DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
              MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
A PUBLIC HEARING
ON REGULATIONS FOR MINER SAFETY AND HEALTH TRAINING
Pages:  1 through 142
Place:  College Park, Georgia
Date:   January 7, 1999                  
                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                             DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
                    MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
       A PUBLIC HEARING
       ON REGULATIONS FOR MINER SAFETY AND HEALTH TRAINING
                                                    Biltmore III Room
                      Georgia International Trade & Convention Center
                                                   1902 Sullivan Road
                                                College Park, Georgia
                                            Thursday, January 7, 1999
                                                            8:00 a.m.
       MSHA PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT:
        KATHY ALEJANDRO, Presiding
        ROSYLN FONTAINE, Member
        RODRIC BRELAND, Member
        KEVIN BURNS, Member
                                  I N D E X
       COMMENTS BY:                                              PAGE
        Opening Remarks, Ms. Alejandro.........................   3
        Dick Martin............................................   8
        Charles Machemehl......................................  39
        Ronnie Colson..........................................  62
        Ken Stockton...........................................  74
        Bobby Rider............................................  80
        Ben Hart...............................................  92
        Kenneth Jackman........................................ 107
        Frank Ford............................................. 120
        Ed Elliott............................................. 130
        Closing Remarks, Ms. Alejandro......................... 137
                            P R O C E E D I N G S
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Good morning.
                 My name is Kathy Alejandro, and I am with Metal and
       Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health with the Mine Safety and
       Health Administration.
                 On behalf of the Mine Safety and Health
       Administration I would like to welcome you to the last of
       seven public meetings on regulations for miner safety and
       health training.
                 These meetings are intended to give individuals and
       organizations, including miners and their representatives,
       and mine operators, both large and small, an opportunity to
       present their views on the types of requirements that will
       result in the most effective miner safety and health
       training.
                 These regulations would apply at those nonmetal
       surface mines were MSHA currently cannot enforce existing
       training requirements.
                 I would like to take this opportunity to introduce
       the members of the MSHA panel who are here with me this
       morning.
                 To my immediate left is Rosyln Fontaine of the
       Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances with MSHA;
                 To my immediate right is Rod Breland who is the
       Western Operations Manager of the newly-formed Educational
       Field Services within MSHA; and
                 To my far right is Kevin Burns who is also with
       Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health with MSHA.
                 Since 1979, MSHA has been guided by a rider to its
       appropriations.  The restriction currently states that:
                 ...none of the funds appropriated shall be
       obligated or expended to carry out Section 115 of the Federal
       Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, or to carry out that
       portion of Section 104(g)(1) of such Act relating to the
       enforcement of any training requirements with respect to
       shell dredging, or with respect to any sand, gravel, surface
       stone, surface clay, colloidal phosphate, or surface
       limestone mine.
                 In the omnibus budget passed by Congress on October
       21st, 1998, MSHA f directed to:
                 ...work with the affected industries, mine
       operators, workers, labor organizations, and other affected
       and interested parties to promulgate final training
       regulations for the affected industries by September 30,
       1999.  It is understood that these regulations are to be
       based on a draft submitted to MSHA by the Coalition for
       Effective Miner Training no later than February 1, 1999.
                 MSHA expects to publish a proposed rule in the
       Federal Register some time in the spring of 1999.
                 The regulations that MSHA will be developing must
       include the minimum requirements in Section 115 of the
       Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1997, and I will give
       you a short summary of those requirements.
                 Section 115 provides that every mine operator shall
       have a health and safety training program that is approved by
       the Secretary of Labor, and that complies with certain
       requirements.
                 Section 115 specifies that surface miners are to
       receive no less than 24 hours of new miner training, no less
       than eight hours of refresher training annually, and task
       training for new work assignments.
                 Section 115 also requires that the training cover
       specific subject areas, provides that the training is to be
       conducted during normal work hours at normal rates of pay,
       requires that miners be reimbursed for additional costs they
       incur incidental to such training, and provides that mine
       operators must maintain miners' training certificates and
       furnish such records to the miners.
                 In addition to these minimum requirements, MSHA is
       looking for suggestions, MSHA is looking for suggestions and
       comments as to how best to achieve effective miner safety and
       health training consistent with the Mine Act, including any
       additional requirements that should be included in the
       proposed rule and, most importantly, why.
                 Public meetings have already been held at six
       locations:  In North Brook, Illinois; Denver, Colorado;
       Albany, New York; Portland, Oregon; Ontario, California; and
       in Dallas, Texas.
                 These meetings have been intended to give as many
       individuals and organizations as possible an opportunity to
       present their views on these issues.
                 We intend to conduct this meeting in an informal
       manner.  As you can see, a court reporter is making a
       transcript of the proceedings.  Anyone who wishes to speak at
       this meeting and has not signed up in advance should sign up
       on the speakers' list which is located currently on this
       table with me.
                 We also ask that everyone who is here today,
       whether or not you wish to speak, sign the attendance sheet
       which is located in the back of the room on table with the
       water.
                 Anyone who wishes may also submit written
       statements and information to us either during the course of
       this meeting, or at some point after the meeting, and we will
       incorporate this information in the record when the proposed
       rule is developed.
                 Although there is no formal deadline for the
       submission of written comments, we are encouraging everyone
       to submit their comments on or before February 1st of 1999 to
       ensure that we can give full consideration to your
       suggestions and your input.
                 Although we are most interested in what you have to
       say to us, we will also attempt to answer any questions you
       may have to clarify the process and the purpose of this
       meeting.
                 We are specifically interested in comments
       addressing certain areas, although you are strongly
       encouraged to comment on any issue related to miner safety
       and health training at currently-exempt mines.  These issues
       were outlined in the November 3rd Federal Register notice
       that announced the schedule of public meetings, and I will
       summarize them:
                 Should certain terms, including "new miner" and
       "experienced miner" be defined?
                 Which subjects should be taught before a new miner
       is assigned work, even if the work is done under close
       supervision?
                 Should training for inexperienced miners be given
       all at once, or over a period of time, such as several weeks
       or months?
                 Should supervisors be subject to the same training
       requirements as miners?
                 Should task training be required whenever a miner
       receives a work assignment that involves new and unfamiliar
       tasks?
                 Should specific subject areas be covered during
       annual refresher training?  If no, what subject areas should
       be included?
                 Can the eight hours of annual refresher training
       required by the Mine Act be completed in segments of training
       lasting less than thirty minutes?
                 Should the records of training be kept by the mine
       operator at the mine site, or can they be kept at other
       locations?
                 Should there be minimum qualifications for persons
       who conduct miner training?  If so, what qualifications are
       appropriate?
                 I would now like to introduce the first speaker
       this morning.  We ask that all speakers state their name for
       the court reporter before beginning their presentation, and
       also spell their names.
                 And, again, thank you very much for attending this
       morning.
                 The first speaker on our list is Dick Martin from
       Watson Gravel.  Mr. Martin.
       DICK MARTIN, WATSON GRAVEL
                 MR. MARTIN:  I am Dick Martin with Watson Gravel in
       Cincinnati, Ohio.
                 We are a small operator up in that area, and we
       have been involved in this part of this training area since
       19 -- let's see, it was the first year it was put into effect
       -- '78, '77 or '78.
                 When I came away from that meeting, and there was
       probably about a dozen people in Vincennes, Indiana at that
       time at the meeting -- we had like a Sears and Roebuck
       catalog with us as far as the training and everything, and it
       scared everybody to death.
                 I hope that this new thing here that you're putting
       in won't do that, and I've got some comments, and I have
       talked to a lot of the operators in the Cincinnati area, the
       small operators, and also I am a past board member for Ohio
       Aggregate Association for the small groups of people, and I
       talked to them, too, and it's almost the consensus of opinion
       through the whole group that we need something that we can
       work with there, and we hope that it's a little bit simpler.
                 I think the first thing here I would like to talk
       to is here is a copy of an outline for training, and with
       that it says 24 hours of training before a person can start
       to work.
                 Most people I think when they make this thing out
       is that it's almost like a pie, it's 24 hours, and then they
       try to work out the segments and different things that's in
       here as far as statutory rights of miners, first aid, things
       like that.  And they come up with something that's really not
       workable.
                 We have people in our area that's got four or five
       mine operators that work there, and to sit down and talk to
       them for two or three hours about the statutory rights of
       miners or, you know, they try to put this in it's just -- but
       we have inspectors come in, and periodically they will ask
       somebody "Have you been trained?"  "Yeah."  "How much
       training?" and then they will come back to the operator and
       say "That man says that you didn't talk to him for so many
       hours."
                 You know, it's just like on some electrical.  We've
       got people who have -- a front-end loader, they load into a
       hopper, and it's only got one conveyor, and you can't talk to
       that person I don't think about the hazards of electricity
       for six hours when he's only got one thing to do, and that's
       press a button, you know, to make it run.
                 So I hope these things are taken into consideration
       on this thing here.
                 We don't want anybody to get hurt on the job.  When
       you're a small operator I think you're even closer to your
       people than you are when you're a large operator, and we're
       almost like family.
                 So we want something that we can prove to you that
       we've done the training, that the people know what's going
       on, you can talk to them freely.  Our doors are always open
       to inspectors.  We just want something workable.
                 On the 24 hours of training, I think that that
       shouldn't be set in stone.  I just don't think so, because
       the 24-hour training before you put somebody to work, the way
       we do it and the training that you do after the fact, after
       they first get started and things like that, it always adds
       up to more than 24 hours.
                 And it's an ongoing thing.  Training is an ongoing
       thing in the gravel industry especially, and I imagine most
       every place else you just constantly do this.
                 Some people when it gets down so far you call it
       refresher training, but mainly, you know -- and I think if we
       could do this, get the person that's trained on the job and
       all the things that you're asking for here within thirty to
       sixty days I think is good, and I think it's workable.  I
       think that would work fine.
                 We do have some people there that come in.  We have
       a large farming area there, and we have people, a lot of
       people we hire in, they're the farm boys and things like
       that.  They know a lot of things before they ever get the
       job, and they might be newly-hired inexperienced people, but
       they're experienced in heavy equipment and things like this,
       and electric, and hazards, and so I think you just as a -- I
       think it's almost a refresher training for them, it's not a
       new training, and this should be taken into consideration.
                 On the one thing that they hit on here very hard,
       and it's very important, and that is first aid training.  To
       bring a person in off the street and give him seminars on
       first aid training, CPR, and things like this before you ever
       take him out and put him in the gravel pit, I just don't
       think that that's necessary for that whole thing to be done.
                 I think that you can cover some CPR and control
       bleeding, pressure points, things like this, and we've got
       first aid around the gravel company there and things like
       this, that that should be sufficient for something like that
       because we -- every year we have open-door policy for first
       aid training in our company.  And just like I say, we're just
       a small company, we've got two small gravel pits there.
                 And we've had a lot of other people in the area
       follow our course on the thing, and that is that we offer
       first aid training for the people, we give them CPR, the full
       amount of it every year, and we give them refresher training
       every year on the thing there.  So we've got a constant flow
       of first aid training going on all the time.
                 We bring people in, and they do it in the
       conference room, which we have a conference trailer.  I've
       done it in the small motels there in town that's got a
       conference room, I bring them in there, and it's workable.
                 We do it for two reasons.  For the employee that he
       knows what he's doing when he's on the job, and it's also for
       when he's at home or away from the job there.  It's proved
       out it's worked real good for that.
                 On the new hire/experienced miners, I've got -- I
       think that everybody up there has done the same thing is that
       after verbal questioning on qualifications for the job they
       are hired and basic off-the-job hazard training should be
       completed, and the rest of the health and safety training
       could be completed on the job there, just like we normally do
       that now.
                 And then this information could be put on their
       certificate.  In other words, if a person comes in he might
       have been running a backhoe for somebody on a construction
       site for two or three years, or driving a dump truck on the
       job, and they come in there, they're a new hire,
       inexperienced miners, but they've got the experience in the
       thing that they're going to do, and I think that should be
       taken into consideration, and that can be put on their hiring
       thing there so that's part of the training there.
                 Refresher training.  We have safety meetings and
       information meetings where we sit down and talk to the
       people, and I think that this should tally in on their
       refresher training as far as their jobs.  We have refresher
       training on first aid.  We cover these things.
                 It might only be maybe ten or fifteen minutes to
       the meeting, or maybe twenty minutes to the meeting, but I
       think that should count in on the thing.
                 And I don't think we should have to have a score
       card to say, well, ten minutes here, ten minutes there, and
       then have an inspector come in and say "Well, you only did an
       hour and five minutes here" because I just -- I don't want to
       have the score card there.
                 On employees assigned to the task we'll say, this I
       think is the -- when you get around a small operation like we
       have, almost without -- I'll say there's probably only about
       two or three people there that don't do all the jobs, that
       haven't been trained on all the jobs, and they're so close,
       and they work with the people.
                 And then that gets to another point here is that I
       feel that the people that are on the jobs know more about the
       jobs than anybody, and they should be the ones that can train
       if they want to do the training.
                 The outline says that if there's a competent person
       there that can do they training they can do it.  That one
       thing right there, I hope you people take into consideration
       one thing.  We have a lot of good people there.  They don't
       have a lot of schooling and things like that, but they know
       what they're doing, and they're good instructors.  They can
       teach a person to do their job, and do it safely and things
       like this.  And it gives them a little bit of pride.
                 I took some of our people to a safety meeting here
       two years ago in Columbus to just give them some exposure and
       let them see what's going on, and there was an MSHA inspector
       there, and in his talk he told the people there that they
       could be held responsible if somebody got hurt on the job
       after they trained them.
                 I almost lost my trainers, because they didn't want
       to be held responsible to where they could go to jail or
       things like that.
                 And I did have one MSHA inspector tell the
       personnel on the job, and the man that we work with in the
       state there is Okie Ritter, and Okie Ritter is a good man.  I
       got back to him and told him what went on and things like
       that.  But these were some inspectors that come in from out
       of state, they were loaners to him.
                 So I hope that doesn't happen any more, because
       we've got too many good people out there that want to do a
       job, and they have some pride in their job, and I think that
       when it comes to competent people the person on the job is
       mostly the one that do it running.
                 When I asked to come down here for this meeting I
       didn't know I was going to be a speaker, and I'm not a
       speaker, but I'm just talking for our company and some of the
       people around there.  I want you to know that I appreciate
       the opportunity to do this.
                 I think that the little operator out there just
       needs to be heard.  Just like I say, I'm not a paid
       representative of these people, but I've had most of the
       people --
                 Let me take a minute or two here to tell you, we're
       in the -- our gravel operation is in the glacier deposits
       down in the Great Miami River Valley there, so we're
       basically strip miners, that's what we --  When it comes to a
       high wall, if we get thirty feet of gravel we're tickled to
       death, that's a high wall to us.  Most of ours is drag line
       and things like this, underwater and things like that.
                 Our inspectors that come around, we have good MSHA
       inspectors.  I don't -- in twenty years we've only had a
       couple of times where we've  had if you want to call it an
       incident with an inspector, and most of the time it's a
       little bit of a misunderstanding on their part, because our
       -- you can talk to Mr. Ritter up in Ohio there -- our doors
       are always open, people can come in, and we don't hide
       nothing, we turn them loose.
                 The only time we get mad is that if finds something
       that's wrong that we should have corrected, that's when we
       get mad at ourself.  And just like I say, the inspectors do a
       good job here.
                 But it's -- I know that if you make laws it's like,
       you know, you have highway speeds out here, it's 65 and
       they'll allow you to run seventy, you know, but when it comes
       to some of these things that come down as laws, if you try to
       reason with the inspector, "That's what it says, Dick," you
       know.  There's no gray area there.
                 I have on several occasions had citations that I
       talked to them, and reasoned with them, with you people --
       I'll say you people, and we have had -- I've lost a couple,
       I've won a couple.
                 I cherish the opportunity to do this, because it
       seems like it makes things a lot easier.  I haven't had
       anything held against me so far.
                 But the safety training here is something that I
       think is, it's important.  I think most all the gravel
       operators do it.  They do it in different phases on the
       thing.
                 And just like I say, I hope that you come up with
       something here that we can work with, that we can train the
       people, give them the opportunity to take advantage of other
       training, both on the job and off the job.
                 We're nonunion people there, so our people they
       switch if you want to call it classifications continuously.
       Absenteeism, vacations, and things like that, a man might run
       a drag line one day, and a dredge the next.  If they need a
       loader operator, the plant man might run the loader.  They
       switch things around like that.
                 So we do need training in all the areas, and they
       do need to be protected in all the areas, and I think that we
       can -- I know we can do it, and I know that we can have a
       simpler outline for safety that will get the job done with
       competent people on the job.
                 And I want to thank you very much.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you, Mr. Martin.
                 I have got a couple of follow-up questions, and
       other people on the panel may as well.
                 You stated that you didn't think that the 24 hours
       of new miner training should be set in stone, and I just want
       to clarify what your point was.
                 As you probably know, the 24 hours minimum is in
       the Mine Act, so in this regulation we really can't do
       anything to change how much new miner training has got to be
       given to new miners.
                 However, one of the issues that we're looking at --
       and I think that that's maybe where you were coming from --
       is how much of the new miner training has got to be given to
       a miner before he or she begins work, and you may know -- or
       maybe you don't know -- but in Part 48 it establishes eight
       hours of minimum training before a miner can begin work, and
       that's what we're trying to figure out here is in this
       regulation do we set a minimum like that and, if so, is it
       cast in terms of hours, or in subject areas, or things like
       that.
                 We have gotten comments saying that eight hours is
       too much, particularly for smaller operations where there
       really isn't that much to the operation.
                 Other people have suggested maybe two hours
       minimum.  Other people have spoken in terms of subject areas
       that should be covered before a miner begins work.
                 I think that the thinking is a miner should get
       something before he or she begins work, and I was just
       wondering if you had any specific comments on that.
                 MR. MARTIN:  One reason I said the 24 hours is
       because we've had the inspectors come in, and they have said,
       you know -- and I, you know, said "Well, you know, it doesn't
       say it's 24 hours before they ever walk out the door."
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.
                 MR. MARTIN:  "No, it's 24 hours, Dick," you know,
       "and I'll get the reg and I'll show it to you," and things
       like that.  That's where our conflict has been on the thing.
                 The amount of training before a person goes out,
       I'll tell you what we do, and that is that a new hire comes
       in, sits down and goes through all of his paperwork that he
       has to sign and do things like that before, you know, he's
       hired on type of situation.
                 He comes in to work -- well, we might start him
       that day.  Before the person ever goes out and does the job
       that he's hired to do there, the man or woman, we talk to
       them at least two hours.  I've got an outline book and things
       like that that we go over.
                 I've got a large -- we do a flyover of all the
       gravel operations in Ohio there, and we have a picture on the
       wall showing our gravel operations, and so we can show them,
       you know, "This is where you are now, and this is where the
       gravel operation is here," you know, "and this is the garage
       area, and this is the escape routes" if you want to call it
       that, which you can go anywhere in a surface mine to get
       away.
                 But the thing of it is is that we cover all the
       areas of "These are the things that you want to look out
       for."  In the booklet I go over the guarding and things that
       we do, the safety checks on all the machinery and the
       equipment before we start every shift.
                 I have a sheet there that shows them -- there's a
       check sheet for every piece of equipment, no matter where
       they're going.  Even if they're if you want to call it a
       laborer around the plant area there, all they do is keep the
       place clean, it's that "These are the things that you check
       every time we start out on a job," and go over it with them
       when we take them out on the job, you know.
                 So we do a couple of hours, and from then on we get
       them with a person that is experienced on the job, and then
       they work with that person until we feel that the man or
       woman can handle that job, stick with it.
                 And then we come back to them, and we never leave
       them, they're never out of eyesight of anybody there.  They
       go to work, and they're free to ask any question.  Just like
       I tell them all, you know, nobody knows everything; ask any
       question.  It might be the dumb question today, but tomorrow
       it will be the simplest thing.
                 So I think that a couple of hours is sufficient to
       get them out there on the job.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Do you have any opinion as
       far as how long operators should have to give the new miners
       the balance of the training?  I mean they need to give them
       24 hours if they're new miners, but what period of time
       should that 24 hours be given in?
                 MR. MARTIN:  I think within thirty to sixty days
       that we ought to be able to cover all aspects of the job
       there.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                 MR. MARTIN:  The thing, the only part of it that
       might all outside of that would be the first aid training
       because we might not -- we'll just say for instance you might
       have hired me today and you go over some of the basic things
       that you normally would for first aid, you know, where the
       first aid stations are, who handles first aid, and things
       like that, and tell the person, you know, tell them the first
       of March we're going to have our first aid training, and you
       will be involved in this, it will be paid for, you know, it
       might be done here, or we might do it down at the Shady Rest
       Hotel down here, you know, and then have that -- the first
       aid training would be picked up within at least eight or nine
       months of the time they get there.  I mean that is complete
       first aid training.
                 Now, we do also -- on first aid training we have
       had a problem with a few people that didn't want to do it,
       and the reason for it was that they didn't want to -- there
       are some people in life don't want to fail in front of
       somebody else, and they were afraid that they might not pass
       it.
                 But just like I told them, the inspectors pass
       everybody.  they keep working with you time and time again,
       and here again is where we have some people on the job,
       competent people on the job that can talk to this person and
       say, yeah, you know, we have had the training where, you
       know, they went back and -- especially the CPR.  I've had
       people pull the heads off the dummies and everything else,
       you know.
                 They can work with this, and they can get that
       training in, and then they get the full training out of it,
       and then they get their certificate from it.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  I have one other question.
                 You were raising the issue of what individual
       should be considered experienced, I guess meant to decide who
       needs to get the 24 hours of training, and you indicated
       you've got people who have got experience, and pretty
       significant experience on the equipment that you use,
       although it might not have been mining experience.
                 Do you have any suggestions for how we might in the
       rule address that, I mean as far as I mean somebody coming in
       with that kind of experience, not clearly mining experience,
       but obviously relevant experience of then deciding who's an
       experienced miner and who is a new miner for purposes of the
       training requirements?
                 MR. MARTIN:  You're talking about somebody we would
       hire that would be an inexperienced miner, but he's like a
       truck driver for example?
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yeah, I mean somebody who maybe
       doesn't have any mining experience, or little mining
       experience, but is very experienced on the kind of things
       that he's going to be doing at the site.
                 MR. MARTIN:  Most -- I shouldn't say most -- a lot
       of our employees come into the gravel operation, and they are
       truck drivers, and they haul gravel.  Say they haul gravel
       out of our plant, not only our plant, but any of the gravel
       companies around there, and so they're very familiar with the
       operations, you know, around even though they're not out of
       truck running around all over.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Are they your employees, or are
       they contract?
                 MR. MARTIN:  No, they're some of what we call
       brokers, people that come in, and they just want to get out
       of truck driving, and they apply for a job, if we've got an
       opening there, and we also -- we don't hire from anybody, we
       don't take people away from anybody.  If somebody says yeah,
       go ahead and hire the person we bring them on.
                 This just happened about three months ago, a man
       that had driven a truck out of our plant there for about six
       years, and he wanted to get out of the truck, and so he hired
       on, and it just so happened we had a job at the plant there
       which was a truck driver in the pit area that would haul
       materials from one end to the other there, which fit right
       in.  We didn't have to give him truck driver training, we
       didn't have to give him the safety training because he had
       his CDLs from the truckers.
                 And so all those qualifications, and I think at
       that time, you know, you could sit down and say "Well, Dick
       worked here, you know, and he's driven a truck for so many
       years" and things like that, and we could cover all that, and
       that covers a lot of territory there.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Uh-huh.
                 MR. MARTIN:  And so I just think -- and we have
       some people who are backhoe operators and dozer operators who
       work for contractors that do home building and things like
       that, and we hire them on and, you know, they've got all this
       experience, and they've probably got -- you know, maybe some
       of them have got ten or twelve years.  Because the
       construction business is -- they lay off a lot in the winter
       time, we don't a whole lot, and so they want to get off that,
       and so here's some experienced people coming in, and that
       should be taken into consideration and written up.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  People like that you're saying
       shouldn't be considered to be new miners for purposes of
       training?
                 MR. MARTIN:  Yeah.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Do you have anything?
                 MR. BURNS:  Yeah, I have a question concerning the
       24 hours training.
                 You mentioned that you have a program or a check
       list that you go through for new hires.
                 MR. MARTIN:  Pardon me?
                 MR. BURNS:  You mentioned you have a check list or
       a program that you go through for new hires.  Would you be
       able to make that available to us?
                 MR. MARTIN:  You can get one to you.  If you can
       give me an address, I can send it to you
                 MR. BURNS:  Okay.  I'll give you the address
       afterwards, unless you want to write it -- I don't know if
       you have a pen and pencil right now.
                 MR. MARTIN:  We don't have a lot of -- I'll say
       there's a lot of companies that have got booklets of things,
       you know, but we have just a basic thing that we do on any
       new hire as to what we cover as far as, you know, all the way
       from insurance, talking to them about their insurance and
       things like that, all the way down, and then it comes down
       into, you know, pre-hiring just like we're talking about here
       as to what we talk to them about before we put them out on
       the job.   And that's all -- it will all be one big thing
       there, so you know that.
                 MR. BURNS:  Okay.  I'll give you the address for
       that where you can send it to me.
                 MR. MARTIN:  Yes.
                 MR. BURNS:  The other thing is how many -- I'm
       looking at your experience with that program, and your
       experience with the new hires that are trained in that way.
                 As far as, you know, your accident and injury
       experience with those miners trained in that way, would you
       be able to comment on that?
                 MR. MARTIN:  On the --   I'm not following you, I'm
       sorry.
                 MR. BURNS:  Well, I guess I'm trying to see if you
       can clarify or explain the effectiveness off training based
       upon your accident and injury experience with those miners.
                 MR. MARTIN:  Oh, okay.  Yeah, we've got a very low
       accident record there with our mines there.
                 We have the things where if they hit their finger
       or something like that, but as far as people for instance
       getting caught in unguarded pulleys and things like that, no;
       people having accidents with rubber-tired loaders, trucks,
       and things like that, no.  We have never had anybody run over
       anybody, we haven't upset any equipment like that.
                 We have just had if you want to call it the normal
       things.  We've had one incident where a man who was an
       experienced man on the crusher operation there for about
       seven or eight years, and he shut the crusher off, and it was
       a jaw crusher -- and all of you are familiar with how a jaw
       crusher works like this [indicating] -- and it was jammed,
       and he went in and pulled the stone out, and it wasn't
       running, it was locked out and everything, and he pulled the
       stone out, and as he did the thing cycled one more time and
       mashed two fingers, and we consider that a severe accident at
       our place.
                 But, no, we've been very fortunate, we haven't had
       any bad accidents.
                 MR. BURNS:  I don't want to overburden you, but if
       you could go back like for a five-year period and sort of if
       possible document like over a six-month period the experience
       with your new miners, and then maybe over a one-year period,
       because that's really what's relevant for this training issue
       is how do they perform within that initial period of their
       employment, and that would be very helpful to validate --
                 MR. MARTIN:  If you could do me a favor and write
       down exactly what you want there, I'll go back and --
                 MR. BURNS:  I'll do that.
                 MR. MARTIN:  -- when I go back I'll get our
       accident reports, reportable accidents to MSHA, and I'll pull
       them out, and then I'll --
                 MR. BURNS:  Yeah, but I'm looking at particularly
       the new miners, because that would be very helpful to
       document how this sort of training is effective.
                 MR. MARTIN:  When you're talking new miner --
                 MR. BURNS:  New employees.
                 MR. MARTIN:  -- how far after the date of
       employment do you consider a new miner?
                 MR. BURNS:  Well, I'm looking at maybe a six-month
       period and a one-year period to see, because that's really
       where the new miner training should have its impact during
       that period of time.
                 MR. MARTIN:  Yeah, I can do that very easily.
       Yeah, I'll give you a copy of it.
                 MR. BURNS:  I'll put that down specifically with
       the address.   I appreciate that.
                 MR. MARTIN:  Yeah.  No problem.
                 MR. BURNS:  The other question I had was on the
       annual refresher training, and we've had a lot of comments
       that the ten-, twenty-, thirty-minute safety meeting talks,
       or tailgate talks, many people feel if they're done properly
       that continuous type of safety talk throughout the year is
       very effective.
                 The other thing you mentioned was that you didn't
       want to have a score card, but how would you be able to I
       guess document or square away that there was in fact eight
       hours done whenever an inspector or someone comes on the
       property? because the other thing you mentioned was that, you
       know, an inspector may talk to the miner and they don't
       remember, you know, getting this many hours.  I think if you
       don't have a score card you're going to have that problem.
                 MR. MARTIN:  I think the minutes of our safety
       meetings are very sufficient for that.
                 MR. BURNS:  The minutes cover all that?
                 MR. MARTIN:  Yes.
                 MR. BURNS:  Okay.  So there is some documentation
       you can point to?
                 MR. MARTIN:  Yes.  All our -- in the -- in fact, we
       have information meetings and safety meetings combined, and
       just like I say we just -- we like to keep the people
       informed what's going on.
                 To give you a for instance, we just went through a
       situation here in the last year where we traded some
       properties in order to get a little bit more area to mine in
       the future, which people were -- you know, they wanted to
       know what was going on, what their future was, and so in
       these meetings we would go over things as where we are right
       now, and then when we do that I always -- either I or the
       supervisor that I have there, I feed him and the lady over in
       Air Spare the information as far as ny inspection we might
       have had by either the State of Ohio or MSHA, the things that
       was covered and discussed at that time, any citations we
       might get, or anything like that, or any comments and things
       like that.
                 These things all work in there, and it's an ongoing
       thing there, and that's where the safety keeps -- we just
       keep feeding the safety back in there on the thing, and it's
       in the minutes right there what was covered and things like
       that.
                 And then we recap every year anything that
       happened, you know, any injuries, reportable or unreportable
       injuries.  We keep records of all those.
                 MR. BURNS:  Okay.  The only other thing is we are
       going to try to address this prior experience issue, you
       know, because it is something that keeps coming up in all the
       meetings.  You know, in this particular industry there's a
       lot of going back and forth between construction and mining
       of workers.  That is an issue we intend to try to address.
                 MR. MARTIN:  It's kind of hard to take somebody
       with twenty years of bulldozer experience, and you hire him,
       and you give him all new training, and the guy is sitting
       there looking at you like, you know, "I know more than you
       do," you know, and a lot of times they do.  Sometimes they
       don't.
                 You know, sometimes people bring bad habits with
       them.  You know, I'm not gonna say they're all perfect, we're
       not perfect.  There's only one person perfect, and he's not
       here today.
                 MR. BURNS:  Okay.   That's all the questions I have
       for you.
                 I guess I do have one other one.
                 Are there are sort of materials, or would you view
       any sort of training materials that MSHA would develop for
       these short safety talks, would you find that beneficial,
       something that's timely like on crushers, or on conveyor belt
       safety, or things like that?  Would you welcome that sort of
       training assistance?
                 MR. MARTIN:  I think that there's -- there's
       booklets that's available from you people right now on
       guarding, and these type things that I think are very good,
       and I will say one thing that when I call for them or ask for
       them I get them in numbers that I can pass out to people, and
       they're pretty good documented things.
                 There is one thing that I think that might be
       available and maybe I don't know about it, and that is if
       there are some video type things that you could use that
       would be available.
                 I know that there is a safety, Baum Safety, they
       supply us with a lot of the videos, and they are very, very
       good, and they're returnable things.  We use them and send
       them back, and sometimes we purchase them and keep them for
       certain topics that we really want, and I think those would
       be available.
                 MR. BURNS:  Okay.  So if there is a deficiency, we
       should try to work on more training videos for the sand and
       gravel people that can be used in short safety meetings?
                 MR. MARTIN:  I'm having an awful time hearing you.
                 MR. BURNS:  So if there is a deficiency, you would
       recommend that we work on more training videos for sand and
       gravel operators that they can use in the short safety
       meetings?
                 MR. MARTIN:  Yeah.
                 MR. BURNS:  Okay.
                 MR. MARTIN:  I would say that of the things that I
       -- I guess you people sort of generalize on a lot of this
       covering the coal and --
                 MR. BURNS:  Right.
                 MR. MARTIN:  -- and I have had some comments from
       several of the people.  In Kentucky, there's no sand in
       Kentucky, and we move a lot of sand down there, the coal
       haulers bring it back, and so we get to talk to the people
       that run the quarries, because all the limestone quarries are
       in Kentucky and they haul to the quarries, and so I get to
       talk to those people there, and I have had some comments from
       some of those people in the quarry business that they felt
       that you people could do a lot better if you had some things
       that were strictly the quarry operations and the stone.
                 MR. BURNS:  Okay.  Thank you very much.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Rod.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Just a couple.
                 Mr. Martin, you had talked about being a small pit.
       I'm not sure that I really understood.  How many employees do
       you have year round, and is it seasonal?
                 MR. MARTIN:  The high side we hit about forty-five.
                 MR. BRELAND:  And is that just like again in the
       seasonal time of the year?  Do you drop down to half that
       in -- ?
                 MR. MARTIN:  No.  We are very lucky.  If we have a
       layoff it's when like it is up home right now when it gets
       down to about five below zero, and we let anybody who wants
       to work, because there's always some repairs that can be
       done, and there's things that we can take inside and work on,
       and anybody who wants to work, you know, we'll allow them to
       work there.
                 The only problem we have is we do have our own
       truck drivers, and those people there, there would be a
       layoff in the year, at the end of the year, and probably that
       would probably be about five or six people that they usually
       get laid off right about now because we just don't need that
       many truck drivers and things like that, but we run about
       forty-five people most of the time.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Is that for the two plants?
                 MR. MARTIN:  Yes, sir.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Also you talked about the two-
       hour kind of indoctrination you did.  When you're done with
       that, do you send them out under some close supervision
       typically?
                 MR. MARTIN:  Yes, the foremen, they take them from
       there, and then they take them out, and then they either stay
       with them -- it's all according to what the job is -- they
       stay with them, or else they'll put them with somebody who is
       experienced on the job, and they work with that person there.
       That person never leaves them until they're -- I'd say
       probably if you go from loader operator --  See, we don't put
       people out on the loader operators and make them loader
       operators because, you know, we've got $300,000 worth of
       equipment there, and you just can't afford to have that tore
       up or get somebody hurt there.
                 Most of our people that are inexperienced
       altogether that come into the mine, they will be laborers
       around the sifting and classifying area, plant area, or they
       will go into training as a plant operator because the plant
       operator is strictly a person that just sits and watches the
       different screens and pressures, and got a control board
       there, and they would easily work into that area first.
                 And then if they want to be loader operators, then
       that's -- and truck drivers if they haven't had any truck
       driver experience, then that's when it takes some time there.
       And you can't have two people riding in the same loader
       because there's only one seat, and so --
                 For instance, if we have somebody that wants to be
       a loader operator we'll take them in an area that's flat,
       there's no lakes, there's no cliffs that they're going to go
       over, or anything like that, and we'll give them some
       instructions on how to run the loader, let them just drive it
       around for a while, and then we'll let them load our pit
       truck.  If they tear the pit truck up it don't make those
       people half as mad as it makes the brokers that come in.
                 And we work them from there, and we just let them
       do that, and then they work from there to -- they work their
       way up, and that can take anywhere from two to three weeks to
       get them to the point where they can safely operate that
       thing.
                 We go through them, and there's a safety check we
       go through on every piece of equipment.  They check off that
       they have checked the oil, the water, the tires, the fire
       extinguisher, the glass area, the whole thing, and so we go
       through that.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Well, I suspected that you did
       that, which is like an extension of the training at least
       initially, even for the laborers if you're watching them, and
       on-the-job type training is what it sounds like you do after
       you've gone over some outlines of your expectations I guess
       and mine awareness initially in that outline that you're
       going to provide to us.
                 Also you talked some about the competent people
       doing the training, and we would agree that a lot of the
       experienced miners would be the people to do the training,
       but do you have some method that you use to evaluate the
       effectiveness of the training? assuming that some of these
       people are better than others, if you're going to have an
       equipment operator train you may have a favorite-type person
       to do that.  Is that just based on the results of the new
       employees' training capabilities maybe?
                 MR. MARTIN:  The first is a loader operator.
       Number one, you look at the standpoint of how safe the person
       is as far as is it somebody that does run in fourth gear,
       tries to run over everybody, that you have to talk to all the
       time; is it somebody that takes care of the equipment and
       knows how to grease it and oil it, and take care of it, and
       things like that.
                 You know, we've got one guy that we call him Down
       Hill Bill because he's a good loader operator, but he
       continuously digs down.  You want somebody that doesn't do
       that, that keeps the pit floor clean and level, things like
       that.
                 And I'll have to say there are some people that are
       better trainers than they are operators, you know, but we
       look at the people who do the job efficiently, they take care
       of the equipment.
                 You know, most of the time the people who work
       around them will let you know how good they are.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Martin.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Do you have anything?
                 MS. FONTAINE:  Mr. Martin, the agency is
       responsible for developing a regulatory flexibility analysis
       to determine the costs and benefits of the proposed rules.
                 You said you have forty-five full-time employees.
       Could you give me a ballpark estimate of what it costs you to
       train your employees on an annual basis?
                 MR. MARTIN:  No, I couldn't.
                 MS. FONTAINE:  Okay.  Could you send some
       information in later?
                 MR. MARTIN:  I can send you some information, yeah.
                 MS. FONTAINE:  Okay.
                 MR. MARTIN:  Yeah, I can get you something on that.
                 MS. FONTAINE:  Okay.  Thank you.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.
                 MR. MARTIN:  Thank you very much.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  All right.  The next speaker on our
       list is Ronnie Colson from Kentucky-Tennessee Clay Company,
       who is not here I don't believe.
                 The next speaker on the list is Ben Hart from the
       Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
                 MR. HART:  If I could, I would like to defer to a
       little later.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                 The next speaker is Charles -- and I apologize for
       the pronunciation --
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  Yes, ma'am.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Excuse me?
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  I don't want to speak now either,
       but I will.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  I appreciate it.
                 And you're from the Georgia Crushed Stone
       Association.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  That's correct.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  And if you could, spell your name
       for the court reporter.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  I'll try.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  All right.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  When I was in the second grade
       everybody could spell their last name but me.  I signed mine
       Charles M.  M-a-c-h-e-m-e-h-l, Machemehl.
                 As you say, I'm executive director of the Georgia
       Crushed Stone Association.  We are a part of the Coalition
       for Effective Miner Training.
                 I'm sure you've heard these points before that I
       want to talk to you about, but I will try to inject some
       things, and then the people that will speak behind me will go
       into a little more detail on some of it.
                 The Coalition for Effective Miner Training -- I
       guess most people call it CEMT -- believes that effective
       employee training is an important component of a
       comprehensive safety program that also includes other equally
       important ingredients including, but not limited to,
       management culture, employee involvement, hazardous
       identification, evaluation and control, program personnel
       evaluation, feedback, record keeping, and continuous
       improvement.
                 The second point is CEMT's commitment to the
       development of MSHA-enforceable effective training for
       employees.
                 And the third point is the current Part 48 training
       requirements were designed for other segments of mining,
       parentheses, coal and underground stone mines, parentheses
       closed, the needs of which differ from those of exempt
       industries.
                 The fourth point, CEMT is committed to meeting both
       the letter and the spirit of the training requirements set
       forth in Section 115 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health
       Act of 1977.
                 The fifth point, to be effective training must be
       performance oriented, not prescriptive, and be flexible,
       recognize current developing innovations in instructional
       techniques, and fully take into account the unique needs,
       conditions, and circumstances of exempt industries, including
       small operators.
                 And the last point, Number 6, CEMT believes the
       primary responsibility for training of an operator's
       employees rests with the operator.
                 Contractors are responsible for the training of
       their employees; however, the operators must provide the
       contractor with site-specific information appropriate to
       training.
                 Okay.  That's because I'm representing the
       Coalition for Effective Miner Training, and I wanted to be
       sure that I covered all the points.
                 Now I put on my other hat as head of the Crushed
       Stone Association, and I will cover some things that might be
       interesting to you, and probably could be used in other
       states throughout the United States.
                 As a way of telling you my background so you'll
       know where some of the points came from, before I ran the
       stone association I worked with Vulcan Materials for about
       thirty years, and I'm very close to the military.  I was in
       the active duty reserve, the guard, and served about thirty
       years.
                 So I would probably be a better MSHA inspector than
       a Vulcan employee or head of the stone association, so that's
       the way I'm going to comment, but I wanted you to know where
       I was coming from.
                 I'm an engineer, I'm registered in about six
       states; I'm a surveyor in about three states.
                 Now, what we do in the stone association, we work
       very close with the mining association and the Georgia Dump
       Truck Association, and inside our association we have an
       extensive training and education program.
                 We've got a management development school that's
       been going on about three or four years.  The biggest part of
       that school, when somebody comes to work -- and I wish I had
       had that training thirty years ago -- it takes about a year
       to go to school one or two days a month for a year, they're
       given tests, they graduate those people, and those people are
       -- we've done about four years now, and they are taking over
       and becoming the leaders of the industry.
                 Inside that program a big part of it is safety, and
       it's put on by people that understand the industry.  We use
       retired people.
                 Our safety committee -- Ken Stockton will talk
       after me -- they do a big part of the training, Bobby Rider
       from Vulcan, and they cover a lot of training, a lot of MSHA
       requirements in the school, they cover a lot of practical
       things because you've got a lot of people in there, and so
       when a person gets through that school he's really going to
       be a good manager, and he's going to put safety number one.
                 Another part of the education -- I'll stay on
       education first -- is skill training, and what we do in skill
       training we teach people -- the first course we did was in
       welding, and we've got one we just finished on electrical,
       and we're starting on plant maintenance.
                 Now, in those courses, the skilled trade, the most
       important part and the first part is safety, and it's also
       put together by our people that understand operations and
       understand safety.
                 And then we've got a degree program we're just
       getting off the ground that will start in the fall of this
       year with Southern Tech.  A lot of that program will be
       safety.
                 So we believe that in order to have effective
       safety you've got to have training, and over the years I can
       assure you that we've found at Vulcan Materials Company that
       the safer we were the more money we made, and I've told many
       inspectors -- and I'm a material engineer by trade -- that
       the tougher they were on me the more money I would make, and
       I think Vulcan is the biggest in the world, and probably the
       most successful.  Marker, Tranes Dezell who runs Marker, so
       he might argue that he's more successful, but I think any one
       of those people would tell you that if you do something safe
       you're going to make more money.
                 Now, from the military side, and I'll speak to that
       in just a little bit, you can learn a lot from the military.
       They probably do a better job of training than anybody else,
       because in the military you've got to take whoever will be
       willing to serve, and you've got to train that person to be
       effective, and you've got to train that person to win.
                 So you've got to do probably more extensive
       training than you do any other way, and the way you do that
       is very simple.
                 As Mr. Martin was saying, you use a lot of OJT, and
       you put a person with somebody that understands that position
       or that job.  There's a lot more record-keeping than he would
       like, because you've got to have records to show that you've
       done it, and you give people different levels.
                 There was a question by one of you all how do you
       know effective your training is.  Well, in the military
       you've got -- and the Army and the Air Force, everybody uses
       the same system -- you've got three-level, five-level, and
       seven-level, and so as the person is trained you reach those
       particular levels, and that's the way you get promoted, and
       that's the way you're given responsibility.
                 Of course, on anything we do, whether it's
       military, whether it's in Vulcan, or whether it's with the
       stone association, we have to stand on our record, so if
       we've a good safety record in Georgia, well, then, we've done
       a good job.
                 If we win when we go to war -- I used to tell my
       troops if you go -- I said "I'm tough as hell on you," and I
       was, but I said "we're gonna win," and I said "if we go to
       war you're going to come back alive."  And I meant that, and
       I played football that way, I ran the military that way, I
       worked at Vulcan that way, I run the stone association that
       way.
                 And we work very close, though, with the mining
       association, and they're outstanding.  In many areas they do
       a better job than we do in the stone association, so we work
       very close with them.
                 Ken Jackman is here, he'll talk to you about what
       they do, and Ken Stockton who will talk behind me is my
       chairman of the safety committee, and the safety committee
       does an outstanding job.
                 To prove that point with you on how we put safety
       -- and so you don't just think I'm giving you a lot of words
       -- we do these directories every two years, and I'll give you
       this, and this was --  Matter of fact, it's got a date right
       on here, it was done 6/11/97, and here's the Georgia Crushed
       Stone safety mission statement right in the front of the
       book, so we put safety number one, we give everybody MSHA
       training, and we have internally in the stone association
       workshops.  Our last work shop, the title of it was Safety
       and the Environment.  Out of six sessions we had four of them
       on safety.
                 As far as the --  The only advice I would give you
       -- and I guess I'm older than anybody in the room, so I guess
       I can give advice -- is make sure that what you come up with
       as CEMT suggests is flexible, make sure that you allow the
       people that are putting on the training to select who is
       going to do the training, and then make sure -- the other
       problem you've always got, and I'll liken this to the IG, if
       you get inspectors -- in the military they call them
       inspector generals -- if they're smart and they know what
       they're doing and they have experience you'll have a better
       outfit, a better unit.  If they're not, they can cause a lot
       of problems.
                 So MSHA has the challenge of making sure that when
       these people inspect us and make sure we are complying with
       the training, which right now we all accomplish.  We
       represent 98 percent of the crushed stone in Georgia, and I'd
       put our training programs from individual companies against
       anybody in the United States.
                 But it's very important that you all have people
       that are competent as inspectors, because our mission here is
       to keep people alive, and we don't want anybody hurt, and we
       want everybody to --
                 What we fight for in the military, to give you a
       little bit of, lecture you a little bit on that, we fight so
       people can have freedom, and everybody in this room has
       freedom.  The reason we're having what we're having today,
       the public hearing, is people before us fought so we've got
       freedom.  That's the most valuable thing, and that freedom is
       only good if we're alive.
                 So we've got to keep our people alive, and that's
       our mission.  We don't want anybody hurt, and that's the
       mission.  But I'll tell you this, you will make more money,
       and you'll win, and we'll stay the greatest country in the
       world if we do comply with that mission.
                 I probably missed some points, but that's -- and
       I'll leave this with you, but I'll be glad to try to answer
       any questions you have on anything.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  I just have a couple of questions.
                 My first question is, our impression has been the
       people who have been coming to these public meetings
       generally are giving their employees good, comprehensive
       safety and health training.
                 One of the things that we're trying to do is get a
       sense of what percentage, or what number of the exempt
       operations may not be giving their employees any, or very
       little safety training.
                 Do you have a sense in your area, I mean in the
       area that you're familiar with, on what that breakdown might
       be?  I don't want to you on the spot.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  No, I have no secrets.  You know,
       in our area the only challenge we have, or problem we have,
       Kathy, is -- and that's why we work so -- we've got a dump
       truck association, and the fellow that runs it used to work
       for me, he does an outstanding job on the safety committee,
       started the safety committee in the dump truck association.
                 I think our real challenge in our industry is not
       with the small producer, because I think the small producer
       by being a part of the association does accomplish the
       training, and I think Mr. Martin probably accomplishes the
       training.
                 I don't think the small producer gets credit for
       accomplishing the training, and I think the small producer
       probably may do a better job than the larger producer,
       because there's a more intimate relationship there.
                 They probably do a much poorer job keeping the
       records, and what they've got to do there, though, is just
       bite the bullet and have somebody carry a card in a pocket
       and check off their training.  I think they can do that.
                 But we have no problem with any small producer that
       I'd say does not accomplish training.  The real problem
       you've got is maybe with the contractors and that sort of
       thing.
                 This industry is moving like every industry to the
       point where you're doing more by contract, an what we've got
       to do is be very sure that we get that accomplished, too.
                 And we work very closely with your people.  We have
       safety meetings at workshops, we have MSHA people come in and
       talk to us, and we're very familiar with the problems that we
       have on the trucking accidents, and the contractor accidents
       and that.
                 We know what the challenge is, but as far as to
       single out and say we've got a small producer that's not
       accomplishing training, I would say you're in the -- you
       know, you're talking about one, or two, or three, or four
       percent.
                 You've got some very, very small operators here,
       not more than one or two or three, that may not be in the
       association, and I think it's gonna work a hardship on them,
       but I don't think you're gonna be able to do anything about
       that.
                 I think you all are going to have to bite the
       bullet and make sure that those guys comply as well as
       everybody else, because they get killed -- you can be easy
       and get along with them, play politics and get that guy
       killed just as easy as you can kill somebody in Vulcan
       Materials.
                 That's my answer, two percent.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  You referred to contractors,
       though, as maybe a source of a problem.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  They are.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Could you maybe expand on what you
       foresee as the problem in the area of contractors?
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  Well, the problem is that what
       we've got to do is be sure there is a clear-cut, there's a
       clear-cut way that training of contractors' people is
       accomplished.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  Now, that can best be done, again
       not by MSHA telling us if you will how to do it, but telling
       us that it should be done, and then letting us accomplish it.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  You mean as far as who's
       responsible for ensuring that contractor employees have got
       their training that they're required to have?
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  Sure.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  One of the things that we've been
       hearing about is we've had a number of commentors indicate
       that they believe that the contractors, the companies of the
       contractors should be responsible for ensuring that the
       contractor employees get the 24 hours of training, or the
       eight hours of training; that the production operator, I mean
       the mine site operator should then be responsible for giving
       those employees site-specific hazard training when they come
       onto the mine property.
                 Do you share that view, or do you have any --
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  Absolutely, a hundred percent.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  In other words, the basic training
       has to come from the contractor himself, but when you get the
       contractor to perform the job, then you've got to tell the
       contractor himself that there is a hazardous line under this
       area, or you've got to be sure that -- there's a train that
       runs through here, you have to run over this track.  Whatever
       the local situation is, you've got to be sure he does it.
                 You're responsible, though, for two things.  Being
       sure his people are trained, and then making sure he's
       familiar with the local area.  But therein is the challenge.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Is that typically the way that it's
       happening now, or I mean is that your point that it's not
       really happening any particular way as far as who's
       responsible for contractor employee training?
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  My point is that that is gonna be
       more and more of the challenge of the industry.  I think
       we're trying to do that now, but the challenge of the
       industry is you're gonna do more by contractor.
                 What I foresee in the stone industry, and I don't
       think it's too far in coming, and Zellnick could tell you
       this a lot better than I can, he gave an outstanding talk
       -- he's head of Marker, Stu Zellnick -- you're gonna have
       maybe one or two or three people, it's gonna be like our kids
       running the computer, you're gonna have those people running
       the plant, you're gonna have maybe one person, two people
       running the plant, and a lot of that other stuff is gonna be
       done by contractor.  And we're not far from that point in
       this industry.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  We are very close to that point
       now.  You can computerize -- and I'm quoting Zellnick -- you
       can computerize a plant right now to the point it will run
       itself.  You can do that right now.
                 Well, if you do that and then the plant goes down,
       you're gonna have to have somebody come on the plant, and
       that's going to be the challenge of MSHA and the challenge of
       the industry to make sure that person is trained in safety,
       and at the same time that he understands the local situation.
                 But I basically agree with you.  We've been in with
       CEMT, we've got more supports from the state standpoint, from
       the local standpoint in Georgia than any other state.
                 In other words, if you look down the list of who's
       a member of CEMT, the stone association, the mining
       association, kaolin, you've got more people here than any
       other state.
                 So we've worked, you know, we've debated with them,
       so what they're telling you we basically agree with.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And I just have one
       additional question.
                 We are under an obligation, as I indicated in my
       opening statement, to develop a final rule that will be
       published on or before September 30th of 1999, and after the
       date of publication there's some period of time that will be
       given for the industry and everyone affected by the
       requirements of the rule to come into compliance.
                 Do you have any opinion as far as how much time the
       industry would need after the rule is published to come into
       compliance?  Obviously that's going to depend on what the
       requirements look like to a degree, but do you have any sense
       of how long it is going to take for the industry to comply
       with these, how much time we should give in the rule for the
       industry to comply with these requirements?
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  I would say that you're exactly
       right.  To comment on that intelligently you'd have to say
       "Well, what is the rule?"
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  But if the rule is what we think
       it's going to be, I would say we could do that -- you all
       could do that, and we could do that in six months.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  I don't think -- I think most
       people are complying right now, but I think the problem is
       going to be -- the other problem could be you want to be very
       careful that you don't try to make this retroactive, because
       as you go forward and you say "Okay, here are the rules that
       we're going to go out and inspect by," you've got to be very
       sure that you don't go in there and send the inspector and
       say "Well, you haven't been doing this, you haven't been
       doing this so we're gonna write you up and give you
       citations, et cetera, et cetera, so that there's gonna have
       to --
                 What we do with MSHA, and the reason we work very
       close with them, I'll be very honest with you, if you
       understand the inspector and he understands you, you don't
       have any problem.  But if you don't, you've got a problem.
                 So once you publish that thing you've got to give
       us time for our people to understand it, and then you've got
       to make sure your people understand it.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Oh, absolutely.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  And then we go forward together,
       because ultimately we have the same goal.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Thank you.
                 Do you have any questions?
                 MR. BURNS:  I just have a few.
                 You had mentioned that through your association you
       do quite a bit of training for management people.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  Absolutely.  Well, for skilled
       trades.  Not just management, we cover the -- it's a three-
       pronged training program.  It's management development, and
       then it's also skilled trades, and then a degree program, so
       we try to get young kids into the mining industry.  It's
       three prongs.
                 MR. BURNS:  As far as the -- I don't know how you
       can -- the management training, that's been going on for
       about four years?
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  Yes, sir.
                 MR. BURNS:  Have you been able to notice any sort
       of trend or effect from that training as far as how it's
       impacted safety and health in the operations due to the
       supervisors being trained?  And a lot of this is geared
       towards miners right now, what we're talking about, but
       there's also a supervisor aspect to the training that we'd
       like to hear feedback on.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  The supervisors have come to
       respect the importance of safety much more than they did
       before, because -- and this will increase as the years go by
       because the people going through this program are imbued with
       their responsibility towards safety, and I would differ with
       Mr. Martin on that point very much on your responsibility.
                 If you work for me and I train you, and you get
       hurt, killed, or anything, I feel a personal responsibility
       for that, and that's the point we try to get across to the
       people in the management.
                 And they go through all the MSHA training, and all
       the rules, and all the legal training, and our safety people
       are in there with them, and so when a guy comes out of that
       thing he's scared probably, you know, and he should be,
       because -- and so what happens over time when these guys are
       promoted, and they're promoted, but I'll tell you another
       thing, you can care about a person and he knows sincerely you
       care about him, he's gonna do a hell of a lot better job for
       you, and then he's gonna get promoted because he's gonna have
       the same attitude you do.
                 That's the kind of thing that comes about by the
       supervisors, and the fellow that's gonna talk right after me
       -- we're putting together a workshop right now which is in
       February, which any of you are welcome to come to in the
       audience, or MSHA, or anybody -- the 25th and 26th of
       February, and he didn't feel like they had enough safety in
       the program -- and I told you that story, Kevin -- and he
       went in there and he put all -- and these are the top people
       in the company, he said he put all of them in a brace before
       it was over, and they did what he wanted.
                 So I think the respect for safety in Georgia right
       now is very, very high.  I hope we keep it that way, though,
       because as you know the results are the only thing that
       really count.  That's the only thing that counts.
                 MR. BURNS:  I agree with you.  I know when I first
       started in mining I had forty hours, I worked in underground
       coal, and I know the first couple of weeks I was pretty
       scared.  I mean I wasn't mortified working underground, but I
       was cautious.  That was part of the training, and I think
       that's part of effective training is -- I mean someone that's
       new in the mining industry shouldn't go in there thinking,
       you know, this is going to be a piece of cake.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  I think the point we try to get
       across is -- and I really don't tolerate this from anyone,
       and a point we try to get across is the fact that years ago I
       think what happened, I think MSHA is the greatest thing that
       happened to the industry making everybody get safe, because I
       happen to know how many lives it's saved over the years, but
       I think years ago people said "Well, hell, that's just
       something we've got to do."  Now what we've got to do is get
       on with the program.
                 And I think what we have proven to ourselves over
       time is if you do something safely you're gonna make more
       money.
                 I was chairman of -- Dick back there, we worked
       together, he's from New Mexico, I'm surprised he came all the
       way over here, he runs the state association out there -- and
       we had a fellow talk one time, he was a contractor, at one of
       our meetings, and this guy gave a whole talk on this.  I mean
       he spent an hour up there proving to you that the safer you
       were the more money you made, and the guy was a very
       successful contractor, road builder, and so I think the point
       -- but it's something you can't relax on.
                 In other words, if you relax and say "Well, hell,
       we've got a good safety program, we're doing great," you
       know, tomorrow you may have somebody get killed.
                 So to answer your question, I think we're -- I
       think it's great, and I give the mining association a lot of
       credit for that in Georgia, because they have a great
       conference every year, and we work with their committee, and
       I think they probably have done over the years -- in the past
       they have done a better job on safety than we have.
                 I think we're probably even with them now, but we
       work with them very, very close, and we're trying to bring
       the dump truck association to that.  Maybe we can do the
       contractors with the ADC or somebody like that.
                 I don't know, it's a big challenge.
                 MR. BURNS:  And that's really what we want to do
       here is we don't want to have a training rule where people
       feel like they have to do their compliance training, and
       somewhere else they do their safety training.  That's what we
       really want to avoid.
                 I appreciate your comments.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  Well, I don't know, though, you've
       got to be -- you know, you've got to be tough if you're an
       inspector if you're gonna be a good one.  Hell, if you're not
       gonna -- you might as well not have MSHA if you all are not
       gonna make us comply.
                 MR. BURNS:  I agree with that, but I think they
       should be the same thing.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  Sure.
                 MR. BURNS:  I don't have any more questions.  I
       don't know if Rod does.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Just a couple of follow-up.
                 On the brochure you're going to give us, that's a
       safety training --
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  No, no.  This is a Georgia Crushed
       Stone directory, and what I said is this is the mission
       statement for safety.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Oh, okay.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  Now, we have a -- the fellow that's
       going to talk after me can cover that in more detail, but
       they do teach in this management development course for a day
       safety, which they get MSHA to help them, and, you know,
       there's a lot more detail in that.
                 This manual right here, this is a directory, so it
       covers everything in the industry.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  I see.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  The point I was trying to make is
       we put safety number one, and here it is in the front of the
       manual, and it's a mission statement.  It says the Georgia
       Crushed Stone Association's safety committee mission
       statement so, you know, that's the point I was trying to
       make.
                 But the detail that you're looking for probably
       would best come out of the management development course for
       the day that they talk to the people I would think, and then
       if you want to go deeper than that, when we write these
       skilled training manuals we can send you -- the first chapter
       is always on safety, like welding, and we could send you
       that, it's got a lot of detail in it, and then we could also
       send you the electrical we just finished, and the first
       chapter is always safety on those skilled training courses.
                 We've got a lot of detail that we can get to you if
       you desire.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Yeah, I think that's good information
       for us to have.
                 Does the association provide an outline for a
       general training plan that might fit what's in Part 48 now?
       I'm not sure if I understood that.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  No, they do not.  To answer that
       question, we do not.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  And then also you talked about
       the --
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  They leave it up to individual
       members on that.  The fellow that comes behind me is one of
       the individual members, so he can speak to you from that
       company's, the way they do it.
                 There's another fellow in the audience here, Bobby
       Rider from Vulcan, he could speak to the way they do it.
                 They comply, but now that's the point I'm trying to
       make with you really.  You need to give us enough flexibility
       if you will to let those individual people accomplish that
       training as they would accomplish it, and I think therein
       lies the real challenge.
                 In other words, how much do you as an inspector,
       how much detail are you going to go into as an inspector?
       Are you just gonna say have an hour on first aid?  Or are you
       gonna tell me exactly what I do on first aid?  And therein
       lies the real challenge, and there's got to be some
       confrontation, disagreement there I guess, but the more
       flexibility you give us probably the better job we're gonna
       do.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  But if you don't think we're doing
       a good job, then you certainly need to slap us down and make
       us do it.
                 The military does the same thing.  In other words,
       there's more flexibility there than you might realize.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  That's all I have.  Thank you.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  Okay.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Machemehl.
                 MR. MACHEMEHL:  Thank you, ma'am.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  I think we're probably going to
       take a short, maybe about a ten-minute break here.
                 In the break I would ask the people who have come
       in since the beginning to sign up on the attendance sheet
       that's in the back of the room on the table, and also if
       there's anyone here who has not signed up to be a speaker who
       would like to speak, I have the speakers' list up here on
       this table, so I ask that you come up and sign the list.
                                [A brief recess.]
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:   The next speaker -- actually not
       the next speaker, but Ronnie Colson from the Kentucky-
       Tennessee Clay Company has arrived, so I would ask that he
       come up.
                 MR. COLSON:  Do I go over here?
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes, please, and if you could state
       and spell your name for the court reporter.
                 MR. COLSON:  All right.  Thank you, ma'am.
                 Ronnie Colson,  R-o-n-n-i-e C-o-l-s-o-n, with the
       Kentucky-Tennessee Clay Company, Safety Director of the
       Georgia operations.
                 We are a small mining company, 350 employees
       scattered throughout Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina,
       Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Mexico.  I appreciate
       you giving us this opportunity to be here with you.  Glad we
       could make it.
                 I've been a little bit disturbed, though, about
       some of the recent publications I've read and gave me the
       impression that MSHA really thinks that the mining industry
       is not involved in safety training, and that we don't even
       have a plan to train our miners safety.  It disturbed me a
       little bit.
                 I can only speak for what I know, and that's the
       ball clay, feldspar, and kaolin industry.  We are very active
       members in the Ball Clay Mining Association, the Georgia
       Mining Association as well, and each of these associations
       are very active in the safety of our miners.  We have safety
       committees, we have paid professional people whose job it is
       to promote and protect safety laws and our miners.  We're
       very active through legislative branches, public, and
       employee education on safety.
                 A few comments on the Part 48 training alternate
       draft.  Section 1-1, Definitions, Part B, it states that a
       competent person designated by the operator.  Now, the
       current law 30 CFR 4823, Part 3, requires that the trainer is
       to be MSHA approved instructors.   I'm kind of concerned
       about who makes the decision as competent person.
                 Normally now instructors are required to complete
       80 hours of MSHA training and certification.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Mr. Colson, if I could interrupt
       you.  Just for the record, the draft that you're referring to
       I assume is a draft of the Coalition for Effective Miner
       Training, and what's the date on that?  Is there a date? just
       as far as which --
                 MR. COLSON:  Yes.  11/24/98 -- 10/30/98.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  You've got the coalition's
       draft from that date.  Okay.
                 MR. COLSON:  In Part (f) it talks about newly-hired
       experienced miners, states "...who has had at least twelve
       months' mining experience."
                 This is much more open-ended than the current laws
       which requires miners who have acceptable miner MSHA training
       within the preceding twelve months, or at least twelve
       months' experience in and underground mine during the past
       three years, or who has received new miner training the
       preceding twelve months.
                 Section 1-2 of the same document talks about
       training, and the (b) part talks about training requirements
       for newly-employed inexperienced miners, they must receive
       eight hours' instruction before being assigned to tasks,
       unless those tasks are under close supervision.
                 Now, I don't think the hours, I don't think the
       quantity is as important as it is quality.  If you've got one
       guy, you can train him four hours in a classroom under all of
       these things, and then four hours introduction to the work
       area, and surely that's sufficient.   I don't think hours is
       that important.
                 I'm concerned about that statement "unless under
       close supervision."  Now, it's been my experience that the
       guy who can train me adequately is certainly talented and
       competent to train me to operate a front-end loader, he's
       usually not the guy who can train me on respirator use and
       certify me to use say respirator fit testing.  So it could be
       a problem with that statement.
                 Under (d) it talks about experienced miner, and
       returning after five years only requires eight hours of
       training.  Now, I think a guy who's been out of the mining
       industry for five years is certainly inexperienced.  I would
       really feel uncomfortable bringing a guy back who hadn't been
       around the mining industry for five years, you know, treat
       him as an experienced miner.
                 Under (f) it talks about hazard training, and the
       current law requires hazard training annually.  This one
       doesn't specify how often the training should be done.
                 Under 1-13(a) it talks about refresher training,
       and it states appropriate training.  Now, this leaves the
       operator subject to a wrong decision if you will, the
       statement "appropriate."
                 Currently the subjects are covered under the 30 CFR
       4828, annual refresher training.  I'm a little bit concerned
       about "appropriate" as to who makes that decision.
                 The (b), it talks about short safety talks being a
       part of annual refresher training.  Now, short safety talks
       are very effective for the immediate task or the immediate
       situation.  They are very effective as a brain tickler if you
       will, but they're not -- I don't think in any case should be
       taking the place of a structured classroom training.
                 We use it as an addition to your classroom
       instruction, not as a part of it.  I think it needs to be in
       addition to.
                 1-4, Contractors, (b), it talks about contractors
       shall assure that their contract employees are trained in
       work practices.  Contractors, bless their hearts, we need
       them and all this, but they're really someone you have to
       really watch out for.  I guess everybody that's a miner knows
       this; we love them, we need them, we work with them, but you
       better keep your eyes on them.
                 We treat them pretty much like miners.  If they
       come onto the plant and they're involved in the milling, and
       extraction, and the drilling and all that, we treat them just
       like miners, and we require the eight-hour annual refresher
       training, and we've got to have the 5023 certification just
       like we do our own people.  Contractors bleed and die just
       like miners.
                 In 1-15 it talks about training certification.  In
       the (a) part it states that operators shall certify that
       required training has been provided.
                 I'm not quite sure, are we talking about
       certification for operators' employees, certification for
       contractors?  You know, who is he required to have
       certification for?
                 I have been around mines for 29 years.  I started
       out as a laborer in the plants, and the warehouses, and kind
       of worked my way down into management.
                 We never had a fatality, knock on wood somewhere.
       We worked 1.9 million hours without a lost time accident;
       that's a little bit over three and a half years for a little
       old small company.
                 I talk to our miners there in the plants and other
       places, and we talk about MSHA inspecting, safety training
       files.  I have been through the whole thing with them, you
       know, and they seem to think that this draft is not nearly as
       stringent as the current federal safety laws, and I haven't
       been able to convince them that an inspector looking into our
       safety files is going to keep any of them from getting
       killed.
                 They are pointing out, and what they're telling me
       was that they would like to see MSHA use their vast
       resources, all the videos, all the pamphlets, all the
       personnel to come in and do an on-site training, education,
       that type of stuff, rather than hiring people to come out and
       inspect and being the bad police and that sort of thing.
                 They do feel like that MSHA should target without
       any reservations locations where our miners are getting
       killed.  They fully agree with that, and I do too, that's
       where we need to be focusing.
                 But they don't feel like, and I don't either, that
       MSHA should be an adversary, you know, coming around slapping
       industry in the head, and certainly they don't feel like we
       need any more laws either.
                 Basically what they're telling us that we really
       need to pool our resources together, you know, don't be anti
       this or that, and train and educate our people, the public
       and the miners.
                 I think everyone needs to understand that the
       mining industry, our main concern and the goal is to protect
       our most precious resources, and that's our people.  I don't
       have any problem with that statement that the majority of all
       mining companies are out to protect their miners.
                 Thank you.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Mr. Colson, I've got a couple of
       follow-up questions, and others on the panel may as well.
                 You read from the coalition draft, earlier draft,
       the definition of competent person as far as an individual
       who can give training.
                 From your remarks are you saying that you support a
       definition that's more along the lines of the Part 48
       definition?  I mean are you saying that MSHA should approve
       instructors, or are you just saying that competent person is
       too vague a term?
                 MR. COLSON:  I think competent person is kind of
       vague, and leaving it open to -- yeah, it's leaving it open
       to who decides.
                 Currently we have laws stating what the instructor
       should do.  We certainly don't have any problem, and I don't
       think the industry has any problem.  Most of them I know have
       the certifications.  All our instructors are certified.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  So you're saying you would
       support a Part 48 type of program for instructors?
                 MR. COLSON:  Yeah.  We're living under those laws
       now, we've been living under those for the whole time.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And also as far as
       definition of new miner, you're saying that the current
       definition of new miner in Part 48 is the definition that you
       would support?
                 MR. COLSON:  Right.  The Part 48 definition of new
       miner is not an experienced miner.  That's what it states.
       So if he's not an experienced miner, then he's a new miner.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And again annual refresher
       training, although you say that the safety talks, the short
       safety talks are good and effective that you don't think that
       the time spent on those should be counted towards satisfying
       the eight hours of annual refresher training?
                 MR. COLSON:  I think they should be in addition to.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  So you give eight hours of
       more formal classroom-type instruction for the eight hours of
       refresher training, and then safety talks on top of that are
       good?
                 MR. COLSON:  I don't think it needs to be a law.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                 MR. COLSON:  I think it's in practice.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                 MR. COLSON:  I don't think it needs to be
       installed; I think it's just a common sense practice.
                 And also I don't think we need to get hung up on
       hours of training.  I know you've got guidelines and all
       this, but I'm telling you you can train a guy four hours, and
       you get in there and do a good job one-on-one you can do it n
       four.  But now if you've got a classroom of twenty guys,
       yeah, it may take you five, six, or seven hours.
                 The quantity of hours I don't think is the issue.
       I think it's how well you do it and, like I say, if you've
       got one it's not going to take half as much time.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  I just have one other
       question.
                 You indicated that your operation, I mean the
       contractors that you have, the ones that are involved
       directly in the processing or extraction you treat them like
       miners, and they get the kind of training that the other
       miners get.
                 Do you have contractors whose ties to your
       operation are maybe less regular, less close to the actual
       process, I mean service people who come onto the property for
       short periods of time?  And, if so, do you have any views as
       far as how we should approach training for those kinds of
       people?
                 MR. COLSON:  Yes, we have a certified form, and
       we've had it approved through MSHA, and it's one page, but
       it's long, and we train all vendors, everybody that comes on
       the property.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  When you say train, what do you
       mean?
                 MR. COLSON:  Hazard training.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Site-specific hazard
       training?
                 MR. COLSON:  Right.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And then they get that?
                 MR. COLSON:  Yes.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  But as far as, you know, the
       eight hours of annual refresher, the new miner training,
       those contractors as far as you know, I mean they get it,
       it's given to them by their employers?
                 MR. COLSON:  Right.  Now, occasionally we do train
       contractors.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                 MR. COLSON:  If we let out a bid, and the project
       engineer comes up and says "I've let this to so and so," and
       I look and I say "Well, gosh, he hasn't got any training.
       Where's his training?"  "I didn't know."  I say "Well, okay,
       yeah," and under the circumstances I will train contractors,
       but normally they're responsible for their own training and
       having the certification form.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  But you give them site-
       specific hazard training?
                 MR. COLSON:  Also, in addition to that.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  All right.  That's all I have.
                 Kevin or Rod?
                 MR. BRELAND:  I just have a couple of follow-ups.
                 One, I would like to commend the work record.
       That's pretty impressive, that many millions of hours without
       a lost-time accident.
                 But you say you do the Part 48 training now, or
       comply with that.  Is that including the record-keeping and
       all of that you're doing as well?
                 MR. COLSON:  Sure.
                 MR. BRELAND:  So this proposed rule is less
       stringent than what you're doing, or the coalition is
       offering?
                 MR. COLSON:  I know this has reduces fatalities.
       We've got sufficient laws on the books.  You know, I don't
       think we need any more laws.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  That's all I had.  I wondered
       if you were doing the paperwork as well right now.
                 MR. COLSON:  All right.
                 MS. FONTAINE:  Mr. Colson, could you give me an
       estimate of what it costs for you to train your employees on
       an annual basis?
                 MR. COLSON:  Gosh.  Just in Georgia we're probably
       spending with all the little gimmicks and the shirts and
       jackets I'm going to say it's around twenty thousand just in
       Georgia.
                 MS. FONTAINE:  Do you usually do your training on
       site, or do you send your employees -- ?
                 MR. COLSON:  The majority of our training is on
       site.
                 MS. FONTAINE:  Okay.  Do you bring professionals
       in?
                 MR. COLSON:  Occasionally I will bring them in, or
       I'll send out people.  And we also have a -- we have fifty
       hourly employees, but we also have like sixteen certified
       instructors.
                 MS. FONTAINE:  Thank you.
                 MR. BURNS:  I just have a question on the annual
       refresher training.
                 You indicated that that draft is a little bit too
       vague, it just says they pick whatever subjects are
       appropriate.  I guess other people bring the concern that,
       you know, Part 48 lists all kinds of subjects, and they feel
       that perhaps some of those areas don't really need to be
       addressed, they would rather focus on some of the safety
       concerns that they have at their particular property, and
       they would like to have more flexibility to pick and choose
       those subjects which are relevant, you know, in any given
       year.  Would you support something along those lines?
                 MR. COLSON:  Sure, yeah.  And it states in the
       draft training, and it works the same way now.  Part 48-28
       talks about explosives.  Well, obviously we don't use
       explosives and blasting, so, you know, we don't do that, so
       we're not required.
                 MR. BURNS:  Thank you.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Colson.
                 The next speaker on our list is Ken Stockton from
       GCSA/Benchmark.
                 MR. STOCKTON:  My name is Ken Stockton, I'm the
       safety director for Benchmark Materials, Southeast Region.
       That's Stockton, S-t-o-c-k-t-o-n.
                 I am also representing the Georgia Crushed Stone
       Association safety committee, and the members of the Georgia
       Crushed Stone Association.
                 Basically what I am here for is to state that the
       Georgia Crushed Stone Association and its members are behind
       the efforts of the Coalition for Effective Miner Training, to
       bring flexible and more specific training to our segment of
       the industry.
                 And I'll stop there and let you ask questions.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Are you saying you support
       the draft, the latest coalition draft as far as what the
       requirements in a proposed rule would be?
                 MR. STOCKTON:  Yes.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Do you have anything to add
       to that?
                 MR. STOCKTON:  Not really.  The latest draft that I
       have is 11/19/98.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  I think actually there's a later
       draft, but they're pretty similar.
                 MR. STOCKTON:  They're similar.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Well, let me ask you this
       question:  As I said earlier, and as I have asked earlier, we
       have got to figure out -- once we decide what the
       requirements in this rule are going to be we've also got to
       determine how long we're going to give to the affected
       industries to come up to compliance with these requirements,
       and obviously as I said earlier how much time is needed is
       going to depend to a certain extent on what the requirements
       look like, but assume, you know, hypothetically that the rule
       looks somewhat like the latest draft that you have seen, in
       your best guess how long do you think the agency should give
       the industry to come into compliance with those requirements?
                 MR. STOCKTON:  Twenty years.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                                [Laughter.]
                 MR. STOCKTON:  I believe it's in the proposal for
       one year.  Is that correct?
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  So you think that's a good
       time?
                 MR. STOCKTON:  -- for the industry to come in line.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Do you think it ought to be,
       the requirements ought to be phased in?  I mean that's one of
       the things that we have discussed at some of the other
       meetings is for example I mean an operator has got to have a
       training program, would it make sense to have that
       requirement go into effect sooner than perhaps the
       requirement that the miners be trained, or do you think that
       all requirements ought to go into effect at about the same
       time?
                 Would that, you know, enhance the likelihood that
       maybe some of the people out there who aren't doing training
       will be able to come into line with it easier, or do you not
       think it matters a great deal?
                 MR. STOCKTON:  Say that again.  You have the
       training program --
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  I mean operators have got --
       you know, under the Act, I mean under Section 1-15 of the
       Act, and it's a requirement that we have no choice, I mean
       it's got to be included into any rule that we develop, mine
       operators have got to develop and implement a training
       program for their miners.
                 MR. STOCKTON:  Okay.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  And then on top of it they've got
       to train the miners after they have developed the training
       program.
                 For a compliance deadline do you think that it
       would enhance the ability of some of the operators out there
       to come into compliance if say hypothetically we made it a
       requirement that went into effect in six months that the
       operator develop their plan, and then six months thereafter
       -- I mean we basically give them a year to actually train
       their miners under the plan they developed, or do you not --
       that's just an example -- or do you not think that that
       really makes a great deal of difference, we should just give
       a year for operators to comply with everything?
                 MR. STOCKTON:  I think you ought to give them the
       same amount of time for everything.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  A year -- I mean if you were
       going to pick a year then you would give them a year to
       develop their plan, and also to train their miners?
                 MR. STOCKTON:  Correct.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  I don't have any more
       questions.  Do you, Kevin or Rod?
                 MR. BRELAND:  I guess the -- I'm not sure, but the
       training of supervisors is an issue that was recently changed
       in Part 48, and so far I guess basically just getting your
       opinion on any sort of requirement for training of
       supervisors in this rule.
                 MR. STOCKTON:  We train all our supervisors.  I
       don't know what you --  Do you mean over and above the
       regular safety training?
                 MR. BRELAND:  Or for instance like consider them
       under the definition of miners so that they require training
       also.
                 MR. STOCKTON:  I can speak for Benchmark.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.
                 MR. STOCKTON:  We train all ours anyway just like
       they are regular out there pulling the wrenches so to speak,
       because a lot of them are.
                 And so if you're asking should everybody else do
       that, is that what you're asking?
                 MR. BRELAND:  Well, I just wanted to make sure that
       the training -- the original Part 48 had I guess a loophole
       where supervisors weren't considered miners, and therefore
       they weren't necessarily required to have training, and that
       was recently addressed in soliciting information concerning
       if they are considered miners should they get the same sort
       of training, or would you recommend additional training or
       additional training or additional subjects for those people?
                 MR. STOCKTON:  I think they should be trained the
       same way.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  I don't have any more right
       now.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Do you have any, Rod?
                 MR. BRELAND:  Just a couple.
                 Presently when you do annual refresher at your
       operations, are you doing that spread out over the year, or
       are you doing that in what block?
                 MR. STOCKTON:  We spread it out over the year, it's
       continuous training, and we do it in tailgate meetings, and
       we do it monthly.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Do you keep records of that by
       sign-in sheets, or do you keep some summary of an
       individual's total training for the year?
                 MR. STOCKTON:  I can tell you what we do as far as
       Benchmark Materials.  We have a form that they sign when they
       come to the safety meetings.  That form has two blocks.  One
       is for tailgate meetings, the other one is for annual
       refresher training.
                 Whichever one they go to is the one that's checked
       off.  That form is turned in, and the safety managers keep
       track of that during the year.  They put out a quarterly
       report telling people which subjects that they need to do for
       the rest of the year.
                 If a tailgate meeting for example goes an hour,
       that's allowed to count toward annual refresher training if
       it is an annual refresher training subject.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  That sounds like a good way to
       track it.  I just didn't know, I was curious how you were
       doing that.
                 How many operations do you have that are in the
       state?
                 MR. STOCKTON:  We're in North Carolina, South
       Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama.  We have 34
       locations.
                 MR. BRELAND:  34 locations.
                 And then about the initial training, if you hire a
       new inexperienced miner, how do you handle your 24-hour
       program?
                 MR. STOCKTON:  We do eight hours first, and then
       the other sixteen within sixty days.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Thank you.  That's all I have
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Stockton.
                 The next speaker on our list is Bobby Rider from
       Vulcan and the Georgia Mining Association.
                 MR. RIDER:  My name is Bobby Rider, it's R-i-d-e-r,
       I'm with Vulcan Materials Company, also a member of the
       Georgia Mining Association Safety and Health Committee, as
       well as the Georgia Crushed Stone Safety and Health
       Committee.
                 I appreciate the opportunity in your letting us
       come up today and give you our opinions and views on this
       particular subject.
                 I think, though, that MSHA needs to look long and
       hard at a program that is already in effect as far as
       training is concerned, and that's the state grants program
       that I know we use in speaking for Vulcan Materials Company
       quite a bit, as well as other members of the associations
       that I belong to.
                 Pickens Tech and the money that is allocated to
       them is used very wisely, it's used to train miners in the
       state of Georgia as well as the state of South Carolina which
       I am also involved in.
                 I would like to see possibly more money given to
       the state grants program.  If you can help in any way, fine,
       and it would certainly be appreciated by members of the two
       associations.
                 Talking now about Part 48, the changes that you're
       talking about, I think that one of the problems that I have
       with it personally -- and I think I can speak from
       experience, I've been with Vulcan for twenty-five years, been
       involved in safety dealing especially with OSHA for most of
       that time, a little bit back in the MESA days, but ever since
       MSHA was formed in 1997 I guess, so I've been around a little
       bit, I've had to personally do the training myself years ago.
                 Thank goodness our company now has allowed us to
       expand our training staff and our safety and health staff,
       and we do most of the new-hire training, at least what we
       call Day A training is done by us in house.
                 Going back to the days that I used to do it, and
       listening to the people that now report to me we're still
       having the same problem, or they're having the same problem
       that I had, and it was touched on earlier, and that's the
       fact that MSHA law says that you must give eight hours of
       training initially, or 24 hours to inexperienced miners.
                 To me that's kind of ridiculous.  If we can give
       good quality training without any kind of time limit on it,
       then we ought to be allowed to do that.
                 We don't need necessarily 24 hours, or sixty hours,
       or whatever number you come up with to do good adequate
       training.  I would certainly like to see our business thrown
       out, the topics that you asked us to, or that's required by
       the law, I guess I have a problem with that also.
                 And the reason I say that is training to me almost
       has to be site-specific.  We at Vulcan have very large
       plants, and we have very small plants, but overall if you
       look at them we would call them small plants.  We might have
       some plants with eighty people, but most of ours run around
       the twenty to thirty range, somewhere in there.
                 And we know from experience that it takes a
       different type training at our smaller operations than it
       does our larger operations, and the reason for that is that
       in our smaller operations we have to train our new employees
       to do multiple tasks, that in our larger operations the
       initial training and the initial hiring that we do does not
       require that we do multiple training tasks.
                 For example, in a small plant we might hire a
       person as a truck driver, but if we have a breakdown then
       that employee is going to have to certainly participate in
       doing the repair and maintenance, whereas in some of our
       larger operations that would not be true.  So I would like to
       see almost a site-specific type training without really
       telling us what we need to train them.
                 That carries over into annual refresher training.
       We are required to cover certain areas.  It's difficult for
       me as -- we're going through annual refresher training as we
       speak, Pickens Tech is up at one of our quarries in north
       Georgia, and I've been with them for the last couple of days
       doing annual refresher training.
                 As I look at the actual analysis and analyze the
       actions that we've had in the past year we base our training
       program for annual refresher training based on that analysis.
                 We have a lot of hand injuries.  This year we're
       concentrating heavily in annual refresher training in
       eliminating those hand injuries.  If we're not having any
       problems in some other area, then I don't think we need to
       waste our employees' time or our time dealing with those
       areas where there's not a problem.
                 For example, lock and tag procedures.  Very rigid
       lock and tag procedures that we have, it's gone over time and
       time again during annual -- I mean during weekly safety
       meetings, so during the annual refresher training do we
       really need to talk about that?  I don't really feel that we
       should.
                 The other item I want to talk about, and I have
       scratched some notes down, deals with contractors.  I do
       think contractors are a problem.  However, I see us getting a
       better handle on that problem.
                 They are required to have training.  We don't do
       the training, we simply in our contract say that they are
       going to be required to abide by all the MSHA regulations as
       well as our own safety rules, and they are given Pickens Tech
       who is the state grants program here in Georgia, we give them
       their phone number, they contact them, and they do a lot of
       training of contractors.  We personally would like to stay
       away from that from a liability standpoint.
                 The only area where we get involved in contractors
       is really done at a plant level, and that's hazard training
       that we make with the contractors before they start to work,
       and they are invited and do attend our weekly safety meetings
       at our operations.
                 Last, but not least, whatever changes are made I
       hope that MSHA will be consistent in enforcing those
       particular standards, in fact hopefully a lot better than
       they are in enforcing the current standards.  There seems to
       be quite a bit of discretion and difference of opinion from
       almost operation to operation, but in my opinion and what I
       see is there is such a drastic difference in the way that
       inspectors inspect our operations compared to other
       operations.  I have a problem with that, and I certainly do
       not want to see that in part, whatever part comes up.
                 With that I conclude my remarks, and thank you.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Mr. Rider, I just have a couple of
       questions, and others may as well.
                 You indicated that you believe that we should get
       away from the hours requirement for training, that it imposed
       restrictions on training that were not necessary.  As you
       probably know, there are some hours requirements, we can't
       get away from them in the Act, specifically it puts a minimum
       of 24 hours of new miner training and eight hours of annual
       refresher training.
                 But having said that, one of the issues we're
       trying to deal with here is what type of training, or how
       much training should a new miner get before he or she begins
       work at the site.
                 Now, I gather from your remarks that you don't
       think we ought to put like two hours minimum training before
       they start work or, you know, four hours and the balance of
       the 24 hours to be delivered within whatever period of time.
                 However, do you think the rule should address
       minimum training for miners before they begin work in some
       fashion, I mean either by way of subject areas or something
       along those lines?
                 MR. RIDER:  No, I really don't think it should be.
       I think that we're smart enough that we know what needs to be
       taught, and how long in that area.
                 And again it's almost task-specific.  Somebody
       mentioned earlier that most of their new people are haul
       truck drivers -- well, you know, so are ours -- and before
       they go do any other work we give them training at that
       particular time, so I hate to see us try to cover everything
       in one session.
                 And let me give you an example of this.  Back when
       I was doing the training we had to bring these new employees
       in, and we're talking about safety around screens.  These
       people don't know what screens are, they think that's
       something that goes over a window, and that's not what we're
       talking about.
                 I have found it works much better for us, we bring
       them in, give them some initial training going over safety
       rules, and what MSHA is, and maybe the statutory rights of
       miners, and then bring them back in a week or two after they
       have been under close supervision, they sure do have a lot
       better questions, they sure do comprehend a lot better what
       we're trying to teach them.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Uh-huh.
                 MR. RIDER:  So to say that we need to do this in 24
       hours or not, I don't know, and if we need to change the law
       then that certainly needs to be a project, too, of industry
       as well as MSHA.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  But you're saying their exposure to
       the work site causes them to maybe get a lot more out of
       whatever training they get after they have been exposed to
       the work site for some period of time?
                 MR. RIDER:  Absolutely, as long as they're with
       that competent person as MSHA calls them, yeah.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  All right.  Kevin?
                 MR. BRELAND:  Just a couple of things.
                 You have, Vulcan has an awful lot of operations I'm
       sure, and this issue of the smaller plant versus the larger
       one, it sounds like you spend more time typically for new
       employees at the smaller operations because of the multiple
       jobs they might do.
                 Are you talking about the task-type training itself
       rather than say some other introduction in the work
       environment?
                 MR. RIDER:  We certainly do comply with what is
       required of us right now.
                 I guess what I'm asking is the opportunity to make
       those changes that we need to make in those two areas.
                 Certainly at a smaller operation we may talk more
       about repair and maintenance, hand safety, and proper lifting
       procedures than we would in a larger operation initially in
       our training.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Well, would you -- then I assume you
       have like a training plan that you use for each operation
       now.  Would you be proposing to have a more individualized
       outline that you follow at the mines based on the specific
       needs of that mine?
                 MR. RIDER:  Yes, sir.
                 MR. BRELAND:  And then that would cover a listing
       of some kind of what was typically expected for that type of
       occupation I assume at each of those locations?
                 MR. RIDER:  Yes, sir.  I guess what --  The thing I
       want to try to get you to understand is don't limit me on
       time on how long I've got to talk about something, or not all
       -- or a list of subjects that I have to discuss.  That's what
       I'm after.  I know that is in the law right now.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Well, I think everybody understands
       that flexibility needs to be built into anything new that's
       coming about, but if you were saying that you needed that
       flexibility because of the mine-specific additional training,
       certainly any additional training I don't think would ever be
       a problem with MSHA or anybody else, state organizations
       either.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Just on the contractor issue, you
       follow a list of hazard issues for each mine operation that
       you would cover with a contractor that comes on site, like
       hazard training.
                 MR. RIDER:  Yes, sir.  We have, and it's given to
       each contractor, a contractor handbook that is given to the
       contractor and their employees that covers a lot of issues.
       A lot of them are our safety rules, and some of them are MSHA
       requirements.
                 But site-specific again might be our blasting
       procedures at that plant, our emergency evacuation, just the
       hazards they can look for.  Does that answer your question?
                 MR. BRELAND:  Yes, it did.  Thank you.
                 That's all I have.  Thank you.
                 MR. BURNS:  On the annual refresher training, would
       you recommend that MSHA put out some sort of data analysis,
       or accident and injury analysis on a yearly basis for the
       industry to help them choose the subjects that may be
       relevant for annual refresher training?
                 I mean you do that for your own operations.  Would
       you see that as a benefit to the industry if that was
       something that MSHA did?
                 MR. RIDER:  Yes.  Kevin, if it's specific enough.
       If you just send out an analysis that, you know, 68 percent
       of the people, miners were injured doing repair and
       maintenance that doesn't tell us anything.  Specifically what
       they were doing, were they using a hammer, or a tool, or
       whatever, now we can see where we are, was it a hand injury,
       eye injury, back injury, and get pretty specific with it.
                 The way we do it it really helps us zero in and see
       where the problems are, and if you could do that, yes, sir,
       that would be helpful to us, to me.
                 MR. BURNS:  Okay.  I don't have any more questions.
       I think everybody else has covered everything I had on my
       mind.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  I think Rosyln has got a couple of
       questions.
                 MS. FONTAINE:  Actually I just have one question
       for you.
                 Would you be willing to submit some data to us
       showing the differences in what it costs to train your
       employees on an annual basis, the twenty employees versus the
       eighty, so we have a feel?
                 MR. RIDER:  Sure.  That would be easy to do.
                 My only problem is I hate to put a number with cost
       when it comes to safety.  I don't know how much money right
       here sitting today it costs or that we spent on safety
       training in 1998.  I can certainly get that number.
                 I guess the number I would like to see is how much
       money did we save by spending that money, and how much we
       spend as our top executives in our company, our CEO and
       president have said cost is not an issue when it comes to
       safety.
                 We do keep up with those costs, we do need to know
       how much we're spending, and we'll be glad to submit that to
       you.  If you just want to know what does it cost to train
       twenty people versus eighty people, yes, I can come up with
       that, and I'll furnish that.
                 MS. FONTAINE:  Okay.  Well, actually we would be
       interested in that as well, if you could help us to quantify
       the savings as a result of the training.  That would help,
       too.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Mr. Rider, we appreciate your point
       as far as, you know, the benefits of training, but as far as
       the regulatory process the agency has got to come up with an
       estimate of how much it's going to cost the industry to
       comply with any of the requirements in the rule, so that's
       why we have to ask these questions.  But we appreciate your
       point.
                 That's all.  Thank you very much, Mr. Rider.
                 Mr. Hart, are you ready to go?
                 MR. HART:  Yes.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Ben Hart from the Florida
       Department of Environmental Protection.
                 MR. HART:  Thank you.  Good morning.
                 I am Ben Hart, Mine Safety and Health Program
       Director, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
       That's H-a-r-t.
                 It is a pleasure to be here this morning.  I would
       like to start off by saying that I've been conducting MSHA
       training, Part 48 training through the state program of the
       State of Florida for a little over ten years now, and I would
       like to especially acknowledge Mr. Rider's comments about the
       increase of funding for state grants, and I plan to talk
       about this, and a couple of my state grant buddies from other
       states are here, and I think that that definitely is needed,
       and I will discuss that in a few minutes.
                 But first of all I'm kind of confused, I don't know
       if I've got the wrong copy of something, but I've been
       conducting this training for ten years, and I'm hearing from
       the industry that it's very difficult to do the training, it
       imposes a hardship on the companies to do safety and health
       training under Part 48 for surface aggregate industries.
                 And I guess I have been living in a dream world or
       something because I haven't found it that difficult.  I have
       found it difficult to keep the training fresh and new, to
       talk about the same subjects every year, but it's a dull
       thing.
                 You can't put a program together -- we've talked
       about training programs this morning -- you can't put a
       program together -- you can't put a training program together
       today and keep training on that exact same program ten years
       from now.  It needs to be changed every year.
                 As far as the training plan submitted to MSHA, I
       think that can be a static plan that is only changed as needs
       arise, or as the circumstances require.
                 The reason I wanted to defer to later, I wanted to
       hear some of the comments because I wasn't sure what all this
       furor was about.  I've had conversations with the stone
       association members over the years, and I hear people from
       these companies coming up here talking saying we're complying
       now.  I don't know if that's because MSHA is here and they're
       not going to say they're not, I don't think it is.  I think
       they are complying now, and I think when this rider is lifted
       there won't be any problem, business as usual basically with
       some minor modifications.
                 But under -- I want to address the questions that
       were in the Federal Register, which Sections 1-15 subjects
       should be taught before assignment of work duties.  Right now
       we have three, we have introduction to work environment,
       hazard recognition, health and safety aspects and the task
       force that was assigned, and I would like to recommend from
       that list that was in the Federal Register adding emergency
       procedures to that simply because a person the first day on
       the job and they're assigned to work with an experienced
       miner, or the first day out in the field let's say, there may
       be an emergency horn go off, and they don't know what that
       is, they didn't get that coverage in the introduction to work
       environment.  It should have been, but since it was listed as
       a separate point I think that would be good to mention.
                 Should new miner training be given all at once or
       spread out?  That's already addressed in new miner in Part
       48.25.  You have the right, the mine has the right to request
       split training, it's up to the district manager to approve
       it, but it's my understanding that at least in the Southeast
       which I'm most familiar with we've never had any split
       training request denied.
                 It does give the operator flexibility.  That word
       has been used quite a bit, flexibility.  I think it gives the
       operator flexibility.  They choose the split training, they
       say they're going to give them a minimum of eight hours
       before they go out in the field for their assigned work duty,
       but they can also give the other sixteen hours in day two and
       day three if they want to, so they've got some flexibility,
       or they can give four hours now, and four hours next week,
       and four hours next week, as long as they meet the minimum
       which Section 1-15 specifies a minimum of 24.
                 I think to change any of the hours to anything less
       than 24 is going to require changing the Act, and I think
       that's a big task we don't want to tackle, we don't need to
       tackle.
                 Should the operator make the decision about
       flexibility?  Again, it's already there in Part 48-23 under
       training plans.  It gives them that flexibility for split
       training.
                 Let's see.  Should supervisors be subject to this
       training.  I definitely think so, I think that supervisors
       are getting killed just like regular miners, nonsupervisory
       miners at an alarming rate, and I know in particular in
       Florida we had three supervisors get seriously injured a
       number of years ago because they weren't familiar with the
       tasks they were doing.
                 It was over the Christmas holidays, they were
       filling in for workers who had taken Christmas vacation, and
       they should have had more training that they didn't have.  As
       supervisors they were considered they didn't have to have
       that training.
                 So should supervisors be included under all Part 48
       training?  Yes, I think definitely.
                 Let's see.  Mr. Martin mentioned in his
       presentation a need for more training videos, and MSHA should
       come up with more training videos, and I agree, but also we
       would like to mention that the state grants programs in
       several states have developed video programs, slide programs,
       handouts, just a number of things that are available through
       the Minecap or through the individual states themselves, and
       these should be listed in the MSHA catalog at the academy
       already under state grants section.
                 There are a lot of things out there already, but I
       certainly encourage MSHA as he did to continue to develop
       training materials.
                 To go back to say, to concur with Bobby Rider that
       there needs to be close coordination with the state grants
       program, there needs to be support of the state grants
       program from MSHA not only from Section 503 of the Act, but
       also more coordination, more conversation, and work more
       closely with it.
                 There was an instance several years ago where MSHA
       wanted to do a quick educational sweep about something -- I
       think it was a rash of fatalities at the end of '96 -- and I
       felt the state grant should have been more heavily involved
       in that.
                 That's all I do is train, develop training
       programs.  I do not inspect, I don't have that
       responsibility, and I don't think most of the state grantees
       do, so that's what we're there for, and I think we need to
       have more utilization of the state grant program.
                 Having said that, in order to do more training, and
       I think when this rider is lifted, or I know when this rider
       is lifted in the state of Florida I'm going to get a big
       demand for training right away, and I'm not going to be able
       to cover it all.
                 There's just one person covering the whole state,
       so I'm going to need some help, and the help comes in the
       form of money to pay somebody.
                 So I would certainly like to see language in this
       proposed rule that increases the state grant funding.
                 Section 503 authorized up to $10 million, in fact
       authorized $10 million after 1970 for the state grant
       program, and to date we have never gotten more than seven --
       I think right now we are at about 6.3 million, 6.34, and
       that's been static for the last several years.
                 So we do need some more money in order to do this,
       but I think it is a doable thing.
                 The issue with the smaller mine versus the larger
       mine, that flexibility I think is already in place also in
       Part 48 because in the training plan each operation, each
       mine with an ID number, or a plant with an ID number has to
       have a training plan submitted to MSHA.
                 The problem is right now under the rider they
       cannot be either approved or disapproved, they can be
       accepted or not accepted, but with the smaller mine you can
       make your training plan more flexible because in addition the
       courses are already outlined under Part 48 and in Section 115
       of the Act.
                 Under Part 48 it says such other courses as are
       required by the district manager based on the circumstances
       at the mine, and I'm not sure about the wording, but required
       by the district manager, perhaps that could be stricken and
       just say such other courses as required based on, or as
       recommended or suggested based on the circumstances and
       conditions of the mine.  So I think there's room for that
       flexibility already.
                 Let's see.  I think that pretty well covers
       everything I would like to say.  Thank you very much.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Mr. Hart, I have a couple of
       questions.
                 Do you have any sense -- and I have asked this of
       others -- in your area, the geographical area that you cover
       of what percentage or what number of mine operators are not
       currently giving safety training to their employees?
                 MR. HART:  No, ma'am, I don't have even a
       guesstimate figure, but of the -- and somebody earlier
       mentioned fatalities, and fatalities is certainly a good
       measure of how things are going -- the fatalities we've had
       in ten years in Florida, none of the people that have died
       have been trained by the state grant program.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                 MR. HART:   They may have been trained by the
       company.
                 I do know as somebody mentioned earlier that there
       is a problem with small operators, they're worried about
       complying with Part 56, and since MSHA cannot enforce Part 48
       they don't worry about Part 48.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.
                 MR. HART:  But we are increasingly training greater
       numbers of people each year through the state grant program
       because of word of mouth, and also because of the possible
       removal of the rider.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                 MR. HART:  And we welcome that.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  It's sort of related, as far
       as the compliance deadline, you know, we are under an
       obligation to publish a final rule in September of this year.
                 What's your best recommendation for how long we
       ought to give beyond that date for compliance with the
       requirements and the rule?
                 MR. HART:  I'm glad you asked that.  I meant to
       address that.
                 Mr. Stockton mentioned twenty years initially, and
       that number does ring a bell with me.  Twenty years is how
       long the requirement has been in place; the rider has been
       there nineteen years.
                 I think that they should be in compliance now, but
       granted we've got to give some of them time to get in order.
       I think a couple of months, sixty days ought to be plenty of
       time.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                 MR. HART:  Particularly because they should at
       least have a training plan in place.  A lot of them may not,
       but there again their state grant program can help them
       implement or write their training plan.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  When I ask for your best
       guess as far as how long it would take, I'm also looking for
       you to tell me how long it's going to take you maybe to
       address the needs that are going to be generated by --
                 MR. HART:  As far as training needs, it depends.
       If we get more resources and can hire the adequate number of
       trainers we can probably train them in sixty, maybe ninety
       days, but if --
                 And what we're trying to do now is train them
       before this takes place, train them just as if the rider
       didn't exist --
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                 MR. HART:  -- all who will let us do the training,
       and the questions have been directed about how much does it
       cost to train, and that's another thing that in Florida
       anyway since I'm the only trainer we use the MSHA grant funds
       to do the training, and do not charge the companies anything.
                 I believe that's a return of their tax dollars, a
       good return of their tax dollars.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Rod, do you have any
       questions?
                 MR. BRELAND:  Yes.  Ben, in the state of Florida do
       you have any feel for like what percent of your exempt
       operations are maybe not following Part 48 now?
                 I know you do a lot of training and you're around
       the entire state, and some may do portions of it.
                 MR. HART:  Right.  I think all of them are trying
       to do some kind of training, health and safety talks, and
       they have introductory talks, but if you're looking for a
       guess it would be probably forty percent maybe, thirty or
       forty percent, the small operators.
                 MR. BRELAND:  That are not doing any training, any
       training related to Part 48 as it exists under the Act?
                 MR. HART:  I think that anybody, any mining company
       that hires somebody who has had no experience in mining is
       certainly going to give them a walk-around tour, going to
       give them an introduction to the mining environment.
                 They're going to give them hazard recognition,
       they're going to tell them about the alligator that likes to
       lay out in the sun over there by that pond, watch out for
       him, things like that.
                 And they're they're doing some of the Part 48
       training, but they're really aware of what they're doing
       because they may not be -- I hope they are aware of what Part
       48 training requires.  That's one of the things we have tried
       to do in Florida is to make sure that we do get the rules out
       to them, make sure they understand, and make sure we're there
       to help them.
                 But, no, I wouldn't say that that percentage is not
       doing any Part 48 training as far as documentation, Part 48
       training as far as documentation, Part 48 training on 5023
       they may not be filling those out.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.
                 MR. HART:  But I would really hate to give a guess,
       because the percentage may be as low as ten percent.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.
                 MR. HART:  But doing some, but not doing a complete
       program, and not doing it under an approval or accepted plan.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Yeah, we would expect a lot would be
       doing required training that they didn't even know they were
       doing --
                 MR. HART:  Right.
                 MR. BRELAND:  -- because they would do it as the
       nature of their work.
                 MR. HART:  Right.  I believe, Rob, somebody
       mentioned common sense training.  That's a given.  I mean if
       you're in the mining business and you're making money at all
       you're doing something right, using common sense, and safety
       has got to be an integral part of it, safety training.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Now, you also I think mentioned
       earlier about the eight/sixteen split and -- I think that was
       discussed anyway -- do you have a sense for what you would
       consider as a minimum amount of time a new employee
       inexperienced should have the formalized type training prior
       go going in the work environment?
                 MR. HART:  Right.  Recently I revised my training
       plan in Florida at the suggestion of MSHA, some people I
       talked to in Arlington, and I had an eight-hour requirement
       for newly-employed experienced miner training, and had been
       recommending that to all the people that called in and asked
       questions about training class, help them to develop training
       plans that should be a minimum of eight hours.
                 I have since changed that, and I believe in that
       now that the term "as needed" in terms of hours under newly-
       employed experienced miner, and I think that could possibly
       be applied here to give some flexibility that the people have
       been asking for is without delineating the exact hour, but
       requiring that records be kept of how many hours they went.
                 In a small operation take the introduction to work
       environment for example.  In a small mom and pop sand and
       gravel operation that might take five minutes to see the
       whole operation.  In a large crushed stone operation it may
       take a half a day, so it depends.
                 But I think the language as needed could be there,
       and requiring documentation of what was covered during that
       course, things which will be outlined in the training plan.
                 MR. BRELAND:  That's all I have.  Thanks.
                 MR. BURNS:  As far as the issue of Spanish
       training, how are you currently addressing that for the work
       force mainly in southern Florida?
                 MR. HART:  Okay.  Well, first of all, I have had
       several Spanish-speaking, predominantly Hispanic native
       people taking the instructor class, the MSHA instructor
       class.
                 We have a number of videos that we have done
       through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
       and Department of Education prior to that with the program,
       and we are currently having those translated into Spanish.
       In fact, I'm going next week to finalize the Spanish
       translations of four of the videos.  We did a new video this
       past year, and that also will be translated into Spanish.
                 Of course, anybody who wants to be an instructor --
       this is something that was mentioned earlier I would like to
       address and I forgot it -- the instructor certification
       requirements, there's a move to say a competent person,
       whatever that definition may be, can do the training
                 I believe that a person doing MSHA instruction
       under Part 48, or whatever part it may be called, should be
       properly trained, should be adequate and competent to do it,
       and I think that requires some standardized training.
                 Right now we've got some people doing one day of
       training for instructors, some doing three, some doing five,
       some doing ten.   In Florida I do ten.  I do not only the
       instructor training for MSHA, but also the first aid
       instructor and the Part 48 subject matter.
                 I've had a lot of opposition on that issue because
       people feel like that their people already know the subject
       matter.  Well, if they've gone through ten or fifteen or
       twenty years of annual refresher training, yes, they should
       know what to teach, but a lot of them don't, and when I was
       doing a one-week course I kept getting questions from people
       "Well, what do I use to teach this?" and particularly in the
       Spanish, "How do we train the Spanish people?"
                 And so I have a problem with saying that as long as
       you've got a sign, for example for hazard training you've got
       a sign posted and it's in Spanish and it's in English that
       it's adequate training, because you don't know if that person
       can read Spanish, or can read English or not, and you don't
       know if they can even read Spanish.
                 We have some miners in all states I believe that
       probably can't functionally read and write at all, but they
       can do a good job as a miner, but they can't read, and if
       you're going to train them by posting signs it's not going to
       be effective training.
                 If you give them a form to sign that says "I have
       read and agree to abide by all these rules and understand the
       hazards," you put an "X" there they know where to sign it,
       but that doesn't mean they've read it.
                 But your question as far as Spanish, I know the
       University of Texas has taken that program in Texas is doing
       a lot of stuff in Spanish, Spanish translations, and Florida
       is getting into that, and I think we all need to work
       together with MSHA on that very issue.
                 MR. BURNS:  That was part of my question, is that
       something you think that we should focus some more resources
       on?
                 MR. HART:  Yes.
                 MR. BURNS:  Okay.
                 MR. HART:  I think you should, and I think you
       should work particularly with the states that have that
       problem.
                 MR. BURNS:  Are you recommending that we add
       alligator awareness to the requirements?
                                [Laughter.]
                 MR. HART:  Whatever it takes.   That would be based
       on circumstances and conditions at the mine.  In Florida that
       is a problem.  Any time you've got a body of water you may
       have alligators, probably will.
                 MR. BURNS:  Thanks, Ben.
                 MR. HART:  Okay.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Hart.
                 The next speaker on our list is Kenneth Jackman
       from China Clay Producers Association.
                 MR. JACKMAN:  Good morning.  My name is Ken
       Jackman, J-a-c-k-m-a-n, and I represent the China Clay
       Producers Association here in Georgia.
                 The China Clay Producers Association is an
       association of five kaolin companies, it's the five water-
       washed kaolin companies here in the United States.  It's a
       very small association.  We have in total about forty-five
       hundred employees, and we utilize routinely somewhere between
       three and four thousand contractors, depending on the
       workload and what's going on in the kaolin business.
                 I am very pleased to report this morning we have a
       very excellent safety record, we have had for years.  I
       expect this year we will complete 1998 with a total case
       incident rate of about 1.6, and that incident rate is not
       based on lost-time accidents, but is based on recordables,
       which is an exceptional rate, and probably one of the lowest
       rates in the country I would suspect.
                 One of the reasons we have good results is that we
       support training; we always have, our executives always have
       made safety training a priority in our industry, in the case
       of all five companies a number one priority.
                 We support -- I'm here this morning to support the
       precepts that are outlined in the Coalition for Effective
       Miner Training and the work that's been done there.  The
       latest draft I've seen is December 9th, and I think this is
       basically the points Mr. Machemehl made earlier, the China
       Clay Producers Association does support those same points.
                 I would like to talk a little bit about some of the
       important, what I consider to be the important pieces within
       those points, and the first two are the ones that talk about
       effective and pertinent training.
                 In terms of pertinent training, as I look at the
       kaolin industry I think that people that are in the best
       position to be able to determine what is pertinent training
       are the people that are running the kaolin business.  I think
       we have done that over the years.
                 Have we done it as perfectly as we could possibly
       do?  Of course not.  We have made some mistakes, and every
       time we make a mistake we try to correct that and change our
       training program so that we reflect those mistakes, and
       sometimes those mistakes end up being accidents, and we try
       to learn from our accidents and not repeat the accidents.
                 The fact of the matter is that nobody knows the
       kaolin business better than we do, and nobody knows I don't
       believe what it takes to train our miners any better than we
       do, and we use a variety of different techniques.
                 Some of our companies train internally, and
       strongly believe that internal training is the way to go.
       Many of our companies use Pickens Tech that we have talked
       about this morning, and it's been very effective for many of
       our companies, particularly on refresher training and new
       miner training.
                 Regardless of how the training is accomplished, I
       think the most important point is that the training has got
       to be effective, and it's got to be absolutely pertinent to
       the industry that it applies to.
                 I would also like to talk a little bit about the
       role I think that MSHA has in terms of enforcing not only
       training, but anything.  I have long been a believer that we
       are dealing with a finite number of resources, whether we're
       talking about the resources that exist within our companies,
       or the resources that exist within the MSHA organization, and
       that finite body of resources really ought to be allocated in
       the direction of need.
                 We have companies even within our small group of
       five companies that -- for example last year I had one of my
       five companies had eight hundred and some-odd employees and
       had one recordable accident the entire year.  Not a lost-time
       accident, but a recordable accident the entire year.
                 That company believe should not receive the same
       level of scrutiny from MSHA as other companies even within
       the kaolin business that maybe had twenty or twenty-five
       recordable accidents.  There's got to be some discretion
       that's exercised, or the resources that MSHA has, and the
       resources that we have in our companies is never going to be
       adequate.
                 Contractor philosophy.  Many of the speakers this
       morning have talked about our philosophy or what's required
       for contractors, and clearly contractors are becoming a more
       and more important part of the mining business, and that is
       also the case in the kaolin industry.
                 I mentioned our numbers, forty-two hundred full-
       time employees, and three to four thousand contractors, and I
       suspect over the next five to ten years you're going to see
       that number shift even higher in the direction of
       contractors.
                 It's absolutely the philosophy of all our companies
       that every contractor that comes on board needs to be
       properly trained, and needs to be certified, and that every
       contractor that comes on board needs to not only live up to
       the standards that are imposed by MSHA, but the standards
       that are generally speaking even more stringent that are
       imposed by our companies.
                 The fact of the matter is that many contractors
       work side by side with our employees, and if you walk into
       one of our plants sometimes it's virtually impossible to tell
       who's a contractor and who's an employee, so clearly the
       standards for the employees have to be the same as they are
       for the contractors.
                 Record keeping has not been talked about too much
       today.  I would like to touch on record keeping.  The record
       keeping that comes out of this process I believe has got to
       be effective record keeping, but it's got to be simple, and I
       strongly believe in the KISS principle, let's keep it as
       simple as possible, let's not again stretch our limited
       corporate resources and our limited MSHA resources in looking
       at record keeping that's anything more than the very simplest
       necessary to get the job done.
                 The last point I would like to make is -- I believe
       I'm correct when I say that in 1978 when the training was
       exempted from certain industries our Congress in their wisdom
       took away some of the money that was in the training budget
       at that time.  In other words, they pared it back based on
       the number of miners that were going to be trained.
                 I strongly believe that that money needs to be --
       when we make this change in 1999, or I guess it's the year
       2000 we'll officially make the change, that money ought to be
       restored, and it ought to be restored not in 1978 dollars,
       but in 1999 or the year 2000 dollars.  It ought to be
       ratcheted up to accommodate the changes in the inflation in
       that interim period.
                 So that's kind of a quick and dirty summary of the
       points I wanted to make this morning.  I would be glad to
       answer any questions you might have, or amplify on those
       points.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Mr. Jackman, I've got a couple of
       questions, and it concerns the issue of contractors.
                 The first question is one of the issues that has
       come up at some of the other meetings is the responsibility
       for providing training to contractor employees, and I would
       say one of the positions that we've heard a number of times
       from some of the speakers is that the contractor should be
       responsible for providing the 24 hours of new miner training,
       or eight hours of annual refresher training, and that the
       mine operator should be responsible then for the site-
       specific hazard training.
                 Is that the way that your company handles it? and
       if not, do you have some other way of approaching it, or
       other recommendations you might have for that?
                 MR. JACKMAN:  It's not my company, I'm representing
       the association, but I think it's the way most of our member
       companies within the association handle it, that they expect
       the contractors to do the training, to pay for the training,
       and to do the training, or to see that it's done for the
       required, and then for site-specific training I believe
       that's generally handled on site by our companies.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Then as far as categories of
       employees, we have heard a lot as we have moved around the
       country about contractor employees who may be exposed to the
       same hazards as mine employees, I mean they're either
       directly engaged in the processes, or close enough that they
       need to be treated as miners and get the 24 hours, or the
       eight hours, or whatever is appropriate.
                 Do you have any views on other categories of
       employees whose ties to hazard at the mine site might be less
       close so that maybe they shouldn't be considered miners,
       maybe they need to get some lesser type of training than
       that? and, if so, do you have any idea where the line should
       be drawn for that?
                 MR. JACKMAN:  You know, it's the common sense line
       I believe.  In any one of our companies you've got a whole
       range of people that could be considered contractors.  You
       have the man that comes in, or the woman that comes in to fix
       your Xerox machine, is that person a contractor?
                 Technically he is, or she is, but certainly the
       training that's required there is a lot different than the
       contractor that comes in to drive a truck across your mine
       property.
                 There's all shades of gray in between those
       extremes and, you know, you really have to use good common
       sense about what kind of training you use.
                 Even if the person that you're bringing into your
       facility, all he does is fill your Coca-Cola machine, if he's
       filling the Coca-Cola machine in an area where he may be
       exposed to blasting dangers, for example, he has to have some
       element of training, you know, emergency evacuation or
       whatever the situation might be that would pertain to that
       particular hazard.
                 I don't think there's any prescription that you can
       write and say that one size fits all, you really have to use
       common sense.  And I know sometimes we get all stumbled up in
       what we have as common sense and what we have to write for
       rules and regulations, but I guess it would be my appeal
       today as we begin writing these final rules is to let's leave
       common sense have a role in this thing so that we don't end
       up with things that are just wasting these finite resources
       that we all have.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Do you have any recommendations for
       how we might approach writing those lines in this regulation?
       Should we decide what type of training should be given based
       on the kinds of hazards that an individual is exposed to, or
       the length of time that they spend at the mine site, or a
       combination?
                 MR. JACKMAN:  I think it has to go back to the
       basic concept I have, and that is the people that are in the
       best positions to really declare what training is required
       are the people that are running the facility, and I think you
       just have to give those folks the discretion, you have to
       give the companies discretion to do that, because I really
       believe --
                 You know, many times in these rooms in these public
       hearings and so forth I always kind of scratch my head
       because what we end up doing is preaching to the choir a
       little bit, you know, and the folks in -- you know, I haven't
       heard a person this morning talk about the fact that training
       is ridiculous and we don't need it.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.
                 MR. JACKMAN:  And that's the difficulty sometimes
       in these public hearings, but I really believe that when all
       is said and done here that we have to give our companies the
       discretion to effectively train their own people, and the
       responsibility that goes with that discretion.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Thank you.  I don't have any
       more questions.  Kevin or Rod?
                 MR. BRELAND:  Just to follow up on that a little
       bit, the discussion with the contractors.  It seems a little
       bit of a contradiction when you talk about the industry, like
       the kaolin industry deciding what needs they might have for
       training, but then with the contractor you would expect them
       to have been trained when they come to work for you, outside
       of maybe some specific hazard.
                 If we were looking for a rule that would try to
       address some basic needs, that would be hard for us I guess
       to come up with something considering all those other
       industries to have one that's just specific for contractors
       that work in the kaolin industry for example.
                 I'm not sure I'm making myself clear.
                 MR. JACKMAN:  No, I'm not suggesting that at all.
       I'm suggesting that there is some basic training that we do
       in our industry that we do for everyone, contractors,
       employees, everyone.  And then beyond that there's some
       specific training that we do for all our employees, and we
       will do for contractors if they come on our payroll.  That's
       all I was saying with that.
                 MR. BRELAND:  That would be in addition to their
       expected 24 hours or eight hours annually.
                 MR. JACKMAN:  In addition to, that's right.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.
                 MR. JACKMAN:  For example, every company I believe
       in our industry has a different way they do lock, tag, and
       try.  However, if you peel those differences out and you look
       at the fundamentals, the fundamentals are all the same, but
       there are some unique things that each of the companies feel
       are necessary within their companies on lock, tag, and try
       that are unique for their particular situation.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Then on the record keeping, I
       think everybody agrees it needs to be simple, however
       flexible it could be, but how would you see like when you get
       a contractor that comes in would your association expect that
       they would provide some documentation they've had it?  What
       would you ask for in that area?
                 MR. JACKMAN:  The thing I've seen work effectively
       in the past is if the contractor comes on board for the first
       time he has to demonstrate that he's trained his people.  If
       it's a contractor that's routinely with you day in and day
       out, then what he needs to do is when he brings new people in
       he has to demonstrate that those new people have been
       trained.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  And then if you do some
       specific training, you provide them back some documentation
       of that as well?
                 MR. JACKMAN:  Yes.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  That's all I have, Mr.
       Jackman.  Thank you.
                 MR. BURNS:  As far as the contractors, how do they
       demonstrate that their people have been trained?  Do you
       know?
                 MR. JACKMAN:  Well, they bring in certification
       basically that they have been trained, which I think in the
       case of our industry many times has been this Pickens Tech
       that you've heard about this morning.
                 MR. BURNS:  Do you run into a situation where they
       maybe present the OSHA training cards to demonstrate their
       training?
                 MR. JACKMAN:  I don't know.  I don't think so.  We
       do have some of our companies that have different businesses,
       and some of the businesses are overseen by OSHA, and some of
       the businesses are overseen by MSHA, and within those
       companies sometimes that gets a little confusing because
       there are some small differences between the MSHA regs and
       the OSHA regs, but for the most part the -- and of course in
       our situation in the kaolin industry we're dealing in a very
       small area, we're dealing in a twenty-mile-wide sixty-mile
       area, and that's the whole kaolin industry in the United
       States basically, and so we have different issues than some
       of our other folks that have -- you know, like the crushed
       stone people have crushed stone operations across the entire
       United States, so it is a little different for us, in some
       cases a lot simpler for us because of that.
                 But when our contractors come in, they basically
       come in with MSHA certification, not OSHA certification.
                 MR. BURNS:  That was really the reason I was
       asking, because that has been suggested by others at other
       meetings that there should be something that recognizes
       training that the contractors, or training that individuals
       had received safety training under OSHA where it's
       applicable.
                 I guess for example if you were bringing somebody
       in to pave your parking lot, and they're going to be in there
       for a week, would it do them much good to go get the MSHA
       training if they already have all the training required by
       DOT in the state and, you know, they're the biggest paver in
       the whole state.  Would that be efficient use of the finite
       resources you're talking about?
                 MR. JACKMAN:  It would not be, in my view it would
       not be.  I mean the example you used is another one of those
       shades of gray between the fellow that's fixing your Xerox
       machine and the guy that's driving your mine truck.
                 Here's a contractor that's out in your parking lot
       paving your parking lot, you know, he's not exposed to mining
       hazards, he's not exposed to the hazards of your business.
       He's exposed to hazards within his particular business, but
       not your business.  I think that's where the common sense
       piece of this has to come in.
                 MR. BURNS:  Okay.  I appreciate it.  That's all the
       questions I have, unless Roz has any questions.
                 MS. FONTAINE:  No.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Jackman.
                 MR. JACKMAN:  Thank you.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  The next and the last speaker on
       our list is Frank Ford, and I'm afraid I cannot read the
       organization, so I'm going to rely on you to spell or
       pronounce.
                 MR. FORD:  My name is Frank Ford, and I'm here
       today  representing Hughey Stock Steel, Incorporated, and the
       spelling of the last name is F-o-r-d.
                 First off, I would like to thank you all for giving
       us this opportunity to express our opinions and concerns.
                 I too support training, and to give you an example
       of why I think training works, I've been with the company I'm
       going into my fourth year.  When I first came there they had
       just been issued a cancellation from the workers' comp
       carrier, and I received a call from one of the principals of
       the company asking me to come on board and administrate their
       training.
                 I did a lot of different things, of which I can't
       attribute one thing to being the magic pill for lack of a
       better word, but implementing safety awards, coming in with
       company benefits as far as health considerations, things like
       that.
                 When I went there we had a workers' comp premium of
       $297,000.  This workers' comp carrier put them in a
       rehabilitation program, and that's when I was hired on.
       Since then we have lowered our premiums to $149,000, we've
       cut it in half, and one of the things that I did upon coming
       on was I went to Birmingham, Alabama, and I went to a one-
       week school and got my MSHA instructor's rating.
                 We do not do Part 48 training right now.  Obviously
       we're fixing to.  I've been seeing this coming, I told the
       principals two years ago with the rash of fatalities with
       other operators that this was coming down the pike and, sure
       enough, here it is.  So we will be complying.
                 I would like to give you a little background.  We
       are a small operator, we employ between 165 currently up to
       the summer months 200 employees.
                 Of those employees, the company I work for, Hughey
       Stock Steel, Incorporated, is more or less a parent company.
       There are three other corporations who kind of fall under
       that umbrella, of which one is a trucking company, a general
       contractor, and we do have two sand and gravel mines.  We
       have two sand plants, one in Louisiana and one in
       Mississippi.
                 Affected employees are about forty.  That would be
       the employees who are classified as miners.
                 I would like to go on record as saying that I do
       support the Coalition for Effective Miner Training, and also
       the state grant program.  I don't know if Mississippi still
       has a state grant program; I'm hoping to the good Lord they
       do because I'm gonna need some serious help here.  I know
       that the year before last they did, but I don't know about
       '98 or '99.  I will be finding out, though.
                 As far as the compliance time, I would like for it
       to be as user friendly as possible.  I would like to see it a
       year if possible, because we've got a lot of work to do to
       play catch-up.
                 We had two accidents last year -- I'm saying last
       year, '98 -- and those were third-party accidents in the
       contracting area of the company, and they were subrogated a
       hundred percent, so as far as, you know, being safe we are a
       very safe operator.  Our EMOD workers' comp is .99 which says
       that we're, as an industry as a whole we're 1 percent
       discounted, so I feel like we're doing an excellent job.  I
       also feel like there's room for improvement; there always is
       room for improvement.
                 On the record keeping, there again I would like to
       keep that simple if possible.
                 And that's basically all I have to say.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Mr. Ford, you say you're not
       complying with Part 48, but you are giving your employees
       training; correct?
                 MR. FORD:  Yes, we are.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Could you maybe be a little bit
       more specific when you say you're not maybe complying with
       the letter of Part 48, but do you have a long way to go
       before you get there because of the amount of time spent on
       training, or the subjects covered?
                 MR. FORD:  It's going to be the subjects covered,
       basically getting it in outline type form.  You know, one of
       our concerns is turnover.  We have fourteen-year employees,
       and we have six-day employees.  Certain areas have the higher
       turnover, of which our sand plant operations where we process
       the sand for sale, it has an extremely high turnover as far
       as your baggers, packers, things like that.
                 Does that answer your question?
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yeah.
                 MR. FORD:  We are doing safety meetings, we do
       monthly and lunch-box safety meetings currently, and they are
       documented.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And how long do those
       usually last?
                 MR. FORD:  It depends.  On average ten or fifteen
       minutes.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And your position would be
       that the time spent on those safety talks, those informal
       safety meetings should be applied to the eight hours of
       annual refresher?
                 MR. FORD:  I would like for it to.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  But you do document them?
                 MR. FORD:  Yes, we do.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.   Now, as far as new miner
       training, one of the issues that we have to deal with is for
       a new miner coming on site and what kind of training does he
       or she need to get before they can start work.  Currently
       Part 48 requires eight hours.  Do you have -- I mean you've
       got sand and gravel operations, I mean is eight hours
       realistic, or do you think it should be a shorter period of
       time, or whether certain subject areas ought to be covered
       before someone can start work?
                 MR. FORD:  Well, I think they should be type-
       specific to the operation.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  You mean without setting a
       minimum?
                 MR. FORD:  Right.  In other words, let us be
       responsible for --
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Deciding --
                 MR. FORD:  -- deciding in what areas.  As I guess
       Mr. Martin has spoke on, and I believe Mr. Stockton as well,
       you know what you need in your mine, you have your statistics
       as far as what type injuries -- are they hand injuries, are
       they back injuries, or where are the injuries, where are they
       happening, and then address those problems.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Do you have contractors that
       come onto your property?
                 MR. FORD:  We have one contractor who hauls our
       product from our sand plants, he's a third-party contractor,
       and he takes it to an end user.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Do you give that individual
       any kind of site-specific hazard training?
                 MR. FORD:  Yes, he has hazard training.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                 MR. FORD:  There again, he's got extremely high
       turnover, as trucking typically does, because he has no
       benefits to offer, unlike ourselves.  Our turnover is low in
       the trucks, but he has extremely high.
                 And I would also like to go on record as saying I
       think that the contractors should have their own, they should
       be responsible for their own training.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  But as far as the site-
       specific hazard training, how do you approach that with the
       truck driver?  Is it just sort of an informal discussion, or
       do you have a piece of paper that you hand out, or do you
       handle it with signs on the property, or -- ?
                 MR. FORD:  We have signage all over the property
       and, you know, informal also.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  But you think it's
       appropriate that you should be responsible for that with
       regard to contractors who come on?
                 MR. FORD:  The hazards, that's right.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  I don't have any more
       questions.  Rod?
                 MR. BRELAND:  Are you the only person certified
       presently to train with your company?
                 MR. FORD:  I'm the only safety director, as well as
       the only certified MSHA instructor, yes, sir.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  And you have multiple plants
       in different states, too?
                 MR. FORD:  Yes, sir.  There's four corporations, of
       which one is a Louisiana corporation, the other three are
       Mississippi, and probably -- I had it broken down into crews,
       and roughly ten different crews, and I do training for all of
       them.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Would those ten crews all be under
       MSHA jurisdiction as well?
                 MR. FORD:  No, sir, they wouldn't.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  So you would see probably a
       need to have some additional people within your group trained
       to be trainers?
                 MR. FORD:  Right.
                 I didn't mention this initially.  We have a lot of
       mom and pop operators, mine operators in our area.  They are
       not going to be able to do this.  Fortunately we are.  We are
       one of, if not the largest in our area, and I would say
       within a hundred and fifty miles, a two-hundred-mile area.
                 I don't know if they're gonna do -- we've had some
       interest, you know, some calls from the other operators
       asking if I would do the training.
                 Now, I'm sure I'll be seeing Mr. Hart or Mr. Joe
       Futch, I will be going back for refresher training before I
       undertake this.
                 But I don't think -- well, matter of fact, I know
       I'm not gonna train those other guys.  If I'm not gonna be
       responsible for them, I'm certainly -- and when I say
       responsible, I will be responsible legally, and I'm not gonna
       train them if I'm not there to, you know, actually make sure
       that they're doing the proper thing, if that makes any sense
       to you.  Since they don't work for us, I cannot control them.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  And then the other thing you
       mentioned, you had two accidents that were involving
       contractors.  Were those the truck contractors you were
       talking about?
                 MR. FORD:  General contract -- that's on the
       general contracting end of the business working on the road
       construction.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Oh, it wasn't part of MSHA.  Okay.
                 MR. FORD:  No, it was not.  That's what I'm saying,
       as far as MSHA we've had no accidents over the year.
                 MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  That's all I have.  Thank you.
                 MR. BURNS:  Well, certainly you have dropped your
       workers' comp rate down by half, and that's -- I know those
       people are pretty careful about their money, so I'm sure it's
       based on merit, so obviously the training you have been doing
       is pretty effective.
                 MR. FORD:  Yes.  I will be the first to admit
       training is effective, and you save money.  The bottom line
       is the company saves money, so I would like to go on record
       as saying I believe in it wholeheartedly, as well as the
       principals of the company.  I have saved my salary many times
       over.
                 MR. BURNS:  I just wanted to I guess address your
       comment concerning the Part 48 training.  Do you do more than
       eight hours annual refresher training if you're counting the
       safety talks?
                 MR. FORD:  No, sir.  It would probably be right at
       that.
                 MR. BURNS:  It would be right about eight?
                 MR. FORD:  And the reason I haven't been doing it
       is because I was not mandated to do it.  People are not gonna
       do what they're not mandated to do.  That's -- you know,
       humans are lazy in general, and we're gonna do it.
                 MR. BURNS:  In your discussions with the really
       small operators, the mom and pops, can you recommend anything
       where you think MSHA should be prepared to assist them?
                 MR. FORD:  We have a community college twelve miles
       north of town, and I would like to see some type of state-ran
       programs similar to the Pickens program set up there for
       training, because they're going to need it, and I don't know
       where they're gonna get their training from.
                 MR. BURNS:  That's all the questions I have.  I
       compliment you on your success, and I hope you continue on
       that path.
                 MR. FORD:  Yes, sir.  But like I said, it's not
       really anything that I have done, but it's just a combination
       of a lot of things that have happened.
                 The company was formed in the early sixties, and it
       was a mom and pop operation, and it's grown into what it is
       today with annual revenues in the 22 to $25 million range,
       and they saw their workers' comp going out of sight.  Well,
       when you get canceled there's a problem and so, you know,
       they enlisted my help, and I came in, and we started doing
       certain things, and it's just a culmination of all of it,
       primarily somebody there to oversee, and the employees know
       that there's gonna be, you know, actions taken and somebody
       is going to be held responsible when there's a problem.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Ford.
                 MR. FORD:  Thank you.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  We have reached the end of the list
       of people who have signed up to speak.
                 I would like to ask now is there anyone here who
       has not spoken who would like to come up and offer some of
       their remarks?
                 Mr. Elliott.
                 MR. ELLIOTT:  Thank you.
                 I'm Ed Elliott, E-d E-l-l-i-o-t-t, the safety
       manager with the Rogers Group, Incorporated.
                 I would first like to say that if Mr. Ford is going
       to volunteer to train other companies, if he would come up
       and see me afterwards he could help me out a lot also.
                 I'm not going to -- well, I should say I have
       previously put in comments concerning those specific issues
       that were in the Federal Register, and I'm not going to
       repeat those today, but I would like to make just a few other
       general comments.
                 First, we must really walk before we run.  If the
       new regulations that come about are too prescriptive the  are
       currently enforcement-exempted industries will once again
       rebel against this enforcement.  But if we have a regulation
       that is performance oriented, flexible, allowing
       incorporation of training innovations, then any and all
       operators will really have no excuse not to do training.
                 I have attended three of these sessions which
       represent three different MSHA districts in which Rogers
       Group operates.  So Rogers Group, we want consistent
       enforcement in any regulation throughout the area we operate
       in.
                 Presently the safety regulations are not equally
       and consistently enforced throughout these areas.  Many
       operators are not inspected in accordance with the law, and
       if the Educational Field Services is not able to work with
       all operators once this rule takes effect, it will not have
       the impact we really need, and consistency again is what I
       want to reinforce.
                 I'm not here representing the Coalition for
       Effective Miner Training, but I would like to make some
       comments on CEMT based on my involvement with this group.
                 The National Stone Association safety committee, of
       which I am a member, recognized a couple of years ago or so
       that the enforcement rider would probably be coming off.  The
       leadership of the committee at that time put together a task
       group to develop some suggested modifications to Part 48
       which could be presented to MSHA for their consideration.
                 The committee as a whole recognized the importance
       of consensus from within our industry, and the NSA staff made
       contacts with other associations, and in August of 1998 a
       coalition at that time of twelve organizations was formed,
       and that has grown to seventeen members.
                 I have attended through the NSA the majority of the
       CEMT meetings.  I would like to read a current list of the
       CEMT membership:
                 The American Portland Cement Alliance;
                 China Clay Producers Association;
                 Dry Branch Kaolin Company;
                 Georgia Crushed Stone Association;
                 Georgia Mining Association;
                 Indiana Mineral Aggregates Association;
                 National Aggregates Association;
                 National Industrial Sand Association;
                 National Lime Association;
                 National Stone Association;
                 North Carolina Aggregates Association;
                 Arizona Rock Products Association;
                 Construction Material Associates of California;
                 Indiana Mineral Producers Association;
                 Sorptive Minerals Institute;
                 United Metro Materials, Incorporated; and
                 The Virginia Aggregates Association.
                 This list represents a large segment of the
       affected industry, and the coalition I know is continuing to
       look and solicit additional members to develop consensus on
       these regulations.
                 I would like to also read the mission statement of
       the coalition:
                 The Coalition for Effective Miner Training was
       formed to work with MSHA in developing a viable training
       document for industrial minerals.  We recognize that training
       and education are critically important in making progress to
       improve worker safety.  In conjunction with MSHA, we want to
       improve safety performance at every mine with site-specific
       safety plans, use of modern technological training aids, and
       training that will truly meet the safety needs of each miner.
                 And also just to talk, there were two initial
       objectives, the first to develop by the consensus process an
       industry-specific, effective miner training program as an
       alternative to the existing coal-based Part 48 training
       regulations.
                 The second was to maintain the rider on the
       appropriations bill until an appropriate alternative is
       approved.
                 This organization has tried to reach out to many in
       industry.  Also they have reached out to labor organizations
       that we have been able to identify within industry, and have
       met with these organizations, and are continuing to meet with
       them to develop consensus on this.
                 Rogers Group supports the coalition and its efforts
       at achieving the objectives and through the mission
       statement.
                 If this rule takes into account the circumstances
       of our industries, it will place an enormous amount of
       responsibility back upon the industry to make it work.
                 The CEMT's work will not end with the publishing of
       a final rule.  CEMT and each of the mining associations will
       need to work at gaining full compliance.  This will not be an
       easy task, because I have seen from my position as a member
       of the NSA safety committee that there are some NSA members
       that are skeptical of what MSHA will do if the rider is
       removed.  Some feel that we should be spending our time
       trying to keep the rider in place rather than developing
       rules.
                 Even within our associations we will need to sell
       the merits of any new regulation, and I know that the NSA
       along with these other associations are committed to being
       leaders in safety within the mining community, and support
       training as an integral part of this.
                 You do not have to produce the perfect training
       regulation in this attempt.  A problem which is apparent
       after nineteen or so years is that no matter how noble the
       regulators of 1978 were, their Part 48 result was too
       prescriptive and did not take into account the entire mining
       community.
                 You are demonstrating the process which should be
       used in promulgating standards.  The operators must see that
       this is a guide which will add value to their operations, and
       not unduly restrict them as Part 48 does now.
                 I would like to make just some off-the-cuff
       comments.  Mr. Hart mentioned about the difficulty with --
       people should not really have much difficulty complying with
       Part 48, and the Rogers Group will not have a problem if the
       rider is taken off and Part 48 is the standard.
                 I have just made some calculations.  In all the
       meetings, these seven meetings that you've had, if twenty
       people representing individual mining companies made comments
       at each meeting, this would represent only around one percent
       of the total number of mines covered under these proposed
       rules.
                 But probably, I would venture to guess 98 to a
       hundred percent of the people that attend the meetings do the
       training, and probably come very close to meeting Part 48.
       So the idea that is I think vitally important is, and my last
       formal comment was the first rule that you come out with,
       these regulations do not have to be all-encompassing.
                 You have shown, and you are showing that you can
       come up with an entirely new rule in less than a year.  It is
       not an easy thing to do, but I know that you will do it, and
       I trust that you will come out with something that is fair
       and meets the industry's needs.
                 We can do the same thing, if we need to add
       something additional to it in the figure.  If the first one
       doesn't hit everything we need to do, then we can always come
       back and go through this process in the future and make
       additions to it, because if you put together a rule, whatever
       it is, good or bad, it is almost impossible to get that rule
       or part of it withdrawn or changed without a tremendous
       amount of problem, but it would be much easier I think to add
       to it if necessary.  And that's what I would hope that will
       come about with this.
                 I thank this group very much.  I feel like I know
       you now, I've been to three of the meetings, but it's a lot
       of hard work, and I think you all have done an outstanding
       job, and myself and the Rogers Group thank you very much for
       your efforts in government service.
                 And that's all I have.  Thank you.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Elliott.
       I don't have any questions, but thank you for your remarks.
       Does anyone else have anything to add?
                 MR. BRELAND:  Thank you, Ed.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much.
                 Again I'll just ask one more time, does anybody
       else have anything they want to add or contribute?
                                [No response.]
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  If not, what I have been doing at
       the later meetings is give just sort of a real brief overview
       of the issues that have been raised and some of the comments
       that we've gotten.  You probably heard a lot of the issues
       addressed today, but I'll just go through very briefly.
                 As far as contractors, we have had a number of
       individuals advocate that mine operators be responsible for
       site-specific hazard training for contractor employees,
       whereas the contractor should be held responsible for the
       comprehensive training which includes the 24 hours of new
       miner training and the eight hours of annual refresher
       training, and the commentors have supported addressing the
       issue of responsibility for the different types of training
       in the rule itself.
                 Additionally, as I indicated, we need to
       differentiate between types of employees that come on the
       mine property.  Some of them are exposed very directly to
       mining hazards; there are other categories of employees,
       delivery people or types of employees like that who probably
       it is appropriate to give them some other type of training,
       or require some other type of training besides the
       comprehensive training required for miners.
                 We have had a lot of commentors who advocate not
       requiring eight hours of initial miner training before a
       miner could start to work on the property.  A number of
       commentors have indicated that their sites don't really
       involve so much that requires eight hours to be covered
       before the miner can begin work.
                 On the other hand, we have had some commentors who
       do support eight hours of initial training out of the 24
       hours, so that's an issue that we will to address.
                 WE have had a number of commentors who advocate
       allowing annual refresher training to be given in periods of
       time of less than thirty minutes as you have heard today.  As
       we have heard at a number of the other meetings, these
       informal safety talks are very common, and a number of
       commentors believe that it is appropriate for us to give
       credit and allow that to be applied toward satisfying the
       eight hours of annual refresher training.
                 We have had a lot of comments regarding flexibility
       with record keeping, allowing operators to centralize their
       record keeping, and perhaps include something in the rule
       that would require a mine operator to furnish training
       records within a specific period of time without actually
       requiring that those records be kept at the mine site.
                 As far as compliance deadline, we have had all
       across the map.  We have had people who have suggested that
       we have a twenty-year compliance deadline, that was a
       suggestion we had today, but more typically we've gotten a
       number of people who have said that a year is appropriate,
       we've had several people indicate that six months would be
       appropriate, and several other commentors who have advocated
       shorter periods of time for a compliance deadline.
                 In general we have gotten a lot of comments
       advocating flexibility in the rule requirements, and
       reduction of any kind of administrative burden.
                 That sort of summarizes the kinds of issues and the
       kinds of comments that we have gotten.
                 I would like to also now give you a short summary
       of what we think our schedule is going to be in the coming
       months.
                 As I indicated in my opening remarks, we are
       planning to publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register
       some time in the spring of this year -- that's in the next
       couple of months.
                 After that proposed rule is published, there will
       be a comment period which allows for the submission of
       written comments by commentors, and also we will I would
       expect have a minimum of two public hearings during that time
       period which are going to be similar in format to the public
       meetings we have been having now.
                 We may have as many as four public hearings, but
       again that's going to be determined by our time schedule, so
       we will have to probably wait and figure out what that's
       going to look like after another month or two.
                 That comment period typically lasts for several
       months.  The comment period will close, and then we will sit
       down and develop the final rule which is required to be
       published in the Federal Register by Congress on or before
       September 30th of 1999, and then at that point we will also
       have come to some decision as far as long we're going to
       allow for compliance, and that will be clearly indicated in
       the final rule itself.
                 Again, I would like to encourage you if you have
       additional things that you would like to offer to submit them
       to us in writing on or before February 1st of 1999.  If you
       need any information as far as addresses, or phone numbers,
       or anything, feel free to come up to us at the conclusion of
       this meeting and we will give you anything that you need.
                 If there is  nothing further --
                 MR. BURNS:  Kathy, I guess Ken would probably want
       me to clarify, I think he meant the twenty years as a joke.
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Oh, I know.
                 MR. BURNS:  He's got to work on his delivery.
                                [Laughter.]
                 MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.  Let the record reflect that
       the twenty-year compliance deadline was a joke, and I took it
       as such.  I was just trying a little light humor which maybe
       didn't succeed.
                 In any case, I would like to thank you all for
       coming.  Particularly I would like to thank the speakers, and
       if there is nothing further I will call this meeting to a
       close.
                 Thank you very much.
                 [At 12:00 noon, Thursday, January 7, 1999, the
       meeting was concluded.]
                                     |||
                               REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
     DOCKET NO.:        N/A
     CASE TITLE:        Public Hearing on Regulations for Miner
               Safety and Health Training
     HEARING DATE:      January 7, 1999
     LOCATION: College Park, Georgia
         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
     U.S. Department of Labor.
                        Date:  January 7, 1999
                        L.N. Paiten
                        Official Reporter
                        Heritage Reporting Corporation
                        Suite 600
                        1220 L Street, N. W.
                        Washington, D. C.  20005