TRAINING AND RETRAINING OF MINERS )
ENGAGED IN SHELL DREDGING OR      )
EMPLOYED AT SAND, GRAVEL, SURFACE )
STONE, SURFACE CLAY, COLLOIDAL    )   Public Hearing
PHOSPHATE OR SURFACE LIMESTONE    )
MINES.                            )
                                  )


















Pages:    1 through 50

Place:    Sacramento, CA  

Date:     May 20, 1999                   UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
     
                 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
     
     
     TRAINING AND RETRAINING OF MINERS )
     ENGAGED IN SHELL DREDGING OR      )
     EMPLOYED AT SAND, GRAVEL, SURFACE )
     STONE, SURFACE CLAY, COLLOIDAL    )   Public Hearing
     PHOSPHATE OR SURFACE LIMESTONE    )
     MINES.                            )
                                       )
     
     
                              
                              
               1400 J Street, Room 309
                              
                              
               Sacramento, CA  
       
                              
                              
               Thursday,
                              
                              
               May 20,1999
     
     
               The hearing commenced, pursuant to notice,
     
     at 8:30 a.m.
     
     
               APPEARANCES:
     
               Panel Members:
     
               Mary K. Alejandro, Chairperson, Special Assistant,
                 Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health, Mine
                 Safety and Health Administration, Department of
                 Labor
     
               Robert Aldrich, Office of the Solicitor, Mine
                 Safety and Health Administration, Department of
                 Labor
     
               Roderic Breland, Educational Field Services
                 Division, Mine Safety and Health Administration,
                 Department of Labor
     
               Kevin Burns, Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and
                 Health, Mine Safety and Health Administration, 
                 Department of Labor
     
               Mario Fernandez, Office of Standards Regulations
                 and Variances, Mine Safety and Health
                 Administration, Department of Labor                            C O N T E N T S
     
     
                                                             Page
     
     
     Proceedings                                                3
     
     Opening Remarks
     
       Panel Chair Alejandro                                    3
     
     Introductions                                              3
     
     Overview of Proposed Rulemaking                             
     
       Panel Chair Alejandro                                    5
     
     Presentations                                              9
     
       Charlie Rea, Assistant Executive Director, 
       Construction Materials Association of California         9
     
         Questions/Comments                                    10
     
       C. Duane Niesen, Senior Engineer, Cal/OSHA's Mining
       and Tunneling Unit                                      18
     
         Questions/Comments                                    30
     
       Nancy Moorhouse, Safety and Environmental Director,
       A. Teichert & Son                                       41
     
         Questions/Comments                                    43
     
     Closing Remarks                                           48
     
     Adjournment                                               49
     
     Reporter's Certificate                                    50
                              P R O C E E D I N G S
                                                      (8:30 a.m.)
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Good morning.  My name is
     Kathy Alejandro, and on behalf of the Mine Safety and Health
     Administration I would like to welcome you to the second of
     four public hearings on MSHA's proposed regulations for mine
     safety and health training.
               These hearings 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 proposed
     training regulation which was published in the Federal
     Register on April 14, 1999.
               These regulations would apply at those nonmetal
     surface mines where MSHA currently cannot enforce existing
     training requirements.
               I would like to take this opportunity to introduce
     the members of the MSHA panel who are here with me this
     morning.  To my far left is Robert Aldrich from the Office
     of the Solicitor.  Next is Rod Breland who is with the
     Educational Field Services Division of MSHA, and he is the
     Western Operations Manager.
               To my immediate left is Kevin Burns, who is with
     Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health.  And to my right
     is Mario Fernandez with the Office of Standards Regulations
     and Variances.
               Since 1979 MSHA has been guided by a rider to its
     appropriations.  The restriction currently states that none
     of the funds appropriate 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 and other affected and interested parties to
     promulgate final training regulations for the affected
     industries by September 30, 1999.
               These hearings are intended to give as many
     individuals and organizations as possible an opportunity to
     present their views on the proposed rule.  MSHA will hold
     two additional public hearings on the proposed rule next
     week.  One will be held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the
     fourth and final hearing will be held in Washington, D.C.
               This hearing will be conducted in an informal
     manner and a court reporter will make a transcript of the
     proceedings.  Anyone who wishes to speak at this hearing and
     has not signed up in advance should sign up on the speakers'
     list, which is currently located up here on this table.
               Anyone who wishes to may also submit written
     statements and information to us during the course of this
     hearing, which will be included as part of the rule-making
     record.  You may also send us written comments after the
     hearing if you wish.  The deadline for submission of written
     comments is June 16, 1999.
               If you need the address where comments should be
     sent, please feel free to come up to the panel and we will
     give you that information.  We also have extra copies of the
     proposed rule, if you need one.
               MSHA is specifically interested in comments on
     certain aspects of the proposed rule, although we encourage
     commenters to address any of the proposed provisions.  These
     issues were identified in the notice of hearing published in
     the Federal Register on April 14, 1999, and I will summarize
     those issues.
               Definition of miner.  Under the proposal a person
     engaged in mining operations integral to extraction or
     production would be considered a miner.  We are interested
     in whether this definition is appropriate.  Workers who fit
     the definition of miner under the proposal would be required
     to receive comprehensive training, including new-miner
     training or newly hired experienced-miner training as
     appropriate.
               Plan approval process.  The proposal would require
     each operator to develop and implement a written training
     plan that includes programs for training new miners and
     newly hired experienced miners, training miners for new
     tasks, annual refresher training and hazard training.  Plans
     that include the minimum information specified in the
     proposal would be considered approved and would not be
     required to be submitted to MSHA for formal review and
     approval.  
               Miners and their representatives would also be
     given the opportunity to comment on the plan before it is
     implemented, or request us to formally review and approve
     the plan.  We are interested in comments on whether the
     proposed approach is appropriate, or whether any commenters
     believe the traditional plan approval process, similar to
     the process in Part 48, is needed to insure that training
     plans meet minimum standards of quality.
               New-miner training.  Under the proposal no minimum
     number of hours of training is required for a new miner
     before he or she begins work under the close supervision of
     an experienced miner.  Instead, the proposal requires
     instruction in four specific subject areas before the miner
     can assume work duties.  We are interested in whether
     commenters agree with this approach or whether the final
     rule should establish a minimum number of hours of training
     that new miners must receive before they begin work.
               New-task training.  This proposed rule will
     require miners to be trained for new tasks and for regularly
     assigned tasks that have changed.  The new-task training
     requirements in the proposal are very performance oriented
     and do not include detailed specifications for this
     training.  However, we are interested in comments on whether
     the final rule should include more detail and guidance on
     the elements of an effective new-task training program.  And
     if so, what areas should be addressed.
               Training instructors.  The proposal would not
     require a formal program for the approval or certification
     of instructors or establish rigid minimum qualifications for
     instructors.  Instead, training under the proposal must be
     provided by a competent person, which is defined as a person
     designated by the operator who has the ability, training,
     knowledge or experience to provide training to miners on a
     particular subject.  Under this definition the competent
     person must also be able to evaluate the effectiveness of
     the training.  We are interested in comments on whether this
     approach is appropriate.
               Annual refresher training.  Under the proposal
     annual refresher training must include, at a minimum,
     instruction on changes at the mine that could adversely
     affect the miners' health or safety.  The proposal includes
     a list of suggested topics that refresher training could
     cover, but these topics are not mandatory.  We are
     interested in whether the final rule should include more
     detailed requirements and whether there are any other
     subjects that commoners believe should be required.
               Effective date and compliance deadlines.  We are
     interested in comments on how much time should be allowed
     for the mining community to come into compliance with the
     final rule.  One possible approach would be a phased-in
     compliance deadline, where some of the rules requirements
     would go into effect at different stages.  We understand
     that there will be a very large number of operations coming
     into compliance simultaneously, and we wish to allow a
     reasonable amount of time for the transition.  
               Costs and benefits of the proposed rule.  We are
     interested in comments on all elements, including
     methodology, assumptions and data of our analysis of the
     costs and benefits of compliance with the proposed rule.
               I would introduce our first speaker this morning
     if we have anyone signed up.  And at this point I would like
     to ask if there is anyone who would like to make comments on
     the record. 
               Yes, sir, if you could, you may either sit at the
     table or use the podium.  And after you sit down or stand
     up, could you state your name and also spell it for the
     court reporter?
               MR. REA:  My name is Charlie Rea.  My last name is
     spelled R-E-A.  I'm the Assistant Executive Director for the
     Construction Materials Association of California.  We are a
     -- our Executive Director is Linda Falasco.  She was not
     able to be here today.
               CMAC, as we're known, is a trade association
     representing aggregate and ready-mix producers in the
     northern two-thirds of California, roughly an area from the
     Tehachapi Mountains to the Oregon border.
               And today I'm here actually on behalf of the
     Coalition for Effective Miner Training, the CEMT Group,
     which you're probably familiar with.  CEMT represents a
     number of aggregate producers and statewide associations
     throughout the country.  
               And as you know, CEMT has been working on this,
     developing a Part 46 proposal they submitted, I think,
     February 1st, and they've been actively following MSHA's
     proposal, too.  And I think I'm really just here to confine
     my remarks to one area today regarding the responsibility
     for training.
               I think in general that CEMT and MSHA's proposals
     are similar in their approach; they're flexible, performance
     oriented.  I know there's a few areas where we want one of
     our provisions put in, or here and there.
               I think today primarily I'd want to clarify the
     record on the issue of responsibility for training.  I
     believe at your last hearing that Mark Kleinpeter with the
     Florida Rock Industries may have incorrectly stated that
     producers should be responsible for teaching contractor
     employees site-specific hazard training.
               And I just want to clarify that the CEMT position
     is that the contract supervisors should be responsible for
     their employees' site-specific hazard training.  So CEMT
     does not favor MSHA's proposal on that provision at this
     point, and we prefer the CEMT provision.
               I think CEMT is going to give you more detailed
     comments, broader comments at their Washington, D.C.,
     hearing.  And CMAC will probably also submit comments before
     the record closes.
               If you have any comments or questions on that
     provision or clarification I'd be happy to answer that.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Actually, I do have a
     question.  So the Coalition position is that the final rule
     should provide that production operators are responsible for
     training their employees and contractors are responsible for
     training their own employees, whether you're talking about
     comprehensive training or site-specific hazard training, is
     that correct?
               MR. REA:  Correct, yes.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  All right.  So, to the
     extent that the proposal provides that production operators
     are primarily responsible for providing site-specific hazard
     training to contractor employees, the Coalition does not
     agree with that provision?
               MR. REA:  Correct.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  As a practical
     matter, though, -- I mean obviously the production operator
     would be in the best position to give site-specific hazard
     training, -- how does the Coalition see, I mean, the
     information about the work site being conveyed to the
     contractor's supervisor, who you say should be the one who
     is the, I guess, the primarily responsible person for giving
     this training?
               MR. REA:  I think, you know, one issue is the
     liability issue.  That's why we want the contractor to be
     responsible for their employees.
               But I think as far as -- and certainly the
     producer is going to be responsible for providing the
     information on the site-specific hazards.  And I think we
     think a lot of that information is pretty clear-cut, that
     it's almost in the form of a checklist -- do this, don't do
     that -- and that that information can be conveyed pretty
     clearly.  And as I say, we believe it's usually in the form
     of a checklist.
               I think, you know, certainly the contractor is
     still going to be responsible for coming to us and, you
     know, making sure they have all the information, and will be
     responsible for providing that information.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Well, just as a practical
     matter, as is indicated in the proposal's preamble, you
     know, the provisions regarding who's responsible for what
     type of training is not meant to change in any way MSHA's
     position as far as allocating responsibility between
     contractors and production operators, and who gets cited. 
     And in appropriate cases, I mean we may choose to cite both
     the production operator and the contractor for a training
     violation if it's appropriate.
               So, I mean, you know, regardless of what, you
     know, is included in the role, I mean the intention is not
     to change that basic outlook as far as contractor
     enforcement is concerned.
               MR. BURNS:  Yeah, I think in response to some
     questions, Mr. Kleinpeter described what you're talking
     about in this way, that the operator should be able to take
     all that site-specific hazard information and training
     materials, give that information to the contractor, say,
     "here's the information you need about this particular mine,
     and you train your employees."
               Or, if they choose to, they could give that to the
     contractor's employees themselves, when they come on
     property.  Is that the CEMT position?
               MR. REA:  Yes, that's correct.  And I think in the
     CEMT proposal, which we would like to see codified, that
     would not preclude the producer from, you know, taking
     whatever role they wanted to.  It would give them the
     option, I guess, of flexibility.
               MR. BURNS:  So, I mean, really your concern about
     liability is not the MSHA liability, it's other liability?
               MR. REA:  Yeah, it would be our members. 
     Producers.
               MR. BURNS:  Okay.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  I don't mean to put you on
     the spot, but I'm going to go ahead and ask this question. 
     Do you have a position as far as compliance deadlines or
     effective date?
               MR. REA:  We would like the full year of
     implementation.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
               MR. REA:  Yeah, we don't favor the phase-in
     approach.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  I don't have any
     more questions.  Robert Aldrich, do you have any questions?
               MR. ALDRICH:  I do not.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Rod?
               MR. BRELAND:  Just one.  I want to make sure I'm
     absolutely clear on the training.  What you're saying, the
     position that CEMT would have is that they wouldn't be
     obligated to do any training for contractors, period?
               MR. REA:  Correct.
               MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  I just wanted to make sure I
     understood that that was the position you were actually
     saying -- any site-specific hazard or whatever, only that
     you be obligated to relay information to at least some
     representative that would, in turn --
               MR. REA:  Correct.  We'd provide information and
     they'd provide the training.
               MR. BRELAND:  How would you see, as a production
     operator dealing with a contractor that wasn't relaying the
     information possibly, and they're in your -- at your
     operation, and you're aware of that, you're seeing that?
               MR. REA:  You know, again, I think the contractor
     would be responsible, but you're saying we see a situation
     that the training is not occurring.  I don't know if there's
     a reporting mechanism or something like that that would --
     or --
               MR. BRELAND:  Well, I just see that -- I mean
     there's potentially a problem where an operator could say'
     here's information that should be relayed, and you're
     driving right by, if you will, just for an example, driving
     right by routinely, and it's obvious that information is not
     being relayed, and it may be affecting production operator's
     employees as well, if there's some issue of safety that's
     not being paid attention to.  It could be traffic controls,
     it could be a lot of things occurring, if they're just
     simply not -- I wouldn't say willfully not complying with
     the company rules, but maybe not been made aware. 
               How do you see dealing with that as a production
     operator?
               MR. REA:  You know, possibly just wouldn't want to
     use that contractor if you don't feel comfortable with them,
     if they're not providing adequate, you know, they're a
     hazard to the worksite.
               MR. BRELAND:  How would you see MSHA dealing with
     that issue, if they came on site and the production operator
     hadn't done something about it?  How would you expect them
     to deal with it?
               MR. REA:  If the production operator had not dealt
     with the situation, you're saying?
               MR. BRELAND:  Yeah.
               MR. REA:  That's a good question.  I'm sure they'd
     want to, you know, whatever your enforcement role normally
     is --
               MR. BRELAND:  You know, we're -- if you have a
     process for insuring that miners get trained and for some
     reason they're not, certainly MSHA could, if you had a rule
     there that the contractor was responsible, you could cite
     the contractor.  But it could be that your production
     operator's employees are subject to risk because of lack of
     training.  And you know, so I guess the dilemma is what do
     you do to protect all miners that are at the site?
               MR. REA:  I guess I would just think that if it's
     the contractor's responsibility, then MSHA should go after
     the contractor.  If it's employees of the producer, then the
     producer should be responsible.  Direct your efforts there.
               MR. BRELAND:  Yeah.
               MR. BURNS:  Well, we would, I'm sure that we would
     follow our current policy on that, under his scenario where
     the mine employees were at risk.  I mean that fits under the
     current policy that both could be cited for that, because
     your people are at risk, also.  And you do have total
     responsibility for your own employees.
               So, you know, what we're talking about is
     separating out.  I mean, if you want to separate out the
     responsibility for training, that doesn't necessarily
     separate out responsibility for violations, including
     violations of not doing training, okay?  They may not be,
     you know, mutually exclusive concepts, because you still
     have, you know, the responsibility of making -- the mine
     operator has the responsibility of making the mine site safe
     for their miners.  So even if you do carve out this training
     issue, there's still some responsibility left there.
               MR. REA:  Yeah, certainly I --
               MR. BURNS:  And it's not within this rule even to
     change that.  
               MR. REA:  Okay.
               MR. BURNS:  I mean that's in the Mine Act.
               MR. REA:  Okay.  Well, I don't think we're trying
     to change the underlying Act or anything.
               MR. BURNS:  Right, yeah.
               MR. REA:  Yeah, there may be some issues there
     that need some further discussion, and that's something I
     can certainly take back to the group and let them know
     about.
               MR. BRELAND:  Yeah, the thing I was trying to get
     at is, if you have a proposal you're making, you need to
     also consider what are the remedies if there's a problem
     with the desired result.  Because that's what MSHA would be
     responsible for, making sure that all miners are receiving
     appropriate training.
               MR. REA:  Okay.
               MR. BURNS:  Essentially some sort of, I'm just
     thinking out loud, but perhaps some sort of good-faith
     effort to insure that the contractor's employees are being
     trained.
               MR. REA:  Okay, I can certainly take that back to
     the CEMT group.
               MR. BURNS:  Does that make sense?
               MR. BRELAND:  Yeah, that was the only question I
     had.  I wanted to make sure I understood that.  
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Kevin, do you have any
     questions?
               MR. BURNS:  No.  
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Mario?
               MR. FERNANDEZ:  None.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, 
     Mr. Rea.
               MR. REA:  Okay, thank you.
               MR. BRELAND:  Thank you.
               MR. BURNS:  Thank you.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Do we have anyone else in
     the audience who would like to make a statement?  Yes, sir?
               MR. NIESEN:  My name is first initial C, Duane,
     D-U-A-N-E, Niesen, N-I-E-S-E-N.  And I'm currently a Senior
     Engineer for Cal/OSHA's Mining and Tunneling Unit.  And one
     of my primary jobs is to supervise the MSHA training grant
     whereby my employees provide actual MSHA-required training,
     mostly under part 48.
               I made some statements in Ontario in December, and
     I'm going to sort of rehash some of that, and address some
     of the issues here.
               But first, I'd like to make sort of a general
     statement.  First of all, I feel very old, because 39 years
     10 months ago today, on this very site, I reported for work
     for the State of California.  It looked a lot different
     then.  A lot of things have changed, and a lot of things
     have not.
               About 35 of those years of my experience have been
     involved with industries that are what I call rough trades,
     heavy industry, heavy construction, mining, logging.  I've
     been working for Cal/OSHA for the past 26 years, since its
     inception in 1973.  And I've sort of learned by osmosis two
     general principles:  First of all, that safety is an
     absolute survival essential and that safety training is part
     and parcel of that.  And effective safety training is just
     as important a piece of personal protective equipment as any
     physical piece.  And I'm quite prejudiced, I guess, toward
     that opinion.
               The second thing that I've learned over the years
     is that industry -- I'm going to get hit in the back by
     several people here -- left to their own devices, have not
     shown a great inclination to self-regulate.
               I was Compliance District Manager for Cal/OSHA
     here in Sacramento for 12 years, and I worked in the field
     as a compliance inspector for 10 before that.  And history
     has at least taught me that without some sort of guideline
     or structure, industry tends to lag when it comes to what I
     call self enforcement.
               In my mind I believe that led in the late sixties
     to the passage of the federal OSHA Act; in 1970, in the
     early seventies it led to the passage of California's
     Cal/OSHA Act; and I believe in the mining industry it led to
     the passage of the Mine Act of 1977 -- some legislation,
     some structure, some regulations necessary to make sure that
     the right thing gets done.
               And what I see in the proposal of part 46 is quite
     loose.  It leaves a great deal to the discretion of
     operators.  And for good operators that's fine.  For
     marginal operators, for operators who are struggling to make
     ends meet, it's not so fine.
               The concern generated in the past several years by
     mine fatality and accident statistics, I think, pretty much
     show where the problems lie, and that is with small
     operators and with contractors.  And these are the two
     groups that, without some sort of structural guidance, are
     going to be the groups that have their people most at risk.
               Small operators are struggling for survival
     possibly, and given a whole lot of discretion in their
     training programs, I'm afraid they're going to neglect
     their, to the expense of their employees. 
               Contractors may not be familiar with mining
     operations in all cases.  A lot of them are not.  We deal
     with them every day.  We train about 2,500 people in
     California a year with MSHA-48-style training, with
     contractors and miners.  And we find a great deal of
     ignorance on the part of contractors.  They're not familiar
     with the situations which they go into, and they are looking
     for some sort of guidance.
               I'm also an enforcer at heart, although I don't do
     that anymore.  And I find that performance-oriented
     standards are a nightmare to enforce.  I would not want to
     be an MSHA inspector and go to every new mine and have to
     make a judgment on every new training plan and every new
     instructor, whether or not they're competent and whether or
     not the intent of part 46 is being carried out.
               I would like to see a little bit more structure
     and a little bit more regularized procedure for safety
     training, which I believe is literally life and death.
               I want to address some of the issues that are here
     that MSHA has expressed interest in.  First of all, the
     definition of a miner, that is, who should be subject to
     various types of training.  
               And it's my opinion, based on my Cal/OSHA
     experience and similar safety regulation that went into
     effect for us in 1991, that any employee exposed to the
     hazards should be equally protected by the training to
     protect them from that hazard.  If you want to call them a
     miner or a contractor or an experienced miner, or whatever
     terminology you'd like to use, the essence of the question
     is whether or not the employee's exposed to the hazard, and
     whether or not that person should be prepared to deal with
     the hazard.  His or her title really doesn't make much
     difference.  
               So I'd like to have that training expanded to
     cover all those people who regularly work, or who work on a
     regular intermittent fashion, and are exposed to the hazards
     of mine operation.
               The second issue, I think, is the plan approval
     process, and I happen to agree with this one, strangely
     enough.  The MSHA submittal process has gotten a little bit
     sticky in the last few years, at least that's what I hear
     from a lot of operators where changes to plan approvals or
     changes of plans must be approved by the local office.  And
     that involves a lot of, perhaps, excess paperwork,
     especially when you just change instructors.  
               And so I really have no problem with the proposal
     here.  If you have a plan on site that can be examined by
     authorized people, that's fine.  Now, there should be, as I
     said before, a few more guidelines and a little more
     rigidity to the style of plan and what it covers.
               New miner training.  This is something that I feel
     rather strongly about, and I think it's based on my Cal/OSHA
     experience.  As I said before, safety training is just as
     important a piece of personal protective equipment as is any
     physical piece.  And none of us here probably would allow a
     miner to walk on a mine site without a hardhat, and I
     believe that a miner should not be allowed to get into a
     mine operation without proper basic training, which is a
     part of the personal protective equipment.
               Therefore, I think there should be some basic
     orientation.  If you want to put a number of hours on it, I
     suppose, in my training experience I don't think you can
     communicate much even on a small simple mine site in less
     than half a day, because that's just not enough time to
     acquaint especially a new person with the situation, the
     site-specific conditions and the general hazards that exist
     in a mining operation.
               And so I think there should be some minimum
     requirement for training of all new miners before they're
     allowed to be exposed to the hazards.  Just as you would not
     appear without a hardhat, that person should not be able to
     appear without the proper training.
               I, also, over my last three and a half years
     experience since I've been involved in MSHA training, tend
     to favor the structure of part 48 or some move in that
     direction as part of that basic training.
               As I stated, I think, in December, there really
     isn't any secret about what kills miners.  It's been
     researched, rehashed, sliced and diced.  MSHA puts out
     beautiful colored charts on every aspect of what injures and
     kills miners in the United States.
               Therefore, the basic training should be pretty
     clear.  And there really isn't that much tremendous
     variation between one site and another as far as the very
     basics are concerned.  Powered haulage, electrical hazards,
     ground conditions, things like that are basic almost
     everywhere you go, any kind of a mine.
               And if you're going to put in a basic plan before
     you let a miner go to work, I think those subjects should be
     covered by regulation.  
               To allow an operator to have total discretion
     about where and when and what he trains his people in, I
     think, would leave a lot of miners unprepared, especially
     with small operators and especially with contractors who
     weren't really familiar with the mine site or mine
     operations.  And those are the people who are mostly at risk
     according to statistics.
               New-task training.  I tend to feel strongly about
     that too, because Cal/OSHA has a similar regulation. 
     Anytime you change an operation or anytime you adopt a new
     material or a new machine, the employees exposed to that
     particular condition must be trained beforehand.  It can be
     done very informal.  It's usually on the job.  Shouldn't
     present much of a problem I don't think.
               Training instructors.  I feel extremely strongly
     about this.  I've dealt with the term "competent person" for
     about 20 years in Cal/OSHA, and I find that to be to me a
     very odious term as an enforcer.  It's almost impossible to
     define, and I've been in many many court hearings where we
     harangued all day with varying results.  It's very difficult
     to define what a competent person is.
               Here it is decided by the operator who, in his or
     her own wisdom and experience, has to decide on several
     factors:  ability, training, knowledge and experience.  And
     also on judgment of the effectiveness.  That's a very great
     thing to ask of a person who is not trained in that area. 
     How are you going to evaluate an effective instructor if
     you're not at least acquainted with instructional technology
     and all the other things that go into effective training?
               Part 48 requires certified instructors.  There's
     been a lot of criticism of the certification program.  But
     actually, it's better than nothing and could be improved. 
     Right now it's left up to training specialists, I believe,
     to approve accredited instructors.  And in general, with the
     offices that I've worked with, they go on about four
     parameters.  And one is mining experience, mine safety
     training, instructional experience and instructional
     training.  I think those four things are very valuable.
               Some judgment should be made about the quality of
     the instructors who prepare miners in this life-and-death
     situation to face the hazards they are going to do.  If you
     pick a foreman or a good laborer, or somebody who looks like
     somebody's grandpa to do the training, it's the luck of the
     draw whether or not that miner is really effectively
     trained.
               You need somebody who's acquainted with
     methodology, subject matter, and understands how to get the
     message across, or that miner will not be adequately
     prepared to meet the hazards.
               I prefer, then, certifying instructors for part
     46, as well as part 48.  And if you want to complain about
     the certification process, then fix it.  Don't throw it out. 
     Otherwise you're going to have all manner of persons
     attempting to train with all manner of methods, and their
     own favorite subject matters and all that, with no structure
     whatsoever.
               To me, part 46 also creates another problem in
     that when one miner moves from one mine to another, it puts
     the onus on the second operator to completely retrain that
     person, because he has no standard to compare that basic
     miner's training.  He has to inquire or do it over again
     before he starts out at a new mine.  
               That's one advantage, I think, to part 48, where
     you have at least a certificate which gives you a base level
     of understanding of what that miner has been trained in. 
     Part 46 does not allow for that.
               So I'm very opinionated.  I think that training
     instructors allowed to do this training should be certified.
               Another problem with annual refresher training is
     that apparently, according to what I see here, you will
     allow a cumulative amount of that with, as I can read it, no
     minimum.  Tailgate sessions or casual discussions will be
     able to add up to refresher training.
               In the original proposal I think that I read with
     CEMT back in August, there was a comment in one of the
     magazine articles that the attention span of miners isn't
     very long.  As a trainer I take exception to that, because
     one of the differences between pedagogy and androgogy,
     that's the teaching of children and the teaching of adults,
     is that children have very short attention spans, but adults
     tend to have longer attention spans.  We're shortchanging
     our miners by not allowing them to sit through sessions that
     may be more than five minutes or 15 minutes long.  They can
     learn.
               The annual refresher training, now, according to
     part 46, supposes the opposite, that they can accumulate all
     these five-minute sessions into a composite that will
     refresh them.  I think that's a misdirection as far as
     training theory goes.
               There should be a minimum amount of time to get
     any subject matter across.  I've given several thousand
     tailgate sessions and I've sat in on several thousand more. 
     And you cannot really get one single subject across in less
     than about 15 minutes.  You just can't do it.  You've got to
     get people's attention, you have to deliver, you have to
     make a presentation that's going to stick in their minds. 
     And if you allow a five-minute session or a casual
     conversation to substitute for this vital information, that
     would be a mistake.
               Also, I don't know how you're going to keep
     records of this.  That's going to be a real nightmare for
     the enforcers, too.  Fortunately, I'm not one, so that's
     good.
               The effective date, in my opinion, is about six
     months.  A lot of the responsible sand and gravel people in
     California who are going to be most affected by this have
     already got a jump-start and have complied with part 48 for
     a long time.  So, the great stampede to comply with part 46
     I don't think is going to be quite as great as we
     anticipate, because a lot of responsible operators have
     already got a great start.  
               The transition will not be that great. In fact,
     for some of them it will be a downgrade from what they've
     already complied with.  So I don't think you really need a
     year.
               I really don't have any expertise in cost
     benefits.  I would only like to reiterate one thing that I
     heard in a meeting here not long ago, the last meeting of
     this sort, from an aggregate producer.  And he said when
     he's asked what training costs him, he says, nothing.  It's
     lack of training that costs.  And I believe that from my
     experience that's true.  
               The bottom line is directly affected by safety
     performance, which is, in turn, directly affected by safety
     training.  It's going to show up in the bottom line.  It's
     really going to be a plus, not a minus.  I believe that
     strongly, as an enforcer and as a trainer.  
               The more enlightened producers in California, even
     though they were so-called exempt, have already seen that. 
     We do a great deal of training for part 48 on sand and
     gravel producers, and have for years in California.  And to
     them this is going to be a relaxation of the requirements. 
     And so it's not going to be that odious a thing.
               That's about all I have to say, I suppose, except
     that because of the lack of structure, because of the
     discretion given to operators in almost all parts of this
     proposal, I believe that it's going to do a disservice to
     miners in the first place.
               The good operators will comply and go above it. 
     The people who are pressed, or who can't, who are the group
     at risk here, the small employers, contractors, will not,
     and therefore expose their people unnecessarily to hazards
     for which they're not adequately trained to cope with.
               You're going to do a disservice to the miners
     themselves, you're also going to do a disservice to those
     progressive people in the aggregate industry in California
     who have already lived up to a higher standard, I suppose,
     in training their people according to part 48.
               So I would like to see more structure, a
     requirement for certification, and a minimum requirement for
     subject matter and new miner training.
               Thank you.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr.
     Niesen.  I have got a couple questions, and others may, as
     well.
               You indicated that you generally agreed with the
     approach taken in the proposal for plan approval, but you
     indicated that you believed that it should have more
     guidelines and more rigidity.
               Could I ask you, do you have any specific
     suggestions as far as what those guidelines or, you know,
     rigid requirements might include?
               MR. NIESEN:  The subject matters that I think are
     outlined in part 46 proposed now are pretty general.  The
     ones in part 48 are quite specific.
               Because of the availability of statistics and the
     relative certainty about what hurts and kills miners, I
     think there should be a basic, a little bit more detailed,
     perhaps halfway between part 46 proposal and part 48, on
     basic subjects that are common to most mines as a
     curriculum.
               You can still leave it up to the operator to
     decide how much of what, depending on his own mining
     operation.
               I would like to see a requirement in there also
     for certified instructors.  I've already expressed myself on
     that.  And I would also like to see some measure of time. 
     As it stands, as it's written here, I see that there'd be
     all kinds of room to make it very informal, very short, and
     in my opinion, very ineffective.  
               There should be some baseline in there somewhere
     about how much time should be spent on a training or to
     execute a training plan.   And it can depend on the mine
     size, but it should cover those subject matters, and it
     should be a basic four-hour or a one-day or whatever
     specific number of hours or number of days to prepare them
     before they go out there in the first place, based on those
     basic subject materials.
               That's about the only thing --
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay, that was sort of my
     next question.  You indicated that as far as new miner
     training is concerned that you believe that it was important
     to have some kind of initial training before the miner
     actually goes to the worksite and is exposed to hazards.  
               Now, the way that it is currently in the proposal
     is there is four specific subject areas that must be covered
     in training before a new miner can be exposed to mine
     hazards, you know, begin his work duties.
               Now, I guess I'm interested in knowing what your
     recommendations are for how we might do that differently? 
     Are you saying that there should be a minimum number of
     hours of training that should be given to a new miner before
     he begins work, or specific subject areas, which is kind of
     the approach that we have taken in the proposal?
               I'm just trying to get a little bit more detail as
     far as what it is that you're recommending.
               MR. NIESEN:  Well, it should depend on the size
     and the complexity of the operations, and that's already
     written here.  However, there are certain subjects that are
     pretty common, and those are the subjects that kill most
     miners.
               And I think that maybe there could be something
     written that if those particular basic standards or basic
     subject matters are pertinent to a mine site, that those
     thing should be covered.
               Now, maybe powered haulage would be a significant
     one.  That's the biggest killer we have.  It's also present
     on a lot of mine sites.  And I think that should be included
     in basic curriculum.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
               MR. NIESEN:  Traffic patterns, traffic control and
     all that stuff is also part and parcel of that.  That's
     present on any mine site.  If there are certain machinery
     like conveyors, first aid certainly should be covered.
               Perhaps there could be a list made up that would
     cover most, similar to part 48, and an operator could be
     given the discretion to pick those subject matters which are
     pertinent on his mine site, or her mine site, and train in
     his plan to meet those things which are particularized to
     his site, out of a standard list.  
               And maybe that could be a criteria for judging his
     plan whenever he's inspected.  
               I don't want to force people to train in
     underground rescue when they don't have any underground. 
     That would be foolish, a waste of time.  But maybe a certain
     set of subject matters from which an operator could pick,
     according to his operation.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Now, I have one
     final question.  You indicated that you did not agree with
     the approach taken as far as "competent person" in the
     proposal.  And you indicated that a part 48 type approval
     scheme would be more appropriate.  But you also indicated
     that you know, to the extent that there were problems with
     the current part 48 scheme, that that should be fixed.
               Do you have any suggestions, I mean,
     hypothetically, if we were to take a more part 48 type
     approach, what would be your recommendations for how to make
     that scheme better?
               MR. NIESEN:  Well, it's been my experience that
     MSHA certificates have been handed out at the complete
     discretion of the training specialist.  Sometimes that's
     pretty loose.  
               I'll have to compliment the people that are in the
     positions that I deal with now, Mr. Tobin and Mr. Salois and
     those people that I've met at the Academy.  Their opinions,
     as expressed to me, seem to set certain areas where they
     look into the matter.  And I enumerated four.
               Perhaps that should be -- something like that
     should be formalized and a potential instructor should have
     some experience or training in those areas, as a minimum,
     and still leave it up to the training specialist to evaluate
     that, so that there would be at least a baseline competence
     of subject matter or experience that would qualify an
     instructor to go forth and do the training.
               I train instructors, and I use the MSHA format. 
     There's been a tremendous demand, especially since part 46
     was rumored.  And I get all kinds of people.  I get some
     which are going to make very good instructors, sometimes
     from the rank and file.  I get other people who are going to
     make lousy instructors.
               There's really no way to tell, but the best thing
     you can do is to prepare them in certain areas that at least
     ground them in the principles and the techniques to be able
     to get the message across, as well as either train them or
     have experience in mining processes, because that's
     important, also, if they're going to teach them.  And the
     training specialist can still decide that.
               But perhaps a little bit more delineation, I
     suppose, of the areas that they need to be reasonably
     acquainted with, would be valuable.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  I think that's all
     I have.  Robert Aldrich, do you --
               MR. ALDRICH:  No questions.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Rod Breland?
               MR. BRELAND:  Maybe a couple of clarifications,
     and maybe a request, too, Duane.  You had some real good
     comments you made, concerns about definition of miner, for
     example and the new miner training.  And you've listed some
     potential subject matter.
               Are you intending to submit comments along the
     lines for clarification of maybe what you're suggesting as
     definitions?
               MR. NIESEN:  Yes, I'd like to.  You know, I've got
     the usual bureaucrat's excuse of no time, but, yeah, I want
     to do that.
               MR. BRELAND:  Yeah, I think it's an important
     thing for you to do.
               If you're comparing similarities to part 48
     structure that you like, versus the looseness you don't
     like, I think it would be good to show what you think would
     fit more appropriately.
               The "competent person" issue, particular you
     talked about -- you're saying, for instructors, if you have
     a list of some of the minimum experience and training, or
     thoughts on that, that would be good that that's included in
     that, as well.
               You talked about the approval process, I don't
     know if you're working well out here, but if there's areas
     in the present approval process that we have in part 48 for
     instructors that you think need fixing, or you said that
     there --and there obviously is some disparity around the
     country there, but again, if you have suggestions there we
     wouldn't want to even remotely consider going forward with a
     new rule that would adopt problems we've had from the past.
               MR. NIESEN:  Yeah, we had quite a meeting back at
     the Academy in April on that particular subject, and I had
     about 20 people from that many states.  And the only thing
     we did not have at all is a consensus of opinion about part
     48 or part 46, so it's a wide open thing.
               MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  That's all I have, just more
     of a request than questions.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Kevin?
               MR. BURNS:  The only thing that hasn't been asked
     and I'm not clear on is, you mentioned the problem with the
     record keeping and certification of training may not be
     clear enough so that one operator would know what a miner
     was trained in?
               MR. NIESEN:  Yeah.  I have a concern in two areas,
     actually.  First of all, training given by a mine operator
     under part 46 seems to be highly individualized, and part of
     that's good, but when a miner transfers to another mine or
     wants to go to work somewhere else, the new employer is
     going to be saddled with an extra burden of trying to
     determine what that miner has been trained in and whether or
     not it applies at his mine, and possibly retraining.  To me
     that's harder than accepting a basic certificate.
               The second thing is on the refresher training,
     which apparently will be allowed to be an aggregate of
     several small, short sessions, I don't see any guidelines in
     here for an operator to decide when he's finished.  What
     constitutes, how many 15-minute tailgate sessions does it
     take to make up an eight-hour day, what subject matter, and
     how is he going to prove that to MSHA or anybody else who is
     examining whether or not he's met his annual refresher
     commitment?
               MR. BURNS:  The annual refresher would fit into
     the same requirements, you know, for records of training. 
     And even though this doesn't specify that they have to use
     the 5023, they could if they wanted to.  
               But it still requires that it indicate the type of
     training completed, the duration of the training.  So a lot
     of that information should be on these records if they're
     complying with the standard.
               MR. NIESEN:  He gets to make up his own record
     form, is that correct?
               MR. BURNS:  Yes, --
               MR. NIESEN:  So he could have a --
               MR. BURNS:  -- or they could do a spreadsheet or
     something like that.  That's what they suggested.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  With certain minimum
     information, of course --
               MR. BURNS:  Yeah.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  -- included.  But the
     thinking behind that was we were getting a lot of comments
     from people who indicated they wanted flexibility in format,
     particularly given, you know, the computerization of so much
     of the record keeping.
               And so rather than rigidly requiring that records
     be kept on a 5023 or some other type of specific MSHA-
     approved form, we were intending to give them flexibility. 
     But there are minimum informational requirements for those
     records that would need to be followed.
               MR. BURNS:  Yes, if they weren't able to pull out
     of those records what sort of subjects this person had
     training on, then it wouldn't be in compliance with the
     rule.  Because it does state the type of training completed
     in there.
               And, you know, I don't think we can necessarily
     eliminate the problem you're talking about with a new
     employer.  I mean, there are mine operators out there now
     that retrain miners, even though they have 5023s, because
     you know, you fill out that form you still don't know what
     they're trained on.
               So, you know, we can't get rid of that problem.  I
     mean that's, no matter what this rule says there will be
     some operators, and you know, they're very conscientious
     operators, they're going to retrain new employees because
     they want them trained in their way.
               MR. NIESEN:  Well, they should.  Some will and --
               MR. BURNS:  Yeah.
               MR. NIESEN:  -- of course, the other side won't.
               MR. BURNS:  But I don't see any way that the
     documentation could rule that out, you know, for a new
     employer, that they would totally know exactly what that
     person had.  Unless they were familiar with the other
     company, you know, that way they might know.
               MR. NIESEN:  That's going to put a burden on them
     to determine what -- and or start over again, one or the
     other, that's what I figure --
               MR. BURNS:  Yeah, they should be able to determine
     that the person had training in explosives.  Say this miner
     came from sand and gravel and they didn't use explosives. 
     And he's gone to a quarry and he's going to be exposed to
     explosives.  And they should be able to determine that he
     didn't have that, you know, based on the records.
               I think that's all I had that wasn't already
     asked.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Mario?
               MR. FERNANDEZ:  No questions.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr.
     Niesen.
               MR. NIESEN:  Thank you.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Is there anyone else here
     who has not spoken who would like to speak?  Yes, please
     come up to the podium and state your name and spell it for
     the court reporter, if you could.
               MS. MOORHOUSE:  Nancy M-O-O-R-H-O-U-S-E, Safety
     and Environmental Director for A. Teichert & Son.  We're a
     major sand and gravel operator in California, with close to
     300 miners.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Excuse me, could you spell
     the name of your company?
               MS. MOORHOUSE:  Yes.  That's A. T, as in Tom, E-I-
     C-H-E-R-T.  We've been in business since 1887, so we
     appreciate health and safety training for our people,
     because the last thing we want is fatalities.
               We've been doing part 48 training ever since I've
     been in the department, and found it effective, although
     somewhat cumbersome with the requirements of certain aspects
     that we just don't get involved in, in sand and gravel
     operations, i.e., explosives, self rescue, et cetera.
               And I will submit written comments.  I just wanted
     to get on the record today.  
               The challenge that we always face as mine
     operators is the coming and going of people on and off the
     site for delivery, et cetera.  And under your part 46
     requirements, where the production operator is responsible
     for the hazard awareness training and the documentation of
     those people, delivery personnel, et cetera, it can pose a
     problem.  And I'm looking at it from the enforcement side.
               When we do get visited from MSHA inspectors -- and
     I have to comment, they do do a good job, but we still have
     frustrations with them in terms of interpretations of what
     is so.  I think in some degree we're opening a Pandora's Box
     in terms of the level of citations that could be issued for
     some nuances that maybe are outside of our control as a
     production operator.
               In my written comments I'll propose some
     suggestions to that.  I appreciate signage and verbiage such
     as that as adequate training, but invariably we'll find that
     enforcement officer that will be somewhat of a zealot and
     you know, we've got our hands tied in some situations,
     because we just don't always have control of those people
     that come on and off site.
               Other than that, I think the flexibility that
     you're proposing in part 46 is acceptable.  I think we've
     already incorporated that under the part 48 anyway.  
               I think it is important that new miners receive
     eight hours of training before they hit the mine site. 
     Because they do need to understand the challenge does come
     in the fact when you inherit someone else's miner, whether
     they come from another company or whatever, making sure that
     they've got adequate training.  We just take the position
     we're going to train them all because we can't trust what
     somebody else did.  I'm not saying that's a negative, but we
     want to make sure they understand the uniqueness of our
     plants.
               So, with that, I'll submit written comments.  But
     I just wanted to get on the record such far.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Could I just ask a couple
     questions?  And I don't want to put you on the spot.  But,
     as far as, you know, site-specific hazard training is
     concerned, do you have any specific suggestions for how the
     proposal, or the final rule could address the concerns that
     you have about inconsistent enforcement and our
     interpretation, or whatever?
               MS. MOORHOUSE:  Not off the top of my head, but
     I'd be glad to submit that in written comments.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Yeah, I mean we are always
     interested in, you know, specific recommendations for how we
     might address, you know, specific problems.  So if you, you
     know, if in your written comments you could give us that, we
     would really appreciate it.
               MS. MOORHOUSE:  Sure.
               MR. BURNS:  When you're talking about that you
     don't have control over who's coming on your property,
     you're talking about like where you -- well, you may not
     even contract with these truckers, your customer will.  And
     then they might even have subcontracts.
               So is that what you're talking about that you
     can't -- you have a hard time keeping track of who the truck
     drivers are that are new to the mine, and which ones have
     been there before?  Because it's -- that can be changed on a
     daily basis almost?
               MS. MOORHOUSE:  Absolutely, because we use outside
     haulers for trucking.  I mean you can take it to the nth
     degree that even, you know, when the post office delivers
     your mail whatsoever, I mean it's a new person every day. 
     And to what degree do we go on some of that?
               I mean I don't want to nit-pick some of this, but
     to the same effect, I mean, yeah, we want to provide a safe
     work environment.  We have an obligation as an employer to
     our employees primarily, and that's why that independent
     contractor relationship is so vital.  You know, that they
     make sure their people are trained.  Otherwise, we become
     the watch dog for everybody, and at some point you reach
     critical mass and it's not effective anymore.
               MR. BURNS:  Okay, I'm not sure if you were here
     when this was raised before, but you know, the issue is how
     do we determine, perhaps, that the operator made a, for lack
     of a better term, a good faith effort to determine that
     contractors are taking the information that you provide them
     and providing it to their employees.
               You don't have to answer it here, but I think
     that's really what we're looking for in this area, that
     there should be some -- there's not a total disconnect, that
     there has to be some mechanism that there's some sort of
     good faith effort made to make sure that this training is
     being provided and not put in the circular file somewhere.
               MS. MOORHOUSE:  I appreciate that.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Rod.
               MR. BRELAND:  Yeah, a couple.  The examples of
     inconsistency, I think you just touched on like you could
     have verbiage or signage, and you're representing a multiple
     of operations, I assume?  Are you consistent at those
     operations with the type of indoctrination you do, or hazard
     training you do for your truck drivers and signage and so
     forth?  Is that consistent from one place to another?
               MS. MOORHOUSE:  As best we can be, yeah.
               MR. BRELAND:  And have you found that that's been
     misinterpreted, or interpreted differently from one place to
     another by enforcement, is that what you're talking about,
     as being adequate?
               MS. MOORHOUSE:  Well, you've got a couple of
     things.  You've got the enforcement side that's trying to
     find things wrong.  It's their job.  
               But then even when you have independent people
     visiting your mine site, they're not always in compliance
     with the requests that you make, such as personal protection
     equipment, or hardhats, or et cetera.  
               And that gets a little tenuous as a producer in
     making sure that, you know, we've got our own people to take
     care of.  And you get 200, 300 truckers a day and they're
     running around without hardhats, it's a very onerous
     situation.
               We do the absolutely best we can, but you've got
     language barriers and some other issues there societal-wise
     that we have to take on.  And you just do the best you can.
               MR. BRELAND:   Do you have some sort of -- and
     I've heard this brought up, matter of fact it was brought up
     in Orlando, that they thought they were going to have to go
     to bilingual for scalehouse people or something, to --
               MS. MOORHOUSE:  We're even going to pictures to
     make sure that we're more universal.  I mean it is a
     challenge.  It is a challenge.
               MR. BRELAND:  Are you presently doing some sort of
     checklist, or is it mostly a signage thing or inspections to
     a contract company when you hire them for haulage and stuff?
               MS. MOORHOUSE:  We do checklists.  We also make
     sure contractually that it's in the contract that they sign
     to make sure that it's very clear that they have to follow
     part 48 training requirements when they come onto our job
     sites, so that we have some venue to go back.
               MR. BRELAND:  That's for the hazard training. 
     Then you mentioned you thought the eight hours was probably
     a minimum before, if you had new employees for your own
     operation I assume.  
               What kinds of things -- do you have a list,
     yourself, or an outline of the eight-hour training you do
     for new employees?
               MS. MOORHOUSE:  Um-hum.
               MR. BRELAND:   That would probably be good to
     submit with your comments.
               MS. MOORHOUSE:  Okay.
               MR. BRELAND:  If you have that.  That's all I
     have, thank you.
               MS. MOORHOUSE:  Thank you.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Kevin, do you have
     anything else?
               MR. BURNS:  No.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Mario?
               MR. FERNANDEZ:  No.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much.
               MS. MOORHOUSE:  Thank you.
               MR. BURNS:  Thank you very much.
               CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Is there anyone else who
     would like to speak.  Either someone who has already spoken
     or someone who has not yet spoken, before we close the
     hearing?
               At the back of the room on the table in the corner
     is an attendance sheet, and we would appreciate it if anyone
     who is here who has not signed up would, before they leave,
     sign up on the sheet so that we have a good idea of who was
     at the hearing.
               I'll give you a little bit of an idea of what
     comes next.
               As I mentioned earlier, we have two more public
     hearings next week on part 46.  The record will remain open
     for submission of written comments until June 16th.  And
     after the record closes, MSHA will then work diligently to
     prepare a final rule for publication in the Federal Register
     on or before September 30th of 1999.
               And obviously, depending on the decisions that we
     make, as far as effective dates and compliance deadlines,
     sometime in the coming months or year the industry will need
     to begin to comply with the requirements in the final rule.
               I thank everyone who came to the hearing today.  I
     particularly appreciate the speakers.
               And without anything further, this hearing is
     closed.  Thank you very much.
                         (Whereupon, at 9:35 a.m., the hearing was closed.)
                                --o0o--
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //                        CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
     
               I, PETER PETTY, do hereby certify that I am a
     disinterested person herein; that I recorded the foregoing
     hearing on a tape recorder; that thereafter the tape
     recording was transcribed into typewriting.
               I further certify that I am not of counsel or
     attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, or in any
     way interested in the outcome of said hearing.
               IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
     this 25th day of May, 1999.
     
     
     
                                                                 
                                      Peter Petty
                                      Official Reporter