U.S. Department of Labor

Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Washington, D.C. 20210

"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may serve as a laboratory and try novel social and economic experiments..."

Louis Brandeis,
U.S. Supreme Court Justice,
(March 1932)

Targeting Through Data.   The foundation of an effective program is the ability to target workplaces that have the most hazardous conditions. State plans use a variety of data sources to direct their enforcement and consultation efforts toward establishments at risk, and those actually experiencing injuries and illnesses that may be prevented by compliance with safety and health standards. Site specific claims history rather than industry-wide data is a better indicator of which employers may have safety and health deficiencies.

---

Text Version of Chart: FY 98 Onsite Visits by Type
Type: Pie Chart
Graph Elements: 3 - Pie segments by type of visit based on the number of visits.

• Total Compliance Visits = 55,563, 67.1%
• Total Consultation Visits = 14,918, 18%
• Total Training & Education Programs = 12,344, 14.9%

• Safety Inspections = 43,758
• Health Inspections = 11,824
• Accidents = 3,724
• Complaints = 11,906
• Referrals = 3,183
• Scheduled = 30,862
• Follow-up = 2,799
• Other = 2,789

California revised its bloodborne pathogen standard to better protect health care workers from pathogens transmitted through needlesticks. Healthcare employees were required to begin shifting to devices such as safety needles with sliding sheaths starting January 15, 1999. The standard was enthusiastically supported by the California Nurses Association and the California Health Care Association which represents 600 hospitals, health systems and physician groups. Legislation has been proposed to require similar protection from needlesticks in Washington state.
Kentucky adopted a bloodborne pathogens standard which applies protective measures to blood exposures on construction sites as well as general industry locations. Virginia’s construction sanitation standard assures that construction workers receives a level of protection similar to that provided to migrant and farmworkers under the field sanitation standard. California requires employers to obtain permits undertaking certain types of construction work. Permit holders must then complete a Cal/OSHA notification form and send it to the district office where work is to be performed, before beginning construction activity. Nevada adopted a regulation requiring a pre-construction conference for certain high-hazard construction projects, and adopted the 1989 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for steel erection safety.
Washington formed the Construction Advisory Committee, an innovative melding of business, labor and government, in 1988. The CAC helped produce an industry-wide fall protection standard, embraced by all parties. In less than three years, compensable claims attributed to falls from elevation dropped significantly. Oregon similarly involved stakeholders prior to rule adoption, and established a common set of rules for all industries, with special alternatives for unique situations such as roofing. Kentucky promulgated unique standards for fall protection in general industry, not limited to construction. North Carolina’s fall protection requirements prohibit most free climbing in the electric power industry, except for wooden poles in specific situations.
Virginia is working with a group of firefighters and local government officials to develop a negotiated safety and health standard for public sector firefighters. Initiated after Virginia’s adoption of a new respirator standard, and the tragic death of two firefighters in Chesapeake, this standard will cover the special circumstances and hazards regularly faced by public employees fighting fires. Working with recommendations from a fire service advisory committee, Washington developed and adopted a firefighting standard which took effect in 1997.
Monitoring inspections conducted by Utah between 1987 and 1991 at a copper smelter undergoing major construction activity revealed that both smelter and construction employees at the site were exposed to excess levels of lead. Lead exposure limits in the construction standard did not provide the same level of protection as the general industry permissible exposure levels (PELs), so in 1991, Utah included construction work in the scope of its general industry lead standard. That same year, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted a health hazard evaluation study of lead exposure among lead burners at the construction site. The report findings were published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Later, when OSHA promulgated a lead-in-construction standard in 1993, Utah adopted the federal rule. ["Lead Exposures Among Lead Burners," MMWR 41(17):307, May 1, 1992. See also: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, NIOSH, "Preventing Lead Poisoning in Construction Workers," Hazard Alert, Publication No. 91-116a, April 1992, 19 pp. Available online at www.cdc.gov/niosh/pubs.html.] In 1983, Maryland adopted a comprehensive lead-in-construction standard, which is combined with information, education and enforcement to protect construction workers. The state also requires laboratories to report high blood-lead levels. Virginia has adopted a regulation to monitor lead contractors’ compliance with state and federal requirements for removal and disposal of lead.
In 1973, Washington developed a confined space standard covering all industries. Maryland’s standard, adopted in 1976, also covers all workers. Kentucky’s standard applies to construction as well as general industry operations. Utah developed confined space entry requirements for farming operations in 1987. Before OSHA adopted its 1993 permit-required confined space standard, Virginia had maintained confined space standards for the general, construction, and telecommunications industries since 1987. In 1988, Minnesota adopted a confined space entry standard, applicable to both construction and general industry, which classifies all confined spaces from Class I (the least hazardous) to Class III (the most hazardous). Class I permits are issued on an annual basis, and Classes II and III at the time of entry.
In Oregon, certification is required for operators of cranes that are five tons or more that are used in construction. Maryland has a unique standard for personnel platforms suspended from cranes, derricks, and hoists in general industry. California issues permits for erecting fixed tower cranes, and for operating fixed and mobile tower cranes. Cal/OSHA is required to inspect the cranes within ten business days of receiving an application for an operating permit, and to reinspect twice each year. Anyone testing, examining or certifying cranes and derricks in lifting service that exceed three tons rated capacity must be licensed as a crane certifier by Cal/OSHA, or must be approved as a crane surveyor who works under the authority and supervision of a licensed crane certifier. Cal/OSHA conducts unannounced audits of the activities of crane certifiers and surveyors at least once during each licensing period, and investigates any complaints or accidents. After the investigation of a 1994 crane collapse accident which killed two workers and injured a third in Washington State, more than $21,000 in resulting penalties was used to improve worker safety and health through the formation of a Crane Safety Association (WCSA). This was the first time that penalty dollars assessed by the Department of Labor and Industries were returned to an industry to make it safer for workers. The WCSA continues to be active and responsive to the safety needs of the craning community, presenting three crane safety seminars annually. They recently presented a code revision proposal for the use of attached personnel platforms with cranes and a voice communications revision. WISHA is acting on these revision proposals through the rule making process.
The number of towers erected has increased tremendously over the past several years due to use of cellular phones and pagers. Recognizing the need for specific rules/guidelines to address this unique industry, Michigan has established an advisory committee of employers and employees to consider draft rules for tower erection.
Vermont’s standard for electric power generation, transmission, and distribution requires two qualified lineworkers whenever energized lines and equipment are involved. There are limited exceptions for work done in emergency situations and from bucket trucks. The standard also requires contractors to certify their lineworkers as qualified and to provide this information to utilities prior to starting work. The Virginia Overhead High Voltage Line Safety Act requires employers to work with the owners of overhead power lines to de-energize or guard power lines against accidental contact while work is being conducted around such lines. This standard also includes employee training requirements.
Recognizing that the hazards of off-highway vehicles exist in industrial settings as well as on construction sites, Kentucky adopted safety standards for off-highway motor vehicles and equipment used in general industry locations.
In Minnesota's cold climate, working out of doors at certain times during the year requires extra safeguards. Minnesota adopted a unique job-site shelter standard in 1978 which requires employers to provide heated privies, and appropriate shelters for employees to eat lunches, change clothing, etc. when working in cold weather.
Because of the serious hazards found in the logging industry, the states of Michigan, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming developed comprehensive logging safety rules in the early 1970s. Federal OSHA rules, which previously covered only pulpwood logging, were expanded in 1995 to apply to all logging operations. Alaska has developed safety codes for highliune, tractor and helicopter-logging.
Working with industry, labor, management and the state legislature, Washington changed its agriculture standards, providing the same level of protection to farm workers as in other industries. 1996 legislation required the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Labor and Industries to coordinate adoption, implementation and enforcement of a common set of worker protection standards (WPS) relating to pesticides. Both agencies adopted the federal EPA standards for pesticides. Through a memorandum of understanding, these two agencies along with the Department of Health coordinate workplace pesticide inspections. WISHA has responsibility for enforcing the WPS where an employer/employee relationship exists. The Department of Agriculture enforces all other components of the pesticide label. Oregon enacted a law in 1995 establishing an inspection exemption program for small agricultural employers. By participating in consultation and training activities sponsored by OR-OSHA, insurance carriers, industry associations, university outreach programs, or private consultants, employers are exempt from routine scheduled inspections. The law established an Agricultural Advisory Committee that assists in reviewing the state-specific standards for the agricultural industry, and how they are administered. The State of Oregon returned registration of farm labor camps to OR-OSHA in 1995, and also transferred the administration of a farm worker housing tax credit program aimed at improving labor camp conditions. In 1983, North Carolina adopted a field sanitation standard covering migrant and seasonal farmworkers. North Carolina’s standard provides coverage regardless of the number of employees, and requires pre-occupancy inspection of all migrant labor camps. Virginia’s field sanitation standard for agriculture ensures the availability of drinking water regardless of the number of employees. Arizona has a standard which bans the use of hoes with handles shorter than 48 inches. Since the rule went into effect in 1985, the short-handled hoe, which was common in the early 1980s and caused widespread back problems among agricultural workers, has almost become extinct. California, New Mexico, and Wyoming also have standards prohibiting the use of short-handled hoes.
In response to local needs, several states with significant oil drilling operations adopted regulations regarding well drilling. Utah adopted standards in 1980 which cover all types of oil and gas well drilling and servicing. Wyoming promulgated regulations in 1970 covering oil and gas well drilling and servicing, and expanded coverage in 1984 to include special servicing. Alaska has also developed unique safety codes for the petroleum industry.
Many states had right-to-know laws before OSHA implemented the hazard communication standard in 1984. Although the federal standard initially covered only manufacturing (and later expanded), in Tennessee, labor, management, TOSHA, and the Tennessee General Assembly cooperated to expand coverage to all workers. The standard requires initial and annual retraining of employees, information to be given to TOSHA (and to the public upon request), and notification and warning to firefighters to allow better response to emergencies where hazardous chemicals are involved. TOSHA personnel visited all employers in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39 who failed to submit chemical lists as required. With this additional effort, over 98 percent of employers responded.
Minnesota’s employee right-to-know law, adopted in 1983, covers more than just hazardous substances. It also covers harmful physical agents (e.g., noise, heat, ionizing and non-ionizing radiation) and infectious agents. MNOSHA has required training on all infectious agents, including bloodborne pathogens, since 1983. Alaska’s hazard communication rules cover noise and radiation in addition to workplace chemicals, including eight hazardous physical agents. Alaska also publishes physical agent data sheets describing the hazards for employers. Michigan covers piping systems containing hazardous substances, and requires employers to post employee notices to advise where material safety data sheets (MSDS) are kept, who to contact to review MSDS, and notification when a new chemical hazard is introduced in the workplace. From its inception in 1988, Iowa’s right-to-know legislation covered all sectors, including construction. It also covers right-to-know for the general public and in public emergency response. California maintains an information system that alerts employers and workers to the dangers of toxic substances in the workplace.

Ergonomics is the scientific study of human work. Ergonomics considers the physical and mental capabilities and limits of the worker as he or she interacts with tools, equipment, work methods, tasks, and the working environment. The goal of ergonomics is to reduce the incidence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), which result in staggering costs due to pain, suffering and lost productivity. MSDs are among the most common and costly occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. Some states have cited ergonomic hazards under general safety standards known as "general duty" or "safeplace" standards, but more specific requirements, along with training and outreach programs, will help to effectively control these types of hazards.

California’s workplace repetitive motion injury (RMI) standard which took effect in July, 1997, is the first in the nation to specifically address musculoskeletal injuries which are caused by a repetitive job, process or operation. The Cal/OSHA ergonomics standard contains three independent requirements:

• Workplace evaluation of each type of job, process or operation (such as word processing, assembly or loading);
• Control measures to correct the exposures causing RMIs in a timely manner; and
• Employee training.

• Premium incentives for nursing homes willing to develop "zero-lift" programs;
• Performing job modifications on open claims for nurses and nursing assistants;
• Documenting best practices used in skilled nursing facilities and sharing the information through written aerials, paycheck stuffers, calendars, posters, and other media; and
• Evaluation of the interventions to determine the effectiveness of each, and to see which can be modified and replicated in other industries.

Oregon has taken a strong information and training approach to create awareness and encourage action. By creating several publications and working directly with the Associated Oregon Industries and other groups, statewide education network training forums have addressed this emerging area. Cal/OSHA held conferences on workplace security in a drive to increase awareness of the issue, promote additional research, and develop guidelines requested by safety and health professionals for preventing workplace violence. If present, indicators of violence in the workplace require further evaluation. Although workplace violence is part of a larger societal problem, the employer is still required under the California Labor Code to provide a safe and healthful place of employment. Employers at risk of robbery or other violent assaults must address workplace security in their injury and illness prevention program.

Indiana has issued general duty clause citations on workplace violence. New Mexico settled a Section 11(c) discrimination case involving workplace violence. Two employees with a history of fighting were involved in a fight at work. One complained and was subsequently transferred 60 miles away to another duty station. The employer did not reprimand the employee who was the aggressor in all the altercations.

Minnesota established the Workplace Violence Prevention Team in 1993 to research workplace violence and recommend a course of action for MNOSHA. Members include staff from MNOSHA Compliance and Workplace Safety Consultation. An essential member of the team is the Violence Prevention Coordinator, a full-time state-funded position. MNOSHA Compliance answers questions about workplace violence and responds to complaints about workplace violence. One of several onsite investigations conducted in 1998 resulted in a citation under the general duty standard. The team developed an informational fact sheet, posted on MNOSHA’s website at http://www.doli.state.mn.us/wvp_fact.pdf.

Minnesota’s Workplace Violence Prevention Center, established in 1997, continues to grow and provides information to the public. The Minnesota Violence Prevention Program forms cross-disciplinary partnerships with other violence prevention programs to create a statewide initiative. Through a successful partnership with the Harvard School of Public Health Prevention Institute and Education Development Center, Minnesota took part in a nationwide satellite training session on youth violence prevention, with over 2000 participants. In 1998, MNOSHA trained over 1500 employers and employees in 36 violence prevention training sessions at ten regional centers.

Washington developed safety and health standards for the late night retail industry in 1990, and uses enforcement and consultation resources to encourage hazard abatement and prevention. The Workplace Violence Awareness and Prevention workshop helps participants assess risk factors and develop preventive measures. A written guidebook covering these topics and a sample prevention program were developed by WISHA, along with over 30 representatives of labor, business and the academic community (http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/workvil.htm). WISHA’s video Is It Worth Your Life? with real-life scenarios demonstrates what workers and employers can do to prevent injuries. The video is distributed to employer networks and associations and may be reproduced.

In 1997, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ Safety and Health Assessment and Research for Prevention (SHARP) program completed a comprehensive study of workplace violence based on federal and state data for 1992-95 (http://www.wa.gov/lni/sharp/39-2-97.pdf). Homicide was the fourth leading cause of workplace deaths in Washington state, and most incidents were consistent with well-known risk factors. Most were committed by persons unknown to the victims and most of the victims worked in retail trade, security services or transit. The majority of non-fatal injuries also occurred in predictable settings, but in contrast to the fatal assaults, most of these injuries occurred in a setting where the victim and attacker were in a custodial or client-caregiver relationship, such as health care or social services. Especially notable is that while the trend for assaults against private sector workers in the state was downward, that for state government workers was rising. This study counters the notion that violence on the job is a random event, and consequently impervious to remedy. Prevention strategies, such as hazard assessment and de-escalation training, are available to address the risk factors in each work setting.

Several states now regulate smoking in the workplace and public access buildings. In 1994, OSHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on indoor air quality, including environmental tobacco smoke (secondhand smoke), which would ban workplace smoking unless a separate, enclosed and ventilated room to contain smoke is in place.

In 1988, Vermont passed legislation prohibiting smoking in the workplace, or requiring that smoking be confined to a designated enclosed area. Each employer must establish a written smoking policy, or negotiate one through collective bargaining. The policy may permit smoking in a designated unenclosed area if 75 percent of the employees in the workplace agree, and if the layout of the workplace protects non-smoking employees from exposure. Vermont passed additional legislation in 1993, prohibiting smoking in the common areas of all enclosed indoor places of public access, publicly owned buildings and offices. Since 1995, only those businesses with a cabaret license and more than 50 percent of their income from alcohol sales may be designated as smoking areas. If a cabaret is part of a larger facility, the cabaret may be designated as a smoking area provided it is separately enclosed and separately licensed as a cabaret.

Washington’s Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) rule banning smoking in offices requires employers to either prohibit smoking or set up separately ventilated smoking areas. The regulation does not apply to restaurants, taverns, factories or other indoor work areas which are not office spaces. Most smoking complaints are handled by a letter to the employer, outlining the rule and requesting a response that describes corrective action taken. About ten percent result in an inspection, and a fraction of those are assessed a penalty. In 1994 a lawsuit seeking to overturn the rule was filed by a group of tobacco companies and three small state businesses. They lost in several early attempts to have the rule declared invalid. A trial was held in Thurston County Superior Court in 1996, followed by a ruling that the Department of Labor and Industries was within its statutory authority and fully complied with the law in making the rule. The ruling was appealed, and the case was argued before the Washington State Supreme Court in November, 1998. The Court’s decision is expected soon.

In 1994, Maryland issued a rule covering virtually all workplaces including the hospitality industry, allowing smoking only in separately enclosed and sometimes separately ventilated rooms. The tobacco industry challenged the law but in 1995, Maryland’s highest court upheld the rule, concluding that "significant risk" to employees’ health should be regulated. Later the Maryland legislature allowed less restrictive rules for restaurants, hotels, taverns and bars. Maryland’s governor has been recognized by the American Heart and Lung Association for leadership in protecting Maryland workers.

California’s statewide smoking ban went into effect in 1995. Any violation of the smoking ban is punishable by a fine not to exceed $100 for a first violation, $200 for a second violation and $500 for a third and subsequent violation within one year. The smoking prohibition is enforced by local law enforcement agencies including local health departments. Cal/OSHA is not required to respond to any complaint regarding the smoking ban unless the employer has been found guilty of three violations within the previous year.

Utah’s Indoor Clean Air Act also went into effect in 1995. It supersedes any local ordinances and prohibits smoking in all enclosed indoor places of public access and publicly owned buildings and offices. Exceptions apply to guest rooms in hotels and other lodging places, taverns, private clubs, or facilities rented for public functions. The first violation is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $100. The second or subsequent violation is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $500.

New York’s highest court ruled in 1994 (Johannesen v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, NYCTAPP, No. 89A), that a worker’s asthma, aggravated by exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke in the workplace, is a compensable injury. The New York State Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the employee had sustained an accidental injury as a result of the repeated trauma of exposure to secondhand smoke. The board’s decision was upheld by the state Supreme Court Appellate Division on appeal by the city agency.

In Iowa, legislation was enacted in 1979 prohibiting smoking in a public place or in a public meeting except in a designated smoking area. Persons violating the law are subject to a civil fine. Puerto Rico now prohibits smoking in public buildings and agencies, hospitals, and restaurants. Smoking areas must be clearly identified with signs and must have adequate ventilation systems to impede the movement of smoke from the smoking area to nonsmoking areas. Violations are subject to a $250 fine.

Hawaii has a state law prohibiting smoking during the hours of operation in group child care homes and centers, and family child care homes. Michigan also prohibits smoking in child care centers and in family day care homes during the hours of operation. In addition, Michigan prohibits smoking in a public place or at a meeting of a public body, except in designated smoking areas.

Violations Resulting in Worker Deaths or Serious Injuries.
Virginia law provides criminal penalties up to $70,000 or imprisonment up to six months, or both, for the first occurrence of any willful violation which causes the death of an employee. A second occurrence can double both the penalty and length of sentence. Virginia’s policy is to recommend criminal prosecution for manslaughter against any person whose flagrant, culpable and wanton violation of VOSH laws results in the death of an employee. Virginia has successfully prosecuted a criminal willful violation and a manslaughter charge.

Arizona statute directs the Industrial Commission to assess an additional $25,000 penalty against any employer for each employee who suffers permanent disability or death as result of a willful or repeated OSH violation. The following provisions must be met: the citation was a final order; workers’ compensation benefits were paid as a result of the employee’s permanent disability or death; and, the OSH violation did not result from employee disobedience. The additional penalty is paid to the injured employee or their dependents.

---

Text Version of Chart: FY 98 Total Violations/Hazards by Type
Type: Horizontal Bar Graph
Graph Elements: 6 - Segments by type of Violations/Hazards based on the number of Violations/Hazards.

• Serious/Compliance = 64,047
• General = 87,163
• Willful = 341
• Repeat = 2,186
• FTA = 494
• Serious/Consultation = 63,887

• Develop comprehensive safety and health programs;
• Provide VOSH with monthly lists of active construction sites for inspection scheduling purposes;
• Hire a full time safety and health professional to run the company’s safety and health program;
• Implement comprehensive and specially targeted training programs for employees and supervisors;
• Require the president or other high ranking management personnel to:
  • Attend safety and health training courses;
  • Periodically visit job sites to assure safe and healthful work practices; and,
• Develop a disciplinary system which includes documenting violations of safety and health work rules, and progressively severe internal penalties up to removal of the unsafe employee.

• Arizona adopted the VPP STAR program in 1995.
• California has eight worksites participating in Cal/VPP.
• Iowa initiated a program in 1992.
• Kentucky certified its first VPP participant in August, 1997.
• Michigan initiated Star and Merit VPPs. Effective January, 1998, these programs will be available to the public sector.
• Since 1996, Minnesota has offered a program which combines elements of VPP and SHARP. The first two participants received certificates in 1997, with others working toward MNSHARP status. Large employers must agree to mentor two small employers to be eligible for MNSHARP recognition.
• North Carolina initiated the "Carolina Star" program in 1993, recognizing companies whose lost workday case rate is 50 percent below the state average for that industry. Sixteen sites have received the award since 1994. The state is currently working on an additional recognition program level for companies that exceed minimum occupational safety and health requirements, but have not attained the most stringent Carolina Star requirements.
• Oregon developed a VPP program with the help of a joint labor/management committee in 1997. Oregon has awarded Star status – the highest recognition available – to one site, and Merit status to a second site. Twenty-one Oregon worksites have been awarded SHARP certificates. Seven of the worksites have earned second year certificates. Over 100 more companies are working toward their SHARP designation. It is hoped that SHARP recipients will also work toward VPP participation.
• During 1998, Puerto Rico received and evaluated three applications to the VPP program. Two employers were certified in the Guanín (equivalent to Star) and one was certified Cemí (equivalent to Merit). Puerto Rico also has a Taíno program, specially designed for small employers.
• The South Carolina Office of Voluntary Programs implemented the "Palmetto Star" in 1994.
• Tennessee’s consultation team implemented the Volunteer Star, VPP, and SHARP.
• Virginia launched VPP and SHARP initiatives patterned after OSHA’s model in 1995.
• Washington has one VPP "Star" site, one application in process, and several more expected by summer. Twenty-five more sites are considering applying for the program.
• Wyoming now has two employers in its "Cowboy Star and Merit" program. The first entrant was the City of Casper, and the second is Chevron Production Company. Employers can also participate in the SHARP program, as well as the Wyoming unique Employer Voluntary Technical Assistance Program (EVTAP) which started in 1982.

• The Three-Day Collateral Duty Health and Safety Program is for personnel who have safety duties in addition to their primary ones.
• The Management Safety Seminar is directed toward the corporate officers and owners of businesses.
• The Construction Safety Program was developed for foremen, superintendents, and safety personnel.
• Industrial Technology Safety Training is for students from the junior high school level through the community college level, to increase future workers’ safety and health awareness.

Maryland provides training on three readily preventable causes of fatalities – trenching, electrical and fall hazards. This Fatality Prevention Program, which was first offered to other state and local inspection agencies, is an effective way to train public sector inspectors in the identification and avoidance of hazards, increasing the effectiveness of construction inspections. The Fatality Prevention Seminars continue to be extremely popular and to draw from private sector employers as well as from the public sector.

Safety and Health Conferences. A number of states hold a Governor’s Safety and Health Conference. For 26 years Iowa has held an annual Governor’s Conference. The Conference is organized by a committee that includes representatives from labor, industry, and the public sector, and draws attendance from many segments of the population. Nationally known speakers are featured. The Conference is so successful that the Committee has established scholarships totaling $9,500 for seven college students who are majoring in safety and health areas.

Oregon’s Biennial Governor’s Conference draws over 3,000 participants to the Convention Center in Portland. Additional education with a conference format is offered in all the geographical regions of the state, as well as a second major conference every other year in Eugene. Washington’s annual Governor’s Conference, ongoing since 1949, is approaching 50 years. In 1997, for the first time, OSHA’s Region X conference was combined with the Governor’s conference. Over 3,000 people attended, with 147 exhibits. The annual conference alternates between Western Washington (Seattle) and Eastern Washington (Spokane).

Kentucky’s annual Governor’s Conference was first held in 1985. This joint effort of business, labor, government and academia is facilitated by the Kentucky Labor Cabinet and the Kentucky Safety and Health Network. It averages 50 sessions, 115 exhibitors, and 1800 participants. Complementing the Governor’s Conference which is held in Louisville each Spring, are mid-year symposiums offered at a variety of locations throughout the Commonwealth during the late Fall.

Maryland OSHI along with its safety council and a number of safety organizations sponsors an annual safety and health conference. The conference draws an average of 500 people each year. Puerto Rico has an annual three-day safety and health conference with workshops designed to help understand compliance requirements and update professionals in safety and health and related disciplines. Virginia successfully hosted its first annual safety and health conference in Richmond in 1996. The conference brought employers, employees, and associations together to discuss current safety and health initiatives in Virginia.

The Tennessee Safety Congress, sponsored by TOSHA and the Tennessee Chapters of the American Society of Safety Engineers, is an assembly of safety and health professionals meeting to share information and ideas to develop programs and educational techniques that promote good workplace safety and health practices. The Congress has grown and become nationally recognized for its high quality and diverse activities.

For more than 40 years, Michigan has sponsored an annual industrial ventilation conference focusing on effective and economical industrial ventilation systems. This week long conference is staffed by some of the most notable ventilation experts in the United States and Canada. It combines general sessions and small classroom experiences to share general ventilation information and the latest control technologies.

• Federal 23(g) Funds = $77.9 Million, 38.3%
• Federal 7(c)(1) Funds = $14.4 Million, 7%
• State Funds = $111.3 Million, 54.7%

• State Plan 23(g) Share = $77.9 Million, 23.1%
• State Plan 7(c)(1) Share = $14.4 Million, 4.3%
• OSHA Share = $244.2 Million, 72.6%

• Training and Education = 112
• Health Consultation = 146
• Safety Consultation = 204
• Health Compliance = 448
• Safety Compliance = 804

Alaska Arizona California Connecticut Hawaii Indiana Iowa Kentucky Maryland Michigan Minnesota Nevada New Mexico New York North Carolina Oregon Puerto Rico South Carolina Tennessee Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington Wyoming