30 CFR PART 57                    )
                                  )
DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER         )
EXPOSURE OF UNDERGROUND METAL     )
AND NONMETAL MINERS; PROPOSED     )    
RULE                              )        
















Pages:  1 through 91

Place:  Albuquerque, New Mexico

Date:   May 13, 1999                   UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
                 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
     
     
     
     30 CFR PART 57                      )
     DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER EXPOSURE  )
     OF UNDERGROUND METAL AND NONMETAL   )
     MINERS; PROPOSED RULE               ) 
     
     
                   Salon III
                   DoubleTree Hotel
                   201 Marquette, N.W.
                   Albuquerque, New Mexico
     
                   Thursday,
                   May 13, 1999
     
                                   
         The hearing in the above-entitled matter commenced,
     
     pursuant to notice, at 8:30 a.m.
     
         PANEL:
     
             THOMAS TOMB, Chief, Dust Division, Pittsburgh Health
         and Safety Technology Center, MSHA, Pittsburgh,
         Pennsylvania
             JON KOGUT, Office of Program Evaluation and Information
             Resources
         GEORGE SASEEN, Technical Support
         ROBERT HANEY, Technical Support
         SANDRA WESDOCK, Office of the Solicitor
         JAMES CUSTER, Metal and Nonmetal Division
             RONALD FORD, Office of Standards, Regulations and
         Variances
             PAMELA KING, Office of Standards, Regulations and
         Variances
     
         SPEAKERS:
     
         PATRICK S. ALLEN, Getchell Gold, Golconda, Nevada
         PAUL SCHEIDIG, NVMA, Reno, Nevada
         BRUCE WATZMAN, NMA, Washington, D.C.
         DEBORAH GREEN, U.S. DOL, Office of the Solicitor                               I N D E X
     
     STATEMENT:                                             PAGE:
     
     THOMAS TOMB, CHIEF, DUST DIVISION, PITTSBURGH            3  
     HEALTH AND SAFETY TECHNOLOGY CENTER, PITTSBURGH,
     PENNSYLVANIA
     
     PATRICK S. ALLEN, CMSP, LOSS CONTROL MANAGER,            12 
     GETCHELL GOLD, GOLCONDA, NEVADA
     
     DEBORAH GREEN, U.S. DOL, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR         44 
     
     BRUCE WATZMAN, NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION,              61 
     WASHINGTON, D.C.
     
     
                              P R O C E E D I N G S
     OPENING STATEMENT OF THOMAS TOMB, CHIEF, DUST DIVISION,
     PITTSBURGH HEALTH AND SAFETY TECHNOLOGY CENTER, PITTSBURGH,
     PENNSYLVANIA
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  All right, I'd like to get this
     hearing started.
                   For the record I'd like to read the following
     opening statement:
                   My name is Thomas Tomb and I am the Chief of the
     Dust Division, Pittsburgh Health and Safety Technology
     Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  And I will be the
     moderator for this public hearing on MSHA's proposed rule
     addressing diesel particulate matter exposure of underground
     metal and nonmetal miners.
                   Personally, and on behalf of Assistant Secretary
     J. Davitt McAteer, I would like to take this opportunity to
     express our appreciation to each of you for being here today
     and for participating in the development of this rule.  With
     me on the panel today from MSHA are Jon Kogut, from the
     Office of Program Evaluation and Information Resources;
     George Saseen and Robert Haney, from Technical Support;
     Sandra Wesdock, from the Office of the Solicitor, Mr. James
     Custer from Metal and Nonmetal's Health Division; Ron Ford
     and Pamela King from the Office of Standards, Regulations
     and Variances.
                   This hearing is being held in accordance with
     Section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
     1977.  As is the practice of this Agency, formal rules of
     evidence will not apply.
                   We are making a verbatim transcript of this
     hearing.  It will be made an official part of the rulemaking
     record.  The hearing transcript along with all of the
     comments that MSHA has received to date on the proposed
     rule, will be available to you for review.  If you want to
     get a copy of the hearing transcript for your own use,
     however, you must make your own arrangements with the
     reporter.
                   We value your comments.  MSHA will accept written
     comment and other data from any one, including those of you
     who do not present an oral statement.  You may submit
     written comments to Pamela King, who is on the panel here,
     during this hearing or send them to Carol Jones, Acting
     Director of the Office of Standards, Regulations and
     Variances, at the address that's in the notice.  We will
     include them in the rulemaking record.  If you feel you need
     to modify your comments or wish to submit additional
     comments following the hearing, the record will stay open
     until July 26, 1999.  You are encouraged to submit to MSHA a
     copy of your comments on computer disk.
                   Your comments are essential in helping MSHA
     develop the most appropriate rule that fosters safety and
     health in our nation's mines.  We appreciate your views on
     this rulemaking and assure you that your comments, whether
     written or oral, will be considered by MSHA in finalizing
     this rule.
                   In April 1998, MSHA published a proposed rule to
     address exposure to diesel particulate matter in underground
     coal mines.  Hearings were held in 1998.  The rulemaking
     record will close on July 26, 1999 for that rulemaking, the
     same date as it is for the metal and nonmetal comment
     period.  
                   The scope of this hearing today is limited to the
     October 28, 1998 proposed rule published to address diesel
     particulate matter exposure of underground metal and
     nonmetal miners.  This hearing is the second of four public
     hearings to be held on the proposed rule.  The first hearing
     was held in Salt Lake City, Utah, on May 11.  Additional
     hearings are scheduled to be held on May 25 in St. Louis,
     Missouri and on May 27 in Knoxville, Tennessee.
                   On October 29, 1998, MSHA published a proposed
     rule that would establish new health standards for
     underground metal and nonmetal mines that use equipment
     powered by diesel engines.
                   The proposed rule is designed to reduce the risks
     to underground metal and nonmetal miners of serious health
     effects that are associated with exposure to high
     concentrations of diesel particulate matter.  Diesel
     particular matter is a very small particle in diesel
     exhaust.  Underground miners are exposed to far higher
     concentrations of this fine particulate than any other group
     of workers.  The beset available evidence indicates that
     such high exposures puts these miners at excess risk of a
     variety of adverse health effects, including cancer, lung
     cancer.
                   The proposed rule for underground metal and
     nonmetal mines would establish a concentration limit for
     diesel particular matter and require mine operators to use
     engineering and work practice controls to reduce diesel
     particulate matter to that limit.  Underground metal and
     nonmetal mine operators would also be required to implement
     certain "best practice" work controls similar to those
     already required of underground coal miners under MSHA's
     1996 diesel equipment rule.  Additionally, operators would
     be required to train miners about the hazards of DPM
     exposure.
                   Specifically, the proposed rule would require
     that:
                   The limit would restrict DPM concentrations in
     underground metal and nonmetal mines to about 200 micrograms
     per cubic meter of air;
                   Operators would be able to select whatever
     combination of engineering and work practice controls they
     want to keep the DPM concentrations in the mine below this
     limit;
                   The concentration limit would be implemented in
     two stages:
                   An interim limit that would go into effect
     following 18 months of education and technical assistance by
     MSHA; and a final limit after five years.
                   MSHA sampling would be used to determine
     compliance.  The proposal for this sector would also require
     that all underground metal and nonmetal mines using diesel-
     powered equipment observe a set of "best practices" to
     reduce engine emissions, such as the use of low-sulfur fuel.
                   The comment period on the proposed rule was
     scheduled to close on February 26, 1999.  However, in
     response to requests from the public for additional time to
     prepare their comments, and with additional data added to
     the rulemaking record by MSHA, the Agency extended the
     public comment period until April 30, 1999.
                   The Agency welcomes your comments on the
     significance of the material already in the record, and any
     information that can supplement the record.  For example, we
     welcome comments on:  additional information on existing and
     projected exposures to DPM and to other fine particulates in
     various mining environments; the health risks associated
     with exposure to DPM; on the costs to miners, their families
     and their employers of the various health problems linked to
     DPM exposure; or additional benefits to be expected from
     reducing DPM exposure.
                   The rulemaking record will remain open for
     submission of post-hearing comments until July 26, 1999.
                   MSHA received comments from various sectors of the
     mining community and has preliminarily reviewed the comments
     it has received thus far.  MSHA would particularly like
     additional input from the mining community regarding
     specific alternative approaches discussed in the economic
     feasibility section of the preamble.  As you might recall,
     some of the alternatives considered by MSHA included: an
     approach that would limit worker exposure rather than
     limiting particular concentration; a lower limit; shortening
     the time frame to go to the final limit; more stringent work
     practices and engine controls; and requiring particular
     filters on all equipment.
                   The Agency is also interested in obtaining as many
     examples as possible of specific situations in individual
     mines; for example, the composition of the diesel fleet,
     what controls cannot be utilized due to special conditions,
     and any studies of alternative controls you might have
     evaluated using MSHA's computerized Estimator, which was
     published in the "Federal Register."  We would also like to
     hear about any unusual situations that might warrant the
     application of special provisions.
                   The Agency welcomes comments on any topics on
     which we should provide initial guidance, as well as any
     alternative practices which MSHA should accept for
     compliance before various provisions of the rule go into
     effect.
                   MSHA vies these rulemaking activities as extremely
     important and knows that your participation is also a
     reflection of the importance you associate with the
     rulemaking.  To ensure that an adequate record is made
     during this proceeding, when you present your oral
     statements or otherwise address the panel, I ask you to come
     to the podium and clearly state your name, spell your name,
     and state the name of the organization that you represent.
                   It is my intent that during this hearing anyone
     who wishes to speak will be given an opportunity.  Anyone
     who has not previously asked for time to speak needs to tell
     us of their intention and sign the speaker sheet that is --
     is it still out in the front, Pam?
                   MS. KING:  Yes.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  That's out on the table outside
     the room.  Time will be allocated for you to speak after the
     scheduled speakers.  We are scheduled to go until 5 p.m.
     today, however, we will call a limit or a halt to the
     hearing if we're out of speakers.
                   I will attempt to recognize all speakers in the
     order in which they requested to speak.  However, as a
     moderator, I reserve the right to modify the order of
     presentation in the interest of fairness.  I doubt that it
     will be necessary, but I also may exercise discretion to
     exclude irrelevant or unduly repetitious material, and, in
     order to clarify certain points the panel may ask questions
     of the speakers.
                   Today we have three people that have signed up to
     speak.  The first is Mr. David Sheffield from the Nevada
     Mining Association.
                   He spoke in Salt Lake.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  David spoke in Salt Lake and won't
     be here today.  So I think we had reserved that in each of
     the hearings.  But it won't be necessary to today to take
     that spot and that time.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.  Is he going, is he going to
     be at the other hearings though?  You mentioned you signed
     up.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  I'm with the Nevada Mining
     Association.  And David may be at one of the other hearings. 
     I will, I will definitely speak in Knoxville in his place.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.  But you're not going to
     make a presentation?
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  No.  No, sir.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Could you give us your name?
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Paul Scheidig.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Paul?
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Yes.  S-C-H-E-I-D-I-G.  And I'm
     with the Nevada Mining Association.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  All right, thank you.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  You're welcome.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  The next person we have on the
     list is Mr. Henry Chajet from Patton & Boggs.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  When I was speaking to Henry the
     other day in Salt Lake he wasn't going to make this one but
     I thought he, I think he said he was going to be in St.
     Louis.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay, thank you.
                   And the final speaker that we have on our list so
     far is Mr. Patrick Allen from Getchell Gold.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Yes, sir.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.
                   MR. ALLEN:  I'm here.
                   (Laughter.)
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  You have the rest of the day.
                   MR. ALLEN:  All right.  I've got a 35 cents sermon
     here this morning.
     
     STATEMENT OF PATRICK S. ALLEN, CMSP, LOSS CONTROL MANAGER,
     GETCHELL GOLD, GOLCONDA, NEVADA
                   MR. ALLEN:  Mr. Chairman, members of the panel, I
     appreciate this opportunity to speak to you this morning. 
     My name is Patrick, P-A-T-R-I-C-K, middle initial S, last
     name Allen, A-L-L-E-N.  I am the Loss Control Manager for
     Getchell Gold.  And at the end of my presentation -- or
     you're getting them now -- I have some comments there.  I'm
     not going to read those to you.  You'll find out I don't
     read so well.
                   But if I may, an opening statement this morning or
     story.  I'm reminded as I came in here this morning of a
     minister during the Depression.  He was asked to fill the
     pulpit for another minister who was called away suddenly. 
     So as he went into the church he took his young son with
     him.  And back in those days, as you well recall, a quarter
     was worth something.  At the back of the church in the foyer
     there was a little sealed box where you put your tithe in. 
     And as the minister walked in he dropped his quarter into
     the box.
                   He got up and he delivered what he thought was the
     finest sermon he had ever given.  And, boy, he was just
     happy.  It was over.  And one of the elders approaches and
     says, "As our tradition is, we're going to give today's
     tithe to the minister."
                   Well, lo and behold, they opened up that tithe box
     and there was a quarter in it.  And as they were leaving the
     church that day the minister was somewhat dismayed.  And he
     was just shaking his head.  And his young son looked at him
     and he said, "Dad, had you put more into it you would have
     gotten more out of it."
                   That's kind of the position we in mining are right
     now.  We have something to say, we want to say it, and we
     hope we get something out of it and it's worth our time. 
     And that's why I'm here today.
                   There is nothing that I can recall in the short
     term or even the long term that has unified mining, and
     especially mining in northern Nevada, as this proposed rule. 
     I am not an industrial hygienist.  I am not an engineer.  I
     have nothing but a CMSP.  I'm a certified mine safety
     professional.  I implement and I oversee safety programs. 
     And I'm also a dumb Kansas farm boy.  And that's where I'm
     coming from today, I hope from a common sense approach as to
     why this rule should not go as it's written or proposed.
                   As I've said, this has unified the mining industry
     in northern Nevada, and I think you're going to see it
     throughout the United States because we have some concerns. 
     They are spelled out in my comments this morning.
                   But one of the things that really concerns me is
     the fact that there is a possible health hazard associated
     with DPM.  And I use the word "possible."  I have a 22-year-
     old son.  He works at the mine during his summer breaks from
     college.  And I can tell you as a father and as somebody
     concerned about the health and safety of the miners at our
     mine I would not knowingly expose my son or somebody else's
     son, husband or relative to a known hazard.  I would not.  I
     could not in all clear conscience do that, nor would I.  I'm
     in the wrong profession.
                   But they're possible health effects and we are
     concerned about them.  I think there are some things that
     could be done.  But the one thing that worries us is that
     this proposed rule is a premature rush to regulation.  You
     know, I was in California last week.  And a lot of impetus
     comes out of California for this rulemaking.  And as I stood
     in a restaurant I was reading a sign, a placard on the
     restaurant wall that said something to the effect, if I can
     paraphrase it, caution: drinking of distilled liquors, beer
     and wines may cause cancer.  The air we breathe may cause
     cancer.  Are we going to tell all miners they have to stop
     drinking because there is an associated or a possible health
     effect?  It would really limit the number of miners we have
     out there.
                   It's a common sense approach.  There is nothing
     concrete that spells out that DPM is a carcinogen.  You're
     asking us to fight a battle; we don't know who the enemy is
     or what it is.
                   In its preamble, the Agency refers repeatedly to
     the Supreme Court's "Benzene Decision."  It is worth
     recalling, however, that the "Benzene Decision" struck down
     OSHA's benzene regulation because it was not supported by
     adequate findings.
                   In the "Benzene Decision" the Supreme Court
     emphasized its serious concern with the inadequacy of OSHA's
     findings concerning a dose response correlation between
     adverse health effects and any realistic occupational
     exposure level.  We find MSHA's Risk Assessment singularly
     lacking in reliable evidence based on reputable scientific
     thought that any particular occupational DPM exposure level
     is associated with adverse human health effects.  And the
     existing studies are far from dispositive and reveal many
     conflicting and inconclusive results.  And we just need to
     take our time and we need to weigh it and more studies need
     to be done.
                   To compare miners to rats is an irrational thought
     to me.  These are living, breathing human beings, they are
     not caged laboratory animals.  And there has not been a
     study on these miners as to what the effects are.
                   The Mine Act requires as a necessary predicate for
     a health standard dealing with a potentially toxic substance
     the best available, reliable evidence that miners are at
     significant risk of suffering material impairment of health
     at given levels of the occupational exposure in question.
                   In our view, the cumulative weight of all of
     MSHA's needed disclaimers in its proposal as to the flaws,
     inadequacies, contradictions and inconclusiveness of the
     various studies means that the best available evidence
     really isn't very good at all for the proposition that there
     are significant occupational DPM health risks justifying the
     severe PELs proposed.
                   In view of the uncertainty of this available
     evidence, we urge MSHA to adopt a more reasonable approach
     to DPM control.  Such a stance is particularly appropriate
     because, as noted by the Agency and the National Cancer
     Institute, two other arms of the government, are presently
     conducting what may prove to be, if appropriately designed,
     a more illuminating study of the relationship between DPM
     and health effects.
                   And we'd also join as Getchell Gold in the Nevada
     Mining Association's recommendation in its 1999, April '99
     letter to you of MSHA, that MSHA continue development of its
     1997 Toolbox approach in reducing exposure to DPM.  And like
     the Nevada Mining Association, we believe the continued
     application of the flexible Toolbox process is the most
     reasonable regulatory and industry strategy.  Moreover, we
     strongly suggest that MSHA conduct an endeavor in meaningful
     concern with all segments of the mining industry.
                   When we talk about a level playing field, that's
     the only way we're going to get a level playing field is for
     industry and the regulatory agencies to set down and have
     some dialogue and do what's best for our miners, if that's
     what we're all about.
                   As I said before, I'm not an industrial hygienist. 
     I don't conduct the tests at the mine, but I can tell you
     this, that since the 1st of January we have spent thousands
     of dollars on doing sampling underground.  And the NIOSH
     5040 methodology in the Nevada undergrounds, and that's what
     I'm talking about today, and in particular the Getchell
     Gold, is flawed.  
                   Getchell has conducted its own extensive sampling
     for DPM using the NIOSH 5040 method set forth in the
     Proposed Rule.   The fact of the matter is we not only have
     carbonaceous ores which was taken into consideration in coal
     mining, we also have graphite bearing ores which also impact
     the 5040 methodology.  We have oil mists down there from
     jacklegs, pneumatic drills, etc.  Our results are completely
     unreliable as indicators of DPM.  
                   Similar problems with testing in underground coal
     mines led MSHA in its coal proposal to reject a PEL approach
     to control of DPM exposure in the mining sector.  And PEL
     methodology is no more appropriate for underground Nevada
     mines with carbonaceous ores, and it should be rejected here
     too for substantially the same reasons.  To force  PEL
     approach in these circumstances, while rejecting it in
     similar context, would be arbitrary and would be capricious.
                   If adopted, the proposed rule would be financially
     burdensome on Getchell.  Where we came up with this 89 to
     100 thousand dollars first year I don't know, but if cabs
     alone at $7,000 and we've got over 60 pieces of mobile
     equipment underground, that's over a half a million dollars. 
     And I'm not a match expert either.  That's just for one
     proposed reg.  
                   And cabs to me are just a no-brainer.  Because not
     everybody can work in contained environment.  What about
     that miner out there at the face drilling the round?  What
     are we going to do for him?  How do we control it for him if
     it is the health hazard that everybody says it is?  Do we
     put him in protective suits which increase the hazard?  I
     think not.
                   Going to electrical equipment is just, it's out of
     the question.  The feasibility.  Now, I'm talking strictly
     about precious metals now, and I don't know how in tune you
     are to what gold's doing, but the fact of the matter it's
     dropping.  At some point in time enough is enough.
                   The other thing when it comes to feasibility is
     it's unattainable.  This standard is unattainable for the
     mining industry.  What's going to happen is if you go with
     the 400 PEL and then you drop it to the 160 as the proposed
     rule says, we in mining are going to do one of two things:
     we're going to fly in the face of it and we're going to get
     closure orders.  And then what about the economic impact? 
     We only employ 670 employees.  That's a major impact in
     Winnemucca, Nevada, if they're not working.
                   Or, as I say, we're going to fly in the face of
     those orders and we're going to end up by litigating.  And I
     don't think that's a reasonable outcome.  I believe that
     dialogue is the way to go.
                   Let me say that Getchell cannot afford to
     eliminate and replace its diesel fleet and continue
     profitable mining.  And why are we in business?  Nor can it
     realistically absorb the heavy cost of refitting that fleet
     and upgrading ventilation to comply with the proposed rule.
                   Ventilation.  We estimate that it would add about
     $10 per ton to production to do the ventilation necessary to
     control the diesel particulate as outlined in this rule. 
     Now, that begs the question of an already identified hazard
     being silicosis.  One way we control it is by keeping our
     roads wet.  So what does the increased ventilation do to us? 
     How do we keep those roads.  How do we control dust.  All of
     a sudden we have increased our exposure to another health
     concern.
                   To assess the validity of the proposed rule
     Getchell has carried its own preliminary DPM sampling with
     NIOSH 5040 method set forth by MSHA in its proposal.  We
     have also preliminarily analyzed compliance costs with the
     Proposed Rule.  And as discussed, the resultant data is very
     troubling and has convinced us that MSHA just substantially
     rethink its approach.
                   And as noted, Getchell's mobile fleet is almost
     entirely diesel powered.  Based on realistic estimate costs
     of outfitting our affected diesel vehicles with appropriate
     aftertreatment control devices, and some of which do not
     actually exist in today's market, and/or installation of
     fully enclosed cabs, needed ventilation upgrades to
     accommodate the stringent proposed PELs, and annual costs,
     maintenance and upkeep tied to such changes, we find that
     our annualized costs would be approximately five times that
     identified in this Proposed Rule.
                   We will supply specific economic data in our final
     comment.  Wholesale replacement of our diesel fleet is
     simply not an option from an economic standpoint.
                   And the other thing that concerns me about diesel
     particulate -- and like I say, I'm not a rocket scientist
     here -- but the cleaner you get that diesel engine to burn
     the smaller the particulate comes out.  Now we've bypassed a
     natural defense in our body.  As you know, the hair in your
     nose is intended to keep larger particulate out of the
     system.  Now all of a sudden we've increased the exposure to
     our miners because we have cleaner burning.  And I'm not
     saying we need dirty burning engines down there either.  But
     I think that we could come to some amiable remedy to this.
                   And, as a matter of fact, speaking for Getchell I
     know that we replace engines on the average of every two
     years and we put the most modern on the market in at the
     date that we install them.  It's an ongoing process.  Our
     entire fleet is less than three years old.
                   We urge MSHA and the Department of Labor, of which
     it is a constituent part, not to lose sight of the economic
     health of this industry.  At what point are speculative
     marginal improvements in health protection based on
     inconclusive evidence outweighed by the disappearance of the
     jobs assertedly protected as a result of the imposition of
     the heavy new compliance costs?
                   Concerns with the Proposed Rule's provisions.  And
     it is a concern, there are so many new things added to it. 
     The preceding comments address the basic, but infirm,
     rationale of the Proposed Rule.  Getchell also has concerns
     with many of the proposal's specific provisions.  Like the
     Nevada Mining Association we find the proposal overly
     complicated. 
                   That old acronym I remember as a Marine was KISS,
     "keep it simple stupid."  Napoleon had a rule that before he
     issued an order for battle he wouldn't have his officers
     read it, instead he'd go out to the corporal who stood guard
     outside his tent, he would give him that battle order and
     say, "Corporal, do you understand this?"  And if the
     corporal didn't he'd rewrite it.  We need to keep it simple.
                   As one example of the flaw, note the proposal's
     addition of a separate new training component for DPM. 
     That's already covered in Part 48.  Hazard communications;
     there's a section in there.  Mine gases is covered in Part
     48.  Why do we need a separate new entity out there that
     just causes more paperwork?
                   Similar problems with overcomplexity exist with
     regard to the Proposed Rule's recordkeeping and equipment
     maintenance requirements.  There are already maintenance
     requirements, i.e., an operator does a pre-op check on his
     piece of equipment.  If he finds something that affects
     safety, etc., he's to red tag it, notify the shop.  The shop
     is to keep that pre-op card until the correction is made and
     then there is a permanent record in that vehicle's file
     already.  Why do we need to throw more records to keep?  Is
     it a way of circumventing what we're already required to
     keep and adding more paperwork to us?
                   Simplicity is the key to acceptance,
     implementation and success of any reasonable strategy to
     control DPM exposure.  
                   Not only that, now we have to keep records on our
     mechanics.  Now, I ask you, if you had a $250,000 piece of
     equipment would you just let anybody work on your equipment? 
     I think not.  I think you bring in the manufacturer's rep
     and he trains these people already on how to work on it. 
     Why do we need to keep more records.
                   Downgrading of PPE.  We also endorse the Nevada
     Mining Association's criticism of the Agency's continuing
     downgrading of administrative controls and the use of
     personal protective equipment in favor of considerably more
     expensive and presently infeasible engineering controls. 
     Operators will act in good faith to use all available
     methods to reduce exposure to toxic substances, and miners
     today will accept PPE.  If MSHA's goal is the protection of
     miners in the context of actual jobs in a viable industry,
     it must permit flexible control approaches and not penalize
     operators for using one of the most efficient tools it has,
     and that's PPE.
                   Getchell welcomes a constructive dialogue with the
     Agency, and urges MSHA not to commit itself to the proposed
     approach, which, for the reasons summarized above, is
     premature, overly-stringent and infeasible.
                   Getchell is committed to proactive approach to
     mine safety and health and environmental issues.  For
     example, there is a Toolbox out there concerning mercury. 
     The crux of that toolbox was the settlement and the
     agreement which Getchell worked out with the Secretary of
     Labor back in 1997-1998.  Davitt McAteer himself has used
     that in many talks about the interaction between industry
     and the agency.  And if we can do it once I know we can do
     it again.  And it's imperative that we do it.
                   As one grassroots member of the mining community,
     we would be pleased to work with the Agency to develop a
     more reasonable strategy than the Proposed Rule for
     controlling DPM exposure.
                   And if I might, in closing, you know, I, and I'm
     not an attorney either but I've spent a lot of time with
     attorneys here lately, but I kind of feel like an attorney. 
     You're the jury.  We've got a man convicted of murder out
     here.  Rightfully or wrongfully there's been a lot of press
     on him.  And, by golly, I hope that I'm not and that the
     mining industry itself is not delivering its closing
     arguments to a jury that's already made up its mind.  I hope
     not.  Because we're all in it for the same reasons I
     believe, and that's the protection of these miners and to
     keep an industry viable and alive in the United States. 
     There are things we can do.  And I think as a group both
     industry and as the Agency we can work it out.
                   Thank you for your time.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Allen.
                   Don't leave.
                   MR. ALLEN:  All right.  I'm an industrial
     hygienist.  I have no technical data with me.  That will be
     provided later.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Do you have any questions?
                   MR. SASEEN:  Yes.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  George?
                   MR. SASEEN:  You said that you change your engines
     out every two years?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Approximately, yeah.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Is that the entire fleet or just more
     your production, loaders, trucks, larger horsepower type
     engines?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Yeah.  I like to think that everything
     we have is production.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.
                   MR. ALLEN:  So we have no unnecessary pieces
     sitting around.  But that's on average is the engines wear
     out.  Some of those we'll change out even more often.  You
     know, and the majority of ours are now the new computerized
     D-beck type engines, cabs.  A lot of the old air-cooled are
     going by the wayside.  So we get better efficiency out of
     what we do have.  But that's just on average is about two
     years just by wear and tear.
                   MR. SASEEN:  What's the horsepower range of your
     fleet just roughly?
                   MR. ALLEN:  I didn't even bring that information
     with me.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.
                   MR. ALLEN:  But the Wagner six yards, Elfenstone
     which is a new product with Cat engines in them.  So.
                   MR. SASEEN:  You made a, you also made a statement
     that some aftertreatment controls were not available.  And I
     assume you may be meaning filters.  Was that based on the
     size of your engines they're not available or is that based
     on the duty cycle of your vehicles that they're not
     available?
                   MR. ALLEN:  I believe it's on the size of the
     engines.  Everything I've gathered is that people say, yeah,
     we can make them.  Well, you can make anything for a cost.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.
                   MR. ALLEN:  You know.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay, thank you.
                   MR. ALLEN:  You bet.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Jim?
                   MR. CUSTER:  Here, as in Salt Lake, you've raised
     the issue that MSHA has I guess the word is deprecated the
     use of PPE and administrative controls.  And I gather from
     the presentations there and here that one of the problems
     you have with the proposed rule is that it is indeed an
     environmental standard as opposed to a personal exposure
     standard.
                   Given that, do you believe, and I realize you
     can't speak for all the stakeholders, but given that would
     you be willing as representing Getchell to accept a standard
     that indeed was a personal exposure standard and in line
     with the application of good industrial hygiene practice
     agree to look at the hierarchy of controls: engineering,
     PPE, administrative?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Yeah, feasible engineering would --
                   MR. CUSTER:  Feasible, obviously.
                   MR. ALLEN:  I mean that word, you know, we say
     "engineering" but I think you need to look at feasible
     engineering.  That's always been the way it's been enforced
     in the field.  If you have a health or a safety standard
     it's feasible engineering, noise control.  In the recent
     noise proposal, you know, PPE is not given any credence,
     it's just, you know, it used to be all right, now it's not
     all right.
                   And what I think, I'd have to give that some
     thought.
                   MR. CUSTER:  I think in the noise proposal we do
     look at the hierarchy of controls, engineering first,
     obviously, to control at the source and then PPE -- or
     administrative controls and essentially PPE last.  But the
     rule does not preclude the use of PPE.
                   Thank you.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Ron?
                   MR. FORD:  Yes.  Mr. Allen, do you have any
     aftertreatment devices on any of your existing machines now?
                   MR. ALLEN:  We use a catalytic converter type or a
     scrubber type device on them.
                   MR. FORD:  On your production pieces?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Uh-huh.  That's pretty normal
                   MR. FORD:  You talked about the tag-out provision
     that how you follow the existing tag-out provisions that are
     on the books now.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Uh-huh.
                   MR. FORD:  Does that account for also emission
     problems like when if someone sees a lot of black smoke
     coming out do they tag out the machine or?
                   MR. ALLEN:  They have that, not only that
     responsibility, they have the authority to do that.  If they
     feel that there is something -- I don't care if we have to
     go in there and do a gas test for them, which we had the
     TMXes readily available to go in and do it, we do it.  They
     have that authority right now.  I mean I tell every miner
     that hires on there, don't make them make you do an unsafe
     act or operate an unsafe piece of equipment.  And I mean
     that, and so does the rest of the management.  We're that
     strong on it.  
                   So they do.  I mean if they feel if that machine
     is not operating properly, it's running rough or what have
     you, they can shut it down (right then and there.  And we
     expect them to.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  And they have shut it down for)
     emission type problems in the past?
                   MR. ALLEN:  They've noted on their operator cards
     exactly, you know, that this thing needs to be looked at,
     etc.
                   MR. FORD:  I've just got one more question.  And
     that is, you talked about your mechanics a lot of times
     manufacturer reps will come in and train them on a
     particular task.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Or on a piece of equipment.
                   MR. FORD:  Or on a piece of equipment.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Yeah.
                   MR. FORD:  When they do that do they ever given
     them a paper or anything saying they're certified or do you
     make a record in the book that as of this day this person
     was trained or received this training?
                   MR. ALLEN:  It has not been a requirement up to
     this point in time.  And like I said, when we bring these
     guys in they're not training them on a particular task.  For
     example, Elfenstone, we have the largest fleet of Elfenstone
     equipment right now in the United States at our Turquoise
     Ridge Mine.  So we bring Elfenstone in on a regular basis to
     work on the equipment with our mechanics.  
                   And Elfenstone will, you know, they'll hand out a
     certificate if you would, you know, just kind of a has met
     the 40 hour requirement, whatever type training he's
     getting.  It's kind of a "attaboy" type thing.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  Do you keep that certificate on
     file in the company at the mine or?
                   MR. ALLEN:  If we're made aware of the training
     they've got we'll make a copy for their safety record.  But
     to say right now that we do it unequivocally without fail, I
     wouldn't make that statement.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  Thank you.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Just a, I just want to pick up on
     one of his questions, Mr. Allen.
                   From your presentation, from the tag-out
     procedure, what in the rule requires more than what you're
     doing right now?
                   MR. ALLEN:  It's the fact that it's just another
     step out there that M -- that having to deal with the
     inspectors on a daily basis almost here recently.  You know,
     the unfortunate thing is not all inspectors inspect the same
     way, you know.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  I know, but --
                   MR. ALLEN:  They see an apple and I've got an
     orange.  And then they're going to write me citations
     because that thing doesn't appear to be running right or
     what have you.  Where's your tag?  You know, why is he
     operating?  I don't know.  It's a personal judgment type
     thing.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  I don't think that's -- in the
     discussion of the rule that hasn't been a issue for
     compliance purposes.  I mean in examples that are given that
     isn't one of the permanent things.
                   MR. ALLEN:  But why would you, if you've already
     got it, if it's already established why do you need to put
     another standard in place for us?  It's just one more we get
     beat up on.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Well, okay, but I guess the
     question, it seems like you do these things out of habit,
     okay.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Right.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  But there are other mines out
     there that should be doing them that don't.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Then we should be enforcing the
     existing standards on them and not creating more standards
     and more paperwork for us.  Because if I'm in violation of -
     -
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  And that's my question, though,
     from what you just said -- I don't mean to interrupt you --
     but just from what I just said then, from what you just
     said, what additional paperwork are we create -- is the rule
     creating, not us, is the rule creating over what you do now,
     right now?
                   MR. ALLEN:  What I perceive happening is you're
     going to come up with a new section on diesel particulate
     just as you did air quality Part 5800, okay.  You're
     separated it out.  14.100 already tells me that if I have a,
     if I have a -- I'm looking for the right terminology here. 
     I know the standard.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Defect.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Yeah.  If you have a defect in it and
     it applies to safety, you know, for the piece of equipment
     that you are to tag it out and repairs are to be made as
     soon as possible, okay, it's already there.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yeah, but if those are the words
     though we don't have "health" in there.  That's, then that's
     the sticking point.  That's an argument.
                   MR. ALLEN:  I don't have my CFR with me.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.  Well, anyway, that's --
                   MR. ALLEN:  But anyway, my sticking point is, you
     know, if you're training them under health hazards, if
     you're training them during their initial training about
     orange card operators' responsibilities, etc., which we do,
     which most of the mines around here do, you've already
     covered it.  And what you're doing is you're just giving us
     one more standard that we're going to get hammered on, that
     we're going to be written for on a very regular basis.  And
     that's our position is it becomes another hammer for
     enforcement.
                   And I'm being, I'm being honest with you.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yeah, okay.  Okay.  That's my
     question.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Because I have to deal with this on a
     daily basis.
                   MR. CUSTER:  Let me just finish up Tom's question. 
     If the diesel particular standard had a section or a, yeah,
     a section or a paragraph stating that equipment would need
     to be inspected in accordance with, what is it, 14 --
                   MR. ALLEN:  14.100.
                   MR. CUSTER:  -- 14.100, would that be acceptable
     to the industry?
                   MR. ALLEN:  I can't speak for the industry.
                   MR. CUSTER:  I understand, but would it be
     acceptable to Getchell?  Because it's not putting another
     standard on, it's merely reiterating a current standard. 
     And I'm not sure, but I thought 14.100 indeed did mention
     health in there.
                   MR. ALLEN:  I think it does too.  That's what I
     said, I don't have my CFR with me.  And I --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  I don't either.  That's --
                   MR. ALLEN:  You know, I've got good recall but not
     total.
                   MR. CUSTER:  I think it's defects affecting health
     and safety.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Health and safety.  I think you're
     exactly right.  And it's already there.  And why not include
     that in the preamble of that particular standard of 14.100.
                   MR. CUSTER:  But would it create a problem for
     Getchell to have it simply reiterated --
                   MR. ALLEN:  Oh, I think any --
                   MR. CUSTER:  -- there as a reminder?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Oh, I don't know about Getchell.  But
     I know about me personally it would.  Because it just
     becomes one more thing that we have to deal with and it's
     already covered.
                   MR. CUSTER:  Well, you're already dealing with it. 
     This is simply --
                   MR. ALLEN:  Yeah, but.
                   MR. CUSTER:  Well, I don't want to debate the
     issue.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.  Are you done, Jim?
                   MR. CUSTER:  Her's looking that up.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Oh, okay.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Tom.  Could you -- back to my engine
     question, Mr. Allen.  Could you supply us with an inventory
     of your engines?
                   MR. ALLEN:  I'd be more than happy to when we do
     our closing comments --
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.
                   MR. ALLEN:  -- by July the 26th.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Fine.
                   MR. ALLEN:  We'll give the technical data we need
     to at that time.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Have you had the opportunity to do
     any estimate using the Estimator?
                   MR. ALLEN:  No, we have not.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay, thank you.
                   MR. ALLEN:  You bet.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Bob?
                   MR. HANEY:  I just, I had a couple of questions to
     help me clarify the conditions at your mine.  What mining
     height do you normally have?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Backs?
                   MR. HANEY:  Yeah.
                   MR. ALLEN:  We're running 14, 15 feet in the back.
                   MR. HANEY:  Of those 60 pieces of equipment that
     you have do any of those have cabs on them currently?
                   MR. ALLEN:  No, they do not.  We have ROPs.  And
     it's hard to keep the ROPs on.
                   MR. HANEY:  Your loaders and your stopes don't
     have cabs?  No?
                   MR. ALLEN:  No.
                   MR. HANEY:  Okay.  When you said you replace
     equipment every two years is that the equipment or the
     engines?
                   MR. ALLEN:  The engines.
                   MR. HANEY:  Okay.  And what about --
                   MR. ALLEN:  And it's just a rotation, it's must a
     matter, it's just normal maintenance procedure.  You
     schedule or budget X number of engines and that's usually
     what you end up replacing.
                   MR. HANEY:  Do you have any idea how frequently
     you would be replacing the equipment, what the life of a
     piece of equipment is?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Three to five years would be a norm
     for underground mining equipment.  But you can get, you
     know, it depends on the operators how often they take it
     into the rib and other unknowns at this time how long you
     would keep it.
                   MR. HANEY:  Are you currently using low-sulfur
     fuel?
                   MR. ALLEN:  I believe we are.  But I'm saying that
     as I haven't checked into it, to tell you the truth.
                   MR. CUSTER:  Mr. Allen, I stand corrected on the
     14.100.  It indeed does strictly --
                   MR. ALLEN:  Safety.
                   MR. CUSTER:  -- say safety.  So I guess the
     follow-up question then to that would you, representing
     Getchell, be agreement to an amendment to 14.100 to include
     health as one of the things that you would look for in
     defects that would have an effect on the miner's health
     issue?
                   MR. ALLEN:  I think that if I said no I'd be lying
     to this committee.  You know, I believe it should be.
                   MR. CUSTER:  And if it were entirely, if that were
     entirely removed from the diesel particulates Proposed Rule
     and this simply amended to include health would then --
                   MR. ALLEN:  Yeah, it would be --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  -- address your concerns?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Well, health is a concern.  So, yes.
                   MR. CUSTER:  Thank you, sir.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Do you have another question, Bob?
                   MR. HANEY:  I have a few more questions.
                   You said it would cost, add $10 a ton to your cost
     to provide ventilation to meet this PEL.  Is that
     ventilation to dilute to 160 micrograms?
                   MR. ALLEN:  That's just to meet the 400 to start
     with.
                   MR. HANEY:  Okay.  So that would be to dilute to
     400.  Okay, so then you must have some idea of what your
     current levels are?  Do you have?  Would you be willing to
     share those with us?
                   MR. ALLEN:  I don't have that information with me. 
     As I said, that was a best guess estimate at this time as to
     what we would be adding to it.  But I know that we're moving
     over 200,000 cfm into those mines.  And I believe at the
     Turquoise Ridge it's even closer to 300,000 right now.
                   MR. HANEY:  Is that on a single, continuous split
     through the mine or do you have several air splits going
     through the mine?
                   MR. ALLEN:  The Turquoise Ridge is a shaft mine. 
     So we're pulling off each one of the levels.
                   MR. HANEY:  Okay.  And you said you're in favor of
     the Toolbox approach.  What criteria would you use as a
     leveling criteria to ensure that all companies or maybe just
     your company was doing everything equally across the
     industry so that it wasn't left open to individual mines to
     decide what was feasible for their mine?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Well, I think the first thing is we
     need to have the dialogue.  I don't believe that the Agency
     should have the burden of writing, you know, that Toolbox.
                   As I said before, even on the lead and mercury or
     on the mercury toolbox, most of that was the result of
     dialogue between the Agency and Getchell Gold.  Those best
     practices in there, that was our settlement agreement in
     essence that became -- So there was some dialogue.  And
     that's what needs to happen here.  For a Toolbox it needs to
     be the mining, whether it's mining associations or whoever
     need to sit down with the members of the Agency and let's
     work it out.  Because if they have the input, you know, it's
     one of those things that if I have input into it and I feel
     comfortable with what I said then I'm going to do what I
     said.  And mining is that way.  But if we have no say in it,
     you know, it's just, it's frustrating.
                   MR. HANEY:  Okay.  then one final question.  You
     said you're not an engineer and you're not an industrial
     hygienist but then you went and said this is unattainable. 
     What are you basing that on?
                   MR. ALLEN:  The fact that it's an arbitrary
     number.  You know, and what we've seen in our mines with
     everything out there, you know, with the results of our
     studies, we're not going to get there from here.
                   As I say, this is a common sense thing.  I'm just
     a dumb Kansas farm boy.  And you haven't proven to me, first
     of all, or to the industry that we have a health effect.  I
     mean you can't say it may then say it is.  Either it is or
     it isn't.  And just to throw numbers out there, nobody has
     shown me how we came to those numbers.  Nobody.  It's an
     arbitrary, capricious ruling right now, or proposed rule.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Ron?
                   MR. FORD:  Just a quick question.  In your written
     comments you say, you make, you also make the statement that
     to put on aftertreatment control devices including, and also
     including the ventilation, would cost five times as much.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Uh-huh.
                   MR. FORD:  And then you also made the statement
     that you haven't on -- I don't know on how many pieces of
     your equipment, but on some you can't even -- you don't even
     know how to do it, how to put that stuff on.  I'm just kind
     of wondering how did you get your estimate of five times
     more?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Well, like I say, a cab is an
     aftertreatment because we have no cabs.  Put the cabs on and
     just using a conservative figure of $8,000 to retrofit that
     cab, that's over $500,000.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.
                   MR. ALLEN:  And that's five times more.  And
     that's just for one fix.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.
                   MR. ALLEN:  If you go with ceramic scrubbers or
     ceramic filters out there, after so many hours you have to
     take them out and send them off and get them cleaned because
     we can't afford a half a million dollar processing plant to
     clean those ceramic filters.  So now we have to carry two
     filters for every piece of equipment.  But it does get
     costly.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Jim?
                   MR. FORD:  Thank you.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Oh, I'm sorry, are you don't?
                   MR. FORD:  Yes.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Jim?
                   MR. CUSTER:  While you may have started out as a
     poor Kansas farm boy I think you've certainly evolved into
     quite an intelligent mining individual.  And in line with
     that, what I've said, and in line with the dialogue that you
     would like to establish I would like to throw out -- well, I
     don't want to throw out -- I want to put out to the audience
     because in the audience there's an NVMA representative,
     there's an NMA representative and other people here, I'd
     like to throw out to them the challenge to provide comment
     if they would in regard to the issue of the health and
     safety defect inspection since we seem to have gone down
     that line just a bit today.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Okay.
                   MR. CUSTER:  Thank you.  And yourself, too, sir.
                   MR. ALLEN:  One other thing, too, that I didn't
     mention in this, when we talk about the unnecessary burden
     is all of a sudden we look at a control plan also.  If we go
     with the 400 and the 160 there's also a control plan that we
     have to maintain.  And once we put that in writing if we
     don't maintain that control plan we're hammered, you know. 
     We have no way out.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  I think that's only for situations
     of where the standard's been found to be exceeded, isn't it?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Yeah, but by the same token I don't
     believe we're going to get there.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Oh, okay.  Well, I'm just saying -
     -
                   MR. ALLEN:  Okay.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  -- I'm just making the point that
     that is not a across-the-board requirement --
                   MR. ALLEN:  Right.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  -- of the standard, that's all.
                   MR. ALLEN:  And I think in northern Nevada mines
     it may very well become that just by virtue of the fact we
     have all this carbonaceous ore out there.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Could you gentlemen speak up a
     little bit?  I'm having difficulty hearing your questions
     again, especially since you said something about the Nevada
     Mining Association.  I couldn't hear what.
                   MR. CUSTER:  What I had asked is because there are
     NVMA and NMA representatives here as well as representatives
     from other companies, in light of the dialogue that's been
     asked for I would like to see comment come in from you folks
     in regard to 14.100, amending that to include health as one
     of the defects that we look for, whatever affects health as
     well as safety, and your views or your perspective on making
     that amendment, and then not having that blurb appear in the
     diesel particular rule.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Thank you.
                   MR. ALLEN:  And I think along the same lines that
     issue on the training could be addressed under Part 48.
                   MR. CUSTER:  I think that as I recall, as you're
     aware there is the rider which obviously I think is somewhat
     by the boards now with Part 46.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Right.
                   MR. CUSTER:  But there was concern that some parts
     of the metal/nonmetal industry would be automatically
     exempt, or not exempt from the training but exempt from the
     enforcement of the training requirement.  And I think that's
     why that was written originally.
                   Is that correct, Deborah?
                   MS. GREEN:  I'm sorry, I was thinking of something
     else.
                   MR. CUSTER:  Oh, okay.  That's okay.
                   MS. GREEN:  What's your question?  Please restate
     the question.
                   MR. CUSTER:  The question of Part 40 and including
     this additional training in the diesel particulate rule,
     wasn't that done in order to bring into those, bring under
     the rule those operations that were exempt from enforcement
     of the current Part 48 regulation as a result of the budget
     rider?
                   MS. GREEN:  My name is Deborah Green.  And I work
     for the Solicitor's Office.  I'm counsel for metal and
     nonmetal.
                   The approach that the Agency took in the proposed
     rule in reference to training is consistent with its
     approach it has taken in all of the health rulemakings with
     regard to training.  It's the same in hazard communication. 
     It's the same for any training where we require it in a
     health regulation.  We like to have a separate component to
     make certain that specific areas of training are covered. 
     Part 48, notwithstanding its application, because it applies
     to all underground mines.  We can -- It applies to all mines
     but we can enforce it with all underground mines presently.
                   But in the Part 48 training it's not always so
     specific as to what has to be covered under a particular
     health regulation.  It's not that specific.  And the Agency
     wanted to make certain that minimal requirements for
     training were covered for purposes of diesel particulate. 
     Now, whether or not that approach is taken in the final rule
     has a lot to do with looking at the comments of a necessity
     for the requirement in the final rule.
                   Thank you.
                   MR. CUSTER:  Thank you. 
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  I told you, you have eight hours
     to kill here.
                   (Laughter.)
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay, anybody else at this end of
     the table have some questions?
                   MR. CUSTER:  No.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay, I'm going to go down the
     table this way.  So let me ask a couple, okay?
                   Can you supply us with some information relative
     to how many pieces of equipment of your 60 pieces of
     equipment are operating at one time in the mines, you know,
     during a --
                   MR. ALLEN:  Duty cycle?
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  -- duty cycle?  Yeah.
                   MR. ALLEN:  We would make that available I think.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yeah.  I mean I'd expect that.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Yeah.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.  One thing that I'm a little
     confused about from both comments that were made at this
     hearing and the last hearing relative to the Toolbox.  What,
     when you say we should use the Toolbox approach, to be
     honest with you that's what we tried to do when we wrote the
     rule.  And I'm not clear on what's different from your
     definition of using the Toolbox to what, I mean the Toolbox
     approach compared to what yours is or ours is?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Well, what we have is we have another
     rule that we're going to be enforced on.  You're setting a
     standard, says 400, 160.  And if we don't meet it.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yeah, but I mean what is the
     Toolbox approach?
                   MR. ALLEN:  The Toolbox is just simply best
     practices, if you would.  If we're doing this, this and this
     then we're doing all we can without enforcement.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay, with not everybody getting
     down to trying to achieve the same level; is that what
     you're saying?  Everybody can do what they can do?  I'm just
     trying to clarify this.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Yeah, well, because you're going to
     come into these mines, like I say, you're going to come into
     northern Nevada and you're going to shut us down.  It's
     plain and simple because of our ore type and everything that
     hasn't been taken into consideration.  And I think in the
     interim before a Proposed Rule comes out and it gives us
     some time to have this dialogue on this rule, you know, at
     least we have something out there that we can be working
     towards.  That's what a toolbox is.  A toolbox is not an
     enforcement tool.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.
                   MR. ALLEN:  It's just to get us started and get us
     all on the same page.  And it's not a perfect document.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.  We're using toolbox in the
     definition of the technology out there that has been
     demonstrated to reduce DPM.  And we sort of tried to make
     that kind of information available to the industry.  And the
     industry can pick and choose that technology that's out
     there that best suits their operation and gets down to the
     levels that we've proposed.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Yeah.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.  And that, I guess the
     difference is we say that you can use that technology to get
     down to the level and you're saying you don't want the level
     specified.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Exactly.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  The same thing.  Okay.
                   Okay, another question that I have relative to
     your presentation is that you said you spent thousands of
     dollars in making measurements in your mines.  And I was
     wondering if you could make that data available to us,
     whatever you've done and what you've found and relative to
     your specific mine, not as an overall Nevada.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Well, we would include that with the
     Nevada Mining Association when they --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay, is it going to be broken out
     so that we know what --
                   MR. ALLEN:  Well, I believe that is going to be
     broken down.  Isn't it, Paul?  Or are we going to generalize
     it?  Or we haven't even talked about it.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  We haven't talked about the policy
     of the underground mines.
                   MS. KING:  Excuse me, could you come to the podium
     so the reporter can get your dialogue?
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Thanks for helping, Paul.
                   (Laughter.)
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  I misunderstood your question. 
     This is Paul Scheidig.  But we haven't yet decided as to how
     we're going to present all that.  I think that Chris Rose
     and Dave Sheffield at the Salt Lake Hearing made it quite
     clear that what we'll do is put the data in a form that is
     somewhat genericized, if you will.  That was also sort of
     agreed to at the Salt Lake meeting.  And we haven't yet I
     don't think decided exactly what form we're going to put
     that data in.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  But the data will be on the
     sampling data.  I misunderstood, I thought you were talking
     about some of the cost data relative to --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  No, I just think it would be
     important that if Mr. Allen's mine has specific information
     on levels that he measured.  You said some of your mines had
     graphitic ore and others didn't.  That seems to be a big
     component of the interference that we're looking at from the
     sampling standpoint.  And if he's made assessment of his DPM
     exposures it's my -- I think it would be important to the
     committee if we had that kind of information.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  I think you'll get a very good
     representation from Nevada Mining Association as to the
     exposure and other data that we found in the Nevada, period,
     from all mines.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.  I would just like to
     reiterate, and I think I asked this, asked you to do this
     before, if you can and when you turn in your written
     comments maybe emphasize for like the maintenance, the
     training and the -- what was the other one we were
     discussing?
                   MR. CUSTER:  Recordkeeping.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Recordkeeping.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yeah, the recordkeeping that would
     be above and beyond, you know, what you'd be doing right now
     in your particular mine.  You know, because I mean you might
     be doing everything that this rule requires.
                   MR. ALLEN:  And speaking from my point of view we
     may very well but also, you know, it's just another
     requirement out there.  You know, and if you're doing it and
     if you have a way of already enforcing it, you know, why
     keep building on it?  That's my whole take on it.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay, but just realize that every
     mining situation isn't identical.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Oh, I'm --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  All right?  And maybe you're the
     only one that's following "perfect practices."
                   MR. ALLEN:  Oh, no, no.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  And I'm just using that as an
     example.
                   MR. ALLEN:  All mines do it.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Just kidding.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  I guess my last question would be
     you mentioned in summing up a more reasonable strategy and
     that the Agency should follow.  And I'm not asking you to
     answer that question right now.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Thank you.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  But if you're going to have a
     summation for your mine that you could submit to us maybe
     you could be a little specific on that, you know, other than
     just a more reasonable strategy, you know, what did you have
     in mind?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Okay.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay?  Jon?
                   MR. KOGUT:  Yeah.  Please -- Thank you very much
     for your comments.  And I appreciated in particular what you
     had to say about your concern for potential health effects
     if they were established. 
                   I did get the impression from your comments,
     though, that you were under the impression that we did not -
     - that there were no human-based studies linking miners who
     are exposed to diesel particulates with lung cancer.  And
     that there were no human-based studies establishing a health
     effect for particulates in general.
                   So there are just sort of two parts to what I want
     to say.  And the first of them is in the nature of a
     question.  Part of what our risk assessment was based on was
     apart from the literature that directly links diesel
     particulate specifically to lung cancer or other health
     outcomes, adverse health outcomes, there is also a large
     body of literature looking at associations between particles
     in general, fine particles specifically but particles in
     general and adverse health outcomes.  And the main body of
     that literature is not occupational but comes from studies
     on air pollution in various cities and the effects that are
     seen on air pollution.
                   As a result of those studies and a lot of other
     research that's been carried out in support of those studies
     the Environmental Protection Agency has come out with clean
     air standards that regulate the level of fine particulates
     in the atmosphere to a limit that's quite a lot lower than
     not only the concentrations of fine particulate that we've
     seen in mining environments but even quite a bit lower than
     what we're proposing to set as a limit here.
                   So the first part of what I want to ask is what is
     your reaction to these proposed limits in view of the fact
     that they're considerably higher than the EPA regulations?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Well, I think the EPA when they do
     theirs they look at places like Los Angeles, Spokane,
     Washington, where you get into a valley down there, there is
     no air movement.  You have all these, especially during the
     winter your stoves are going full bore, etc.  We're moving
     200,000 plus cfm through a mine.  We are moving air as it
     is.  That's not saying that there aren't some dead headings
     down there, etc., but still, we have a wind going through
     that mine at all times.  We have ventilation to keep it
     circulating.
                   And the fact of the matter is we have elements out
     there that interfere with this carbon reading, okay. 
     Smokers are the biggest health risk going.  Are we concerned
     about miners who smoke?  If so, why don't we make all miners
     non-smoking?  It's a proven carcinogen.
                   MR. KOGUT:  That's possible.  But what I'm talking
     about specifically is whether it comes from smoke, there's
     fine particulate in smoke, there's fine particulate in
     diesel.  Now, you know, there's even some amount of fine
     particulate that comes from the tail end of the size
     distribution in, you know, from the extracted ore.  
                   But the point that I'm making is that EPA saw a
     need and saw plenty of evidence to justify regulating the
     concentration of fine particulate to down at the level of,
     say, 15 micrograms per cubic meter.  Now, are you saying
     that with the, all the ventilation that's available in
     mining that meeting a limit of 15 micrograms per cubic meter
     is not a problem or what?
                   MR. ALLEN:  I'm saying it is a problem.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Yeah.
                   MR. ALLEN:  I'm saying it's a problem because we
     don't live in a perfect world.  You know, and there are
     certain risks associated with every job.  If we could remove
     all the risks or if I could tell you how to do that I'd be
     worth some money.  Okay.  But the fact of the matter is, you
     know, I'm not aware of these studies that you allude to on
     the human beings.  And how long did those studies go?
                   MR. KOGUT:  You're talking about the fine
     particulate in general or?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Yeah.  Yeah.  Well, and the one that
     you alluded to that said that there was a cause and
     relationship between health and DPM.  The fact of the matter
     is we know that the cleaner engine these -- or cleaner
     burning these engines get the smaller and the finer the
     particulate gets.  Okay.  Have we in fact increased the
     exposure of these miners, you know?
                   MR. KOGUT:  Okay.  I think we'll address that in
     our response to these hearings.
                   The other part of the point, though, that relates
     specifically to diesel particulate is that I think you left
     the impression that there weren't any studies specifically
     relating or looking for associations between miners and
     associations with their exposure to diesel particulate and
     lung cancer.  And I wanted to point out to you or suggest
     that you take a look at tables in the preamble, Tables III-4
     and III-5.  And part of the purpose of those tables was to
     do exactly what I think you rightfully suggest that we do do
     and put this in a language that is easily digested and
     easily read by not just experts but anybody who is
     interested in the subject.  And certainly the members of the
     mining community would be.
                   In Tables 3 and 4 there are six studies, a total
     of six studies identified that look for an association
     between miners' exposure to diesel particulate or miners and
     an increased risk of lung cancer.  Table III-4 which is a
     compilation of cohort studies contains two such studies. 
                   First there is one by Boffetta, that's B-O-F-F-E-
     T-A, et al., in 1988.  And in that study after adjusting for
     smoking differences in the cohort, after adjusting for
     smoking and also adjusting for occupational exposures to
     asbestos, coal and stone dusts, coal tar and pitch and
     gasoline exhaust, adjusting for those factors in addition to
     age and smoking, the relative risk relative to workers who
     were not miners was found to be 2.67.  That means that the
     risk of lung cancer was 2.67 times the risk in non-miners
     after making those adjustments.  And that's a statistically
     significant result.
                   The other cohort study listed in that table is one
     by -- that relates to miners is one by Waxweiler, et al., in
     1973 which was on potash miners specifically.
                   I should say that the Boffetta study didn't look
     just at miners, it looked at a lot of different occupations. 
     And that was, the result I gave was just the one tied to
     miners.  
                   The Waxweiler study in 1973 was done specifically
     on potash miners.  In that study, and we didn't -- we found
     some shortcomings in that study because there was no smoking
     adjustment, no allowance made for smoking.  There was also
     no adjustment for any kind of a healthy worker effect.  But
     still the relative risk of miners compared to workers in New
     Mexico -- or, I'm sorry, the general population in New
     Mexico was greater than one.
                   And one problem with that study is that the
     comparison was drawn to the population of New Mexico as
     opposed -- I'm sorry, to the general U.S. population rather
     than to the population in New Mexico where these workers
     resided.  And, actually, the lung cancer rate at that time
     in New Mexico was lower in New Mexico than it was in the
     general population.  So if you adjust for that and make that
     adjustment then the relative risk compared to population of
     New Mexico would be about 1.5.  That was based on a small
     sample and so it didn't achieve statistical significance
     but, again, it's an elevated risk.
                   There are in the next table, in Table III-5, there
     were four studies identified.  All four of those studies
     showed, all four of those case control studies showed and
     elevated risk of lung cancer for miners.  There's one by
     Benhamou, et al., 1988, which was adjusted for smoking and
     showed relative risk of 2.14.  And that's statistically
     significant.
                   There was one by Lerchen, et al., 1987, which was
     adjusted for smoking.  And it showed an odds ratio, an
     elevated risk of 2.1 for underground non-uranium miners.
                   There was one by, I'm not sure how to pronounce
     this but the spelling is S-I-E-M-I-A-T-Y-C-K-I, et al.,
     1988, which was also adjusted for smoking.  It showed an
     elevated risk with an odds ratio of 2.8 for mining.
                   And there is one by Swanson, et al., 1993, which
     was an extension of a study by, published by Burns and
     Swanson, 1991, which showed an elevated risk for mining
     machine operators.  And the odds ratio in that study was
     5.03 which is quite a large elevated risk.  And that's a
     statistically significant result.  That study also was
     adjusted for smoking.
                   So that's six studies out of six that looked at
     miners.  And all six of those studies although they
     admittedly differ in the quality of the study they all
     showed an elevated risk for mining.  And some of them were
     statistically significant results.
                   Now, as we said in the text of the risk analysis,
     we did not want to do just a simple tabulation of the
     studies because we recognize that studies differ in quality
     and you can't just do a tally, you know, and count out how
     many come out one way and come out another.  But even so,
     the fact that all six of those studies showed at least some
     elevated risk for miners, you know, that has to raise some
     concern I would think.
                   What's your reaction to that?
                   MR. ALLEN:  There is concern.  But once again, you
     know, several questions are raised.  1973, that was pre the
     act when metal/nonmetal wasn't, you know, it was out there. 
     What was the ventilation in each one of these mines?  What
     type of, you know, did they have scrubbers on this
     equipment, on these machine operators?  You know, there are
     questions that just come to mind to me that, you know,
     they're available out there.  
                   So although it does show and elevated, and I'm not
     going to discount them and say that they're not there, I
     think that more work needs to be done in conjunction with
     the mining associations, etc.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Okay.  And I just wanted to clear up
     the impression, though, that we were not, you know, that we
     weren't taking into account any studies having to do with
     mining and that we were relying entirely on --
                   MR. ALLEN:  Rats.
                   MR. KOGUT:  -- rat studies whose, you know, whose
     applicability to humans might be questioned.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Right.  But, you know, and my position
     is I appreciate, you know, the clarification but by the same
     token I guess I'm from Missouri and on some days you have to
     show me, you know, what all was included in those studies,
     i.e., the type of ventilation they moved, type of equipment
     they were operating.  Was it air-cooled equipment as opposed
     to the water-cooled type?  You know, were they in areas
     where they allowed their equipment to idle?
                    There are a lot of questions I'd have.  And I
     think the mining, we would all have those questions.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay, any other questions? 
     Cassandra?
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Cassandra?
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  I'm sorry.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  No.  You asked all my questions.  So
     I don't have any.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  You don't have any?
                   MS. WESDOCK:  No.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.  Pam?
                   MS. KING:  No.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay, thank you very much.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Thank you.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  I'm sorry I couldn't extend this a
     lot longer.
                   I appreciate your comments though.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Thank you.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  And really hope that you can
     supply some details on the information in your final comment
     submittal.
                   MR. ALLEN:  And I think you will see them
     forthcoming.  It just is, you know, this is our first kick
     at the can.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yeah, my specific comments are
     very good to look at.  Okay.
                   MR. ALLEN:  But I appreciate everybody's
     attention, questions.  And, you know, I do take it
     personally because I am concerned about the health and
     welfare of those guys down there as are the other mine
     companies.  And appreciate your attention.  Thank you.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Thank you.
                   I think what we'll do at this time, at this time I
     think we'll take a 15 minute break.  If anybody else wants
     to make a sign-up and make a presentation after we come
     back, I guess, Bruce, you want, you want to say something? 
     Okay, I will do that.
                   Yes?
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Mine will only take two minutes if
     I'm the only one.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Well, I'll tell you what I'd like
     to do.  I'd like to take a break and then just if anybody
     else, you know, wants to come or something if it's okay with
     you.  If you wanted to leave I would be glad to give you
     time to do that.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  No, I'm fine.  I'm fine.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.  Why don't we do that when
     we come back then and do this.  Thank you.
                   (Brief recess.)
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  If you take your seats we'll get
     back on the record.
                   Our next speaker will be Mr. Bruce Watzman from
     the National Mining Association.
     STATEMENT OF BRUCE WATZMAN, NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION,
     WASHINGTON, D.C.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Thank you, Tom.  My name is Bruce
     Watzman.  That's spelled W-A-T-Z-M-A-N.  And I'm with the
     National Mining Association.
                   I did not intend to speak today but based on the
     discussion that took place previous to the break I felt the
     need to do so.  And I need to start out by asking Dr. Kogut
     if he would, he referenced six studies that looked at
     miners' exposure and lung cancer.  You named Boffetta and
     there were five others.  And if you could run down the names
     of those for me, please?
                   MR. KOGUT:  I might say, though, that you said
     that looked at miners' exposure.  One of the reasons that we
     stated in the preamble that we relied more heavily on other
     studies than on these studies, despite the fact that these
     related to miners, was that they didn't necessarily look at
     levels of exposure to diesel particulate specifically.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  That's fine.  If you could --
                   MR. KOGUT:  Yeah.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  -- run down the name of, the six
     names.
                   MR. KOGUT:  You have the Boffetta, et al.?
                   MR. WATZMAN:  I have Boffetta.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Okay, the next one which is in the
     same table, that's in Table III-4, is Waxweiler, et al. 
     That's W-A-X-W --
                   MR. WATZMAN:  I have that.  I'm going through the
     references in the rule and I'm trying to identify them.  So
     if you could just give me the six names.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Oh, okay.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  And I'll circle them as you go.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Benhamou.  That's B-E-N-H-A-M-O-U.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Say that one more time?
                   MR. KOGUT:  I don't know how to pronounce it. 
     It's B as in ball.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Oh, B.
                   MR. KOGUT:  -- E-N-H-A-M-O-U, et al.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Okay.
                   MR. KOGUT:  1988.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Thank you.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Lerchen, et al.  That's L-E-R-C-H-E-N.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Okay.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Siemiatycki.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Right.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Okay.  And Swanson, et al.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Swanson.  And those were the six
     that you drove, you made specific reference that those six
     studies were used in the preparation of figures III-4 and
     III-5; am I correct?
                   MR. KOGUT:  No.  It's not, no, not figures.  They
     were included in the tabulations in tables III-4 and table
     III-5.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  In the risk assessment, not the
     tables of exposures?
                   MR. KOGUT:  No, this has nothing to do with
     exposures.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Okay.
                   MR. KOGUT:  This has to do with the risk
     assessment.  So it's tables III-4 and III-5.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Okay.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Which are a table of cohort studies
     and case control studies.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  And of the six studies that you
     mentioned how many of them were specific to miners as
     opposed to looking at miners as one of the populations
     looked at?  Of those six how many looked only at the miner
     population?
                   MR. KOGUT:  Let's see.  I think it may only have
     been Waxweiler.  Let me verify that.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Only Waxweiler.  So then there
     really is only as far as you know and as what's contained in
     your reference documents, only one study that looked at the
     miner population?
                   MR. KOGUT:  I'm just verifying that.  Yeah, all
     six of these looked at the miner, population of miners as
     subpopulations of larger populations.  They all looked at
     miners.  But only that one looked exclusively at miners.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Okay.  That's what I needed to know
     because that was my reading of them.  Yet you gave the
     impression that those six studies, at least you gave the
     impression to me sitting in the audience that those six
     studies looked at miners as a population and studying the
     exposure to diesel particulate matter and the incidence of
     lung cancer.
                   MR. KOGUT:  They did do that.  They did look at
     miners but they also looked at --
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Not solely miners.  Only one of them
     looked solely at miners?
                   MR. KOGUT:  Right.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Okay.  That's what I wanted to
     clarify that.
                   The other matter, Mr. Chairman, that I wanted to
     mention is you have asked here as you did in Salt Lake City
     for mining companies to provide information to the panel. 
     In some instances very specific information.  And I think to
     the degree that they can do so they will provide that
     information.
                   But I have to let you know that earlier this year
     I obtained from the agency the 25 metal/nonmetal studies
     that served as the basis for Figure III-4 in the preamble
     and the 12 I believe it was underground coal surveys
     conducted by the Agency that serve as the basis for the
     range of exposures for underground coal miners.
                   Additionally, I received copies of the surveys
     that the Agency conducted that were not included in the
     preparation of these tables.
                   Following my review of those I've submitted two
     follow-up letters to the Office of Standards and the Acting
     Director Carol Jones.  The first letter was submitted in
     February.  The second letter was submitted in March.  I have
     yet to receive responses to those letters.
                   The information I have requested is central to us
     completing our review of this rule by the July 26 deadline. 
     I'm going to be submitting requests for additional
     information.  I'd like to know what sampling MSHA has
     conducted using the NIOSH 5040 method for analysis.  We'd
     like the results of those samples -- that sampling, just as
     you've asked that of the industry.  
                   We'd like to know the organic component of those
     samples, the elemental and the total.  We'd like to know the
     loadings on those filters.  We'd like to know whether those
     filters, if there was a belief that they contained
     carbonaceous ores, if those filters were acid washed prior
     to them being analyzed.
                   So there is a wealth of information that you may
     have that we'd like to review at the same time so that,
     hopefully, at some point we will come to some meeting of the
     minds regarding the utility or lack thereof of the NIOSH
     5040 method.  But these requests are pending with the
     Agency, at least two of them.  
                   I want to know of the 25 metal/nonmetal surveys
     that were conducted, the preamble makes reference to the
     fact that all but two of them were analyzed using the RCD
     method.  I want to know the validity of that in terms of the
     NIOSH 5040 method.  
                   We know that the RCD method burns the filters at
     400 degrees.  We also know today that there are carbonaceous
     ores that don't burn off until in excess of 900 degrees. 
     What impact does that knowledge have on the validity of this
     table?  So --
                   MR. HANEY:  In response to your question --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Let him finish, okay.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Go ahead, Bob.
                   MR. HANEY:  in response to your question the RCD
     method uses the amount that was burned off, not the amount
     as Mr. Ing incorrectly said in his testimony in Salt Lake,
     the remaining.  Therefore, by burning the sample off at 400
     degrees we remove only the diesel particulate, we do not
     remove the carbonaceous material which as you correctly said
     does not burn off until 900 degrees.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Do we remove other confounders that
     may be on the filter so that we know at that point that only
     the diesel particulate is remaining?
                   MR. HANEY:  We know that it removed the organics. 
     There are also several minerals such as bicarbonates and
     gypsum where it has moisture hydration which also comes off
     at those temperatures.  So that's why we recognize that the
     RCD method is not a universal method.  But for most of the
     studies that are shown on that table RCD is an appropriate
     method of analysis.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  When you say for most of them, Bob,
     is it appropriate method of analysis for the 23 that use the
     RCD?  And what method of analysis was used for the two that
     did not use the RCD method?
                   I mean these are some of the things that I've laid
     out in the letter.  And, you know, if it's as easy to answer
     as you just implied to me then I don't know why it has taken
     as long as it has for me to get a response to the inquiries
     that I have before the Agency.  And that's all I'm asking. 
     If we can't get this information then I can guarantee you
     that come the end of July we're going to be coming to the
     Agency and saying we need more time.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay, let me have --
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Tom.  Tom.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yes?
                   MS. WESDOCK:  I, Mr. Watzman, in regards to your
     four letters it is my understanding --
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Three letters.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Well, there was one dated April 1999
     that we just, we received not too long ago.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  That's correct.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  It is my understanding that all
     those letters have been answered and forwarded to you.  If
     you have not received those letters, the responses, please
     let us know.  But those letters have been answered.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Well, I can tell you as I stand here
     that by the -- when I left my office close of business last
     Friday I had not received responses to two of the four
     letters.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Well, please let us know because as
     I'm sitting here before I left my office for this hearing I
     surnamed the last letter of April 1999.  If, like I said --
                   MR. WATZMAN:  That's the only response that I've
     received.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Then you should have received the
     February, the two letters in February and the March letters
     because we also surnamed those letters.  So they should have
     been out.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Well, then maybe it would just be
     simpler if you're sure that you've already sent me responses
     if early next week you could send me copies of the
     responses.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  We'll do so.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Go ahead, Jon.
                   MR. KOGUT:  I just wanted to clear up one question
     that you said that you asked about in the letter.  I don't
     know if I can clear up the other one about whether the RCD
     is appropriate for the 23 mines that it was used for.  But
     with regard to the two in which the RCD was not used I think
     you asked what method was used for those two.  And in the
     caption to Figure III-2, three dash two, which utilizes
     exactly the same data as what went into Figure III-4, it
     says that measurements at mines other than D and T were made
     using the RCD method.  Measurements at mines D and T which
     are the remaining two mines were made using the size-
     selective method based on gravimetric determination of the
     amount of submicrometer dust collected with an impactor.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Fine.  Thank you.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Also, one comment that I can add
     maybe, Bruce, is that most of those comments came down to
     our office for response.  And I had looked at the material
     for response.  And if you, my opinion is if you look at the
     reports closely, okay, all the data is in there that can
     answer the questions that you.  Not that we, not that -- not
     that we're reluctant to answer the questions specifically,
     but I'm just saying to do that I went to the reports to
     respond to them.  
                   So that material is in there and if somebody is
     reading it you can find out what samples were RCD samples,
     what samples were size-selective samples, and what samples
     were analyzed for elemental and organic.  The data is there. 
     Okay?  We're not pulling the data to answer those questions
     is not coming from anyplace else.
                   Is that correct, Bob?
                   MR. HANEY:  Yes.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Okay.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  So I'm just saying it's -- and the
     data was, the individual reports that you asked for was
     submitted as soon as we could get it out to you.  And you've
     had it quite a while, so.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  That's correct.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yes.  Okay.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  And that's --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  And we'll be happy to answer 
     the --
                   MR. WATZMAN:  That served as the basis for the --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yeah.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  -- two follow-up letters.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  We'll be happy to answer any
     questions you have.  But I'm just saying all what we do to
     go back, to be honest with you, we go back to those reports
     because that's the documentation that was there when we
     compiled the data for the preamble.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Okay.  Tom, on my last question, has
     the Agency conducted, have you analyzed based upon samples
     you've taken diesel particulate using the NIOSH 5040 method?
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yes.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Will you share those with the
     industry, the results of that sampling?  They are not --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  You mean other than what's in,
     what already out there in those reports?
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Yes.  Have you conducted sampling --
     You did not sampling using the NIOSH 5040 method in
     preparation for this?
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yes, we did.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Or it's not contained in here, the
     results of which are not contained in here.
                   (Pause.)
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Do they have that information?
                   MR. WATZMAN:  I mean, if I go to the table we've
     been talking about, III-4, and the 25 surveys, 23 were RCD
     and two were by another means.  None of them were analyzed,
     none of those samples used in the preparation of that table
     were analyzed using the NIOSH 5040 method.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.  Right.
                   MR. HANEY:  I believe we had forwarded you an
     electronic copy of the data that we used that contained the
     results of the multiple sampling.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  No, you have not.
                   MR. HANEY:  I believe we have.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  I never requested that.  What I
     requested was the studies that served as the basis for
     Figure III-4.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay, but somebody when it came
     across my desk, the questions, you specifically asked for
     information relative to the method 5040.  And I went back to
     those reports.  And whether that data was used in here or
     not I can't -- I think Jon and Bob put the tables together -
     - but I know that date is in those reports.  I mean, if we
     go out and do it --
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Tom, some of these reports that
     serve as the basis for Table III-4, these surveys pre-date
     the NIOSH 5040 method.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yeah, but then, then if there's
     carbon data presented then those reports wouldn't have
     carbon data in them.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Forget these reports for a minute. 
     All I'm saying is can we get from you --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yeah, you can get it.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  -- any subsequent information --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Right.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  -- you have developed where you
     utilized --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yes.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  -- the NIOSH 5040 method --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Right.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  -- to analyze samples?
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yes.  But my comment on that is we
     will look.  But I think you have all of that data already in
     those reports.  And if there isn't carbon data presented
     then the samples that were reflected on that survey were not
     analyzed using method 5040.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Go ahead, Bob.
                   MR. HANEY:  The reports that you have that weren't
     included in the preparation of this table, there was half a
     dozen or a dozen subsequent studies, those are the ones that
     would have the carbon data in it.  There are a few of these
     that are used that have carbon data in it but because there
     was not that many it was not included in these tables.  But
     the subsequent reports is where you will find the carbon
     data.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Those are the reports we'd like.
                   MR. HANEY:  We've provided those already but if
     they're not sure let us know what you still need.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Okay.  I'm not -- I was -- I, my
     impression was the reports I got were the ones that were
     specific to the preparation of these tables.
                   MR. HANEY:  I believe we sent you everything to
     date that we had even if it wasn't included in these tables.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Okay.  Have you done any additional
     sampling using the NIOSH 5040 method?
                   MR. HANEY:  I would say maybe two or three mines
     since then.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  If we could have those as well.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Thank you.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Let me ask you a question.
                   (Laughter.)
                   MR. WATZMAN:  No.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Since we are going to supply you
     all this data are we going to get all this data back from
     what we requested?
                   You don't have to come to the podium to answer
     that.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Tom, I think that, you know, I can't
     speak for the individual companies.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  I know.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  And some of whom represented the two
     associations yesterday, others of which appeared on their
     own.  Each company will make its own determination.  I'm
     sure that to the degree they feel that they can share the
     data in the format that's useful to you they will.  And we
     will do the same.
                   As far as obtaining the sample filter medium
     themselves, I doubt if many companies have those.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Fine.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Or if the labs retained those.  And
     I doubt --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  We understand that.  If they don't
     have it and they can't supply it --
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Yeah.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  -- then that's an explanation.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  But to the degree they'll share the
     information with you, I'm sure they will.  
                   Our objective is the same here.  I mean we're
     really not at odds.  We want to arrive at a useful program,
     a reliable program and a verifiable program.  We don't think
     that exists today.  And through the sharing of this data if
     we can arrive at that we're all better off.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.  The data that we have, why
     we're so concerned is the data that we have using the NIOSH
     method, all right, we have not found the same degree of
     problems, okay, not that there may not be some
     interferences.  We're not saying that.  Okay, any analytical
     method has some interferences when you go out to sample. 
     And it's subject upon the analysts, okay, providing you give
     him the information that you get the reliable number back or
     you don't get a reliable number back. 
                   And if the Agency didn't get reliable numbers back
     then they couldn't withstand a court challenge for a
     citation, okay, then that wouldn't be used to issue or the
     basis for a citation.  But, you know, we're right not at the
     point where we see the majority of the samples that we
     collect and analyze -- I don't want to say a majority.  That
     looks at sometimes 50 percent.  The preponderance are, the
     preponderance of the information we have says that the NIOSH
     5040 method is a viable method for determining total carbon
     in mine environments, not coal mine, other than coal mine
     environments.  All right.
                   Now, we're seeing other information that's coming
     in, all right, that says, hey, there's problems out there
     and we have all this data available.  And we need that data. 
     And we need the specificity of the data because, you know,
     we're going to go back to NIOSH and we're going to say, you
     know, here's a method you recommended for elemental carbon
     and for total carbon.  And now we're finding that we have
     these problems when we use it in these certain mining
     situations.  And, you know, we're looking to get the right
     answer, you know.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Understood.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Do we or don't we have a good
     method to use?
                   And that's why, you know, we're not trying to
     pinpoint people to come in and say, you know, we're going to
     challenge that data.  That's not what we're looking for. 
     Okay.  But, you know, what are the problems with the method,
     if they're there?  And can they be corrected?
                   MR. WATZMAN:  I understand that, Tom.  I will tell
     you again, to the degree they can share it, they will.  Our
     experience and our track record has not been very good.  And
     I can only go back to the noise proceeding where we as an
     industry undertook a very detailed audiometric study of some
     6,000 miners and presented the results of our study to MSHA. 
     And MSHA then turned around and went to Dr. Franks at NIOSH
     and said, Will you please critique this study?
                   And NIOSH's critique of our study then became a
     part of the rulemaking record.  And then we had to rebut Dr.
     Franks' work.
                   So recognize that we don't walk into this process
     everyone with clean hands.  And there are some scars that
     have to be overcome.  And to the degree that companies feel
     that they can share this freely with you, they will.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Yeah.  Okay.
                   Well, that's all we can ask.  You know, that
     information I can only point out is valuable to us for
     developing the Proposed Rule.  All right.  And if all our
     data says we can go out to a mine and make a appropriate
     measurements that we think could withstand an enforcement
     action, if we don't have any other data that we can look at
     that sort of says, Hey, you know, there's problems with the
     method, this is it, or where we can intelligently sit down
     and discuss with people what the differences are between the
     way we're looking at the data and you're looking at the
     data, that doesn't do us any good.  That's the problem.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  I agree.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  So.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  I agree.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  We appreciate your comments.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Mr. Watzman.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Yes?
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Once you go back to your office if
     you, you know, go and if you don't have the information that
     you requested just now as regarding, you know, the 5040
     method that you were asking here, if you don't have it
     please let us know and that information will be forwarded to
     you.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  I have two stacks of information on
     diesel that probably are smaller than Bob Haney's but each
     of one of which is probably on the lines of two feet tall at
     this point.  If Bob knows readily and has handy the studies
     that he's talking about it would be much simpler just to get
     copies.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Okay.
                   MR. HANEY:  There may be some sent that you
     already have just to make sure you've got them.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  That's okay.  I mean if we -- we'll
     make sure that you have the information.
                   MS. GREEN:  For the record, and this is -- I'm
     Deborah Green again from the Solicitor's Office.  Rather
     than have you go through your data to look for whether or
     not you have it, send him another copy.  The Agency will
     send it to you.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Thank you.
                   MS. GREEN:  That's the bottom line.
                   MR. WATZMAN:  Thank you.
                   Thank you.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Mr. Sheffield, I guess you --
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  No, it's Scheidig.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  I mean Scheidig.  I'm sorry.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  That's okay.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  You want to do an hour's
     presentation?
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  No, I don't want to do an hour's
     presentation.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  This works out really well for 
     me --
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  We'll give you time.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  -- because I have to go to Vegas
     today and I was hoping this wasn't going to be until 5:00
     o'clock like Salt Lake.
                   But there's one item that was raised earlier with
     regards to the EPA rulemaking on fine particulate matter.  I
     think that I am sort of curious as to whether or not MSHA is
     really relying on that for the basis of this particular
     rulemaking, especially in light of the fact that it should
     be clarified that, number one, that rulemaking was
     promulgated.  However, the President, Mr. Clinton, postponed
     that rulemaking till -- and I can't remember the date, but
     sometime in the first decade of the year 2000.  So it was
     postponed for some time for implementation because of some
     of the issues relative to implementation as well as a number
     of issues relative to some of the health and other related
     aspects that the industry and others raised.
                   In fact, that particular rulemaking is under
     litigation right now because of the fact that the industry,
     many different industries, not just mining, believe that
     there is substantial evidence that the rulemaking was not
     done with and using good science and good techniques.  And I
     think the CASAC study that was used to sort of underscore
     that by EPA, you know, wasn't necessarily, it was just a
     simple majority of the CASAC members that felt there was
     some substance to the 2.5 micron size parameter for
     rulemaking.  But I think there's some real questions there.
                   Using that as a reference to why you're going
     forward with this particular rulemaking maybe certainly
     inappropriate, certainly premature and maybe unfounded at
     this stage of the game.  And I don't, I didn't see any real
     references in the rulemaking relative to that particular
     study, or to that rulemaking anyway.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Well, let me say something along -
     - let me say something, a comment.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Yeah.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  The Agency is not relying as far
     as with respect to the preamble as that for the basis for
     this rulemaking.  I think though that this preamble presents
     a preponderance of information that says, that the Agency
     has interpreted to say that high exposures to diesel
     particulate matter present a health hazard to people --
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Right.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  -- that are exposed to those
     exposures and that the Agency doesn't know what the absolute
     safe level is.  All right.  But there are studies out there
     other than miners that have linked exposure to DPM to other
     health risks.  All right?  
                   And, consequently, what this rulemaking is trying
     to do is to get the exposure of miners down to at least
     those levels, those levels at which at least we know other
     people --
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Okay, I just point it out.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay, not getting it down to 15 or
     to 20, a small particulate, a fine particulate standard of
     15 or 20 microns.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Tom, I understand that.  I just
     think I wanted to clarify for the record the fact that I
     think that you as panelists, you know, hearing the testimony
     of the public on this that, you know, you should maybe be
     careful in terms of what are the references you might bring
     into the record that really don't have any bearing or have
     minimal if not minuscule bearing on this particular issue
     unless you have some, some rational evidence that you've
     already provided to the public that says that the EPA
     studies on 2.5 are included and substantive to this issue. 
     And I don't recall anything, reading anything about that nor
     ever hearing anything about that.
                   So I just wanted to clarify for the record that
     that's not an issue.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay.  Jon, do you have a comment
     on that?
                   MR. KOGUT:  Yeah.  I just want to direct your
     attention to a few sections of the risk assessment that was
     published in the preamble.  If you look at the -- on page
     58,145 of --
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Hopefully somebody is going to
     write this down.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  You can have my copy.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  I've got to go get my glasses.
                   MR. KOGUT:  On page 58,145 of the "Federal
     Register" notice there is a table of contents, a separate
     table of contents for the risk assessment, which is Section
     III of the preamble.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Right.  Under lung cancer.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Okay.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Under just characterization of
     risk.
                   MR. KOGUT:  No.  The table of contents covers the
     entire risk assessment.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Oh.  Okay.
                   MR. KOGUT:  And the sections in that table of
     contents that I want to direct your attention to are, first
     of all, Section 2.a.ii., which is in -- I'm sorry, small
     Roman numeral iii, which is entitled "Relevant of Health
     Effects Associated with Fine Particulate Matter in Ambient
     Air."
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Okay.
                   MR. KOGUT:  And then below that in, under Section
     3 in the table of contents, Roman numeral small ii or Roman
     numeral two, "Excess Risk of Death from Cardiovascular,
     Cardiopulmonary, or Respiratory Causes," the evidence for
     that section is taken from the air pollution studies.
                   And it's also addressed in, let's see, did I say
     Roman -- I said that one.  Okay.  Also in Section III.3.c.,
     entitled "Substantial Reduction of Risk by Proposed Rule." 
     The first part of that section deals with a quantification
     of the potential health impacts of the rule on reducing --
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  That's referring to this Proposed
     Rule; correct?
                   MR. KOGUT:  It's referring to this --
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Yeah.
                   MR. KOGUT:  -- Proposed Rule based on reduction in
     diesel particulate in their capacity as a fine particulate. 
     The whole first part of that section relates exactly to what
     you were talking about, and it's based on the air pollution
     studies on fine particulates.  It makes reference to Tables
     III-2 and in particular III-3.
                   Table III-3 at the end of that risk assessment
     section is entitled "Studies of Acute Health Effects Using
     Gravimetric Indicators of Fine Particles in the Ambient
     Air."  So I believe all of that material is directly in
     support of what you were talking about.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Well, I won't disagree with you
     there.  I'm just saying that's only a portion, probably of,
     you know, not having read through all those.  But I would
     venture to guess having done quite a bit of work in the air
     quality arena in my environmental side of my business that
     that's only a very small portion of what EPA relied on to
     promulgate its rulemaking.  And so there's a lot of other
     things that come in to bear, come into play with regards to
     EPA's rulemaking on 2.5 that is not necessarily referenced
     nor included in this record or the preamble.  
                   There are a couple of references to fine
     particulate study.  But I don't know that as a public
     reading this whether or not that's all-inclusive for
     everything that was included in the PM 2.5 record or not.
                   MR. KOGUT:  That's, it would be very helpful to us
     if you did do a careful review of those sections.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Okay.
                   MR. KOGUT:  And if you find that we left out an
     important body of material we would very much appreciate in
     your post-hearing comments --
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  But like I said --
                   MR. KOGUT:  -- letting us know --
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Yeah.
                   MR. KOGUT:  -- what other material we should
     consider.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  I think you'd be very careful here
     in the sense that, number one, the CASAC group that
     basically underscored a lot of these studies for the EPA's
     rulemaking did not do that, only as a very simple majority
     was there concurrence, there was a lot of disagreement with
     even that scientific body as to whether or not all of those
     studies were relevant or consistent with their finding and
     their rulemaking.
                   Secondly, is that that rulemaking was put in
     abeyance for some period of time.  And to try to bring some
     of that into this record at this time I think would be
     certainly premature and violating sort of the idea of what
     President Clinton established of not promulgating that rule
     any sooner than sometime at least I know it's, you know,
     like 2005, 2008, somewhere in that period.
                   So I just urge this panel and MSHA to be very
     careful with how they use references to the EPA 2.5
     rulemaking.
                   MR. KOGUT:  I think that what we are making
     reference to is not so much the rulemaking but the
     underlying studies that the rulemaking that they did have
     relied upon.  So I don't think --
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  Okay.  I get it, yeah.
                   MR. KOGUT:  -- we're relying on the fact that they
     promulgated a standard.  But we are relying to some extent
     on the underlying studies.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  But your statement earlier was
     based on the promulgation of a standard because you asked a
     specific question relative to that standard.
                   MR. KOGUT:  That's -- I don't remember exactly
     what I said but I think, as I said before, if there are
     bodies of evidence related to that rulemaking that you think
     we should be considering additional bodies --
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  I understand.  Yeah.
                   MR. KOGUT:  -- of evidence we'd like to know about
     it.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  We'll take a review and get back to
     you.  But I hope that's clear in terms of what I was trying
     to get at here too.
                   Thanks very much for your time today.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Thank you.
                   Would you like a copy of that?
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  I do have a copy.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Okay.
                   MR. SCHEIDIG:  I just didn't have it right with me
     at the moment.
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Do we have anybody else in the
     audience that would like to make comments relative to the
     proposed, these Proposed Rules?
                   (No response.)
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay, what we're going to do is
     we're going to close this hearing until 12:00 o'clock. 
     We're going to come back at 12:00 and see if anybody else --
     we'll have a notice on the door, so if you know of anybody
     that's coming, let us know.  But we are going to give
     sufficient time for maybe other people that are coming
     distances and so forth to get here and have the opportunity
     to make a presentation.
                   For those of you that are here and that are not
     going to be coming back, I want to thank you for coming,
     whether you made a statement or didn't make a statement.  If
     you, as I said in the opening statement, if you want to make
     a statement you have until July 26 to get it in and it will
     be considered by the committee.  We are also, we would
     welcome you to make oral comments at the other public
     hearings that we're going to have on this proposed rule
     later this month.
                   So thank you for coming.  Thank you for your
     attention.  And, hopefully, all of us together can come out
     with a good rule on this.
                   Thank you.
                   (Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m..m., the hearing was
     recessed, to reconvene later this same day.)
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\                   A F T E R N O O N  S E S S I O N
                                                     (12:55 p.m.)
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  Okay, we're going to open the
     record and see if there is anybody else in the audience who
     would like to make a presentation.  
                   (No response.)
                   CHAIRMAN TOMB:  And since we have nobody else
     signed up for attendance at the meeting since noon and
     nobody indicates they want to make a presentation we are
     going to close this hearing for the day.
                   (Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., the hearing was
     concluded.)
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\
     \\                        REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
     
     CASE TITLE:  30 CFR PART 57, DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER
     EXPOSURE OF UNDERGROUND METAL AND NONMETAL MINERS; PROPOSED
     RULE
     HEARING DATE:  May 13, 1999
     LOCATION:  Albuquerque, New Mexico
     
     
     
              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 15, 1999
     
                                                            
                                       Raymond M. Vetter
                                       Official Reporter on behalf of
                                       Heritage Reporting Corporation
                                       Suite 600
                                       1220 L Street, N.W.
                                       Washington, D.C.  20005