States should be encouraged by the Department to meet the necessary qualifications as rapidly as possible."

The next general question: "If the States are to enforce Federal standards, what criteria should be used to judge a State's capacity to administer such a program?"

"The committee agreed that there should be realistic criteria to measure a State's capacity to administer a program. Mr. Bortz indicated that the Bureau of Labor Standards has developed a number of possible criteria. Under Secretary Henning concluded that the Department would have to give very careful consideration in determining appropriate criteria."

Then the next question: "What should be done about the six States where the arrangements still exist?"

"There was a consensus that the six States which continued to operate under an agreement with the Department of Labor should not be disturbed."

The six States to which this makes reference are: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and California. The second meeting of the general ad hoc advisory committee, was on March 3 of this year. The Under Secretary reported to the committee the substance of the discussion and the thinking that I have just read to you that came out of the Department's meeting with the IAGLO committee. And the conclusions which came out of this general safety advisory committee were essentially the same in terms of the principal items to which I referred. There was no difference and I will not repeat the summation here, except to say that what was recommended by the IAGLO committee was generally accepted by this other committee in March. They went on and made several other recommendations during the course of our meeting with them, such matters as they felt should be of mutual interest— a permanent advisory committee along the lines of the ad hoc committee which could advise the Department of Labor on all safety programs. They also noted the way in which certain functions in the safety area were divided among several bureaus in the Department and expressed concern for the adequacy of the budget for wage and hour, public contracts, safety and health inspections, and one or two other items.

The Under Secretary of Labor then reported to Secretary Wirtz with respect to the outcome, the observations, and recommendations of these meetings. There then developed the process of putting together an instruction or a notice or an order. This was issued last week on July 19. It is identified as order No. 12-66. For the benefit of the reporter, we will insert in the minutes of the tran

script of this meeting the complete order. I will just read to you several passages that I think may be of particular interest.

[Mr. Bortz read several passages of said order.]

That brings us down, Mr. Chairman, to last week, or as current as we can be in a very capsule summary.

I would now like to take a moment to outline to you a few things that seem to me to be necessary for the Department to do, and for the Bureau to do, and also in terms of consultation and work with the interested parties. This is very difficult to say in view of the fact that there have not been any policy discussions either with Assistant Secretary Peterson or with the Secretary since the issuance of this order. So what I will reflect to you now will be my initial observations and reflections subject to such subsequent policy guidance and determination, and subject also to becoming more fully acquainted and advised with everything that is comprehended in this order and the transfer. The order mentioned a period of transition until September 1. We have proposed, or suggested, to the administrator of the Wage and Hour Division that the staff be transferred or made available to the Bureau of Labor Standards by the first of August so that we would have at least a month to get the benefit of their experience, their procedures, in judging how we should proceed. We are planning, subject to existing rules, to bring into Washington next week the Walsh-Healey field people along with our regional safety directors for a complete discussion of what the existing situation is, to get an exchange of views, and get to know these people that will be transferred to us.

I think I ought, perhaps, to elaborate at this point to indicate that this does not mean that any manna is falling from Heaven in terms of budget, staff, or resources. I am afraid that for possibly the immediate future, it will be quite the contrary because of the administrative problems in processing over 100,000 Government public contracts coming up each year. The Walsh-Healey safety program was administered through 10 field safety engineers, plus the supervisor in Washington, an industrial hygienist, and a secretary-a total of 13. This is what is being transferred, along with some desks, pencils, writing pads, and a few things of that sort.

It is my thought in looking at existing regulations on WalshHealey that I will invite, on an informal, ad hoc basis, a group of knowledgeable industrial safety engineers for a discussion simply of what the current situation is, the current regulations are, and what improvements could be made. I would also want our peopleand it would be desirable for the six States currently performing this work-to sit down and talk with each of the commissioners and

their staff in these six States to get the benefit of their experience and the problems or whatever suggestions they have. In similar fashion, we want to discuss with interested States what their interests are currently and what procedures we can work out. As the report indicated, and as some of the discussions which Mr. Catherwood made reference indicated, we will need to develop some guidelines. Whether you call them criteria, qualifications, or whatever, we will need some guidelines to assist us in whatever the subsequent arrangements are and can be with respect to States sharing in the administration of this program. I would gather that we will need to reexamine the present set of regulations.

There were proposed, as some of you know, about 2 years ago a series of amendments to those regulations—the Walsh-Healey regulations. These were never promulgated. Just precisely where we will go on this, I simply cannot tell you, because I do not know. Your committee, and certainly the ad hoc committee, suggested the desirability that no further change in the regulations be made without another opportunity for a public hearing. I believe it was your committee that suggested the desirability of regional hearings. Whether this will be feasible, as to matters of cost and staff availability, I do not know. But certainly, as far as I am concernedand I would reasonably contemplate that this would also be the Secretary's position-that whatever next steps are taken on any revision of the present regulations, that there would be the opportunity for public comment.

I would hope also, and I certainly intend to recommend, that the Department have a safety advisory committee. I hope also that we, in the Bureau, could step up our technical assistance training of our safety personnel, State safety personnel, so that we would be in an improved position to make available this sort of service. I am not going to write, or say to you this afternoon, that there is any blank check on this because, frankly, we will need more resources, we will need more funds, to undertake much more in this area. But I think overall what I would like to see emerge out of this changed situation is an upgrading of the total occupational safety effort, not only in terms of the individual States, but for the Nation as a whole, and for the workers.

I think that we have, as you know from a number of other developments this past year, a rising crest of interest and concern in the general area of safety. I think it is up to us both in our Federal activities and our State activities to ride this crest and see that our total safety efforts in the Nation-Federal and State-are improved. The concern, the climate is here. There are going to be, as we are

well aware, particularly in the traffic field, very significant changes occurring in legislation and attacks on the traffic problem. I would identify that as certainly the most important of all of the present safety concerns, but we need to look at the total safety issue-on the job and off the job in terms of making improvements.

I know I probably have been talking longer than I should. But, as I mentioned at the outset, there are a number of considerations involved. Since I presume that this will be the last opportunity at this convention to discuss safety matters at any length, I want to make sure that I mention several other things. We have been talking about Walsh-Healey. The Secretary's order and I mentioned that there were three other laws which the Congress passed last year. The largest and most significant one is what we call the Service Contracts Act. This, as I understand it, basically involves the setting of prevailing wages, wage rates, for workers who are employed by a private contractor but who are performing services for Government agencies. Now, the great bulk of these, I suspect, are in the area of maintenance and janitorial contracts, cleaning and running Federal buildings, and possibly restaurants, cafeterias, laundries, which are operated on some Federal installations in some agencies under contract with a private contractor.

In these types of situations, the law, which was passed last year, indicates that the Secretary of Labor shall also prescribe appropriate safety and health standards in the performance of this type of work. So we will have that function to perform. It appears to be substantially large. I am told that there is something like 50,000 of these contracts made annually. This will involve the development of appropriate standards and codes, and then the development and establishment of whatever appropriate type of administrative machinery may be necessary for carrying them out.

One other matter I would like to mention so that you will be informed of it. I particularly want to do it, because I know that you would not really construe it in the context other than what is suggested. As you have observed from reading portions of the Secretary's notice, there are certain responsibilities which we have. A law was enacted about 1958 with respect to enforcing safety and health in longshore operations, shipbuilding and ship repair, which comes under the Federal maritime jurisdiction, rather than the individual State jurisdiction. This question of Federal and State responsibilities is a matter which goes back to the beginning of our country, I think, in terms of admiralty law and jurisdiction.

There has been in this area a problem which has given us increasing concern and for which we feel there needs to be a solution. This

relates to an increasing practice, especially in some ports, of using what I will broadly describe as shoreside cranes to load and unload cargo from the holds of vessels. Now, under the existing law, the traditional way of discharging cargo is by mechanism of a ship's gear. This requires under law and our regulations a certification by a duly qualified engineer or certifying agency that that ship's gear be in good repair and capable of performing the work without breaking and injuring or killing any of the longshoremen.

We have had discussions with some of the States, particularly where there is a heavy volume of cargo operations, of a general cargo character with reference to how this matter may be worked out. Following those discussions, we have reviewed it and we have a suggestion or a proposal which will be sent to all labor commissioners, whether they have any maritime activities or not. It is a proposal which, in effect, says that we feel it is necessary to assure the crews, longshoremen, and gangs that are working in the holds of vessels aboard ship that they are adequately protected by whatever gear is being used. If it is a shoreside gear, and if the State has regulations or establishes regulations for the certification of the gear so that it is certified as safe, this will provide satisfactory proof or sufficient assurance for us to accept that in terms of making sure that the work aboard ship is safe. If you do not have a provision or a law, then we, in terms of this proposal, would propose that these shoreside hoisting cranes or equipment would need to be properly certificated before they could discharge or load cargo from holds of a ship.

As I say, this proposal is going out within the next week or so to the industry, to the labor organizations, and to labor commissioners for comment. Based upon that comment, we will then decide whether the next step would be the drafting of a formal regulation or amendment to our regulations which would then be subject to public hearing and the usual procedure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I took so long, but I thought that this had to be covered. President CATHERWOOD. Thank you, Nelson, for this treatment, not only of the Walsh-Healey developments, but of some other elements of the safety program in which we have mutual interest with the Bureau.

CONFEREE. Besides New Jersey, what are the five States that now have contracts?

Mr. BORTZ. Besides New Jersey, there are Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and California. Commissioner BoGGs. Mr. Chairman and delegates, I want to congratulate Mr. Bortz. As a result of some hearings, of course,