UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 
REVIEW COMMISSION
* * * * * * * *
                PUBLIC HEARINGS
* * * * * * * *

Before:    PATRICIA SILVEY
Hearing:   Thursday, October 25, 2007
           1:04 p.m.
           Four Points by Sheraton Hotel
           1938 Stanton Way
           Lexington, KY  40511
Speakers:  Pearl Farler, Lewis McCoy, 
           Randy Duncan







Any reproduction of this transcript 
is prohibited without authorization 
by the certifying agency.
I N D E X

OPENING REMARKS
    By Ms. Silvey                    4 - 14
DISCUSSION AMONG PARTIES            14 - 46
CERTIFICATE                              47



















EXHIBIT PAGE

                                       PAGE
NUMBER  DESCRIPTION                 IDENTIFIED

NONE OFFERED



















P R O C E E D I N G S
-----------------------------------------------
		MS. SILVEY:
		Good afternoon.  My name is Patricia W. Silvey.  I'm the director of the Mine Safety and Health Administration's Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances.  I will be the moderator of this public hearing on MSHA's proposal for mine rescue team equipment. On behalf of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, Richard E. Stickler, I want to welcome all of you here.  
		The MSHA members of the panel are on my left, William Bill Wilson, who is with MSHA's metal, non-metal Mine Safety and Health Office.  To his left, Jeffrey Kravitz and he is with our office of technical support.  And to his left Mike Kalich who is with MSHA's office of coal Mine Health and Safety.  To my right Cherie Hutchison and Cherie is in my office.  Matthew Ward, our attorney on the project and Mr. Phan, who is our economist on the project. Before we start this hearing this afternoon --- and I know most of you were here with us this morning, but I would like to ask you to join me in a moment of silence in memory of all miners and rescuers who have lost their lives in mine accidents and including those as a result of the tragic and unfortunate events at Crandall Canyon.  So right now if you would please join me in a moment of silence.
MOMENT OF SILENCE
		MS. SILVEY:
		Thank you.  This is the second of four public hearings on this proposal.  We held the first hearing in Salt Lake on Tuesday.  The other hearings will be in Charleston and Birmingham, Alabama on next Tuesday and Thursday respectively.  We are holding the two hearings each day, one in the morning, as you know from this morning, and this one in the afternoon so that persons interested in both rules can attend the hearings.  The mine --- significantly, the mine rescue team equipment proposal applies to all underground mines, metal, non-metal and coal.  In the back of the room we have copies of the Federal Register that contains the proposed rule.  
		The comment period for the proposal ends on November 9th, and specifically that will be midnight eastern standard time on November 9th.  As of October 19th we have received three comments on the proposed rule, which is not unusual because historically most people wait until the end of the rulemaking to submit their comments.  You can view any comments on the agency's website at www.msha.gov under the section entitled rules and regulations.  
		The proposed rule addresses mine rescue team equipment at mine rescue stations serving underground coal and metal and non-metal mines.  The Agency proposes to amend the existing standards to reflect advances in mine rescue team equipment technology.  It is critical that mine rescue team members be provided with the latest in protective equipment so that they can safely and effectively carry out their mission.  The purpose of these hearings is to receive information from the public that will help us evaluate the requirements in the proposal and produce a final rule that enhances teams' safety and effectiveness.  
		The preamble to the proposal to the proposal discusses the provisions in the rule and includes a number of specific requests for information.  MSHA requests comments on all of the provisions and on the validity of the assumptions that the Agency used in deriving its costs estimates.  As you address these provisions either in your testimony today or in comments please be as specific as possible about how the changes will affect miner safety and mine rescue team members and mine rescue teams, composition of teams.  MSHA also requests detailed information on --- and data on the costs and feasibility of implementing these proposed provisions.
		At this point I want to summarize the substantive changes in the proposal.  The proposal upgrades and enhances certain types of equipment required for mine rescue stations and increases the amount of critical supplies that must be available.  
		The proposal would upgrade requirements for self-contained breathing apparatus, SCBA, from two hours to four hour devices.  And I believe that at this time all mine rescue stations in the U.S. currently have the four hour breathing apparatus.  
		The proposal would increase the required number of extra oxygen bottles from one additional to two additional bottles to provide an added measure of safety for mine rescue teams during time sensitive operations.
		The proposal would increase the amount of liquid air, liquid oxygen, pressurized oxygen or oxygen generated chemicals and carbon dioxide absorbent chemicals to maintain self-contained breathing apparatus for eight hours rather than six hours as it is under the existing rule, because industry practice is to stock these supplies in bulk.  MSHA estimated that there are no costs associated with this requirement, but we specifically ask for comment on that.
		The proposal would require mine rescue stations to be equipped with four gas detectors appropriate for each gas, which may be encountered at the mine served.  If methane, oxygen or carbon monoxide may be encountered the gas detector must measure concentrations of methane from 0 to 100 percent volume, oxygen from 0 to at least 20 percent volume.
BRIEF INTERRUPTION
		MS. SILVEY:
		Excuse me.  I stopped at oxygen from 0 to at least 20 percent of volume, and carbon monoxide from 0 parts per million to at least 10,000 parts per million.  MSHA is particularly interested in comments on the Agency's assumption that all mine rescue stations including those serving non-gassy metal and non-metal mines would choose to purchase four multi-gas detectors with multiple sensor heads rather than four single gas detectors for each gas likely to be encountered.  
		The proposal would delete the existing requirements for flame safety lamps and oxygen indicators due to advances in gas detector technology.  These outdated devices could still be used as a back up.
		Mine rescue teams have relied in the past on self-contained, self rescue devices or self-contained breathing apparatus to revive or help survivors breathe during rescue operations.  These devices are heavy, and may not be appropriate for unconscious persons or those who have stopped breathing.  Lightweight oxygen resuscitators weighing about six pounds with the oxygen bottle are now available through at least one manufacturer.  MSHA requests comments on whether an oxygen resuscitator should be required at the mine rescue station for use by mine rescue teams.
		MSHA's estimated costs for compliance with this proposal are contained in the preamble.  There is no separate preliminary regulatory economic analysts for the proposal. The Agency estimated total annual compliance cost of $237,000 for underground coal mines and $131,000 for underground metal and non-metal mines.  The cost estimate supports the Agency's finding that the proposal is economically feasible.  The Agency requests comments on all of the assumptions and data used in arriving at the estimates.  
		As I stated this morning and for those of you who participated in prior MSHA hearings the hearing will be conducted in an informal manner, formal rules of evidence do not apply.  The panel may ask questions of the witnesses, the witnesses may ask questions of the panel.  Cross Examination, however, is not allowed.  MSHA will make a transcript of the hearing and post it on the Agency's website within one or two weeks after the conclusion of today's hearing.
		If you wish to present written statements or information clearly identify your material and give it to one of the panel members, and as stated earlier you may also submit any comments following this hearing as long as the Agency receives the comments by November 9th.
		We ask that everyone in attendance this afternoon sign the attendance sheet.  Now, I know you probably signed an attendance sheet this morning, but that was for a separate hearing.  So if you dont mind, if you haven't signed we have an attendance sheet out there for mine rescue team equipment.  And if you would be so patient and sign that one because the two rulemakings will comprise separate records, so that attendance sheet will go with the record for this morning's rulemaking and a separate attendance sheet will go for the record for this hearing.  So for those of you who haven't done that, we appreciate it.  If you have a hard copy or an electronic version of your presentation provide it to the court reporter.  We will now hear from those who signed up to speak and if you would clearly state your name and spell it for the reporter we would appreciate it.  And our first speaker is, I believe, Mr. Charles.  Is he here?  He's not here; is he?
OFF RECORD DISCUSSION
		MS. SILVEY:
		Is there anybody else who wishes to speak.  Somebody was going to speak because they told me that this morning.  I won't call any names.  Does anybody else wish to speak?  Well, I have a few questions.  Somebody's got to answer them.  Whoever wants to volunteer can come forward.  Mr. Farler?  One of the --- are there any metal, non-metal operators in here?  Well, I can't ask you to speak for them.  That's kind of unfortunate.  We did hear a lot of comments from metal, non-metal operators out in Salt Lake, but I did have a few questions that --- and maybe some of my panel members do, that I wanted to ask on the gas detectors.  And specifically as I noted in the opening statement we did ask some questions in the proposal about the gas detectors that we are requiring, and we are requiring the gas detectors.  I have a tendency to misspeak sometimes on that myself, and we're requiring that they measure specific concentrations of oxygen, methane and CO and the higher range.  So basically we're requiring high range.  Actually I say high range and low range I guess one could say, but what we did is we assumed for the purposes of deriving our costs that all mine rescue stations would be equipped with the multi-gas detector as opposed to --- we just assumed that they would purchase that type as opposed to the single gas detectors.  And I wanted to hear from several --- you know, maybe more than one person about what do you think about that assumption.  First of all, do you all use them?  What is your usual practice and would you think you would opt to do the purchase of multi-gas as opposed to the single gas?  And to some extent I recognize that in terms of some of the conditions with respect 
--- especially non-gas, metal and non-metal mines, not the gassy ones but the non-gassy ones are ---.  You know, some have, what, different conditions than underground coal mine, so ---.
		MR. FARLER:
		We do use multi-gas detectors.  We use a three gas for our mine rescue team, methane, oxygen and carbon monoxide.  They are limited.  The methane is limited to five percent.  Okay.  Anything over that is over range is what you read. 
		MS. SILVEY:
		So to do what we require in this proposal would mean that you would have to buy the higher range ---
		MR. FARLER:
		Right.
		MS. SILVEY:
		--- different detector; right?
		MR. FARLER:
		Right.  We would have to purchase four detectors that will read that range.  And right now as far as I know the industrial scientific ATX 620 is the state of the art machine that does that right now because it's got an internal pump that actually pulls the sample through and it's an infrared reader now. It's gone away from the Wheatstone Bridge and all that stuff where they actually had to burn the methane.  It is state of the art.  It reads from 0 to 100 percent methane.  It reads from 0 to 20,000 parts per million CO with its own display out that reads from 0 to 23 --- I believe it's 23 percent oxygen.  It has a high alarm, a low alarm.  It's a state of the art equipment there.  I think you miscalculated the costs on it a little bit though.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Okay.  That's the next thing I was going to ask you, if you ---
		MR. FARLER:
		Okay.
		MS. SILVEY:
		--- how much does it cost?
		MR. FARLER:
		The detector itself is around $2,500.  That does not include the carrying case, the carrying strap and also a calibration kit that goes with that equipment.  Then you also have to have --- you can't have just that on hand, you have to have additional parts, replacement filters, things like that.  So if you buy four of the detectors you have to have additional parts for each one of those machines, and plus you have to have the calibration kit.  The calibration kit is a one time cost, but the detectors you have to have enough parts.  Around $3,800, $4,200 per detector with parts and everything that you have to have plus the costs of calibration kit.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Well, what about training?
		MR. FARLER:
		Well, training --- you have to go through the training of course, and that takes time.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Is that an additional cost or ---
		MR. FARLER:
		That's additional.
		MS. SILVEY:
		--- is that in with the 
package ---
		MR. FARLER:
		No.
		MS. SILVEY:
		--- that a manufacturer sells 
to ---?
		MR. FARLER:
		No, that's additional.
		MS. SILVEY:
		That's additional costs?
		MR. FARLER:
		Yes.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Right.  Okay.  How long is the training?
		MR. FARLER:
		It's a pretty good machine.  It's kind of self explanatory.  
		MS. SILVEY:
		Okay.  So ---?
		MR. FARLER:
		You just --- 30 minutes to an hour ---
		MS. SILVEY:
		The training ---.
		MR. FARLER:
		--- would be sufficient on that piece of equipment.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Okay.
		MR. WILSON:
		Does the manufacturer come out and train you for --- and charge ---?  If you have five people to be trained, does the manufacturer come out and train you and give you a certificate and then charge you per person or do you do that in house?
		MR. FARLER:
		No, we --- the manufacturer will come out.  They usually dont charge for that. I guess they absorb that cost the first time.  They will come out and give you training on it. What we usually do is try to have everybody there.  If we can't have everybody there, of course, we train the people that was not present at the time of the training.
		MR. WILSON:
		Is that training good?
		MR. FARLER:
		There is no certification on it.
		MR. WILSON:
		Okay.  So it's not like every two years you have to have ---
		MR. FARLER:
		No.
		MR. WILSON:
		--- it or whatever?
		MR. FARLER:
		No.
		MR. WILSON:
		You talked about going from the low range to the high range, so your current detectors you can't take the sensor head out, put a new sensor in for the high range and use it.  You would have to buy a whole new machine?
		MR. FARLER:
		That's correct.
		MS. SILVEY:
		All right.  So you'd have to ---?
		MR. FARLER:
		They would have to get it totally redone, a new version put in on the electronics.
		MR. WILSON:
		So $4,200 roughly, $3,800, $4,200 plus whatever time is lost for the training?
		MR. FARLER:
		Right.
		MR. WILSON:
		It depends on how many people you train at a time?
		MR. FARLER:
		Right.  Yeah.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Times four.
		MR. FARLER:
		Times four, yeah.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Right.
		MR. FARLER:
		Yeah, except for the calibration kit.  Of course, you could use the calibration 
--- one calibration kit per the four detectors.
		MR. WILSON:
		Right.
		MR. FARLER:
		So you'd have to have the four detectors plus a calibration kit, one calibration kit.  So that would be --- and the calibration kit has to be calibrated itself.  You know, you have to send the calibrator for calibration, so that's a cost also.  That's a yearly cost.
		MR. WILSON:
		$3,800 to $4,200, plus the calibrator?
		MR. FARLER:
		Plus the calibrator.
		MR. WILSON:
		What's the calibrator run roughly?
		MR. FARLER:
		Lewis?
		MR. MCCOY:
		What's that?
		MR. FARLER:
		Calibration kit?
		MR. MCCOY:
		For what, brand X or 19?
		MR. FARLER:
		Brand X.
		MS. SILVEY:
		So you are with whom?
		MR. MCCOY:
		I work for CSE Corporation.
		MR. FARLER:
		Yeah.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Oh, well, I forgot.  I saw something.  Well, you can come up here separate.  That's all right.  We had --- I won't call any names, but we had a manufacturer in Salt Lake who ---.  He didnt volunteer, but he was drafted to come up and provide some information.  So you can look on the record and see who it was from Salt Lake, and he answered some useful questions for us.
		MR. FARLER:
		We pay $1,400 for our calibration kit.
		MR. WILSON:
		Okay.  So ---?
		MR. FARLER:
		And it's a new calibration kit.  It's not a --- you dont turn the bottle --- the regulator on.  It does it itself.  I mean, it's state of the art.
		MR. FARLER:
		So $3,800 to $4,200 times four, plus $1,400 roughly?
		MR. FARLER:
		If you can get it for $1,400, yeah.
		MR. WILSON:
		Roughly?
		MR. FARLER:
		Right.  Roughly.
		MR. WILSON:
		And the training you said a half hour to an hour?
		MR. FARLER:
		Per person.
		MR. WILSON:
		Per person.  So if they're all sitting in a room you have ten people an hour later ---?
		MR. FARLER:
		That's fine.
		MR. WILSON:
		Yeah.
		MR. FARLER:
		Yeah.
		MR. WILSON:
		Got you.
		MR. FARLER:
		But if you dont then you ---.
		MR. WILSON:
		Right.
		MR. FARLER:
		Right.  And you can't plan on all of them being there.
		MS. SILVEY:
		So you tell me right now you all dont have these devices as of now or do you have them right now?
		MR. FARLER:
		We do not have them.  I have one at our rescue --- in our rescue station.  We do have them at the coal mines, because we have 
--- we're required to pull samples from behind seals.  That is the unit to do that.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Okay.  I know --- and I know most of you all know that in an emergency mining evacuation we require the multi-gas detectors for groups of miners.  If miners were working in groups they had to just have one or miners working alone they had to have one.  If you were working alone you had to have separate to have one.  The difference is they're not the high range, they're not specific to the concentrations of the gas to be measured?
		MR. FARLER:
		And they dont have the internal pump, the internal permissible pump, this one does.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Okay.  I'm trying to think if there's anything else.
		MR. FARLER:
		I have one question.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Do we need anything?  Phan, do you need any more information on that?
		MR. PHAN:
		Yes.  I assume that you only need one calibration kit for four?
		MR. FARLER:
		Yes.
		MR. PHAN:
		What about the maintenance costs? Could you give us an estimate on how ---?
		MR. FARLER:
		On the calibrator or the ---?
		MR. PHAN:
		Well, the maintenance like, you know, ---.
		MR. FARLER:
		On the detectors themselves?
		MS. SILVEY:
		On the detectors.
		MR. FARLER:
		The filters --- you go through filters pretty quick.  The filters are $12 each.  We have ten of them on hand, and the filters are about the size of a dime.  But they are --- you are required to have those.
		MS. SILVEY:
		But the filters are $12 each?
		MR. FARLER:
		Each.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Okay.
		MR. WILSON:
		What's the, in your 
guesstimate ---? 
		MS. SILVEY:
		How long do you have ---?
		MR. WILSON:
		Yeah.
		MR. FARLER:
		Well, it's according to what you do.
		MS. SILVEY:
		How much ---?
		MR. FARLER:
		It's according to what you --- if you pour a little bit of water through it, it's done.
		MR. WILSON:
		On average, say, per detector time and effort, parts and all that, on an annual basis how much does it cost to maintain each detector if you were guessing, if you were having to budget for it?  $100, $200?
		MR. FARLER:
		The problem is you have to have a back up detector if one of them goes bad.  You have to send it off, you have to have another detector or you really --- if you mandate four, you have to have a minimum of five.
		MR. WILSON:
		I understand and I understand that there's some repairs you can do in-house.
		MR. FARLER:
		Right.  That's right, yeah.
		MR. WILSON:
		But if were having to guesstimate maintenance, repair costs per unit assuming you dont have to send it off?
		MR. FARLER:
		Assuming you dont have to send it off?
		MR. WILSON:
		Right.
		MR. FARLER:
		Sensors you go through pretty quick.  If the methane portion of that particular detector goes bad you have to send it back.  You cannot work on the infrared portion of it.  The manufacturer has to.  Okay? The other sensors --- I can change a sensor out in probably 15 minutes, 20 minutes, but the cost of the sensor is about $300 per sensor.
		MR. WILSON:
		Given your experience what would you say you spend on average per device?
		MR. FARLER:
		Oxygen sensors you go through probably a year.  You'd probably go through three or four.  Methane sensors you --- of course you have to send that off.  We haven't had any problem with the methane sensor yet.  The CO sensors, we've put in one and we've had them for a little bit over a year.  So I would estimate probably $2,000.
		MR. WILSON:
		Per detector?
		MR. FARLER:
		Per detector.
		MR. WILSON:
		Time, labor, parts?
		MR. FARLER:
		Not counting that.  Yeah, parts, labor.  Yes.
		MR. WILSON:
		Okay.  That's on the current detectors you have, ---
		MR. FARLER:
		Yes.
		MR. WILSON:
		--- not the new models?
		MR. FARLER:
		No.  No, that's the new model.
		MR. WILSON:
		Oh, that's the new one?
		MR. FARLER:
		That's my experience with the new model, yeah.
		MS. SILVEY:
		With respect to our assumption about the increased oxygen, do you think we were pretty accurate in what we said about that, you know, to increase the back up oxygen that operators --- stocking the liquid oxygen and pressurize oxygen or oxygen generated chemicals we want to increase that from --- to maintain the breathing apparatus for eight hours rather than six hours, and we didnt include any increased costs for that because we said we thought operators stock that in bulk.
		MR. FARLER:
		We do stock that in bulk.  The problem is is with the eight hour you have to move your time to reorder up.  You can't wait another three weeks to order.  You have to make sure that you've got the eight-hour quantity on hand.  Okay.  So normally what we do is we wait, you know, until we're probably three to four or five weeks away from getting down below the six hours that we have now and then we reorder everything.  And it puts us back in compliance, but the eight hour you couldnt wait that long.  You would have to order more often.  
		MS. SILVEY:
		Yeah, so what you are saying ---.
		MR. FARLER:
		You probably would not increase your costs ---
		MS. SILVEY:
		I see what you're saying.
		MR. FARLER:
		--- you just have to keep it on hand.  You have to order more often.  The costs probably wouldnt increase because we keep that much basically anyhow.  
		MS. SILVEY:
		We asked a question about whether --- we did not propose this.  I know people who were following along with me, but we asked about whether an oxygen resuscitator should be required.  What's your thought on that?  And I dont want to put you on the spot.  If you weren't prepared to address it here then you can provide it in your written comments because I'm not intending to put anybody on the spot.
		MR. FARLER:
		I understand.
		MS. SILVEY:
		But I'm just --- I'm more on this one, trying to get information that would help us make the right decision.
		MR. FARLER:
		Uh-huh (yes).  I was going to ask you where that was.  I didnt see that in the proposed regulations.
		MS. SILVEY:
		It's in the --- it's not in the regulations.
		MR. FARLER:
		It's not in the regulations.
		MS. SILVEY:
		It's not in the regulations.  
		MR. FARLER:
		Okay.
		MS. SILVEY:
		That's why I said we did not require ---
		MR. FARLER:
		Okay.  I didnt see it in the preamble.
		MS. SILVEY:
		--- and sometimes regulatory agencies do that as opposed to requiring something.  We ask the question in the preamble like if you're not quite sure of which way you ought to go.  Being thus said, you were thinking about something and you tell us what your thoughts are.  But the fact that we required it in the preamble, if we did the requirement in a specific enough manner, then the law allows that with a proper comment and rationale, you can then go on and require it in the final rule because you would have given the public prior notice so I was just trying to figure out or anybody else in the audience, what were your thoughts on that, whether that should be required.
		MR. FARLER:
		Well our rescue team has one.  We purchased one.  
		MS. SILVEY:
		And how much was that?
		MR. FARLER:
		It was $3200.  That hurts.  It's $3200, no face piece, no oxygen bottle.  It's just a hose with a regulator.  It's $3200.  
		MS. SILVEY:
		You have another one.  You have a state of the art one.
		MR. FARLER:
		Yes.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Yeah.
		MR. FARLER:
		Yes.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Excuse me.  And so with the additional for the requirements what would you say then of total cost when you're talking about training and additional ---.
		MR. FARLER:
		Now, that takes a little bit more training. 
		MS. SILVEY:
		Right.
		MR. FARLER:
		It's a CPR type training.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Yeah, probably retraining.
		MR. FARLER:
		Yes, it does.  And that is an in-depth training on that.  That's a CPR type training, plus the mechanisms on the timing    ---.			
             MS. SILVEY:
		How long have you had it?
		MR. FARLER:
		We've had it for a year.
	MS. SILVEY:
	A year.
	MR. FARLER:
	About a year, yes.
	MS. SILVEY:
	Okay.
	MR. WILSON:
	How much did the extra parts and
training and all that, what do you figure that to the $3200?
		MR. FARLER:
		Well the $3200 for the valve and the hose, and oxygen bottle.
		MR. MCCOY:
		About $900.
		MR. FARLER:
		$900 for the oxygen bottle, face piece?
		MR. MCCOY:
		$350 for a face piece.
		MR. FARLER:
		How much?
		MR. MCCOY:
		$350.
		MR. FARLER:
		$350?  $350 for the face piece and then the training, it takes about two hours per person.
		MR. WILSON:
		Is that free?
		MR. FARLER:
		No.
		MR. WILSON:
		How much do you have to pay for that?
	MR. FARLER:
	Well, we had to pay for the first
training.
		MS. SILVEY:
		The manufacturer does?
		MR. FARLER:
		The manufacturer will do that.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Right.  Right.  Okay.
		MR WILSON:
		For free?
		MR. FARLER:
		Well, I dont know if it's free or not.  Is it free, Lewis?
		MR. MCCOY:
		You dont see it on a ---.
		MR. FARLER:
		Okay.  That's what I thought.  He hides it.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Yeah, but I was going to ask them separately.  I was going to say but what about like we just said, it's retrained, you have to do retraining?
		MR. FARLER:
		Yes, you have to do retraining on it.
		MR. WILSON:
		Annually?
		MR. FARLER:
		Well, we try to do it at least every six months just to make sure everybody remembers how to do it.
		MR. WILSON:
		Okay.
		MR. KRAVITZ:
		And the oxygen and the face piece are the same as you use for your breathing apparatus.
		MR. FARLER:
		Yes, but you can't use the face piece and the oxygen bottle from your machines.
	MR. KRAVITZ:
	No, you have to have spares.
	MR. FARLER:
	You have to have extra.
	MS. SILVEY:
		Okay.  I think those are sort of the questions that I have.  Has anybody else got any more?  We appreciate very much you providing us with this being here.
	MR. FARLER:
		Rethinking this keeping the eight hours, if you have to order more often, seems like you'd have to spend some more money somewhere.
	MS. SILVEY:
		No, you dont know, I'm sitting here thinking about this assumption that they're stocking supplies but if you have to reorder soon, then you got to replenish your supplies.
	MR. FARLER:
	You got to spend money somewhere.
	MS. SILVEY:
		So I dont know if you want to give us any comments, any additional comments before the record closes but that will be on the estimate of how much you would have to reorder during the run of a year, you know, will it make you have to reorder two more times?  I mean, I'm just making this up ---.
	MR. FARLER:
	Right, I understand.
	MS. SILVEY:
		I'd have to work it out on a chart, you know, three more times.
	MR. FARLER:
	That's right.
	MS. SILVEY:
		Yeah, I think you're probably right there.
	MR. FARLER:
	Yeah.
	MS. SILVEY:
		Some amount.  Maybe not an enormous amount but some amount.
	MR. FARLER:
	Right.
	MS. SILVEY:
			Yeah.  Thank you very much.  I think you're right there.  Okay.  Actually, the Mr. CSE back there, I think the --- he sort of answered, I think probably most of our questions, but if you dont mind, I think I have just a few questions.
	MR. MCCOY:
	I do have to decline.  Thank you.
	MS. SILVEY:
		I probably can figure out why but I'll talk to you afterwards.
	MR. MCCOY:
	It will be the same answer.
	MS. SILVEY:
		No, I know that.  I know I'm sure I will but I know.  I'm not saying that part of why, I'm just saying that we had  --- it's a public record.  We had Draven in Salt Lake City and we asked some questions because like I said, we had posed certain questions in the preamble on the gas detectors as well as --- a number of questions quite honestly, but specifically on the gas detectors and on the oxygen resuscitator which we did not require in the rule and we just posed the questions in the preamble.  So this information is useful to us to help us determine what is the most appropriate and effective way that the agency should go in the final ruling.  And a lot of times, you know, when people have criticism of an agency's regulations, you know, and it's sort of easy to generally criticize but to criticize and then provide specifics and back up that with specifics and then if you dont like something like we talked this morning about the training and alternatives to doing it at each mine, then to follow that up with certain specifics, that is much better at helping an agency craft --- that type of information is very useful and will be a lot more helpful and so that's kind of where we were trying to go.  Is there anybody else who wishes to comment?  Anybody else who wishes to comment on the agency's equipment regulation?  Do any members of the panel have anything?  Well if nobody else wishes to comment, I'm going to break for about 15 minutes just because I dont think it's two o'clock.  And I'm going to break for about 15 minutes and then we will reconvene at about two o'clock or a little after 2:00.  Thank you.  
SHORT BREAK TAKEN
		MS. SILVEY:
		We'll continue with the Mine Safety and Health Administration's public hearing on the Proposed Mine Rescue Team Equipment rule and at this time, we will continue and --- excuse me.  If there's any discussion on the specific requirements that we included in the proposal relative to the specific measurements by the gas detectors, specifically CO, methane and oxygen.  And I believe that we have, I have heard several comments up to this point about detectors being able to measure 9,999 CO if I'm not mistaken.  Yes, from 0 parts per million to 9,999.  We propose that they measure from 0 parts per million to at least 10,000 and I would like to hear from anybody.  I heard earlier and I'm not sure I appreciated the magnitude of the comment from anybody who have current detectors now that measure up to 9,999 parts per million.  
SHORT BREAK TAKEN
		MR. DUNCAN:
		My name is Randy Duncan,        D-U-N-C-A-N with the Patriot Coal Company.  There's a new instrument coming out that replaced the 620, which is a smaller version and a whole lot easier to carry.  It would be more feasible for the mine rescue teams but it's MX6.  It would only read up to 9,999 parts per million.
		MR. WILSON:
		CO.
		MR. DUNCAN:
		CO, right.  Everything else would read the limits.
		MS. SILVEY:
		Excuse me.  Is this a part of a multigas detector?
		MR. DUNCAN:
		Yes, ma'am.  Yes, ma'am.  It's just like the 620 but a smaller version.
		MS. SILVEY:
		And who makes that?
		MR. DUNCAN:
		The same company.  It's an industrial science.
	MS. SILVEY:
	Okay.
	MR. DUNCAN:
		And what I was worried about then if I purchase this then I'll have a MSHA come in and says this is not made to requirements because lack of more parts per million.  And I'm worried about getting a citation on this.  That's the part I'd be worried about.  So I would like, you know, for you to take this into consideration.
	MS. SILVEY:
		We appreciate --- I'll be honest, I didnt fully appreciate that when I heard it the first time.
	MR. DUNCAN:
		Pearl mentioned something about it in his comments.
	MS. SILVEY:
		He did, exactly.  And until we were just talking on the break, I didnt fully understand so sometimes, you know, the talking on the break can help you better understand things.
	MR.DUNCAN:
	Yes, ma'am.
	MR. WILSON:
		So if the regulations said at least 9,999 parts per million or more then that would satisfy that new instrument coming out?
	MR. DUNCAN:
	Yes, sir.
	MR. WILSON:
	Okay.
	MS. SILVEY:
		Okay.  Well that does clarify that issue.  Yeah, thank you very much.  Okay. Is there anybody else at this point who wishes to speak?  Anybody else who wishes to speak?  If nobody else wishes to speak then, at this time, I will conclude the Mine Safety and Health Administration's Public Hearing on Mine Rescue Team Equipment.  And as I do so, I want to say that MSHA appreciates very much your participation in this rulemaking.  For those of you that participating in prior MSHA rulemaking, we appreciate that and we appreciate your continued interest and helping to improve mine safety and health.  For members of mine rescue teams that we heard today and we heard those, we want to say that we appreciate your service and hope that you will feel so honored to continue that service.  For those who did not speak here today but who came and attending the hearing, we appreciate your interest in the rule making.  As I stated before, for those of you who we asked to provide us specific information, more specific information, we would appreciate if you would do so before November 9th, 12 o'clock midnight eastern standard time.  And the next two hearings are in Charleston on next Tuesday, Birmingham on next Thursday and we may see some of you at those hearings.  And so thank you very much.

* * * * * * * *
HEARING CONCLUDED AT 2:13 P.M.
* * * * * * * *




46



Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.
(814) 536-8908

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.
(814) 536-8908