal, you need to make
sure that what you're getting is actually a quality product, so that
should come with some certificates from the manufacturer indicating, you
know, what it was -- utilizing quality sources to get your refrigerant
would help.

		MR. PODUE:  Are they recommending any type of testing still or --
cause the problem hasn’t gone away. I mean, in time, maybe it will get
cleaned up, but I don't know if anybody's watching anymore, really
looking outside of us, because there hasn’t been any deaths attributed
to it lately.

		MR. SMITH:  I don't know.  I mean, the source of the problem stemmed
from -- you know, there were some bad contaminated refrigerant found in
Vietnam.

		So, any of the ships that were working that area that could have
potentially had a container on them that had been serviced were at risk,
and the guys in these different ports on each coast were setting those
boxes aside for special care.

		I think that the refrigerant manufacturers obviously played a big
role.  They're worried about their product, and they must have come up
with ways to ensure that, you know, what they're providing the industry
is a quality product, and the servicing personnel that actually do the
servicing -- I think they were given additional steps to take, testing
procedures to do, to verify the quality of that refrigerant.  	So, I
think those things are still in place.

		MR. THORNTON:  I just had one question, a follow-on question.  I guess
if you're purchasing these refrigerants in the U.S. and I guess the
purchaser should or could request a safety data sheet?

		MR. SMITH:  Yeah.

		MR. THORNTON:  Overseas, is there no -- is there no requirement for --
certain countries -- how does it work overseas?

		MR. SMITH:  That’s a good question, Jim.  I really don’t know the
answer.  I believe that, you know, internationally, things try to
harmonize with the international codes.  So, I think, you know, that
refrigerant would be following a certain code.

		I mean, I can't really speak for, you know, Korea, Vietnam, and that,
but in northern Europe and Europe, it's always been accepted.  Data
sheets such as that are readily available.

		So, I think it’s incumbent on the purchaser to make sure that the
product that they're getting comes along with documents that they can
use to verify what it is they’ve purchased.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.  Thank you.

		MR. SMITH:  A proposal has been made to require containers to be
tracked if lost.  I'm not really sure of the exact number.

		This ties into the next one after that, the updated number of
containers lost at sea, and annually, containers are lost, but there's
been no real way of tracking lost containers.  Nobody's been recording
them.  Nobody's been reporting them.

		So, that causes a little bit of concern, and some folks -- I think
it's mainly France and Spain that have submitted a paper to look at the
ways that containers can be tracked if they're lost.

		I think this has actually been proposed a few times in the past,
namely with hazardous -- containers that carry hazardous materials so
that they would be able to track those and identify them and be able to
pull them out whenever needed.

		This was brought up before.  It didn't get a lot of traction.  It
didn't get a lot of support.  It's obviously a cost -- there's a cost
associated with that, and so, I'm not real sure where that’s going to
go, but the idea has been proposed.

		With regards to the numbers of containers lost at sea, the World
Shipping Council did a survey of their member companies, and I think
they said they had something like an 80-percent return on surveys that
they had asked for, and so, the numbers of containers lost at sea -- and
I meant to look this up and give you an accurate number, but I think it
was somewhere in the range of 300 to 500 containers lost annually, and
the number kind of goes up if a large container ship is lost.

		There was a vessel called the MOL Comfort that suffered a severe crack
in its hull in the Indian Ocean and sank with the whole total load of
containers. So, one catastrophic incident could kind of skew the numbers
of what they consider containers lost annually.

		I can provide that number at a later date, or just to the committee
members, but the number was significantly lower than what had been
estimated in the past.

		MR. THORNTON:  I was just curious, if it's not a catastrophic loss
where a ship goes down but you lose, you know, a couple or four
containers off a vessel -- this will demonstrate my ignorance, and I'm
okay with that, but do they go to Davy Jones' locker or do they float
somewhere that -- you know, the Bermuda Triangle or something?

		MR. SMITH:  They do both.  They really do.  And that’s a problem.

		The Coast Guard here in the U.S. -- we've got a rulemaking on a cargo
security manual, the rule that I spoke of.  Also, attached to that is a
new requirement that all containers lost at sea be reported to us, not
just cargo -- not just those handling hazardous materials but any cargo
that goes over the side should be reported, because we want to know
where it is, when it was lost, what it contained, and what might have
been the factors involved in losing it.

		You know, were defective devices holding it down a problem?

		So, we're also working through the international community to try and
-- and I can see that, out of the requirement that -- out of the
proposal to track lost containers, I think the one thing that may come
out of it will be a better reporting scheme for all vessels to report
their losses, which is not being done now.

		That would also lead to a better count of the number of containers
lost.

		Again, we formed up this working subcommittee with the Bulk Liquids
and Gases Subcommittee, and one of the items that they are working on
that I'm going to bring to your attention is a code for gas fueled
ships.

		So, with that idea in mind, I think it's important to let everybody
here know that LNG-fueled vessels are coming to the United States ports.

		What you see here is an illustration by a company called I.M. Skaugen
who deals in maritime transportation service.  	They provide LNG and
LPG.  They own several -- a fleet of tankers, and this was taken from a
report that they did looking at small-scale LNG operations.

		So, you basically have a port here, you've got a container ship out at
sea with an LNG vessel pulling up to give it gas.

		You've got a ferry over here, a fast ferry, with a tank truck
delivering LNG to it.

		You've got a shore-based LNG facility there with pipelines leading out
to provide LNG to fuel a vessel.

		So, LNG-fueled vessels are coming to U.S. ports.  It's something we've
been looking at now for about three years.

		The types of vessels that we're currently look at and one that I know
will be of interest to you would be the LNG-fueled container ships.

		TOTE right now is building the first of what would be two brand-new
dual-fueled vessels in San Diego, and they’re really working to get
those vessels up and running and start using LNG fuel.

		So, they're going to be working these container operations at the same
time they may be conducting LNG-fueled operations.

		LNG fueling is a lot different than traditional marine fueling.  So,
we know the industry is going to have to -- has a need to do
simultaneous operations, which means fueling while they're conducting
cargo operations.

		So, we're going to have to take a close look at that.  We're going to
require the industry to take a close look at that, and those that are
proposing those things to look hard at the risks involved and identify
ways of mitigating that risk.

		MR. THORNTON:  The driver toward LNG -- is it purely economics or is
it environmental, you know, cleaner fuel?  I mean, what's the driver
here?

		MR. SMITH:  It's a good question.  In a couple of slides, I'm going to
reveal that.

		So, we've got the container ships.  We've got offshore supplied
vessels.

		That Harvey Gulf LNG-fueled vessel right there will be actually coming
-- it's been built.  It's kind of going through final touches at the
dock right now.

		They'll be doing what they call their first cool-down coming up here
later in the year, and they're going to be the first LNG-fueled U.S.
vessel here in the United States.

		The ferry systems, Washington State ferries, and also the New York
Staten Island ferries, are looking at retrofitting and eventually
converting their ferries to run off of LNG.

		There's several other vessels that I don’t have here, but we're
looking at all different kinds of designs.

		So, areas where we see the most interest, up in the northwest, in
California, LA/LB area, mid-Atlantic, the New York/New Jersey area, Gulf
of Mexico, offshore supply vessels in southeast Jacksonville.

		We're looking at runs from Jacksonville to Puerto Rico and other
places, all up on the Great Lakes.

		We're looking at LNG operations for some of the ships up there.

		So, this is the current activity, areas of interest where LNG fuel is
being looked at.

		Different supply options that are considered -- you have shore to
ship, basic hard pipe connections from storage tanks onshore to a
manifold onshore, and then tank truck to ship for smaller operations,
and then ship to ship, like a tank barge mooring up to the side of a
vessel.

		So, here are the driving factors.  Obviously, there's been an
abundance of shale gas that’s been -- that’s being harvested right
now or being used to increase the amount of natural gas we have
available.

		Sulfur limits -- there's been what they call emission control areas
set in the United States and elsewhere which requires that the shipping
industry bring -- use lower-sulfur-based fuels, and so, with the
increase in natural gas here in the U.S., higher costs of obtaining
diesel fuel with lower sulfur limits, the industry has been really
studying the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of changing their
operations.

		The alternative to burning a cleaner fuel would be adding scrubbers to
their exhaust systems, and that’s been somewhat troublesome for them
and not as cost-effective as LNG fuels.

		A problem here in the U.S. is that our current regulations don’t
address LNG use as a marine fuel or the transfer operations associated
with that.  		We do have regulations for cargo ships and vessels that
carry LNG in large quantities, but we don’t have regulations for
LNG-fueled vessels.

		The other regulations that we do have, they're for shore-side and
waterfront facilities that import and export LNG, but again, those are
pretty large-scale types of operation in comparison to the smaller types
of operations we'd be dealing with LNG marine fuels.

		A typical LNG cargo ship is about 265,000 cubic meters of LNG, which
is a large quantity, in comparison with, say, a 3,000-cubic-meter barge
that is, you know, being proposed.

		So, the quantities are much different.  In the past, where we've tried
to bring in LNG terminals, some areas we found, you know, great
resistance, up in Boston area or New England area or in California.
Folks really focused on these large LNG ships and really didn't want
them in their backyard.

		I don’t think we're going to find that same problem with the smaller
operations.  The thing is it's very environmentally friendly, so
that’s kind of where that sits.

		So, because we don’t have any regulations, what our agency does is
we issue guiding policy.

		So, we developed policy letters.  We released them in February this
year by way of a Federal Register notice.  We received 26 letters
comprised of about 150 different comments.

		We are going over those comments and incorporating them into our
policy letters.

		Our policy letters are based on the existing regulations applicable to
LNG cargo operations, whether it's from a shore facility or from a ship,
and we're scaling them down to fit the needs for this smaller-scale
industry.

		We align our work with leading international organizations.

		Obviously, LNG fuel is not something that we have a lot of experience
with, so we look to the professionals in the industry, the organizations
that have been working with LNG, and we look to adopt that information
into our regulations.

		Then, finally, each port has authority to enforce things in their
zone.  Whenever they feel something is unsafe, they can prevent it from
happening.

		So, that authority still remains in the event that somebody wanted to
try to do something with the LNG and the Coast Guard has the authority
to stop it.

		So, that’s a short-term solution.

		Our long-term solution is going to be to issue regulations to close
the gaps that currently exist.  We're in the process of initiating a
rulemaking project.

		We are actively developing the regulations even though the rulemaking
project hasn’t been initiated.  We know the areas of regulations that
we need to change, and we're going to work to incorporate the standards
that were developed by industry.

		I just recently learned about this blog.  It's called Coast Guard
Maritime Commons, and if you go on the internet and just type in Coast
Guard Maritime Commons, you'll get to this web page.  It basically is a
location where Coast Guard publishes information about things that are
going on, regulations that are being put forward, policy letters that
have been developed, information bulletins, safety alerts, all kinds of
different things.

		It's a nice place to go.  You can subscribe to the newsletter and
daily you'll get headlines on what the Coast Guard published that day
with regards to their rules and policies.

		So, I think that’s about it, and I'll entertain any questions.

		MR. THORNTON:  Any questions?  Don.

		MR. RAFFO:  Ken, I've got a couple of questions.  One goes back to
your slide on the TWIC card and moving towards readers.

		Through my, I guess, association with the Marine Chemists Association,
we've gotten some reports -- you know, we frequently do inspections on
both Navy and Coast Guard vessels, and some facilities have both Navy
and Coast Guard vessels, and we've been using our TWIC card, typically,
to access especially Coast Guard vessels, even if it's on a Navy base,
and I've got a few reports -- and I'm not going to tell you they're
verified or accurate, but the general reports were the Navy is starting
to balk at using -- allowing individuals in with a TWIC card on Coast
Guard vessels. Have you heard anything about that?

		MR. SMITH:  No.

		MR. RAFFO:  Okay.

		MR. SMITH:  But I can ask.  You know, I could take it back and see.

		MR. RAFFO:  I just was wondering.  I know, like down in Key West, one
individual had a TWIC card and was denied access to a combined base.
They would not accept the TWIC card anymore.

		So, I just was wondering if you'd heard anything.

		MR. SMITH:  I don't know.  I heard that there were some problems with
TWIC readers, you know, the readers weren’t working and all kinds of
things, so I'm not real sure exactly what's going on with the TWIC
rulemaking and if there are any problems, but I certainly get back to
you, Don.

		MR. GARBER:  If I could comment on that just briefly, we had the same
experience in Seattle where the Coast Guard base itself would not accept
the TWIC card coming onboard the Coast Guard base, and it turned out
that the reason was the vendor that they contracted with to provide
security at that facility was a Department of Defense contractor, and
the Department of Defense didn't recognize the TWIC card.

		So, I don't know if that’s been changed or not.

		MR. THORNTON:  I don’t know much about this, but there was an
incident at the Naval base in Norfolk where a person -- I'm thinking
there was a issue of the TWIC card and he sort of -- he was legitimate,
but he went in there and there was a shooting and that sort of thing.

		So, I don't know if that’s the cause of some of this scrutiny of the
TWIC.  I have no idea.

		MR. RAFFO:  I've got one more follow-on.

		To move on to LNG, the chemists at our annual seminar a couple months
ago focused on LNG, and I know the Coast Guard, ABS, DNV are all working
on developing codes and standards for ship construction with LNG as
fuel, and it seems to be the big thing coming.

		Has the Coast Guard sort of looked even further on down the line to
issues of repair and overhaul?  You know, obviously, chemists are called
in quite often on these situations, and we're trying to get, I'll say,
our knowledge base up on these.

		You know, we've had presentations on tank construction, how the fuel
is held, and you know, pressurized, non-pressurized, venting, you know,
fueling, things like that, and conducting hot work and repairs in the
vicinity.

		You know, I know the Coast Guard has regulations now for repairs on
gas or diesel-fueled ships.  Have they been looking that far forward?

		MR. SMITH:  Well, we definitely will include in our rules and
policies, you know, limitations on hot work.

		What we're basically going to do is -- we've already got a bunch of
rules and regulations on hot work, you know, mostly looking towards NFPA
306 and, you know, that standard there.

		So, we definitely will have limitations and restrictions on hot work,
but it will mirror, I think, right now, it will mirror what's already
existing.

		I think the NFPA 306 technical committee is maybe going to work on
changing some of the --

		MR. RAFFO:  Yeah, I'm actually on that committee.

		MR. SMITH:  -- guidance for training of --

		MR. RAFFO:  Right now, there's special training, and it's a little --
we got caught in a Catch-22, because if you have a special endorsement,
you can do hot work on a ship carrying LNG as cargo, but right now,
almost any chemist can do a inspection on a ship with LNG as fuel, but
if you have a bunker barge fueling it, they can't do it on the bunker
barge. So, we're trying to sort through those issues and come up with a
common ground with all the chemists.

		So, we are looking at it.  We are working on it.  It's a work in
progress.

		MR. THORNTON:  I had one question.  I appreciate you bringing us this
emergent issue.  So, I guess my question is, do you -- and I guess I'm
asking the committee, but do you see any -- that this committee ought to
do something?

		Is there something that we should pursue?  Did you talk about it in
your workgroup?

		MR. SMITH:  My reason for introducing it to everyone is the fact that
marine fuel is going to be coming to the ports, which means that the
port workers and the ports are going to be introduced to a new fuel,
with new properties, with new things that they need to be aware of.

		LNG is transported at a cryogenic temperature.  It's very cold.  It
can be very damaging to steel structures.

		So, the idea that this new element is being added to the port
terminals, along with the idea that vessels are going to want to do
simultaneous operations places the port worker in a situation where they
need to be knowledgeable of what's going on around them.

		They need to know -- you know, terminal operators should -- if they're
going to allow LNG fueling operations to take place, terminal operations
manuals need to be modified to account for all that.

		So, that’s my reason for introducing it.

		I mean, we're still years away from the TOTE vessel -- the biggest
vessel that would be really of the most concern -- we're still years
away from that reality, but it's coming, and the cruise ship operations
-- Carnival Cruises has introduced some ideas of, you know, running off
of alternative LNG fuel.

		So, there's another situation where passenger operations are going to
be taking place at the time the fueling operation is taking place, or
baggage handling -- we talked about that in our working group.

		So, you've got all these things that are going on, and I think it's
important for the industry to be aware that it's coming.

		MR. THORNTON:  We've got some pretty good experts in here that are --
including yourself, Don, and others -- that are monitoring this.

		So, if, at some point, you see some need or value for, you know, the
committee to take some form of action or even if it's information, I'd
just, you know, ask you guys to think about that and act accordingly
whenever you feel it's appropriate to do so.

		Robert.

		MR. GODINEZ:  I just wanted to make a point. The TOTE ship will be
fully operational in 10 months.  This is an LNG ship, and it's going to
be out in 10 months.

		MR. SMITH:  The TOTE ship?

		MR. GODINEZ:  Yes.

		MR. SMITH:  Out of the shipyard?

		MR. GODINEZ:  Yep.

		MR. THORNTON:  All right.  Other questions for Ken?  Yes, Dan.

		MR. HARRISON:  Real briefly, you talked about the TWIC card.  I really
think we need to do something for the recognition of those TWIC cards as
far as, like you say, interagency usages.

		If there's a necessary requirement if you have a TWIC and like a
driver's license, you can access military facilities.  That would be a
huge improvement for us, because most places I go with my TWIC card,
they look at me like I don’t know what I'm doing, you know, they never
heard of this before.

		I mean, there was a certain amount of information collected on me to
be able to get that card.  So, it would make it easier for me as a
citizen to access airports or access military facilities -- they're all
over the area in Hampton Roads.

		So, if anything could be done in that arena, I sure would like to
suggest you consider it in your committees.

		One other question, too, is the LNG tankers. You have pretty good
regulations in those already, don’t you, because I think we built
several of them over at Newport News Marine Terminal --

		MR. SMITH:  Yes, you did.

		MR. HARRISON:  -- Newport News Shipbuilding.

		MR. SMITH:  Right.  Satellite class or Constellation class or
something, Gemini and Leo.  We have fairly good regulations for the
large tank ships, but they don’t really address the smaller types of
vessels that we're looking at now with fueling operations.

		MR. HARRISON:  But is there really that much potential for a
catastrophic explosion with LNG?

		MR. SMITH:  LNG really doesn’t explode unless it's in a confined
space, unlike LPG, which is a different sort of fuel, LNG, unless it's
confined, it won't burn or won't explode, but it will mostly burn back
to the source if it's spilled and there's an ignition.

		So, it's a little bit different, but the quantities are much smaller,
so -- but nonetheless, you know, we still need to take a look at, if an
incident did occur, what is going to be the impact and what are the
procedures for mitigating it or responding to an incident wherever it
may occur.

		MR. HARRISON:  Thank you.

		MR. THORNTON:  My limited knowledge of this -- I've talked to some
folks about it -- is that, you know, relative to classic hydrocarbon
fuels, LNG, you know -- there's a risk to everything, but it's -- I
guess -- it's not the terrible risk that the perception is out there.
It's a little less than that.

		Any other questions of the committee?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you, Ken.

		Let me ask, before I do that, anybody from the public, if you have a
question, raise your hand, so I know -- yes, Paul.

		I have two questions, so Paul, you're going to have to come over here
so we can hear you, and John, you come on up.  You all come on up here
and let's get you on the record.

		MR. ROSSI:  A quick question, Ken.  Paul Rossi from OSHA.

		MR. SMITH:  Yes, sir.

		MR. ROSSI:  What kind of delivery system will be used in the marine
terminal to refuel LNG?  A tanker or a pipeline or a barge?  Do we know?

		MR. SMITH:  Well, all those options are available.  So, we really
don’t specify any one or the other.  We pretty much leave it up to the
terminal operators or the owners to decide which is their best way of
delivering.

		So, all those three items that I showed you are three different ways
that they could be transferred.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		MR. VOS:  John Vos from OSHA.  My question, I guess, is rupturing or
puncturing of the tanks in the confined space of the vessel.  Is that
referred to -- there could be a catastrophic event, that type of
accident, or is it designed where it will just vent off?

		MR. SMITH:  There's different types of designs that are being looked
at.

		There's a design where they have pipe in a pipe type of a arrangement
so if there was a -- you know, it's very difficult, in the location
where these tanks are being placed, for the most part, to have a
catastrophic incident like that occur.

		There's also other safety features like emergency shutdown, gas
detection systems, and other things that are all taken into
consideration.

		So, you're not looking at a single-skin tank, really; you're looking
at a tank that’s got multiple layers.  It's inerted.  There's a lot of
properties that are looked at before -- in the design of that whole
thing, but there's different ways that they can design the LNG tanks.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		Any other questions of Ken from the committee or the public?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Thanks, Ken.  That was a great report.

		Jennifer.

		MS. LEVIN:  At this time, I'll mark and move into the record as
Exhibit 15 the Coast Guard presentation from Ken Smith.

		MR. THORNTON:  All right.  So, here's what we're going to do.

		When that big hand gets on six, I want to start, because I want to
make sure we give Dave plenty of time for his presentation.

		So, Dr. Michaels may be here right at 11:00, could be a little more,
little less, but Dave, if you could get queued up in the 10 minutes --
so, we're going to start when the big hand gets on six, please.  All
right?  Thank you.

		(Break.)

		MR. THORNTON:  All right.  Let's come to order, please.  We can start
now.  The DFO is present. Thank you for coming back, DFO.

		MS. WANGDAHL:  You're welcome.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.  So, here's what we're going to do.

		Dave Doucet is here from Region 6.  We've got a CSHO update.

		Dr. Michaels is going to come in, and we're going to see if he needs
to -- what kind of time schedule he's on, and if he -- if you're kind of
near the end and he has time, we'll just complete that, but if he's got
some commitment, with your permission, we'll just kind of interrupt that
and then come back.

		This is David Doucet.

		Do you want to introduce yourself, say a couple of words, and you have
the floor.

CSHO UPDATE

		MR. DOUCET:  First, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee and the public for allowing me to provide you with a short
presentation.

		My name is David Doucet.  I'm the OSHA area director in the Houston
North area office.

		So, first, I'd like everyone to think about the organization that you
work in, all right, and think about all the people that work there.

		Now ask yourself, am I a leader or am I just senior in the
organization?  The reason I ask that is because a leader -- they set the
environment.  They set the tone.

		They are the ones responsible for those working in that environment to
ensure that they can perform at their best.

		If you are senior in your organization, that doesn’t mean that you
are a leader, all right?

		There are plenty of people who are senior in the organization that
have authority and we do what they tell us to do because they have
authority over us, but we would never follow them.

		A leader is responsible for those to the left of them and those to the
right of them.  I'll give an example.

		There's no one in here, I think we can all agree, that would allow
either an immediate or a extended family member to work in an
environment that could cause them harm.  Do I have everyone's agreement
on that?

		So, then why is it that we allow others to work in that same
environment and to be exposed?

		If we can shut the lights and queue this video, please.

		Before you start it, this is two cranes, shipboard cranes, working in
tandem to lower this 305-metric-ton blowout preventer, which is the
white structure.

		Below the white structure, you see a red structure, you see a red
structure.  That is actually the stand.

		Once the BOP is lowered into the hold of that vessel, that stand will
be welded to the deck to secure it for transit purposes.

		(Video presentation.)

		MR. DOUCET:  The red structure is smaller than the BOP itself.

		So, when they're doing what they're doing there, they are underneath
the load.

		(Video presentation continues.)

		MR. DOUCET:  I'll give you just a brief snapshot and history of this
particular marine terminal, going back just to 2006.

		Number one, a crane operator on a shipboard pedestal crane dies when
the rotating superstructure, the bearings basically pulverize, and poor
condition.  Crane tips over, falls into the hold of the vessel.  The
operator dies.  That's number one.

		Number two, you have an employee that’s standing in the bite between
a shore-side load being lifted and the starboard side of the vessel.

		So, the load is picked, it swings, strikes the stevedore, crushes him
against the starboard side of the vessel, and the employee falls into
the water.

		Number three, they have a vehicle pulls into the terminal.  A checker
is walking around to observe, just to make sure that the particular
containerized cargo that they're bringing in is appropriate for this
terminal.

		While she's doing that, she's standing between the tractor and the
trailer, and then the driver decides to pull forward into the -- further
into the terminal, running over her, crushing her, and killing her.

		Number four, we have a security guy sitting on a folding chair next to
the rear quarter panel of his vehicle.  While he's sitting there, a
forklift operator drives by carrying 40-foot joints of pipe.

		As he turns his forklift, the end -- one end of the pipe strikes the
security guy in the chest, crushing him against his vehicle and killing
him.  That’s number four.

		Number five, they're picking up a hotshot truck, you know, a 4500,
5500 series vehicle, you know, cab, flatbed on the back.

		How they rig it, the four points of contact is the two tow hooks in
the front of the vehicles -- they attach to the two tow hooks in the
front and then attach the other two points of contact to the rear bumper
of the vehicle.

		They lift up the truck, they swing it onto the vessel.

		As they're lowering it down into the hold of the vessel, the bolts
that hold the tow hooks to the frame of the vehicle shear off, thus
losing those two points of contact.  The truck lunges forward and
downward and crushes a longshoreman and kills him.  That’s number
five.

		This was number six.  This employee right here lost his legs right
below the knees, and I didn't show the rest of it.  The rest of it is
kind of gory, but he bleeds out and he dies.

		So, that’s a eight-year period, just going back eight years,
eight-year period, six deaths at this terminal.

		So, I can tell you they have zero leadership in this terminal.  They
have plenty of people who are senior in the organization, but they have
zero leadership in this terminal.

		What I hear as an area director every week when I sit down with
employers, have informal conferences, and I'm dealing with companies of
this caliber, they tell me, what do you want me to do?  I tell these
people to be safe.  We provide them training.  We provide them a
training program.  They sign off on that.  	We have toolbox talks.

		These people are transient, you know, this is -- marine terminal
activity -- it's a dangerous activity.  They know what they're getting
into.

		But it's a -- you know, they just go from place to place, and you
know, they're never consistent in a job, right?

		So, I tell them, that’s not the problem.  The problem -- this is
just evidence of poor leadership and you're pervasive in your
organization.  That’s all it is, right?

		A successful safety and health management system is built on culture,
the environment, and communication.

		Now, you can take a good person, put them in a bad environment, and
they're capable of doing bad things.

		Then again you could take someone that society has given up on, right,
put them in a good environment, and they're capable of going on to do
phenomenal things.

		It's the leadership's role to take and ensure the employees in their
environment -- they grow, right? As these employees grow, they will, in
turn, help the organization grow.

		So, if the CEO of a company comes to you and says we've got to cut
your safety and health budget, right, things are tight, getting close to
the end of the year, we've got to make our numbers, a true leader would
stand up and say you're not touching my budget.  		This affects the
safety and health of my people, period.  	If you need your money, you
find your money somewhere else, but this is about safety and health.

		It's that willingness to put yourself in harm's way to protect and
take care of those in your care.

		So, who's ready to become a good leader, right?

		So, leadership is a skill.  It's a skill that must be practiced.

		Look at it like exercise, right?  You go out to the gym today and you
work out really, really hard, you come back, you know, you get home, you
look in the mirror, and you see nothing.

		So, tomorrow you go back to the gym and you work out really, really
hard, right?  You come back, you look in the mirror, and again, you see
nothing.  Even worse, you're in pain, right?

		But if you look at a photograph of yourself from three months earlier,
you won't believe that that’s what your body looked like before.

		So, the point of that is you cannot measure exercise nor can you
measure leadership in discrete daily packets, all right?

		Leadership is an investment, and over the course of time, it's easy to
see the results of that investment and that leadership, right, good
leadership.

		So, who's ready to go out there and lead with purpose, on purpose?
Any takers?  I am.

		Any questions?

		MR. HARRISON:  You're from the Gulf, right?

		MR. DOUCET:  I'm from the Gulf, yes, sir.

		MR. HARRISON:  Is this employer possibly a member of the West Gulf
Maritime Association?

		MR. DOUCET:  I'm not sure, to be honest with you.

		MR. HARRISON:  More than likely, they weren’t, because they have a
very strong safety program down there that all the employers who belong
to the association are assisted in their safety training programs, and I
don’t think you would see this with, say, a maritime member of the
association, West Gulf Maritime.

		MR. DOUCET:  In my jurisdiction, there's two OSHA offices, the Houston
North office and the Houston South office, and we basically split the
ship channel, and I've been in that office since 2007, and every time we
get a maritime call on a fatality, I cringe, because I'm waiting for
them to mention their name, and every time it's been their name, only.
That’s the only one we've done.

		MR. THORNTON:  Other questions of the committee?  Vanessa.

		MS. HOLLOWAY:  This is Vanessa Holloway.

		David, was this the accident where the plans changed to move this
superstructure several times, the employer changed the plans to --

		MR. DOUCET:  The actual rigging itself -- the lift plan was altered,
yes.

		MS. HOLLOWAY:  It was a multi-employer worksite?

		MR. DOUCET:  It is a multi-employer worksite, yes.

		MR. THORNTON:  Committee?  Ken Smith.

		MR. SMITH:  I'd like to make a comment.

		That was a great presentation, by the way, and I really appreciated
the way you spoke about leadership.

		MR. DOUCET:  Thank you.

		MR. SMITH:  A few years back, the Coast Guard and the -- what was then
the Minerals Management Service jointly got a little bit concerned on
several, you know, crane incidents that were occurring out in the --
within the industry, offshore industry, and so, what we did at that
point was to write -- both the leadership at Coast Guard and the
leadership at MMS got together.

		They signed a joint letter and said that we were -- they were greatly
concerned about the number of incidents that had been occurring and that
they wanted to know what they -- what the industry was going to do.
They sent it to three major industry organizations -- the American
Petroleum Institute, OGP, and Association of Drilling Contractors
International, I think, and so, that joint letter between the agencies
asked the industry what they were going to do, because we had the
ability to begin writing regulations to force them to do something, and
we said, you know, before we go take that route, we would like to know
what you can do to make things better, and they took that letter very
seriously, and those industry organizations took it upon themselves to
create a crane safety committee.

		They began looking at casualty accidents associated with cranes.  They
began working to revise the international standards that the industry
used.

		So, I'm kind of interested in knowing if anything like that could be
or if you think it would be a possibility or if it would be helpful to
try and get these types of incidents -- to get the industry to take it
upon themselves to be responsible for making changes.

		MR. DOUCET:  The compliance assistance specialist in my office is
working with certain terminals.  We're trying to get together and have
monthly safety committee meetings and -- sort of like OSHA's STEPS
program.  I'm not sure if you're familiar with that, but that’s in the
New Orleans gas upstream industry.

		You know, it's a group that gets together, shares what's happening in
the field, and -- you know, whether it's good or bad and to help people
so they don’t have to reinvent the wheel, right?

		So, we've been working with that, but for this particular company, I
mean, they would have to step up to the plate.

		So, you know, we can only do so much, right?

		So, hopefully they’ll get some leadership at some point in time.

		MR. THORNTON:  Jennifer.

		MS. LEVIN:  I'm assuming this is a closed inspection and there's no
litigation involving this incident?

		MR. DOUCET:  That would be an incorrect assumption.

		MS. LEVIN:  Okay.  I wanted to find out more about what the
enforcement response was to the incident, but if it's an open case, then
I won't ask.

		MR. DOUCET:  It's still open.

		MR. RONE:  Just one quick question.  This employer, you say, had been
there several times.  Are they in the STEP program?

		MR. DOUCET:  Yes, sir.

		MR. RONE:  Thank you.

		MR. Tim PODUE:  Was it a union shop?

		MR. DOUCET:  No, sir.

		MR. THORNTON:  Dan.

		MR. HARRISON:  Are you aware that the National Maritime Safety
Association works very closely with the port authorities and the
association groups up and down the coast?

		We have developed 11 different fatal facts videos we describe where it
gives scenarios of what has happened, and they address things like items
being suspended, overhead loads.  I'd be more than glad to provide you
or the -- any of the committee members here with a copy if you all would
like to have them, because we developed them and circulated them.

		We can pull them right off the internet, but they're excellent
training tools for the maritime industry.

		MR. DOUCET:  That would be great.  I'd love to get those.

		MR. HARRISON:  I'll get your card before you go.

		MR. THORNTON:  Other questions of the committee for David?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Public?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  I have one comment, something that I've been thinking
about these lines.

		This is constructive dialogue I want to have, and that is, you know,
as a -- I like to think of myself as a leader.  We're the largest OSHA
BPP site in the country, and our injury rates are low, and I'm not
chest-beating, but I guess my point in bringing this up is that I
appreciate what you're saying here.

		You know, I think, in the safety profession, we can know the
regulations.  We can cite, I mean, 1915.18(a)(ii).  I get that.  But I
think you're alluding to something greater than that.

		And so, you know, one of the things that I have been promoting is that
-- is there a place for the agency requiring leadership?  What do I mean
by that?

		The agency specifies ERISA ratios.  The agency specifies how high the
fire extinguisher must be suspended from the deck or availability of
eye-wash stations.

		But it has intrigued me that maybe a missed opportunity is somehow, in
figuring out how to do this, is to ensure that these programs are
administered and managed by safety leaders, different than safety
professionals or technicians, but I think there's -- you know, in
America, there's called push and pull, you know, and oftentimes, we, as
safety professionals, are frequently pushing, okay?

		We need to reverse that and get pull going where our services, our
leadership is being pulled instead of pushed.

		And so, one of the things I'm having some discussions with the
leadership about how possibly to -- don’t know how to do this yet,
okay, but how to get to the requirement, I want to call it, for
leadership in these programs, cause I think to move the needle in this
industry, in our industry or any industry, I think the long pole in the
tent is leadership.

		And to the extent that we can figure out how to make that available to
these small and medium-size yards who maybe don’t have sufficient
funding to a full-time person but collectively could get access to a
leader in safety, you know, we've got to figure out ways to create that
pull, and so, I realize I'm on the soapbox here, but I'm just -- I feel
compelled to figure out ways to create that pull for safety leadership
including working with the agency and the trade associations and whoever
it is, because I think -- I really appreciate your presentation.

		I think you hit the nail squarely on the head, and so, for me, it is
about leadership.  So, I want to thank you.

		Any other questions of David?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you very much, David, and certainly appreciate
your message.  It's a very good one.

		MR. DOUCET:  All right.  Thank you all.

		MS. LEVIN:  At this time, I'll mark and move into the record as
Exhibit 16 the video presentation from David Doucet, area director,
Region 6.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		Now, let me go off the record.

		(Break.)

		MR. THORNTON:  We have the special honor -- a great champion of health
and safety, Dr. David Michaels.  I understand he's got a crunchy
schedule.

		So, Dave, thank you for coming.  I understand you cancelled your China
trip to be with us.  Is there any truth in that?

BRIEF COMMENTS

		DR. MICHAELS:  That was one of the reasons I cancelled my trip to
China.  I'm pleased to be here to see you, to greet you, to thank you
for your work.  It's always a pleasure for me to come here.  This is
such a high-functioning committee.  The work that you've done, the
products that you've helped us produce are effective, extremely useful,
and we really are grateful for the time -- the unremunerated time all of
you put into this.

		I know we have a couple of new members -- Solomon Egbe, Kristine
Gilson.  I knew you were new members, but you're -- you've got that new
member label cause I guess we haven’t made our --

		MR. THORNTON:  Yeah, we're going to get them permanent labels, okay,
but they haven’t quite earned it yet.

		DR. MICHAELS:  Right.  Well, let us know at the end of the meeting.
And Jim, thank you for your tremendous work on this.  This is just a --
it's a great committee and you do important work.

		Given the opportunity to speak, I always try to, you know, push the
envelope a little bit here, and I want to raise with you something that
we've been talking with a bunch of our advisory committees and trying to
get some help on.  I know it's an issue that -- you've all been dealing
with issues of multi-employer workplaces for quite a long time, and
certainly, your industry understands this.  There are many different
employers in many of your situations and you have to coordinate across
them.

		I know you just saw a video that David Doucet showed you raising some
of those issues, and one issue that we are particularly concerned about
now because we see the growth is the use of temporary workers, and what
we're seeing -- and I think this is something we've seen in all parts of
the country at this point -- temporary workers sent into hazardous
situations where they haven’t been given adequate training or
understanding of what's going on, and you know, face unacceptable
hazards and pay for those hazards sometimes with their lives.

		We've seen a number of cases, what we are calling these first day
fatalities.  People are assigned to a job and they're killed on the
first day or in the first days of their job.

		One case that we had that has gotten a lot of press was a young man
named Lawrence Davis in Jacksonville, Florida, who had just -- he was a
Job Corps graduate, and you know, today is the 50th anniversary -- you
probably saw the posters -- the 50th anniversary of the Job Corps.

		A temporary agency -- he had never held a job, and an agency --
applied to an agency, and they sent him to the Bacardi bottling
operation in Jacksonville where they do something quite obvious, they
bottle products, and he was there essentially to help clean up, and he
was 21 years old, very excited to have this new job.

		He met his mother at Wal-Mart.  He bought the orange jacket and the
steel-tipped boots so he could go to work.  He got to work, sent, you
know, a selfie showing, you know, he had gotten there.  He was so proud.

		And you know, the supervisor gave him a broom and they pointed to the
pelletizer and said clean up the glass, the broken glass under the
pelletizer, and there's a big sign, and you've seen these signs, danger,
do not enter.

		He, I'm sure, had never heard the phrase "lock out tag out," and we
don’t know how it happened. There's a video, actually, which we
provided -- which we obtained, and now it's on some websites -- it was
released under Freedom of Information -- showing that he went there and
somehow it got turned on, and his first day ever working was his last
day on earth.  And we've seen too many cases like this.

		So, we are working with employers around the country to change that,
and we have an alliance with the American Staffing Association, which
represents many of the large staffing associations on this issue.

		We're about to issue what we'll call recommended practices, which
we've put together with NIOSH, with the help of a number of different
groups we work with and the American Staffing Association, saying this
is how -- if you're going to -- if you're a host employer, if you're
going to bring in temporary workers, here are some things you have to
do, and we're going to encourage coordination between the various
employers, and this is something you all know, sharing information about
injuries, about hazards, and this is something we'd like to see all
employers step up to the plate and do, because the American workplace is
changing, and there are more contractors and subcontractors and
temporary workers in every workplace now, and we have to look at things
very differently.

		I know you're going to help us get there, and so, it's just one more
thing to put on your plate, but we know all the other work that you're
doing is fabulous, and I know you're going to give us a number of
recommendations today and help us with some more materials, and again,
I'm here to thank you for doing that.

		So, I'll take some questions if you have any.

		MR. THORNTON:  First, questions of the committee for Dr. Michaels.

		DR. MICHAELS:  Give us your name before you say anything so we have it
on record.

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  The public?  Anyone got one back there, raise your
hand.

		MR. SHAW:  Hi, Dr. Michaels.  I'm Curtis Shaw from the Pacific
Maritime Association, and we got the word recently that there was going
to be an extension on the electronic reporting of injuries proposal that
OSHA was going through, and it was kicked all the way back to November,
and it had a couple of little things in there, and you know, it did ring
that it was getting kicked back so far, and I'm just curious as to what
happened with that given the response that came to the initial proposal.

		DR. MICHAELS:  That’s a great question.

		For those of you who don’t know, we proposed, sometime last year, a
change in our record keeping and reporting rules that certain employers
would actually send us their OSHA logs.

		Large employers would send more details.  That’s employers with more
than 250 employees.  Employers with between 20 and 250 employees would
send us their aggregate numbers.

		We held a public meeting, and one of the things we heard is that
publication of these numbers, public access to injury rates, may lead
some employers to threaten or otherwise retaliate against workers for
reporting injuries, and we certainly don’t want that to occur.

		So, we raised that question in -- we reopened our record keeping to
address that -- asked people for their help to address that question.
So, that was the point of the delay.

		Right now, the docket is open to address questions related to that
issue, and we'd love your input on that, but otherwise, we're still
working on it, and we hope to get that published soon.

		But the docket will be open until the middle of October, giving people
plenty of time to finish their August vacations, if they're doing that,
and then have, you know, still six weeks after that to write their
comments.

		So, that’s why we delayed it, but I'm glad you raised that, cause we
really would like your input.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		Committee or public?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you, Dave, for taking time out from a very busy
schedule.

		I pledge to you we are going to deliver good products and services and
make this industry safer, as we have.

		DR. MICHAELS:  As you have.  And again, my thanks to all of you.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you very much.

		(Applause.)

		MR. THORNTON:  All right.  So, it's 11:15.

		Here's what we're going to do.  We're going to break for lunch, but
we've got speakers coming in, lined up at 12:30 sharp, okay?  Sharp.
So, everybody got that?  That’s when the big hand goes around one time
and lands on the six.  Everybody got that.  All right.  Is there any --
I'm going to recess unless there is some business we need to take care
of.  For eating pleasure, dining pleasure, the cafeteria is upstairs.  I
guess they have good food.  There's some stairways up there.  Follow
Don.  He knows how to get up there.  So, we're going to go into recess
until 12:30.

		(Lunch.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Let's go back on the record, if everybody would kindly
come to order.  It's four minutes past the big hand being on the six.
So we need to move along here.

		So, we're pleased to have Rob Swick here from the Directorate of
Whistleblower Protection Programs.  He would have been joined by Laura
Seeman, but I understand she's under the weather with the flu bug or
some allergies or something like that, so -- but Robert is going to go
it alone, and I'm sure he's going to -- he's going to bear the burden.

		So, with that, let's go back -- did I say we're back on the record?
All right.  Thank you.

		And so, Robert, the floor is yours.

		Now, you'll be excited to know he has no Power Point.  I don't know
whether he lost or didn't have one, but that’s refreshing.  So, with
that, you have the floor, sir.

OVERVIEW OF OSHA'S WHISTLEBLOWR PROTECTION PROGRAM, ROBERT SWICK OSHA
DIRECTORATE OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAMS

		MR. SWICK:  Thank you, Jim, and I'd like to thank Jim and Amy for
inviting our office to come here and speak today.

		I am Rob Swick.  I'm with the Directorate of Whistleblower Protection
Programs.

		Our office is responsible for administering the OSHA whistleblower
protection program.

		I do have a presentation for you.  It's talking points, but I prefer
to be discussionary.  Feel free to interrupt with questions at any
point, and we'll get through what we can get through.

		I've put some handouts on your desks, and the first one I'm just going
to identify is what we -- is the whistleblower protection desk aid,
which is basically a summary of all of our statutes, and we'll get into
those in a minute, and also handed out to you is our recent data on our
program.

		It's not labeled.  That’s an oversight on our part, but if you're on
the website, it opens up, it makes sense there.

		I'll get to these in a few minutes.

		Everything I'm going to tell you is available to you online at the
whistleblower protection website, which is located at
www.whistleblowers.gov.

		So, what is the OSHA whistleblower protection program?  Well, this
program is a hodgepodge of 22 different statutes that protect employees
from -- workplace health and safety through every aspect -- virtually
every aspect of our economy.

		The granddaddy of them all, the first one that we had, was Section
11-C of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and shortly thereafter
we inherited the Surface Transportation Authorization Assistance Act,
which is the commercial trucking statute.

		Over time, we have acquired what are called the environmental
statutes, which are names you'd be familiar with, like the Clean Air
Act, Clean Water, Solid Waste Disposal, Toxic Substance Control Act, and
the -- a subset of that is the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act,
which protects -- deals with asbestos in schools.

		We have also had statutes of the transportation sector, which I
mentioned, STAAA, but we also have the National Transit Safety and
Security Act, the Federal Railroad Safety Act.  I consider it a
transportation one, even though not in DOT.  The Seamen's Protection
Act.  Also affiliated with those is the International Safe Container
Act, which deals with the cargo -- those cargo containers which you see
in intermodal.

		Also, we have the financial statutes, which is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
which you've probably heard a lot over the past decade; the Dodd-Frank
Act, which we call the Consumer Financial Protection Act, which deals
with consumer protection laws.

		We also have the Affordable Care Act, and most recently, in 2012, we
inherited a statute called MAP 21, which is a DOT statute, but it deals
with the -- reporting defects in manufacturing.

		MR. THORNTON:  Could I break in?  One quick question.  The DWPP -- is
it -- is it -- the wiring diagram -- it's DOL?

		MR. SWICK:  Yes, sir.  Very good question.  I'm going to go there
right now.

		So, we are with OSHA, okay, and originally this directorate was an
office within the Directorate of Enforcement Programs under Tom Galassi.
 We were a sister office to the Maritime Enforcement Office that Steve
Butler heads.  In fact, I sat right next to Steve.

		And in 2012, understanding the need to bring this program into line,
we rolled out into our own directorate.  So, we are a directorate, a
sister to Directorate of Standards and Guidance.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		MR. SWICK:  So, we fit in there.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thanks.

		MR. SWICK:  So, what do all these laws do?  What are we about?  What
is this whistleblower protection business?

		Basically, in a nutshell, an employer may take an adverse action
against an employee because that employee engages in protected activity.
 Sounds pretty simple.  What does that mean?

		For example, what is a protected activity?  And I'm going to speak to
the OSH Act at the moment, because the OSH Act is our granddaddy
statute, and more than half of the statutes that we get are under -- or
excuse me, the cases that we get -- are under that statute.

		Basically, it's stuff that you would probably expect, that you can
make a safety and health complaint to a supervisor or a manager in your
workplace.  You can complain to the government, for example calling OSHA
or the fire department or the health department.

		You can cooperate in inspections, whether the, you know, OSHA comes
onsite, you're protected to speak to the OSHA compliance officer.

		Testifying in proceedings -- and that could be proceedings relating to
an enforcement action, but it also could be to Congress or even coming
here to MACOSH to make a presentation if that were the protected
activity.

		You could also -- also protected is reporting a workplace injury or
illness, which is -- there's a lot of discussion about that these days,
and also, the final protection activity is what's called a work refusal.

		Well, what is a work refusal?  In some circumstances, an employee may
refuse to work if they believe that they face death or serious injury
and that situation is so clearly hazardous that any reasonable person
would believe the same thing.

		Maybe that’s kind of nebulous, but I'll give you a good example, in
particular, the safety and health in OSHA.

		When you have a situation with an un-shored or un-guarded trench, it's
been in the news around here, particularly, with another collapse in the
past month.

		If a worker follows the steps and they refuse to get in an un-guarded
trench and adverse action is taken against them, they are protected
under the OSH Act.

		But what are the conditions to that?  That worker will have tried to
have sought correction from the employer first, and there also has to be
no safer alternative to doing that task.

		In the trenching example, I can't think of any safer alternative to
walk in an un-guarded trench, so that that would be protected.

		And then final condition is, is that there is no sufficient time to
contact enforcement channels.  So, if your employer tells you the night
before that you're going to have to get in that un-guarded trench in the
morning, you should probably call OSHA, cause if you didn't have -- if
you didn't do that, you might not be protected under the circumstance.

		On the other hand, you get to work in the morning and you're told to
get into that un-guarded trench, do it now or you're out, then you
probably are going to be protected.

		So, that’s kind of work refusal in a nutshell.  There's work
refusals in other aspects all the 22 different laws, but that’s the
kind of the basics under Section 11-C.

		So, what is -- if you engage in protected activity, what are the
adverse actions that can be taken against somebody or that an employer
will take against somebody for engaging in protected activity?

		Well, the typical one, of course, is the firings and the layoffs, you
know, that kind of thing. They can blacklist people, particularly in
union or in temporary work situations.  They can be demoted.

		They can be denied overtime and promotions, cuts in pay, benefits,
fail to hire, rehire.  That’s some of the blacklisting cases.  They
can also be intimidated, which is a little more of a loose thing, but
you can have hostile work environment situations where you can be
intimidated either by threats of violence or you can just be totally
shunned.

		I think, in like the sexual harassment cases, that kind of pervasive
environment where you are being retaliated against for protected
activity.

		You could also have reassignments that reduce -- affect your promotion
-- chances for promotion and reducing hours.

		Basically, if the adverse action is showing that it would cause other
employees not to engage in protected activity, that’s kind of what --
the standard that we use.

		Current cases under Section 11-C we have going, interestingly, there's
several cases against AT&T out there going on right now, and those were
cases that were dealing with -- where their policies operated to punish
workers who reported injuries.

		We have an interesting case out in New England, and it's a work
refusal case based on a health hazard.  This dental worker refused to
work with these uncapped needle sticks, and she's afraid she's going to
get some horrible disease, and she refused to do it, and that case is
under litigation, and we'll see where that goes.

		We have some other run-of-the-mill cases, construction cases, where
they fired workers outright for calling OSHA, and sometimes they’ll
admit they did it, but they're still stubborn, and under the OSH Act,
you can go after responsible management officials, as well as the
company.

		But under the OSH Act, when you do have a case, they have to take them
to court versus another procedure, which I'll tell you about I a minute.

		MR. THORNTON:  So, are you going to describe -- I was going to ask
you, and if you're going to get to it, it's just fine -- I was just
going to ask a question about process.

		You know, if you have an employee who's aggrieved and then reports it,
you know, do you write them a citation or what's the process?  And I
guess you're going to get to that.

		MR. SWICK:  We can get to it now.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.

		MR. SWICK:  The complaint process for all of them are the same as far
as getting the process going.  If you file a complaint with OSHA,
there's different statute guidelines.

		The limitations periods vary, unfortunately, from 30 days in Section
11-C up to 180 days in the more modern statutes.  Pretty much all the
modern statutes you have 180 days to file.

		Complaints with OSHA may be filed orally or in writing.  SOX
complaints, for example, the statute says they must be filed in writing,
but what we do is we reduce that oral complaint to writing and have them
sign it.

		So, you file this complaint with OSHA.  We get the employer's -- the
employee's statement, and we write out a notice of charge, and we send
it to the employer, and the employer has a certain amount of time --
it's generally about 20 days -- to provide a response.

		Usually the more sophisticated employers will get some sort of an
extension, but the employer will file a written response, which could be
a letter, a denial, one-paragraph denial, or some employers will
actually -- it looks like a court pleading with, you know, statements
attached, and so forth and so on.

		OSHA then will take those documents and review the information and
plot out an investigation.  Generally, they take that employer's
response immediately and share it with the complainant and find out what
they have to say about it.

		They formulate a plan, and then we interview the relevant witnesses.

		OSHA will take statements, and some of these statements can be
confidential.

		You can be a confidential witness in a whistleblower investigation,
and as I pointed out before, as a witness in a whistleblower
investigation, that would be -- you'd be protected under Section 11-C,
for example, if it's a Section 11-C case.

		They take the statements, they analyze the information, and then they
prepare a report for their supervisor.

		What is this analysis that they do?

		Basically, in a whistleblower case --

		MR. THORNTON:  And all this -- excuse me for interrupting -- is being
done at the local office?

		MR. SWICK:  Okay.  It is done by -- we call them the regional offices.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.  Regional.

		MR. SWICK:  But basically, as you probably know -- you guys have been
here for a while -- OSHA's setup is 10 regions, and each region is
basically its own enforcement body.

		Unlike safety and health, though, the programs aren’t necessarily
run out of the area offices.

		So, in Region 4, for example, they have a lot of whistleblower
investigators assigned to all the various offices, but out in Region 10,
in Seattle, they all come out of Seattle.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.

		MR. SWICK:  So, it just depends on the region, and there's historical
reasons for that, and based on caseload and so forth.

		So, they're assigned to those regions.  Those investigators will come
out.

		In better times, we used to do all the complaint, at least, interviews
in person, people would come to the jobsite, try to interview witnesses.

		In these harsher times, we have been more relegated to doing phone
interviews, and depending on the region, they may record the interview,
they may not, and there's a whole process to that.

		So, once the regional investigator finishes that investigation, they
do an analysis on it to decide whether they're going to recommend to
their supervisor whether they think this case has merit or not, and in a
merit case, you need to show a couple things.

		First of all, that the complainant engaged in protected activity,
which is what we described earlier, that the employer knew about that,
and knowledge, a lot of times, is admitted, but in cases where it's
denied, it can be inferred.

		For example, we call it the small shop doctrine, where that person was
the only one working on that machine and complaints about that machine's
operation, you can infer, or maybe in a mom and pop shop with a few
employees, you know, you kind of know who the unhappy complainant would
have been.  So, you have the knowledge prong, and then you have to take
adverse action, which we went over, and then there's something they call
nexus, which is a nice lawyer term meaning causal connection, that the
protected activity and the adverse action are somehow related, and we
use a couple of terms to help figure this out.

		We have something called temporal proximity. How long was the adverse
action in between the protected activity?

		Animus, which means what's the employer's attitude toward OSHA or the
employee's, you know, complaints of safety, other things that would give
rise to believe that this employer has animus towards this type of
activity.

		And then something else we call disparate treatment, where they're
treating people differently.  If they treat one -- two employees do the
same wrong thing, one engages in protected activity and one doesn’t,
but the one in protected activity is the one that’s been terminated,
that’s another factor.

		It's kind of an art to it.  You make this recommendation, but see,
when you put together what they call these things -- when they say it's
a prima facie cases, you have all these elements, the employer gets the
opportunity to tell you, well, I have a legitimate reason for this.

		So, they will say, well, we fired him because he wasn't doing his work
or fired him because he cussed out the boss or fired him cause he stole.

		Under the statutes, there's different burdens for this.

		You'll see the burden of proof for motivating versus contributing on
my chart here.  Unfortunately, in the Section 11-C cases, it's the
lowest burden for the employer, just has to show by a preponderance,
which just means a little more likely than not that they would have
fired him, you know, in the absence of protected activity, but in the
more modern statutes, they have to show by clear and convincing
evidence, which means, in layman's terms, it's just clear to you.

		You know, maybe there's an argument here and there, but when you look
at it, it's clear that this is the reason they took the action.

		So, if there's a recommendation of merit, then there's two things that
happen, and that’s where this chart kind of comes into play with the
different statutes.

		The OSH Act is not an ALJ statute.  The OSH Act, the International
Safe Container Act, and the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, if
we determine there is a merit case, the next step is -- after getting
solicitor buy-in, DOJ approval, and about 6,000 other hurdles, we file a
lawsuit in Federal District Court.

		If we deny the case, we'll issue something called Secretary's Findings
to the complainant, and they have what they call -- we call it an
appeal.  It comes through our office.  It's an administrative review.

		We have a process for that, and it's also on our website, but
basically OSHA reviews to make sure that the investigator complied with
our directives, did the investigation reasonably, and didn't make a
mistake of law.  If we deny that appeal, the case is over.  The
complainant has no action, no other remedy.

		You know, we're begging and pleading with Congress to change this.
Dr. Michaels testified on the Hill earlier this year.  Hopefully, at
some point, they’ll make this -- just two seconds, just put it in on
some bill and it will be done.  But hopefully they will change this.

		The remaining other 19 statutes are what we call the ALJ statutes.
What happens, for example, under the Seamen's Protection Act, which I
haven’t reviewed with you yet, if we make a recommendation of merit,
we can issue -- we issue a findings and order.

		However, that order is appealable to the Office of Administrative Law
Judges, and that’s another office within the Department of Labor, and
basically it's a judge -- it's like a court, and they hear the case, and
-- but the second the respondent files that appeal, our findings are
basically voided except in a preliminary reinstatement case, which I can
talk to you in a minute.

		At the ALJ level, they will hear these cases. It's like a trial.  They
call witnesses, and the ALJ can make a determination on that, and if
either party is aggrieved, they can go to the next level of the
department, which is the administrative review board, which is basically
the supreme court of the ALJs, and they largely deal in issues of law,
not so much of fact, and if either party is not happy with that, they
can appeal to the circuit court for which the case arose, which is, for
example, if it was a case here in D.C., it would be in the D.C. Circuit.

		There is another remedy in the ALJ statutes that a complainant has.
In roughly half of the newer statutes, after a certain amount of time,
generally 210 days, if we have not issued a decision, meaning that we,
the department, be it OSHA or the Office of Administrative Law Judges,
they can do something that we call kick out, which means they can just
go straight into Federal court and file their own lawsuit, and that
tends to happen in the more sophisticated SOX cases, you know, a lot of
money at stake, these people have money and can afford lawyers.

		We're also seeing it a lot more often in the Federal Railroad Safety
Act cases.  There's a whole bar that focuses on those.

		So, they can go to court and have that case heard through the regular
litigation process.

		Does that kind of answer the question?

		MR. THORNTON:  Absolutely.

		MR. SWICK:  Okay.

		I wanted to tell you, also, about the Seamen's Protection Act, which
is -- it might be of interest to you, being that you're maritime folks.
Unfortunately, we don’t get a lot of business under the Act.

		The Seamen's Protection Act protects seamen, and our, you know,
definition of seamen is somebody that works aboard a vessel, at least at
some point.  We have seamen that work on -- we've had Seamen's
Protection cases where the seaman worked aboard the vessel but was
actually painting it in dry-dock, and we still accepted that, although
that, arguably, was an 11-C case, too.  So, there's reasons that you
would go one way or the other.

		Under the Seamen's Protection Act, also a condition of being a seaman
under the definition, is that this vessel must be American-owned, which
I've found is a big problem, because when we got this Act in 2010, we've
had 5 cases in 2011, 9 in '12, 5 in fiscal '13, and so far 5 in fiscal
'14, and they're all coming out of the Gulf coast, and I'm thinking --
and the Mississippi -- and I'm thinking where's all the west coast
cases?

		So, we recently had one where they called to find out whether the ship
was covered, and I've forgot the name of the website, but it actually
lists where all these big ships are, and it has their owners, and to my
shock and horror, they're all owned by foreign companies.

		So, that’s a real problem with the seamen's protection statute, but
I didn't come here to protest. But if the question is why we don’t
have very many when we should, that’s the reason, and hopefully
they’ll find a way to fix that in the future.

		But under the Seamen's Protection Act, it's similar to the OSH Act in
that a seaman has to report to the Coast Guard or the other Federal
agencies a procedure report.  The seaman notified or attempted to notify
of a work-related personal injury or illness.  The seaman cooperated
with investigation of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, I presume that means now, or the NTSB, or they furnished
information to these governmental bodies about information relating to
injury or death or property damage.

		A couple words about that.

		I'm thinking about the only case that comes to the top of my head.  We
had a case that would have been a merit case.

		It was out of the Gulf coast, and the fact pattern was -- is that it
was a captain on one of these big giant barge boats, and I guess it has
two engines on it.

		And forgive me, I'm a land person, but in any event, apparently under
the Coast Guard rules, if this engine gets disabled, they're required to
notify the Coast Guard, and apparently that -- once this notification of
a disabled vessel comes to light, the Coast Guard has the authority
basically to take control of that vessel, and forgive me if I'm wrong,
but that’s kind of my layman's understanding of it.

		Well, boat owners don’t like that.  They don’t like to have their
boat taken.  So, in our particular case, our captain had had problems
with this engine.

		Anyway, it cuts off, and he says I need to contact the Coast Guard,
and they said no, don’t you contact the Coast Guard, and he did it,
and then they suspended him the next day, and then they were riding his
butt about every little thing after the suspension.

		So, a couple weeks later, they're out on the water, engine goes again,
and he says I've got to report it, and they said do what you have to do.
 He was fired the next day.

		So, we had the investigation.  It seemed like -- it seemed
unbelievable to me that this respondent would act that way, and they
basically admitted what they did.

		There was a little -- they made a little noise about him violating a
smoking regulation, but it was kind of silly in the context, and
ultimately, we were going to issue merit findings, but then when
presented with that fact, they settled the case and gave him has back
wages, but that’s the kind of case that we're getting so far.

		They're generally the higher-level folks that are the ones that are
coming in with the complaints.  I haven’t really had -- with the
exception of the guy doing the painting, they’ve all been, you know,
kind of captain types.

		What remedies are available under these statutes?  It varies.  There's
back pay, as I mentioned.

		We have something called compensatory back pay.  It's the subset of
compensatory, but compensatory damages also includes your expenses,
looking for work, losses on things that have been sold, emotional
distress damages, and things like that.

		You can also get, in some cases, what we call reinstatement or
preliminary reinstatement, and we don’t have time to talk about the
difference.

		You can also get some punitive damages.  Generally they're capped at
250,000.

		And then of course, there's attorneys' fees.

		So, I had like 18 other pages, but I can see we're getting close to
1:00.

		MR. THORNTON:  Yes, we are.

		MR. SWICK:  So, I would like to say, if you have any additional
questions, feel free to contact my office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and we'd be
glad to talk to you.

		MR. THORNTON:  I have one question, if you could.  Do you like Robert?

		MR. SWICK:  I go with Rob.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay, Rob.

		If there were up to three takeaways, you know, that you would like
people to know about the DWPP, what would they be, if you had to -- if
you wanted to have up to three things, what would -- what would you want
these people to know?

		MR. SWICK:  Well, not understanding exactly who the audience is, but
--

		MR. THORNTON:  These are maritime people and longshore and shipyard
people.

		MR. SWICK:  Don't discriminate.

		MR. THORNTON:  That’s good.  That’s good.  I'm glad you said that.

		MR. SWICK:  And you can do this by educating your staff and your
managers about the whistleblower laws.  The takeaway would be -- they're
all kind of the same takeaway.

		Educate your staff.  Have an open environment so people feel free to
raise concerns and an environment where people are not going to
retaliate.  			But the final takeaway would be www.whistleblowers.gov.
It's all there.  There's fact sheets, statistics, and you can even file
online complaints there.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thanks very much.

		You've got a question over here.

		Les.

		MR. JOHNSON:  Les Johnson, IBEW.

		I just want to make sure.  The Seamen's Protection Act -- that is also
on the whistleblowers.gov website?

		MR. SWICK:  Yes, sir.

		MR. JOHNSON:  Okay.  Thank you.

		MR. THORNTON:  Other questions of the committee for Rob?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Hearing none, if you're in the public and you have a a
question, raise your hand so I know how many I have.

		All right.  I'm going to allow two questions, and you're closest,
Polly, so you need to either get the wireless or come up here and say
who you are and ask your question.

		MS. PARKS:  Polly Parks.

		On the Seamen's Protection Act, you note that it is American-owned as
defined.  How is it defined?

		MR. SWICK:  Majority American-owned.

		MS. PARKS:  So, it doesn’t have anything to do with the flag.

		MR. SWICK:  No.  The definition of American-owned has nothing to do
with the flag.

		Now, I admittedly don’t know what it takes to get a flag, but flag
may be indicia of ownership but it isn’t determinative.

		We look at the makeup of the company that owns it, and in the case
that I was talking about where we found there wasn't coverage, we went
and found the limited liability company that owned it, and it turned out
that limited liability company was owned by a bunch of Taiwanese
nationals.

		MS. PARKS:  So, then it didn't apply.

		MR. SWICK:  Exactly.

		MS. PARKS:  Okay.  So, if it is a U.S., I guess, holding company for a
foreign-owned, it doesn’t apply either?

		MR. SWICK:  Right.  We look at the actual makeup of the ownership.

		MS. PARKS:  Okay.  Thank you very much.

		MR. THORNTON:  Last question.  Paul.

		MR. ROSSI:  Paul Rossi, OSHA.

		You mentioned there was a whistleblower protection with containers,
part of the CSC Act.

		MR. SWICK:  It's called the International Safe Container Act, and it
deals with the safety -- and we interpret it as the security, as well --
of that container, and generally there's some rules regulating these
containers.

		There has to be a nameplate with the type of container it is and all
the metrics of it, but if it's an unsafe container structurally, but we
also interpret it if the contents of it are unsafe, too, that your
activity could be protected.

		MS. LEVIN:  At this time, we'll mark and move into the docket as
Exhibit 17 the two handouts provided by Rob Swick as part of his
presentation on the Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Program
activities.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		And thank you very much for sharing that information.  I didn't
understand, personally, the scope of the whistleblower -- you know, SOX,
EPA, and I guess I did not appreciate that.  So, thank you for sharing
the information with us, Rob.

		MR. SWICK:  Thank you, Jim.

		MR. THORNTON:  All right.  Let's move on.  We've got two items yet --
actually, two-and-a-half.  So, we're going to move in the committee
reports.

		I've had a couple of people note that they’ve made some plane
changes.  So, I want you to know I'm going to forego the afternoon break
in hopes of getting done a little bit early to allow people, including
your chairman, to perhaps make an earlier flight, but I don’t want
anyone to feel rushed, and we're going to give plenty of time and all
that.

		But if I see people needing a break, we'll take it.

		But for now -- okay.  Kelly, are you ready to go?

		MR. GARBER:  Five minutes?

		MR. THORNTON:  Yes.  All right.

		Don't leave.  He's setting up.

		(Pause.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Let's move into the Longshore Workgroup report, and
Kelly Garber and Vanessa Holloway are going to deliver this.

		So, the floor is yours.

LONGSHORING WORKGROUP REPORT AND COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

		MS. GILSON:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

		Good afternoon, members of the committees and members of the public.
Thank you for the opportunity to present to you this afternoon on what
the Longshore Workgroup has been up to for the past four months since we
previously met.

		We'll talk a little bit about our workgroup membership, some of our
personnel changes and what we've been up to.

		I'll go over our project list and give you an update of where we are
on that list and what might have changed there, and I believe we have to
do some acknowledgement of that.

		We will have one document that we will review with you today that we
will be submitting for publication, and then we'll talk about some of
the work that we have in progress, documents that we're working with
currently and will be our future submittals.

		I would like to acknowledge that Solomon Egbe has been assigned to our
committee.  He was introduced to you this morning.  Solomon brings a
great deal of experience to our committee, and this is not day one for
Solomon.

		He has participated with us in prior meetings as a member of the
public.  He's been involved with us all day yesterday on our workgroup,
and it is clear to me that Solomon is going to be a fine contributor for
us.

		One of the great things that I see in his resume is his background in
operations.

		We are a safety-focused group, obviously, but in the longshore
industry, without a background in the actual operations side, it's a
little bit difficult to comprehend how that safety applies and where the
limits are, and adjustments have to be made.

		So, bringing in the experience of a terminal operator and a
superintendent, a guy that’s been boots on the ground right where the
incidents occur is a tremendous benefit to us, and I look forward to
working with you, Solomon, and as Chairman Thornton pointed out this
morning, the lion's share of the work is going to come your way.

		I didn't know that.  I thank you for sharing that with me, Jim.

		In the interim period since we've last met, we conducted four
conference calls pretty much on a weekly basis, and these run about an
hour long.  Please don’t come away with the impression that we did
four hours' worth of work in the last four months.  That’s not really
how it works.

		The conference calls are an opportunity for us to regroup and review
the work that we've done intercessionally.

		Individuals on our committee take assignments, often handed down by
myself, to work on our projects, to do research on our projects, to find
photographs, to do any number of things that will enhance the product
that we're trying to produce for the benefit of our workforce, and so,
that is reviewed on our conference calls, we determine where we need to
go next, and we move forward.

		They're very productive calls.  An hour goes by very, very quickly.

		I can tell you that, as a workgroup chairman, I'm always concerned
that we're not going to have enough to talk about to fill an hour, and
that hour goes by in the blink of an eye, and it's not because we're
real gabby.  We do get some work done.

		As I mentioned, we do have one document that we have completed.  This
is something we started on in the last charter, very, very briefly.  We
did an outline in our previous charter.

		So, it sat dormant for a little while, while we got this current
charter up and running, and we picked it up and hit the ground running
with that, and we will go into that more in depth here toward the end of
my presentation, and we'll walk you through that, but we do have one
that is ready for today.

		We have reached a determination of our net project, and we spent
yesterday, all day, heavily engaged in that, and we'll go over that a
little bit, as well, and I believe that we will have that document ready
for our next meeting.

		I have every confidence that that will be completed and ready to be
submitted by the next time we meet, whether it's prior to the end of
this year or early next year.

		During our interim period, we reviewed two of the Shipyard Workgroup
documents, outstanding documents, both.

		This takes a significant amount of time.  Don's group tends to write
some pretty extensive documents.

		I think you hit us with a 20-pager one day.  I opened that up and my
computer ran for like 5 minutes downloading it.

		So, it took us a bit of time to get through that, and I appreciate my
committee's time and effort taking that document and reviewing it and
submitting comments back to Don's group.

		I think that is a great process that the two committees work through.

		It's great to put a document in front of someone else who doesn’t do
what you do for a living and have them comment back on its readability
and what makes sense, and it's good to get in front of fresh eyes.

		I encourage us to continue that process.  It works quite well.

		All right.  So, if you'll recall, in our previous meeting we kicked
off this session with -- or this charter with -- we listed five projects
that we elected to be our focus projects, kind of a list of a dozen or
so we started with, and we whittled it down to the top five, and so,
we'll walk through those here as we go.

		The very first one was the concept of prevention of tractor lifting
and container landing hard in our industry.  These are events that occur
and create injuries.

		The tractor lift document is the one that we do have completed, that
we'll review here shortly.  The container landing hard, or what we call
CLH, we elected to take that topic and make it a separate standalone
topic on its own.

		As we delved into it, we determined that there was enough variance
between the two acts and the type of equipment that is involved that it
warranted making a completely separate document.

		So, that will become a new document for us that we will entertain
later in this charter.

		We had looked into the issue of log handling and fault prevention for
workers in the log-handling industry.  This has been a very dynamic
problem.  It's seen a lot of effort on a lot of people's parts.  	We
don’t have a clear answer for that yet.

		One of the things that we had considered doing -- and we approached
the agency on -- was maybe some form of variance.  We were educated that
that wasn't going to be a process that would be followed.

		So, we have elected to postpone that until a future charter.  There
are some companies that are working on technologies and techniques for
fall protection.

		The BCNEA, which is the Canadian equivalent of our PMA on the west
coast, is working on some techniques there.  They and others that I
spoke with were not prepared to release information on those techniques
yet, because they're still in development.

		So, we're going to hope that those come around in the near future and
we can evaluate them as a committee ourselves and determine if it
warrants some form of document that we could produce that would be
effective for that.

		We are looking into the accuracy of declared weights.  This is a issue
that has come up through the IMO.  It is an international issue where
containers are inaccurately manifested with regard to their weight.

		The ILA on the east coast, under George Lynch's guidance, did some
extensive random testing, random measuring, or weighing, I should say,
of containers and found that not only were they overweight but they were
underweight, and when the declaration of weight is inaccurate, whether
it's over or under, that has an adverse impact on vessel stability when
the load plans are developed.

		It doesn’t matter if it's over or it's under. If you put a weight
calculation in and it's not correct, it will come out with an adverse
impact on stability.

		So, we have noticed that the IMO was focused fairly much on that issue
of the vessel stability.  For our purposes, as a Longshore Workgroup,
there is a shore-side impact from this mis-declaration of weights, as
well.

		So, what we are intending to do is to put together a white paper, if
you will, that we will submit back through the agency that will
highlight and specify some of the interests or some of our concerns with
mis-declared weights on shore-side operation, whether it involves
equipment handling or it involves the workers' proximity to the loads
and things of that nature, stability of the loads will be something
we'll address.

		So, look for that in the future.  We'll begin to produce that white
paper in the near future.

		The document that we began working on yesterday was identified as one
of our most important ones that we could get on early and create a
product for, and that’s baggage handling and cruise terminal
operations.

		I had asked Danny Harrison to take the lead on that and get us a
working document so that, starting yesterday morning, we wouldn’t be
coming out of the shoot with nothing in our hand.

		And Danny did a great job of putting together the outline of a quick
card that addressed the baggage handling process, the porters themselves
that are moving the bags on our carts and around.

		And in our workgroup functions yesterday, we decided to outline the
whole process of baggage handling from the time that you as a
cruise-line customer pull up curbside in front of the terminal until
that bag is aboard the ship.

		And as we broke that out, we went step by step by step, and Curtis
Shaw was bright enough to raise his hand and say, guys, this isn’t
going to fit on a quick card, and he was absolutely right.

		So, we will continue with that document, and our anticipation is that
we will create a guidance document, a fact sheet, or something of that
nature that will address the terminal operator, the employer side of the
house, in kind of an all-encompassing document with recommendations for
best practices and an encouragement that those terminal operators
develop a site-specific plan around their baggage handling process.

		We also realized that there were some equipment functions in there
that we weren’t addressing.  So, there may be some quick cards.

		We'll stay with Danny's one for the baggage handling itself, the
hands-on piece.  We'll look at some of the equipment that is utilized,
the electric pallet jacks and forklifts and so forth, and see if we
can't come up with some quick cards there that will address those
activities.

		We can anticipate, at this time, doing a guidance document and two to
three quick cards out of that one topic.

		So, we got into it yesterday and discovered it's got some real
opportunities for us, and we look forward to continuing our work on
that.

		Ken brought to our attention to the 2010 IMO Annex 14, and what this
was was kind of an industry-driven amendment for safe working conditions
for securing containers on deck, and what we're getting at here is
going, really, back to the source, to the actual construction of the
ships, and saying that the art and act of lashing requires a certain
amount of space on the ship.

		It requires certain protection in the way of railings, catwalks, and
different platforms where the work can safely be conducted.

		A lot of ships in the early days of containerization and as
containerization continued to evolve were kind of morphed from the type
of ship they were before to become container ships.  In today's
environment, in the last decade or so, we're seeing more concentration
on the construction of purely container ships that have no intention to
be used in any other fashion, and in those ships we're able to direct
some effort toward getting the issue of lashing addressed, and that's
what that document was for.

		Our intent is to take that document and go through and look to see if
there are any elements in it that we should address and communicate to
our workforce.

		So, we're looking more in terms of an awareness document so that the
workforce going aboard a ship knows what they should see, how the ship
should be designed, and in any case that they find a deficiency, how to
make us aware of that and we can pass that on.

		So, we'll take a look at that.  The entire committee will read through
that document.  This one is only a 14-page with wide spacing, so we will
be able to get through it, and we'll take a look at that and make some
recommendations as we see warranted.

		So, let's talk about our product that’s ready to go to market here,
and initially, we were going to address, like I said, tractor lifting
and landing hard.

		We came up with a theme for this particular quick card, which is
teamwork helps to prevent tractor lift injuries.

		Now, why are we going to go with this topic? It's a widespread issue.
I thought it was kind of isolated to my terminal, but it's not.  It
happens up and down the coast.  It happens in the Gulf.  It happens on
the east coast.

		To give you kind of a brief background on what this is, it's an injury
that results when a container does not cleanly disengage from a chassis,
which is the device that’s used to move it through the terminal and
bring it under the crane to load to the vessel.

		If it doesn’t cleanly separate, the chassis can be partially hoisted
with the container, and then it ultimately releases and falls, creating
a jarring inside the cab of the tractor, and in worst case scenarios,
sometimes the tractor itself, the back end of the tractor, will be
lifted.

		Now, you can't really see it in this lighting, but the picture in the
lower right corner actually shows essentially what occurs when one of
the connecting devices, what we call either dogs or pins, on the chassis
isn’t fully disengaged and the chassis comes up on the front end,
easily picks the rear-end of a tractor up.

		If you're not familiar with terminal operations, the tractors that we
operate for moving containers in the yard are not what you see on the
open road.

		They're a very short wheel base.  If you get a chance later, maybe
take a closer look at the picture there.

		But the fact that they're a lightweight unit with a very short wheel
base -- when that breaks loose and drops down -- that chassis weighs
about 4 tons and the back end of that tractor has got to weigh a couple
tons, and the result to the driver is that he gets thrown around inside
like a rag doll.

		Even with a seatbelt on, there's opportunity for injury, for impact to
the side window, and just the jarring that occurs -- any of us have
experienced any kind of a rear-end accident or anything like that, you
know the pain that we're talking about, and it's oftentimes a soft
tissue type of injury.

		The other part that I've noticed about this is that it has a lot of
potential for severe injury if that lift goes any higher than just a few
feet.  There have been instances when the container has lifted quite
high to where the cab is pointing nearly at a 45-degree angle.

		The rear-end of that chassis is, you know, 5-6 feet off the ground,
and when all of that comes back down to earth, when gravity takes over,
it can really create a serious injury, and there's some potential for
high frequency in certain operations that depend entirely on chassis
usage and not other forms of movement of the container.

		So, all those things combined drove us to think that this was a viable
topic, one that we need to get in front of our workforce, and try to
move them in a direction that reduces these injuries.