PUBLIC HEARING FOR                )
                                  )
PROPOSED NOISE STANDARDS          )

Pages:    1 through 114

Place:    Beaver, West Virginia

Date:     May 6, 1997
                  U.S.  DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
            MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
     
     
     
     PUBLIC HEARING FOR                )
                                       )
     PROPOSED NOISE STANDARDS          )
     
     
     
     
     
     
                                  Auditorium
                                  National Mine Safety and
                                       Health Academy
                                  1301 Airport Road
                                  Beaver, West Virginia
       
                                  Tuesday,
                                  May 6, 1997
     
     
               The parties met, pursuant to the notice of the 
     
     Moderator, at 9:10 a.m.
     
               BEFORE:  ROBERT THAXTON
                        Moderator
     
     
               APPEARANCES:
     
               MSHA Panel:
     
               JAMES CARTER, Metal and Nonmetal
               VICTORIA PILATE, Office of Standards, Regulations
                 and Variances
               MARVIN NICHOLS, Health Division
               MICHAEL VALOSKI, Office of Technical Support
               JACK POWASNIK, Solicitor's Office
               ROSLYN FONTAINE, Office of Standards, Regulations
                 and Variances
                              P R O C E E D I N G S
              MR. NICHOLS:  Good morning, everybody, and welcome
     to MSHA's public hearing on our noise standard for metal and
     nonmetal and coal mining.
              Let me introduce the rest of the panel.  On my
     left, Jim Carter, with Metal and Nonmetal.  Victoria Pilate,
     Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances.  Roslyn
     Fontaine, down on the other end, also from the Office of
     Standards, Regulations and Variances.  Jack Powasnik -- I
     ought to let Jack introduce himself.  I have a little --
              MR. POWASNIK:  Powasnik.
              MR. NICHOLS:  Powasnik -- ah, from the Solicitor's
     Office.  And Mike Valoski, from the Office of Tech Support.
              We're here today to listen to your comments on the
     December 17, 1996, proposed rule revising certain portions
     of the existing health standards for noise exposure in coal
     and metal and nonmetal mines.  The hearings are being held
     in accordance with Section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety
     and Health Act of 1977.  As is the practice of the Agency,
     formal rules of evidence will not apply at this hearing.
              Let me give you some background on the proposed
     rule that we're here to talk about today.  MSHA published an
     Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on December 4, 1989,
     as part of the Agency's ongoing review of its health -- of
     its safety and health standards.  The Agency's existing
     noise standards, which were promulgated more than 20 years
     ago, are inadequate to prevent the occurrence of
     occupational noise-induced hearing loss among miners.
              In the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the
     Agency solicited information for revision of the noise
     standards for coal and metal and nonmetal mines.  The
     comment period was closed on July 15, 1990.
              On December 17, 1996, in response to information
     received on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MSHA
     published the proposed standard.  The Agency has developed a
     proposal that it estimates can reduce by two-thirds the
     number of miners currently projected to suffer a hearing
     loss, but which it estimates can be implemented at a cost of
     less than nine million dollars to the mining industry as a
     whole.
              The focus of the proposal is on the use of -- on
     the use of the most effective means to control noise: 
     engineering controls to eliminate the noise or
     administrative controls -- for example, rotating miner
     duties to eliminate noise exposure whenever feasible.
              The proposed standard would retain the existing
     permissible exposure level, the PEL.  It would also
     establish a new action level of an 8-hour time-weighted
     average of 85 dBa.  If a miner is exposed -- if a miner's
     exposure exceeds the PEL, the proposal would require that
     the mine operator use feasible engineering and
     administrative controls to reduce noise exposure to the PEL.
              If engineering and administrative controls do not
     reduce the miner's noise exposure to the PEL, the operator
     must use those controls to lower exposure to as close to the
     PEL as is feasibly achievable.
              In addition, the operator would have to provide
     any exposed miner annual audiometric examinations, properly
     fitted hearing protection and ensure that the miner takes
     the annual audiometric examination and uses such protection.
              The comment period was extended from February 18,
     1997, to April 21, 1997, due to requests from the mining
     community.  MSHA has received a broad range of comments from
     over 60 different interests, which included mine operators,
     industry trade associations, organized labor, colleges and
     universities, and noise equipment manufacturers.
              The comments addressed the primary provisions of
     the proposed rule, such as the action level, the PEL,
     methods of compliance, exposure monitoring and audiometric
     testing.
              Let me talk for a few minutes about the provisions
     of the proposed rule.  Exposure to noise is measure under
     proposed Section 62.120.  The proposed section would require
     that a miner's noise exposure not be adjusted for the use of
     hearing protectors, that a miner's noise exposure integrate
     all sound levels from 80 dBa to at least 130 dBa during the
     miner's full work shift, and that the current 5 dB exchange
     rate to measure the level of the miner's noise exposure
     would continue to be used.
              An action level of 85 dBa during any work shift
     or, equivalently, a dose of 50 percent, would also be
     established under the proposed rule.  For miners who are
     exposed to the 85 dBa action level, the proposed rule does
     not require the use of engineering and administrative
     controls.  Rather, operators would be required to provide
     personal hearing protection upon a miner's request, annual
     employee training, and enrollment in a hearing conservation
     program.
              The proposed rule would also retain the existing
     PEL of 90 dBa, requiring that no miner be exposed to noise
     exceeding a time-weighted average of 90 dBa during any work
     shift or, equivalently, a dose of 100 percent.  While the
     PEL would not change, the action level required if noise
     exposure exceeds the PEL are different from the current
     requirements.
              MSHA's existing metal and nonmetal noise
     standards, for example, already require the use of feasible
     engineering or administrative controls when a miner's noise
     exposure exceeds the PEL.  The existing standards, however,
     do not require the mine operator to post the procedures for
     any administrative controls used, to conduct specific
     training, or to enroll miners in a hearing conservation
     program.
              Under MSHA's current coal mining standard, a
     citation is not issued when a miner's exposure exceeds the
     PEL if appropriate hearing protection is being used by the
     miners.  In the event of a violation of the coal mining
     standard, operators are required to promptly institute
     engineering and/or administrative controls and to submit to
     MSHA a plan for the administration of a continuing effective
     hearing conservation program.
              The proposed rule would establish a hierarchy of
     controls for all miners when exposed -- when exposure
     exceeds the PEL.  In addition, other aspects of the rule
     increase protection to miners and further reduce the
     potential for hearing loss.  Under the proposal, mine
     operators must first utilize all feasible engineering and
     administrative controls to reduce sound levels to the PEL
     before relying on other controls to protect against hearing
     loss.
              Furthermore, an operator would be required to
     ensure that miner whose exposure exceeds the PEL takes the
     hearing examination offered through enrollment in a hearing
     conservation program.  Under proposed Section 62.120(f),
     MSHA would require operators to establish a system of
     monitoring which effectively evaluates each miner's noise
     exposure.
              The proposal would also require that within 15
     calendar days of determining that a miner's exposure
     exceeded the action level, the PEL, the dual hearing
     protection level, or the ceiling level, the mine operator
     must notify the miner in writing of the overexposure and the
     corrective action being taken pursuant to Section 103(c) of
     the Mine Act.
              The proposed rule also provides for hearing
     protection and training.  Under proposed Section 62.125,
     miners would be given a choice from at least one muff type
     or one plug type hearing protector.  Under Section 62.130,
     miners would be given the required training.
              Additionally, under proposed Section 62.140,
     operators would be required to offer base line audiograms to
     miners enrolled in a hearing conservation program; that is,
     when a miner's exposure exceeds the action level.
              Prior to conducting the base line audiogram,
     operators will be required to make certain that miners have
     at least a 14-hour period where there are no -- where they
     are not exposed to workplace noise.  Use of hearing
     protectors as a substitute for this quiet period would be
     prohibited.
              The proposed rule would also require mine
     operators to offer a valid audiogram at intervals not
     exceeding 12 months for as long as the miner remains in the
     hearing conservation program.
              Proposed Section 62.150 would require the operator
     to assure that all audiometric testing is conducted in
     accordance with scientifically validated procedures.  MSHA
     would also require that audiometric test records be
     maintained at the mine site for the duration of the affected
     miner's employment, plus at least six months thereafter.
              Under proposed Section 62.160, operators would
     have 30 days in which to obtain audiometric test results and
     interpretations.
              Additionally, under proposed Section 62.180 -- let
     me reread that.  I kind of messed it up.  Under proposed
     Section 62.160, operators would have 30 days in which to
     obtain audiometric test results and interpretations.
              Additionally, under proposed Section 62.180, MSHA
     would require that, unless a physician or audiologist
     determines that a standard threshold shift is neither
     work-related nor aggravated by occupational noise exposure
     within 30 calendar days of receiving evidence of a standard
     threshold shift or results of a retest confirming a standard
     threshold shift, the operator must do the following:  one,
     retrain the miner.  Two, allow the minor to select a hearing
     protector or a different hearing protector.  And, three,
     review the effectiveness of any engineering and
     administrative controls to identify and correct any
     deficiencies.
              Proposed Section 62.150 would require that within
     10 working days of receiving the results of an audiogram or
     receiving the results of a follow-up evaluation, the
     operator will notify the miner in writing of the results and
     interpretation of the audiometric test, including:  one, any
     finding of a standard threshold shift or a reportable
     hearing loss; and, two, if applicable, the need and reasons
     for any further testing or evaluation.
              And finally, the proposed rule would require that
     the operator provide the miner, upon termination of
     employment, with a copy of all records that the operator is
     required to maintain under this part without cost to the
     miner.
              This the first of six hearings that we'll be
     having.  We will also receive comment and testimony on the
     proposed rule in St. Louis, Missouri, on May 8; in Denver,
     Colorado on May 13; in Las Vegas, Nevada, on May 15; in
     Atlanta, Georgia, on May 28; and in Washington, D.C., on
     May 30.  All the hearings will begin at 9 a.m. and end at
     5 p.m., but, if necessary, the MSHA panel will, you know,
     stay as long as anybody wants to comment.
              Now, I want to turn the hearing over to Bob
     Thaxton.  I think I missed Bob in my first introduction
     here, but Bob is on my staff back in our headquarters
     office, in our Health Division, and he will moderate the
     rest of the hearing.  Thank you.
              MODERATOR THAXTON:  Good morning.  As Marvin just
     stated, my name is Bob Thaxton.  I'm with MSHA's Coal Mine
     Safety and Health Division and I will be the moderator for
     today's hearing.
              MSHA views these hearings -- ah, rule activities
     as extremely important.  And we realize that your presence
     here indicates that you also are very concerned about this
     rulemaking.
              To ensure that we have an adequate record that is
     made during this proceeding, when you present your oral
     statements or otherwise address the Panel, we would ask that
     you approach the podium that's in the center, state your
     name, spell your name, and then state the organization or
     your affiliation.
              The order of presentation for the public
     statements will be in the order in which we received
     requests.  And that order for today will be as follows: 
     Steve Moss will be first, followed by Gerald Ellison, Hank
     Bailess --
              VOICE ONE:  He's not here.
              MODERATOR THAXTON:  He's not here?  Jim Bennett,
     Reggie Sizemore, Jim Bias, Keith Casto, Ron Fluty, Bobby
     Little, Brent Dillon, John Poindexter, Jackie Cook and Gary
     Trout.
              VOICE TWO:  Ron Fluty and Bobby Little have sent
     myself and another person as a substitute.
              MODERATOR THAXTON:  When it comes time for their
     presentations, if you would, please, come to my far right,
     to Ros Fontaine, and sign the speaker's list, please.
              VOICE TWO:  Okay, thank you.
              MODERATOR THAXTON:  In addition, we have 17 other
     persons that have signed up to make presentations during
     this hearing.  They have asked, though, that those
     presentations will not begin until 4 p.m. today, so there
     may be a time lag between presentations today, that we will
     adjourn for a short period of time and then come back for
     the second tier of this presentation.
              The 17 people that will be presenting this
     afternoon are:  Bill Cox, Tony -- I can't pronounce this
     name, so I'll spell it -- P-I-S-S-O-S -- Pissos.  Brad
     Liston, Roger Sparks, Wendall Huhn, Lloyd Smith, Robert
     Shain, Lewis Stollings, Charles Williams, Terry Lewis, Mark
     Cochran, Dave Hooper, Tony King, Paul Walker, Jeff King,
     Larry Rosner -- Rosser, and Dennis O'Dell.  And as we said,
     those people have asked to begin their presentations after
     four o'clock today.
              It is MSHA's intent that all persons who wish to
     make -- to speak will be given the opportunity to do so. 
     Anyone who has not previously signed up to make a
     presentation or -- and speak to the Panel, we encourage you
     to go ahead and sign up now.  Again, if you would, come to
     see Ms. Fontaine, on my far right, and sign the speaker's
     list.
              Due to the request to hold hearings at four
     o'clock for the last 17 names that I gave, anybody that's in
     the audience that was not listed as a speaker and wishes to
     address the Panel, we will allow time for that at the end of
     the people that have signed up for this morning's session.
              The Chair will attempt to recognize all speakers
     in the order in which they requested to speak.  If
     necessary, though, the Chair reserves the right to modify
     the order of presentation in the interest of fairness. 
     Also, as the moderator, I may exercise discretion to include
     irrelevant or unduly repetitious material.  And, in order to
     clarify certain points, the Panel may ask questions of the
     speakers.
              MSHA will accept written comment and other
     appropriate date on the proposal from any interested party,
     including those who will not present oral statements. 
     Written comments may be submitted to Roslyn Fontaine during
     this hearing or sent to Patricia Silvey, Director of MSHA's
     Office of Standards, at the address listed in the hearing
     notice.
              All comments are important to the Agency.  Should
     anyone desire to modify their comments or submit additional
     comments following the hearing, the record will remain open
     until June 20, 1997.
              If possible, the Agency would appreciate getting
     your comments on a disk.  The comments are essential to
     helping MSHA develop the most appropriate rule that improves
     the health of the nation's miners.  MSHA has received
     extensive comments on the proposed rule.  We appreciate the
     constructive criticism and the hard and careful thought
     which your comments represent.
              On behalf of the Assistant Secretary Davitt
     McAteer and MSHA, I would like to take this opportunity to
     express our appreciation to each of you for being here today
     and for your input.  We look forward to your continued
     participation in this rulemaking activity.
              Before we begin with the first speaker -- in
     addition, a verbatim transcript of this hearing is being
     taken.  It will be made an official part of the rulemaking
     record.  The hearing transcript, along with all the comments
     that MSHA has received to date on the proposed rule, will be
     available for review by the public.  If you wish a personal
     copy of the hearing transcript, however, you can make your
     own arrangements with the reporter.
              Again, before we start the first oral
     presentation, I would remind you to please sign the sign-up
     sheet at the back of the room, whether you're making a
     presentation or not.  It is simply an attendance sheet.
              Again, if your name doesn't show up on the list of
     speakers and you wish to make a presentation to the panel,
     please come see Ms. Fontaine and sign that sheet.  If you're
     making a presentation to the Panel, if you have copies of
     data or material, please present that to the Committee at
     the time that you come forward to make your presentation.
              With that, we'd like to begin with our first
     speaker.  And the first speaker is Steve Moss.
              Mr. Moss?  (No response.)
              Mr. Moss is not here?  Okay, the next speaker on
     the list is Gerald Ellison.
              MR. ELLISON:  My name is Gerald Ellison --
     G-E-R-A-L-D  E-L-L-I-S-O-N -- and I represent the United
     Mine Workers.  Ah, first of all, I'd like to thank the Panel
     for giving me the opportunity to speak about this subject. 
     I have 24 years' mining experience, four of that being
     underground; the rest being in the preparations plant --
     preparation plant, which I currently work at.
              Ah, I have been on this same plant since it was
     built.  And when the plant was originally built, we did have
     noise suppression built right into it.  We had rubber-lined
     chutes.  Ah, we had lead-lined curtains that suppressed the
     noise and -- and everything was engineered in to suppress
     the noise that we had.
              Since then, ah, all that has deteriorated.  It's
     not been replaced.  Where we once had rubber-lined chutes,
     we've got steel chutes now.  And the noise has increased
     dramatic -- dramatically.  Ah, over the, ah, time, I guess
     these noise regulations have changed and have gotten lax and
     -- and the company has gotten lax with, ah, keeping noise
     down as well.
              Ah, working on a preparation plant, you, ah, have
     communications.  We have, ah, phones over the whole surface
     area.  Many times, we're required to wear two-way radios, so
     -- and, ah, communications is -- is a vital part of safety. 
     Ah, you need to be able to hear when someone is -- is, ah,
     paging you or call you.  And sometimes, at our plant, ah,
     the noise is -- is such that you can't even you're being
     called.
              Ah, we have a backup plan for that.  Ah, a lot of
     times when people can't hear theirselves (sic) being called
     on the phone or the radio, they have a siren that they blow,
     which -- and it's real loud as well.  So, ah, communications
     is a -- is a big part of, ah, a plant operation.  Like I
     said, it has a -- a great safety factor.  And if you can't
     hear -- if you can't hear those communications, you --
     you've got a lot of problems sometimes.  And -- and it could
     -- ah, it could be a hazard.
              Ah, sometimes the communications theirself (sic)
     -- we have radios and equipment that -- that, ah, you know,
     there's constantly chatter on.  We have -- we have trucks
     coming in on the job that, ah, you're just continually bard-
     -- bombarded with noise.
              Ah, I had the opportunity yesterday to look at the
     last noise survey that -- that our company had.  We only had
     one area of our whole surface facility that, ah, would have
     met today's standard, which was 82.  The rest of the areas
     were all in the 90s and the 100 dBa's.  So, you can see, ah,
     if -- if this -- if these regs were in place right now, they
     -- they wouldn't be in violat- -- they would be in violation
     about everywhere.
              Ah, with the current regulations, which our
     company policy is the same thing.  They say, well, you need
     to wear ear plugs or ear muffs.  There are problems with
     those, too.  I think you all have -- have already sensed
     that the people just aren't wearing them, and they aren't.
              Ah, with ear muffs, you -- you -- we've tried
     several brands.  You can't get ear muffs that will fit your
     ears good without interfering with your hard hat.  There's
     just -- just not -- not room for both.  So, a lot of people
     that -- that would like to wear ear muffs can't.
              The ear plugs, ah, a lot of people can't -- ah,
     I'd say not "don't", but "can't" wear them, because, ah,
     there's a coating or something on them that some people are
     allergic to.  You wear ear plugs one day; you have a sore
     throat the next day.  Ah, so we have a lot of people that,
     ah, will tear up tissue paper and cram that in their ears. 
     Cigarette butts, anything like that.  So, I'd -- that's what
     you've got out there now.  Ah, like I said, a lot of people
     just don't wear them because of the inconvenience.
              Ah, you have other problems that -- that
     indirectly contribute to -- to noise problems as well.  A
     good example would be in a piece of heavy equipment -- say,
     the air conditioner goes out.  You're not going to stay in
     there in 120 degree heat, so you're going to open the doors. 
     When you open the doors, you're opening up to noise and
     dust.
              So, a lot of times, ah, this equipment, ah -- ah,
     isn't maintained to where you can keep the -- the noise
     down, ah, as well as the dust.
              Ah, as -- as our industry becomes more and more
     mechanized, we're going to have more and more noise.  As I
     said, our plant, ah, was built in the early '70s.  Since
     then, it has been added on many, many times.  More
     machinery.  Ah, you've got more machinery crammed in, ah --
     ah, increasingly smaller space, which is, there -- there,
     again, more noise.
              Most of the -- the men that I work with, ah, we've
     had physicals from time to time and most of them that I know
     of have had a hearing loss increase every physical that
     they've taken.  Most of them just tell us, well, that's
     natural because you're in that industrial range.  Ah, I
     guess some -- some would say it's because of our age as
     well.  But, ah, it's a real problem out there.  And, ah,
     most -- most of us have had the hearing loss, that are
     compensated with hearing aids, and which most don't wear.
              You know, we don't want to wear hearing aids.  We
     want to just keep our hearing that we've got.  So, I would
     -- I would urge you to, ah, set up a system that would let
     -- allow MSHA to monitor this program.  I would urge you to
     -- to drop the dBa's down to where they once were, where
     that -- you know, we don't have to continue to suffer these
     hearing losses.  Ah, most of us now are -- are within sight
     of retirement and we would like to go have a retirement
     where we're not, ah, strapped down with hearing aids and we
     wouldn't be able to hear as well.
              Ah, once again, I'd like to thank you for allowing
     me to speak.
              MODERATOR THAXTON:  Thank you, Mr. Ellison.
              Our next speaker is Jim Bennett.
              MR. BENNETT:  Good morning.  It's a pleasure to be
     here and to, ah -- ah, be able to represent some of the
     needs of the coal miners.  My name is James Bennett.  That's
     J-A-M-E-S  B-E-N-N-E-T-T.  I represent the UMWA.  I'm an
     employee of Meadow River Coal Company.  That's a Pittston,
     ah, operation in Fayette County, here in West Virginia.
              Ah, I have looked at the regulations that MSHA
     proposed.  And, ah, I am not a -- a audiologist (sic) I
     believe is the proper word that you, ah, described that
     person that, ah, knows about hearing losses and problems. 
     I'm a coal miner.  I've been a coal miner ever since I got
     out of the service in 1973.
              Ah, I do know that I have experienced some hearing
     loss.  Ah, I have been to the doctor.  I have had my hearing
     checked.  Ah, you get behind a little glass wall.  They hit
     a sound.  They tell you to push a button.  Ah, to me it all
     sounded like static.  I pushed the button because the girl
     would look in the window and say, "Can't you hear anything?" 
     And I'd push the button, you know, to -- I wanted to do the
     test.  I didn't want to look like I was a moron setting in
     there on a stool.
              So, when I came out of the chamber and, ah, they
     apparently went over the examination and they told me, they
     said, "Well, Mr. Bennett," they said, "you have some high
     frequency losses, but it's nothing really to be concerned
     about because those pitches are higher than what you
     normally, ah, communicate with people with."
              And I thought, well, you know, that's cool.  So,
     ah, I -- I can hear.  I can hear the news.  Ah, I can hear
     the radio in my truck, when I turn it up rather loud.
              Only last night, I had rented a movie and I was
     setting there at the house and the children came in, doing
     their homework, "Dad, what's wrong?"  And I said, "Well,
     nothing's wrong.  Why?"  "Can you not turn the TV down? 
     We're trying to do our homework."  And I said, "Hey, I -- I
     rented the movie.  I'd like to listen to it."  And, ah, you
     know, it's -- it's just, ah, an aggravation.  Ah, it's not
     like that, ah -- ah, it's detrimental to your life, but it's
     an aggravation to you as you experience your life.
              Ah, I'm, ah, classified as a utility man there in
     the coal mines and I do different types of work.  Ah, I, ah,
     work in the face -- I work out by -- and, ah, I do
     everything from run a motor to run a roof bolt machine.
              I always wear a necklace-type ear protection
     system.  Ah, it has the two plugs you put in your ears.  Ah,
     I find that more comfortable for me to wear because, ah,
     it's not like twisting the little piece of foam rubber and
     stick it in your ear and leave it all day long.  You know,
     if you want to say something, you have to pull it out and
     stick it in your pocket.  I can just unloosen them and let
     them go around my neck.
              And it's so important, when you're on a roof bolt
     machine, that you communicate, ah, with the person that
     you're working with.  Ah, occasionally, you're watching the
     top and you can see a crack in the top that your buddy can't
     see.  Now, we have a respirator on.  We have safety glasses
     on.  And now we've got these ear protection, ah, device on. 
     And it's hard to communicate.  Ah, normally, you just do it
     by signalling with your hands.  Ah, but even when you turn
     the machine off, you back out of the place, you're setting
     down to each lunch, you just hear a -- a roar in your head.
              Ah, the other -- the other day, I, ah, was
     experiencing some sinus problems.  And, ah, the ear plugs
     were really irritating me.  So, I thought, well, I just
     won't wear them today.  At night, when I went -- got home, I
     woke up at about two o'clock in the morning and shook my
     wife and said, "Honey, answer the phone."  She said, "The
     phone's not ringing."  I said, "Why, I've heard it ring
     three times.  I know it is."  I laid back down and I could
     hear this ringing in my ears.
              And I -- you know, the next morning, as I was
     having breakfast, I thought, well, why would this happen?  I
     remembered, I hadn't worn my ear plugs.
              But, the thing of it is, is we need more help than
     -- and the proposal that you folks have -- have laid out
     before us are -- are great.  But, ah -- and I -- I
     acknowledge that, you know, it's -- it's an improvement. 
     But we need more improvement.
              Ah, I'm -- I have been in the mines, like I said,
     for over 20 years.  To my knowledge, I have never had a
     sound test taken on, ah, the equipment as I operated it. 
     Now, at my mines, they -- they do sounding -- ah, the sound
     test on the equipment.  I -- I suppose -- I hear they do.  I
     have never experienced it.
              But even if you're at a belt head out by, if
     you're shoveling belt, a lot of times, I -- I'll take my ear
     plugs and put them in, because just the continuous running
     of the belt.  Ah, you know, there's -- there's no silence. 
     It's just a continuous noise that, ah, that just, you know
     -- like I said, a coal miner for less of -- ah, for lack of
     a better expression, just wears your ears out.
              And, ah, I -- I appreciate the opportunity that
     you've given us to come before you this morning and, ah, to,
     ah, to give our version.  But I -- I would appreciate it
     even more if you would, ah, let, ah, some other officials
     besides the officials of the company monitor this noise.
              You know, we have to rely on them so much for, ah,
     dust samples.  Now, for noise samples.  And, ah, we -- we
     need a different monitoring, ah, division so that we can put
     more faith in it.  We -- it's not -- I'm not standing up
     here saying that the people I work with are unfair, that
     they, ah -- that they might cheat on the exam or whatever. 
     But I would -- I would put more, ah, faith in another
     organization, rather than being self-monitored by the
     company.
              I thank you for your time this morning and I hope
     my few broken words have said something that might be of
     benefit to the mining industry.  Thank you.
              MODERATOR THAXTON:  Thank you, Mr. Bennett.
              And as we've stated, all comments are important to
     us, so please, we do accept the terms and the situations
     that you are in.
              Our next speaker is Reggie Sizemore.
              MR. SIZEMORE:  Thank you.  Ah, my name is Reggie
     Sizemore.  That's R-E-G-G-I-E  S-I-Z-E-M-O-R-E.  I'm a
     member of the United Mine Workers.  I have been for 25
     years.  I've worked underground for all the 25 years.  And
     I'm not a very good speaker or anything, but I've got enough
     concern is the reason why I'd like to be up here and express
     a little bit of it.
              I, too, have a hearing loss already.  And I hate
     the thought of having to wear ear plugs (sic) or some device
     to help my hearing the rest of my life.  You know, have to
     take care of it and keep it stuck in my ear and everything. 
     And, also, I hate the thoughts of having to work in a
     working environment to where you have to wear ear plugs. 
     Because, here you are, you're handling them with your dirty
     hands all day long, taking them in and out, replacing them
     and everything.
              And, ah, as -- it seems like, as the -- the years
     goes (sic) on, the equipment in the mines, it keeps getting
     louder and louder.  We right now have scrubber miners.  they
     have two 30-horsepower scrubbers on them and both of them
     run continuously.  And, ah, we have two fans on our section,
     because we have blowing ventilation.  They're 50-horsepower
     fans.
              You can't hear one another talk anywhere on our
     sections anymore.  You can't communicate with people
     anymore.  And, ah, if somebody tries to get ahold of your
     section with the phone, our phone is located down in our
     feeder and it has a -- a warning light or a light, a strobe
     light on it, and it has an alarm on it.  But if you're not
     close to it, you know, you can't see the light.  You can't
     hear the alarm or anything.
              And then, if somebody happens to be by there that
     does see it or hear it, they have to go down their intake
     air -- ah, airway somewhere to another phone and talk with
     people outside or another part of the mines because you
     can't stand on the section and -- and, ah, communicate with
     anybody.
              So -- and, also, you know, our company, they don't
     do the noise levels theirself (sic).  They hired some other
     individual come in (sic).  And like the other gentleman
     said, we never hear the results from it.  We don't know what
     they are.  So, we'd like for MSHA to do this.  And then,
     that way, they would give us reports back.  We would know
     what it is.
              But, furthermore, we would like for you guys to
     help us do something to make management do something with
     the heavy -- the heavy-duty machinery that they're bringing
     in the coal mines now to make it quieter.  To where we don't
     have to have -- ah, wear hearing protection all the time. 
     So we can communicate with one another.
              So, that's pretty much all I've got to say.  And
     -- and, ah, I thank you very much for allowing me to speak.
              MODERATOR THAXTON:  Thank you, Mr. Sizemore.
              Our next speaker is Jim Bias.
              VOICE THREE:  Jim Bias isn't coming.
              MODERATOR THAXTON:  Keith Casto.
              (Continued on next page.)
     //
     //
     //
     //
          //              MR. CASTO:  I wish you all a good morning, and
     thank you for the opportunity to speak.  My name is Keith
     Casto, and that's K-E-I-T-H  C-A-S-T-O, and I'm a member of
     the UMWA.  Our mine was recently bought out, and the new
     company sent all of its newly acquired employees for a
     physical.
              To my surprise, the gentleman, after giving the
     hearing test, opened the booth and told me that I had some
     hearing loss in my right ear.  He took the head phones and
     held it to my left ear, and asked me if I could hear it.  I
     said, yes.
              And then he put it against my right ear, and I
     couldn't.  I took the head phones and I put it back against
     my right ear again, and I couldn't hear it.  I did that
     myself, because I couldn't believe that I couldn't hear
     this.  It was odd.
              I have 21 years in underground mining, running
     roof bolters, continuous miners, and just about any other
     piece of underground equipment.  I am concerned about
     wearing hearing aides, and ear plugs are a must, but I am
     against them.  
              We had a fellow miner running a operators side of
     a Fletcher double-head roof bolter with no hearing
     protection, while his partner was wearing protection, and
     the unprotected miner heard the rib behind him break, and
     ran.  The rib was 33 feet long.
              His partner never heard it, and he was wearing the
     hearing protection, and he didn't hear a thing, but the
     other one did.  His partner never heard it, and the rib fell
     upon the victim, and the gentleman is totally disabled now. 
     He didn't catch it, and he ran for it, but he didn't make
     it.
              There should be no reason why equipment should be
     hearing friendly.  When you buy a new car, there isn't ear
     plugs or muffs laying in a front seat.  If there were, you
     couldn't hear a horn, or a warning, or the stereo.  Let's
     please keep it as safe as possible.  I thank you.  If there
     is any questions, I'd be happy to address them.
              MR. THAXTON:  Thank you.  The next speaker is Mr.
     Stanley.
              MR. STANLEY:  Good morning.  Thank you for letting
     us address you this morning.  I had very late notice on
     this, and I am ill-prepared for this.  I don't know if
     anyone has noticed -- and I hope that you can hear me -- 
     I've got my hearing aides in.
              I've been a coal miner for about 16-and-a-half
     years, and for one year this was on the surface.  
              MR. THAXTON:  Excuse me, but could you state your
     name and affiliation, Mr. Stanley.
              MR. STANLEY:  I'm sorry.  Phil Stanley, P-H-I-L
     S-T-A-N-L-E-Y, United Mine Workers of America.  I didn't
     have my hearing aides in when you were talking.  Like I
     said, I noticed that my hearing was -- I was reading lips a
     lot, and I wasn't hearing bird sings anymore.
              I think the first time that I noticed it the most
     was with a lady in our church choir.  I could see her, and
     she could get up there, but I couldn't hear her.  I hunted a
     lot, and just like being in the woods, and I would hear
     people, and I heard this deer coming around this way, but I
     had never heard a deer in the woods in my life.
              And I went to the company -- they had their own
     clinic -- and they did a hearing test on me, and said that I
     was okay.  And I didn't take their word for it, and I went
     to another doctor, and they sent me from there to a
     compensation doctor, and I now have hearing aides.
              And I am thankful that I do have the hearing aides
     for hearing.  I wish I had my hearing instead of the aides,
     because I can't wear them very often.  I can't wear them at
     work, and you can't wear them around a lot of electrical
     equipment, and you can't talk on the phone with them.
              And you get under power lines -- and I tried to
     kill a snake last year in my garden, and it wasn't there.  I
     thought I was being eaten up by a rattle snake, and it was
     my hearing aide.  The gentleman made a comment a while ago
     about a man getting killed by not hearing a rib role.  
              I want to relate to you a story.  A few years ago
     I came to work early, and I went upon the number two
     section, and caught the pinning up for another roof.  I
     worked on three, but I went to two, and I caught the pinning
     up, and I came back outside at the regular start time, and a
     friend of mine was sitting there. 
              He was the roof bolter on that section, and I
     said, now, Larry, that's a good top up there, and he said,
     oh, you're a good man, Phil.  I said that's good top, and
     there is about two inches or so of that rock that you had
     better watch.  It is sloughing off a little bit.
              And at that time there was no regulation on us
     wearing hearing protection.  It had never been determined
     that we needed hearing protection.  At eight o'clock that
     morning, Larry ate a pack of M&M's or peanuts.  At eight
     o'clock every morning Larry did that, and he put his ear
     plugs in.
              He was the only man there that wore ear plugs.  At
     one o'clock, a piece of that rock killed Larry.  Now, I
     don't know that he would have heard that if he hadn't had
     his ear protection in.  And right now, even though I have
     lost a lot of my hearing, and I had to have hearing aides,
     and if I had known at that time that the roof bolters and
     the miners were doing this to my hearing, I would have wore
     hearing protection sometimes.
              And a lot of the times I wouldn't have, because I
     had to depend on my hearing to save my live many times. 
     Even though it was bad.  I would hear that rib crack that I
     couldn't see that was behind me.  Or I would hear that piece
     of sand stone start to rip, and it gave me enough warning to
     get out of there.
              Or I would hear a timber break on a pillar
     section, and it would tell me that something is going on. 
     Now, there is variances.  If you put hearing protection on
     or in, it changes the tones.  That's how I tested my hearing
     aides up enough.  I put my hand over it, and it makes a
     beep.
              This makes a different type of beep.  It is a
     different frequency; and when you put hearing protection in
     or on, it changes.  It disguises sound.  A lot of times you
     are fooled, and you think you hear something that you don't. 
     And the other day my wife -- I came home from work, and I
     she said, Phil, the baby bed, the side or the part that
     slides up and down, it won't stay up.
              And I thought, well, I had three options there.  I
     could go up there and I can tie the baby in.  He is 20
     months old, and he is wild as a buck.  Or I can put the
     mattress on the floor, and he will hit on that when he comes
     out, or I can fix the dawg gone thing.  
              And I chose the latter, and I think that's what we
     need to do.  We need to quit disguising the problem, and fix
     the problem.  We've got Stealth Bombers out there that can't
     be detected by radar, and surely a nation that can do that,
     we can tone down the noise level of this equipment.  Once
     again, I thank you.        
              MR. THAXTON:  Thank you.
              MS. PILATE:  I have a question.
              MR. STANLEY:  Yes, Ma'am?
              MS. PILATE:  I am the economist responsible for
     doing the cost estimates, and I would like to ask you about
     the audiometric test that you took and you paid for.   
              MR. THAXTON:  Excuse me, but can you come back to
     the podium, please. 
              MR. STANLEY:  Would you repeat that, Ma'am?
              MS. PILATE:  I am the economist responsible for
     doing the cost estimates, and I would like to ask you some
     questions about the audiometric test that you took and paid
     for yourself. 
              MR. STANLEY:  I didn't pay for it myself.  I hope
     you didn't misunderstand.  The company -- I went to the
     company's -- they have their own clinic, and I went to that
     and had a hearing test done.  And they said that it was
     okay, or they never in any way indicated that I needed
     hearing aides.  But I didn't take their word for it.
              Then I went to another physician.  I have
     insurance.  I mean, I don't know what it cost.  They from
     there contacted Workers Comp and they sent me to a
     physician, who said -- or a Workers Comp doctor, who said,
     yes, I did have a hearing loss due to the environment, an
     occupational hearing loss.  
              I didn't mean to indicate that I paid for it
     myself.  But my insurance did, which I, in-turn, paid for by
     my labor. 
              MS. PILATE:  All right.  Were you actually given
     an audiometric test, the audiogram? 
              MR. STANLEY:  Yes, I was.
              MS. PILATE:  Okay.  How long did that take?
              MR. STANLEY:  Oh, Ma'am, I couldn't tell you for
     sure.  I went through a battery of tests.  It probably took
     me six months from the time they said that I had a hearing
     loss before I got my hearing aides.  
              MS. PILATE:  Okay.  Thank you. 
              MR. STANLEY:  You're welcome.
              MR. THAXTON:  Thank you.  Our next speaker is
     Bobby Little.  
              MR. J. STANLEY:  Hi.  My name is Joseph Stanley, 
     J-O-S-E-P-H  S-T-A-N-L-E-Y.  First of all, I would like to
     say that I am not a professional speaker of any type and you
     will realize that as I go along here.  
              I am a coal miner, and I work for a company called
     Merribone Development Company.  I am currently a health and
     safety representative on my shift for the UMWA, and I'm glad
     that I am here today also to speak on this subject.  I work
     on a preparation plant, and I have worked on a preparation
     plant for almost 17 years.
              I have six months underground experience, and I
     have been to a preparation plant and I have been there ever
     since.  Mr. Ellison, who spoke first, his story is a lot
     similar to mine.  Our preparation plant was built in late
     1968, early 1970, and when our preparation plant was built,
     we also incorporated a lot of noise reduction items in our
     preparation plant.
              In particular a lot of rubber lining in the chutes
     where the coal hits at transfer points, and the linings on
     the chutes themselves that absorb that vibration.  That is
     long gone.  When those products wore out, especially in the
     later '80s, as those linings started to wear, we started
     replacing those with metal, AR plate, which increased the
     sound dramatically.
              And as that wore out, we're going to ceramic. 
     We're currently using ceramic lined chutes in about 85
     percent of our applications, and all are new chutes that
     were installed last year.  All of those were ceramic lined.
              And ceramic, as I'm sure the majority of you
     people are aware of, is a real hard compound that is similar
     to glass, and it has unbelievable wear strength, but it also
     reflects noise, just like steel would.  
              I am a preparation plant mechanic, and every area
     of our preparation plant is out of compliance based on the
     current standards.  Some of our areas in my opinion are out
     of compliance even with hearing protection, and I do wear
     hearing protection, and have wore hearing protection
     religiously. 
              But I also have been tested by Dr. Thoma in
     Huntington, West Virginia, that was paid for and recommended
     by my insurance company, because I went to the clinic also,
     and they referred me to him.  And I have experienced some
     high frequency loss at the upper levels was their
     terminology.  But not enough to be awarded any compensation
              Now, I don't want to lose my hearing, and I wear
     my hearing protection religiously.  My understanding of the
     current noise reduction standard is that when they come in,
     and I have asked that hearing levels be established or read
     at our plant.
              And when they came in and read those levels, he
     explained to me that it is an average.  In other words, if I
     wear that device for six-and-a-half hours, it also takes
     into account any break time or any off time that I have off
     that floor.
              Now, that's fine and dandy up until about three
     months ago, when we got new management, and a particular
     supervisor said that from now on you will spend a full shift
     on that floor.  We have a preparation plant where any part
     of that plant can be taken down at any time.
              You will have like four screens in a row out there
     on one circuit, and they can take any one of those circuits
     down, and I have to go out there and work in that noise. 
     Now, we are talking about a preparation plant that has noise
     levels in excess of 130 in a couple of areas.
              But all, all floors that we work on are at least a
     hundred.  So, if I add the hearing protection with the
     number 28 ear plug, I'm right at borderline.  Now, I don't
     know if you guys understand how loud this is or not.  A
     250cc dirt bike motorcycle six feet away from you at full
     throttle produces 82 decibels.
              Now, that means that I'm working within six feet
     of a motorcycle running at full throttle.  That's with ear
     protection in.  It's just too loud, and it is getting louder
     and louder.  Now, if I have that average, and my
     superintendent is going to make me stay out there that full
     eight hours -- before they didn't mind you taking a break. 
     You could stay out there a couple of hours, and then they
     would let you come in.  
              But now all of a sudden they have taken this hard
     nose attitude that you are going to stay out there for the
     full shift, except for your lunch, and they put the watch on
     you for your lunch hour.  That's fine and dandy, but that is
     going to put us out of compliance.
              What we are going to do is we are going to have a
     whole industry out of compliance, and how are we going to
     comply with that?  These people are right.  A lot of these
     people do not wear hearing protection.  A lot of people
     can't wear it.  It is like a phobia or something.
              It's like if I am working next to a piece of
     equipment, and I can't talk to this person right here at
     full voice, and if he can't hear a word I'm saying unless I
     am within 12 inches of him, how am I supposed to communicate
     with him?
              I'm changing out frames, and I'm changing out --
     I'm using cutting and welding equipment.  We are pulling
     major pieces of equipment.  We are pulling decks out twice
     the size of that table that weigh thousands of pounds, using
     fork trucks, and using chain ratchets, and using chain
     hoist, and I'm working right beside a man who cannot hear a
     word that I'm saying.
              We currently requested -- we have two-way radios
     that can be only worn by that working group, and no one else
     can interfere.  They are absolutely right.  When they tried
     to page you in the plant -- there is lots of areas in the
     plant that you can't even hear.  
              But what is frightening is when on a Sunday, which
     I am on a 4D5 maintenance crew, and I'm in the area of that
     phone, of that speaker, which is 24 inches in diameter, a
     speaker phone 24 inches in diameter in several areas of our
     plant.  
              On a Sunday, you won't believe how loud that is. 
     When that plant is not running, you cannot believe the
     volume that that speaker puts out.  But you can't even hear
     them page you when that plant is running.  If the people --
     I wear my hearing protection, but I know that a lot of
     people don't.
              I know people that I work with every day that do
     not wear it.  I know those people have hearing loss.  You
     see those people reading your lips.  When we do get shop
     time, when the plant is not actually broken, and we go out
     to the shop to fabricate a pipe, or to make up a guard, or
     something along that nature, then you can see that those
     people can't hear you.  
              If you're not looking directly at them, and when
     you address them, it just goes by them, or they catch a part
     of it.  They will say, oh, what did you say.  They have
     hearing loss.  A lot of our people at our operation have
     hear loss.  Compensation doesn't cover hearing loss.
              Worker's Compensation, they will give you a set of
     hearing aides, but that doesn't cover any loss, because you
     have to be over 50 percent.  
              You have to be totally disabled because of that
     loss in order to collect from compensation; and with the
     rules and the regulations of West Virginia's compensation
     system now, I don't expect anybody to get anything.  But the
     UMWA has given you written comments on what they would like
     to see in this regulation, and those are the comments that
     myself and I'm sure all the other gentleman from the UMWA
     would like to see adopted.
              Now, maybe you can't do them all, but I think we
     can do a lot better than what is in this proposal.  He's
     right.  When you go buy a new car, or a new truck, or a big
     diesel off-road piece of equipment -- you see these tractor
     trailers driving around every day, and you don't see hearing
     plugs on the front seat, or a pair of ear muffs.
              Maybe we can't do that, but we can do something
     that is a lot better than what is proposed, or what we
     currently have.  There is a lot of pressure -- I don't know
     how many non-union people are here to comment on this, but
     there is a lot.  I was a non-union employee for about 13
     years.
              Let me tell you, if you're non-union, you don't
     ask questions about hearing.  You don't tell them that you
     need hearing aides or do that.  You go out there and you do
     your job, and you don't have the right to stand up here and
     ask like a UMWA employee does.
              You have a company appointed, Miner's
     Representative, in a non-UMWA job, in a non-union job.  I
     will tell you that for a fact, because we had it for 13
     years.  Miner's Representatives at a lot of non-union places
     don't exist other than somebody that they want the company
     to go with the inspector when they come, and that will tell
     the company's side of it, and not the working man's side of
     it.
              We have the right to our contract, and through
     that act that the UMWA is not afraid to ask be enforced to
     protect these miners, and hearing loss, and hearing
     problems, and noise, and the increase in the noise level of
     production, of all production equipment -- underground and
     on the surface -- is a problem.  
              When that coal is hitting against a rubber lined
     chute, it doesn't make as much noise as when they put that
     AR plate in there.  And underground you have a lot of
     transfer points, where that big rock, or the byte patterns
     are a lot bigger than they used to be because they are
     trying to eliminate the fines.
              That means bigger material, and the larger the
     material, the harder it hits against that area, because we
     are getting it at the prep plant.  The same thing.  But I
     wish you would adopt the written comments that the UMWA has
     submitted to you, and I wish that if you can't do that, that
     you would do much more than you do in the current proposed
     regulation.
              And I agree that $9 million is a pretty reasonable
     cost to enforce this.  I think that's the number that I read
     to implement this that it would cost.  I think we could do a
     lot better than that with a lot less than $9 million.  But
     if it takes more than $9 million, hey -- my brother.  This
     is my brother who just talked.  
              He's right.  He can't hear.  We got hunting with
     him, and he doesn't hear the things that I do.  He has great
     eyesight and stuff.  If you're not looking at him, and if he
     doesn't have those hearing aides in, a lot of times he can't
     hear what you're saying.
              Me and him rode up here together in the car this
     morning.  We live in the same town.  If I turned the radio
     on, he couldn't hear anything I was hearing, because the
     background noise was interrupting it.  
              But we need to address this situation.  You've got
     a whole group of employees now.  The average miner -- UMWA
     miner -- is approximately 43 years old now.  All of us are
     going to be retired in probably or hopefully within the next
     10 years or so, and all of us are going to be leaving out of
     here with hearing loss.  
              We're going to have a whole work force -- and I'm
     sure that it's just not in the mining industry, but it's in
     other industries also, because they are just not taking the
     time to make the noise reductions on this equipment that we
     know they can.  Thank you very much.   
              MR. THAXTON:  Excuse me.  You said that you didn't
     get Worker's Comp and your brother did?
              MR. J. STANLEY:  That's correct.   
              MR. THAXTON:  Okay.  Thank you.  The next speaker
     is Brent Dillon.
              MR. DILLON:  Good morning.  I thank the panel for
     letting me speak.  My name is Brett Dillon, and that's 
     B-R-E-T-T  D-I-L-L-O-N.  Okay.  We have before us a proposed
     noise standard.  I support what the panel has done, but I
     also totally support the comments the UMW has submitted to
     the panel. 
              I think there can be more done than what the panel
     has recommended.  I represent the UMWA, and I work
     underground, and have been an underground miner for 21
     years.  This is not my first time speaking before a panel. 
     I just see new faces, and just a different panel, and just
     different items to talk about.
              The thing that really concerns me is
     administrative controls and engineering controls.  To me,
     engineering controls can be done; it just may cost a little
     more.  Administrative controls is real simple.  If you're
     wearing hearing aides, and it is not enough to cut the noise
     down to keep from harming your ears, then you stick a set of
     ear muffs on over the ear plugs.
              Well, I'm going to tell you that I can't wear ear
     plugs.  They hurt my ears, and they cause my ears to ache,
     and they cause me to break out, and have sores on my ears. 
     I can't stand to touch my ears after wearing ear plugs for
     only a few minutes.
              I know you guys probably are in an office most of
     the time, but have you ever heard of fluorescent lights
     start buzzing?  Does it really aggravate you?  Well, we have
     to live with that day in and day out because our ears buzz
     from working around noise.
              I went over to the doctor over it, and I filed a
     claim for occupational hearing loss, which is caused
     occupational illness.  Well, I was checked by the doctor and
     the audiologist, and they said, yes, I do have a hearing
     loss, but it's a non-compensable hearing loss.
              And that means not even hearing aides.  But yet if
     there is any kind of background noise going on or anything,
     and my wife or my children speak to me, I can't hear them. 
     I said, huh, what did you say.  Excuse me.  Which I do that
     pretty regular.
              I mean, it's easy to hear in here.  We've got
     speakers and everything, but it's not always that way. 
     Another thing about wearing ear plugs or ear muffs is that I
     work underground, and I know a couple of gentleman spoke
     about being able to hear what is going on.  
              Sure, there is always noises going on.  There is
     pieces of machinery running, but if you have ear plugs in,
     or ear muffs, it is going to cut down some of that sound. 
     And you can't extinguish the difference from a piece of
     machinery approaching you as the same as a piece of
     machinery running not far from you.
              So, if you can't hear that machine approaching
     you, then you may not be able to get out of the way, and
     they may not see you, and they may run over you.  Or if you
     are a roof bolter, or a miner operator, or something like
     that, you need to be able to listen to what is going on.
              You need to be able to listen to your roof.  A lot
     of times your roof will pop, crack, and it gives you
     warnings of what is about to happen.  Sometimes you are
     about to have the roof fall, or a rib roll, and if you can't
     hear it, then, yes, you can be killed or seriously injured.
              Myself, I like to hear what is going on so that I
     know when to get out of there.  Again, I would like to thank
     you for the time, but I don't think that the proposed
     standard is enough.  I think we could go more on the UMWA's
     proposal and their comments.  It would help us a lot more.
              There is nothing wrong with companies making a
     profit.  If they didn't make a profit, a lot of us wouldn't
     have jobs at all.  So, yes, I want them to make profits. 
     But I don't want them to make enormous profits at our
     expense.  Sure, they can spend a little bit of money to take
     care of us while we're making money for them. 
              But the plan is now to produce more, and make more
     money, and the heck with the workers.  You know, we are
     easily replaced.  We are just a number, and as time goes on,
     more and more we are just a number.  I thank you very much
     for your time.
              MS. PILATE:  I have a question.  You spoke of
     having an audiometric test with an audiogram?
              MR. DILLON:  Yes, Ma'am.  
              MS. PILATE:  How long ago was that?
              MR. DILLON:  Approximately five years ago.
              MS. PILATE:  Do you remember how much it cost?
              MR. DILLON:  No, Ma'am, because I didn't pay for
     it.  It was paid for under Worker's Comp.
              MS. PILATE:  Do you remember how long it took? 
              MR. DILLON:  It probably took me two hours to go
     through it.
              MS. PILATE:  Thank you.              
              MR. THAXTON:  Thank you, Mr. Dillon.  The next
     speaker is John Poindexter.
              MR. POINDEXTER:  Good morning.  My name is John
     Poindexter, and that's J-O-H-N  P-O-I-N-D-E-X-T-E-R.  I'm
     here to speak on a small aspect of the noise of a coal mine,
     which is the long wall.  We have two at our coal mine.  The
     noise levels there have increased three times greater in the
     last 15 years due to automation and different length of your
     plow panels.
              We have a computation that has three 200
     horsepower pumps that provide the pressure for the face. 
     These pumps are as we call, they go on stroke.  They are set
     for a specific pressure each, and the three pumps will vary
     between five to eight seconds constantly with this high
     noise.
              10 years ago this pump station was located at the
     mouth of our sections and away from the long wall face.  So,
     now they are moved within the approximate vicinity, a
     hundred feet from the head operator of the long wall, where
     he sits in a compartment, and it is an open compartment,
     with a canopy.
              He has a belt line that runs right beside of him
     constantly, with metal splicers coming across the rollers. 
     A hundred feet from him, he has a stage loader and pressure
     250 horsepower motor, and which is constantly on a whine. 
     The stage loader has a chain approximately 300 foot long
     that runs constantly, and that is a metal to metal sound. 
     If you have never heard that, it's quite loud.
              He also has to monitor all of the phone calls from
     the surface, which is also located in his deck.  He monitors
     all calls that comes from the face located in his deck.  The
     tail piece operator is closer to the sound of the stage
     loader, because he is at the stage loader itself, where it
     dumps on the belt line.  
              He hears this noise.  Anyone in the jack line, we
     have a head jack setter, and a tail jack setter.  We have
     three mechanics in the line, and myself, which I am
     presently face fire boss.  We have a face conveyor and plow
     chains that are approximately 510 meters long each, and that
     are constantly running.  
              This is a metal-to-metal sound.  We're constantly
     subjected to the falls of the roof behind the shields, which
     at any time the shields move, the roof will cave.  You have
     metal gilding due to pressure, which is just a sound of a
     sledge hammer hitting metal.  
              You have self-contained units, which are SCUs,
     stationed on every shield in the face.  They will vary from
     129 to approximately 159.  These have audio warnings on
     them, and at any time that shield for any purpose moves,
     even to just push the face, this high pitch from this
     audible warning is activated.
              And that whole set of shields, which can vary from
     20 to 25, if you are in this area, you are constantly
     subjected to that noise.  The start up of the long wall --
     any time it is shut down for any reason, and starts back up,
     has a high pitch warning sound.  
              It is a signal that goes through all the face
     phones on the line to the end of the line, which is five of
     the loudest sounds you probably will ever hear.  Everyone on
     the long wall has the opportunity for any type hearing
     protection that is available.  Most of them don't wear them
     for the same reasons that the other members of the nine
     workers have stated.
              The ones that do wear them have became so adapted
     to the environment that they can't hear the audible warnings
     with those on.  Any head operator at the coal mine, you can
     sit down and attempt to have a conversation to him, but his
     famous words are, "what did you say", because he can't hear
     you.
              And like the rest of these people, I encourage you
     to look at the UMWA's proposal.  I have been associated on
     this long wall for the past 18 years.  To my knowledge, I
     have only saw one hearing test conducted.  It was at the
     stage loader itself, and when I asked the gentleman how much
     it was, he said it was too high.  No numbers.  Just too
     high.
              So, the problem is there, and I for one just feel
     that it is being covered up, because as I said, the noise on
     these long walls, this noise level would change dramatically
     depending on the production, and the more production, the
     more noise.  So, I thank you for your time.
              MR. THAXTON:  Mr. Poindexter, I have one question
     for you, please.  You mentioned the numbers of 129 to 159 as
     the readings on the shields with the self-contained units. 
     Was that pressure or was that dba?                           
              MR. POINDEXTER:  Are you talking about the length
     of the face line as being 129 to 159?            
              MR. THAXTON:  Yes.                 
              MR. POINDEXTER:  That would be the difference in
     the length of your long wall face.  
              MR. THAXTON:  Those were the lengths that you have
     encountered at your particular long wall?
              MR. POINDEXTER:  Right. 
              MR. THAXTON:  Okay.  Thank you.
              MR. J. STANLEY:  This lady, the economist -- I
     have some information, I believe, for the economist who said
     she was in charge of the economics of it.  Pertaining to the
     audio test, and the --
              MR. THAXTON:  Excuse me, but please state your
     name, first, for the record?
              MR. J. STANLEY:  Joseph Stanley, and I am with the
     MWA, health and safety, Merribone Development Company.  I
     can tell you that Harts Clinic, Valley Health Systems, in
     Hamlen, West Virginia, charges approximately $190 to test
     you, and do an audio test and a black lung test.
              Now, what portion of that is devoted to the audio,
     I'm not sure, but that includes x-rays, a breathing test, an
     examination by a doctor, and the trip into the booth for the
     hearing test.  That may be helpful.  
              MR. THAXTON:  Okay.  
              UNIDENTIFIED PERSON:  I wonder if I could put my
     name at the end of the list here before we break.  
              MR. THAXTON:  Yes.  We'll come back to you then.  
     The next speaker on the list is Jackie Cook.  
              MR. COOK:  Good morning, Board.  I want to thank
     you for the opportunity to be able to come up here and speak
     before this board.  My name is Jackie Cook, J-A-C-K-I-E  
     C-O-O-K, and I am presently employed at a coal mine in Lynn
     County, which is Number 16 Long Branch Mining, small one
     section contract mine.
              I started in the mines on September 29th, 1972.  I
     have yet to have the first -- any part of any kind of the
     noise sound device run in the industry.  I have served on
     several different jobs in the industry.  I have had
     positions such as general inside assistant mine foreman, and
     down to the coal hog operator, general labor, whatever. 
     I've did a lot of jobs.
              But I have yet to see MSHA or anyone to do that,
     or to make any kind of evaluation or anything on any type of
     noise.  But when I started in the mines in '72, I decided
     that I was going to move to a job closer to home in '74, and
     I quit that job that I went to in Allen Creek, and went to a
     job in '74 in Bethlehem.  
              Well, that mine worked six months and laid me off. 
     They had a lot of labor problems and stuff, and they shut
     the mine down.  Well, when I was laid off from that mine, I
     had only been there a short period of time.  We are talking
     about 29 months here for a total of underground mining
     experience.
              I go to another mine, or a couple of mines as a
     matter of fact; Westmoreland Coal Company, a small contract
     mine that Doug Bill owned, and I couldn't pass the physical
     examination due to a high frequency loss of hearing.  Well,
     I thought the company was giving me the run around with the
     short period of time that I had in the mines.
              So, I go to a Dr. Thoma in Huntington, an
     audiologist, to confirm that, and I also had those exams run
     which my insurance paid for.  I have no knowledge of the
     costs of those.  But I take from that then that my career in
     mining is over with.  So, I go back to the company that I
     was presently employed for to another mine site to talk to
     the personnel man about filling out some disability papers
     and getting on disability.
              Well, the man was Mike Vickers, and he said, well,
     we don't want to do that.  Let's fill out an application for
     this new mine that we've got up the road up here.  I said,
     okay, Mike, I'll do that.  
              I filled out the application, and they sent me for
     a physical examination.  They never gave me any hearing
     exam.  From that date to this, either the superintendent at
     that mine, or the division manager or somebody, has either
     owned or operated every mine that I have went to since.  So,
     I have yet to take a physical examination on any kind of
     hearing exam.
              I do have a high frequency loss of hearing, and I
     took it before the Compensation Board, and I was denied any
     right to any claim.  It wasn't bad enough to collect any
     benefits on.  But, you know, even the present thoughts we
     have are not working at all.  
              But the proposals that we have before us now that
     MSHA has approved won't work neither, because I did serve as
     a mine manager, and I know what they do and what they don't
     do.  Even just to shift off a little bit.  They switched a
     dust sampling over to the mine sites, and we stayed off
     compliance on this, and we are off compliance right now.
              But I can also show you violations here that was
     wrote, where our mine managers tampered with the dust
     samples.  What readings they took in was bogus readings, and
     violations were wrote and prove in fact what I'm saying, and
     today they are taking dust samples still yet, and they are
     still tampering with them.   
              And they have not done learned how to work the new
     electronic machines to get by with the dust samples today. 
     The only true accurate readings we can get is when MSHA
     comes in and does them, and every time they come in and do
     them, we are out of compliance.
              So, this noise standard is a fine standard to go
     by, but it still is a little bit lenient for the coal
     operators to have to live by, because there is things --
     with my experience that I have had in management and in the
     union, too, that can be done to cut those noises down by
     even cutting some old pieces of belts that are laying around
     and mounting them across the top of those machines and
     stuff.
              It is not no great expense to cut noise down on
     equipment.  But it is a serious problem, and getting back to
     what I was going to talk about here, anyhow, I have several
     friends that is retired from the coal industry.  You know,
     most of them retired at age 55.  
              One of my buddies is 65 now, and I have been
     hunting and fishing with him for the last 24 years.  Along
     about when he got 53 years old, he started talking to me
     about his hearing problem.  Well, as time went on, it got --
     his condition got worse.
              Well, this year, come hunting season, he comes to
     me and wants to know if I know of anybody that can go
     hunting with him so that he will be able to have a view of
     the turkey while he's calling.  People's are not even able
     to hunt after they spend 20 to 25 years in the mines.  
              I mean, it pretty much destroys a lot of their
     enjoyment that they get out of life because of the noise
     that we have in the industry today, and because of the
     hearing losses that it has caused.  I mean, you take someone
     like me, and after 28 to 30 months, they have a high loss of
     hearing, and the doctors even said that it was due to
     industry related.  I've got papers, you know, on that to
     back me, which I should have brought with me.
              But the union's -- the UMWA's proposal that they
     have laid before you all to go with the one that you got
     that will keep it in MSHA's hands, and see that it is
     enforced, would be the best plan that could be brought
     forward for any industry.
              Because you cannot rely on no company to enforce
     any part of any type issue, because like some of the other
     brothers said here this morning, when you go to work for a
     company this dam time, and I have worked for several
     different companies, you are just a number working in this
     company.
              And if you can't no longer produce and perform,
     and in the capacity that they want you to, they are figuring
     out a way to get rid of you.  If you miss too much work,
     they are figuring out a way to get rid of you, and due to
     health conditions, or due to hearing loss, or whatever.
              But also at the mine site that I work at, we've
     had six accidents, which is on the records at MSHA, due to
     roofs falling out.  All of our employees do wear ear plugs,
     because all of our equipment is out of compliance on noise.
     Without question, it is all out.  They all wear ear plugs.
              All right.  We are putting up 10 to 12 foot point
     anchor bolts, and it was a shell top before we can get into
     sand rock top to hold that.  Well, they have to wear their
     ear plugs to run a roof bolters, and to run the miner, or
     whatever job they do.  In my job, I run a coal hauler, and
     it is the most loudest piece of machine underground.
              But these accidents that we've had, these five or
     six accidents that we've had in the past 18 months, is due
     to a piece of slate falling out between the bolts and
     hitting these individuals.  If they hadn't had their ear
     plugs in, there is a possibility that they could have heard
     that rock breaking, and started to fall, and moved before it
     hits them.
              Here just recently a mine inspector, Danny
     Meadows, was there making a run, and a superintendent, and
     myself, and the mine inspector was traveling down an intake
     airway, and a piece of slate was loose hanging out there,
     and I could see it.  
              The superintendent had his ear plugs in, and he
     didn't hear it or see it, and I hollered and asked him to
     move, and if it hadn't been for me seeing and asking him to
     move, he would probably not be working today.  But those ear
     plugs, I brought them with me, and if any of you all would
     like to try and set them on, and see what it feels like, and
     go to work at four o'clock in the morning, and start working
     at 6:00, and get off at 4:00 in the afternoon, and wear then
     10 hours a day, see what it is like.
              I've got several pair with me back here if you
     would like to try them.  I know that I've had office jobs,
     and it didn't bother me to put a man in there doing this
     stuff because I have been in the office.  I was only
     underground two hours a day when I was sitting in the office
     for an eight hour a day job.  I was sitting in the office
     for six hours a day doing paperwork, and that didn't bother
     me a bit to put that man in there doing it.
              But when you get in there and actually do or
     perform these duties, and get involved on what is going on,
     and have to wear these ear plugs day in and day out just to
     survive so you can have a little bit of hearing so you can
     go home and hear a little bit and watch t.v. or whatever, it
     is pretty much ridiculous that we have been so lax on it
     over the past 24 years.  
              It's a serious problem, and the UMWA has come up
     with some good things on the paper here, and if you all
     would accept that, then turn it back go MHSA, and let MHSA
     take control of it, and see that it is enforced, it will be
     of great benefit to all the employees in the industry today. 
     And I want to thank you again for giving me the opportunity
     to speak.
              MR. THAXTON:  Do you have any documents that you
     would care to leave with us?
              MR. COOK: I'll make you copies of them if you
     would like to see them, on the violations and the illegal
     things that the companies do.  I can make you copies of
     them, but I wouldn't give you my only copy. 
              MR. THAXTON:  I don't want to take your only copy,
     but if you care to make copies of those and present them to
     us, we would be glad to accept those then. 
              MR. COOK:  Okay.  Thank you again.
              MR. POWASNIK:  Mr. Cook, you could leave the
     hearing protection if you would like.
              MR. COOK:  Okay.
              MR. POWASNIK:  You can submit that into the
     record.
              MR. COOK:  Okay.  This is the necklace type
     hearing plugs, which the brother over here spoke about
     earlier that works real good, and the best there is actually
     to use.  But if you use this type here, and if you're
     working in dirt, and get grease on your hands, you twist
     that up and put it in your ear.  But then you have got your
     ears full of dirt, and you have to go and get them flushed
     out about every six months with this type here.
              This type here does not block out any noise.  But
     this type here, the company I work for, and at the mine site
     that I work at, they will not furnish them because they are
     pretty expensive.  So, I've got a guy I know at Madison
     Ready-Mix in Madison that furnishes these for me.
              MR. THAXTON:  Thank you.  Okay.  Our next speaker
     is Gary Trout.
              MR. TROUT:  Good morning.  My name is Gary Trout,
     G-A-R-Y  T-R-O-U-T.  I'm a health and safety representative
     for the United Mine Workers of America.  I would like to
     take this opportunity to thank the panel members for
     allowing me to express my personal opinion on the proposed
     standards, and so as not to take up too much of your time,
     I'll try and be as brief as possible.  
              An overall evaluation of the proposed standards
     indicates a definite improvement over the noise program. 
     Some of these improvements include the following.  The
     proposed rule establishes an action level on a time based
     average exposure above 85 dba, which would require the
     operator to provide training to the exposed miner.
              Also under the proposed rule, mine operators must
     monitor the exposure to noise, and inform exposed miners
     annually if they are above the action level.  Another
     improvement under the proposed rule is when the miner's
     exposure to noise exceeds the permissible exposure limit. 
     The operator must use all feasible engineering and
     administrative controls to reduce the miner's exposure to
     the permissible exposure limit.
              Also at the time the weight average of an eight
     hour shift will not affect, or not be affected by the
     extended work shifts, since the noise exposure will be
     measured for the entire shift.  These are improvements which
     will help the miner.  
              Although the proposed rule appears to provide
     clear improvements over current noise standards, much of
     this is subverted by the lack of sound agency monitoring and
     enforcement requirements.  As I stand before you today, I
     can honestly say there are some operators who will go to
     great measures to improve the noise exposure for their
     employees because they care about safety in the work place.
              But unfortunately there are some operators who
     just don't care.  The most damaging aspect of the proposed
     rule is the fact that it is performance oriented, or in
     other words, self-enforced by the operator.
              The operators will be solely responsible for
     establishing a system of monitoring noise, and taking
     appropriate action under the rules whenever they find
     themselves out of compliance.  The proposed rule of
     monitoring noise is an invitation to abuse.  
              You can compare this rule with the regulation
     covering the monitoring of respirable dust, and we all know
     what happened there.  Furthermore, MSHA's rule will be
     limited to taking their own measurements whenever they deem
     it appropriate, and checking the operator's records at the
     mine site for compliance.
              I do not foresee some operators admitting they
     have a noise problem, and self-imposing costly engineering
     controls.  Therefore, I feel that the proposed rule should
     require MSHA to do all noise sampling, and again I thank you
     for your time.
              MR. THAXTON:  Okay.  Thank you.  I think we will
     go back now to Mr. Jim Bias.
              MR. BIAS:  My name is Jim Bass, J-I-M  B-I-A-S. 
     As some of you here know and realize, I've got a big mouth. 
     There is a lot of people though out there today that can't
     hear even my big mouth, especially some of the people that I
     work with.  
              I have been working in the underground coal mines
     since 1974.  I've held jobs from a general laborer to a
     central control operator at a prep plant.  So, I've had
     experience in different atmospheres of noise, from long wall
     machinery, to -- and as the gentleman was talking about
     there  -- the vibrators in the prep plant. 
              I would like to touch on some things that my
     friend touched on as well, and I'd like to explain just a
     little bit.  How many of you all here on this panel are from
     West Virginia?               
              (A raise of hands.)
              MR. BIAS:  Just one?  Well, the rest of us in here
     and you as well know about the self-auditing bill that just
     came up in our legislature to let companies and chemical
     companies audit themselves, and say, well, we've messed up,
     and so I slap myself on the wrist.  I'm good.  I don't have
     to report to nobody.
              Well, some of the proposals here -- and some of
     these coal operators that are even represented here today,
     and that may be speaking this afternoon that that's what
     they want.  They want MSHA out of the way completely, and
     they don't want them to have any say so at all in the
     monitoring, and they will take care of it themselves.  
              So, if they are out of compliance, who are they to
     report to?  Their President?  Their CEO?  So, they are out
     of harm's way there.  So, in this the mine operators must
     monitor some of the good things that are needed in this
     program that are being proposed, and that the mine operators
     must monitor exposure to noise, and inform exposed miners
     annually.
              And it is above the action level, and under what
     some of the operators want MSHA to do is to not even do
     this, and not even tell the individual that he is exposed to
     higher than 90 dba's, and the proposal that is here now that
     should be enforced and hopefully this panel will take into
     consideration that it would be -- that the noise exposure
     level would be dropped to 80 or 85 dba's that you are
     required to be exposed to.
              Also, one of the things that is negative about
     this, and that you hear about, is that they said, well, some
     of the smaller operators need to be phased in at a later
     date because of the economic values to that operation, and
     they can't comply all at once.
              A hearing loss is a hearing loss, and no matter if
     it is to a small operator, or to someone that works for a
     larger operation, because as well as you, and myself, and
     others in here, we would like to hear our grandchildren say
     their first words, or speak to us and say papa, or mama.  We
     want to hear those words.
              We don't want to have to be deaf and have to rely
     on as the brother was talking about, on someone else helping
     them to hear while they are hunting.  I like to hear my
     grandchildren, and I don't have any grandchildren yet.  One
     of these days, lord willing, I'll have grandchildren.
              But I want to be able to hear my grandchildren's
     first words, and I, too, have a hearing loss of the high
     frequency range.  And people today in these proposals that
     the operators want for them, is or them to -- their bottom
     line is the bucks, is the dollar bill.
              Under these proposals the operators will no longer
     be required to report the results of their noise surveys to
     MSHA.  Instead, a record is maintained at the mine site, and
     made available to the agency's authorized representatives;
     and this is a reflection to MSHA with some of the inspectors
     that they have.  
              Some are not fully trained in all the records that
     are available that they are asking for.  Sometimes from the
     studies that I have done at different operations, and
     talking to different miners' representatives, a lot of the
     authorized representatives of the Secretary do not know all
     the records that they are required or have access to.
              So, this is one proposal there that needs to be
     stricken out just so the operators can keep hid all the
     higher exposure levels.  Like the gentleman was talking
     about the face conveyor chain on a long wall.  It is a
     continuous running piece of machinery.
              It runs in some places 24 hours a day, six days a
     week.  There is a constant grinding of metal to metal, and
     pumps running constantly 24 hours a day, and exposure levels
     to different types of noise, and crushers that are at the
     head gate area of these long walls; and belt tails that
     these long walls were -- the belt line that has mechanical
     splicers in them continually come and run continually
     through this tail piece, and making noise.  
              Continuous miners at the mines where I
     particularly work at Eagle and Energy, and it is a
     subsidiary of A.T. Massey.  But we are a U.M.W.A. mines, and
     I thank god for that.  But we have Joy miners, and I myself
     back in the early '80s contacted the Jeffrey Corporation
     about their noise level of their miners, and how the noise
     level got louder, and louder, and louder.
              There are standards out there that can be
     engineered into these mining equipment, especially the
     continuous miners and the shuttle cars, and these long wall
     machines.  Even the prep plants.  There are engineering
     standards out there today that can be met if they are made
     or enforced under some of the new proposals that will be
     there.
              The continuous miners, the 14 CM and 15 CM Joy
     Miners that are at my operation where I work, they have a
     scrubber that is set at 6500 CFM blowing out air of the back
     of that machinery, and it has a 30 horsepower motor on it
     that runs this fan.  
              So, you can imagine -- and someone -- Brett there
     referred to a buzzing of lights that you hear in your office
     or wherever you are at.  Well, you think about standing
     behind this continuous miner there with a remote control in
     your hand to operate that machine, and it is making this
     noise approximately seven hours out of the eight hours that
     you are there.  
              And hearing protection that you have that Jackie
     presented to you there, some work, and some do not.  I for
     one have some that I have on my hard hat and that I have
     since taken off, and went to a different type and that just
     pull down.
              They were the muff type, and they worked pretty
     good, but a lot of people do not use these because of the
     inconvenience, and because of health hazards, and there are
     health hazards in some of these pieces of hearing equipment.
     But the things that can be done, and should be done, and
     should be recommended by this panel you have heard here
     today.
              And they are also in written proposals from the
     United Mine Workers and our people.  So, I would like for
     this panel to think about, if nothing else, if nothing else
     about how and why we should allow a coal operator that was
     entrusted to sample the respirable dust standards in the
     industry for approximately 25 years, and in that 25 years
     they messed it up, and cheated, and lied.
              So, you think they are going to say, well, now we
     are going to be very honest with you; and I want to read you
     something here if I may.  Under these proposals, there is 14
     words, 14 words that is used to cover the whole thing.
              And it says, "Operators shall establish a system
     of monitoring which effectively evaluates each miner's noise
     exposure."  That's all.  The rest of them -- now, when you
     talk about dust standards, you've got -- well, I will just
     read some of it.  "Compared to the regulations covering
     monitoring respirable dust, four pages on when, on how,
     under what conditions, and who does the sampling, all of
     these are for respirable dust."
              And the there is five pages on the sampling
     method, and on how to take the samples and things that you
     should do.  Now, the proposed rules on monitoring noise is
     an invitation that has been perpetuating fraud for 25 years. 
     So, today I not only ask that you protect my hearing, and
     have the new laws, proposed laws to be enforced, and
     enforced stringently so that I would have the opportunity,
     like you will, to hear your grandchildren say, hi, mama, hi,
     papa.  I love you, mama.  I love you, papa.  When you can't
     hear that, it's a word of difference.  Thank you very much.
              MR. THAXTON:  Thank you.  We have one additional
     person that has signed up, Mr. James Linville.
              MR. LINVILLE:  My name is James Linville, 
     J-A-M-E-S  L-I-N-V-I-L-L-E.  I am representing the UMWA, and
     I am the Chairman of the Mine Health   and Safety Committee on our job.  I work for Hobet
     Mining in Boone County, West Virginia.  I have worked for
     them for approximately 15 years.
              I started my mining career working construction,
     and later I worked for Pittston Coal Company in a
     preparation plant, and I held positions as a welder, a
     breaker/builder operator, and I am currently holding a
     physician as a welder for Hobet Mining.
              I have a hearing loss.  I wear hearing aides.  I
     can't begin to tell you how much of a discomfort that is,
     and how much embarrassment I have experienced over the years
     of not being able to hear a conversation, or how many times
     I have asked someone to repeat what they have said.
              It has caused much conflict between my wife and I. 
     She is a very special lady.  She has stayed with me for 30
     years, and I guess she sees some good in me.  But we have
     had a lot of conversations about my hearing, and the
     inability to hear her, and for a while she thought it was
     the fact that I didn't want to hear her or whatever, but it
     wasn't that.
              I have difficulty listening to a radio, especially
     with background noise or following conversations on the t.v.
     or on the movie screen.  I wear hearing aides when I am off
     work, and that helps quite a bit.  I went to my family
     doctor, and had a hearing test done, and after it was
     determined that it was work related, and I filed a Workmen's
     Compensation claim.
              And it took me approximately a year to get my
     hearing aides.  I was sent to a company doctor, and his
     audiogram was quite different from my family doctor's, and
     later Workmen's Comp sent me to another doctor that they
     recommended, which was in line with my family doctor.
              And after a year I was fitted up with a pair of
     hearing aides, and by the way I did pay for my initial
     examination, and as well as I can remember it, it was about
     $175.  And it was a little bit higher than a standard
     examination because the doctor had to fill out Workmen's
     Compensation papers, and they compensated for that.
              After I was fitted with my hearing aides, I came
     back out and it was pretty early in the morning, and I
     looked at my wife and I said what is wrong with those birds. 
     She said, well, what do you mean.  I said, man, they're
     hollering and they're chirping, an they're carrying on.  She
     said they were doing that when we went in there.  You know
     how birds act up in the spring.
              And I began to realize how beneficial my hearing
     aides were to me at that moment.  I was hearing things that
     I hadn't heard in a long time.  Later that day our son,
     about 22 years old, had received his income tax check, and
     he decided that he wanted to treat his dad and mom out to
     dinner.  He had never done that before.
              So, we went to a Chinese restaurant, and they
     brought something out.  I don't remember what it was, but it
     was very crunchy.  And when I put that in my mouth and
     started chewing it, it sounded as if I was chewing up glass. 
     So, right away I became aware of the disadvantages of
     wearing a hearing aide.  It doesn't produce a natural sound.
              The sounds that I hear are very annoying to me
     sometimes, like someone banging the dishes, and there are a
     lot of sounds like that that are not reproduced in a true
     manner.  It's very uncomfortable.  You find yourself turning
     your hearing aides up and down quite a bit.
              Of course, I can't wear my hearing aides when I'm
     working because I'm involved as a welder, and I'm exposed to
     too much noise.  And sometimes I will be cutting and I've
     got a pair of goggles on that kind of limits your vision,
     and it's like tunnel vision, and you see straight ahead.
              And I'm glad that I'm not a spooky person, because
     a lot of times people walk right up on me, and I don't know
     that they are there until -- I can't hear them coming.  I
     have wore my ear plugs for many, many years, and I don't
     think the ear plugs prevent you from obtaining a hearing
     loss.  
              It helps, but I don't think it does the job that
     they are supposed to do.  We need better protection.  When I
     worked in a coal preparation plant, and this was prior to
     1982, at that time they did have the real thick rubber
     padding inside the chutes that the gentlemen were explaining
     to you earlier.
              And at that time I noticed that the fasteners that
     held this in the chute were coming loose, and I noticed also
     that the companies were replacing this rubber padding with
     steel, which wore a lot better and was less trouble for
     their maintenance crew to keep up.
              So, some of the things that these gentlemen are
     telling you, I have seen them myself in the mining industry. 
     On a job on the strip, we have in our line of duty as a
     welder, sometimes if a piece of equipment goes down, like a
     494 Besar series, the main object is to get that piece of
     equipment back up as quickly as possible.
              You will have several trucks, six or eight, and
     sometimes more trucks hauling from that piece of equipment,
     and you are not being productive if you have got people who
     are sometimes sitting there waiting for that piece of
     equipment to come back up.
              So, the maintenance crew, they make a large effort
     to get this piece of equipment up as quickly as possible;
     and what this means a lot of times is that you have three
     welding trucks sitting there. One welding truck we have has
     two 600 amp Lincoln Welders on it, and the other ones have
     one.  
              And all these welding machines are running at the
     same time.  It is very noisy.  And when we first go on to a
     piece of equipment, we will see several cracks in a small
     area, and so we are working within 10 feet of each other,
     and there will be two or three people air-arcing at the same
     time.
              After we air-arc out the crack, which is a very
     noisy process.  You can't carry on a conversation with an
     air-arc there, and it's a process where you use your
     electric welder, and you actually melt metal, and then you
     press the air trigger, and it blows that metal out, and it
     makes a sound that is very uncomfortable.  You can't stand
     to be near it without any hearing protection.
              And after that is completed, then we start our
     welding process, and we have what is called an air slagger
     that we use to bust that slag out of the weld, and it is
     very noisy also.  So, you have three people and sometimes
     four people working in a small proximity using air chippers.
              Sometimes that is at the same time and
     alternating.  It depends on what stage they're in.  So, that
     is some of the problems that we have working on the surface. 
     Also, sometimes equipment is running when we are working on
     it.  It's locked out in a position where you can't move
     because of any personal harm that motors or whatever are
     still running, and it is very noisy to be around.
              We have a 72 cubic yard drag line on our job. 
     Sometimes it is required that we go into the house
     compartment where the generators and the electric sets are,
     and perform maintenance, and it is very, very noisy.  Of
     course, they have a sign there that tells you to wear your
     hearing protection, and we do, but it is still noisy.
              And if you are required to talk to someone, and I
     am not exaggerating a bit, you have to get up within two or
     three inches of their ear and shout at them before they can
     hear you.  And sometimes if they have a hearing problem,
     they can't really understand what you're saying.  
              So, we depend on sign language, and reading lips,
     and things like that.
              (Continued on next page.)
     //
     //
     //
     //
          //              MR. LINVILLE (Cont'd.):  The people we work
     with -- some have had had hearing tests and others haven't. 
     But if you've been exposed to noise and you went through
     what I've been through, you can recognize the signs of
     hearing loss.  People ask you to repeat several times what
     you've said.  If you don't get someone's attention, they
     don't know that you're talking to them to start with.  So
     what we've learned to do, to communicate better in the
     workplace, we address.  We say hey Bob and whatever his name
     is to get his attention first and then we talked to him.  We
     find out that helps a lot.  But these are things you have to
     learn to do or compensate for the hearing loss.
              The company I work for is a very, very safety
     conscientious company, have been in the past.  They've done
     a lot to help us out, things that we need, respirators to
     control the dust or keep us from breathing the air-arc
     smoke, carbon smoke that comes from it.  They've been
     helpful in providing those for us.  They've been helpful in
     providing ear plugs.  You'll find them on the buses, on
     manned trips, in the machinery, in the shuttles and bag
     lines.  
              And there's no question if you need some, they'll
     get them for you.  But I'm wondering if what we've been
     supplied with which is the EAR plug.  It's supposed to be
     one of the best in the industry.  Is it really doing us that
     much good?  I mean, it's doing us some good, but I've still
     got a hearing loss as a result of wearing those over the
     years.  I don't think it's been sufficient.
              Economics plays a big part in our company that we
     work for.  Recently, we h been in the past the money making
     company of Ashland Coal.  And some of you may have been
     reading the newspapers.  In the last year or so, we've lost
     $7 million on our job.  Not so much as a result of the
     working force as it is change in mining conditions.  We've
     moved from east side of Mud River to the west side of Mud
     River.  
              In the process of moving, production has suffered
     because the equipment had to travel a long distance without
     being productive.  We're feeling that crunch.  The company
     has tightened up in a lot of ways.  They don't seem to be
     quite as safety conscious as they were.  I guess they're
     trying to survive.  And I'm wondering what kind of effect
     that's going to have on our safety on our job in the future.
              I'm very thankful also to be a member of the UMWA. 
     And if you look about, I don't think you'll find too many
     people here who are going to talk to you today that don't
     have the union backing them up.  I'm very thankful for MSHA. 
     We have some good inspectors on our job that are really
     conscientious about safety and they work with us and we work
     with them and we've got a good working relationship.  And if
     we didn't have MSHA backing us up, supporting us and
     enforcing the laws, it would be a pretty tough place for us
     to work out there, not to say anything at all about our
     health and safety that would suffer as a result of them not
     being there.
              We would like to encourage MSHA to continue to
     monitor the noise levels and enforce the noise levels at our
     operations.  I'm old enough that I have grandchildren.  And
     I think I might have heard them say I love you that first
     time only because my wife told me they were talking and we
     were listening.  But there are a lot of things they say that
     I can't hear.  I've got a little girl that's eight years old
     and sometimes I have to ask her what she said.  It's
     embarrassing.
              It's something that the miners shouldn't have to
     go through.  They should have good enough hearing
     protection, rulings and regulations that they won't have to
     suffer a hearing loss.  I'm very thankful that you've
     allowed me to speak today.  I'm glad to be a part of trying
     to rewrite the laws going will help other people prevent
     them from having a hearing loss.  Thank you, very much.  Are
     there any questions?
              MS. PILATE:  I have two questions.
              MR. LINVILLE:  Yes.
              MS. PILATE:  The audiometric exam that you spoke
     of, the $175 figure.  How long ago did you take that exam?
              MR. LINVILLE:  I started my first examination in
     1994.  And then later about six months later, I was sent to
     a company doctor for an audiogram which was quite different
     from my family doctor.  Then I'd say maybe three months
     later I was sent for examination by the workman's
     compensation to their doctor.  And their doctor's
     examination agreed with my family doctor.  
              MS. PILATE:  For the three tests that you took,
     what was the average time that you were actually in there
     taking the exam?
              MR. LINVILLE:  I'd say approximately 2 to 2 1/2
     hours.
              MS. PILATE:  Thank you.
              MR. LINVILLE:  Thank you
              MR. THAXTON:  We have been going for approximately
     two hours.  So at this time, we would like to take a short
     break.  It seems like we're getting several people are
     getting a little antsy.  And we're sitting on metal chairs
     up here with no padding.  So at this time, we'd like to take
     a 20 minute break.  It is now ten minutes after 11:00.  So
     we will be back at 11:30.
              (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
              MR. THAXTON:  If there is anybody outside that
     cares to come back in, we're ready to start again.
              (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
              MR. THAXTON:  We do have one additional speaker
     for this morning.  Mr. Joe Garcia.  I'm sorry, Steve Garcia. 
     I'm sorry, we have a Joe Garcia that works for us.  I
     apologize for that. 
              MR. GARCIA:  That's all right.  I've been telling
     inspectors for years that he's my uncle.  Okay.  My name is
     Stephen Garcia.  I'm with Eastern Associated Coal
     Corporation, the Vice President of Safety.  Appreciate being
     here today with you all.  My initial comments concerning
     these proposed noise regulations will be general in nature
     and not complete.
              MR. THAXTON:  Could you spell your name for the
     record, please?
              MR. GARCIA:  G-A-R-C-I-A.
              MR. THAXTON:  Thank you.
              MR. GARCIA:  Stephen, S-T-E-P-H-E-N.  Okay.  One
     thing I would like to comment in three general areas in my
     opinion the law does not take into consideration:  non-work
     hearing loss, the positive impact of hearing protection, the
     economic impact of the proposed regs.
              First off, an example of the non-work hearing loss
     in Section 62.110 definitions.  The definition of reportable
     hearing loss and standard threshold shift, STS.  I believe
     that it fails to recognize hearing loss due to
     non-occupational causes such as motorcycles, lawn mowing,
     hunting, military service, farming, sports type shooting,
     homework shop activities, ear disease or audiometric
     abnormalities, some of which has been testified to already
     here this morning.
              Second point, positive impact of hearing
     protection.  I believe if we are truly interested in
     protecting miner's hearing, then the law should require
     using all controls available, one of which is hearing
     protection.
              One of those positive controls should be, and I
     repeat hearing protection.  If the miner is given hearing
     protection and is properly trained in the use of hearing
     protectors and properly trained in the maintenance of
     hearing protection, then hearing protection will show again
     that it is a very protective method.
              Our records at a first glance as a company support
     this fact.  Another side benefit of hearing protection, it
     is economically feasible.  In addition to being effective
     control, sorry to repeat myself there.  It is an economical
     control and I think when we consider hearing protection that
     we should also apply another rule, the common sense rule. 
     If it works, use it.  OSHA uses hearing protection and it
     allows for the adjustment based on the use of hearing
     protectors.  Why can't we?
              Third part, the economic impact and there are
     other economic impacts.  I choose to talk about cost as it
     relates to prep plants.  In my opinion, there needs to be an
     in-depth study to the negative economic impacts that these
     proposed regulations will deliver to the coal industry and
     its miners. 
              Let me give you two examples as to why I feel the
     way I do.  We hired an acoustic and noise expert to evaluate
     two dissimilar prep plants based on near or close to
     compliance with the proposed regulations.  This study
     considered individual engineering controls, economic impact
     and noise reduction considerations.
              Example one, prep plant one, and I quote just a
     part of the report rather than to bore everybody with all
     the details here.  This is a quote.  If it is assumed that
     employees make a random walk throughout the prep plant on a
     they make each round, but follow the same general path, it
     is not likely that significant reductions in the TWA will
     occur.  
              Even if half the noise resources were controlled
     or correctly if half the total sound power was reduced, this
     would yield a 3 dBa reduction which would be extremely
     expensive.  If another half of the sources, i.e.,
     three-fourths of the total were controlled so that the total
     sound power was one-fourth of the original, an additional
     3 dBa reduction would occur for a grand total of six dBa.  
              Unless major reductions of 10 to 15 dBa are
     achieved throughout the plant for all sources, the cost will
     be high with very limited benefits as in noise reduction. 
     The cost to achieve a dBa reduction throughout would be
     prohibitive.  
              To give you some numbers as to what that first 3
     dBa would cost, it would be a minimum of $275,000
     approximately. And it may or may not deliver a 3 dBa
     reduction.
              Second example, prep plan two.  Quote again, "If
     noise controls were to be attempted on this plant, it would
     be less expensive to tear the plant down, remove the
     equipment and rebuilt it.  The only real hope for a facility
     like this would be more automation and remote sensors." 
     Now, this is a report by an outside independent consultant
     who is an acoustic type sound expert.  He did not give a
     cost on that side of the issue for tearing that prep plant
     down, but I would assure you it would be in the millions. 
     Millions.  Plural.
              Second quote of his report in closure, it says "An
     honest appraisal of both facilities were made and the
     conclusion is that the controls would be prohibitively
     expensive in some.  In not many cases, technical barriers
     exist which make controls difficult until the equipment
     manufacturers explore and find ways to reduce the noise of
     their equipment.  Meaningful reductions are not likely to
     occur.
              In closing, I'd like to ask that we recognize the
     impact of loss due to non-related work issues.  And somehow
     I think there's a flaw that we have to look at that and
     study that.  I think we need to add the common sense factor
     of hearing protection and technology that we currently have
     in here today.  And some people in this room today testified
     that it is working in some place and locations.  
         From an economic perspective, I think we need to look
     at a complete economic analysis and reevaluate the current
     economic analysis that was done for these regulations. 
     Thank you.  Any questions?
              MR. VALOSKI:  I have one.  You said or actually
     it's a request for additional information.  You said your
     records show that HPDs are working.
              MR. GARCIA:  I said initial gloss, our initial
     look at the records for hearing loss claims show a flat line
     and I'm assuming that the hearing protection is working
     because of that fact.
              MR. VALOSKI:  Okay.  
              MS. PILATE:  I would ask that you submit the
     report that you have for our record.
              MR. GARCIA:  I would be willing to do that if you
     send me a business card and I'll send you a letter of
     confidentiality and be more than happy to do that once
     that's received.  Any other questions?
              MR. THAXTON:  Okay.  Thank you, sir.  
              MR. GARCIA:  Thank you.
              MR. THAXTON:  At this time, that completes all the
     people that have signed up to make a presentation to the
     panel.  We'd like to ask now if there is anyone in the
     audience that has not previously made their wishes known to
     address  panel.  If there's anyone present that cares to
     make an address to the panel.  Yes, sir?
              VOICE 5:  I'd like to make a presentation to the
     panel.
              MR. THAXTON:  Do you wish to do that now?  Or we
     can do it after lunch.
              VOICE 5:  Whatever's convenient for you.
              MR. THAXTON:  You will be available after.  Given
     the hour and the time that the cafeteria is available here
     at this facility for lunch, we'll break now for lunch and
     return at 1:15?  And at that time in the meantime if you
     would come forward and sign our sheet, we will make
     arrangements.  Then you'll be presenting after lunch.  At
     this time, we'll adjourn then for lunch.  Thank you.
              (Whereupon a lunch break was taken from 11:54 a.m.
          to 1:18 p.m.)              A F T E R N O O N   S E S S I O N
                                                 [1:18 p.m.]
              MR. THAXTON:  Okay.  We'd like to reopen the
     hearings for this afternoon.  I'd like to remind everybody
     that's present for the hearings that you do sign the sheet
     at the back of the room.  That does not indicate that you
     wish to make a presentation.  It's only to acknowledge and
     register that you attended the hearings.  So if anybody is
     present who did not sign that sheet on the back table, we'd
     ask if you would, please, sign that sheet.
              We have two speakers that have signed up from the
     morning session.  We'll start out with Edward Moss.  And
     again, I'd remind the speakers please state your name, the
     organization that you represent and then spell your name
     please.
              MR. MOSS:  Mr. Chairman, my name is Edward Moss,
     E-D-W-A-R-D, M-O-S-S.  I represent Bituminous Safety
     Services which is a small health and safety consultant
     company that provides services to the small and medium size
     mining operations in Northern West Virginia, Southwest
     Pennsylvania and Western Maryland coal fields.  And I
     provide health and safety related work activities to the
     underground and surface industry as well as the metal and
     non-metal industry.
              Now, I did not intend to speak today.  And so my
     remarks I have put together in an extemporaneous fashion and
     there may be some rambling thoughts here.  But I think there
     are some things that need to be said.
              First of all, I've been following this rule since
     its first initial publication and I'd like to pass some
     information onto the panel in regard to what I've discovered
     in regard to costs relating to surface operations because
     that's my primary area of interest at this time.
              Using my data that I've collected in performing
     noise surveys and also MSHA data that I was able to collect
     on the same surface mine operations, performed by MSHA
     inspectors where I either used Freedom of Information Act
     information or the cooperation of field office
     representatives.  Under the proposed rule of the mining
     operations that I currently service, 50 percent of the
     workforce will be required to be enrolled in a hearing
     conservation plan.  And, of course, that hearing
     conservation  hearing plan will be triggered by a dose level
     of 50 percent.  At least ten percent of the equipment
     operators will exceed the permissible exposure level or the
     100 percent dose level.
              Now, in terms of cost, I view the $9 million
     figure that MSHA's quoted in terms of the economic impact as
     grossly understated.  For example, hearing conservation
     hearing exams according to what I have been able to
     determine in contacting audiology clinics and things like
     that will run anywhere between $50 and $150.
              Add to that the expense of compensating the miner
     during the examination process, the cost of the record
     keeping process, reporting and that at least is going to
     double the initial cost of the hearing conservation
     examination, the hearing test.
              Now, in regard to mobile equipment that exceeds
     the PEL level, I contacted a CAT dealer and tried to get a
     determination as to what the cost would be to replace the
     sound suppression material in certain makes and models of
     mobil equipment, such as loaders and dosers and pieces of
     mobile equipment that are commonly used in the surface
     industry and surface of the underground industry.  
              I could not get an exact figure, but in regard to
     the conversations I had, it was apparent to me that if we
     went through a complete replacement of the sound suppression
     cab, that is the sound suppression material in the cab of
     mobile equipment, muffler systems, this is going to range
     anywhere between $2,500 and $5,000 per machine.
              Using the present rule and the language of the
     rule where it says engineering control using current
     applicable technology, this will place an overbearing
     expense on some of the small mine operators.  In fact, a
     couple of the companies I work for could literally be placed
     out of service.  They could not economically absorb the cost
     of this and still be competitive.
              Further, what bothers me in the current rule is it
     says current applicable technology.  It doesn't seem as
     though it has an apparent closure.  It doesn't seem like the
     loop can close.  Where does current applicable technology
     end?
              If you give me enough money, I could engineer
     every work position to under 50 percent dose level.  The
     federal government doesn't have that much money.  And
     certainly the coal industry doesn't have that much money. 
     Now, lastly and what is even more bothersome about the rule
     is the language that says when reasonable engineering
     controls have been attempted and they're still above the PEL
     level, then hearing protection can be used.
              Now, when I make an attempt to explain this to
     miners in my classes, I sort of get a two-phased reaction. 
     First of all, they get a glazed look over their face and
     then they start to scratch their heads and then they start
     to laugh.  And the reason why they start to laugh is that
     they know that hearing protection under the current rule is
     acceptable under the front end and magically it becomes
     acceptable on the back end under the new proposed rule.
              Now, how can it be acceptable now on the front end
     of the rule and we incorporate engineering controls and
     hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars and that
     doesn't work?  Now we're going to incorporate it on the end
     portion of the enforcement process.
              I would entertain any questions from the panel.
              MR. THAXTON:  You said 50 percent of the workforce
     would exceed the ADCP or the action level and 10 percent of
     equipment would exceed the PEL.  Could you amplify on those? 
     Did you measure X number of pieces of equipment?
              MR. MOSS:  I don't have my data in front of me,
     but I would venture to say that just about every Cat D9-G
     dozer is going to be above the 90 dBa level.  Some of your
     larger Cat 992C or 992A loaders that are rock loaders,
     they're all going to be above 90.  Some of the drills are
     going to be above 90.  Some of the loaders, some of the
     older loaders are going to be above 90.  Preparation plants,
     there's going to be, there are areas in preparation plants
     that are going to be consistently above 90.
              MR. THAXTON:  Are you willing to provide your
     survey data to the panel?
              MR. MOSS:  I'll collect as much of that data and
     present it to you at your convenience.
              MR. THAXTON:  Do you have the address?  It's the
     address that's in the Federal Register notice.  If you can
     forward that information to Pat Silvy with the Office of
     Standards, it would be appreciated.
              MR. MOSS:  I'll be glad to.
              MR. THAXTON:  Any other questions?
              MS. PILATE:  I have one.  Are you aware that the
     cost estimates do include record keeping costs as well as
     wage costs?
              MR. MOSS:  I am and I think they're understated.
              MR. THAXTON:  You think the wages, the hourly cost
     or what exactly?
              MR. MOSS:  Well, I'm saying that the figures that
     are calculated in terms of the estimated costs are not
     accurate in terms of what they truly are going to be once
     the rule is fully enforced.
              MS. PILATE:  It might be helpful if you write down
     specifically what you have in mind and submit that.
              MR. MOSS:  Okay.  
              MR. THAXTON:  Okay.  Thank you, very much.  The
     next speaker is Linda Lester.
              MS. LESTER:  Good afternoon.  I appreciate you all
     letting me speak before the board here.  My name is Linda
     Lester, L-I-N-D-A, L-E-S-T-E-R.  And I represent the United
     Mine Workers.
              I went in a coal mine in 1979 at the age of 18
     years old.  I worked in a shaft mine.  It's 1,550 feet deep
     in Southwest Virginia.  I've been a roof bolster for nine
     years.  I've been on a continuous miner, belt conveyors,
     long wall and numerous other jobs during my mining
     experience.
              I wear hearing protection and have had numerous
     ear infections from the wearing of hearing protection.  My
     ears feel as if they're stopped up most of the time.  I
     don't hunt.  I do mow my lawn and watch tv.  I'm associated
     with all the other outside world, but I still feel that a
     lot of the noise and stuff I've been subjected to in the
     mines and from mining equipment has caused the pressure and
     stuff that I feel in my ears most of the time.
              My son frequently asks why the tv's on or the
     radio's on so loud.  The only way I can productively watch a
     tv show is to have the volume turned up to be able to hear
     any conversation going on, on the tv.
              In March of 1996, I was required to have a return
     to work physical which included a hearing test.  The hearing
     test was given to me by a nurse which was approximately ten
     minutes that it took her to test my hearing.  I asked her
     the results of it and she said that it was fine.  And the
     one thing that I would urge you to do, you know, I went
     through the proposal that MSHA brought down and all laws,
     rules and regulations are only as good as the enforcement
     agency make them.  
              You know, it's just like out here on the road. 
     We've got to speed limit of 65.  But if we don't have
     troopers and people enforcing that, then you've got run away
     people going down the interstate.  I would strongly urge
     that you would look at the enforcement of this.  If given to
     the coal companies, it will be just like the dust procedure. 
     It will be tampered with and the miners won't benefit a
     great deal from whatever comes out of this.
              And I also know that economics will play a strong
     argument in these hearings and in these regulations, but the
     one thing I would ask is how do you put a price on someone's
     hearing?  You know, where down the road do you compensate. 
     Just like myself, I'm 35 years old.  I don't have
     grandchildren yet.  And I have a hard time hearing my son. 
     Another 10, 15 years, what's going to compensate me for the
     fact that I have to wear hearing aids or something else due
     to being in an environment that is extremely too noisy for a
     person to have to work in.  And I thank you very much for
     your time.
              MR. THAXTON:  Thank you, very much.  That
     concludes the people that we have on our list as signing up
     to address the panel at this time.  As I've said before, we
     do have a list of approximately 17 people that have asked to
     address the panel around 4:00 o'clock today.  At this time,
     I'd ask if there are any people in the audience that would
     like to address the panel at this time.  If you have not
     signed up, come forward at this time and you can sign the
     sheet and you can make your presentation.  And also, if
     there is anyone present that is on the agenda for the 4:00
     o'clock timeframe, if they'd care to make their presentation
     at this time, they are welcome to as well.  No one.  
              The time right now is 1:35.  The panel will take a
     break then until 2:30.  We will reconvene at 2:30 to
     determine if there are any other interested parties present
     that would like to address the panel.  If at that time there
     are no people present that would like to address the panel,
     we will adjourn again, recess again rather, until 3:30.  At
     3:30, we will return and stay here until the group that is
     asked to make their presentations starting at approximately
     4:00 o'clock have completed all of their presentations.
              Any questions related to that?  Okay.  At this
     time, we will recess and report back, the panel will be back
     in session then at 2:30.
              (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
              MR. THAXTON:  Okay.  The time is now is 2:35.  We
     are going to go back on the record and we will ask if there
     are any people, persons present that would like to sign up
     now to make a presentation to the panel.  With no persons
     present that would like to make presentations at this time,
     the hearing panel will recess then until 3:30 at which time
     we will come back and reopen the hearings and we'll stay in
     session then until the group that is coming in at 4:00
     o'clock has had ample time to make their presentations. 
     Thank you.
              (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
              MR. THAXTON:  We'll go back on the record.  It is
     3:35.  At this time, I don't see any new faces in the
     audience.  As a matter of fact, I see very few faces in the
     audience.  The panel will stay here until such time as other
     people show up.  We will actually show the record again,
     hold it in recess until other people show up.
              (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
              MR. THAXTON:  Okay.  We'll go back on the record. 
     We understand now that of the list of 17 persons that were
     going to testify this afternoon, we now have five persons
     that will actually be doing presentations today.  So those
     people are present at this time.  So at this time we'll
     start with the first person to present would be Bill Cox. 
     Mr. Cox, we would ask that as you come forward that you
     state your name, spell your name and then state your
     affiliation at the beginning before you make your
     presentation, please.
              MR. COX:  I'm Bill Cox.  I work at Windsor Coal. 
     I'm an inside mechanic.  I've been there 20 years.  I've
     come to the hearing to state my --
              MR. THAXTON:  Please spell your name.
              MR. COX:  Bill Cox, B-I-L-L, C-O-X.  
              MR. THAXTON:  Okay.  Thank you.
              MR. COX:  I wanted to state my opinion on the
     hearing protection and what is being decided.  What I see in
     the mines, we've loaded more coal in the past year.  It has
     become noisier.  We need to make some changes.  I feel that
     if we spend time and engineering, we can improve the systems
     that are out there to protect us.  The hearing protection
     that's available to us doesn't work all the time.  
              The operators, if they were to maintain records
     and be in charge of doing the testing, it would become a
     problem, basically because they're in business to mine coal. 
     They need assistance with that through UMW, through the MSHA
     office so the system can work and we can all be involved. 
     That's all I have to say.
              MR. THAXTON:  Thank you.  The next person on the
     list is Tony -- I won't pronounce your last name. 
     P-I-S-S-O-S.  And the reason that we asked you to come
     forward and ask you to state your name and spell it is for
     recorder so that we make sure that we have an accurate
     record.
              MR. PISSOS:  My name is Tony Mike Pissos, Safety
     Committee.  I worked in the mine for 32 years, 10 years at
     Console, 22 years at Windsor.  I've worked on boulders.  The
     noise level is very, very loud.  The fan noise is very loud
     too.  I've been around belt heads and the noise is bad there
     too.  I've been around stage loaders too.  
              I'm having trouble hearing too.  I wear ear plugs,
     but ear plugs ain't doing the job that they're supposed to
     do.  I think the company should let the Federal Mine Safety
     and Health Act of 1970 stay with the MSHA.  Let the company
     spend the money on getting better engineering control on the
     fan, boulders, stage loaders and at the preparation plants,
     crusher housers, dozers, et cetera.
              MR. THAXTON:  Okay.  Thank you.  The next speaker
     is Roger Sparks.
              MR. SPARKS:  Roger Sparks, R-O-G-E-R, S-P-A-R-K-S. 
     I work at the Windsor Coal Company and have been an
     underground miner for 23 years.  Everyone should remember
     the problems that occurred in some of the coal companies
     when they were able to police their own dust problems.  That
     is why I'm very much opposed to letting the coal companies
     have total control over their noise surveys.  Everyone knows
     books and records can and probably will be falsified in some
     cases.  What we need to do is spend more money on technology
     to solve the problem and no more money on ear plugs.
              MR. THAXTON:  Okay.  Thank you.  The next speaker
     is Tom Kacsmar.
              MR. KACSMAR:  My name is Tom Kacsmar,
     K-A-C-S-M-A-R.  And I'm employed at Windsor Coal Company at
     West Liberty, West Virginia as a roof bolster.  I have
     worked 34 1/2 years in underground mines as a foreman and
     UMWA hourly employee.  I am testifying today because we
     still have problems with noise in regard to roof bolting
     machines, auxiliary fans, continuous miners, stage loader
     areas, loading machines and also other areas.
              I feel very strongly that giving the coal company
     control of noise sampling would be very bad for the health
     of working miners.  I also feel that the coal company's
     answer to noise problems is more ear protection in these
     types of solutions instead of less noisy equipment and
     better technology.  
              I also feel that the coal companies should do what
     they do best and that is mine coal and let MSHA do what they
     do best, enforce the laws and take care of the noise
     sampling.  After all, some of the coal companies couldn't be
     trusted with dust sampling in the past.  So how can we be
     expected to trust them if they have control of noise
     sampling?  Thank you.
              MR. THAXTON:  Thank you.  Okay.  Our last speaker
     is Dennis O'Dell.
              MR. O'DELL:  My name is Dennis O'Dell,
     D-E-N-N-I-S, O-'-D-E-L-L.  I am the International Health and
     Safety Representative of the United Mine Workers.  The area
     that I cover is Northern West Virginia as well as Ohio.
              In looking at the proposed rule for the noise
     exposure, there are some of the issues that I found in the
     proposed noise standard which are cause for concern.  One of
     those concerns is the performance oriented rule.  
              The one issue that should be of greatest concern
     is the fact that this rule is performance oriented or
     self-enforced by the operators.  MSHA indicates in the
     preamble on page 66357, Question 17 that the mine operators
     are required to establish a system of monitoring which
     effectively evaluates each miner's noise exposure.
              It points out that specific requirements for
     biannual noise surveys, calibration reports, survey reports
     and survey certification now applicable to the coal sector
     would be revoked, significantly reducing costs and paperwork
     burdens.  In other words, it would be up to the operator to
     monitor their own noise levels according to a mine specific
     plan unlike the current rule which requires noise survey to
     be conducted at intervals of at least every six months and
     reported to MSHA and the Department of Health and Human
     Services as required under 30 CFR 70.508 and 71.803.
              Under the proposed rule, the mine operator would
     voluntarily comply with the administrative and engineering
     control requirements whenever they find themselves out of
     compliance.  Although the current rule is similar in regard
     that the operator must self-monitor their noise levels,
     experience with the operator's widespread cheating in the
     dust monitoring program should be enough said to prove that
     self-monitoring programs do not work and the new rule should
     eliminate this kind of practice.
              MSHA's role will be limited to taking their own
     measurements when they deem appropriate to check on the
     effectiveness of an operator's monitoring program.  The
     miner's representative is not provided a role to participate
     in the program and will be limited to walk around rights
     with MSHA when they check on the operator's program.
              Under the instrument calibration and record
     keeping, this proposed rule eliminates all requirements for
     instrument calibration and record keeping of such tests. 
     Section 70.506 of the current standards set forth the
     requirements for noise exposure measurements procedures,
     instrument settings and calibration.
              Paragraph d(4) and e(2) requires a record to be
     kept of the date and the name of the individual and
     organization performing annual calibrations of personal
     noise, decimeters and sound level meters.  The proposed rule
     eliminates these requirements.  The preamble points out that
     although calibration requirements are not specifically
     mandated in a proposal, good industrial hygiene practice
     dictates that any instrumentation used for determining a
     worker's occupational exposure to a contaminant, in this
     case noise, be calibrated.  And that can be found on page
     66417 in the first column.
              Like the rationale used in the ventilation
     regulations regarding calibration of instruments, MSHA
     believes that the operator has an obligation to maintain
     these instruments in proper working order and will do so
     voluntarily.  Likewise, the proposed rule does not include
     specific procedural requirements for conducting audiometric
     tests calibrating audiometers and qualifying audiometric
     test rooms.  However, I'm not as concerned about this and
     the reason being because I'm to assume that this is to be
     done and performed by certified professionals.
              The new proposal eliminates reporting
     requirements.  Under the current rule, the noise survey
     conducted by the operator every six months and supplemental
     surveys conducted when they are out of compliance must be
     reported to MSHA and the Department of Health and Human
     Services is found in 30 CFR 70.508 and 71.803 on a specific
     form.  MSHA uses these reports to issue a notice of
     violation.
              Under the proposed rule, 62.125(f)(2), whenever a
     miner's noise exposure is determined to exceed the actio
     level, the permissible exposure level, the dual hearing
     protection level or the ceiling level and a miner has not
     received notification of exposure at such level within the
     prior 12 months, the operator must then notify the operator
     in writing of the exposure prior of the exposure and
     corrective action being taken within 15 calendar days.
              There is no requirement for the operator to
     provide this information to MSHA, but instead must maintain
     a copy of such notification at the mine site for the
     duration of the effective miner's exposure above the action
     level for at least a period of six months thereafter.  It
     will then be up to the MSHA inspector to review these
     records during his regular or spot inspection.  
              And what I fear is that these records will be lost
     in the shuffle when the inspectors make their inspections. 
     There are so many other records, plans, et cetera, that an
     inspector must review prior to inspection, I believe the
     noise exposure records could easily fall to the bottom of
     this list as much of our health and safety issues do.  
              In addition, these records must only be maintained
     while the miner's exposure level is out of compliance and
     for six months thereafter.  Then they can just disappear. 
     If the inspector does not make his inspection during the
     period the record is maintained, then he'll have no way of
     checking the history of a particular miner's noise exposure.
              NIOSH has made some recommendations in the past
     and you even point out in the preamble that NIOSH is
     considering whether the evidence on noise since 1972
     warrants a chance in its recommendations.  In some cases,
     NIOSH is considering reiterating its prior recommendations
     and in other cases it's considering changing its
     recommendations.
              MSHA is determined that it would not be
     appropriate to delay publication of this proposed rule to
     await the possible issuance of a new NIOSH criteria
     document.  It also goes on to say that should a new criteria
     document be issued before MSHA promulgates the final rule,
     it will, of course, consider the NIOSH recommendations.  
              I've been informed that NIOSH recommendations have
     been completed.  And one of the recommendations made by
     NIOSH which was ignored by MSHA's concerns, the correction
     factor to audiometric test results for the presbycusis which
     is a progressive lost of hearing acuity associated with the
     aging process.  I hope I pronounced that right and didn't
     mess it up too bad.  Presbycusis, is that right?
              MR. POWASNIK:  Presbycusis.
              MR. O'DELL:  Presbycusis.  Thank you.  MSHA has
     proposed to permit operators to adjust audiometric test
     results for presbycusis before determining whether an STS or
     a portable hearing loss has occurred.  And that's referred
     to on Question 27.  NIOSH's reasoning for this
     recommendation is discussed in the preamble on page 66370. 
     It points out NIOSH recommends that age correction not be
     applied to an individual's audiogram for the calculation of
     a significant threshold shift.  Although many people
     experience some decrease in hearing sensitivity with age,
     age correction cannot be accurately applied to audiograms in
     determining an individual's significant threshold shift
     because the data on age related hearing losses describe only
     the statistical distributions in populations.
              Thus, the median hearing loss attributable to
     presbycusis for a given age group will not be generalizable
     to the presbycusis experienced by an individual in that age
     group.  MSHA's argument for age correction has been that the
     employer should not be penalized for hearing losses due to
     aging.  Because the agency points out that there is a
     significant risk of material impairment from noise exposure
     at or above TWA-8 of 85 dBa's.  But it would be too costly
     to industry to achieve this level and consequently set the
     standards at 90 dBa.  It's unfair to provide any other means
     of artificially reducing the noise survey results.
              One of the other concerns I had was the training
     requirements.  Under this proposal, whenever a miner's noise
     exposure exceeds the action level, as specified in
     62.120(b), the operator must provide training.  In the
     preamble, Question 22 asks whether this training can be
     covered in the regular Part 48 annual retraining.
              The Agency makes a strong argument as to why
     sufficient training cannot be provided in normal Part 48
     training, but then agrees that it can be done.  The argument
     they make against this policy states MSHA has determined
     that the requirements of Par 38 do not provide adequate
     noise training for those miners of whom exposure is clearly
     a problem.
         Most current Part 48 training is neither comprehensive
     enough to provide such monitors with the level of education
     needed for the proper use of hearing protection devices, nor
     in the case of noisy mines, detailed enough to reduce sound
     levels.  Contrary to this argument, the Agency goes on to
     say, nevertheless, MSHA believes compliance with this
     proposal can in many cases be fulfilled at the same time as
     scheduled Part 48 training.  The argument does not make good
     sense.
              The mining community has complained for decades
     that there is insufficient time to cover the mandated topics
     in the Part 48 training now.  It is totally unreasonable to
     believe the sufficient time could be provided to properly
     cover the material that should be included in the special
     noise training which will become so important.
              The permissible exposure level.  The proposed rule
     sets a 90 dBa permissible exposure level.  The level which
     mine operators are required to use all engineering and
     administrative controls feasible to reduce the noise to the
     PEO.  However, MSHA admits that it has concluded that there
     is a significant risk of material impairment from noise
     exposures at or above a TWA-8 of 85 dBa.  The Agency
     rationalizes that they could not require PEO of 85 dBa
     because it would require about two-thirds of the mining
     industry to use engineering and administrative controls to
     reduce current exposures and would be too costly.  
              We heard a gentleman this morning speaking about
     the cost that would occur at the Peabody facility.  It would
     be cheaper to tear a plant down and rebuild it than it would
     to make those changes possible.  I think he gave you another
     figure of one plant that it would cost $275,000 to reduce
     the dBa level by thee I think if possible.  I personally
     feel, as well as the miners that have to work in those
     conditions, that our hearing is worth $275,000.
              Although, the PEL is set at a higher level, other
     provisions, such as the correction factor are in the
     regulations to further reduce the compliance level for the
     operator.  If there is a significant risk factor at 85 dBa,
     then I as well as the miners feel that this should be
     reflected.
              Another area which I read that I had a problem
     with was in the definition of small mines.  The proposed
     rule indicates that exemptions to the rule were being
     considered for small operations.  The preamble states that
     the proposal would require a mine operator to use only such
     engineering controls as are technologically feasible and to
     use only such engineering and administrative controls as are
     economically feasible for that mine operator.  
              In determining economic feasibility, MSHA points
     to the Commission history.  The Commission has ruled that
     MSHA must assess the cost of the control are
     disproportionate to the expected benefits and whether the
     costs are so great that it is irrational to require its use
     to achieve those results.
              In addition, MSHA points out that they are
     considering whether to use fewer than 20 miners as a
     definition of small mines for purposes of the Regulatory
     Flexibility Act.  Discussion in the preamble on page 66368
     indicates for the rulemaking regulatory flexibility
     analysis, the Agency is using fewer than 20 employees.  
              In addition to the SBA's definition of fewer than
     500 as required by the RFA, MSHA presently is consulting,
     from my understanding, with the SBA's Office of the Chief
     Counsel for advocacy in order to determine an appropriate
     definition to propose to the public for comment in the
     future.  It goes on to state, the Agency has not established
     a definition of small entity for the purposes of the final
     rule.
              If the agency is considering the SBA's definition
     of fewer than 500, most of the coal mines in operation would
     fall under this category.  We need to address this issues to
     make sure that this does not happen.  A large coal mine in
     this day and age employs 300 miners.  That's a large coal
     mine.
              In an other location, MSHA indicated that it is
     proposing that the new standard not take effect for a period
     of one year in order to accommodate small operations.  And
     you'll find that on page 66362.
              This morning and this afternoon you heard
     testimony and experience.  You heard testimony from miners
     that were emotional.  The reason being is because we now
     know it's time for a change so that all of us don't leave
     the industry with deaf ears.
              We know that this can be done.  As well as
     representing coal mines, I also represent non-coal
     operations.  And these operations are covered under OSHA
     standards.  And it amazes me how one agency can set
     regulations and standards that the industry has shown they
     can comply and this has been going on for several years.  
              The coal operators will argue with this Agency
     that they cannot comply.  And I'm telling you here and now
     that the equipment in the plants that I inspect have the
     same potential to be as noisy as our underground equipment
     has been.  
              You have two regulatory agencies.  You have OSHA. 
     You have MSHA.  We have the same industrial exposure hazard
     which is noise, which is deafening.  So I think we should
     have the same regulatory protection and enforcement.  It's
     already been proven that it's possible to do.  Some
     companies I will agree have good hearing conservation
     programs, but in many instances it's not enforced.  And
     testimony today has showed you the best conservation plans
     that we have, have failed because we still have hearing
     impaired monitors.
              That sits real uneasy in a lot of people's guts. 
     It's easy to hear from us, but as you saw this morning we
     had a guy that had hearing aids.  And when he took them out
     outside, when I listened to him talk [walks away from mike]
     I'm sure all you could do was read my lips.  It wasn't easy
     to make out what I was saying.  And we have brothers that
     wake up everyday with that experience.  And, yes, it's
     emotional.  And, yes, it doesn't sit well.  And it's an
     issue we found hard to stomach.  And we have an opportunity
     today to do something about that.
              We had an issue some time ago about dust and
     proper fitting and some of you may have been on that panel
     with proper fitting respirators and whatnot to keep dust
     out.  I wish you could tell me what a proper fitted hearing
     protection is, who does that.  When should they be changed? 
     Are ear muffs the answer?  Ear muffs are installed on
     miners's hats.  And then all they do is they pull them down. 
     Miners are required to wear respirators and are required to
     wear glasses.  And glasses do not allow ear muffs to fit
     tightly against you.  So, therefore, you have some leakage
     and some noise escapes and gets in and still deafens those
     ears.
         We heard of the problems this morning discussed on ear
     plugs.  They get dirty.  They have different levels of
     protection.  Do they know what level of protection they
     need?  Are they properly fitted?  Do they irritate?  As we
     heard some of the miners, I think Brett testified this
     morning they irritate him.  He can't stand the off balance. 
     There's a part in there that suggests possibly dual hearing
     protection.  So now you want us to put ear plugs in and ear
     muffs over top of that.  And as I spoke to you in the back
     of the room, all you could do was see my lips move.  
              Now, you magnify that with noise, magnify that
     with adverse roof conditions or work conditions and with the
     machinery running and the air blowing across you, you can't
     hear it.  You can't communicate.  That's a potential. 
     That's a potential for a disaster.  That's a potential for a
     fatality.  Communications are the only thing that we can use
     underground.  That's the only means we have of making sure
     that a miner's not ran over, or that a piece of rock doesn't
     fall on his head.  
              On the surface facilities, we have the same
     problem with large pieces of equipment.  We have gentlemen
     in cabs of large dozers and trucks and there's a lot of
     noise that they have to overcome and they have a little two
     way radio that they use for communications.  Or a guy
     standing on the ground behind that big truck who has to
     listen for that backup alarm so that he doesn't get run over
     because the operator can't see him because he's out of
     sight.
              Dual hearing protection is not the answer, not in
     a day and age when you have technology which you can use,
     engineering controls to block out some of the excessive
     noise.  I requested from MSHA the operator's reports on
     their noise surveys.  And they ranged from a pretty good
     report in-depth to a report that simply stated the name of
     the company, with a handwritten note saying we're in
     compliance period.  That's it.  We're in compliance.  No
     record of what was done, what tests were taken, just a
     little piece of paper with the miner's name, if it was done
     by the operator or somebody that they contracted out to do
     that with a note saying Mom's Coal Mine is in compliance,
     John Doe, period.
              Now, think about that for a minute.  Think about
     if that same company, that same operator, were allowed to
     police this type of activity theirselves.  You're going to
     get thousands of notes, if you get that.  And those notes
     will be left at the coal mining site saying we're in
     compliance period.  And maybe they'll be checked and maybe
     they won't.  Maybe this month we're down, our production's
     down by 30,000 tons.  So we may get the health survey in. 
     We may not get it.  But that's the possibility and that's
     the things that may happen.
              That's why you're here today.  That's why you saw
     so many miners here this morning.  That's why you see the
     miners here this afternoon.  Not only to protect other union
     miners, but also the unfortunate miners from our non-union
     operations that have no voice to show you their concerns.
              It is emotional to many of us because it's
     personal.  We have fathers.  We have grandfathers.  We have
     uncles, brothers, sisters.  We have ourselves that can no
     longer hear the robins singing in the morning, the simplest
     things that people with good hearing take for granted until
     that hearing is lost.
              I would hope that you take the UMWA's comments and
     adopt those changes we suggested to make this a good
     regulation for all mankind concerned.  Look at our concerns
     in this manner.  I don't know if any of you have ever bought
     a used car before or not, but it's quite an experience.  You
     go to a used car dealer and he tells you this is the perfect
     automobile for you.  Nothing wrong with it.  Excellent
     condition, low mileage, driven only on Sundays.  And you're
     to believe what that guy is telling you is true.  
              But in some cases you may pick the phone up and
     call the previous owner.  And the previous owner has a
     completely different story.  The seals leak.  The brake
     lines are bad.  There's a number of things.  That's the
     reason I got rid of that piece of junk.  It needs fixed. 
     It's broken.  It's bad.  I got rid of it.
              We're that previous owner.  We work with the
     equipment.  We're there on a day-to-day basis.  We're there
     10 to 12 hours a day.  We know what problems need fixed and
     we know the rest of the story and I hope you'll take that
     into consideration.
              I have a couple of questions before I tie up, and
     I appreciate your courtesy in sitting here today.  I would
     just question as to why it has taken so long for us to get
     to this point.  1983, OSHA hearing conservation amendment. 
     1983 this was done.  OSHA's a Department of Labor.  MSHA's a
     Department of Labor.  MSHA's not the Department of Mine
     Operators.
              There's a report that says that audiologists
     predict that by the end of the year 2,000 as many people
     could be wearing hearing aids as now wear contact lenses. 
     That's a scary thought.  It is believed that weaker hearing
     is a part of aging, but there are many studies, and I would
     like to submit some of these articles to you when I finish.
              The studies show that those living in low noise
     environments tend to have very little hearing loss in old
     age.  What does that tell us?  There's a theory that the
     standard should protect the lifetime hearing of 90 percent
     of works.  But what this theory is assuming is that a worker
     will have 16 hours of quiet to recover.  
              And that's an unlikely assumption.  And the reason
     for that being is because most miners work today an average
     of ten hours a day, six days a week.  And when they leave
     that, I don't know about you guys, but a lot of us have kids
     at home and you have sibling rivalry.  You have loud
     arguments.  You have loud music, fancy sophisticated CDs. 
     It's not quiet time.  Realistically, the real worlds is it's
     not quiet time.  We don't have that time to recover in which
     the study assumes that we do have.
              Other effects of noise.  People who must endure
     loud environments may risk more than their ears.  There are
     studies that show they can suffer elevated levels of
     cholesterol and more stomach and intestinal ulcers, higher
     blood pressure, and more heartbeat abnormalities than people
     who live and work in quieter environments.
              I have a couple of reports here which I'd like to
     submit.  It's kind of funny.  This is a report that most of
     you may be aware of.  It's a hearing conservation for the
     mineral industry -- the mining industry.  The United States
     Department of the Interior.  And it talks about much of the
     things that we talked about today.  It talks about reducing
     those levels that damage not only the environment, but the
     people that live in the environment.  Some good stuff here.
              There's an article about noise, Purdue University,
     West Lafayette, Indiana.  The gentleman's name was John
     Barry and he submitted an articles about problems and
     enforcement, problems of noise exposure, the enforcement of
     occupational noise standard.  And one of the things that he
     summarized with in his conclusion is to rely upon ear
     protection in the absence of a continuing effective hearing
     conservation program is immoral as well as illegal.
              Here's another hearing conservation amendment that
     I would like to submit.  There's an interesting article here
     also out of Reader's Digest.  Reader's Digest.  Can you
     imagine that?
              Everyday over five million Americans are exposed
     on the job to at least 90 dB's.  The safety standard is an
     ideal because noise effects each individual differently. 
     And I'd like to submit this, but I'd like you also to
     promise that you'll look at this information and read it. 
     Just don't file it somewhere please.
              Also, I have some plans and programs from some of
     the different areas that I represent as far as the mines go. 
     You might find it interesting and it addresses the mandatory
     hearing protection policy at some of the mines such as
     Consol, Southern Ohio, AAP, those places.  But when you read
     this, it looks real good on paper and the philosophy of it
     is excellent, but the enforcement's not there.  It's
     something that's not followed up.  It's something that is
     lax attitude at best.  It just doesn't work because it's not
     enforced to work.
              And with that, gentlemen, ladies, I thank you for
     your time and your patience.  I appreciate everything.  
              MR. THAXTON:  Okay.  And you are going to submit
     those reports to us?
              MR. O'DELL:  Yes.
              MR. THAXTON:  Okay.  If you can give those to
     Ms. Fontaine, they will be included as part of the record. 
     Any questions?  Thank you, Mr. O'Dell.  
              At this time, that concludes the number of people
     that were actually on our listing.  I'll again make the
     offer if there is anyone present in the audience that has
     not had the opportunity to speak and wishes to do so, please
     come forward at this time to Ms. Fontaine on my far right,
     identify yourself and sign the speaker sheet and you'll be
     permitted to address the panel at that time.  
              Okay.  There's no further speakers at this moment. 
     The panel will stay in session and stay here until 5:00
     o'clock in case anybody else happens to walk in to address
     the panel.  We will be here.  We do not plan to recess the
     hearings until 5:00 o'clock this evening.
              (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
              MR. THAXTON:  The time now is 5:00 o'clock.  The
     auditorium is completely empty except for the panel.  We
     take it at that point that there are no further people to
     make comments.  Therefore, we adjourn this hearing.
              (Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m. the hearing was
     adjourned.)
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
          //                   REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
     
     DOCKET NO.:   N/A
     CASE TITLE:   PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED NOISE STANDARDS
     HEARING DATE: May 6, 1997
     LOCATION:     Beaver, West Virginia
     
          I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are
     contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes
     reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the
     Mine Safety and Health Administration.
     
     
     
                                  Date: May 6, 1997 
     
                                   Gary A. Sabel       
                                  Official Reporter
                                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                                  Suite 600
                                  1220 L Street, N. W.
                                  Washington, D. C.  20005