BEFORE THE 
         DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
         MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
         MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT  )
         30 CFR PART 46,  TRAINING AND RETRAINING OF MINERS ENGAGED
         IN SHELL DREDGING OR EMPLOYED AT SAND, GRAVEL, SURFACE
         STONE, SURFACE CLAY, COLLOIDAL PHOSPHATE, OR SURFACE      
         LIMESTONE MINES 
         
         Pages:  1 through 166
         Place:  Northbrook, Illinois
         Date:   December 7, 1998                            
          BEFORE THE 
          
          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
          
          MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
          
                                      )
          MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT  )
                                      )
          30 CFR PART 46              )
          TRAINING AND RETRAINING OF  )
          MINERS ENGAGED IN SHELL     )
          DREDGING OR EMPLOYED AT     )
          SAND, GRAVEL, SURFACE STONE,)
          SURFACE CLAY, COLLOIDAL     )
          PHOSPHATE, OR SURFACE       )
          LIMESTONE MINES             )
          
                              Pine Room
                              Hilton Northbrook 
                              2855 North Milwaukee Avenue
                              Northbrook, Illinois
          
                              Monday, 
                              December 7, 1998
          
              The above-entitled matter came on for hearing,
          
          pursuant to notice, at 8:00 a.m. 
          
              PANEL MEMBERS:
          
              KATHY ALEJANDRO, Chair
                   Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health
                   Arlington, Virginia
              KEVIN BURNS
                   Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health
                   Arlington, Virginia
              ROSLYN FONTAINE
                   Office of Standards Regulations and
                     Variances
              ROD BRELAND
                   Western Operations Manager
                   Educational Field Services
              RON FORD
                   Office of Standards Regulations and
                     Variances
              ROBERT ALDRICH
                   USDOL Office of the Solicitor                                   I N D E X
          
          
          SPEAKER                                                 PAGE
          
          Chairperson Alejandro                                      3
          
          John C. Henriksen                         8
          Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers
          
          Randy Logsdon                            23
          Vulcan Materials Company
          
          Raymond R. Peterson                      49
          Video Information Systems Training Associates, Inc.
          
          William Pautler                          63
          Kincaid Stone Company
          
          Ed Elliott                                                68
          Rogers Group, Inc.
          
          Daniel P. Foltyniewicz                                    83
          Risk Management Network
          
          Mark William Withey                      88
          Evenson Explosives, LLC
          
          Robert Stalder                          101
          U.S. Silica
          
          Raymond Peterson                        106
          
          Mark William Withey                     111
          
          John C. Henriksen                       113
          
          Scott Maxey                             121
          Badger Mining Corporation
          
          Ed Elliott                                               134
          
          Mark W. Withey                          135
          
          Randy Logsdon                           138
          
          John Howard                             140
          Illinois Eastern Community Colleges
          
          Pat Campbell                            156
          Department of Natural Resources
          Office of Mines and Minerals                              P R O C E E D I N G S
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Good morning.  My name is Kathy
          Alejandro.  I am with Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and
          Health, Mine Safety and Health Administration, and I'd like
          to welcome you here today for our first of seven public
          meetings on the Part 46 rule-making.
              On behalf of the Mine Safety and Health
          Administration, I would like to welcome you.  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
          where MSHA currently cannot enforce existing training
          requirements.
              I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce
          the members of the MSHA panel who are with me this morning.
              From this end, on over this direction, we have
          Rod Breland, who is Western Operations Manager for
          Educational Field Services; Kevin  Burns to my immediate
          right, who is also with the Mine Safety and Health
          Administration, Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health;
          Ron Ford and Roslyn Fontaine are with the Office of
          Standards, Regulations, and Variances; and Robert Aldrich,
          on the end, is with the Office of the Solicitor.
              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 21, 1998, MSHA was directed to "work with the
          affected industries, mine operators, workers, labor
          organizations,l 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 regulation in
          the Federal Register sometime in early spring of 1999.
              The regulations that we will be developing must
          include minimum requirements in Section 115 of the Mine Act. 
          I'd like to summarize those requirements briefly.
              It 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.  It specifies that surface miners are to
          receive no less than 24 hours of new miner training, no less
          than 8 hours of refresher training annually, and task
          training for new work assignments.
              Section 115 also requires that the training cover
          specific subject areas.  It provides that training is to be
          conducted during normal work hours at normal pay.  It
          requires that miners be reimbursed for additional costs they
          incur incidental to training and provides that mine
          operators must maintain miners' training certificates and
          furnish such records to the miners.
              In addition to these minimum requirements, we are
          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 I would emphasize why.  I mean, we are looking for
          suggestions, but we are also looking for rationales for why
          certain requirements should or should not be included.
              We have scheduled public meetings at six other
          locations in the coming weeks, including Denver; Albany, New
          York; Portland, Oregon; Ontario, California; Dallas; and
          Atlanta.  And this is to give as many individuals and
          organizations as possible an opportunity to present their
          views.
              We intend to conduct this meeting in an informal
          manner, and as you can see, a court reporter is making a
          verbatim transcript of the proceedings.  As I've already
          told you, if you wish to sign up to speak, there is a sign-
          up sheet right here, which I think everyone who's here right
          now has probably already signed up, and I've asked you to
          sign the list of attendees in the back of the room.
              You may also, if you choose, submit written
          statements and information, either during the course of this
          hearing or after the hearing, which we will consider while
          the proposed rule is being developed.
              Although we don't have any specific deadline for
          when written comments should be submitted, I would strongly
          encourage you to submit anything in writing that you wish to
          submit no later than February 1 of 1999, and this will
          ensure that it will get the full consideration that it
          deserves.
              Although we are most interested in what you all
          have to say to us, if you do have any questions as the
          meeting proceeds, we will attempt as best we can to address
          those questions.
              We're specifically interested in comments
          addressing certain areas, although we strongly encourage you
          to comment on any issue that's related to miner safety and
          health training at the currently exempt mines.  The issues
          that we're interested in were outlined in the November 3
          Federal Register notice that announced this schedule of
          public meetings, but I will summarize those questions, those
          issues for you here, so you understand what context we're
          talking about.
              One of the issues that we're interested in: 
          Should we define certain terms in the regulation, including
          terms such as "new miner" and "experienced miner"?
              What subjects, if any, 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 so, 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 30 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.  I wold ask that all speakers, who as they sit
          down to make their presentation, state and spell their names
          for the court reporter before beginning their presentation.
              And I would like to thank you very much for
          attending, and I look forward to a productive meeting.  The
          first name that I have on the list is John Henriksen of the
          Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers.  Mr. Henriksen?
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  Yes.  Thank you.  I gave the
          court reporter my card, so she can get my name spelled
          correctly.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Thank you.
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  You're welcome.
              Good morning.  My name is John Henriksen.  I
          serve as the Executive Director of the Illinois Association
          of Aggregate Producers.  The IAAP is the trade association
          representing Illinois's non-coal mining industry.  The IAAP
          represents the companies mining 95 percent of this state's
          construction aggregates, 100 percent of this state's silica
          sand, and 100 percent of the stone this state mines to
          manufacture cement.
              Our over 105 member companies range in size from
          mom-and-pop operations that mine less than 50,000 tons a
          year, all the way to companies that produce well over 10
          million tons of our products a year.  Our members currently
          operate in 80 out of 102 Illinois counties, and we are a
          mainstay of this state's economy. 
              I appreciate the opportunity to come regarding
          the mine safety training rules being proposed for our
          industry, to replace Part 48.
              Our association and our industry is committed to
          worker safety.  Many of our member companies have their own
          in-house safety personnel who conduct periodic safety
          training.  Other members ensure that their personnel attend
          safety seminars put on by the Illinois Aggregate Producers
          Risk Management Association or put on through our State's
          grant program.
              Our association has a Safety Committee that
          encourages a proactive safety culture and works to keep our
          members up to speed on safety issues.  Our bottom line and
          our industry bottom line is this:  Effective safety training
          is critical to our industry.
              But let me stress what I just said.  Effective
          safety training is critical to our industry.  To be truly
          effective, the safety training rules that MSHA will put in
          place for our industry must be designed with two key
          objectives in mind.
              First, these rules should minimize nonessential
          administrative requirements that may be counterproductive or
          detract from the essential functions of safety and health
          training.
              Second, these rules should permit as much
          flexibility as possible to allow operators to provide safety
          and health training that will be effective in helping to
          prevent injury and illness to miners at their operations. 
          In a nutshell, MSHA's new rules should minimize paperwork
          and maximize flexibility for our operators.
              Now, you asked for our rationale, why our rules
          should be different than Part 48, and I understand that. 
          And in order to understand why our rules must minimize
          paperwork and maximize flexibility, MSHA must keep in mind
          the key differences between the coal and non-coal mining
          industries.  As an example, let me contrast the coal and
          non-coal mining industries in this state.
              In Illinois, we currently have 15 active surface
          coal mines in operation and four active underground coal
          mines, a total of 19 active mines.  I mean actively mining
          coal.  These coal mines employ, according, to your
          statistics, approximately 4,366 employees.  That's surface,
          prep, and underground miners in this state.
              Now, I want you to contrast these numbers to our
          state's non-coal mining industry.  In Illinois, we currently
          have 419 active surface aggregate mines -- stone, sand,
          gravel, silica sand, clay -- 419 active surface aggregate
          mines, and also six active underground aggregate mines. 
          According to MSHA statistics, the Illinois non-coal mining
          industry employs approximately 3,519 employees.  That's your
          statistics.
              So you need to consider what these statistics
          mean.  We have 20 sand, gravel, and stone mines in Illinois
          for every one coal mine roughly.  Yet there are more coal
          miners than aggregate miners in our state right now. 
              Given these statistics, it stands to reason that
          MSHA's Part 48 mine safety training rules, regulations
          designed primarily for underground coal mines with large
          work forces, are not appropriate for us.
              The majority of our companies have small work
          forces.  The majority of our companies hire one miner at a
          time.  The majority of our companies do not have central
          office staffs, dedicated to compiling and filing government
          paperwork.  Finally, underground coal mines and surface
          aggregate mines don't have the same safety challenges. 
          Again, given the structure of our industry, MSHA's new rules
          must minimize paperwork and maximize flexibility, to be
          truly effective. 
              And that's what we're here for today.  That's
          what I'm talking about, and that's what I know that you're
          working on.  You want rules that are effective for us, that
          work for us and protect our workers.  And to do so, it can't
          be a mirror image of Part 48; it can't track the mistakes of
          the past.
              The Coalition for Effective Mine Training, the
          CEMT, has put together a draft set of rules as an
          alternative to MSHA's Part 48.  These rules comply with
          Section 115 of the Mine Safety and Health Act, and these
          rules will minimize paperwork and maximize flexibility.
              Our association supports the CEMT proposal and
          submits that the following concepts developed by this group
          should be included in MSHA's new rules.
              MSHA's new rules should provide for the automatic
          approval of training plans that comply with the subjects and
          hours required by the Mine Act.  Thus, if an operator's plan
          contains what Section 115 requires, that plan is in
          compliance.  Automatic approval would eliminate the
          paperwork and time required by having MSHA centrally
          approving our plans.
              Secondly, the new rules keep the primary
          responsibility for training contractor employees on the
          contractor.  The contractor, not the mine operator, is in
          the best position to train his or her employees in the
          health and safety aspects of their particular tasks.
              MSHA's new rules should also make it clear that
          miners need comprehensive training.  Contractor employees
          need only be provided hazard training by the mine operator. 
          It doesn't make sense to require comprehensive miner
          training for people who need construction safety training.
              The new rules also must provide flexibility in
          deciding who is qualified to train.  Our industry must have
          the option of using employer-approved competent persons to
          train our work force.  Somebody who has task know-how and
          knowledge about how to do the task safely is as effective as
          an MSHA-certified instructor.  Certification alone does not
          equal competence.
              The new rules that you all will be developing
          with the input from our industry should promote flexibility
          in the delivery of training.  The rules should allow the
          operator to choose classroom training, structured on-the-job
          training, the use of modern technology, or a combination of
          all three.  the mine operator should choose the training
          mode that is best suited for his or her operation and work
          force.
              The new rules should be flexible enough to allow
          us to spread out the 24 hours of inexperienced miner
          training requirement over 60 days.  Spreading out such
          training not only is a flexible approach to this legal
          requirement, but it does improve and encourages retention of
          material.
              There's nothing magical about having that
          training stacked together.  You have it broken up and given
          to the new miner over that 60-day period.  I believe and we
          believe it will encourage the retention of the important
          things you're trying to impart.
              The new rules should increase the operator's
          flexibility in the selection of refresher topics.  Annual
          refresher training should address the most significant risks
          that a group of employees are likely to encounter and
          refresh employees on safety and health standards that are
          critical but rarely used.  The operator must be able to
          choose the refresher topics that are of most benefit to his
          or her company, site, and work group.
              The new rules should allow our operators to count
          attendance at safety meetings against the 8-hour refresher
          training requirement.  In addition, these rules should also
          eliminate the requirement that each session last 30 minute.s 
          There's nothing magical about 30 minutes.  This change would
          allow for effective training via short tailgate talks.  That
          can be an effective way of imparting important information
          to people.
              And, finally, the new rules should allow the
          operator to choose whether to keep training records at the
          mine site or at another, more central, location.  I would
          point out -- I know most of the members of the audience, and
          there are people here from all over Illinois.
              Some of the folks here have one operation that
          they own or are responsible for.  Some of the people in this
          room are responsible for training, safety training, in 25
          locations.  It doesn't make sense to have only one way to
          store and keep records.
              If it's convenient for the operator to keep the
          records at his or her scale house because they have one
          operation, that's fine.  If they have three, four, five
          pits, with a central office, it makes sense to let them keep
          the safety records at a central location.  With modern
          technology, it's quite easy to transfer data from one point
          to the other.  So the operators should be able to choose the
          record storage option that best suits his or her operation.
              All of these CEMT concepts comply with the letter
          and spirit of Section 115 of the Act while addressing some
          of the patent weaknesses of Part 48 in relation to our
          industry.  Moreover, such rules would be effective for our
          industry, because again they minimize paperwork and maximize
          flexibility.  And that's really what our goal is:  to come
          up with rules that promote safety.
              Let me conclude my presentation by touching on
          the need for a strong state grants program.  MSHA needs to
          carefully review the level of funding allocated to state
          grants programs during the next fiscal year.
              Given that MSHA's rules are to go into effect on
          January 1, 2000, it is incumbent upon your agency to ensure
          that adequate funding is in place to handle the upsurge in
          required safety training.  Absent an increase in such
          funding, our industry may not have sufficient assets
          available to adequately train our work force.
              Bear in mind the State of Illinois put in place a
          blasting program.  There was a one-year, for lack of a
          better word, wrap-up.  There was a one-year time where these
          rules were in place, where we could train all our people,
          where we could get our people certified, and get our
          programs on line.  Then the next year, after that one-year
          phase-in period, the rules became effective and were
          enforceable against our operators.
              As I understand what is intended of this rule
          package, they'll be effective or they'll be final, rather,
          in September of 1999 and enforceable January 1, year 2000. 
          That's a pretty short period of time to get everybody in
          compliance.
              Given that fact, it will be very important for
          MSHA to adequately support their state grants program, to
          make sure the state people can jump in and help us get our
          people up to 100 percent compliance. 
              We have an historic opportunity to put together a
          mine safety training program for our industry that works, a
          chance to correct past mistakes.  I urge you all to
          carefully consider our comments when you craft your program.
              And, again, thank you for the opportunity to be
          bale to discuss this group.  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  I actually just have a couple of
          questions.
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  Yes. 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  I don't want to put you on the
          spot, and if, you know, you want to submit something in
          writing or address it at some later time, that's fine. 
              You indicated that you believe the contractor
          employees should be provided hazard training only, and they
          don't need comprehensive training.
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  Not in the same regard as a
          person who is working at one of our operations.  Correct.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  And I guess what you're
          essentially saying is the assumption is that a contractor
          employee would not be directly involved in the extraction
          of --
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  Correct.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  I'm probably less familiar
          with the nonmetal industry than I am with the coal industry. 
          I mean, in coal, there's an increasing use of contractor
          employees in the production process.  Is that typical of
          your operations?
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  No.  That term of art is
          usually -- for metal/nonmetal is for folks who come on,
          contract haulers, people that might be involved in erecting
          machinery.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  So they don't get
          involved, typically, in the extraction process.
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  Usually not.  Again, I would --
          there -- we'll have some other safety professionals speaking
          that you might want to direct those particular questions to. 
          But as a whole, we're not the same as -- again, we're not
          like the coal mining industry, that may employ contract,
          like contract mining people.  We have some contract drilling
          people, but, again, that's another thing as well.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And then I just have one
          other comment and, again, a question, which you don't need
          to answer now if you choose not to.  But at the end of your
          comments, you were talking about the anticipated short
          compliance deadline after these rules, these final rules are
          published.
              We are under a deadline of publishing these rules
          by September 30, 1999, and that raises a question, once they
          are published, how much time does the industry and everyone
          associated with the industry need to get up to speed, to
          comply with the rules that are put into place.
              And I would say we are looking for some input
          from you all now or, you know, as this thing wends on, as
          far as what period of time would be appropriate for
          compliance.
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  I think a minimum of a year,
          because --
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  After the date of publication?
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  Yes, because I look at our
          association role is to work with our industry in this state
          and work with our sister associations, to try to make sure
          our people are up to speed, to help our folks.
              Again, it's a very disparate industry.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  We have people in this room who
          work for companies that are leaders in this continent on
          safety training, and you have people here also from small
          mines that also have excellent safety programs.  I'm sure
          they'll speak today.
              But we have -- there are some very small
          operations in this state, people with three, four people.  I
          visit operations that have two people working.  And it's
          going to take a long time to get these folks up to speed.
              And what is counterproductive is January 1, 2000,
          rolls around and have these guys be banged for not having a
          safety plan in place.  That's not productive, because all
          that does is they get a violation with this, but it doesn't
          encourage safety.
              I think at least a year.  I think it would be
          good for MSHA -- MSHA now has a safety component that's
          different than the enforcement component.  In fact, that
          person who operates out of Kentucky in this region is on our
          safety committee.  I'd like to be able to --
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Are you talking about the
          training?
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  Yes.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Jesse Cole [phonetic]?
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  Well, there's Leland from
          Kentucky is on -- Leland Payne is on our safety committee. 
          We'd like to be able to work with these people and partner
          on some safety training that will work, some plans that will
          work on some processes that work.
              We'd like to be on the same page with you all, so
          when these rules become effective, we can -- you know, our
          people can truly say they've had a chance to come into
          compliance; they've had a chance to figure out what their
          training program should be.
              So I don't think a year is inappropriate at all,
          and I consider -- I see us do training, and I see hopefully
          partnering with you all, through your regional training
          people, not your enforcement people, but your training
          people, to get our folks up to speed on what needs to be
          done, because our industry is not --
              We are a very disparate industry, very disparate
          industry.  Again, you have operations like Vulcan, and you
          have operations that literally have two, three people,
          working a little dredge somewhere, and they may or may not
          have been -- they, I'm sure, have been visited by MSHA,
          because that's your obligation to do so, but they don't have
          a clue a lot of this is coming, and we want to make sure
          that they get up to speed as well, so that they are
          protected.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Does anybody else have any
          questions?  Ron has a question.
              MR. FORD:  Could you talk about a little bit the
          kind of training that's given right now by your members.
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  I would like to defer to
          individual members.  We have some of our folks who are going
          to be speaking.  Again, I run our association, and I'm an
          attorney.  And my strong suit is not safety training.  I
          just have --
              I understand the general aspects of it, the
          weaknesses of Part 48 and what needs to be put in these
          rules, but we have some extremely qualified safety people
          who will be speaking today, that can talk about what they do
          and give you some ideas about what these new rules should
          contain.
              So I would, if I may, defer to their
          presentation.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Anyone else?
              (No response.)
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  All right.  Thank you very much,
          Mr. Henriksen.
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  You're welcome.  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  The next speaker on the list is
          Raymond Peterson from Video Information Systems Training
          Associates, Incorporated.
              (No response.)
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  All right.  Mr. Peterson isn't
          here yet.
              Randy Logsdon, Midwest Division, Vulcan
          Materials.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Good morning.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Good morning.  If you haven't
          given the court reporter a card, I'd ask you to spell your
          name for the record.
              MR. LOGSDON:  I can do that, and I have a written
          copy of my comments for her.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Yes.  If you've got a copy
          to give to us and to the court reporter, that would be
          great.
              MR. LOGSDON:  My name is Randy Logsdon, 
          L-O-G-S-D-O-N.  I'm manager for safety and health for Vulcan
          Materials Company in the Midwest Division.  I'm here
          primarily on behalf of Vulcan Materials Company.  The
          Indiana Mineral Aggregates Association has asked me to speak
          for their members who represent 92 percent of the reported
          aggregate mining man hours in Indiana.
              I'd first like to qualify myself by describing my
          experience and background.  I hold a B.S. in education and
          an M.S. in occupational safety, both from Illinois State
          University.  I have 15 years of experience in underground
          coal mining with three companies from 1975 through 1989.
              I've been certified as an instructor under Part
          48 by MSHA since 1979.  After nearly two years on staff with
          the National Safety Council, I re-entered the mining
          industry in my current position in late 1991.
              I'm responsible for overseeing the safety and
          health programs and processes, including safety and health
          training, for 25 active MSHA sites, including limestone
          quarries, sand and gravel operations, two lime plants in
          Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, and for several facilities
          regulated under OSHA and DOT.
              This is a diverse group of operations, ranging
          from production of less than a half-million tons to over 7
          million tons a year.  We operate in both urban and rural
          settings.  We boast an ethnic mix of employees and operate
          in both nonunion and union-represented sites.
              MSHA, industry and labor have a unique
          opportunity to take some giant strides in rule-making over
          the next few months.  Even under the mandates imposed by
          Section 115 of the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, new
          rules can be drafted that are flexible, effective,
          enforceable and based on sound research.
              I urge you to avoid styling this new regulation
          after Part 48.  The certification of instructions and
          certification of written training plans does not guarantee
          quality instruction or comprehension.  Arbitrary training
          times do not guarantee learning.  Neither assures us that
          what we teach will be applied.
              We can best be assured that our training is
          effective by evaluating our training based n performance-
          based standards.  Even the MSHA instructor training course
          that I took back in 1979 advocated performance-based
          evaluation of training.  That course, we spent a lot of time
          writing objectives and talking about evaluation.
              It's important for these new regulations to be
          founded on good research that will help direct us to use
          effective training and evaluation techniques.  It is
          unfortunate that Congress has imposed a strict deadline on
          this effort.  We need to exercise caution in our haste to
          produce a regulation by the end of this fiscal year, to
          ensure that the quality of the finished product will achieve
          our objective:  effective training.
              You raised some interesting questions in your
          opening statement, and I'd like to address those next.
              Regarding the definition of terms, it's not as
          important to define the target of safety training as it is
          to define the level of competency necessary to prevent
          accidental injury or occupational illness.  Even new and
          inexperienced miners come to us with an understanding of
          safety and occupational health concepts, as well as
          appropriate risk controls.
              The mining industry is not the only source of
          safety and health training.  Many of the unions provide very
          good safety and health training for their members.  Almost
          everyone has some qualifying skill or knowledge. 
          Prospective employees don't fit into just two categories.
              We should define within a training program or
          process the performance standards that reflect acceptable
          competency, assess the competency level of new employees,
          and train to bring those employees' level of competency up
          to or beyond that level.
              Regarding the issue of conducting training in one
          sitting or over an extended period, this is a decision that
          should be made based on the training needs for the employees
          at a given operation or a group of operations.  The option
          of conducting training in short segments, followed by hands-
          on experience, may be the most effective in many workplaces,
          perhaps not in other workplaces.  But offer the flexibility
          to conduct the most effective training we can.
              Regarding supervisor training, one of the primary
          functions of a supervisor is accident prevention.  I can't
          imagine a supervisor who is not intimately aware of the
          safety and health risks inhere in the work area for which
          he's responsible.  A new or transferred supervisor
          immediately familiarizes himself or herself with the
          conditions that are peculiar to his new responsibility.
              Regarding the training for new work assignment,
          employees do need to be aware of the hazards and risks
          expected with the jobs or asks they are asked to perform. 
          They also need to be familiar with the systems, tools,
          equipment, and procedures required to control those risks. 
          Let us evaluate the employees' competency before forcing any
          redundant training.
              Some skills are transferrable, and an employee's
          knowledge does not magically disappear after 12 months. 
          Depending on the nature of the ask, an employee may need
          only a brief instruction and/or the opportunity to
          demonstrate his competency.
              Regarding annual refresher topics, annual
          refresher training should address the most significant risks
          that a group of employees are likely to encounter, based on
          a risk assessment, and should refresh the employees on
          safety and health issues that are critical but are rarely
          needed.
              The most important topics will vary by
          organization, site, and by work group.  Frequent contacts,
          safety meetings or tailgate meetings, may be the most
          effective method to accomplish this refresher training.
              Now, suppose a pretest were administered at the
          beginning of a refresher session and then the selection of
          the session topic was based on the information revealed by
          that test, those questions that were answered incorrectly on
          a pretest.  This could be very effective, but it's real
          difficult to document that in a training plan that requires
          specific time frames and topics, instructors and
          instructional materials be identified in advance.
              Regarding training segments of less than 30
          minutes:  Almost any safety training has the potential of
          being valuable.  I've witnessed some very effective, what I
          call, off-the-wall training styles.  Consider a 60-second
          television commercial that's designed both to educate and to
          motivate, sometimes very effectively.
              Now, I don't advocate converting a training
          system into a public service announcement format, but small
          group discussions, one-on-one contacts, can be very
          effective as a part of a master refresher training plan,
          especially if they're reinforced frequently.
              Regarding the maintenance of records:  Within
          some organizations, the option of maintaining training
          records at a central location makes sense.  With the
          availability of the high-speed fax and e-mail capabilities,
          copies of records can be transmitted quickly to each site or
          even accessed directly via networked computer system.
              In the spirit of flexibility, it makes sense to
          provide the option to maintain a central training record
          system.
              Regarding the qualification of trainers, I'd like
          to repeat a statement I made earlier.  Certification does
          not guarantee quality instruction.  I prefer the term
          "competent."  "Competent" describes what we want: knowledge
          and experience that qualify him or her to train.  I borrowed
          some of that language from the definitions at the beginning
          of Part 56.
              A trainer should be able to produce a resume that
          describes his competency.  Some interactive training systems
          may be quite effective with only a facilitator.  Some very
          effective trainers can be supplied by safety equipment
          vendors, probably not certified but very good.
              The key is not who is doing the training, but if
          the employee learns and uses that knowledge.  Certification
          may provide only a false sense of competence.  You may argue
          that by certifying trainers, MSHA can exercise control and
          monitor the quality of instruction.  I respectfully suggest
          that MSHA doesn't have the necessary manpower to accomplish
          that level of control.
              I would suggest that MSHA apply a part of its
          training resources to the publication of a regular
          newsletter designed to convey effective training and
          evaluation techniques, not necessarily content but those
          techniques, to the industry; help maintain that level of
          competence with instructors.
              Now, we're also concerned about some other
          training issues.  As you formulate the final rules, please
          make every possible effort to minimize administrative
          requirements.  Let us concentrate on the actual training. 
          We don't oppose documenting training.  In fact, we find that
          documenting is valuable.
              Permit the use of documents that are meaningful
          to us, to our systems and to our employees.  The Act
          requires approved training programs, but it does not detail
          the approval process.  If the mine's training plan, program
          or process meets or exceeds reasonable standards, consider
          it approved.
              MSHA inspectors can review the plan, program, or
          process during regular inspections and confirm that it is
          compliant.  A group of sites within a company or region
          should be permitted to train under a single comprehensive
          training plan, program, or process.
              Apply to Congress for increased state grants
          funding.  This new regulation is likely to increase the
          demand for state grants instruction , even where good
          training is already in place.  Encourage the state grants
          institutions to provide more on-site small group training
          sessions, safety meetings and special training.
              Bring the training to the workplace where it can
          be applied immediately.  In 1997, Vulcan was able to use the
          state grants personnel to conduct special training in
          construction safety prior to beginning work on four major
          plant construction projects.  We experienced no serious
          incidents at any of the four construction sites. State
          grants institutions are a valuable resource.
              Many of the MSHA-regulated operations are also
          associated with an OSHA-regulated facilities -- recycling,
          rail yard, trucking, readymix, asphalt, and so forth -- and
          share employees.  Some employees are also shared across
          several mining operations under the same general management,
          but different ID numbers.
              New training rules should consider an employee
          trained at one operation within a system as trained at the
          other operations, too.  The rules should also recognize
          outside training courses as valuable safety learning
          experiences.  Why should a certified EMT be required to take
          first aid?  Also consider reciprocity with certain OSHA and
          other regulatory agency approved training.
              It is important to recognize that safety and
          health training is only a part, although a very important
          part of a comprehensive accident prevention program or
          process.  Such a process provides vital risk and compliance
          information to mine management.  The purpose for collecting
          such information is to identify deficiencies and to design
          appropriate interventions, problem-solving.
              Education, training, communication, either as a
          remedial effort or as a part of a process change, is a
          natural part of this process.  Vulcan managers and
          supervisors participate in this process on a daily basis,
          observing, learning, modifying, and training, sometimes
          formally and sometimes informally.
              Rigid regulation is not necessary for activity
          that will be done independently.  We understand that rules
          often are written to exercise control over a few
          uncooperative operators.  The rest of the industry must then
          live with that burden.  Can accommodations or incentives be
          included in these rules for operators who demonstrate
          excellence in effective training?
              The Act mandates certain safety and health topics
          that we are obligated to include in our curriculum for
          training.  Offer a liberal interpretation of the content on
          these topics.  Allow the remainder of the orientation and
          refresher training topics included in the training program
          or process to be site- or group-specific, based on the
          assessment of risk.
              Because many of our operations are very small, we
          rely on independent contractor services for a host of
          nonproduction needs.  Jobs involving construction,
          demolition, vehicle maintenance, electrical distribution
          involve hazards that are identical to hazards at any OSHA
          site.
              A primary reason for hiring an independent
          contractor is because we don't have the expertise or
          possibly the equipment to do the job safely ourselves. 
          Operators should not be compelled to provide training for
          competent independent contractors beyond what is necessary
          to address mining hazards to which they are expected to be
          exposed.
              Certainly if crushing, blasting and other mine-
          specific jobs are contracted, it's important for the
          contractor's employees to have comprehensive mine safety and
          health training, refresher and task training as required by
          the Act.  However, if under contract, it must be the
          responsibility of the independent contractor, not the mine
          operator, to provide that training.  That's why they're
          independent and they're contractors.
              The aggregates industry is closely associated
          with the construction industry as a supplier.  In northern
          climates, in particular, such construction work is seasonal,
          and at many of our operations, we have seasonal layoffs. 
          Refresher training is often scheduled in the spring, when
          employees return to active employment.  In some cases,
          employees are brought back to work in stages over a period
          of several weeks.
              Depending on the weather, primarily, the last
          employees may return in the thirteenth month following the
          last refresher class.  It seems to make sense to provide an
          exception in the new rules that would allow refresher
          training completion to be delayed for seasonal lay-off,
          provided that upon returning to work, each employee would be
          re-oriented to the workplace.
              I might add -- it's not in my written comments,
          but if we are doing annual refresher training in segments, a
          good portion of that training could be complete before the
          individual is even laid off.
              As I said earlier, industry and labor have a
          unique opportunity to take some giant strides in rule-making
          over the next few months.  We have the opportunity to create
          rules that are practical, flexible, enforceable, and
          effective.  If done well, this approach could be a model
          segments of the mining industry and general industry as
          well.
              I'd like to close with one rhetorical question,
          something just to think about.  Is MSHA's aim to produce
          rules that will be easy to enforce or to keep tabs on the
          industry?  Or is the aim to create an environment that will
          lead to truly effective safety and health training in this
          industry?
              Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Mr. Logsdon, I just have one
          question.  At the beginning of your remarks, you indicated
          that definitions were not important as far as, you know,
          newly employed, inexperienced, or newly employed,
          experienced, but that it's necessary, I guess, to assess the
          skills, experience, and education of the miner, to determine
          where he or she is and then determine where he or she needs
          to be in order to work safely at whatever mine site we're
          talking about.
              I guess I've got sort of two questions here.  How
          should an operator go about doing that, making that
          assessment?  And for our purposes, how should a concept like
          that be reflected in a rule on training?
              MR. LOGSDON:  Well, I think we're kind of stuck
          with the terms, because of the language in the Act.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
              MR. LOGSDON:  So it would be necessary to kind of
          maneuver around those, as it were.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Actually, come to think of it, I
          don't know how specific or rigid the Mine Act is with regard
          to --
              MR. LOGSDON:  I know it uses the term "new
          miner."
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  New miner, right.
              MR. LOGSDON:  And perhaps at some level of
          competency, we consider someone as an inexperienced or as a
          new miner.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.
              MR. LOGSDON:  And if an individual can
          demonstrate another level of competence, then they're
          considered --
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Something other than a new miner.
              MR. LOGSDON:  -- experienced.  Yes.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Which means that a person coming in
          may have some of those experiences and, for lack of a better
          term, may proficiency out of some of these requirements.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.
              MR. LOGSDON:  And then you concentrate on those
          areas that need improvement.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes.  I guess where I'm coming
          from is if, in fact -- I mean, we've obviously got to
          determine who's going to be a new miner and what factors do
          we look at to decide that someone is not a new miner and
          actually is in another category, so that the minimum
          requirements of 115 wouldn't necessary come into play.
              I mean, is it a combination of years of
          experience or months of experience, classroom training, or
          on-the-job training or -- you know, I don't want to put you
          on the spot and expect you to answer this.  But it's just
          something maybe to think about.
              MR. LOGSDON:  If we determine what those risks
          are and what the knowledge or information that a prospective
          employee has to have in order to be able to operate safely,
          then let's train toward that.
              You know, another example is we have two lime
          plants that, you know, the employees never get involved in
          blasting; they're not around high walls.  It's -- in
          reality, it's more of an OSHA setting than it is a MSHA
          setting.  Yet we're still kind of stuck with these same
          topics.
              On the other hand, if we have someone who
          transfers from a job at a lime plant to a quarry and he's
          been through the training, he's considered experienced
          because he's been through all this training, but he doesn't
          have that experience.  So we need to look at what those
          experiences are, what those competencies are, and train
          around them.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Thank you.
              Does anybody else have any questions?  Ron?
              MR. FORD:  So, I guess, like are you suggesting
          like if a miner receives training at one plant and then he
          switches employment to another plant, that he doesn't have
          to go to that -- go through that training again, just that
          he has received a training during a certain time period,
          that it doesn't matter at which mine?
              MR. LOGSDON:  Well, at each operation, obviously,
          you have slightly different risks, different hazards, and
          those need to be covered, either formally or informally. 
          And I think, you know, traditionally Part 48 has covered
          that on that topic.
              But, for instance, if we have an electrician who
          covers five or six operations, you know, is he going to have
          to attend annual refresher for each one of those individual
          sites that has a separate ID number?  And what do we do
          where you have portable plants, where you have three
          different ID numbers coming together at the same site?
              And there is a lot of -- even within our company,
          you know, a lot of moving people around within a region,
          sharing employees.
              MR. FORD:  You talked a little bit about the
          training, I guess, at your company which is Midwest Vulcan.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Midwest Division of Vulcan
          Materials.
              MR. FORD:  Okay.  Are they -- help me out here. 
          Are they -- would they be considered a large type --
              MR. LOGSDON:  I think so.  Yes.  Vulcan Materials
          Company is the largest producer of aggregates in the United
          States.
              MR. FORD:  Okay.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Midwest Division -- I'm not sure
          what our production in the Midwest Division is, but our
          McCook Quarry produces 7 million tons a year, and I think
          last year it was number seven nationally.
              MR. FORD:  Okay.  So what's the employment at
          your sites?
              MR. LOGSDON:  At our mining sites, our smallest
          operation probably has five or six employees.  McCook, our
          largest, at one time we had around 130.  We've done some
          automation.  I think we're less than 100 employees there
          now.
              MR. FORD:  So you have sites that are both small
          and large.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Yes.
              MR. FORD:  Could you talk about -- one thing I
          think you didn't talk about much was what sort of
          recordkeeping for the training that you give currently now
          do you have.
              MR. LOGSDON:  We have -- I'm not sure how far
          this dates back, but we have an alternate Form 5023 that we
          use for our orientation, annual refresher training.  Our
          task training is kept on a separate record.  It's a company
          record.
              Our safety meetings -- we have a system of
          monthly safety meetings that are supposed to be at least 30
          minutes long, as well as weekly and within other periods,
          depending on the need, tailgate-type meetings, that are
          supposed to be 10 to 15 minutes long.  Sometimes they last
          longer.  Those are kept on separate form as well, the safety
          meeting report form, the individuals' names, signatures,
          topics that were discussed, the time frame, that type of
          information.  It's all kept on file.
              MR. FORD:  So basically it's a sheet saying what
          was covered and who received the training and who gave the
          training.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Yes.  Questions that came up,
          discussions, things like that, that are entered on there.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Is that tailored to things that
          may be happening at the operation, or is it, you know,
          something that's dictated from some central location, as far
          as when those occur and what the topic happens to be.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Generally it's determined on site,
          by the plant superintendent, supervisors, with some input
          from my office, too.  Obviously we get fatal-grams, fatal
          accident reports, things like that.  We'll send a memo out
          to the superintendents, This needs to be covered at your
          next safety meeting.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  But it's stuff that comes
          from MSHA in the form of fatal-grams, but are --
              MR. LOGSDON:  From MSHA and from our own
          experience.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
              MR. FORD:  Okay.  And, again, this sheet is
          signed by each of the miners that received the training?
              MR. LOGSDON:  Yes. 
              MR. FORD:  And this, what we're talking about
          here, is applicable to whether or not you have a site that
          has 130 employees or a site that has just five or six.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Yes. 
              MR. FORD:  Thank you.
              MR. BURNS:  Randy, you asked about the new
          miners' training.  Part of the definition just says, New
          miners having no surface mining experience shall receive no
          less than 24 hours of training if they are to work on the
          surface.  And then it lays out the seven things of training.
              Now, I guess what you were talking about is every
          new miner's not the same.  I mean, some -- I mean, you could
          have a new miner coming from the construction area, who's
          worked on bulldozers, who may have driven -- may have
          operated every piece of equipment you have.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Loader operators, graders; a crane
          person is a good example, too. 
              MR. BURNS:  And then they might have some of
          these things that are listed:  first aid, electrical hazard
          training, emergency procedures.  So you're talking about
          some way to separate that person out from this 24-hour
          requirement versus somebody right out of high school that
          doesn't know anything, except that he's afraid of
          electricity.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Absolutely, yes.  And assess each
          individual.  I mean, this can be done at a job interview to
          a certain extent.  Even, you know, as the training begins,
          start to feel out what the individual miner's experiences
          and knowledge is.
              I can recall one person that we hired as a
          welder, and after a couple of weeks at work, he didn't
          really know welding at all.
              MR. BURNS:  He was a salesman, I guess.  He sold
          somebody that he could weld.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Good guess.  Yes.
              MR. BURNS:  Okay.  So basically you're really --
          what you're proposing is that the rule has to be flexible
          enough to be able to make those cuts.
              MR. LOGSDON:  That's what we're looking for. 
          Yes.
              MR. BURNS:  And the goal is performance-based.
              MR. LOGSDON:  That's where it is.
              MR. BURNS:  So that each individual ends up as
          safe as possible for that individual.  You can't guarantee
          that everybody's going to have the same knowledge and
          experience.
              MR. LOGSDON:  People learn at different rates. 
          People retain differently.  I can remember stuff from way
          back in 1975 when I took an orientation session at the first
          coal mine I worked at.  I don't remember all of it, but what
          I remember might be a little bit different than what someone
          else remembered.  So we need to assess with each individual
          what their knowledge and skills are and correct the
          deficiencies that we find.
              MR. BURNS:  And the other question I had was on
          shared employees.  I would imagine -- you didn't say it, but
          I imagine you would be doing this anyway.  Would you --
          certainly someone that goes from one mine to another, that
          someone different or even more or less exactly the same,
          you're still going to be doing some sort of hazard training.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Oh, absolutely.
              MR. BURNS:  Just to let them know what they're
          getting into that's different, just the underlying --
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Comprehensive training.
              MR. BURNS:  -- comprehensive type training that
          should be required.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Yes.  You know, the individual
          comes in.  In the wintertime, if we're doing a construction
          project, we'll borrow people from one mine to come in and
          assist.  As a group, they'll come in, and they'll talk to
          the superintendent, have a -- maybe an extended safety
          meeting.
              You know, this is the rules we have here.  These
          are some of the things that we have to watch out for. 
          Here's who you report to.  If there's an emergency, you
          contact this person; you know, some very site-specific
          training.
              On the other hand, you have an electrician who
          maybe is -- makes a circuit every week to five or six
          different places.  The update training, for lack of a better
          term, maybe doesn't have to be quite so comprehensive.  Just
          check in with the superintendent when you get in; he tells
          you, Look, there's going to be a blast today at three
          o'clock.  Now he knows now to be in the pit during -- from
          about 2:30 on, that type of thing.
              MR. BURNS:  I just wanted to clarify one other
          issue.  On the refresher training procedure workers --
              MR. LOGSDON:  Yes, sir.
              MR. BURNS:  I mean, I completely understand what
          you're talking about, but the Act is very specific on this. 
          It says, "All miners shall receive no less than eight hours
          of refresher training, no less frequently than once each 12
          months."  So it really doesn't allow much flexibility.
              At least, I'm throwing that out there, if you can
          think of any way to interpret that differently.  Sometimes,
          you know, statutes say "annually" or something, where
          there's a little bit more flexibility.  But I'm not sure we
          have much wiggle room in that area, to be quite honest.
              MR. LOGSDON:  I will have to admit, I don't have 
          solution for that.
              MR. BURNS:  I mean, I understand --
              MR. LOGSDON:  But it's worth consideration,
          please.
              MR. BURNS:  I think that's it.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Actually a gentleman has raised
          his hand in the back.  Have you signed up to speak, sir?
              MR. HOWARD:  No.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Actually, I mean, I don't want to
          take you out of order, but do you have just a comment on --
              MR. HOWARD:  Just a comment on --
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Could you just identify yourself.
              MR. HOWARD:  Yes.  John Howard.  I'm a trainer,
          work at Illinois Eastern Community Colleges, in the state
          grants program.
              I know one way to eliminate the 12-month time
          frame limitation and the problems it creates.  We deal with
          this all the time in the coal business.  Somebody's supposed
          to be retraining in December, and they're off on an injury
          and you have the Christmas holidays and New Year's, and they
          can't go back to work because they missed their refresher
          date, and so we end up sending an instructor out on a
          midnight shift to train one person.
              It's really pretty counterproductive in a lot of
          ways.  One way that we used to be able to do this, until it
          was kabashed somewhere, was we had a training plan.  Many
          coal operators have this, and it's said that the plan
          permitted that in December of each year, the final hour of
          refresher training would be completed, so people trained in
          November or October, the training was marked incomplete, and
          in December of that year, a one-hour session was held, doing
          a wrap-up or end-of-the-year safety performance or specific
          needs.  If somebody had a heart attack, they might need a
          CPA refresher.
              And in December, then, they would mark the
          training was completed in December, even though it may have
          been -- eight hours may have been done in October or July,
          but not completed.  They actually did nine hours, and it was
          marked in December.  Everybody was in the same training
          cycle that way.
              You could train with some flexibility, with
          seasonal lay-offs, which we don't experience in coal, but
          other little quirks that might develop could all be
          accommodated with completion of training in December of that
          year.  That would leave 12 months from December to go ahead
          and complete.
              And it was not used to circumvent the law.  Most
          people tried to stay within the January, February, the
          month-to-month training cycle, but had that flexibility at
          the end of the month to mark it as finally completed, and
          everybody's on the same cycle.  Again, it's really a very
          good idea, but obviously we couldn't do that, so that was
          kabashed.  I'm not sure why; it worked very well.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  You said it was kabashed.
              MR. HOWARD:  Yes.  Suddenly we couldn't do it
          anymore.  MSHA refused to approve the plans that had that
          provision in it.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  I see.  But they had been
          allowing it for --
              MR. HOWARD:  Had been allowing it.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  -- several --
              MR. HOWARD:  Several coal companies did it.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Mr. -- Ron?
              MR. FORD:  Yes.  I've just got one follow-up
          question.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you, sir.
              MR. FORD:  Just a couple.  Again, these training
          sheets that after training is received people sign, where
          are they kept then?  Are they kept at each site, or are they
          kept at some central location?
              MR. LOGSDON:  Currently we keep a copy on site,
          and we keep one at our division offices.  Are you speaking
          of the safety meeting record now, or the --
              MR. FORD:  Well, I don't know exactly what type
          of training, but you suggested that when training is given,
          that a sheet is produced afterwards --
              MR. LOGSDON:  Yes.
              MR. FORD:  -- that talks about the training, who
          performed the training, and it's signed also by all the
          miners that have been trained.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Yes.
              MR. FORD:  Okay.  That's the sheet I'm talking
          about.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Those are kept on site, and a copy
          is kept --
              MR. FORD:  One --
              MR. LOGSDON:  -- at the division office.
              MR. FORD:  One last question:  Is that done for
          every type of training that's given?  Or another way to ask
          this question:  Is there any types of training that you give
          by which you don't keep any sort of record or signature
          list, like you're talking about?  And if so, what is that?
              MR. LOGSDON:  Perhaps some maintenance training,
          perhaps someone from one of the manufacturers, Caterpillar
          or one of those.  We'll do a special maintenance training. 
          Some of the crusher manufacturers do some training.
              That's outside of my area, and I really can't
          address how records are kept of those, but I want to say
          that there's some record of who attended those and what the
          dates were.  We're pretty careful about how we expend funds
          for that type thing.
              But, you know, any safety and health training, we
          keep a record of.  If we have the Crane Institute of America
          comes in and does a crane operator training, they provide a
          certificate and list all of the employees that attended that
          and were either certified or passed their test at the end of
          the course.  And that's kept on file, probably more at the
          main office than it would be at each of the site locations.
              MR. FORD:  Okay.  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you, Mr. Logsdon.
              MR. LOGSDON:  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  I'd like to ask now:  Is Mr.
          Raymond Peterson here?  Mr. Peterson is from Video
          Information Systems Training Association, Incorporated.  If
          you could come up and spell your name for the court
          reporter, if you haven't given her a card.
              MR. PETERSON:  No, I have not.  The name is 
          P-E-T-E-R-S-O-N, first name Raymond.
              I'm Raymond Peterson, and I represent VISTA, or
          Video Information Systems Training Associates, and we are a
          developer and distributor of training programs, focusing
          primarily on use of mobile construction equipment and as
          used in excavating in the mining industry.
              We have some concerns about training in general
          that I would like to address to the members of MSHA today,
          and beginning with my concern with the development of the
          new rules, as far as flexibility is concerned to meet local
          needs.
              There is a considerable amount of difference, as
          I'm sure you're aware, between seasonal and year-round
          situations, and also the type of things such as limestone
          that I believe Randy was just addressing, where they're
          doing blasting as opposed to bank-run type aggregates.  And
          to have some flexibility to be able to meet those situations
          is extremely important.
              The other thing that we run into -- and we deal
          with mines of all types and all sizes all over the country
          and actually outside the country as well -- is the disparity
          in the size of the operations and the need for some
          flexibility there.
              The small mine -- and there are several of them
          around, the mom-and-pop type operations; it may be a little
          aggregate operation that have three seasonal employees, as
          opposed to the Vulcans of the world, that have several
          thousand employees scattered around the country -- have a
          great deal of difficulty in conforming to a single standard.
              The smaller mines lack of the expertise in-house. 
          You just were addressed by a gentleman named Randy Logsdon
          who has a field of specialty within a region.  The small
          mine that is run with four employees doesn't have that
          luxury.
              So, consequently, they have a great deal of
          difficulty in, number one, understanding some of the rules;
          number two, finding resources to be able to fulfill their
          training needs; and, number three, finding the time and
          having the internal expertise to be able to conduct the
          training that is required of them.
              Simply knowing the job does not necessarily make
          a person a trainer or give them the capability to be able to
          transfer that knowledge that they have gained to other
          people.  So you run into a vast disparity in the quality of
          training that is done, as well as the ability to meet some
          of the requirements that are on them.
              So I believe that in any new training, there
          needs to be some flexibility to accommodate not only the
          mine owners, the size of the mines, but also some of the
          technology and training advances that come along.
              And the technology extends to the equipment that
          is available at these mines, as well as the technology for
          training.  A case in point is high interest at the present
          time in CD-ROM type training.  The vast majority of the
          small mines do not have the CD-ROM capability at the present
          time.  The smaller operations, some of them, may not even
          have a computer yet.  And yet they're held to the same
          standard as any other mines.
              So it's difficult for them to be able to
          accommodate or meet the needs that are being placed, the
          burden of training, that is being placed on them.  They need
          to be able to have some kind of an outside resource or some
          other resource where they can get these things, and I
          believe it is incumbent on MSHA to be able to provide the
          information that is available for some of these resources.
              You have to understand that I'm a provider of
          these resources, so I speak with a bias.  I certainly don't
          expect that we're the only provider of this type of thing,
          and to have some kind of a resource list available through
          printed material or some mailer or something would help
          these people a lot.
              I think there also needs to be, in the
          development of any new rules, some concerns for some
          standards.  There's standards being developed in the
          construction industry at the present time for operators of
          mobile construction equipment.  There are standards being
          developed for instructors that will eventually wind up as an
          ANSI standard that hopefully will become an ISO standard. 
          As you know, those things take a long time, but it's in
          process.
              We have a member of our company that sits in one
          of the committees that is developing the standard for
          instructors.  I think that needs to be a consideration. 
              There has to be an acceptance of some different
          training methods, such as CD-ROM, CVT, videos, simulator-
          type training, things of that nature, and even hands-on type
          training with what I have to refer to as a qualified
          instructor.
              I'm going to revert to a remark that I had made
          earlier where I said not everybody is a qualified
          instructor, and that's where it becomes difficult.
              Frequently in the mines that we have worked in --
          and we've worked in large coal mines, the open-pit type
          operations in the far west, as well as the small aggregate
          operations throughout the country -- we find that a typical
          mistake is that they will take what they consider to be
          their best operator and put their new people on a piece of
          equipment with them, and say, Here, show them how to safely
          run this.
              There is no standard for that to be done.  The
          fact that this person may be a good operator does not
          necessarily make them a good instructor, and there doesn't
          seem to be any written format for them to follow in most
          situations.  So it becomes a very difficult situation to
          evaluate the effectiveness of the training, simply because
          nothing has been established as far as the standards.
              I also believe that there needs to be an
          evaluation of any training materials by qualified
          instructional design people.  Instructional design is a
          highly specialized field, because you are attempting to
          influence human behavior, and the way materials are
          developed will have, can have, an impact on that.
              Whether it be positive or negative is highly
          dependent on the individuals that are creating and providing
          the materials.  There has to be concern for the subject
          matter, for the content, the effectiveness of the training,
          and for the testing.  The testing is really one of the major
          concerns when it comes to development of training materials.
              The only way that you can tell if a person has
          absorbed and understood and can respond to what they have
          been trained on is through some type of testing procedure. 
          The test may be a physical test, where they have to do
          something, follow some particular procedure.  It may be a
          written test.  A lot of people clutch when it comes to a
          written test, so that's not a real evaluator, but there
          nonetheless has to be some form of testing.
              There has to be some records kept of that
          testing, as to how effective it was, and there really needs
          to be some type of a centralized record system.  You have a
          system within the company at the present time that has been
          used effectively with the construction industry, where we
          have people go through courses, and we then maintain a
          computer record of those courses.
              We have had a number of situations where people
          have called in for copies of their own personal records,
          because they may be applying for a job at a different
          employer and want to be able to take that with them.
              They have also been used effectively in defending
          themselves mostly in OSHA litigation situations, to have
          those records available from a central source, and it's
          become more popular as a result of the use of this type of
          thing.
              I think that needs to be considered in the
          development of mining, because of some of the testimony that
          you may have already heard here, that miners do not always
          work for the same employer, and they may move from one
          location to another, and they need to be able to take that
          training data that reflects their background with them.
              That concludes my remarks.  I'm available for
          questions.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Mr. Peterson, you indicated that
          you believe that any training materials that are used need
          to be evaluated.
              Are you speaking primarily to MSHA in its
          capacity as being the facilitator of compliance with this
          role, particularly helping small operations?  Or are you
          saying that you believe a rule that MSHA promulgates should
          include something or some kind of evaluation to ensure that
          the materials are going to be adequate and effective?
              MR. PETERSON:  When it comes to training that is
          mandated by MSHA, whether it's a particular topic, then I
          believe that it is incumbent on MSHA to evaluate the
          training materials that are developed to be able to do that
          type of training. 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And also you indicated
          that some kind of testing or, I guess, assurance needs to be
          had, that the person who's been trained has actually learned
          something and retained something.  Again, are you suggesting
          that the rules should provide for some kind of follow-up
          testing to make that determination?  Or is that just in the
          way of, you know, just a recommendation?
              MR. PETERSON:  I believe it would be beneficial
          if it were used in the right way.  One of the problems that
          we encounter with some of the testing is the fact that if a
          person takes a test and let's say they get a score of 75 or
          80 on the test; there are certain things that they have
          missed.
              Now you have a printed record of that.  When it
          comes to a litigation situation, if an accident has
          occurred, that information conceivably could be used against
          them, that the employer was aware of the fact that this
          person did not comprehend the information that was presented
          to them in this specific category, and consequently, it was
          incumbent on the employer, then, to go back and make sure
          that they were trained.
              So it's a double-edged sword.  You do need the
          record that the person has been trained and that they
          understood certainly a portion of that material.  But if
          that is used against them, you're going to find employers
          that will be reluctant to use it at all.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
              MR. FORD:  Mr. Peterson, does your company go to
          a mine or site and provide a full training program?  Or do
          you provide just specific types of training?
              MR. PETERSON:  We provide specific types of
          training.
              MR. FORD:  So what's your experience out there? 
          Do people come to you, especially with the small mines; do
          they come to you and say, We don't -- we want you to set up
          a training program for us, because we don't have one?  Or do
          they have one already in place, and you just have to tune it
          up a little bit?  What have you found?
              MR. PETERSON:  You rarely have one in place for
          the smaller mines, and I'm going to limit the smaller mines
          in this remark to mines employing ten or less people.  They
          rarely have any kind of a system in place and are looking to
          an outside resource like ourselves to be able to come in and
          help them out.
              MR. FORD:  In that type of situation, where you
          have to set up a program for a mine that doesn't have one,
          especially a smaller mine, can you give us a range of what
          the price might be to do that?
              MR. PETERSON:  It'll run, depending on the number
          of employees, anywhere from 500 to $1,000.
              MR. FORD:  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  I think -- thank you, Mr.
          Peterson.
              We're going to have a short break now -- I'm
          sorry, Rod.
              MR. BRELAND:  I'm sorry.  I just had one
          question.
              MR. PETERSON:  Sure. 
              MR. BRELAND:  You brought up about the
          instructors, on the best equipment operator's not
          necessarily the best instructor.  I was a little curious how
          you would think or propose that a competent instructor be
          defined.
              MR. PETERSON:  Those are some of the regulations
          that we're working on right now with the ASSE, the American
          Society of Safety Engineers, the committee that we're seated
          on.  And there is a definition being written that will be
          used as an ANSI definition for qualified instructor, and
          much of it has to do with personal experience, but a lot of
          it has to do with their ability to effectively transfer
          information, deal with questions, recognize shortcomings on
          the part of the person being trained, and recommend methods
          to overcome that.
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  You said that's going to
          eventually be an ANSI standard.  Is there a draft of that
          standard, or has it not yet gotten to that point?
              MR. PETERSON:  I think at the next meeting, which
          is scheduled in the spring, they will have the draft
          completed.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  But there's nothing that's
          been published.
              MR. PETERSON:  No.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  It's still in the committee,
          being worked on?
              MR. PETERSON:  Yes. 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
              MR. PETERSON:  The committee had met in September
          last time, and the new draft, proposed draft, which is now
          out for comment by the committee members, just arrived last
          week.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  And ISO is not any -- I mean, is
          less far along than ANSI.
              MR. PETERSON:  It's my understanding that ISO
          does not have a standard in this regard yet, and they're
          looking to ANSI --
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  As a point of departure?
              MR. PETERSON:  Right. 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  To develop something for
          ISO at some point in the future.
              MR. PETERSON:  So we're looking a few years down
          the road before we've got an ISO standard, I'm afraid.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  All right.  Thank you very
          much.
              And I would say 15 minutes.  I've got about 26
          after 9:00, so maybe come back about 20 till 10:00.  And,
          again, if you would like to speak and have not signed up,
          I'll put the speakers list in the back, and I also ask that
          anyone who has not signed up on the attendance list, also
          sign up.  It's also in the back.
              (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Actually, we're going to ask if
          Mr. Peterson could speak back up to the speaker's chair, and
          the reason is Ron Ford, who works in the Office of Standards
          for MSHA, is trying to gather information for the cost that
          various provisions of the rule may add up to, and the reason
          is that, as many of you probably already know, when MSHA
          does propose and issue final rules, along with the rule, in
          the preamble is a statement of the estimated costs of
          compliance with the rule, and Ron has a few additional
          questions that he would like to ask Mr. Peterson on that
          topic.
              MR. FORD:  Thanks, Mr. Peterson.
              You quoted a 500 to $1,000 price to set up an
          entire program for a small-type site.  That's ten or less
          people.  First of all, can you tell me what "entire training
          program" means.  What does the person get for that, the
          miner operator?
              MR. PETERSON:  For something like that, they
          would get basically one day of training, and the training
          would cover the basic requirements as stated by MSHA at the
          present time, and it would be an instructor or possibly two
          instructors, putting on eight-hour training course.  It
          would include instruction, some handout materials, some
          exercises and also some testing and evaluation.
              MR. FORD:  Okay.  So the aspects of how to set a
          training program and how to keep records, the mine operator
          would do that on his own.
              MR. PETERSON:  Right.
              MR. FORD:  Could you give me the idea of the
          price range -- it doesn't have to be for your particular
          company, but for entities that do what you do -- to go to
          like a mid-size site and what you would determine a mid-size
          site, and also what you would -- a price range for a large
          site.  How many employees would you consider?
              MR. PETERSON:  Okay.  We generally would put mine
          operations with anywhere from 10 to 25 employees in the mid-
          size range.  Because of the efficiencies that exist in
          mining at the present time, there's -- mining is done
          without an awful lot of employees.
              When you get into the larger employers, we
          haven't had the opportunity to work with them, because they
          are primarily self-sufficient.  The Vulcans of the world,
          the Martin Mariettas, the people like that are -- have their
          own internal operations, and we have not been asked in to do
          some of that training for them.
              We supply training materials that they will use,
          but we do not do the training for them, so I can't directly
          address that.  However, for the mid-size mines, costs would
          vary with the amount of training that they wanted to do and
          the number of employees that they wanted to put through at
          any given time, but I will give you a range; that's all it
          is.  It will run anywhere from, oh, generally a low of
          around $3,000 to a high of 7- or 8,000.
              MR. FORD:  Okay.  And the training we're talking
          about here is you're coming in and giving basic training to
          people that don't have any training at all, more or less.
              MR. PETERSON:  Generally.
              MR. FORD:  Okay.  What about -- do you come back
          also and give like refresher-type training?
              MR. PETERSON:  Yes.  We also do evaluations of
          equipment operators, and then we will do training of the
          equipment operators themselves.  And you run in to a wide
          range.  In evaluation --
              For example, we just did an evaluation for four
          operators on a operation in Wisconsin, and it took -- it was
          a one-day operation, and there were three people, three
          instructors from VISTA involved, and it cost them $1,500. 
          So about $750 per instructor, per day, is a rule of thumb. 
              MR. FORD:  Okay.  And these were at four
          different sites?
              MR. PETERSON:  No.  These were all at the same
          site.
              MR. FORD:  Same site?
              MR. PETERSON:  They had four operators they
          wanted to have -- they were applying for jobs as equipment
          operators in this application, and they wanted to know if
          they had the talents and capabilities to be able to fulfill
          that function.
              MR. FORD:  Okay.  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much.
              The next speaker on the list is William Pautler,
          from Kincaid Stone Company.
              MR. PAUTLER:  My name is William Pautler, spelled
          P, as in Paul, A-U-T, as in Tom, L-E-R.
              My brother and I are owners of a small quarry in
          extreme southern Illinois, called Kincaid Stone Company.  We
          also are majority owners of a mid-size operation in a
          western state.
              First, I want to thank you, the panel, and I'd
          like to thank Carol Jones, Mr. McAteer, and Congress for
          permitting this dialogue to take place.
              I'm here as a small miner or small quarry
          operator, as you choose.  My background is this.  This year,
          Kincaid Stone Company won the NSA Sterling Award for Safety
          with an incident rate of 0.00.  As of this morning at 6:30,
          we had completed 17 years, 11 months, and 6 days without a
          lost-time accident.
              I'm going to change the pace a bit.  For one
          thing, I want to tell you, if you look at the speakers sheet
          and expect to sit here 30 minutes, you're going to be
          greatly disappointed.  I want to talk to you about how the
          smaller quarries feel.  I'll be specific how we feel, but I
          think it is generally the same feelings that other quarries
          have.
              With that safety record, I want you to know that
          we are completely, fully interested in safety and have
          accomplished that interest.  We believe that a structured
          training program in emergency procedures, first aid, hearing
          and sight protection, has commonality with all places of
          business, and that those things can be taught on a very
          structured basis.
              We have been very privileged at our operation to
          have an instructor from Logan College who was involved with
          his father and brother in a small gravel pit in Wisconsin
          before he finished his college and had become an instructor,
          and he does a marvelous job of cutting through the chaff,
          and he knows where the problems are.  And the men are
          impressed by this.
              I believe in the area of hazard training, task
          training, that these need to be site-specific.  I do not
          believe that there are enough words to write regulations to
          enforce all of the various conditions that exist on the
          differing sites.  No two of us here in this room today have
          a site that is exactly like the other person's.
              The other thing I would like to address is that
          we would like to keep paperwork to the minimum.  We believe
          that the supervisors are the first line of safety.  If the
          supervisor is going to spend most of his time doing
          paperwork or recording what has happened, he's not going to
          have extra time to take a look at the operation and see if
          it's safe.
              I would tell you that few accidents happen in the
          office.  I believe and our company believes that the first-
          line supervisors are the people who need to go around and be
          observant of what is going on and to correct or improve the
          safety aspects that they see.
              The other thing I believe is that all safety
          starts at the top and works down.  If we the people who own
          the operations or are managers of the operations are truly
          interested in safety, and as we go about our business in the
          quarry and we review what is happening and we stop Joe over
          there, and say, Joe, you know, I think that maybe you're
          driving a little too fast on the haul road, or I didn't hear
          you blow the horn this morning when you started to back up,
          I believe that that gets more attention by the individual
          operator out there, than sitting and watching a movie that
          he considers bored.
              I would also say that my people, which I feel is
          a very good crew, some of which would take great offense
          after this time at our place, being forced to write a
          written test.  They feel that they know their business. 
          Now, if we can present a proactive type of program with
          them, where we involve them in dialogue about how this can
          be done better or not, it's very, very effective.
              But I know that they are somewhat hesitant.  I
          know this last week -- tomorrow, I am going to travel to the
          Cincinnati area to attend your underground safety program. 
          I'm only going for one reason.  I don't intend to be
          underground very much, but I know that if I go, my people
          will think and consider that I'm interested in that safety.
              And I certainly have things that I would rather
          do tomorrow, but I don't believe that I can afford to do
          that.  I think I have to go and give the opinion that this
          is an important function for me.
              I know that one of the people -- I asked who
          would like to join us, and actually we're taking our whole
          company, excluding of the old loader operator, and there was
          one man that declined.  And I know why he declined, because
          he has trouble with the reading and the language.  Now,
          that's it.
              And we're not by ourselves, people.   There are
          other people out here.  It was referred to earlier.  So I'm
          saying, from our viewpoint, let's try to -- I think that the
          record here that I bring to the table is a good record, and
          let's try to design this thing so that we get some really
          meaningful things. 
              I can tell you I personally, when I'm in the
          field and see something that is -- that shouldn't be, like I
          see somebody start to grind without any glasses, I just
          plain old raise Billy-be-damned with him, and I think this
          is necessary. 
              I mean, you can't legislate it, any more than we
          could legislate prohibition, but you can get people
          proactive on it, and they can operate safely.  And that's
          all I have to say.
              Thank you for the opportunity.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Pautler.
              The next speaker on the list is Ed Elliott from
          Rogers Group.
              MR. ELLIOTT:  Good morning.  I'll first give you
          a little bit about my background.  I am a safety manager
          with Rogers Group, Incorporated, and we are headquartered in
          Nashville, Tennessee.
              I have 20 years of mining experience personally,
          and five years of that has been in surface coal mining; two
          years of those five was dedicated primarily to safety in the
          surface coal mining, and then the remaining 15 years has
          been in the surface stone business.  We do have some
          underground operations also, but I've been with the Rogers
          Group the majority of that time.
              And, first, if I could, I would like to just read
          a few brief remarks.  First, thank you for the opportunity
          to give input into this process.  First let me say that
          Rogers Group, Incorporated, is committed to providing a safe
          workplace for all employees, and we welcome the chance to
          work with MSHA to that end.
              The intent of the Mine Act is to promote a safe
          workplace and give guidance to industry in how to accomplish
          this.  The Rogers Group places a high value on education and
          training, including that which impacts safety and health
          directly.
              The Act which was passed by Congress provides
          guidelines for industry to follow in making the workplace as
          safe as possible.  The Act, although obviously written with
          underground coal mining as its primary focus, gave guidance
          to the government regulators in their promulgation of rules
          to cover all of mining, and even today, that remains.
              As regulatory guidance was established through
          the rule-making process for industry, the training
          regulations were the state of the art in what would be
          required in the underground coal mining industry.  There had
          been very little in the way of educational principles
          employed by the mine industry in safety training and
          education.
              These regulations today are in need of serious
          review in that they no longer take into account the
          revolution in training and education techniques which have
          occurred in the last 20 years.  I will not go into detail
          concerning this revolution at this meeting, but at this
          point, I'd like to directly address some of the questions
          that you indicated in your request.
              First, about should certain terms dealing with
          "new miner" and "experienced miner" be defined, and I think
          it is important to have a definition.
              And I would say with respect to a new miner, just
          simply put, you're talking about someone who does not have
          mining experience and has not had appropriate training to
          that job which he's about to take.  Experienced miner would
          be that person who has experience in mining or who has the
          training, has taken the training.
              The second:  Which of these subjects should be
          taught, speaking of those subjects listed in the Mine Act,
          should be taught before a new miner's assigned work?  And I
          would suggest there are several of those.  One, instruction
          in the rights of a miner; the second, use of self-rescue
          devices or respiratory devices where those are appropriate;
          hazard recognition; and emergency procedures.  The other
          subjects I could believe would work best if covered during
          the work experience.
              Now, I might mention first aid.  This is
          something that, I think, of the requirements in the Act,
          this probably was more directed toward underground mining. 
          Years in the past, there have been circumstances where an
          employee might be even miles from the opening, where they
          could get assistance, and it was very important that they
          have people that were adequately trained, have tremendous
          amounts of materials underground.
              And many of us here have lived through the time
          period where the idea was just to, you know, do what you
          could, throw them in the back of the station wagon and haul
          them in, you know, and let the hospital take care of them. 
          But that has changed pretty dramatically.  And I think at
          almost every operation that we have, there is emergency help
          just minutes away, people that are highly trained.
              And we talk about first aid training, in that I
          encourage the employees to do no further harm.  I don't know
          if something happened to me right here, if I fell and
          injured my leg in this room, I would want to make sure that,
          unless someone here had a lot of experience taking care of
          me, I would want to make sure that they did no further harm,
          until someone highly trained could get there to handle the
          situation. 
              Should training for inexperienced miners be given
          all at once or spread out over a period of time?  I think
          definitely it needs to be spread out over a period of time. 
          The problem with many new employees today, at least in our
          company -- you're overwhelmed with a tremendous number of
          things when you first come to work.  You're trying to find
          out -- to sign up for your taxes, to sign up for your
          benefits, to look at the different policies and procedures.
              And through educational principles, which I
          didn't mention earlier on -- I do have a bachelor of science
          in education from -- I guess, here in the state it would be
          appropriate to mention -- Eastern Illinois University, that
          I'm quite proud of.
              But in those -- some of those principles, you
          recognize there is a time period for a new employee to
          change behaviors, to learn a lot of new ideas, so the time
          period that that training should cover should be somewhat, I
          think, restricted to a period of time less than a year that
          they would have all the required training.
              Should supervisors be subject to the same
          training requirements as miners?  Yes.  I think that's
          clear.  They are exposed to many of or all of the same
          hazards that any miner would.
              Task training:  Should training be required
          whenever a miner receives a work assignment that involves
          new and unfamiliar tasks?  Answer simply to that is yes. 
          That's just common sense, that anyone going to a new task
          should learn some of the fundamentals of that task, which
          would include safety.
              Annual refresher training:  Should specific
          subject areas be covered?  Yes, they should.  And those
          subjects should be -- they should pertain the fundamentals
          that are listed in the Act, with interpretations based on
          whatever is applicable to that work environment and not
          something that is set out in a regulation that would be
          inconsistent with what might be at that operation.
              Can eight hours of refresher training be
          completed in segments of training lasting less than 30
          minutes?  I think certainly so.  As has been mentioned a
          couple of times in here, there are opportunities where
          training can be just as short a time as 30 seconds to a
          minute.
              If an experienced employee were to see an
          inexperienced employee doing something improperly, stop that
          inexperienced employee and explain to them the proper way to
          do that.  That could be the most important training that
          they receive.
              And also about the testing:  I want to mention,
          in our company, we have a policy that requires, after any
          training, an assessment.  And I thin the word "assessment"
          is important in that the assessment can take many forms.  It
          could take the form of a written test; it could take the
          form of an observation of an employee doing a task.  It
          could be something as simple as asking an oral question; it
          could be any number of things.  But to assess the
          understanding of the training is the most important thing.
              Should records of training be kept by the mine
          operator at the mine site?  This isn't really a problem for
          us.  We require that at each of our operations.  But I do
          think technologically we're reaching the point today that
          the information that can be retained at a central location
          could be easily duplicated and forwarded to any site, fax
          machines.
              I think e-mail is one of the greatest things
          that's ever come around, but unfortunately, I think, sooner
          or later, the telephone company or somebody's going to get
          into that, because they're not making enough money off of
          it, so that may change in the future.
              But it's just a lot easier to get that
          information, so just making sure that we have documentation,
          I think, is the important thing.
              Qualification of instructors:  Should there be a
          minimum qualification for people who conduct this training? 
          I think that we need to be careful when we talk about
          standards for instructors, and I mean no disrespect to many
          of the agencies out there that are professional
          organizations, such as the ASSE.  I've been a member of
          that.  There are a number of other excellent organizations.
              But when you start applying some minimum
          qualifications, I think it's as important that we should
          focus on the subject matter, not who does the training. 
          Now, it's important that there -- whatever technique that
          that person is using should be effective in achieving the
          objectives of the training.
              If I want to teach someone the proper way to put
          on their seat belt, I may be able to do a great job, may put
          on a video, may put on a song and dance; I may have a
          degree -- you know, degrees that would fill up a page of
          paper, but the real key element is making sure that whatever
          technique is used, whatever that instructor, methods they're
          using, is effective.
              And I think that's what the focus on those
          minimum requirements should be, not on having someone to
          say, They must have a two-year degree in training, or
          something along those very specific guidelines.
              That covers the elements that you mentioned in
          the -- in your handout earlier, but I want to mention about
          the state grants program.  The state grants program in some
          states is outstanding.
              I have to say that we have had quite a bit of
          experience in Indiana in the state grants program, and I
          think they put, in the areas that I work in, in the states
          that I specifically work in, which is Alabama, Tennessee,
          Arkansas, Kentucky, and parts of Virginia, that Indiana has
          one of the best programs that I've ever seen.
              And I have to say Kentucky has one of the worst I
          have ever seen with respect to helping in the aggregates
          industry.  They provide little or no training to the
          metal/nonmetal mining industry.  And that's an important
          aspect that you discussed earlier, about how long should it
          be before this takes effect.
              If there is a strong state grants program that is
          given a charge to go out and work with the metal/nonmetal
          mining industry, that will have a great impact on how
          quickly it can occur.  Certainly the industry has been able
          to mobilize a number of times in the past to address issues,
          and they'll continue to do that, whatever the timetable. 
          But I think that's -- that would be an important part of it.
              Something you mentioned earlier about
          subcontractors at stone mines, metal/nonmetal mines -- in
          this industry, there are almost -- at least in our
          operations, there are no subcontractors that do extraction. 
          I know in the coal business, as a matter of fact, the Rogers
          Group has worked with other coal companies who would be
          owners, and we have worked as a subcontractor in the
          extraction process in coal, so I understand the significant
          difference.
              But in the metal/nonmetal mining industry, it is
          more the person that is going to come in and maybe work on
          your office trailer, or they're going to come in and change
          a tire, or they're going to come in and repair a piece of
          equipment.  They're not actually doing the crushing of the
          mineral.
              I think I mentioned about being proactive within
          the MSHA organization, and I think MSHA is moving in that
          direction with the educational field services.  And this
          will be another very important factor in any change in the
          rules, that the educational field service can go out and
          really give an impact to the operator and can see them not
          as adversarial, not as someone coming to write them a ticket
          and fine them, but someone that's coming out there to help
          their operations to be safer.  And I think that will be very
          important, and I think MSHA is moving in that direction as
          we speak.
              And, last, I would just like to say, in closing
          that the industry does not need more regulation with
          restricts our ability to develop training and educational
          programs.  Performance-based requirements must be geared to
          provide the necessary flexibility so the large, small, and
          all in between can tailor training and education to meet the
          needs of their employees.  We can have flexible rules and
          still meet the intent of Congress through the Act.
              Again, thank you for providing a forum for all
          here to voice their ideas, and I am confident that by
          working together, we can achieve what we all seek, and that
          is a safe workplace, without overly burdensome regulation. 
          Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  I have a couple of questions for
          Mr. Elliott, and some of the other panel members may as
          well.
              Do you have -- and, again, I don't want to put
          anyone on the spot.  But you did mention the importance of
          the state grants program in making sure that implementation
          of a final rule is effective.  Do you have any opinion as
          far as what an appropriate compliance deadline might be for
          a final rule?
              MR. ELLIOTT:  I think giving a time period of
          approximately a year from the date of -- I don't know what
          actual -- what date would you call it?
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  It would probably be from the
          publication date in the Federal Register typically.
              MR. ELLIOTT:  Yes.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes.
              MR. ELLIOTT:  Because that would give some --
          enough -- in the metal/nonmetal industry, a lot of it is
          seasonal, so you're going to have a situation to where
          you're going to have a group of people during that first
          year.  They're not going to know -- and there are a lot of
          operators, quite honestly, that don't stay up on the rules,
          and so it's going to take a while to get that information
          out in the field.
              So I think if you consider -- it should be a
          consideration of a year or more, not -- certainly, by no
          means, less than a year, because of that difficulty in
          getting the word out to everybody.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And I have one other
          question, and you may or may not be able to answer this, but
          as far as contractors or subcontractors, typically is the
          issue of who's responsible for safety and health training
          for contractor employees addressed in the contract between
          the operator and the contractor?  Is that ever a subject?
              MR. ELLIOTT:  That definitely is a subject.  One
          of the issues that comes up -- I am not an attorney, but I
          have talked to numerous attorneys over the years, and you
          run into that problem with third-party liability and the
          contractual separation of the liability responsibility.
              And so we are very cautious in any contract that
          we develop with a subcontractor, that we make sure that they
          understand fully that they must comply with all applicable
          regulations, whether they be OSHA, MSHA, whatever is
          applicable.  It may be environmental regulations.  There are
          a number of things which might be covered on the site.
              And we are presently looking at how involved we
          are going to be as a company with the day-to-day activities
          with that contractor, because what you -- the problem in our
          litigious society, the way it is today, that you go up to a
          subcontractor and you start talking about the method with
          which they are doing the job that they're hired to do.  Then
          potentially that employee has the -- may come back, if
          there's an accident, and sue you for being involved
          improperly in that process.
              So that's a -- but we do make sure that it is in
          all subcontracts.  It is also on any purchase order
          agreement that we make with a supplier.  The items that they
          might provide for us would have to meet any guidelines.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  So when you have a subcontractor,
          then the expectation is they would be providing the
          comprehensive safety and health training and the refresher
          training that would be required. 
              MR. ELLIOTT:  That is correct.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
              MR. BRELAND:  I had one question on the -- you
          talked about the less than 30-minutes time frame for
          training, and that's been talked about a lot.  But one of
          the concerns that also comes up related to that has to do
          with the recordkeeping and minimizing that.
              Do you have any suggestions on how you would note
          an individual had eight hours of annual refresher in a given
          year?
              MR. ELLIOTT:  I think that's important in the
          performance-based training.  If I am using a format that is
          less than one class outline and so forth, I would need to be
          able to demonstrate to you how that was done, and if you
          came and said, Well, what did you do in that 15-minute
          training three months ago; Well, I don't remember, that
          doesn't count.  You didn't do the job.
              So there needs to be appropriate documentation to
          demonstrate that it's been done.  And we do that.  We have
          forms, safety meeting forms, where each employee will sign. 
          The supervisor will put the primary subject, and then if any
          questions arose and how they were addressed during the
          meeting.
              MR. BRELAND:  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Ron?
              MR. FORD:  Yes.  Mr. Elliott, I've got a question
          about a comment.  You said that crafting a rule in one area
          should be focused on subject matter and not the person who
          does the training.
              Do you have any ideas on how a standard could be
          crafted in the sense that it doesn't require perhaps
          certification of the person providing the training, but at
          the same time also, provides security that the best subject
          matter or the best method is being taught by someone who
          doesn't know anything about the subject or the method?
              MR. ELLIOTT:  That's an excellent question, and I
          have to admit I couldn't give you any detailed answer at
          this point with respect to that question.  But when you talk
          about methods, what is so hard to determine is a standard
          method.
              You can -- and we work -- and I do a lot of the
          training within our company, and there are employees who are
          very articulate, very educated, and quite knowledgeable.
              And then there are those that have been in this
          business, maybe, for a number of years, who did not have an
          in-depth education.  They have a great deal of difficulty
          reading and writing, and finding a person that can be
          supposedly certified and then give that instruction to where
          the person can understand it, it's not easy.  And I don't
          know there is an easy answer.
              But one of the things that I believe Mr. Pautler
          gave earlier about the situation where he had one of the
          state grants provider came in and gave the training, and
          could kind of cut to the chase, so to speak, and talk to the
          people on their level, and that's the -- I think the person
          has to be flexible, has to be knowledgeable about the
          subject matter. 
              But I just don't have a real good answer for you
          at this point, but I think it's important that whatever is
          used by the operator, that they be able to demonstrate to a
          representative of the agency how this is going to function
          and accomplish what needs to be done.
              If I am bringing someone in with a Ph.D., I
          should be able to explain to you and demonstrate to you how
          that is going to be effective with the subject matter.  If
          I'm going to us a loader operator, I need to be able to
          demonstrate that, too.
              So, again, it's performance-based, and the
          operator has the flexibility, but they need to follow up and
          explain how they're going to use those people.
              MR. FORD:  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Elliott.
              MR. ELLIOTT:  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  The next speaker is -- and I'm
          afraid I'm not going to do very well on pronunciation -- 
          Daniel P. Foltyniewicz from Risk Management Network.
              MR. FOLTYNIEWICZ:  Say that again.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Why don't you say it, but I'll
          say it after you.
              MR. FOLTYNIEWICZ:  Foltyniewicz.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Foltyniewicz.
              MR. FOLTYNIEWICZ:  Very good.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Did you give the court reporter a
          card or --
              MR. FOLTYNIEWICZ:  I believe I gave her an 8-1/2-
          by-11 sheet with the correct spelling.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Great.  Thank you very
          much.
              MR. FOLTYNIEWICZ:  History teaches us to be
          prepared, and December 7, 1941, we were attacked at Pearl
          Harbor, 57 years ago to the day.  Let's honor those that
          have provided us this opportunity by sharing their lives
          with us, so a second or two to honor the grateful dead.
              (Pause.)
              MR. FOLTYNIEWICZ:  Training has prepared us to
          likewise to go forward.  To give you an idea of some of my
          background, because I've listened to some of the others here
          mention their state schools that they attended, so I'd like
          to give equal time to the state school that I attended.
              My background:  In 1971, a bachelor's in
          communication from Northern Illinois University; in 1975,
          received my M.S. degree in communication, also from Northern
          Illinois; in 1979, received my C.A.S. in safety.  I'm
          currently 13 hours away from my doctorate.
              Taught seven years in the public school system,
          two years in the United States Marine Corps, and one year at
          Kubisaki [phonetic] High School in Sukiran, Japan, adult
          education.
              Since 1975, I've been involved as an instructor
          or supervisor in the education and training of mining
          industry personnel.  I'm here today as a concerned
          person/educator.  Even though some of the statements and
          comments presented by state associations and larger
          companies have been addressed, I felt it was a duty as a
          person to be in this room, likewise to make my voice be
          counted.
              Sometimes you don't see eye to eye with large
          companies, smaller companies, or medium-size companies. 
          Some of the concerns raised here today, I think, represent a
          larger segment of the mining industry, and either eliminate
          or omit some of the smaller interests, so therefore some of
          the observations that I've made since sitting here, and I'll
          try and be brief to the five minutes that I requested.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Take as much time as you need.
              MR. FOLTYNIEWICZ:  That may not have been the
          best thing to say.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Well, forget that.
              MR. FOLTYNIEWICZ:  I believe that effective
          employee training is an important part of the safety
          program, but it also includes other areas, but aren't
          limited to some of the subjects or the subject matter that
          was presented with the Mine Act.
              Management concerns should be involved.  Employee
          participation should be considered.  Certainly hazard
          identification, evaluation, and control should likewise be a
          part of that program.  However, part of any program should
          be its annual program evaluation.
              I believe and support the development of MSHA's
          enforceable effective training for employees.  Part of my
          training as a United States Marine, that I did follow the
          rules and regulations that were promulgated to us, such as
          in the M-16 rifle, we had certain guidelines that we had to
          know, had to be followed to make a minimum standard.
              Yet when we look at it, it should be goal-
          oriented and not restrictive nor constraining.  Lesson
          plans:  Many teachers, over the years that I had taught in
          school, in the public school system, many of the teachers,
          even though highly qualified --
              The Rogers Group, Mr. Elliott addressed the fact
          that there are good instructors out there that don't have
          the credentials, and they are well knowledgeable people in
          their field, that could present excellent material.  yet I
          also know highly qualified professional instructors that I
          happened to share with for seven years, that I wouldn't want
          as an instructor.  So let us not let the credentials be the
          criteria for the speaker.
              Current Part 48 addresses training requirements
          for coal and underground and other segments of the mining
          industry.  Training should be specific for those being
          affected, such as let's compare apples for apples.
              The unions provide excellent training likewise. 
          Yet at the same time, currently we do not recognize some of
          the training offered by unions or other organizations that
          provide work force personnel to our industry.  I have yet to
          hear anything address that as far as being a viable source
          of training.
              Requirements should be able to be met by all.  We
          cannot be half-pregnant in our approach.  If large companies
          can meet the need, we've got to make sure that the smaller
          interests likewise can meet the need.  The 17 years, 11
          months, and 6 days brought by Kincaid Stone is a valid
          reason and lesson for us to say that, yes, smaller companies
          can meet that goal, too.
              I feel the need to meet 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.  MSHA
          should have minimum guidelines for the aggregate industry to
          follow, as a guiding format, not as a dictatorial
          presentation.  To be effective, training must be
          performance-oriented, not set in stone, pun intended.
              Training should be recognizing current and
          changing conditions in the instructional techniques.  People
          brought up today about some of the high tech ways of
          instruction.  Let us not forget the basic approach:  hands
          on, one on one, face to face.  It is good to have CD-ROM,
          and it's good to have some of these changing areas, but
          nothing can meet the hands on, one on one.
              I believe the primary responsibility for training
          of an operator employee should be the operator. 
          Subcontractors or contractors are responsible for training
          of their own employees.  However, the operator should
          provide site-specific information and appropriate training
          for those outsiders. 
              For example, if you have a tire vendor who comes
          in and is going to be changing a tire hear a high wall, they
          should be aware of those hazards around that high wall. 
          Don't want to change and have that person listen to me about
          changing the tire, but to be aware and cognizant of some of
          the other hazards that that person may be involved with.
              In conclusion, MSHA would best provide offering
          the aggregate industry training by flexibility in that
          training that meets the needs of those being affected.  With
          the flexibility, the training goal of MSHA and industry can
          be achieved.  I think by working together it can be.  Let's
          not be restrictive; let's be goal-oriented.
              Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much.
              That comes to the end of our list of speakers. 
          I'd like to ask if there's anyone here who has not spoken
          who would like to speak, or if someone who has spoken has
          additional remarks that they would like to make before we
          close this.
              MR. WITHEY:  May I make a few comments?
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Sure.
              MR. WITHEY:  I think I'm perhaps the only
          contractor here.  My name is Mark Withey, W-I-T-H-E-Y.  I'm
          with Evenson Explosives.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Could you spell the name of
          Evenson?
              MR. WITHEY:  E-V-E-N-S-O-N.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
              MR. WITHEY:  -- Explosives, LLC.  And I'm in
          agreement certainly with training for our people.  We have
          more of a limited focus on exposure to danger.  Basically we
          deal with explosives, and we contract bore-hole loading for
          various producers in the state.
              Part 48 doesn't deal very well with contractors,
          and I would like to see that addressed in future rule-
          making.  I would like to see, perhaps, the Subpart C, that
          deals with training for specific contractors, not just
          explosive contractors, but there's drill contractors that
          are there, providing service to a producer. 
              And I think that if you narrowly focus on the
          areas that you're liable to find hazard and teach your
          people on that narrow focus and then have site-specific
          training as Dan had indicated, site-specific hazard
          training, because every location is different.
              We need to know direction of travel on haul
          roads, whether it's left-hand drive, right-hand drive,
          things along those lines, that you encounter on a daily
          basis.  The individual mine site is best suited to give
          site-specific hazard training, whether it be a presentation
          by a safety department individual or simply a piece of
          paper.
              A lot of the mine sites out west will give you
          one or two pages to read for your mine site, specifying the
          specific hazards that you should look for out there.  Some
          mine sites require that you have specific gear when you
          enter the mine site.  There's a large coal mine that you
          have to have a magnetic flag on top of your vehicle that
          extends six, eight foot above the roof of your vehicle, so
          you can be seen by big equipment.
              Things like that are important.  I'm not going to
          belabor the training that is specified in Part 48, but to
          have underground segments when you don't do underground work
          is really wasting time.  When you have specifically the need
          to have that training, then it should be part of an overall
          training program.
              But when you have no personnel that ever go to an
          underground mine site, they shouldn't have to worry about
          respirators or if I don't have personnel that are anywhere
          near electrical hazards, then I would rather spend time
          teaching my people about dealing with hazards that they
          would routinely expect to encounter on a daily basis.
              So if we could, as I suggest, perhaps do a
          subpart C, that would cover not mine sites but contractors
          to mine sites, I think that would be most productive and
          generally specify the type of training necessary for those
          particular contractors.
              Again, everyone in the room has indicated
          flexibility, and flexibility is -- I believe we've always
          had good flexibility from MSHA, and the personnel that I've
          dealt with over 30 years with the mining industry, I don't
          think really have had much problem with flexibility.  And I
          would think that that flexibility will continue.  I
          certainly would offer my hope that it would, and I think
          that's about it.
              I'll start rambling momentarily.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  I'd like to actually ask you a
          question.  You indicate that as far as you're concerned, it
          makes sense for the contractor to deal with the hazards that
          are peculiar to the service, I guess, that they're going to
          be providing.
              MR. WITHEY:  Sure.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  And then the operator will follow
          that up with site-specific training.  Is that the way that
          you approach training now at your operation?
              MR. WITHEY:  Generally, every operation that our
          people attend, I've been to, and I give kind of site-
          specific training, not -- most of the producers locally
          don't have or we've never been invited to attend site-
          specific training.  That's something that's more unique to
          the larger mine sites out west, that have lots of visitors
          all the time.
              It's something that probably -- the fact is I've
          written a paper and presented it to the academy a couple of
          years ago, about professional steps in blasting.  One of the
          items of interest, I guess, is that I suggested the
          contractors make their own site-specific checklist, and what
          we typically do to prepare our personnel for mine sites is
          do that site-specific checklist ourselves, for people to see
          conditions that are unique to that mine site.
              And that's part of our ongoing training, and
          we've talked about tailgate training.  And tailgate training
          is a wonderful thing.  We've had comments about stopping
          somebody doing something on site, correcting it immediately. 
          And you can't document that; you can't write a report about
          it.  I suppose you could, but you wouldn't catch all of them
          if you were in the office writing reports.
              But that's important, and I guess it opens up one
          last thought.  I'm on the task force for blasting here in
          Illinois.  I deal with DNR, Illinois DNR, our regulatory
          agency, and the IAAP, Mr. Henriksen.  And one of the things
          that we've brought up with DNR is when you set time, time is
          so arbitrary.  You could have an eight-hour lecture and not
          get ten minutes of value from an eight-hour lecture.
              You could have somebody that is animated and get
          more value and more use out of somebody that can interact
          with people and point to somebody and get him to say
          something, and all of our training is done that way,
          interacting between trainee and trainer.  So you're
          constantly getting feedback on how effective your training
          is.
              I guess to specify eight hours, I don't know how
          else you could do it for annual refresher, but the length of
          time is such an arbitrary thing.  The subject material is so
          variable, that you can't specify subject material.  You
          shouldn't specify time.  I don't know what other criteria
          there is that you could legislate. 
              But, I guess, last statement:  It's awfully hard
          to legislate common sense, and that's what we're trying to
          do here.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Actually, I have a couple more
          questions.  A lot of people who've spoken today have
          indicated that it's appropriate for contractors to be
          responsible for the comprehensive training of the
          contractors' employees, which would include the 24 hours of
          initial training and then the eight hours of annual
          refresher training.
              MR. WITHEY:  Sure.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Do you agree with that?
              MR. WITHEY:  Yes.  Absolutely.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And, also, do you contract
          at sites where OSHA is the regulating agency as well as
          MSHA?
              MR. WITHEY:  No.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  So you're not in a
          situation, then, where you've got -- you know, you're on
          sites with two different sets of safety regulations that
          come under training.
              MR. WITHEY:  No.  Right now, it's just strictly
          MSHA.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  All right.
              MR. BURNS:  I was going to ask you about the OSHA
          training aspect, but do I understand that you don't do
          drilling?  You just --
              MR. WITHEY:  Strictly explosives.
              MR. BURNS:  Okay.  Someone else does the
          drilling --
              MR. WITHEY:  Yes.
              MR. BURNS:  -- before you get there.
              MR. WITHEY:  Some of the larger producers have
          their own drills and have their own blast crews, and
          occasionally you'll be called in to do bore-hole loading or
          a specialty type shot.
              Some of the smaller producers don't have either,
          and they have to contract drilling to be done, and they have
          to contract for an explosive company to come in and provide
          shot rock.  So that's generally the area that we're in. 
          We'll come in and provide shot rock, once the holes are
          drilled.
              MR. BURNS:  Just to address the -- you indicated
          that some places you go, some of the mines you go to,
          they'll give you a couple of pages to read for hazard
          training.
              MR. WITHEY:  Yes.
              MR. BURNS:  Have you run into a situation where
          you have perhaps an employee that would have difficulty in
          reading some of these materials and understanding, getting
          the information that they need to get?
              MR. WITHEY:  I haven't encountered that, but I
          could see where it could happen, because our industry --
          it's a changing industry.  When I started back in the '50s,
          there was lots and lots of laborers out there, with probably
          fourth and fifth-grade educations, and that was probably --
          if you were a high school graduate, you were top dog in the
          field.  That's changed to some extent.
              And illiteracy, particularly in the states that I
          service, Illinois and Indiana and Ohio, I just don't see
          that many functionally illiterate people.  But we do have
          other folks that -- Spanish Americans, that don't read
          English very well, and I don't know if they provide
          something for Hispanics to read.  I'm sure that if it comes
          up, that they would.
              But we have a couple of Hispanic employees now
          that stay in the manufacturing aspect of our business, and
          we have to get first aid video in Spanish, because I can
          play it for them in English and they can see what's going
          on, but they don't really understand the words. 
              So, yes.  We have to be able to address -- again,
          this would be site-specific.  Because a person doesn't
          understand shouldn't single him out to be injured, so there
          has to be some way to communicate, whether you have to have
          somebody read it to them or interpret it for them.  Just
          don't go through the motions of signing something you don't
          even know what you're reading.  So I think that has to be
          addressed certainly.
              MR. BURNS:  I guess this is more of a general
          comment, as this issue continues to come up, as far as
          everybody here wants effective training, and I think really
          that's what these public meetings are about, this rule-
          making's about.
              The last thing that we want -- and I think
          anybody here wants -- is for you to end up where you have
          people doing compliance training and doing their safety
          health training in a different way, where they're really
          doing it on separate tracks.  And I think everybody here
          really feels that there really should only be one type of
          training that they want to do, and that's effective
          training.
              We need to develop a rule that allows that, so
          the required training is effective training, so I think that
          is what everybody here wants.  It's figuring out how to get
          there.
              MR. WITHEY:  Well, your district manager should
          be -- when they approve a training program, you should have
          the flexibility in that approval; if training programs are
          going to have to be approved in advance, you should have the
          approval to eliminate those areas that are specified in Part
          48 now, that you can't approve if you don't include them in
          the training plan, even though you really don't ever intend
          to talk about it, but you're just covering your
          documentation.
              Again, talking about self-rescuers, for people
          don't even know what a self-rescuer is and don't need one
          because they're on the surface, I think -- I would like to
          see the flexibility given to the district supervisors to
          approve training programs that don't completely cover all of
          Part 48, just the areas that are specific to the hazards.
              MR. BRELAND:  A couple of things to kind of
          follow up on what Kevin Burns talked to you about.  Do you
          think the operator providing a checklist that you are able
          to read would be sufficient to cover hazard mine site
          training?
              MR. WITHEY:  Oh, I think it would be.  If you
          have something particularly dangerous or particularly unique
          to the industry, maybe you'd want to take it a step further
          and have somebody go out and escort you the first time on
          the mine site, and many mine sites do that anyway.  They
          will take you to the area that you need to be in and ask
          that you not drive around on your own.
              But each site is so unique to itself that I think
          the hazard training for that site has to be evaluated for
          the site.  And if you do have fast-moving haul trucks that
          haul 250 tons or a thousand ton, there's some huge pieces of
          equipment out there.
              There's pieces of equipment you have to radio
          before you approach their circle of influence, because they
          can't see you.  And you might be within 300 feet and they're
          so high and have so many dead spots, that they just don't
          even know you're there.  You have to communicate by radio.
              And if you don't know that as a vendor or as a
          contractor, you could drive up and have a shovel swing and
          crush you, and he's not even aware that you're there.  And
          after you're dead, you didn't even know he hit you.  That's
          the worst part.
              So I guess you have to evaluate each site 
          individually, as to what method of hazard training site-
          specifically you need to provide.
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  One other thing on the
          training:  When you go to a mine site or contract with a
          mining site, do you offer them some sort of evidence that
          you have done your training of your employees?  You said you
          agree that contractors should do their own comprehensive
          training.
              MR. WITHEY:  If we're asked to provide that, yes. 
          But we don't offer it just offhand, but if the producer
          wants to see training records or training certificates, we
          can provide those. 
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  And then one other thing you
          brought up that I thought was interesting was the contractor
          site-specific evaluation, if you will, or checklist.  Do you
          do that every time you go to a new operation?
              MR. WITHEY:  Absolutely.
              MR. BRELAND:  Prior to your start?
              MR. WITHEY:  Absolutely, and write up the site-
          specific checklist.  We've got that at our -- you need a
          route book for delivery of explosives, and we have site-
          specific checklist for each site that we deliver to or
          operate in, and that's included in the route book, so it's
          all in there.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Typically when you're at a site,
          how long a period of time are your employees at a site, or
          does it vary quite a bit?
              MR. WITHEY:  Oh, it varies tremendously.  We've
          spent as little time as two hours to knock down 10,000 ton
          of rock, or a full day on a large shot.  So, yes.  You could
          spend as much time as probably eleven hours in one day or as
          little as one or two hours.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Is that usually the way that it
          is, though?  I mean, it's either a couple of hours or the
          most that you'll be at a site is for a very long day?  You
          don't keep coming back, you know, one day after or another?
              MR. WITHEY:  No.  Out west, they do, certainly.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  But your operation does not?
              MR. WITHEY:  But here in the Midwest, and
          Illinois specifically, we're not allowed to let explosives
          sleep overnight, unless there's a prior approval by DNR, I
          suppose.  But you don't design anything that would extend
          beyond a normal work day, that can't be detonated that day. 
          So it gets less in the wintertime.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes, I'll bet.
              MR. WITHEY:  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  If there's no further
          questions, thank you very much, Mr. Withey.
              MR. WITHEY:  You bet.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  And, again, I will reiterate what
          I said earlier.  Does anyone have any additional remarks
          that they'd like to make?  We've got a couple of people --
          this gentleman here, you haven't spoken before, have you?
              MR. STALDER:  No, I haven't.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Would you like to make a -- all
          right.  Well, just come up and introduce yourself.  If you
          want, you can give a card to the court reporter.
              MR. STALDER:  Thank you.  My name's Robert
          Stalder, S-T-A-L-D-E-R.  I'm a regional manager of
          environmental health and safety for U.S. Silica. 
              And I hadn't requested to speak, because I've
          only been in the sand side of the business for about eight
          months, but I have seen some things here that I have insight
          to.
              Maybe a little bit of my background:  I've had 18
          years of mining experience, underground coal, gold mining,
          surface and underground.  Fifteen of those have been in
          safety and instruction.  And I'm a CMSP, a certified mine
          safety professional, have a B.A. in education from the
          University of Wyoming, an MBA from University of Phoenix;
          been appointed to the boards of both Wyoming and Colorado by
          the governors for certification of coal mines.  And we built
          the tests and certified people.
              First of all, I think you folks have a very
          difficult task ahead of you, and I recognize that.  A lot of
          things have been brought up today that are general things
          that are problems and maybe not the solutions.  I found from
          some of the things I've done in the past -- I was a coach
          for seven years, and I probably learned more there than I
          did anywhere else.
              And I found that if the coach tried to make the
          players fit the plays, they always failed.  And right know,
          you're set into a situation that you're setting down a set
          of plays here that's supposed to work for a mine that has
          500 people in it and a mine that only has three in it.  It's
          very difficult.
              So with that, I found the successful way of doing
          it is to make the plays fit the players.  Okay?  You find
          out who your players are and then make the plays to fit
          them.
              I think the only way that that may come about
          from your perspective is regulations as being guidelines
          only and not specific, and the more specific you make these
          guidelines or these rules, regulations, the more difficult
          it's going to be for the operators to handle it.
              And I've heard comments today that some of them
          don't want to produce training plans.  Personally I think
          that's the only way that the mine sites are going to be able
          to handle something that's specific enough for their site,
          and I believe that it should be specific for their site,
          because each operation is different; it's unique.  And I
          don't care if it's exactly the same processes; it's still
          unique, due to the people that are involved in it.
              Therefore, I believe that the training should be
          geared towards the operation itself and specifically their
          needs.  I feel that supervisors are probably the best, most
          knowledgeable trainers in that particular area, and yet if
          we look for certifications, as certified or instructors or
          something, they're not going to have it.
              And they may not have all the educational
          techniques and everything else, but they probably know the
          safety that's involved in that task.  They know the dangers
          in that area and everything else, and they're probably one
          of the better communicators.  I'd like to see them be able
          to do training.
              In my situation, I'd like to see them do the
          training, with me being able to oversee it, but some of the
          operations don't have that luxury, I guess.
              I'd also -- something that would be beneficial, I
          think -- I found this in all mining, from coal mining, gold
          mining, whatever, is an alternate way of recordkeeping, the
          5023 method of filling it out and signing it and four copies
          and go here and there, and it becomes a paper nightmare at
          times.  I'm not sure that I have a solution for it.
              I'd like to see us use sign-in sheets or
          databases, where we can track it much easier, but that's my
          personal feeling on it.  I also realize that we need to
          ensure that there's not, for lack of a better word, lying
          about the whole process, that the instruction's actually
          being done.
              And those are the only comments that I had. 
          Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you.
              MR. BRELAND:  Just on the training plan issue
          that you're talking about, that you're opposed to submission
          of training plans for approval, you're saying you wanted --
          would expect to develop a training plan at your mine site to
          be specific for the mine --
              MR. STALDER:  I'm not sure I'm opposed to
          submitting a training plan for approval personally.  I know
          that there's some other mines here, and I don't want to step
          on their toes.  Like I say, I haven't been here that long.
              I don't see it get bogged down in, You need to
          have this, you need to have whatever.  I would like to see
          us be able to make a training plan, set up for our mines,
          and in my case, I have three different ones, and each one of
          them would be different, because they're unique.
              but I would like to see that, where we could do
          it, and it would be specific to that mine site, and it would
          be usable.
              MR. BRELAND:  So then you're saying that maybe if
          there was any evaluation, really, of the plan, of its
          shortcomings or whatever, but if you had a mine site, then
          consultation with the mine operator if there was some need.
              MR. STALDER:  Yes.  I'd like to see some of that. 
          I think it could be worked out that way.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  You say you're not opposed
          necessarily to the concept of submitting a training plan to
          MSHA for approval.  Do you think that that process can add
          value?  I mean, is it just that you don't have any objection
          to it, or do you think that that process adds value to the
          training?
              MR. STALDER:  I've got to be careful how I answer
          this, because, like any organization, there are people who
          are qualified, and there are people who are knowledgeable,
          and then there are people who are in positions that are
          neither.  It can very much add to the process.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  But it depends on who.
              MR. STALDER:  Yes, it does.  It certainly does.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
              MR. STALDER:  I would look forward to critiquing
          from another person that's knowledgeable and sees things
          that I missed.  I don't have a bit of problem with that.
              MR. BRELAND:  The only other thing you mentioned,
          some alternative methods of tracking, I believe, than 5023,
          did you have some specific suggestions?  You mentioned a
          database, sign-in sheets?
              MR. STALDER:  Well, I believe there were some
          regulations in the West, anyway, where we were able to start
          using the 5023s off the computer, but it's still a 5023. 
          I'd like to see -- I don't know if each mine wants to put it
          up or whatever, but if you have a database where you can put
          all your employees in there and track their training that
          way, that's nice.
              And, yes.  I understand that it's a lot easier to
          sit at your desk and type in names and say they've been
          trained than it is to get out and train them, so I'm not
          sure it's a solution in and of itself.  I like the sign-in
          sheet, and I don't have an objection to someone going out
          and asking an employee, Did you get trained on this date.  I
          believe we need to be accountable.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much.
              MR. STALDER:  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  And I will ask again -- Mr.
          Peterson?
              MR. PETERSON:  Thank you.  I had alluded earlier
          in my remarks to the need to accept existing and growing
          technologies, and there's been a number of comments since I
          spoke, as far as use of technology in the training process.
              To clarify a couple of points, technology is not
          a replacement for human or hands-on type training.  That is
          a given.  One of the things that bothers us the most as a
          producer of video-based safety training type programs is the
          fact that we know very well that people will take a video,
          sit a class in front of it, show it, and think that those
          people are trained.
              And one of the things that we try to emphasize in
          all the support materials that we send with our videos is,
          This is an instructor's device; it is not a replacement for
          an instructor.
              We thoroughly believe that, and we have never
          been able to replace the human element.  There are also
          technologies that do exist at the present time that cannot
          replace human beings.  However, they can support their
          efforts.
              One of the great mistakes that is being made at
          the present time, I believe, is an over-reliance on things
          like CVT and CD-ROM.  Sitting a person in front of a monitor
          and providing information to them has a certain value. 
          However, it cannot answer their questions on a spontaneous
          basis, and consequently, the value from a training point of
          view is suspect.  It can't interact with the individual. 
          That's really a major concern.
              One technology that I alluded to in my earlier
          remarks that we're involved in at the present time has to do
          with the training of people for the actual operation of
          motorized construction equipment or powered construction
          equipment, and that is simulators.
              There is a company that we're involved with who
          had developed a number of simulators for the military for
          training tank drivers and helicopter pilots and for gunnery
          practice and things of that nature, that is now making a
          transition to the civilian industries, and we have been
          working with them to redesign the simulator or at least
          adapt it to use for the heavy-haul mine trucks.
              That technology is available, and we have exposed
          some of the manufacturers of the heavy-haul mine trucks to
          this technology, and they, I can tell you, have a great
          interest in it.  I think this is something that, what I was
          trying to say earlier, needs to be considered when it comes
          to flexibility for training in the future.  These are things
          that are going to happen, and if we have a closed-end
          regulation, it precludes the possibility of some of this
          taking place.
              So I would urge whatever regulations come out of
          these hearings that are going on around the country, that
          they keep an open mind and try to build a regulation that
          has an open end and can accept some of the newer
          technologies that come along.
              One of the other things that needs to be
          addressed is the employment situation in the United States
          is extremely high.  The availability of trained employees is
          difficult to come by in many parts of the country right now,
          so consequently they seem to be getting an influx of
          employees with little or no training, and frequently with a
          language barrier.
              Where English is used as a second language, there
          are some technologies that are available that can help, and
          I believe that needs to be considered in the development of
          any regulations that are provided. 
              Standardized-type training, not site-specific,
          but those basic elements that need to be addressed for all
          employees in the mining industry, can be provided in some
          technology formats that can handle new languages.
              As far as testing is concerned, for those with
          English as a second language or functional illiterates or, I
          guess to be politically correct, we'd have to call them
          learning-deprived, can also be done with some of this
          technology.
              There is a concept that exists that has not been
          developed yet that would allow a literate, totally literate
          and an illiterate person to sit side by side and neither one
          would know if the other could read or write, and they could
          still be tested.  It's an interesting concept that we've
          worked with the University of Wisconsin on to try to
          develop.
              These are some of the things that I think need to
          be considered in the development of any regulations, so that
          there are some open-end methods or open-ended regulations
          that will allow people to use new technology, some
          flexibility, some systems that are different from those that
          are standard prescriptions.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  I just have one question.  You
          indicated that such things as videos and CD-ROMs optimally
          are used to support a human being, and I guess you could
          call it the human element that's so important in training.
              For a regulation, such as the one that we're
          going to be developing, do you think that that is so
          important that the regulation should somehow specify that
          videos or CD-ROMs are support mechanisms, and that a human
          element is primary or essential?  Or, again, is this
          something that philosophically you're recommending, but not
          necessarily recommending that it be addressed in a proposed
          regulation?
              MR. PETERSON:  No.  I'm recommending that it be
          addressed in a proposed regulation.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And how would you go about
          doing that?
              MR. PETERSON:  Short of sitting down and working
          out the language as to how it could be done, I believe that
          it has to be stated in the regulation that these methods
          which are available -- the problem that you encounter with a
          video quite often is the fact that the instructor will plug
          it in and leave the room.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.
              MR. PETERSON:  That has to be addressed.  A human
          has to be available, whether it's video training, CD-ROM,
          CVT, you name it; there should be a human available to
          respond to questions that arise at the time that the
          training is being done.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
              MR. PETERSON:  A qualified human.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.  Thank you very much.
              Yes?
              MR. WITHEY:  Just one last comment.  We talked
          about the value of a good instructor.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.
              MR. WITHEY:  And if a MSHA-approved instructor
          was on the premises, if there was somebody more qualified to
          teach first aid that wasn't an approved instructor, as long
          as the approved instructor is overseeing the procedures,
          anyone that is qualified in the subject matter should be
          able to provide that information to the students, as long as
          the MSHA instructor is in agreement with its content.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Well, that raises another
          question.  I mean, the minimum requirements in Section 115
          of the Act, I don't believe, require that an instructor who
          provides training needs to go through any kind of
          certification or approval process.
              Do you think that -- I mean, you're talking about
          having an approved instructor on site to ensure that
          whatever persons who may not be certified or approved, be
          certain whatever instruction they're giving is adequate.  I
          mean, do you think the approval process for instructors is a
          valuable one?  Or do you think that that is a requirement
          that doesn't add value ultimately to training?
              MR. WITHEY:  Well, you could approve with
          somebody 30 years' field experience --
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.
              MR. WITHEY:  -- that's really got one year of
          experience for 30 years or 30 times.  You could have
          somebody else that's had much more diverse background, that
          is more knowledgeable in the entire field in ten years than
          somebody that's been at one site for 30 years.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  So are you saying, then, that
          approving of instructors does not necessarily ensure that
          they're going to be good and effective training providers?
              MR. WITHEY:  I am.  Or they may not be good
          communicators.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.
              MR. WITHEY:  You may have the best training
          program and experience history in the world, but if you
          can't convey that to somebody, there's no value there.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
              MR. WITHEY:  Or if you don't allow for
          interaction, it misses that human element.  Somewhere in the
          rules, the word "interaction" has to be, because it's the
          only way you're going to find out if your training is
          effective.  I don't care if you do a test or an on-site
          review, watch them do the test; you've trained them to do or
          interact with them as this whole process is being taught.
              It's been my experience that if you interact
          during the teaching process, that it really is so much more
          valuable than just sitting there and talking.  If you don't
          get them to respond to you, you've lost them.  Once you
          can't make eye contact with them, you might as well go out
          and let the video run, because that's all they're doing.
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  Just to follow up on Mark's
          point, certifications are not magic.  You've got to give
          flexibility.  If what the operators want to see the MSHA-
          certified person do training, great.  If an operator has
          someone who's been doing a job for years, that person may
          not be certified by MSHA; that person may not have a high-
          level education.  But that person has know-how to explain
          the job, explain how to do the safety.
              You can use that person as a trainer, because
          that person is knowledgeable and would be respected by the
          people that works under him or her.  That person, I think,
          would be paid attention to, and that person can give some
          valuable training.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  But from a regulatory standpoint,
          if I hear you correctly, what you're saying is that an
          approval process and an instructor certification or approval
          process is not going to ensure that that person has those
          skills and abilities.
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  I'm saying we were -- if we're
          talking about certification of the instructor --
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.
              MR. HENRIKSEN:   I don't think it's necessary --
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  It's not going to get you where
          you need to go.
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  I think it's an option.  You
          might have a company that prefers you use an MSHA-certified
          trainer for whatever reason to either do the training or
          maybe supervise the series of on-line supervisors.
              You may have somebody that may not have an MSHA
          certification but is a person that could do the job, the
          person who knows what they're doing, knows their business. 
          They don't need a piece of paper; they don't need perhaps
          even much education.  They know to impart information.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  So -- but who should decide
          whether that person does have the skills that's necessary --
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  The operator.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  The operator.  And bear in mind,
          I worked as an attorney for 17 years as a regulator in the
          state of Illinois and state of Kentucky, primarily in coal-
          mining enforcement and also aggregate mining and things like
          that.  So I understand this. 
              But truly I think our people are able to
          determine whether that person knows what they're doing.  And
          I don't think it's impossible for an MSHA inspector to come
          on the site and talk to the operator, and say, Who's doing
          your training.  Well, our superintendent.  What does he or
          she do?  Well, they do this, that, and the other.
              I don't think it would take an MSHA inspector
          very long to figure out whether or not the person is doing
          the job.  He might have an MSHA certificate, or he or she
          might have a lot of experience doing what they're doing.  I
          think it wouldn't be that difficult.
              In the same way, it doesn't make sense for us to
          have to send our plan away to be approved.  You come on
          site.  There's a plan to follow.  Yes, here's what we do. 
          Here's how we do our refresher; here's how we do our 24
          hours.  And we're a six-person sand and gravel dredge
          operation, so we talk about electrical hazards a lot because
          of that and we talk about drowning.  You know, we talk about
          all these kinds of -- you know, this is what we do.
              There's no need to send that thing in to a
          regional office in Duluth or something like that.  If it's
          in black and white, and we have it, we comply with the
          statute.  And I think that anything that makes people do
          something that promotes safety, as simple as that, that
          would work.  Having to send it off and having somebody
          nitpick it and all that kind of stuff -- again, I've been at
          a coal site.  That's not going to work, or precisely that's
          not the best way to do what we all want to do which is to
          encourage a safe environment.
              THE REPORTER:  I cannot hear them.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  If you want to speak, you
          probably need to come up to the microphone.  Did you get --
              THE REPORTER:  Most of it.
              MR. BRELAND:  I did have a question for Mr.
          Henriksen.  You were saying the operator doing their own
          certification, if you will, of instructors and selection of,
          would you -- are you proposing any kind of criteria, other
          than -- I know there's a mixture of whether they might be
          skilled equipment operator.  You mentioned the mine
          superintendent might be the best.
              But are you proposing some sort of criteria that
          the operator would use for guidelines to select these
          people?
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  The criteria I would propose
          would be very -- well, I don't think -- it would be very
          loose.  I think know-how, basic competence.  I think Randy
          Logsdon with Vulcan had some language that i think he had
          culled from MSHA Part 56, and that kind of -- there is some
          basic kind of guidance in existing MSHA rules that could be,
          you know, used to craft this, for those people who want to,
          as an option, have their own people do the training.
              There has to be some level of competence, and I
          don't know if it's a matter of years.  I'm not sure, but I
          think there is some guidance at least.  I think there is
          some language in existing MSHA rules that can be used as a
          starting point for what you all are trying to do here, and
          that's what I'm suggesting.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  I have a question on that,
          though.  I mean, if, in fact, we're not going to have some
          kind of, you know, central approval system of instructors,
          are we then going to be in a situation where an individual
          inspector will come on property and perhaps make a
          determination that an individual is or is not -- you know,
          whatever the words are in the rule -- a competent
          instructor? 
              I mean, does that create problems min and of
          itself, that you may have a number of different individuals
          making an essentially subjective determination?  I mean, is
          that a problem?  Does that create a problem?
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  the question posed is well taken. 
          It is a double-edged sword.  I think that if the rule's
          crafted to get -- the idea being, you know, MSHA-certified
          person, that makes sense versus someone with the level of
          competence.
              I think if we communicate enough, our industry
          communicates enough, what that means and then that
          communication is not only reflected in your regs, your
          rules, but it's reflected in policy guidances that you all
          generate, then I think if we are even part of that policy
          generation, discussion process, we can agree not only with
          what the rule says, but what the policy ought to be, and I
          think we can probably do that.
              That would cut through a lot of it.  We don't
          want somebody who doesn't know what they're doing, telling
          someone how to do something that could hurt them.  That's a
          given.  So I think we could work together to arrive upon
          something that would work.
              I think it would really be good, and along those
          lines, it really is going to be good for you all to get your
          safety and in forcing people together to talk about all
          this, because compliance -- you could have the safest site
          in the world, but you might have some violations.
              You might have a place with no violations that's
          a dangerous place to work.  We all know this, so I think
          it's real important to get your safety and you're forcing
          people together, working here, and letting your inspection,
          your enforcement staff know, yes, if they have somebody who
          has -- that can do this and demonstrate this, that works;
          you shouldn't write them --
              You do have -- I think you all, in your safety
          training arm people, that have the competence to kind of
          help your enforcement people out, to make them know that it
          wouldn't be appropriate to write somebody up if -- I think
          we can work together.  I understand the problem you're
          talking about, but it should be an option.  It should be an
          option to have us decide who is competent.  We don't want to
          have an MSHA-certified person. 
              And they may -- because what they may do, they'd
          have an MSHA-certified person on staff.  They may choose to
          get somebody that they think can do the job, do the work, or
          they may go out to a third party, at which nine out of ten
          of those people would be MSHA-certified, so there shouldn't
          be any kind of problem.
              These should just be options, a range of options,
          an array of options, to promote good safety and good safety
          culture, to make it easy for us to come into compliance.  I
          mean, I understand that.
              MR. BRELAND:  The one concern about -- and,
          again, Kathy Alejandro discussed it -- was what if an
          inspector or somebody on site in their subjective
          determination felt that your choice wasn't qualified or
          doing the right job.  There would have to be a mechanism to
          deal with that. 
              MR. HENRIKSEN:  There would have to be, and I
          think so.  I think one thing to perhaps think about:  As  I
          understand the MSHA enforcement system, even if it's a minor
          infraction, you all are duty-bound to write a violation. 
          Perhaps these rules could be designed, that to follow it --
              Well, for instance, the State of Illinois has
          systems to write you up if you run an oil and gas company,
          if you have a minor problem.  What you can be given is, for
          lack of a better word, a warning, an inspection report,
          saying, Hey, you know, this is not -- you're not quite up to
          snuff; why don't you get this place squared away, get this
          corrected.  If I come back again, I'll have it.
              But it wouldn't be -- perhaps in your mine safety
          training rules, there could be some kind of system where the
          inspector comes and sees something.  Maybe the recourse
          shouldn't be just blasting that person and giving that
          person a violation; maybe the recourse should be having a
          dialogue, you know, having a discussion, trying to maybe get
          the regional manager involved or whatever, or maybe getting
          the people involved from your safety end.
              That would be a lot -- if this program starts off
          in a situation where you all are -- you all come in and are
          seen to be helpers, trying to -- come in with the idea of,
          We're not going to be writing you up for this stuff; we'll
          be trying to get you up to speed, trying to work with you, I
          think that would be great.
              So anything that avoids any kind of enforcement
          and litigation, can get away from that, but with a way to
          fix it, great.  There are alternatives that exist in other
          systems, other states or federal systems.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you.
              MR. MAXEY:  My name is Scott Maxey from Badger
          Mining Company.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Excuse me.  From --
              MR. MAXEY:  Badger Mining Corporation.  I'm
          the --
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Could you spell your last name.
              MR. MAXEY:  M-A-X-E-Y.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you.
              MR. MAXEY:  I'm the corporate health and safety
          director for the organization.  I'm new to the industry. 
          I've got a master's in science and health physics.  I spent
          the last 12 years in the chemical industry, so I'm new to
          the mining industry, and that's why I didn't ask to speak
          today, but I wanted to reflect a little bit about some of
          our organization's perspectives on some of these issues that
          have come up.
              I'm a certified safety professional and a
          certified industrial hygienist.  As a safety professional,
          we support performance-based types of training.  There's no
          question about it.  We feel that that's the best mechanism
          to get effective training to our associates.
              A little bit about our organization:  We're a
          little bit different than most mining companies.  We fully
          embrace the team concept.  We have self-directed work teams
          in our mines that operate themselves.  I mean, they do have
          an operations team or a leader that attends their meetings,
          but they know their job responsibilities; they're given a
          lot of autonomy to do their jobs; they're given directions. 
          But ultimately they have the say in their day-to-day
          activities and how their job -- if it gets done as a team,
          everything from shift, who's going to work what shift, to
          how long they're going to work and what are they going to do
          first, that type of thing.
              So I think the linchpin in this whole thing is
          the training plan itself.  We put a lot of time and effort
          in our training plans, but we don't regiment specifically
          all the different, I guess, elements that are in that
          training plan.
              We will indicate what needs to be trained, but
          because of the autonomy at badger mining that we give our
          associates, how they execute that is up to them, so there's
          a lot of variability between the different mine sites and
          the work teams themselves, so we put a lot of time and
          effort into a training plan that's geared and regimented for
          that particular work team, the culture for their particular
          jobs.
              So -- and, you know, I don't have a problem with
          submitting our training plans to MSHA, and we have done that
          in the past, just to show good faith, but the only thing
          that I think from our organization's perspective that would
          not be viewed as being reasonable is when we made small
          changes to those training plans, to have to resubmit every
          time.
              I'd much rather -- I like this gentleman's
          perspective of having that training plan potentially looked
          at when the inspector comes on site, and if there's
          deficiencies, to work on that training plan, to identify
          ways to improve that training plan, as opposed to beating
          them over the head.
              I understand the challenges that you as an
          organization are under.  I mean, it's difficult to have
          flexibility without a lot of subjectivity, to make it
          enforceable, so I understand that.  But I think the
          objective to any good safety training program is the health
          and safety of the associates, the employees. 
              And, you know, if there could be a period where
          MSHA would work with the smaller companies to work on
          training plans, I think that there would be a lot of value
          to that, to identify deficiencies.
              One thing that we do with this issue on competent
          person, we don't like the idea of certification, but we do
          like -- our organization does identify specifically the
          qualifications an individual will need to do particular
          types of training, and we do identify those people, certain
          people, as having those qualifications and, in turn, we
          identify that -- I hate to use the word "certify" but
          identify it as being capable of conducting that particular
          training.
              We do have some qualifications of our associates
          that will be conducting that training, and one of those
          qualifications is they do attend like a train-the-trainer
          course.  We have an internal course that our associate
          development team or equivalent to our HR department puts on,
          for those associates who want to take on these particular
          types of training rules, that they will need to attend this.
              The train-the-trainer program, as probably most
          of you are aware of, is designed to make people better
          trainers, not specifically work on the content of the
          particular type of training.
              Those are some of the requirements that we
          endorse, but, again, I think the training plan is what
          should be focused on here.  And our training plans do not
          include timetables.  They don't include specific issues that
          need to be discussed in there.
              There's an objective and a purpose, and also the
          qualifications of the individual that would be conducting
          those training plans, to allow the flexibility for people
          conducting these trainings to make it different every time,
          if there's retraining on these issues.  Also, there's
          different training styles that our associates have.
              Now, we do have a program to assess our training
          that I think is very important, where we go out and we have
          physical observations and verifications that our training
          was effective, based on what they were told to do.  In some
          cases, depending on what the training plan called for, there
          might be a test; there might be a CD-ROM executed internal
          test on a program, depending on how they wanted to execute
          that particular type of training.
              With respect to contractors, we do a lot of
          contractor training, because our contractors don't come in
          with the training.  We feel that that isn't our
          responsibility.  We endorse having site-specific training
          for our contractors, specific to our sites, the hazards
          associated with our sites, and not only just contractors,
          visitors, whoever may enter our mine site, so that site-
          specific training is very -- we feel is very important, and
          it, again, is specific to our mine site.
              For lack of a better term to use, I mean, we
          don't have any imbedded employees, where they are doing
          extraction process, but I believe from our history, that
          from a third-party liability, that we would take every
          effort to embrace associates that were involved in those
          types of activities.  If they didn't have a line of -- a
          hierarchy, a supervision or if they were expected to do the
          same types of tasks at our site, we would probably consider
          them to be subject to our training requirements for the
          site.
              Those are all the comments that I have.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Mr. Maxey, what kind of mining,
          what kind of operations does Badger have?
              MR. MAXEY:  We're primarily an industrial sand
          producer.  We do have three sites in Wisconsin.  We have a
          new zeolite mine actually out in Nevada and California, and
          then we've got a smaller operation in Paloma.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  How many employees
          typically do you --
              MR. MAXEY:  Globally, I think we have about 350
          mine-site employees, probably about 450 total corporate
          employees.  We're a pretty small organization.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  And on an average per site, how
          many employees?
              MR. MAXEY:  Our sites range.  We have at one site
          less than ten miners, and at another site, we have as many
          as 90 miners.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  And you indicate that you provide
          comprehensive training to the contractor employees, but you
          would prefer --
              MR. MAXEY:  Well, we're forced to.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Because they don't provide it?
              MR. MAXEY:  When -- yes.  They show up; they
          don't have that training.  We need them on site.  We're
          subject to those rules or our management has endorsed --
          even though we have the rider, our management has indicated
          that we will conduct that type of training, so we've been in
          the position to do that.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  But you haven't had any success,
          then, in contractually getting your contractors to provide
          that kind of training to their employees before they show
          up?
              MR. MAXEY:  I think that has been somewhat of a
          challenge in our organization, based on -- you know, things
          would come up, and we would need someone to get in there and
          get to work, something that was unexpected, something that
          was unplanned.  Therefore, we didn't have the luxury of
          carving out -- they needed the training to do the particular
          type of work.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
              MR. FORD:  Mr. Maxey, you have training plans at
          every one of your sites, even the ones that are less than
          ten people?  Or is it that there's one training plan, and
          every site has to decide how to use it?
              MR. MAXEY:  There's guidelines that we developed
          in terms of the training plan for all -- for the
          corporation, the types of things that we require, and then
          there's -- each training plan for each site is specific for
          that particular site, depending on how they want to conduct
          or what they feel is important for that particular site. 
          And that training plan can change every year, depending on
          the needs of that work group, or there might be just a
          normal rotation of types of topics that we would like to
          cycle through.
              We do job family analysis for each of our job
          families at a mine site and determine, based on exposure and
          the hazard associated with those particular types of jobs;
          we determine the training requirements that maybe it would
          be -- we would want them to have, this training once a year.
              We might want them to have heat stress training
          every three years, so that would be specified, in terms of
          what the team determines from that assessment, of what the
          training requirements will be for each job family.
              MR. FORD:  Does your -- are there union workers
          at your mines, your sites?
              MR. MAXEY:  We're nonunion.
              MR. FORD:  So all your workers are nonunion?
              MR. MAXEY:  That's correct.
              MR. FORD:  Do any of those workers cooperate in
          looking at your training plans?
              MR. MAXEY:  They take an active role in the
          development of the training plans.  Now, there are corporate
          guidelines for the types of things that we would like to see
          in there, but the associates are ultimately responsible for
          the training plans themselves.
              Now, we have an administrator at each mine that
          makes sure that it's executed and keeps all the
          documentation on that, but the training plan itself is site-
          specific.
              MR. FORD:  And just one other area.  You would
          not be opposed to sending any type of training plans like
          into a district office or anything like that, but you're
          just opposed to just updating them.
              MR. MAXEY:  You know, I want to be clear here. 
          The idea of a training plan is important, but we do not
          build a lot of specificity in our training plan that's going
          to be available for you to -- from an enforcement
          perspective, to evaluate it.
              So we don't have a problem with submitting
          training plans, but it just seems kind of a -- I'm trying to
          get the value of submitting that, when you should have an
          inspector on site that looks at the entire operation, looks
          at the hazards associated with the site, and then can
          develop -- can look at the training plan to see if that's
          appropriate for that particular site, as opposed to being in
          an office and not looking at the activities of the mine site
          and judging whether that training plan is appropriate.
              MR. FORD:  When you say you have a training plan,
          a written training plan, that's the broad type plan.  Right? 
          And then you send it out to your different sites, and they
          develop a more specific plan, that's oriented just to their
          particular needs.
              Do they have a written plan then?
              MR. MAXEY:  Yes, they do.
              MR. FORD:  So that plan, though, would be
          specific to that site.  That would be more or less what MSHA
          would be looking for, even if you send it in to them. 
          Right?
              MR. MAXEY:  Yes.  It would be that site-specific
          plan that would be enforceable.  What I submit to our sites
          is that these are the types of training requirements that we
          need to do.  For ne miners, these are the -- you know, if
          you're going to issue respiratory protection, they need this
          training; they need to be -- so those guidelines come from
          myself.
              But the actual training plan, in terms of what
          each area may need -- I might they need hearing conservation
          training, proper use -- very site-specific.
              MR. FORD:  Right.  But when your general, broad-
          based rules goes out to a site, they develop their own
          written plan.
              MR. MAXEY:  That is correct.
              MR. FORD:  And have it on file.
              MR. MAXEY:  And have it on file and available for
          inspection.
              MR. FORD:  Okay.
              MR. BURNS:  I have a question.
              MR. MAXEY:  Yes, sure.
              MR. BURNS:  You had mentioned that all your
          trainers go through train-the-trainer type program.  Would
          you just explain -- can you explain how you came about
          instituting that?  Is there -- the reasoning behind it, I
          guess.
              MR. MAXEY:  Well, I'll try.  The team concept
          that we've endorsed and fully implemented at Badger Mining
          required that we allow a lot more responsibilities to go to
          our associates, to take on budgeting, scheduling,
          production, a lot of things, and one of those elements was
          training; not only safety training, but job-specific
          training, training on how to -- you know, what have you; it
          might be administrative type of training, in terms of
          filling out time cards or something like that.
              We felt that we were going to flatten the
          organization out and allow a lot more responsibility to be
          given to specific associates that would have to be
          identified.  We'd have qualifications.  They're paid --
          their wages are dependent on how much responsibility they do
          take on.  We've implement a skilled wage program.
              I don't mean to get sidetracked here, but, I
          mean, there's the motivation for associates to take on more
          responsibilities.  I've got an expert for confined space. 
          I've got an expert that we provide them resources.  Those
          are our competent trainers.
              We thought that we needed our associates not only
          to be comfortable with the content of the training, but we
          felt that they needed more knowledge on better ways to
          deliver training, so we designed our own train-the-trainer
          program internally.  I think it's modeled right after the
          MSHA train-the-trainer program. 
              But I know as an industry, probably most
          organizations probably wouldn't be supportive of having a
          train-the-trainer program.  We, internally, have experienced
          a lot of value from that.  But, again, I don't assign people
          to come in and do training.  We have qualified individuals
          doing it, and they are identified by the operator, so we
          have a list of people and the qualifications for those
          people to do those particular types of training.
              And I think that that can be the enforcement
          branch of what MSHA might be trying to do with this new
          standard is being able to look at the training plan and make
          sure it's being executed appropriately, make sure that there
          are identified people by the operator, as being competent to
          do those jobs and have some type of qualifications
          identified for those people doing that type of training,
          whether --
              I don't know what's appropriate.  In some cases,
          it might be years of experience.  In other cases, it might
          be just general job knowledge.  It might be that you send
          them to a seminar, but I think that it's important that
          there be some type of documentation for having someone
          identified as a competent person.
              MR. BURNS:  I was just curious that perhaps the
          people that were doing the training, you know, have some
          people.  I mean, if you just tell somebody they're going to
          do training, and most people have not done that before;
          probably their first reaction is fright, because they're not
          sure what they're going to have to do.  I was thinking that
          perhaps that was the thinking behind the train-the-trainer.
              MR. MAXEY:  And it still exists.  There's no
          question about that, but a lot of our training is with the
          new associates that are joining the organization, the actual
          population of people that are -- I mean, it's usually one
          person training two people or three at a time.  They're not
          in front of a large classroom.
              I think that's where that fear factor comes in,
          and I still think that that exists.  So we look at
          alternative ways to put our less comfortable associates in
          those positions.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Maxey.
              Mr. Elliott, did you have additional remarks? 
          We'll get back to you, Mr. Withey.
              MR. ELLIOTT:  Ed Elliott with the Rogers Group
          again.  I want to speak just for a moment on the comment
          about the inspector having the ability to have a mechanism
          to verify training if they come on site, and everything at
          the operation, when you turn in your legal ID, there is a
          person at the site responsible for all the health and safety
          at the site.
              And when you look at the superintendent or
          whoever that might be -- for the sake of this discussion,
          I'll say superintendent.  Let's say the superintendent.  The
          inspector comes to the superintendent and says, Are you able
          to verify that every employee has received the training,
          according to your training plan.
              And I believe it is the ultimate responsibility
          of that supervisor to be able to verify that.  Now, when you
          talk about the competent person, I think it's the same
          thing.
              It goes back to the supervisor/superintendent,
          saying that our employees have received the instruction
          according to the training plan, and then the inspector
          could, if he wanted to take it to the next step, look at
          that training plan, and then verify that by individual
          questioning of employees on the site.
              I know from time to time MSHA has had some
          difficulty with instructors who have fraudulently signed
          training certificates, and I think you can -- you know, you
          can find that in any situation, but there is that system of
          accountability within MSHA for everything at that site, for
          that particular individual. 
              So that's all.  I just wanted to speak to that
          mechanism that may be able to take care of that, versus
          saying, This person has to be certified, and if they're not
          certified -- you know, that still doesn't verify that the
          training's been done.
              But if the person in charge verifies it, then
          they are responsible and can be held accountable for it. 
          Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you.
              MR. WITHEY:  Mark Withey.  One comment about the
          training plan.  It seems to have generated a lot of
          interest.
              When you submit a training plan, perhaps with the
          new rules, we could specify that when a training plan has
          been submitted, I guess there's an implied approval  if you
          don't hear back.  That would really make it less cumbersome. 
          It would also put the training plan in the hands of the
          district office or regional office.  They would have the
          plan on hand.
              If there were deficiencies, then they could get
          back to you, and you could modify your plan.  If there were
          no deficiencies, that's the implied approval, I think, that
          would really make it more expeditious.
              As far as the instructors, I still feel that you
          could have, as one of my producers, one of the larger
          producers in Illinois, has instructors for loaders, front-
          end loaders, that teach only about operating a front-end
          loader, and instructors that teach about the plant
          maintenance, belt safety, roller safety, things along those
          lines.  But you have the best of the mine site, teaching the
          less experienced people.
              You still have to have one person ultimately
          responsible for it, though it's varied instructors, but
          because a man has been certified or approved by MSHA to
          teach a class doesn't mean he's the most expert person on
          that mine site.
              So if you have got the ability, as many of our
          producers do, to incorporate their senior people in whatever
          area of expertise they are expert in, to teach those folk
          that are doing that same job skill, and then have one man
          coordinating the whole training effort, I think everybody
          would be better served, particularly the people being
          trained.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  So you're basically saying, I
          mean, a variety of people have a variety of different
          expertises on different subjects, and to get the best
          possible training, it makes a great deal of sense to allow
          the people with the expertise to train in their areas of
          expertise.
              MR. WITHEY:  Having someone who is overseeing
          coordinating, I guess, you know, to make sure that the
          training is given --
              MR. WITHEY:  Yes.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  -- and that it covers the
          necessary areas, do you think that that person, I mean, the
          so-called coordinator, needs to have some kind of approval
          or certification by MSHA?
              MR. WITHEY:  I don't have any problem with
          MSHA -- I think it's a good idea for MSHA to look at the
          history of the individual that is overseeing this thing, to
          have some type of resume, that would indicate that he's got
          the skills to be an instructor.  And I think that's probably
          a pretty good idea.  And it's not that hard to get approval
          from MSHA.  I mean, it's not rocket science.
              If you submit a case study of your work
          experience and it covers the areas that MSHA wants covered,
          then you get almost an automatic approval, so it's just
          taking it one step, but having an instructor on file, just
          like a training program, to have that on file.
              Most of these training programs are so general
          that they're really not a whole lot of value on file anyway,
          because there's no real specific information given.  It's
          just general.
              But those are the two comments that I wanted to
          make, about the instructors and about the training program.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.
              Mr. Logsdon?
              MR. LOGSDON:  Thank you.  I'd just like to add a
          couple of more comments and maybe clarify a few points from
          our perspective of the Vulcan Materials Company.
              With regard to submitting and approving training
          plans, training programs, I think Mr. Henriksen mentioned
          there are 419 surface aggregate producers in the state of
          Illinois.  Multiply that over the states, you're talking
          about submitting a lot of plans for review.
              I think it's to MSHA's benefit, as well as to
          ours, to have a training program, a training plan process
          written and in force on site, within a group of operations
          under the same company or same area, that can be reviewed by
          competent MSHA inspectors.
              An inspector can -- there are a couple of easy
          tests an inspector can use to determine whether that
          training is competent and the individual miners have learned
          from that during their inspection, by interviewing the
          miners by observing what they do.
              And if some deficiencies are noted, then those
          should be brought to the attention of the mine management
          and a determination in the judgment of the inspector, which
          the inspectors use their judgment every day in determining
          whether something is in violation or not, whether just need
          to make some improvements or whether something justifies
          citation.
              Certainly if something is grossly inept, it
          deserves to be cited, and the force of the Government as a
          motivator to improve.
              The issue of flexibility:  Maybe I can relate one
          instance that helps describe that, and I think we've heard
          from a lot of people here this morning, and it's clear to
          me -- I've learned just how diverse the group this is and
          how important flexibility is to this issue.
              We had a foreman at one of our operations that --
          I believe he was sent to our corporate office for a couple
          of weeks and missed the last segment of the annual
          refresher.  The plant superintendent called me and said, How
          can we deal with this.  I stewed about it for a little bit,
          and I called him back and I said, Look, I'm going to inspect
          another operation.  It was about 100 miles from there.  Send
          him with me for the day.
              I put together a checklist of the topics that we
          needed to cover.  While we were driving, we talked about
          those, a lot of good interaction back and forth.  We got to
          the other operation, we did an inspection, asked a lot of
          questions, learned a lot.  And I think that was probably the
          most effective annual refresher that individual ever
          attended.
              It was a very expensive annual refresher, and we
          certainly wouldn't want to do that for every individual, but
          it identifies some of the flexibility that we need to be
          able to respond to.
              Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much.
              MR. HOWARD:  I have no business card.  I intended
          to come here and say nothing, and I'm not going to say much,
          for those of you who are waiting for a restroom break or for
          lunch.  This will be short.
              John Howard, H-O-W-A-R-D.  I work with Illinois
          Eastern Community Colleges.  We -- I'm the associate dean of
          work force education.  We train 8-, 10-, 12,000 miners a
          year, coal, metal/nonmetal, EMT, hydraulics, welding, not
          just Part 48 type training, and have done so for -- I've
          been doing it for 23 years, and I'm not the senior person on
          our staff.  We do lots of mine safety training.
              I think training, both good and bad, is much like
          pornography.  It may be hard to define on paper, but when we
          see it, we know what it is.  It's wonderful to say that if
          we have a qualified instructor or if we have an approved
          training plan or we pull somebody off the job because
          they've done this, that you're going to have good training,
          and the bottom line is it just isn't that simple. 
              I have some frustrations that I hope the
          metal/nonmetal people can learn from what, in my opinion,
          are some of the errors that have been around Part 48 since
          '77 that the coal people have had to live with, and I'll
          just run through them as comments and not elaborate on this.
              First of all, the issue of an experienced or
          newly employed experienced miner is an issue that must be
          defined than it is now.  In Part 48, it will be redefined in
          February of this year, but one of the last new-miner classes
          I did, underground coal, was for a fellow who started mining
          in 1959, and he had been laid off.
              The definition says to be experienced, you had to
          have worked 12 months within the last three years,
          contiguously or randomly scattered out over the three years,
          or you had to work October 13 of 1978.  If you worked that
          day and it was the only day you worked, you're experienced
          forever.
              This guy had worked in the mines twice as long as
          I ever thought about it, and he had to go through a 40-hour
          new miner course for the third time because of that goofy
          definition.  That needs to be corrected.
              Secondly, the coal folks are -- we had a
          conference October 29 at Rend Lake College in southern
          Illinois in which we were struggling with the issue of
          vendors and contractors and mine training.
              One of the things that I urge you to do is to
          consider the fact that if you have a miner -- a miner is
          anybody who makes regular or frequent visits to the mine or
          is there for five or more continuous days.  If he's laying
          asphalt in the parking lot, by technical -- if it takes him
          a week to do it, he's a miner.  And if he's a miner, that
          means he needs comprehensive training, by some definition,
          so we've been struggling with this since 1987.
              Whether he's exposed to mine hazards or not is an
          issue that has been difficult to define.  Painters -- I did
          a class of contractors who just painted the Eads Bridge
          across the Mississippi River.  That's the oldest bridge
          crossing the Mississippi at St. Louis, a magnificent
          structure.
              They were going to come and paint the
          administrative building inside at the mine, and they had to
          have contractor training, because they were not -- they
          weren't experienced miners.  And what miners?  They were
          painters, and they were damned experienced painters.  They
          were very good, but they had to go through training anyway,
          because now they were painting building on a mine property. 
          Let's define this.
              If I'm a contractor and I'm going to be mining,
          producing, processing, loading, or doing what in the coal
          industry we unfortunately call dead work, being the
          lifesaving work that keeps everybody else safe, dead work,
          then that's comprehensive training.  If I'm coming out to
          put a windshield in a pickup truck on the ground or if I'm
          going to replace a tire on a loader out in the yard, I'm not
          a miner.
              I agree with the comment that you made earlier,
          Mr. Withey, that if I'm going to be changing a tire in an
          area of a high wall and there are hazards around, I need to
          know about that.  But if I'm going to be putting a new
          windshield in an Isuzu pickup truck, for crying out loud,
          I'm not a miner.  Let's acknowledge that fact.
              I think the definition -- one of the things that
          troubles me is there's some -- I made an inference, perhaps,
          that Part 48 is compliance training and good training is
          anything else.  I'm not sure that's true.  I wish Mr.
          Pautler was still here, talking about the high quality of
          training that he's had for years, from a gentleman who he
          didn't name but I will, Scott Hanson.
              Scott's one of our 13 instructors who does this
          every day of the year.  Scott's done Part 48 training for
          metal and nonmetal.  Many of the people here know Scott
          Hanson.  We have a competitor institution, and we have an
          excellent instructor called D.J. Johnson, who many people
          know Scott and D.J.  They do wonderful compliance training. 
          It doesn't have to be bad.
              A comment about training plans:  Training plan is
          not a lesson plan.  Training plan is a broad, generic form. 
          It can be in many shapes or sizes.  It just says that we're
          going to spend about eight hours doing this, or we're going
          to spend 24, or we're going to spend 40; we're going to
          cover these topics; we're going to cover them in a variety
          of ways.
              We've been very fortunate with the coal people in
          Vincennes to be able to say that our times are going to be
          flexible.  We may spend 15 minutes on this topic; we may
          spend an hour on this topic.  We don't submit a new training
          plan every year.  We have a generic training plan.
              We then from that, and complying with that
          training plan, develop a lesson plan.  The lesson plan
          varies from location to location, from date to date, to
          group to group, depending on the problems that we encounter
          with those people.
              We talk to management; we talk to the miners.  If
          we determine that somebody does not know how to effectively
          put on a self-contained self-rescuer, then we may spend an
          extra 30 minutes on that, because that is, as the name
          implies, a self-contained, self-rescue device, implies that
          it's pretty important, and if they can't do it, we'll spend
          time doing it.
              I think to get locked into the concept that a
          training plan is something that says, I'm going to spend ten
          minutes on this and two hours on this, three hours on that
          and 35 minutes on this, is to lock yourself in to something
          that can be very counterproductive.
              The idea of an unfiled and unapproved training
          plan is not new.  MSHA now is doing this with the new diesel
          regulations, in which a plan is written; it is kept on file. 
          If somebody wants to see it, they can look at it.  It is not
          approved; it is not submitted; it's just there.
              Some of the plans train people for one hour.  One
          company in southern Illinois trained people for three days. 
          Neither plan was approved.  The thing that makes me
          uncomfortable with that concept is that if they find
          problems in the areas that has been trained, then MSHA can
          come back and hold the trainer responsible for inadequate
          training, failure to train.
              I'm not sure that's fair, when we're given a one-
          hour plan to do something another company is spending eight
          or perhaps 24 hours on.  And we are in some ways servants of
          the industry.  We train for every coal mine in the state of
          Illinois, surface and underground, except one underground
          mine, and we do much metal/nonmetal training throughout the
          state of Illinois.
              I think the idea that annual refresher training
          is just boring, routine repetitions of the same topics every
          year is a dangerous one, and I cite a study done by the
          Bureau of Mines in 19- -- I'm going to say -- '91, '92, '93,
          is a short study called, Donning Problems, SCSR.  I know for
          surface people, this has nothing to do with anything, but
          take the example.
              SCSR, Self-Contained Self-Rescuer Donning
          Problems in Eight Eastern Mines, I believe was the correct
          name of the study, which they found that at one of the
          mines, even though this was done routinely in annual
          refresher training, that 80 percent of the people could not
          successfully or adequately, even, to the ability to save
          their lives; 80 percent could not effectively put on a self-
          contained, self-rescuer. 
              The Bureau of Mines thought that the mine
          trainers were doing a lousy job, of course, and went out and
          trained them themselves, and came back in 90 days and found
          that 66 percent of the people couldn't effectively put on a
          self-contained, self-rescuer either.  People forget even
          important things that are non-routine.
              Lifesaving, critical skills that are non-routine
          need to be refreshed, because we forget.  The learning
          curve, as you all know, goes down relatively quickly.
              First aid training -- just the last, final
          comment that I have to make here.  First aid training:  At
          the Illinois Mining Institute in September of this year, the
          Office of Mines and Minerals and the Illinois Coal
          Association gave six miners, six underground coal miners,
          lifesaver awards, first time in history, three from Turis
          [phonetic] Coal Company's Elkhart mine, underground mine.
              Had a fellow who left the classroom session, went
          out to the prep plant because he was feeling poorly; dropped
          dead.  Even though Illinois law requires EMTs to be present,
          there was none with him at that time, but there was a person
          who saw him who was trained in annual refresher training. 
          We did that training as well, by the way, just for a little
          plug.  We do the EMTs and the first aid training.
              That person went and started CPR.  Randy is
          familiar with -- how far is the mine from the town of
          Elkhart?
              MR. LOGSDON:  Oh, isn't it about three or four
          miles, at the most?
              MR. HOWARD:  Yes.  The ambulance crew was there
          with a defibrillator in a matter of ten minutes, maybe less,
          very, very quick; very small town, 650 people.  The EMTs
          arrived; the guy is back at work today, not because the
          ambulance service was five minutes away, but because there
          was somebody there that knew CPR to prevent the bleeding.
              The other incident was at Peabody's Mercer
          [phonetic] Mine where a roof-bolting accident, a drill steel
          came and literally clobbered the guy in the head so badly
          that he may never be normal again, but they provided
          instant, immediate first aid, and got him -- kept him alive,
          treated for shock, and got him to a hospital.
              And as a result of that, these six individuals
          were awarded -- and these were not EMTs; these were first
          aid folks -- lifesaver awards for saving those two people's
          lives.  There are other examples, many, many, many examples.
              But I think there is some benefit to the topics
          specified in Part 48, including first aid, including some of
          the things that may seem redundant.  One benefit is first
          aid -- we had three --
              When I was working for Monterey Coal Company, we
          had three first aid people, three first aid experiences in
          which lives were saved.  Not one of them was mine-related. 
          One of them was a highway accident; one was a heart attack
          in a basketball tournament.  An older fan got excited and
          had a heart attack.
              And one was a little girl who was around a car,
          and the jack fell off and crushed the two-year-old girl, and
          one of the EMTs -- one of the first aid people trained at
          the mine saved the little girl's life.
              We teach CPR for infants.  We teach CPR for kids,
          parents, grandparents.  It's very important to have these
          skills, as well, and it builds respect for the fact that the
          training -- the company or the trainer cares enough to give
          them skills that they can take with them home and off the
          job and maybe save a grandchild's life.
              I think it's an important thing -- I'm sorry. 
          Just one other thing.  A critical problem that we run into
          in coal is that somebody misses a refresher training class
          and comes back to work.  They've been off ill; they've been
          injured; they chose not to come to work the day they missed
          refresher training class, and it creates a problem.  We have
          to go do a refresher class for one person, maybe on an
          afternoon shift, maybe on a midnight shift, maybe on a day
          shift.
              One thing that would make a lot of sense to me
          would be a provision in training plans, if you're writing
          them, to say that the person who's been off and misses a
          refresher training class will be hazard trained when he
          comes to work of any changes that may have taken place in
          and around the work site, and he will be scheduled into the
          first available refresher training class.
              It may be several weeks away, but again we're not
          talking about a new miner here.  People remember the core
          fundamental things, but if there's been a change in
          procedure, a change in machinery, a change in hazards, new
          equipment, inform them of those things, but don't require
          them to go to a one-on-one training class for eight hours
          that first day back on the job because of an arbitrary
          deadline.  I think that would make some sense. 
              Those are the only comments I have.  I appreciate
          the opportunity to make those.  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  I just have one question, Mr.
          Howard.  You drew a distinction between a training plan and
          a lesson plan, which would have the specifics of what
          subjects and how long, et cetera.
              MR. HOWARD:  Sure. 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  As you probably know, Section 115
          says that a training program shall be approved by the
          Secretary.  What involvement -- I mean, how do you see that
          working under a Part 46 rule as far as what role MSHA should
          appropriately play in passing, you know, judgment or
          approving a program or plan?
              MR. HOWARD:  I'm biased perhaps, because I've
          been working with coal for 23 years.  We have a plan on file
          that's approved.  It's in Vincennes.  Occasionally the
          district training specialist will call and say, or the
          educational field services personnel will call and say, The
          training plan's been on file for several years; why don't
          you revise it.  Or I think we have a problem; we want now to
          include some silicosis training and it's not in our plan.
              We take the old plan; we look at it; talk it
          over; go to Vincennes if necessary, but basically submit a
          plan over the fax machine.  They'll say, I think this is
          good; I'd like you to add something else here.  We may need
          some changes.  We put a cover letter on it, and we send it
          and we get it approved, and it comes up for review again in
          a few years.
              But it's nothing more than just a guideline,
          saying, We're going to spend the time; we're going to cover
          these topics.  And then the lesson plan varies from day to
          day.  It's not something that is approved; it's not
          necessarily something that I think needs to be approved.
              Of course, we're not contract workers.  We
          provide lots of training free of charge through the Office
          of Mines and Minerals State Grants Program.  And if Scott
          Hanson went to William Pautler's operation at Kincaid Stone
          and did a lousy refresher class instead of the commendable
          job that he referred to, he would just call me or my boss
          and says, Don't send Scott Hanson back there.  That's the
          end of that; send another inspector.  Or they go to our
          competitors and get an inspector.
              So we're bound to do as good a job as we can do. 
          And the lesson plan is something that can change in the
          middle of a topic.  Holy cow, I didn't know you didn't know
          that; let's stop for a second; let's go back.  Did you all
          know -- and you may end up taking 15 or 20 minutes longer
          for things that aren't written on the paper with this
          particular group, because they're not aware or they forgot. 
          It's surprising how much people forget, shocking sometimes
          how much people forget.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  But as far as the generic, I
          guess, for lack of a better word, training plan, I mean, you
          get MSHA approval on that.
              MR. HOWARD:  Absolutely.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  And is it your experience that
          that is a valuable process --
              MR. HOWARD:  Sure, sure.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  -- to go through?
              MR. HOWARD:  I look at it this way.  We've said
          what we're going to do.  They know -- MSHA knows what we're
          going to do.  We've all agreed to this.  It's approved, and
          we also have a list of instructors.  It doesn't say that we
          can't use a good first aid instructor, if we have one.  We
          have an EMT instructor who offers first aid training all the
          time, even though he's not an MSHA instructor.
              But the person responsible who signs off is --
          I'm responsible.  If I have some idiot out there doing first
          aid, I'm not going to let that happen, so if I'm going to
          sign off on the form, I want to make sure that whoever I
          pick is -- I wouldn't pick them if they weren't good.  But I
          don't think it hurts anything. 
              And it's not terribly cumbersome to do either, at
          least, not -- we've been very fortunate in the Midwest, in
          Illinois and West Kentucky.  Our MSHA people are very
          reasonable and very helpful.  And I'm not saying this to
          suck up; I'm not.  They are; they're good. 
              I had a problem this week.  We have a mine that's
          on strike, and we have electrical people who need to have
          electrical retraining now.  Our plan says we can only have
          30 people.  I called Leland Payne.  I said, Leland, we're
          going to try and help everybody we can, and we've scheduled
          extra classes.
              But on the last day of December, December 19,
          Saturday, if we have a class and we have 31 people, I'm not
          going to kick somebody out; we're going to get them
          requalified for electrical.  He said, I don't have a problem
          with that.  He said, Don't abuse it.  I'm not going to abuse
          it.
              It's just very good with us.  I have no problems. 
          We work closely with Mines and Minerals, and it's a
          wonderful relationship, I think.  That's all I have.  Thank
          you.
              MR. BURNS:  I have one question for you.  There's
          been a lot of comments or suggestions made about the ability
          to really do -- review all the plans that MSHA would get,
          and basically there's about 10,200 exempt mines out there,
          so that's a lot of plans.
              MR. HOWARD:  A lot of plans.
              MR. BURNS:  Based upon what you've described as
          the broad outline, do you see where there could be some sort
          of a general type of broad outline or plan that would be
          across-the-board industry recognized as something that would
          be appropriate and, I guess, would be -- meet approval, be a
          guideline that this is the type of plan that would be
          approved?
              MR. HOWARD:  Perhaps if it was meaningless.
              MR. BURNS:  Okay.
              MR. HOWARD:  I know it's tough to get four or
          five trainers together, to agree on something, to try to get
          10,000 operators to say -- unless it was a very vague, very
          open document that said basically nothing other than, We're
          going to do this, either in one block, in short blocks, and
          we're going to cover all of these topics in any way, shape,
          or form, that makes sense in our operation and meet the
          needs of our people and our production needs and safety
          needs and accident records and citation histories and all
          these things.
              I don't know that it would be particularly
          valuable.  If it were loose enough, I suppose everybody
          would agree to something like that.  I don't know.  Others,
          perhaps, should comment, more so than me.  We basically take
          a look at the plan that's in existence, and we go and
          provide training based on fitting into the plan that the
          operation where it would work.
              MR. BURNS:  How often are those broad-based plans
          really almost identical from mine to mine?
              MR. HOWARD:  Some people -- there's a different
          philosophy here.  Some people think that the plan needs to
          be relatively specific and actually will put down some time
          frames, and that we will do -- we're going to spend 30
          minutes on this particular topic, and then we are going to
          have a written quiz at the end of this topic, or that we
          will use a video tape as part of this topic. 
              The problem is that that's fine for one year, if
          you want to submit a new plan every year, but you can't use
          necessarily a videotape for CPR each year.  You better have
          some hands-on management practice.  And you can't use a quiz
          on self-contained self-rescuers every year, because people
          get bored with that.  They remember very well what was done
          in the past.  They want some new stuff.
              So that, in my opinion, is where the lesson plan
          comes in, and we keep a running list of what we did last
          year, and then scratch out.  We're not going to do that. 
          And this year, if it's been four or five years since we've
          used a particular test on a topic, we may come back and do a
          test that way.
              So I don't think I answered your question.  I
          think others' opinions might be more valuable than mine on
          that.
              MR. BURNS:  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Is there anyone else who would
          like to --
              MR. CAMPBELL:  My name's Pat Campbell.  I work
          for the Department of Natural Resources, Office of Mines and
          Minerals, out of Benton, Illinois.
              The only thing that I'm here to state today is
          that we have been training or had the colleges do the
          training for coal for many years.  Some of the best training
          I've ever seen first started in -- I went to the first class
          in 1979.
              I wasn't very impressed then.  I was an active
          miner at the time, and as it went on, it's got very well;
          it's got very good.
              John, of course, with Illinois Eastern Community
          College, like he said, they provide the free training, but
          what we as a department are going to try to do is set up
          county by county training sessions, so that means -- we
          figure there's going to be a problem with small operators. 
          I might be wrong on that, where we've got two or three or
          four people working at a site, and they're going to have a
          hard time finding somebody to train them.
              So what we're going to try to set up is a county-
          by-county training session that will be throughout the
          state, if that's at all possible, so we're working on that
          at this time, so that these operators can -- there will
          be -- I'm sure they'll be getting in contact with Mr. Don
          McBride [phonetic].  He is over training for our department,
          for the refresher training and whatever.  He will contact
          colleges and get the appropriate instructors there.
              These instructors are all MSHA certified.  They
          are all certified instructors and have been doing the
          training for a long time.  I personally do some training,
          but I usually am in accident prevention, and I want to just
          put in a punt in for our department and for the state of
          Illinois.
              The state of Illinois has almost went a complete
          year without a fatality in coal.  And somebody said there
          was only four underground coal mines in the state this
          morning.  That is not correct.  There is approximately 27
          mines operating in the state at this time.  There's probably
          more than that.
              I'm sorry.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I have been several
          times.  But I think that we as a department are pleased with
          the training that has been going on in this state in metal
          and nonmetal and in coal specifically, because that's what I
          deal with, that's what I see.  And you were talking earlier
          about the training plan.  I think that there has to be some
          variables and has to be a lot of flexibility there.
              I think you'd have to realize what you're dealing
          with.  I don't think John brought it up.  These are -- I
          shouldn't say a different breed of people, but they are
          people that are very close to one another in a different
          world, in underground especially.
              And not taking anything away from strip mining or
          metal/nonmetal surface mining, but these are all good people
          basically, and they do need the best training we can give
          them.  And I think that these colleges and all the trainers
          that I have been around this state have done that.
              And I'd like to put a punt in for more state
          grants money, though, since I said that training is cheap,
          and basically we'll have to have that to continue to do this
          type of training for the price that we are getting for it.
              So I thank you. Is there any questions for me?
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  I just wanted to ask you.  You're
          talking about doing this county-by-county system.
              MR. CAMPBELL:  Yes.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Is that in anticipation of the
          Part 46 rule, or is that something that you were intending
          to do --
              MR. CAMPBELL:  I think that's in anticipation of
          the Part 46 rule.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Good.
              MR. CAMPBELL:  We want to make sure that
          everybody gets that proper training, gets good training, and
          we feel that the small operators, it might be kind of a
          burden to them, to go out there and try to get that training
          on their own.  So we'd like to be able to help them out.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Ron?
              MR. FORD:  Yes.  Pat, you talked about set up
          county-by-county training session.  You talked about coal --
          for both coal and --
              MR. CAMPBELL:  No.  I'm just talking basically
          for metal/nonmetal.
              MR. FORD:  Just for metal/nonmetal.
              MR. CAMPBELL:  Metal/nonmetal.
              MR. FORD:  Okay.  Does the State have
          requirements now that metal/nonmetal mines have to send in
          plans to the State?
              MR. CAMPBELL:  I am not familiar with that.  I
          haven't dealt with metal/nonmetal other than basically going
          in and doing some training for them myself.  And as far as
          their plans, I have no idea.  You'd have to ask somebody
          else in this room.  They probably know more about it than I
          do.
              MR. FORD:  I'm not sure I was clear on what
          you're doing on charging.  Are you saying you are charging
          people now, or are you contemplating it?
              MR. CAMPBELL:  Well, John -- they don't charge
          for any training, like their refresher training.
              MR. HOWARD:  Our metal/nonmetal training is
          delivered at no cost.  We waive all fees personally, and the
          Department of -- Office of Mines and Minerals, through state
          grants, funds our travel expenses incurred, and it is
          essentially -- Mr. Pautler's high praise of our instructor,
          Scott Hanson, that's all free.
              MR. BRELAND:  The county-to-county plan, though,
          you're talking about, that would still be no charge.
              MR. HOWARD:  My understanding.
              MR. CAMPBELL:  That's the way we understand it
          right now, unless something changes between now and -- I
          don't know when all this -- you said February of '99.  Am I
          under the impression that's when it's supposed to take
          effect?
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Well, actually we have to
          publish -- I think we're looking at publishing a final rule
          before September 30, 1999, and then obviously there is going
          to have to be some period of time allowed after publication
          for people to get into compliance.  And so then the question
          is -- that I was asking earlier was, you know, How long
          after the date of publication of September 30, '99, does the
          industry need to get up to speed with the requirements. 
              So, I mean, at this point, we have not come to
          any final determination obviously about how long it's going
          to be, but that's one of the things we're looking for
          comments on is, you know, what is your best guess as far as
          what is adequate time for that.
              Do you have -- I mean, assuming on date X we
          publish a final rule; everyone is on notice of what the
          requirements are going to be.  I mean, do you have any
          reasonable guess as far as how long it might take for the
          industry to come into compliance with requirements?
              MR. CAMPBELL:  Do I have a guess of how long?
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes.  I mean, just any sense.  I
          mean, several people have said a year sounds like a good
          period of time after date of publication.  I mean, if you
          don't have any sense --
              MR. CAMPBELL:  I don't really, because I don't
          know what all it entails as far as you people --
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Well, I mean, obviously it would
          depend on what the requirements are.
              MR. CAMPBELL:  Yes.  I'm sure it is.  I think a
          lot of this -- you know, I don't know a lot about
          metal/nonmetal.  I may be sticking my neck out here, but I
          think a lot of this training has been done in the state for
          a long period of time anyway, basically.
              Basically now it's just going to be looked at
          more.  Am I right or wrong?  Can anybody answer that?
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  I can't answer that.
              MR. CAMPBELL:  You can't answer that?
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  No.
              MR. CAMPBELL:  But I went with Mr.
          Foltyniewicz -- I've done some training classes with him,
          and some of the best training I've ever seen.  I mean,
          there's no doubt in my mind, but I think the training is
          already being done.  I don't think it's going to take a long
          process in Illinois; I really don't.  I might be wrong, but
          I couldn't actually answer that.  You need to ask somebody
          else.  I'm like John:  You need to ask somebody else, as far
          as that's concerned.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Thank you.  Thank you very
          much.
              MR. WITHEY:  One las comment about the training
          plan, and I'll be brief.  You had asked if you could develop
          a broad-based training plan for approval, and we talked
          about flexibility until I'm really sick of the word.
              But if you take up the items that everyone should
          be aware of, regardless of what area mining that they're
          working in and then half of that is your basic training
          program and the other half will be -- I'm just about as sick
          of this, too -- site-specific training.
              So you allow half of that training plan for site-
          specific hazard training.  The first half would include the
          health and first aid, and things that everyone should be
          aware of.  The second half should be site-specific, and
          that's the flexibility, I think, that we've all been looking
          for.
              So if you could develop a training plan with the
          important areas that everyone should be aware of covered and
          the site-specific, the other half of the training plan, it
          might be enough to do everything we need to do.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much.
              Is there anyone else who would like to make new
          or additional remarks?
              (No response.)
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  If not, I would like to thank you
          all very much for coming and participating on behalf of the
          Mine Safety and Health Administration.  We really appreciate
          the effort that you've put in to letting us know your views
          on this important assignment that we've been given.
              I'd like to reiterate:  If any of you have got
          comments or suggestions that you have not made or would like
          to submit your remarks in writing, feel free to do so.  And,
          again, I would recommend that you do this before February 1.
              If you need an address, there was an address in
          the Federal Register notice, but if you need an address of
          where to send those written comments, you can come up to us
          after the hearing, and we will give you that information.
              On behalf of the panel, I would again like to
          sincerely thank you, and if there's nothing else, I'd just
          like to close.
              Maybe actually one of the things that I might do
          is just give you a short summary of what our schedule is
          going to be.  We're going to have six additional public
          meetings in the next couple of weeks and also one week in
          January.
              We are going to be getting the draft proposed
          rule from the Coalition for Effective Mining Training on or
          before February 1 of '99.  We're looking to publish a
          proposed rule sometime early in the spring of 1999 and also
          have some public hearings and a comment period after that
          publication, probably in the early to mid-summer, and
          looking for a publication date by September 30.
              So we're going to try to keep to that schedule
          very tightly if we can, and again, I would like to thank you
          all for your participation, and I look forward to hearing
          from you as this process goes on.
              That's all there is.  I'd just like to close this
          meeting and again say thank you.
              (Whereupon, at 12:30, the public hearing in the
          above-entitled matter was concluded.)
          //
          //
          //
          //
          //
          //
          //
          //
          //
          //
          //
          //
          //
          //
          //                        REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
     
     DOCKET NO.:        
     CASE TITLE:        Meeting for Public Comment, re: 30 CFR Part   
                    46
     HEARING DATE:      December 7, 1998
     LOCATION: Northbrook, Illinois
     
         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
     Department of Labor, Mine Safety And Health Administration.
     
     
                        Date:  December 7, 1998
     
                        Carolyn Dowley        
                        Official Reporter
                        Heritage Reporting Corporation
                        Suite 600
                        1220 L Street, N. W.
                        Washington, D. C.  20005