UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
              MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION



PUBLIC HEARING ON TRAINING AND    )
RETRAINING OF MINERS ENGAGED IN   )   
SHELL DREDGING OR EMPLOYED AT     )
SAND, GRAVEL, SURFACE STONE,      )
SURFACE CLAY, COLLOIDAL           )
PHOSPHATE, OR SURFACE LIMESTONE   )
MINES PROPOSED RULE               )







                    REVISED AND CORRECTED COPY







Pages:   1 through 161

Place:   Washington, D.C.

Date:    May 27, 1999                   UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
                 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
     
     
     PUBLIC HEARING ON TRAINING AND    )
     RETRAINING OF MINERS ENGAGED IN   )
     SHELL DREDGING OR EMPLOYED AT     )
     SAND, GRAVEL, SURFACE STONE,      )
     SURFACE CLAY, COLLOIDAL           )
     PHOSPHATE, OR SURFACE LIMESTONE   )
     MINES PROPOSED RULE               )
     
                   
                   U.S. Department of Labor
                   200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
                   Washington, D.C.
     
                   Thursday,
                   May 27, 1999
     
     
         The hearing in the above-entitled matter commenced, 
     
     pursuant to notice, at 8:05 a.m.
     
     
         PANEL:
     
         ROSLYN FONTAINE, Office of Standards, Regulations, and
     Variances, MSHA
         ROBERT STONE, Office of Standards, Regulations, and 
              Variances, MSHA
         KATHY ALEJANDRO, Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and 
              Health Administration
         KEVIN BURNS, Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health
         Administration
         ROD BRELAND, Western Operations Manager, MSHA
         ROBERT ALDRICH, Office of the Solicitor
     
     
         ATTENDEES:
     
         HUNTER PRILLAMAN, Coalition for Effective Miner 
              Training and the National Lime Association
         JOE MAIN, United Mine Workers of America
         ELSA ROMAN, States Grants Program, University of Texas
         JIM SHARPE, Director of Safety and Health Services, 
              National Stone Association
         JAMES TURNER, North Carolina Department of Labor                               I N D E X
     
     STATEMENT:                                              Page
     
     KATHY ALEJANDRO, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH                    3
     ADMINISTRATION
     
     HUNTER PRILLAMAN, COALITION FOR EFFECTIVE                  8
     MINER TRAINING AND THE NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION
     
     JOE MAIN, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA                  41
     
     ELSA ROMAN, STATES GRANTS PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY             79
     OF TEXAS
     
     JIM SHARPE, DIRECTOR OF SAFETY AND HEALTH                100
     SERVICES, NATIONAL STONE ASSOCIATION
     
     JAMES TURNER, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR         146
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
                              P R O C E E D I N G S
                                 (8:05 a.m.)
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Good morning.  My name is Kathy
     Alejandro, and I'm with Metal and Nonmetal 15th Health with
     the Mine Safety and Health Administration.  On behalf of
     MSHA, I would like to welcome you to the last of four public
     hearings on MSHA's proposed regulations for miner safety and
     health training.  
              These hearings are intended to give individuals in
     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 in those nonmetal
     surface mines where MSHA currently cannot enforce existing
     training requirements.  I would like to take this
     opportunity to introduce members of the MSHA panel who are
     here with me this morning.  To my far left is Robert Aldrich
     with the Office of the Solicitor.  Next is Rod Breland, who
     is Western Operations Manager for the newly formed
     Educational Field Services Division within MSHA.
              Immediately next to me is Kevin Burns, who is also
     with Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health.  And to my
     right is Robert Stone, who is with the Office of Standards,
     Regulations, and Variances in MSHA.  Since 1979, MSHA has
     been guided by a rider to its appropriations.  
              The restriction currently states that none of the
     funds appropriated shall be obligated or expended to carry
     out Section 115 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
     1977 or to carry out that portion of Section 104(j)(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.  The hearing will be
     conducted in an informal manner, and the 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 speaker's
     list, which is currently located up here, but you'll have
     more than an adequate opportunity to speak, should you
     choose to do so later.  We also ask that everyone who is
     here today, whether or not you wish to speak, sign the
     attendance sheet, which is located on the table immediately
     outside the auditorium as you come in.  
              Anyone who wishes may also submit written
     statements and information to us during the course of this
     hearing which will be included as part of the lawmaking
     record.  You may also wish to send us written comments after
     the hearing.  The deadline for submission of written
     comments is June 16, 1999.  And if you need the address for
     where to send these comments, please come up to us at a
     break and we'll give you that information.  
              And if you're specifically interested in comments
     on certain aspects of the proposed rule -- although we
     encourage you to comment on 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 them.  Definition of miner, under the
     proposal: A person engaged in mining operations integral to
     extraction or production would be considered a miner.  
              We're 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.  Miners and their representatives would also be
     given the opportunity to comment on the plan before it is
     implemented or to 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 a traditional plan-approval process similar to the
     process in existing Part 48 is needed to ensure the 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 subject areas before the miner can
     assume work duties.  We are interested in whether commenters
     agree with this approach or whether the final rules should
     establish a minimum number of hours of training that new
     miners must receive before they begin work.  
              New-task training: This proposed rule would
     require miners to be trained for new tasks and for regular
     reassigned 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're 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 area should be addressed.  
              Training instructors: The proposal would not
     require a formal program for the approval of certification
     of instructors or establish rigid minimum qualifications for
     instructors.  Instead, training must be provided by a
     competent person, which is defined in the proposal 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,
     refresher training must include, at a minimum, instruction
     on changes at the mine that could adversely affect the
     miner's 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 commenters believe should be required.
              Effective dates and compliance deadlines: We're
     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 phased-in
     compliance deadlines where some of the rule's requirements
     would go into effect at different stages.  We understand
     that there will be a very large number of operations coming
     into compliance at the same time, and we wish to allow a
     reasonable amount of time for the transition.  
              Costs and benefits of the proposed rule: We're
     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 now like to introduce the first speaker
     this morning.  We ask that all speakers state and spell
     their name for the court reporter before beginning their
     presentation.  Thank you very much.  The first speaker on
     the list is Hunter Prillaman from the Coalition for
     Effective Miner Training and the National Lime Association.
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Good morning.  That's Hunter
     Prillaman.  Prillaman is P-R-I-L-L-A-M-A-N.  As Kathy
     mentioned, I'm with the National Lime Association, but today
     I'm representing the Coalition for Effective Miner Training,
     or CEMT.  The Coalition is made up of 18 members
     representing the overwhelming majority of producers and
     miners affected by the proposed rule.  CEMT consists of two
     producing companies, 14 trade associations representing
     producers, and two labor unions.  Since last summer, CEMT
     has been working with MSHA to develop a workable alternative
     to the Part 48 training requirements for the exempt
     industries.  On February 1st, CEMT presented its draft
     alternative to MSHA.  CEMT is pleased to observe that, in
     most respects, MSHA's proposed Part 46 is very similar to
     the CEMT draft.  
              In particular, the proposed regulations embody a
     flexible performance-oriented approach that's crucial for
     the industries that will be covered by the rule.  CEMT
     commends MSHA for recognizing the needs and concerns of
     these industries.  We strongly urge MSHA to take the course
     and to promulgate a final rule that follows the flexible
     approach set out in the proposed rule.  
              Members of CEMT do have some concerns with the
     proposed rule, and we believe that it can be improved in
     several respects.  I'll only address a few of the more
     significant concerns here.  Other issues of correction and
     clarification will be addressed in CEMT's written comments
     and in the written comments of its members.  
              Probably the most significant issue is the lack of
     a proposed effective date or implementation schedule, and we
     think this is a very important issue.  For many producers,
     especially small operations, compliance with Part 46 is
     going to require significant preparation, and many of them
     are going to need help setting up training plans that
     satisfy the rules.  
              As a result, CEMT believes there should be a
     reasonable time between the promulgation of the final rule
     and the date upon which it becomes enforceable.  We suggest
     at least a year will be needed to ensure broad understanding
     of the regulations and timely compliance.  We prefer that
     the regulations not be phased in, because we think the
     process should be as simple as possible.  CEMT is also
     concerned the proposed rule largely places an obligation on
     the producer-operator for providing site-specific hazard
     training to the employees of contractors.  
              CEMT believes it's the employers of these
     individuals that should have the primary legal
     responsibility for training them, especially when the
     contractors' employees themselves are miners under the
     definition in Part 46.  
              I know I did briefly cover CEMT's response to the
     specific questions that were raised in the notice
     establishing this hearing.  First, CEMT agrees with MSHA's
     proposed definition of miner as a person engaged in actual
     mining operations.  This contributes to the general approach
     in the proposal to provide training commensurate with the
     risk experienced by the person to be trained.  
              With respect to the plan-approval process, CEMT
     does not believe that it's necessary to include provisions
     allowing miners or their representatives to trigger a formal
     submission and approval process.  We believe that the
     ability of miners and their reps to inform MSHA directly
     that they believe a plan is inadequate provides sufficient
     protection for these interests.  
              CEMT generally supports MSHA's approach to new-
     miner training, however, we're concerned by the narrow
     definition of "close supervision" given in the preamble. 
     The requirement that a supervisor can do nothing other than
     supervise the trainee is unrealistic.  This is particularly
     a problem if this definition applies to the requirement that
     a worker who has not yet received 24 hours of training must
     work under close supervision, because this could be for --
     well, under the proposal, it could be for a 60-day period,
     and that's just simply not going to be possible.  There seem
     to be two different applications of the term "close
     supervision."  That's something we hope can be clarified. 
     CEMT also has the same concern with the requirement for
     close supervision in task training.  One other thing about
     new-miner training: We suggested in our draft that the new-
     miner training be completed within 60 working days.  The
     proposal says 60 calendar days.  We think that's a little
     short, although we recognize the concern that because of
     layoffs that the 60 working days could be a long period.  We
     suggest something more like 90 calendar days, which would be
     approximately 60 working days for most ordinary operations. 
              CEMT strongly supports MSHA's proposal that no
     formal approval for instructors be required.  We believe
     that operators are in the best position to judge who can
     most effectively provide the needed training, especially
     training that's hands-on training.  
              CEMT supports interest support on refresher
     training.  
              With respect to the costs and benefits of the
     rule, these will vary widely across the industry.  Fairly
     larger operations are more likely to have more robust
     training programs already in place, although there will
     still be some costs involved in preparing written plans and
     procedures that comply with the explicit requirements of
     Part 46.
              On the hand, there are small operations that do
     not belong to any of the trade associations in CEMT and who
     will need to be reached with information about what the
     rules are and how to comply.  This will involve more costs
     for them and for those who are trying to educate them.  
              As to benefits, CEMT believes that a flexible
     performance-oriented training requirement will benefit both
     operators and miners with improved health and safety and
     reduced costs and downtime.  
              In sum, with the exception of the concerns raised
     today and those to be raised in our written comments, CEMT
     is very pleased with MSHA's proposed rule.  We think that
     cooperative process that produced this proposal has been a
     win-win proposition for all the parties involved, including
     industry, MSHA, and labor.  We hope the same spirit of
     cooperation will carry through to the final rule and beyond. 
     Thank you.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you, Mr. Prillaman.  I've
     got a question or two, and others up here with me will, as
     well.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  All right.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  In your comment that deadline for
     completion of new-miner training should be -- I guess, a
     coalition member earlier on in one of the earlier hearings
     indicated that the position was that it should be 60 working
     days.  What is the definition of 60 working days?  Are those
     the days that the individual miner actually works, the days
     that the operation actually works, Monday through Friday?  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well, I had understood that it was
     the days that miner actually worked.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  The individual miner?  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  We can see the concern with that,
     because if he's laid off for three months, that doesn't make
     sense.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Well, I mean, it just seems like
     it would present both compliance and enforcement --
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes.  This is -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  -- complications.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  -- this is an issue that's
     probably still being hashed out somewhat within CEMT, so
     maybe I should speak for the Lime Association when I 
     say -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  -- that some sort of compromise on
     this would probably be calendar days, but a little bit
     longer than 60 days so that it would encompass, you know,
     something like 90 days.  If you look at 90 calendar days,
     somebody who's working full-time is going to work, you know,
     60 or so days in that period of time.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  All right.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  So that would be one way of
     splitting that issue.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  That's all I have.  Robert,
     do you have any questions?  
              MR. ALDRICH:  No.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Rod?  
              MR. BRELAND:  Yes.  I have a few, Mr. Prillaman.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Okay.  
              MR. ALDRICH:  On the effective date, you were
     proposing one year, based on the fact you think it'll take a
     year for all the mining operations to gear up 
     and --
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  I think that -- yes.  I think that
     the level of knowledge of what's going on is not as wide as
     we would hope.  You have to remember there are a lot of very
     small operations that are going to be swept into this rule
     that, as I mentioned -- many of them aren't even members of
     the trade associations that are here.  They are going to
     have to be reached with this information.  And indeed, a lot
     of those that are our members are going to require time to
     do this.  The ones that are larger, you know, they probably
     have training programs in place.  It won't take that long to
     switch them over, but for the great mass of small aggregate
     operations and other small mining operations, I think a
     significant amount of time is going to be needed.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Aren't the associations, though,
     aren't they widely broadcasting this information, as well,
     and sharing it presently?  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  They are.  They are, but the time
     for penetration -- and also I'm hoping that there's going to
     be efforts to help people get plans that are good solid
     plans in place before the enforcement date comes, and that's
     going to take some time.  They have to be developed; they
     have to be disseminated.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes.  I mean, I think that MSHA
     clearly recognizes that getting the rule out is one part of
     it, but a probably more difficult part is going to be the
     implementation and making sure that everyone knows what
     their obligations are and assisting those who need it.  And
     I think there are a lot of small operators who are going to
     need a significant amount of assistance, either from MSHA or
     state grantees or even larger operators.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Thank you.  Now, another
     issue you brought up -- I was trying to stay up with you;
     you were going pretty fast on some of them -- but you had
     mentioned the legal responsibility for hazard training.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes?  
              MR. BRELAND:  You believe it should be entirely
     the contractors'?  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  I think, in practice, most of the
     time that training for contractors that don't have a
     significant presence at the site, it will probably be
     delivered by the operator.  But we think the responsibility
     ought to be with the employee's employer if they are a
     contractor who works at the site.  
              I particularly feel strongly about that when the
     contractor is a miner that meets the definition of a miner. 
     A prime example would be someone who does -- a contractor
     who comes and does blasting.  We think they ought to get
     their hazard training from their own employer.  
              Now, we think that the operator of the site should
     have an obligation to provide information to that contractor
     about what are the site-specific hazards, which would then
     be part of the training would be given to the specific
     miner.  But a lot of times contractors will use different
     employees at different times to do the work, and we think
     that they should have that primary responsibility.  
              MR. BRELAND:  What if a contractor's not getting
     the hazard training to their employees and their employees
     are, in fact, affecting maybe the safety of your employees? 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well, I certainly think that a
     prudent operator would make sure that they are getting it. 
     The question is who has the responsibility to do it and to
     pay for it.  We think that the employer should.  Now, I
     think in most cases, operators will insist that they -- that
     the contract employees have it before they are allowed on
     the site, but the issue is who's responsible for giving it,
     who has that ultimate responsibility under the law?  
              MR. BRELAND:  From this particular regulation, it
     seems that the operator -- in the past at least, MSHA has
     expected the operator to ensure that all miners that come on
     the site have received site-specific hazard training.  But
     you're asking for this one to be different from the
     standpoint that the operator wouldn't be -- the mine
     production operator wouldn't be responsible for -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes.  The principle that we're
     adhering to is that employees should get their training from
     their employers.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  What about, like, service and
     maintenance people, how do you see them as definition of
     miner?  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well, there's obviously some level
     at which, where the training is something like signage, or a
     card, or something like that, that it's going to be provided
     just -- umbrella.  A lot of these people aren't going to
     require training under the proposal that you -- 
              MR. BRELAND:  For service and maintenance people
     that come in and do your -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  In the mining area?  
              MR. BRELAND:  -- or, yes, in the mining area?
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well, we think they too -- their
     employers should have the responsibility.  I mean, I think
     it's a stronger argument if they are miners than in -- and
     it's more likely that the training for those people would
     actually be physically provided by the operator.  The
     question is who is responsible for making sure that it's
     provided.  
              MR. BRELAND:  There's some discussion about the
     miners too, and the definition of miners.  Again, I'm just
     trying to get more understanding of what people are
     proposing.  But you're saying, CEMT is saying -- their
     proposal is that a miner is strictly involved in production,
     extraction, period.  That's no support activity.  That's not
     maintenance.  That's not -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Right.  Well, that's how we read
     the -- that's how we read the proposal.  I mean -- 
              MR. BRELAND:  That's your position as well?  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  -- we think that's pretty good. 
     Well, I should say that we like the proposal.  We're a
     little concerned about some language in the preamble about -
     - I think the example is given of some construction workers
     who come onto the site and are building a new crusher.  
              We don't think those people are involved in mining
     activities, because there's no -- because they're not -- a
     crusher's not operational.  We think a better example would
     be someone like a blaster.  That's someone who is actually
     performing true mining operations, even though they are a
     contractor.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Well, I believe in the present
     program policy manual there's, like, nine examples of
     contractors that typically fit that, but that would include
     actually people that do haulage.
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes.  
              MR. BRELAND:  So -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  I think -- 
              MR. BRELAND:  -- so would you consider people that
     do haulage miners?  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well, I haven't really -- I would.
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  But I don't want to speak for CEMT
     on that.  That's not something we've discussed, but I think
     that someone who is hauling in the mining area of the 
     mine -- 
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Thank you.  And then, you
     also talked about -- you mentioned something about the
     training plan and, near the end, you were going kind of
     fast, so I'm not sure I understood you.  You didn't think
     that a miner should be able to trigger a review of the
     training?  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes.  Well, not that he shouldn't
     be able to trigger a review.  We don't think there should be
     any requirement for an advance-approval process.  We just
     think it's an unnecessary complication.  
              The way it's set up in the proposal is that you
     don't have to submit your plan for approval, although you
     can, but if the miner or miner's representative insists,
     then you have to submit it for approval.  It has to be
     approved.  We don't think that's necessary.  If the miner
     doesn't like the plan, all he has to do is call up MSHA and
     say, "Hey, my employer has a plan that doesn't meet the
     regulation.  Come and inspect."  I don't think he really
     gets anything particularly out of requiring it to be
     approved in advance.  
              We just think it's an unnecessary complication. 
     He still has the ability to go directly to MSHA and say,
     "Hey, I don't like this," at any point, because you have to
     give the plan to the miners.  
              MR. BRELAND:  I think at one of the earlier
     sessions -- and I refer to my good friend, Kevin, here --
     that I think he said that was a little bit like the bogeyman
     in the closet that there might be a problem perceived more
     than real, that if -- I think the intent of the miners being
     involved in the review and the training plan is trying to
     get the best training plan for all in the development of it
     -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  I guess I have no problem with
     that, except I'm concerned about a place where you might
     have some adversarial relationships and you're going to tie
     up the plan, whereas I think it would be better to let the
     operator develop the plan, give the plan to the miners, and
     if the miners -- you know, they can participate and have an
     opportunity to comment on the plan, but if they don't like
     it, rather than prevent it from getting approved, they
     should just go to MSHA and say, "Hey, we don't like this
     plan."  
              MR. BRELAND:  Well, you know -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes.  I mean, I don't think it's a
     situation where the miners would be preventing it from
     getting approved.  It would be in front of, I mean, a
     neutral arbitrator.  I don't know whether that's the right
     term, but if there are issues that cannot be resolved
     informally, there is a mechanism for miners and their
     representatives to be involved in the process and let their
     concerns be known to MSHA, so that that can be addressed in
     some fashion in the plan, before it's finalized or
     implemented.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well, I just think that that's an
     unnecessary complication.  It's going to create an interim
     period where the status of your plan is uncertain, which
     could be a problem.  It just seems to me that it would be
     better to have that period of time where they can comment on
     the plan, they see the plan, and if they still have those
     issues that you're talking about, well, MSHA can get
     involved on the inspection end.  It's sort of like this is
     one of those issues where you have a choice between whether
     you want a safe harbor, approval in advance, or do you want
     the flexibility and a simpler process?  And we think that
     the processes is the advantage.  
              Rather than knowing for sure that your plan is
     approved, you sort of have to go ahead, but in the -- and
     take the risk that in an inspection, someone may not like
     it.  But we think, in general, across the industry, that
     that will cause plans to get done faster and better.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  
              MR. BURNS:  On this issue, it just seems to me
     that what you're proposing, you know, isn't inclusive from
     the standpoint of including the miners in the process,
     unless it's on a voluntary basis.  Part of what including
     that in the plan process is to let miners know that they do
     have this right and that they do have the opportunity to
     provide input.  It doesn't say they have to send it for
     approval.  
              It also says they can submit comments to the
     operator, so it -- part of what this rule is doing is making
     it clear to all miners that they do have a say in the plan. 
     If the rule does not say that, there are a lot of miners
     that will not know that they have that right, and some of
     them -- some of them may not even know that they have the
     right to say something to MSHA, that the plan is inadequate.
              Others may feel that their back is to the wall,
     and their only recourse is to contact MSHA, which does not
     advance the process of putting together plans.  So I think
     -- I just think the way it's proposed, it encourages dialog
     between all the parties, the people that are proposing how
     they want to train the miners and the miners that would like
     to propose how they think they should be trained.  I just
     think that's what the rule is promoting, rather than
     promoting this opportunity for somebody to hold the process
     up.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well -- 
              MR. BURNS:  And I think if that does happen, if
     there's a rare occasion -- and I really do think that would
     be rare, as we have this plan approval process in Part 46
     now, and I'm not aware of it being used, quite frankly.  
              But if it is used on a rare occasion, I don't see
     where that outweighs the opportunity for -- to make sure
     it's clear to all miners that they have an opportunity to
     participate in the plan development process.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  I guess our view would still be
     that it's more complexity than is needed but --
              MR. BURNS:  Okay.
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  -- even if you're going -- if you
     are going to do it, the one thing that I would say about it
     is that I don't think it would good for an operator to be in
     violation, because they've implemented a plan that meets the
     standards that -- at least the operator believes meets the
     standards, while this process is going on.  I mean, you
     could certainly write it to say that the plan is
     conditionally approved, and it could be disapproved through
     this process. 
              MR. BRELAND:  Well, there's time frames that are
     being built into the proposal that allow for time for,
     obviously, the operators to submit for review to the miners;
     miners to have time to review and make comments.  
              So that process is in there, really, and really,
     and if it goes to a review -- to MSHA for review, then, I
     guess, as Kathy was talking earlier, you could have a
     neutral party basically help bring it to some sort of
     acceptable understanding of what would be necessary.  I
     think Kevin's right that the intent is  inclusiveness, and
     the training is for the miners.  Obviously, it seems logical
     that the miners would be involved in the development of the
     training.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  And we certainly have no objection
     to the provisions that require the plan to be provided to
     the miners, for them to have a time period to comment on the
     plan, et cetera.  
              It's just it's the mechanism causing a triggering
     of a review process before approval that we don't like, so I
     hear your concern about wanting to get the miners involved,
     and we don't have a problem with that.  It's this process
     that you can get caught up in that's -- 
              MR. BRELAND:  I was just really trying to make
     sure I understood what your concern was -- it's more that
     you're anticipating where there might be an adversarial
     relationship that can be an impedance to moving forward with
     the process.  And you know, as Kevin said, he's not aware of
     -- and I'm not either.  I have 23 years on the enforcement
     side that I didn't see that as being anything abused.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  That's -- I mean, that's one
     concern.  The other concern is that we wouldn't want anybody
     to be -- there may be a time -- as long as the time periods
     prevent this --you wouldn't want to say, "Well, your plan
     looks good, but because you're in this approval process,
     you're now in violation, because it hasn't been approved."  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Well, how did that happen, though,
     I mean, because initially, I mean, there's going to
     obviously be some period of time for an operator to come
     into compliance, and that process would be going before the
     -- MSHA starts to enforce.
              And then, once a plan is in place and the operator
     decides they want to revise it, I mean, the plan that is in
     place would remain in place until it's superseded by a new
     plan, so, except at the initial stages -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well, what that would mean is that
     you couldn't make the changes that you propose to make in
     your revised plan until you went through this -- till you
     got it approved by MSHA --
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  -- which -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  But you're not in a situation
     where you don't have a plan, where an operator would be in a
     position to be cited for not having a plan, because this
     process is ongoing.  I mean, it might delay implementation
     of some changes that will be beneficial.
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Right.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  But on the other hand, I mean, an
     operator's not going to be in a position where he's going to
     be cited for not having an approved plan.  So, I think we
     understand your -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Okay.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  -- concern about that provision.
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  The definition of supervision
     to you, it seems like you felt that the way that's written,
     that means that you're tying up a company's supervisor to
     supervise the actual training?
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  That's -- 
              MR. BRELAND:  And I guess my question would be, or
     suggestion would be, if you had clarification -- if you get
     a qualified, experienced person that's in the  observation
     of -- and not necessarily supervision -- we've had some
     other people bring that issue up -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well it's -- 
              MR. BRELAND:  -- maybe that has a connotation 
     that -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  -- it pretty clearly says, at
     least in the preamble, that this person could be doing
     nothing but supervising that one trainee.  And if you read
     the language literally, you couldn't even be supervising
     three people, so it's extremely narrowly worded.  Maybe,
     that's not really intended.  And it's -- the language, the
     term "close supervision" appears in, I think, three places. 
              The first one is when it talks about, you can
     allow some work to be done as part of the initial free work,
     new-miner training, as long as that's done under close
     supervision.  That's where it actually says that close
     supervision means that the person is -- that the supervisor
     is not doing anything but supervising the person.  But we
     still think that's too narrow, even for that setting,
     because the work that the person is doing may not be really
     worthy of that level of supervision.  But it's also used in
     two other places.  It's used in task training, and it's also
     used and it talks about that if a new miner hasn't received
     all of his 24 hours of training yet, that he must work under
     close supervision for the 60 days, or whatever period.  
              And that just can't mean that there's someone
     who's doing nothing but supervising the person, so we think
     there needs to be -- we think that definition needs to be
     broadened, but it also needs to be clarified.  I don't think
     it really means the same thing in those two places.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  I mean, what's your feeling as far
     as they used the term "under task training"?  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well, I mean, in general I think
     that the term "close supervision" ought to be defined to
     mean attentive supervision that's commensurate with the
     risks of the work being performed.  You know, somebody is --
     if the job that someone is doing is sweeping a floor, that's
     very different from someone operating a crusher, so the
     amount of supervision that's appropriate is going to vary,
     depending on the task.  And we think that ought to be
     recognized in the rule.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes.  I'm just thinking that in
     our -- in the context of task training that that's an
     instance where you might want -- I mean, you probably would
     want someone to be right there keeping their eye on the
     person who's going through the paces of learning how to do a
     new task.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well, again, it depends on the -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  It depends on the level of the
     hazard.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes, it depends on the task.  So,
     this is sort of a general issue of task training, as a new
     task can be anything from driving a huge haul truck to
     working with a pick and shovel.  
              MR. BURNS:  Well, would you be able to -- would
     CEMT be able to submit comments clearly clarifying, because
     this -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes.  
              MR. BURNS:  If I remember correctly, this term
     came right out of what was submitted to MSHA in part -- in
     your -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  It's -- 
              MR. BURNS:  -- Part 46.
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  -- the elaboration of it in the
     preamble that's the problem for us.  
              MR. BURNS:  But that's what I'm asking.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes.  That'll be -- 
              MR. BURNS:  It is a term that we pulled right out
     of that draft and if -- what I'm asking for is what you feel
     the proper clarification -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes.  That'll be in our comments.
              MR. BURNS:  -- and your viewpoint, and not that
     we're going to necessarily -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.  
              MR. BURNS:  -- I would like to see what -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Okay.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  And actually -- 
              MR. BURNS:  -- you meant by that.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  -- the steelworkers express some
     concern about the uses of that term, but for reasons that
     are slightly different from what you're raising.
              MR. BURNS:  Yes.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  So, I mean, obviously that's a
     term that we probably want to take a closer look at.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  We'll give you more detail on all
     these in our written comments.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  
              MR. BRELAND:  The fact is, I think, it's good to
     clarify in the preamble exactly what is meant by some of
     that, so if you have preamble discussion that's troublesome,
     then you should be -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well, you have to test these terms
     against the real-world experience.  
              MR. BURNS:  Yes.  That would be good.  I mean, use
     as many examples as you feel necessary to clarify this issue
     and any other issue.  I mean, I'd ask all commenters to do
     that.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes.  We need all the help we can
     get.  
              MR. BURNS:  You're an attorney, right?  You
     understand the -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Plagiarizing?
              MR. BURNS:  No.  I mean, what -- 
              UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's why they don't
     understand.  
              MR. BURNS:  -- terms mean -- and how they can
     change --  
              UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  You fight over these rules
     forever.  
              MR. BURNS:  -- as soon as possible. 
              MR. BRELAND:  Also, one additional 
     question -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Okay.  
              MR. BRELAND:  -- on the 60-day versus 90 days and
     the calendar days versus workdays, two questions in that
     area.  One, I wasn't sure that -- or I missed it anyway --
     if you thought there was any amount of training that should
     be required before miners go to work.  
              And then, secondly, you talked about the time
     frame and even the 90 days or 60 workdays, if somebody was
     working all the time, would be approaching four and a half
     or five months if they were working full-time.  Do you
     really -- are you saying you think that's a reasonable
     amount of time to complete the other 24 hours?  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  I'm not sure I understand.
              MR. BRELAND:  The minimum time for a new employee.
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  On the first question about the
     training required before they begin work, we think what you
     have in the proposal is good on that.  
              MR. BRELAND:  With no time limit, no specified
     minimum -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  No minimum time.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes.  But the topics, we think the
     approach of identifying -- I think our list of topics were a
     little bit different, but we don't -- we think -- that's not
     a -- what the specific topics are, we think your list is
     good.  You know, how much time is needed for those topics is
     going to vary, depending on the kind of operations, so we
     agree with your approach on that.  
              We think that the topical approach is a sensible
     one.  You know, if the topics aren't covered, then the
     people are going to be in violation, whatever the amount of
     time is.  The second question, I'm not sure I understood.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Well, you talked about the 90 days
     to complete.  You thought the 60 calendar days versus 60
     working days and then you mentioned, well, maybe 90 days was
     what would be a reasonable -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well, we had said 60 working days
     in the draft that we put it.  Your proposal says 60 calendar
     days, and the concern was, well, working days could be -- it
     could take somebody all year to work 60 days.  We recognize
     that.  And again, on this one I'm not sure that CEMT has
     reached its view on this.  
              I'm just telling you what I think on behalf of the
     Lime Association is 90 calendar days would probably work,
     because that would probably be 60 working days for most
     people.  If you strongly prefer a calendar-day approach, I
     just think 60 calendar days is too short.  
              MR. BRELAND:  And the operation out there that's
     intermittent, that might work six weeks this year, you would
     include that, so if they came back with the same people next
     year, then they've been beyond the 90 calendar days, so they
     would have to have had their training when they, like, start
     up again seasonally?  So you can see there's a real -- there
     could be a real issue with -- some people would never get
     their training.  A lot of people would never get their
     training that worked seasonal if they had that much time.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well, that could be true, even if
     it's just 60 calendar days.
              MR. BRELAND:  That's right.  It could be.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  I don't know if there's -- I mean,
     that's always -- I mean, there's going to be these anomalies
     that are going to happen with people who only work a short
     amount of time.  I don't know if there's  any good way to
     address that.  
              MR. BURNS:  Yes.  I guess I still have a few
     questions on -- I guess, I'm just trying to stick to the
     same issues, rather than wait -- and I'll ask you about this
     area.  But it seems to me that right now under --there's
     five topics that are discussed that need to be addressed in
     this 60-day period -- or you're proposing 90 days -- many of
     which, you know, should be done rather -- earlier rather
     than later --
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Uh-huh.  
              MR. BURNS:  -- okay, like instruction on the
     statutory rights of miners.  I mean, they should know that
     rather early in their careers, so that they know they have
     the right to refuse to work in an unsafe area or in unsafe
     conditions.  So, I mean, I think that's something that
     should be done earlier, rather than later.  I just want to
     go through a couple of these and see -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Okay.  
              MR. BURNS:  -- what you -- and then, the review of
     the description of line of authority of supervisors and
     miners' representatives' responsibilities.  That seems like
     that should be something that a work -- any worker would
     like to know.  I mean, I'd like to know that when I came to
     MSHA, you know, what the various roles were.  
              The third one is an introduction to the rules and
     procedures in the reporting of hazards.  Again, that seems
     to be something that's, you know, sooner rather than later.
              And then, instruction and demonstration of the use
     and care of self-rescuers if appropriate in respiratory
     devices.  Again, that's going to have to be done if someone
     is working in a dusty area or a noisy area, they are going
     to have to be trained how to use those before they go into
     those areas.  
              So, I mean, that's something that has to be --
     that's not something that's tied into a time period.  That's
     more or less event activated.  The only one that I can see
     that, perhaps, could require some time is a review of the
     first-aid methods.  
              I mean, I can see an operator may feel more
     comfortable having the state grants come in and do -- you
     know, someone that's very qualified to do first-aid
     training, to do that, and it may take time to schedule that
     sort of work for one individual -- say, you only hire one
     person.  
              I mean, that one I can see could take some more
     time, but all these other ones seem to be, you know, a
     sooner rather than later-type issue to me.  And, again, my
     experience with deadlines is a lot of people just make
     deadlines.  So, if we say -- if we say 90 days, there are
     people that will be doing a lot of things on the 89th day.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes.  I have a couple of
     responses.  
              MR. BURNS:  Okay.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  It's always hard to figure out
     what length of time to allow for things like this, but there
     are a couple of reasons why more time might be needed for
     some people.  Number one is what you mentioned is a lot
     operations are not going to be using in-house trainers for a
     lot of these topics.  
              They are going to be contracting with others to do
     the training, and they are going to want to do it on a --
     they are going to want to train more than one employee at a
     time if they possibly can.  So, they are not going to call
     in a trainer -- and there, sometimes they are going to try
     to do this training on a regular schedule, so allowing a
     little bit more time for them to schedule that is
     beneficial.  
              Another one is just the issue of when are people
     working.  They may not -- an operation that is a little more
     irregular it may be more difficult to get working days to do
     the training within a 60-day period, so a 90-day period
     allows you a little bit more room to find time to actually
     do the training.  
              I would assume that most people will probably do
     the training as early as they can on these things, because
     they are ones that are safety issues, but there are factors
     that may make it difficult, especially for some smaller
     operations and more irregular operations, to get that
     training done, particularly if they have to do it on days --
     they really can't do it on days that the person wouldn't
     otherwise be working, so that's a -- that's going to be an
     issue for some people.  
              MR. BURNS:  Okay.  I think you know what I was -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes, I understand.  And I
     understand your point, I believe.  
              MR. BRELAND:  I was done.  
              MR. BURNS:  You were done?  One more and you were
     done.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Well, you kept interrupting the
     question.  
              MR. BURNS:  I think that's it.  I think Rod's
     asked all the questions I had.  The only other issue was
     this contractor issue.  I think there seems to be -- and
     this is just a statement, and maybe if you can clarify in
     your comments more exactly what your concern is and how you
     feel it should be handled as far as -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Okay.
              MR. BURNS:  -- these contractors.  I mean, I
     understand that there are different kinds of contractors and
     that some very large mines deal with large trucking
     contractors who really are not their contractors.  They have
     a contractual relationship with the customer, the
     construction company, and then they may even subcontract, so
     I can see that there can be a huge disconnect in some cases
     versus, you know, somebody that you use on a regular basis
     to come in and do welding or something, and it's two people
     working at that company.  But if you could, clarify what
     exactly you're talking about and how you feel that should be
     delivered?  The other thing is I sense that there's an issue
     of responsibility in that there's some misunderstanding
     concerning responsibility for training and responsibility
     for conditions or violations created by a contractor that
     could be the result of that contractor not understanding the
     hazards.  There's nothing in this rule that would -- that's
     a whole separate issue -- 
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes.  
              MR. BURNS:  -- under the Mine Act.  If a
     contractor creates a hazard that impacts a mine operator's
     employees, there's nothing in this rule that says that the
     operator can or may be cited for that violation.
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes.  I don't think that's really
     what -- 
              MR. BURNS:  Yes.  Okay.
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  -- our concern is.  
              MR. BURNS:  Okay, okay.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  I did want to clarify one point. 
     We do think that the owner-operator or site operator should
     have the obligation to inform the contractor of the site
     hazards so that the contractor can inform employees.  We're
     not saying, "Well, you don't have any obligation."  We think
     that that responsibility should run to the contractor,
     rather than to the contractor employees.  I think that's the
     distinction, but we'll sketch that out in more detail in the
     comments.  
              MR. BURNS:  Yes.  I guess what I'm looking for --
     and this was raised, I think, in one of the public -- one of
     the other hearings was some effort or some good-faith effort
     by the mine operator to ensure or to make sure that the
     contractor's doing the training that they've given them to
     provide to their employees, and how that would be -- how
     that can be done, I don't know.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Right.  I would suspect that in
     most cases it would be done contractually but -- 
              MR. BURNS:  You know, just so there's no
     disconnect, you know, because --
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Okay.  Well -- 
              MR. BURNS:  -- that's what I'm asking for.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  -- we'll wrestle with that also.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  You have anything else?  
              MR. BURNS:  No.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Robert?  
              MR. ALDRICH:  No.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr.
     Prillaman.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Thank you.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Ros, do you want to come up?  Ros
     Fontaine from the Office of Standards is a little bit late,
     and she's part of the committee, so she's going to approach
     the table.  The next speaker is Joe Main from the United
     Mine Workers of America.
              MR. MAIN:  Thank you.  My name is Joe Main, J-O-E,
     M-A-I-N.  I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
     talk about something that I think is fundamentally important
     to the nation's miners.  It's probably one of the most
     critical things that we can talk about in terms of those
     that seek and plummet in the workplace of a coal mine.  And
     there's a lot of reasons for that.  
              Before I get into the substance of what I want to
     talk about, there's just some observations that I need to
     make.  I just came from a Senate hearing yesterday where we
     were complaining loudly about the delay in the rule-making
     process.  And I have personally been working on rules that's
     been around for a dozen years now and still waiting and end.
              And I'm just totally amazed at the speed of
     lightning of which this rule can go through a system when
     rules affecting miners who were not trained, who were not
     appraised of conditions in the workplace became sick, who
     are dying because of that, and we can't get those rules that
     actually would help prevent them from being put in that
     situation, we can't get them out.  I'm just -- I am amazed
     by this whole process, so as I come back and I go out of
     that world and then I look at the world of those miners
     we're talking about, about the first step of them entering
     the mining industry and the kind of training they are going
     to get to try to -- the kind of preparation they are going
     to get to keep from getting silicosis, crushed by a piece of
     equipment, being exposed to a solvent that could destroy
     their lungs.  Like, one gentleman that was with me yesterday
     was exposed to solvent that has walking up two levels of
     steps is a terrible task for that individual now.  Being
     exposed to diesel fumes -- I had one lady that was with us
     yesterday that's disabled from -- after breathing just
     ungodly diesel exhaust that's spewed out in the workplace
     that does make people sick.  
              And for those that don't know NIOSH has defined,
     at least for the underground mining sector, that through
     risk assessments that that diesel exhaust contains
     particulate matter that, based on all the compositions, all
     the studies that they've looked at and established in a risk
     assessment has found that levels that were, less than what -
     - or were exposed to were more than, actually, than what the
     levels that they looked at found that upwards of 900 out of
     1,000 of those miners would suffer lung canner over their
     lifetime of working in the mining industry.  
              And that's sad, and that's like how do we get that
     information out to miners?  We train them; we educate them;
     right.  And we've got this real problem today, because we're
     not getting this information out, the training standards we
     have.  So, I'm deeply troubled as an outset here when I look
     at this proposal as to what we're actually doing for these
     miners or doing to these miners as we develop a training
     model here.  
              What is the purpose of the rule?  I think that's
     one question that everybody has to ask themselves.  If the
     rule is being developed to provide quality training in a
     structured manner to educate these miners of the real
     hazards they are about ready to get into as they enter the
     workplace and the hazards that exist as they're there for
     the retraining and task training, then you have to have a
     quality training rule that's designed with clear structure
     to it to make sure that those miners are specifically giving
     that kind of training that you desire them to get.  
              If you don't do that, what you get is poor-quality
     training programs that's poorly structured that ill equips
     the miners to understand the hazards in the workplace.  I
     think it's just that straight and simple.  When I looked at
     the data on the -- that MSHA had supplied with the proposed
     rule, I had found that according to MSHA statistics that of
     the 200 miners killed in surface mines, 82 percent were
     killed in the very workplaces that we're talking about.  
              That should be alarming to a lot of people to say
     we've got a serious problem here that requires serious
     attention.  And then, I found that MSHA had concluded that
     the lack of training was a significant factor in those
     deaths.  So that tells us that we've got to do something to
     make sure that these miners have quality training that's
     well structured that prepares them for the dangers in the
     workplace.  I think, again, it's that simple.  
              Now, we're not just talking about any industry
     here, folks, and I think we all have to realize that.  It's
     -- we're talking about the mining industry that, by the
     Department of Health and Human Services findings last year
     and the report issued by the CDC cited the mining industry,
     based on deaths that occurred over a period of time, to be
     the most dangerous occupation in this country.  And that led
     construction and forestry by a wide margin.  
              I need to get a copy of that, and we'll have for
     the record to make sure that that's available to the folks
     that's working on this rule.  So with that background,
     again, it says that we've got a serious problem here in this
     country.  We've got to come to grips with that problem.  
              One of the key issues here is that miners are not
     well trained enough to protect themselves from these
     hazards, and they are dying on the job.  We don't know how
     many of them become sick.  I mean, that's another problem in
     itself and that there's been a failure by the industry
     overall to report illnesses, which I think was flushed out
     here about a year ago when MSHA offered a grace period.  
              And we're still waiting to get those results, but
     over 3,000 illnesses were reported to MSHA that were
     apparently free through that grace period by mine operators
     over a five-year period.  And we do not believe that, by any
     stretch of the imagination, that is inclusive of all the
     illnesses that's out there.  That's another problem in
     itself, but what it's telling us is that miners are not
     apparently able to protect themselves from these illnesses
     that are occurring in the workplace.  
              Silicosis is a big one.  There's a lot of
     publicity about it, rightfully so, and it needs the kind of
     attention that it's getting.  It needs that kind of
     attention in the mind of the miner before he ever cranks up
     that first drill or goes out there with that first in-
     loader, because out there in that dusty bin before he gets
     exposed to that first batch of dust, they need to understand
     what the dangers are, what's needed to protect them, what
     the law is, what rights they have to seek help -- I mean,
     just as a simple issue.  
              Miners working around equipment, I'd sure hate to
     think I was sending one of my kids to a mine, and I wanted
     to give them a very limited amount of training and say,
     "Okay, son, go over and run that bulldozer and, yeah, just
     be careful what you do.  Yeah, I'll give you a general
     outline of how things work here and wind up having that poor
     boy go over a high wall, have a brake failure or a number of
     different hazards that can occur at a workplace that could
     kill him or somebody else.
              And I think that's again, what we're talking
     about.
              Would we want to put our children, our friends,
     our family into situations that we're creating here with
     this rule and have the confidence that those people who go
     into that environment are effectively trained and prepared
     to prevent hazards or prevent injury, illness, or deaths to
     themselves from the hazards that they run into?  
              I think that's a fair question that we all need to
     ask in the back of our minds.  The rules as structures are
     flexible, as pointed out, I think to the point that they,
     without question, provide the less protection than those
     that are covered by Part 48 of the Mine Act.  
              They are, in our opinion, less protective than the
     standards guaranteed to miners in this country under Section
     115 of the Act.  The proposal which amends Part 48 is
     so-called more performance-oriented than what Part 48 is,
     and I think that is, too, to the extent that it takes away
     protections and opportunities for quality training that
     miners have both under the current application of Section
     115 of the law and under Part 48.  Now, while one may argue
     that since MSHA did not have the -- (inaudible) -- authority
     of specific mining operations during the period of the
     rider, those mines would not suffer a diminishing protection
     with the Part 48 or 46 Rule as proposed.  One cannot
     successfully argue that the standards don't diminish the
     protections guaranteed under Part 48.  They do.  
              The other discussions, I think, that need to be
     had, too, with respect to the impact of this rule, even if
     you start pursuing the first line that I laid out, which is
     the rider not applying, I think there are some serious
     questions as to whether or not that theory could ever hold
     water.  
              And for instance, if a miner wasn't training as
     required by Part 48 working at one of these sites where the
     rider applied and that miner was injured, does that miner
     have a right under the process of law to lay claim to that
     standard existing of which was violated by their employer of
     which he suffered or she suffered damage that they could use
     as a rule of authority?  The answer is, absolutely yes.  
              The only thing the legislation did was to bar
     MSHA, the Agency, from enforcing that standard, so there is
     a legal standard that's been in place for some time that has
     other applications.  
              Now, if a miner was working at a work site where
     the prohibition was in place and that miner had a collective
     bargaining agreement, would not that miner go to that
     employer and say, under our collective bargaining agreement,
     there's this law that's in place of which you, employer,
     have an obligation to provide me at this work site, and if
     you do not do that, you're in violation of our collective
     bargaining agreement.  Sure, we do that all the time.  
              As a matter of fact, through the collective
     bargaining process, there is many, many times that there's
     claims laid to laws, whether it be to mine to health safety
     laws, wage-an-hour standard laws, other laws of which the
     agencies are never called in to enforce.  
              It's the mere fact that there is a piece of
     standing legislation or law that is the decider of the case,
     and you don't need the Agency to be called in.  So, I think
     there's some clear problems here, with respect to this whole
     idea about the no diminishing of this standard.  
              And I think that the Agency has absolutely not
     cleared the air on exactly what their position is as to why
     this does not diminish the standard.  And I think before
     this rule's done that the Agency has to come forth with
     their clear position why.  
              I think, absent that, absent a clear reasoned
     position here that this standard is probably going to be
     subject to a legal test because of all the ramifications
     that's created by the rule, comments were noted in the
     preamble that some suggest that any plan which complied with
     the minimum requirements of Section 115 of the Mine Act be
     considered approved by the secretary.  We surely do not
     support that view.  
              The Mine Act has a greater intention than that,
     and I think that that has to be realized, or we wouldn't
     wind up with the standards in Part 48 that we have.  And if
     the intent of the rule is to provide quality training to
     protect miners from hazards, surely plans should be more
     substance than paper-compliant.  
              I mean, what are we doing here?  Are we creating a
     quality training program?  Are we creating some little
     vehicle to just clear some legal path, so we can say it
     meets the test in law?  And I think as I've read the rule
     and the discussion on the rule, I'm deeply concerned that
     the path that was chose here was a matter of convenience, as
     opposed to a matter of substance as far as providing
     structured quality training to miners.  Part 46 would not
     require training plans to be submitted to the Agency and
     only contains generalized plan requirements.  And this is a
     major department in Part 48, and these are things that we're
     talking about that's in the current Part 48 Rule that are
     absent from the proposed Part 46, a plan just simply not
     required to be approved by the Agency under Part 46.3 in
     miners and representatives of the miners. 
              And the representatives of mines, where they do
     exist, would have to file a plan of action to even cause
     that to occur.  I was a little disturbed this morning to the
     debate that I heard, which gets me more concerned about
     where this whole training road is heading for when I hear
     the head of the coalition that apparently helped develop
     this talk very openly about wanting the preclusion of miners
     and miners' representatives from the plan approval process. 
              I mean, I think that's totally outrageous, but it
     makes me worry about what the intent may be to do with this
     rule.  I think the Mine Act has a clear underpinning in that
     it clearly wanted miner reps' participation.
              It clearly wanted miner participation in the
     process and to have the industry or those representing the
     industry proclaiming that that's not necessary, I say to
     those families of 200 people that died in this mining
     industry, I think they think it's darn important, and they
     would probably would have liked for their loved ones who
     have been since, or have since left this earth, to have had
     an opportunity to have had some involvement.  Maybe, they'd
     be alive today, yet, at mines where there is no miners'
     representative -- and let's all get serious with each other
     -- we know this industry, I think, for those that's been
     around for quite some time, we have a lot of mines where
     miners are just intimidated and scared to death to speak out
     about anything, and if one thinks that some of these small
     mines where they are dominated by an employer that does not
     tolerate any talking back, as the saying goes, or any
     challenging, if there's anybody in this room thinks that
     those miners are going to say, hey, I'm filing a complaint
     with MSHA over here; I want this plan approved.  
              To even trigger a plan approval, now I want to
     talk to you because you may know more about what's going on
     in the industry than I do about some of these operations,
     but I can tell you that is a real problem in this industry.
              And I think the design of this whole rule by
     passing an approval process is going to eliminate any
     ability in many cases of MSHA to have any control of
     guaranteeing quality training to miners, because if you just
     follow that simple lay-out of the plan in those five
     generalized areas, that means absolutely nothing about the
     substance of the quality and the structure of that training,
     and it flies through and they don't have that miner
     objection to it or that miner's rep to it, that plan's in
     place.  
              And I don't think this follows clearly, in any
     way, shape or form, what the intent of the Mine Act.  And I,
     with all due respect, believe that it just totally undercuts
     the provisions under Part 48 that demands that that plan be
     approved by MSHA.  As a matter of fact, the plan process
     even skips any evaluation of plan provisions, as well.  
              Under Part 48, there's provisions that require
     scrutiny by the district manager under the current rules to
     make sure that those plans are quality plans, to make sure
     if there's any revisions that are needed, they get done
     before that plan gets approved.  That whole evaluation
     process is absent from this rule when you go straight from
     the operator to the implementation of the plan, the
     provisions of Part 46.4 (d), which allow various training
     methods including innovative training methods and
     alternative training technologies.
              There's a lot of questions as to what would fit
     this bill.  I don't know what those are, and I don't think
     anybody sitting here at this table knows what those are
     going to be as they are applied two or three years from now. 
     And it's sort of like taking this rule into such flexibility
     mode that's totally in this.  And it's, you know, sort of
     like the kind of training that can be given the flexibility
     there.  
              I'm deeply concerned about that for a lot of
     different reasons, but one in particular, and I see that the
     rule would give the mine operator the right to substitute
     training with OSHA training, with other state training,
     other federal training programs.  And I go back to that
     basic miner who's getting ready to go to this mine, work at
     this mine, and it's like what is it that that miner really
     needs to know.  
              That miner really needs to know about the hazards
     in that workplace of which they are about ready to be casted
     into, and they need to be educated on their rights, not
     under OSHA law, but under the Mine Act.  They need to be
     appraised of the protections they have, not under a state
     mining law or a OSHA law, but the laws that apply
     particularly to that mine.  
              They need to know about the hazards, not that it
     applies maybe if they are working at a cement or a gravel
     pit about the hazards associated with erecting the piece of
     steel at, you know, in a building.  You know, they need to
     know about the hazards associated with that -- working in
     that pit.  They need to know about the silicosis problems.  
              They need to know about working around equipment,
     so I think that what's set up here is a very dangerous spin
     that allows, out of convenience, not quality for those
     plans, that training plan, the training programs to be so
     inferior that it may mean that they mean nothing to that
     miner.  
              And I think that's wrong if we're after a quality
     plan that's well structured that really educates that miner
     on the true hazards and things that they need to know.  The
     current standards require in the process that if MSHA
     determines that there's something missing in that plan,
     under Part 48 you can fix that.  There's provisions there to
     do that.  
              In the review process in both the underground and
     the surface standards, under this rule there is no such
     animal, and I think that is the lesser protection of what
     miners have under the current laws as they are applied under
     Section 115 of the Mine Act.  
              And why is that important?  Well, if you have a
     fatality at a mine site, if you have a situation where
     miners are exposed to a health hazard or a number of other
     things, it would be more than nice to have MSHA have the
     opportunity to go in to say, hold it, Mr. Operator, Ms.
     Operator, we're going to revise this plan to make sure these
     people are trained so this doesn't happen again.  
              Or if they are exposed to chemicals or solvents in
     the workplace, whoa, we've, you know, we've had these
     illnesses here.  We're changing these plans.  You know,
     we're not going to allow you to just continue this plan, a
     training plan that does not address these problems.  There
     has to be some control there.  How will MSHA enforce this? 
     As I read through the whole rule, I was left with the tunnel
     difficulty of what MSHA's planning on doing to go in and
     enforce this.  
              Enforce what?  There's such a moving target that's
     been established here in so many areas with the flexibility
     and with the enforcement guys would probably have to chase
     their tails around for a week just to try to figure out what
     they thought the standard may be, what the training may have
     been, how it was supposed to have been given, who it was
     supposed to have been given by.  
              The way that the whole scheme is designed, it
     appears that it's designed to provide an opportunity for the
     mine operator to run their operations with very little
     interference or as less interference as possible,
     accommodating the production over the interest of the miner
     being fully and effectively trained.  And I am deeply
     concerned about the, you know, the whole tone of the rule
     that seems to accomplish that.  
              As far as not mandating formal instruction of
     training, I think that's a real problem.  We have enough
     problems with the certified program under the Mine Act, and
     I was just informed of a story yesterday of a situation we
     had up in Pennsylvania where even with a certified
     instructor program, the certified instructor apparently
     decided they were going to do something else while miners
     were being trained.  
              So, they put on some videos and I forget what the
     first one was, but it's "Braveheart" I think was the first
     training session they got, and the second one
     happened to be an x-rated flick.  And this, as I understand,
     had been turned over to MSHA.  And this is with the
     certified program, okay, where there is some more
     responsibility.  
              Now, what do you do -- how do you deal with a
     competent-person training program?  I mean, I'm lost here. 
     I think in this situation, hopefully, MSHA does the right
     thing and pulls the certification here of an instructor who
     clearly violated the law.  
              But how do you deal with a -- if your interest is
     making sure that you have quality people giving that
     training, and you find out that you don't have quality
     people there that really can't communicate, can't package,
     can't put the information together, how does the Agency deal
     with that?  I think your hands are tied.  
              We're not requiring formal hazard training invites
     increased training contractors to take over workplaces, and
     as I read through that rule, an interesting thing struck me. 
     And unless I'm reading it wrong, which when I read all the
     orders the way they are, it appears that to satisfy hazard
     training at a work site, you can post signs.  
              That's the way I read it, so hazard training is
     the people being formally advised of all the hazards. 
     There's a sign over there tells you this; there's a sign
     over there that tells you that.  There's a sign over there;
     read them and, you know, make sure you comply with those. 
     Hazard trained; okay.  Here we go.  
              Is that what we want to do for hazard training at
     mines?  I mean, is that how we want to prepare people coming
     on to be exposed to the hazards in the most hazardous
     workplace in this country?  I think it's a little bit
     outrageous.  
              The tie-in with the contractors, as I understand
     it, if the contractor does not have experienced miners, the
     contract employers don't have experienced-miner training
     under 46.11 (e), hazard training would be required.  If they
     have it, it isn't required.  
              Now, when they get it, there's some debate here, I
     guess, about who is going to actually give the training,
     although the preamble gave some discussions about allowing
     the contractor through the operator to actually, you know,
     provide the instruction.  
              And that may make some sense in a real-world
     situation, but at the end of the day when I put all these
     pieces together, as I see it, what it means is if those
     people come on and they don't have the new experienced-miner
     training, they could get hazard trained, which is the sign-
     reading and willing to work.  Now, there's this question
     about supervision, too, working with a miner that ties into
     all this, but in the real world, you could get around a lot
     of training costs and training programs if you decided to
     use that approach, which at the end of the day you may have
     a lot of contractors on the work site replacing, you know,
     more well-trained miners that would otherwise be there if
     you had a sound training program that set that as the basis.
              And as far as the time that it would take to train
     these miners that are new, I think there's two parts to that
     question.  The first part is could any miner be cast in this
     most unsafe place in this country without having the 24-hour
     training?
              If you look at the Part 48 Rule, the answer is
     absolutely not, the standard that is required to be given to
     those miners before they are cast into that unsafe and
     unhealthy environment.  Why?  All the reasons I've
     described, all the hazards in the workplace, the high death
     rates, you know.  This is the most dangerous occupation in
     the world.  
              Why are we considering saying, okay, this sector
     here, we're going to treat them differently and we're going
     to let those monitors be cast into this unsafe workplace?  I
     have a difficult time from a health and safety professional
     to understand what is the difference from this human being
     to this human being over here exposed to some of the same
     general kinds of hazards that miners are now covered under
     the Part 48 regs, so I believe that that should not be
     permitted.  
              I believe the law has been sound through the
     course of time, and I worry about all these things that are
     happening here being impacting on the Part 48 Rule, because
     I can see this train coming down the track.  If all these
     things are permitted here for these miners, what's the
     difference in these other miners?  
              That question is coming at some point in time if
     this rule would ever get through.  And it would serve to
     undercut, I think, the whole principles and the whole
     protections miners have under Part 48.  Retraining, it
     appears that retraining is a vehicle that would be applied
     differently than the current Part 48 Rule in a couple of
     important areas.  
              One area is that the topics are just flexible, you
     know; the flexibility is endless here.  You know, pick
     whatever you want to do and train the folks; okay.  Their
     training is itself modified in that, although we don't like
     it, there's a minimum 30-minute training requirement under
     Part 48.  It should be much more than that.  
              Again, if we're talking about some structured
     quality-time training for miners, as opposed to letting --
     yes, what did he do?  Okay; we'll count that as training,
     paper-compliance.  Yes, he did that two weeks ago.  We'll
     take that, you know, that time and count it for training. 
     Under our rule, it's bad enough when you take away the
     required topics and you take away the 30 minutes.  
              I can tell you what's going to happen throughout
     this industry.  In a lot of mines where the rule would
     apply, there's going to be a documentation of just different
     events to satisfy not quality, structured training, but
     paper compliance with the rule.  It's just as simple as
     that, and any of us that's been around the industry knows
     how some of these situations can occur, even under the Part
     48 Rules should be very easily -- should very easily see
     through this rule to see what we're setting up here.  
              I think retraining for any substantive purpose is
     gone under this proposal.  There are several other issues
     that -- and I know of them as I go through here fairly
     quickly that we hope to be able to respond to the -- before
     the rule comment period closes.  The definition of a miner
     is one of those, and I look at how many different defined
     miners are we going to have in the mining industry when we
     get done.  
              Is this miner "a" or is this a miner "b"?  What --
     well, how come this miner gets to have this training before
     they are associated with this hazard and this miner over
     here, well, he works at this operation; they produce this
     kind of product, so they don't, you know, they don't need
     that training.  I mean, I'm confused about this.  I mean,
     what's the logic here?   It's all getting back to a purpose
     of coming up with some product that provides flexibility; it
     provides opportunities to utilize workers at the benefit of
     production, as opposed to using them in a way that's -- they
     are well-prepared for those production purposes.  This will,
     like, use them as a process of expediency to get the mining
     operations done.  I can't read these things any different
     than that.  
              We've had a basis of a training standard that's
     been in effect for all these years.  We're about ready to
     just undercut the heck out of that standard.  Like I say,
     I'll be sending more information and more comments as we get
     an opportunity to go through this and finalize it.  And if
     you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer
     them.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Main.  I
     have a general question.  As I'm sure you know, I mean, the
     reason that the rider has been in effect all these years is
     because the industry was concerned that the Part 48
     standards were too restrictive and were inappropriate for
     that segment of industry.  
              And what we have heard in the course of going to
     our pre-proposal meetings in December and January and also
     at the hearings that we've held on this proposal is that
     there needs to be some flexibility built into a training
     rule that would apply to the currently exempt industries.  
              And I guess I have a general question.  I mean, is
     it your position that a departure from Part 48 to give
     flexibility in all instances is going to reduce protection? 
     Or are there some places or ways in which flexibility can be
     given and performance-oriented requirements be established
     where reduction is not going to be a problem from your point
     of view?  
              I mean, I think you know where I'm coming from.  I
     mean, we're trying to accommodate the needs of this industry
     so that we can start to get miners trained who have not been
     trained.  Is Part 48 the only way to go?  Or are there some
     places where flexibility is appropriate and can work?  
              MR. MAIN:  In response to that question, I would
     say this, that you know I think that even under Part 48
     there's those that have expressed the view that some of the
     things may be too rigid, as far as the topic areas and there
     is a need for some flexibility in the Part 48 Rule.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.  
              MR. MAIN:  Okay.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.  
              MR. MAIN:  And looking at it from that end and
     looking at, you know, what is needed again to provide a
     quality training program for miners that's well structured,
     that's meaningful, that gets there.  I think along those
     lines, if we're just talking about the flexibility to give
     the opportunity to do different things in a very meaningful
     way, there would not be a problem, you know, with us with
     that.  
              But when you take away any controls over that, any
     guarantees that there's going to be quality, there is a big
     problem.  We would not support the abandonment of required
     training subjects under the Part 48 any more than we would
     under Part 44 if there was no quality-control device to make
     sure that miners got the right kind of topics and the right
     kind of training.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  You mean as far as -- I mean,
     maybe not necessarily setting specific topics, but having
     some over -- 
              MR. MAIN:  Yes.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  -- umbrella mechanism in the
     Agency to ensure that the result is -- 
              MR. MAIN:  Well, I think -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  -- receptive?  
              MR. MAIN:  Yes.  I would do it this way; one is I
     think there are specific things that have to be in training.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  You mean, specific topics?  
              MR. MAIN:  Specific topics that have to be in
     training.  One of those is the miner's rights and the rights
     of the representatives so that they are fully -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.  And, I mean, and those are
     actually requirements of the statutes.  
              MR. MAIN:  One of those is also an understanding
     of the mandatory standards of which they are going to work
     with pertinent -- to their mining operation.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.  
              MR. MAIN:  One of those would be very pertinent to
     the specific hazards of the work areas that they are going
     into.  And depending on, you know, with respect to health, I
     mean, I think we've grown up enough in this industry to
     realize we've got a lot of health problems here that there
     have to be issues directed, pertinent to the health
     exposures that those miners are faced with.  
              I mean, those are just four quick ones that I
     think ought to be sort of mandatory subjects, and I don't
     care what kind of plan that you have.  And I'm not saying
     that's the end of that, but you know at some point then you
     have the opportunity to do some flexible type of training
     there, but you have an evaluation approval process to make
     sure we're just not skinning the cat here, that we're really
     -- and that becomes the entry approval process that's
     totally absent from this, you know, process, unless you have
     a complaint filed.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  I mean, obviously, I mean
     you can get from the preamble that our objective was to
     allow flexibility for the training programs to be tailored
     to the specific operations, but what you're saying is that
     that is -- I mean, there's certain topics that should be
     mandatory.  
              Topics beyond those can be selected by the
     operator, but there needs to be some kind of an overarching
     evaluation process to ensure that the plan is appropriate
     and effective.  
              MR. MAIN:  I think the problem with the first
     point that you laid out, your interest to give flexibility
     to that mine operator in developing that plan, stops short
     of saying one other thing and guaranteeing that we do have a
     process here in place that actually guarantees those miners
     a quality, structured training vehicle here that's going to
     educate them to prevent themselves from being injured.  
              That part needs to say it throughout the rule,
     because I think that what the rule does is follow the
     lineage of the first part almost all the way through and
     forgets at times about that second part.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  All right.  You are going
     to be submitting written comments you've indicated?  
              MR. MAIN:  In addition to the other several rules
     we're working on, yes, we're going to submit -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  
              MR. MAIN:  -- some time to do some written
     comments -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  All right.  
              MR. MAIN:  -- on these.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you.  I don't have any
     further questions.  Robert Aldrich?  
              MR. ALDRICH:  No questions.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Rod?  
              MR. BRELAND:  I have a couple of short ones I'd
     just like verification on.  You talked several times about
     the evaluation methods and some factors.  Are your comments
     going to have some suggestions in that area?  You do some
     comparisons to existing Part 48, but then you also brought
     up, like, a recent problem with a certified instructor.  
              MR. MAIN:  The movie deal.  
              MR. BRELAND:  There are some problems with the --
     well, there's a lot of discussion with the present rule,
     Part 48, on approval of instructors and approval of plans
     being, maybe, too automatic in some cases -- 
              MR. MAIN:  Yes.  
              MR. BRELAND:  -- or too generic, so I guess my
     question here is are some of the comments you're going to
     have going to be relating to evaluation factors?  
              MR. MAIN:  It may or may not.  Well, it depends on
     how much time we have to devote to this rule to make sure --
     I mean, our problem is we see so many fundamentally
     structural problems here that we're going to have to respond
     to, I would hope to be able to follow that up.  
              But just for the record here now, which would
     carry as much weight as the written testimony would, I think
     there is a clear problem with the current Part 48 Instructor
     Program in that there is a -- there is the need for the
     Agency to do more to evaluate the quality of those programs
     that those instructors are giving to be able to remove
     people that are not providing the kind of quality training
     program that is intended under the Mine Act and under Part
     48.  
              In situations like this that I spoke of, I think
     there's -- anybody in their right mind would say, gee, we
     ought to relieve that person as a certified instructor if
     those are the correct facts of the case.  
              It would not be really justice to miners here, you
     know, and there's a lot of other problems I think we've
     witnessed over the years of just different little things
     that were done or big things that were done where miners
     went in to get this paid-for time and wound up being nothing
     more than talking about baseball or football or, you know,
     things that had nothing to do with training.  
              So the value was lost, and there's been times that
     we all know that there's been falsification of records where
     the training actually was not given.  Getting back over to
     the point that I raised, too, I really worry about the
     structure of this training program where -- and take the
     new-miner training or the re-training that the standards are
     so liberalized, how do you account for anything?  
              I mean, you go in as a training inspector, right,
     or an Agency training representative to try to figure out
     what's going on at this mine, with respect to this training
     program; okay.  We see that Bill here has had his 8-hour
     training in the last 12 months.  What was that training?  
              And when you get to the bottom of it, if you ever
     can, in some situations you find, well, we have been working
     with Bill Smith here, and he was teaching them about what he
     was doing in his work about the hazards of silicosis.  And
     we had him, you know, on and on and on, I mean, where it's
     just integrated into the work process where the time wasn't
     quality time paid on the side to be trained.  It was
     production time.  
              And the training was just a paper qualifier to
     just meet a standard of the law.  I think you're going to
     have enormous problems with that ever guaranteeing the
     miners are actually properly trained.  And how does a miner
     -- the plan's in effect; how does a miner get that plan
     changed?  I mean, there's nothing in here that I see that
     allows that to happen.  That's another problem with this
     system.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Thank you.  Also, with all
     the discussion about contractors and definition of a miner,
     and I didn't really hear you address that in your comments,
     but I guess where would you define miners as it relates to
     the proposal?  
              MR. MAIN:  Well, I think, MSHA has spent a lot of
     time, Rod, trying to wrestle with what the definition of a
     miners is and we said, thank God, we've got it figured out,
     what, a year ago.  And I set down here and it's like, wow,
     that didn't work.  We're trying to refigure it out again.  
              I think that, you know, the Agency has to find
     what a miner is, and if you get into this process of, out of
     convenience, trying to define miners in different ways to
     fit, you know, political purposes, whatever you want to call
     it, you risk just deteriorating this whole standard again.  
              Part 48 should be the standard.  I think you folks
     spend a lot of time trying to figure that out.  You did, and
     no sense recreating the wheel.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Also, on the training before
     work, I didn't hear you say exactly.  I believe you were
     implying that you think all training should be done prior to
     starting work, but I didn't hear -- 
              MR. MAIN:  Yes, I did say that.  I must didn't say
     it clear enough.  I think the Mining Act -- actually, the
     way we read the Mining Act actually requires that under
     Section 115.  
              I think the rules that have been in effect have
     interpreted that to mean exactly that for, you know, since
     '78, and I think it is a standard that has such great
     importance to it that you've got to make a decision, either
     training means something to protect a person from harm's way
     or it doesn't.  
              And when you're talking about the most dangerous
     occupation in this country, you want those folks to have the
     benefit of a standard that has been defined a certain way,
     applied a certain way to protect miners over the years where
     you do not or do you not want them to have it.  
              And I think the dangers of things that I heard
     here this morning is that I can see -- you ever hear of what
     a 90-day wonder was?  I was hired as a probationary
     employee.  How many folks here were at any time in their
     lives?  Okay.  How many folks did you see going down the
     road?  Now, that was based on a less economic impact.  
              Now, I'm setting back here thinking, gee, how many
     90-day wonders are we creating here in the mining industry
     by this rule?  If you follow it through, a worker who is at
     risk of having the cost of the employer at the end of the 60
     days, at the end of 90 days, 22 hours.  
              Let's assume that this one commenter was correct;
     they can give this so-called training, in at least their
     belief, in two hours.  What do they need them for to send in
     the workplace?  I noticed that in the preamble.  That means
     that that -- that's a 22-hour risk employee at the end of 60
     days, pay-wise.  I think this is a very, you know, troubling
     rule that we're setting so many precedents here that is not
     healthy for miner's training or the standards.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Well, the existing Part 48 Rule
     presently allows for what's called an 8/16 split, for better
     terms, where they allow 8 hours initial training and the
     other 16 completed in 60 days, and I think that's not been
     something that's been -- is serving that automatically,
     because it requires a district manager's review and
     approval.  But that would allow, or did allow, for a review
     to make sure certain kinds of subjects, anyway, were covered
     prior to starting of work.  This is -- 
              MR. MAIN:  For new miners?  
              MR. BRELAND:  Pardon?
              MR. MAIN:  For new miners.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes.  
              MR. MAIN:  Has there been a large number of those?
              MR. BRELAND:  I think, maybe, metal sector, a lot
     more than in coal.  
              MR. MAIN:  We need to get this, because I wasn't
     aware that that was even an activity ongoing, because we've
     basically, in our arena that I've worked with, worked with
     the 24-hour rule.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  You mean, the 48 -- 
              MR. MAIN:  That's a pre-employment, the 24-hour,
     it's a pre-employment, you know, training rule.
              MR. BRELAND:  There were a lot of occasions where
     it was, again, it was -- it had to be requested in advance,
     and there were factors that are in the rule that have to be
     considered.  And that could be the incident of the operator
     or the contractor, whoever's requesting that, their instant
     rates, the history, and so forth.  So there were factors,
     but you may want to take a look at that when you're
     considering your comments.
              MR. MAIN:  I would be interested in any
     information that -- if I forward it right now, I can
     probably get it before the record goes.
              MR. BRELAND:  Well -- 
              MR. MAIN:  From the information act, please if you
     would give me that information, we do need to take a look at
     it.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  I better not ask any more
     questions.  That's all I have.  Thank you.  
              MR. MAIN:  Okay.  Yes.  We're going to try to do
     some comments that gets into more detail before the record
     closes so -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Kevin, do you have any questions?
              MR. BURNS:  I guess just a couple and just answer
     them.  I think one of your main questions or main issues is
     how does MSHA enforce this rule?  And what happens if
     there's a poor training plan in place?  The way it's written
     now under 46.3 (a), that would be the section that would be
     used to cite an operator for not having an effective
     training program.  
              And the way to change the training program would
     be naturally, just like any citation, the operator would
     have to correct that training plan in order to abate that
     citation.  So, that is the area where we address the issue
     of both training plans that aren't effective or training
     itself that is not effective.
              MR. MAIN:  Forty-six point three -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  (a).  
              MR. MAIN:  Point three (a), yes.  I'll take a look
     at that one, too, Kevin.  
              MR. BURNS:  Yes.  
              MR. MAIN:  But I think that's going to be somewhat
     difficult, but we'll take a look at that.  
              MR. BURNS:  I mean, the other issue you raised is
     -- and I think this is part of being an effective training
     program.  You know, anybody that comes to work at any place,
     but particularly a mine -- I mean, that's where I've been
     involved my entire working career -- needs to know; they
     need to know the hazards that they are going to be faced
     with at that mine.  
              We had a gentleman from Florida that talked about,
     you know, right now under Part 48, there's nothing in -- he
     was kind of joking, but I think his point was good that
     there's nothing in there that requires any training on
     alligator awareness, yet, in Florida that's -- people should
     know that, because they are working in areas where there are
     alligators.  And I would want to know that myself, so I
     think, you know, effective training should -- the new miners
     should know where all the alligators are.
              MR. MAIN:  And you really need to know that when
     you're working for MSHA, too.  
              MR. BURNS:  Yes --  
              MR. MAIN:  Okay.  
              MR. BURNS:  -- about alligators around.  Well, if
     you know where some are that I don't know, I'd appreciate
     it.  
              MR. MAIN:  You may be looking at it.  
              MR. BURNS:  You know, so I think that is part of
     an effective program, and there's nothing that we can write,
     I don't think, that can tell every operator where all their
     alligators are, basically, and they need to do that
     themselves, but -- and they need to make sure that the
     miners know that, and that's part of an effective plan, in
     my view.  
              MR. MAIN:  I would agree with that, but I would
     say, though, with respect to the structure of training, if
     you don't sort of force some quality time out, a lot of
     times you're not going to get quality time, and I think
     that's a real concern.
              MR. BURNS:  Yes.  That issue, what you're talking
     about there, I believe is the problem of -- we've all had
     this -- where you call a meeting and it takes 5 or 10
     minutes to start the meeting, because people are milling
     around doing what they need to do, saying hello to whoever
     it is that they haven't seen for awhile.  
              And if someone is having a 15-minute training
     session and they started at 9:00 and ended at 9:15 and
     people are milling around till 9:10, then how effective was
     that training?  And I would agree with you there.  I mean,
     it's --  
              MR. MAIN:  Yes -- it needs to be effective
     training, yes.  All I'm saying, if you don't have any time
     limits to begin, you don't even have that opportunity to
     have the people milling around, you know.  And I just see
     the opportunity for a lot of these training programs to be
     implemented along the -- on-the-job kind of training things
     that, you know, paper purposes, that's what they are
     accounted for when there's no structured time.  
              It should be more than 30 minutes.  There's
     absolutely no question about that, but even the 30-minute
     rule, when you've got that structured time go out the
     window, I think you risk letting any quality time all go
     out.  
              MR. BURNS:  Okay.  And I do understand what you're
     saying about, you know, the individual -- where there's hard
     to document who got training, because it was, you know,
     maybe the guy was riding in the pick-up truck with a
     supervisor for 10 minutes, and somehow they plan to count
     that as part of their training.  
              I mean, again, I wouldn't see that to be effective
     training, personally.  I mean, that's not what we envisioned
     here, and I don't think, you know, there does have to be
     some structure to the program.  
              MR. MAIN:  If you look at the fact that there has
     been various, under Part 48, various criminal actions and
     other violations issued against this that has certified that
     there were miners who had absolutely no training at all.  
              MR. BURNS:  Right.  
              MR. MAIN:  They didn't, like, try to do -- that
     has been a problem that I think we have to recognize.  And
     if you set the rules so liberal that you invite that, I
     think you're going to get it.  
              MR. BURNS:  And the only other thing was the whole
     thing with plans.  I mean, I kind of look at these as being
     one in the same as mine maps.  I mean, I've seen some of
     these coal mines that if it exploded, then the mine map
     looks very nice.  But, you know, underground looks nothing
     like what the map looks like.  
              And, again, you know a formalized plan is not a
     silver bullet, as you just explained.  That doesn't
     necessarily mean that the training's going to be effective. 
     I'm sure that plan, the issue you discussed where they put
     in "Braveheart," I'm sure their plan didn't call for that.  
              MR. MAIN:  Kevin, if I could say something.  We --
              MR. BURNS:  You know, I'm saying that's not a
     silver bullet.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Obviously, I mean, whatever the
     requirements may be in the rule, if we're not enforcing
     them, they are not going to be worth anything.
              MR. MAIN:  That's correct.  
              MR. BURNS:  I think that it all comes down, you
     know, 43 (a) is a big part of it that it has to be
     effective.  And one way to find -- the best way for me to
     find that out is to talk to the miners.  
              MR. MAIN:  But under this proposal, you ain't got
     much to work with under 43 (a), Kevin, I'm sorry to say.  
              MR. BURNS:  Okay.  I'm going to look at that.  I
     appreciate that.  
              MR. MAIN:  But I did want to make it clear in
     terms of the legal issues that's raised here, that they are
     very important and very -- (inaudible.)  And there has been
     this finding, based on what we saw thus far, that it doesn't
     -- it does not meet the test that MSHA has laid out here
     that this will not diminish protections to the miners.  We
     believe it does.  
              And we believe it does in different ways, and we
     would clearly like to have MSHA's position as to how they
     define that it doesn't, because we haven't figured out where
     that fits -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  
              MR. MAIN:  -- at this stage.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Robert?  
              MR. ALDRICH:  No questions.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Ros?  
              MS. FONTAINE:  No questions.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Main.  
              MR. MAIN:  Thank you.  We appreciate it.  Thank
     you.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  All right.  Why don't we take a
     10-minute break, get back at 5 till 10.  
              (Whereupon, a 10-minute recess was taken.)  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Are you ready?  Okay; good.  The
     next speaker on the list is Elsa Roman from the University
     of Texas at Austin.  
              MS. ROMAN:  Yes.  My name is Elsa Roman, E-L-S-A,
     R-O-M-A-N.  I'm with the States Grants Program in Texas. 
     The comments I'm going to make today and the suggestions I'm
     going to make today are based on two foundations, one of
     them being the experience and observation that we have had
     in the mining industry for the last 14 years being part of
     the States Grant Program.  
              And the other one is based on our perception of
     the reason for why this entire process is taking place.  Our
     perception is that this process is taking place because of
     what has taken place in the industry over the last few
     years, which is an increased number of fatalities,
     accidents, and injuries.  And based on that perception and
     our experience and what we read in the proposal, we see a
     huge gap in those two things.  
              And my comments will be just -- will go down the
     line based on what you asked for comments on.  The first one
     dealing with the definition of a miner, we do suggest that
     the definition include persons whose exposure is frequent
     and regular, as in Part 48.  
              This is, again, based on the experience that we
     have had where people do not have to be involved in the
     integral part of the operation to be exposed to the hazards. 
     And we do believe these people should go through new-miner
     training as the people who fall under the definition of
     miner.  We do see a difference, however, in people such as
     Coke vendors, drivers just coming in to pick up loads.  
              We do see a difference there where they would need
     only hazards training, but people who are on the mine site
     on a frequent and regular basis, our experience shows that
     they are exposed to the hazards just as the miner is, and
     therefore, need the same amount of training.  
              The second point on the plan approval process, we
     do not necessarily believe that the plan approval process
     has to be like Part 48.  What we would like to see more,
     though, is emphasis on the evaluation of the training plan.
              We do strongly suggest the inspectors review the
     plan as they come onto the operation, and we would like to
     have that -- we would suggest that an inspector review the
     plan the first time he or she is doing the inspection after
     the proposal actually takes effect.  We also suggest the
     inspector be given authority to disapprove plans if during
     his or her inspection he perceives the plan not to meet the
     requirements as stated in the proposal.  
              We also suggest that plans be inspected on an
     annual basis.  In keeping with the proposal under the part,
     the annual refresher training requirement, it is suggested
     that operators provide training with regards to the changes
     that have taken place on the mine site.  If changes have
     taken place on the mine site, and miners are being trained
     on those changes, then those changes have to be reflected in
     the training plan.  
              And the inspector should -- we believe the
     inspector should evaluate those training plans, with respect
     to the changes that have taken place.  Currently, we
     perceive there to be a problem under Part 48 within the
     training plan evaluation process.  
              We -- our experience is that once the training
     plan's approved, it is put in a file and it doesn't come out
     ever to see the sun again.  When people call us to do
     training for them, we ask them specifically what the
     training plan states, and they have to look for it; they
     have to dig for it so that tells us that these -- this is
     just a, you know, paperwork process.  We really do emphasize
     the evaluation part of it to be more stringent within the
     Part 46 Rule.  
              On the training plan, also, we suggest that the
     operator does have contractors on his or her site, and we
     feel strongly about this.  We would like to see the operator
     -- we would like to see verbiage in the Part 46 final Rule
     indicating that the operator should request to see and
     review the training plan from that contractor and that the
     operator evaluate, one way or another, whether that plan has
     been put into effect, whether the people within the
     contractor's employ have actually received the training the
     contractor is stating they have had.  
              Currently, we see a huge gap in contractor
     providing training to their employees versus operators
     providing training to the employees.  Our experience is that
     contractors, in general -- not all, but in general -- are
     just not doing the training as required.  Let's see.  
              The third one dealing with new-miner training, I
     believe, we truly would like to see the same verbiage of
     Part 46 as in Part 48.  However, if that does not take
     place, we would like to have the verbiage place even
     stronger emphasis in the section where it says the employee
     must be under close supervision of his or her immediate
     supervisor.  
              That person on the job, if they truly are a new
     employee, they've not ever been exposed to the mining
     industry before has a tremendous amount of exposure to risk
     and danger.  If they are not going to get as much training
     as they would under Part 48, then we would like to see
     something else take its place. 
              And what we would like to see take place is that
     the individual be under observation so that they do not get
     themselves into a situation that could lead to a negative
     effect.  We would like to suggest that miners' rights and
     first-aid also be included under the instruction -- under
     the subjects that are required before the individual begins
     work.  
              And also, if the new miner is a contractor, we
     would like to suggest that Part 46 require that contractor
     provide all 24 hours' worth of training before that person
     gets on the site.  And this, again, is based on our
     experience where many times the contractor is not on the
     site 60 days.  They might be on the site 30 days, 45 days
     and leave.  
              And because, currently under Part 48, they do not
     have to comply with all of the training until the 60-day
     period, many employees are not getting all of the training
     they should have.  Under task training, we suggest it be
     modeled after Part 48.  There is verbiage under Part 48,
     with regards to getting trained in the health and safety
     aspects of the job.  We would like to see that same verbiage
     under Part 46.  
              The next point dealing with the instructors, the
     competent instructors, this is a point that we feel quite
     strongly about.  We suggest instructors be required to
     attend a formal program of instruction to prepare them to
     instruct adults.  Currently, the proposal states that the
     individual needs to have the ability, the knowledge, the
     experience to provide training under selected topics or
     under certain subjects.  
              We, in Texas, have an instructor's training course
     and for the last 14 years, a good 90 percent of the people
     coming through that course have tremendous knowledge,
     ability, and experience on the subject matter.  Where they
     fail is in the ability to provide training, their skills in
     the training area.  And, unfortunately, because those
     individuals are not strong in the training skills, their
     knowledge, their ability, their experience is not passed on
     to be used by others.  So, we truly would like to see some
     type of program, formal program, that says people need to be
     prepared to instruct, not necessarily people who have the
     knowledge on the subject matter, but people who can instruct
     quality instruction.  If the final rule stays as is, with
     regards to the competent person, then we would like to see
     the final rule provide some guidance to the operator on how
     they should determine whether that person is competent or
     not.  
              What we are concerned with is that the operator
     appoint Susie because Johnny is not here today.  We're
     concerned that the operator just pick someone who is
     available that day without regard to how able the individual
     is to provide training.  
              We would like a definition of a competent person
     to address the ability to train adults, their abilities in
     communication skills, their ability in writing skills,
     because if someone is going to be doing training, they have
     to do things like putting together material.  They have to
     put together a training outline.  
              They have to put together training objectives. 
     They have to evaluate, as is currently outlined in the
     proposal, whether the training was effective or not, so
     there are certain skills that individual has to have in
     order to be considered competent, at least as it's described
     currently in the proposal.  
              We would also like to see addressed what
     requirements the operator has in preparing an individual to
     function in this competent capacity should the individual
     just select or choose someone or should that operator be
     required to provide some type of preparation for this
     individual to be regarded as competent.  
              We would also like to see some guidance in the
     verbiage on how the competent person should evaluate the
     effectiveness of the training should that person be required
     to develop a form that he or she gives to the students after
     the class is over.  Will MSHA put together a form to be used
     after each training session takes place?  
              Will there be tests given after each class to be
     reviewed by the inspector whenever he or she is on the site
     to do the inspection?  And also, what should be done with
     these evaluations?  Should they be just put in a file
     drawer?  Should they be used to evaluate whether that person
     maintains his or her competent status?  
              And what if those evaluations show or communicate
     that the students do not perceive this individual to be
     competent, then what options are available to the operator
     to be within the verbiage of the final rule?  
              If this section is left as is, some of those
     suggestions we have that you, the training specialist or the
     inspector, evaluate this competent person selected, the
     evaluation be made through interviews, the questions
     regarding the training plans, how that individual provides
     training, what the results of the training have been.  
              We would like to see the specialist or inspector
     review the evaluations of the training provided.  We would
     like to see the inspector or training specialist interview
     the students who have received the training.  We would like
     to see MSHA provide this individual with material.
              The academy does have a manual on instructor
     training, so if we are going to leave it as is, competent
     person, then we must provide the support so that individual
     is a competent person.  We would also suggest that if after
     an interview the representative from MSHA believes this
     individual is not competent, that this individual have the
     authority to revoke the competent status.  
              And on this issue, last but certainly not least,
     we would also like to see competent be defined as someone
     who can provide instruction in that individual's, in the
     trainee's language.  
              Every year that I've been involved with the States
     Grants Program, I find that there are more individuals
     within this country who need communication in other than
     English, so if I am going to select a competent person, then
     that competent person must be able to provide information in
     a way that the individual receiving it is going to
     understand.  
              Within the proposal, there's a question as to
     whether the final rule should give option to the operator to
     comply with 48 in lieu of Part 46, and we would like to see
     that option be provided.  There are many clients that we
     currently have who will fall under Part 46, but are
     currently in compliance with Part 48, and if they had that
     option, they probably would elect to stay with Part 48.
              As far as any refresher is concerned, we suggest
     Part 46 make annual refresher just like Part 48.  Part 48
     has a really good list of topics and subjects.  If Part 48
     is not adopted, then we suggest the topics suggested under
     Part 46 be made required and not just suggested, other than
     the changes that have taken place over the year.  
              There's a list of topics suggested, and we'd like
     to see those made required.  Within the cost analysis in the
     proposal, one of the costs that we perceive exists but is
     not addressed is the actual cost of the operator having
     people at the training, instead of out there in the
     production.  
              That is the cost, other than just the meals and
     lodging and transportation and the training fee, if there is
     a training fee.  There's also a cost associated with having
     your employees sitting there in a room getting instruction,
     as opposed to being out in the field producing whatever it
     is they are producing.  Those were the comments and
     suggestions I bring from the States Grants Program in Texas.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Ms. Roman. 
     I've got a couple of questions and others may, as well.  I
     guess I'm looking for clarification.  You suggested that the
     final rule include some provision for the plan to be
     evaluated or reviewed on an annual basis.  Now, is that a
     review by the operator, by MSHA, by both?  I guess I'm just
     looking for a little bit of detail, as far as how you see
     that working, how the final rule might address that.  
              MS. ROMAN:  Well, we would actually like to see an
     MSHA representative.  Of course, the evaluation has to be
     made by the operator throughout the year, because if there
     are changes throughout the year, that operator must reflect
     those changes on the training plan.  
              On an annual basis, however, we would like to see
     an MSHA representative, either the inspector or the training
     specialist actually review the plan and based on the annual
     refresher requirements, which state that you train people on
     the changes that have taken place throughout the year at
     your operation, we would like to see that inspector or
     training specialist review, so that the plan does reflect
     the changes which have taken place.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And also, I wasn't sure
     exactly what your point was, as far as you indicated that
     you believed that contractors should receive the full 24
     hours of training before they begin work at a mine site.  Is
     that what your point was?  
              MS. ROMAN:  Yes.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  And I guess I didn't understand
     what the rationale was for it.  
              MS. ROMAN:  Well the rationale is, currently, what
     we've experienced is there are contractors on a mine site
     who are not there for 60 days.  They might be there for 30
     days.  They might be there for 45 days.  They might be there
     for 58 days and will provide the eight hours, or sometimes
     not even that, and just that eight hours because they have
     60 days to do the rest.  But if I'm not on the mine site for
     60 days, then they perceive that to be as a loop to get away
     from being -- from providing the rest of the training.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  So, I guess your point is because
     the proposal requires that the miner training be completed
     within 60 days, that since many contractor employees don't
     spend 60 days on a mine site, they are going to keep -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  That's right.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  You know, I don't think that
     that's the way we intended that working.  
              MS. ROMAN:  No and you don't.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  No.  
              MS. ROMAN:  And you do not intend it that way, but
     our experience is that's the way it's being done by -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  
              MS. ROMAN:  -- some contractors currently.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  They think that the -- it's
     60 days at each particular mine site, and if you don't,
     you're not there for 60 days, then the new-miner training
     requirement never fully kicks in.  
              MS. ROMAN:  Right.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And then my final question
     is, you didn't address compliance deadlines or effective
     date.  Do you have them?  I don't want to put you on the
     spot.
              MS. ROMAN:  No.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  If you don't have a position on
     it, then I was just wondering whether you had any feeling
     for how much time the mining community would need to come
     into compliance with -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  Actually, we agree with what you --
     part of the proposal states a phased-in process.  We believe
     a year would be sufficient time for people to come into
     compliance with the final rule.  However, we would like to
     see a phased-in process where the first six months, within
     the first six months, operators have to have their training
     plan completed.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  
              MS. ROMAN:  And then the next -- yes.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  All right.  So, the training plan
     requirement would kick in in six months, and then all of the
     training -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  Right.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  -- I mean, the other training
     requirements, the training would be provided in, you know,
     whatever fashion -- I mean, whatever training would then go
     into effect within a year after?  Okay.  
              MS. ROMAN:  Yes.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  That's all I have.  Robert?  
              MR. ALDRICH:  No questions.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Rod?  
              MR. BRELAND:  Yes, I have a couple, Elsa.  The
     definition of miner, you talk about including frequent and
     regular.  Are you satisfied with the present guidelines in
     the policy manual and -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  Yes.  
              MR. BRELAND:  -- and frequent -- okay.  When you
     talked about the evaluation of plan and the inspector's
     authority to disapprove, and so forth, did you have some
     ideas in mind of what would trigger a disapproval or what
     action would it take?  Are you saying that they had to
     disapprove of a plan, you would recommend that that
     triggered like a G-order or a shut-down of an operation till
     training was changed or -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  Oh, well, the disapproval would be
     based on whatever the final requirements are for that
     training plan, and what we perceive or what we visualize is
     the operator being cited for not having a plan that meets
     the requirements, not merely shutting down the operation,
     but taking a look at what does that operator need to do to
     come into compliance and if it is substantial, then of
     course that inspector should take whatever actions are
     necessary.  
              But if I understand your question, no, we don't
     believe that the operator necessarily needs to be shut down
     or that a withdrawal order needs to be issued, but that
     operator does need to be cited to communicate this plan is
     important; you need to have it as the rule says you should
     have it.  
              MR. BRELAND:  But presently, you know, of course
     if MSHA finds an untrained miner, that's the direction to go
     is to withdraw that miner till they are trained.  
              MS. ROMAN:  Right.  
              MR. BRELAND:  And if the plan wasn't sufficient,
     then I think you'd run into some of those same problems. 
     And then, I also want to make sure I understood on the
     contractors issue, you were talking about one that Kathy
     brought up, the 24 hours before.  But your suggestion was
     that the language of the rule would require the mine
     operator to have some sort of documentation or just some
     sort of requirement that they reviewed the contractor's
     training program, if you will, and plan as well, some
     records of their people or how much involvement are you
     talking about there?  
              MS. ROMAN:  Well, we would like to see more
     involvement.  We would like to see the operator take greater
     participation in making sure that the people coming on that
     site are prepared to prevent injuries, accidents.  And we
     would like to see that operator actually ask for training
     plans from the contractor.  
              We would like to see the operator include in his
     or her contract with the contractor that requirement.  We
     would like to see the operator document that he or she did
     receive a copy of the training plan from the contractor,
     that he or she did review it, that he or she did evaluate as
     to whether those employees had been trained as stated in the
     contract -- I mean, in the training plan.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  And then, your description
     you were talking about under close supervision, maybe
     changing that under observation you're saying if the
     training was not done prior to commencement of work, until
     such time that the 24 hours in its entirety and whatever
     task training might be required would be done, they would be
     under somebody's direct observation -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  Exactly, yes.  
              MR. BRELAND:  -- that's got the experience or
     skills.  Did you have a definition drafted yourself for
     that?  Or is that -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  No.  
              MR. BRELAND:  -- you're just talking about that,
     in general?
              MS. ROMAN:  Uh-huh.
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  
              MS. ROMAN:  And we recognize -- I mean, there's
     one of the primary roles we perceive that supervisor to have
     is the safety and health of his or her employees of the
     people he or she supervises.  But we also recognize the
     supervisor may not necessarily need to be the individual
     supervising or observing the employee until they receive all
     of the training.  We just would like to see more emphasis
     placed on making sure that employee is taken care of, is
     observed throughout that process.  
              MR. BRELAND:  So, in your view, that could be a
     co-worker who's been given training -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  Right.  
              MR. BRELAND:  -- themselves maybe as to what to
     watch for and ensure that -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  Yes.  
              MR. BRELAND:  -- their -- okay.  And then, also,
     you talked about the evaluation factors that they would use,
     like interviews or list of questions.  Does your program
     have that?  You have a self-evaluation, I assume.  
              MS. ROMAN:  Yes.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Is it mostly a questionnaire either
     after training?
              MS. ROMAN:  Exactly.  
              MR. BRELAND:  And do you share that with the
     miners you've trained afterwards?  I mean, you give the
     feedback to -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  We give the feedback to the operator. 
     Many times, there are comments made during the training, we
     perceive, the operator needs to know.  They may not
     necessarily go on the evaluation report but, yes, they need
     to be provided these comments.  So, we provide feedback both
     through just close-out sessions and through the evaluation
     form that we provide the students.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Is that evaluation form specific to
     each of the subjects you teach?  
              MS. ROMAN:  No.  
              MR. BRELAND:  It's more of a general -- so you use
     the same type of evaluation form for each -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  Yes.  
              MR. BRELAND:  -- course?  Okay.  And the other
     thing, on the miners being taught in the language that they
     understand, I know that you've had some experiences in
     Texas.  But do you have any feel for the number of miners or
     the number of mining operations that might be receiving
     training in a language that they didn't understand,
     possibly, or materials they don't understand?  
              MS. ROMAN:  Well I know in Texas, I think for the
     last 10 years I've been involved in training, I would have
     to say a good 35 to 40 percent of the mining industry in
     Texas requires training in other than English.  
              I perceived questions and comments from Florida,
     from New Mexico, from Oklahoma, from California, from
     Michigan, New York, from New Jersey, all of the other States
     Grants Programs in those areas, we've received calls from --
     requesting that we provide them with training in other than
     English, because they have substantial segments of the
     industry who need training in a different language.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  That's all I have.  Thank
     you.  
              MR. BURNS:  You mentioned about the evaluation of
     the training program on an annual basis; I would gather that
     that's something you'd recommend for all training, including
     Part 48 -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  Yes.  
              MR. BURNS:  -- as you've indicated that there is a
     problem there already.  
              MS. ROMAN:  Yes.  We view that as a huge gap under
     Part 48, currently.  
              MR. BURNS:  Okay.  Let's see what else was in
     here.  The issue of other languages, I guess mainly it's
     Spanish but I'm sure there are other languages, also.  Is
     the -- is there another issue involved in that area?  Is
     there a problem with illiteracy in that sector, too, I mean
     pretty much mirror the illiteracy rate for English-speaking
     people in the country?  
              MS. ROMAN:  Our -- 
              MR. BURNS:  Does it change the dynamics of how you
     do training?  
              MS. ROMAN:  Right; exactly.  Within Texas, we try
     to maintain our material, at highest, at about a 7th- or
     8th-grade level.  
              MR. BURNS:  Okay.  
              MS. ROMAN:  In the market or in the segment of the
     industry where Spanish is the primary language, we try to
     not go above the 6th-grade level, because the rate of
     illiteracy within that segment of the population is much
     higher than in the English-speaking segment.  
              MR. BURNS:  Now I was just curious, I mean,
     because that would change the whole dynamic of how you
     train.  
              MS. ROMAN:  Yes.  And, see, that's why we bring it
     up, because it truly changes the competency issue.  It truly
     makes you have to address what is competent and how do we
     get across to people the information they need, because they
     are making decisions every single day on how they do what
     they do.  So, the more information they have as to how they
     make those decisions, the better chance we have of keeping
     those people from making the wrong decisions.  
              MR. BURNS:  Okay.  And then, would you be able to
     submit some of your evaluation forms, as far as -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  Sure; definitely.  
              MR. BURNS:  -- if there are other tests or things
     you've seen -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  Okay.  
              MR. BURNS:  -- even if they are not things that
     you used to evaluate the effectiveness of the training?
              MS. ROMAN:  Certainly.  
              MR. BURNS:  That's all I have.  I appreciate your
     comments.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Robert?
              MR. STONE:  Yes, just a couple of questions.  You
     mentioned including in the cost, as I understand it, the
     costs of the miner's time, basically, while in the
     classroom, as opposed to being in the mine in production.  I
     believe that we have included those costs.  
              In fact, they are probably the dominant costs of
     the rule.  We have a cost-per-mine of the various --
     cost-per-mine for the various provisions, and I believe
     those costs basically reflect that time.  Another question,
     you didn't raise this issue today, but I think as I recall,
     you had provided some comments in Dallas -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  Uh-huh?  
              MR. STONE:  -- regarding the compliance rates, in
     terms of being in compliance with the Part 48.  And I don't
     want to put you on the spot, but I don't know if you had a
     sense to -- a chance to review our estimates of compliance
     rates for various sized mines.  I don't know if you thought
     if those were approximately correct.  
              MS. ROMAN:  Yes.  I took a look at those
     percentages.  And actually, I would say that they are quite
     conservative.  I would probably add another 20 percent to
     each of those categories.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Now is that -- protects us?  I
     mean, is that -- are you familiar with other -- 
              MS. ROMAN:  Yes.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  -- okay.  
              MS. ROMAN:  No, this protects us.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  
              MR. STONE:  Okay.  That's all my questions.  Thank
     you.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Roslyn?  
              MS. FONTAINE:  No.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Ms. Roman.  
              MS. ROMAN:  Thank you.  
              MR. STONE:  Thank you.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  The next speaker is Jim Sharpe
     from the National Stone Association.  
              MR. SHARPE:  Good morning.  My name is Jim Sharpe,
     J-I-M, S-H-A-R-P-E, director of Safety and Health Services
     for the National Stone Association here in Washington, D.C. 
     NSA is a trade association that represents more than 680
     members in this country and abroad and approximately 75,000
     working men and women and aggregate industry.  
              NSA members account for approximately 90 percent
     of the crushed stone and 70 percent of the sand and gravel
     produced in the nation.  NSA is a founding member of the
     18-member Coalition for Effective Miner Training, CEMT, and
     fully supports its effort to assist MSHA to develop rules
     that will bring about effective training for miners and the
     seven industry sectors currently exempt from MSHA
     enforcement of Part 48 training.  
              Hunter Prillaman of the National Lime Association,
     another CEMT member, is here today and has already spoken on
     behalf of the coalition.  While much of this proceeding will
     no doubt focus on some -- has no doubt or has, in fact,
     focused on specific provisions of MSHA's proposed Part 46
     Rule issued April 14th, I would like to take a broader view
     in my opening remarks.            
         Whether you are aware of it or not, mining regulatory
     history is being made by members of the MSHA panel here
     today, other MSHA personnel, and the dedicated men and women
     from industry and from -- (inaudible) -- who have been
     involved in this effort to craft a truly effective training
     rule for exempt industry miners.  
              While my experience with MSHA rule-making is
     limited, I've spoken to others whose memories reach back
     decades and to a person they assert they have no
     recollection of a rule-making quite like this one.  This
     rule-making is unprecedented for a couple of reasons. 
     First, it has developed with unusual speed, and I think Mr.
     Main made reference to that earlier.  That's a good thing.  
              I recall a meeting on this matter between NSA
     leadership with David McIntyre (phonetic) a year ago last
     February in San Antonio with a concept of negotiated
     rule-making was aired and, in particular, seemed less than
     enthusiastic.  The process just took too long, he said.  
              Well, here we are today, a mere 15 months later
     standing on the very threshold of a day for training among
     aggregates, among exempt industry employees.  Who among us
     would have predicted, then, how far along we would be today?
              Part 46 rule-making will also go down in the
     history books because of the unusual degree of collaboration
     that occurred to make it happen and the exceptional spirit
     of cooperation that has permeated the process, not that
     there wasn't some off-going in the early period.  
              I refer to popular press coverage of this issue
     last June and July that misrepresented the subject so badly
     that it nearly derailed wholesome efforts at working towards
     a solution of a controversy that has been with us for two
     decades now.  But with the substantial help of Congress, NSA
     and MSHA put aside their differences and began to work
     together for a common good.  
              To industry's credit, it would not let NSA stand
     alone.  Last August, other exempt industry segments came
     together as one and took the first painful steps to get the
     job done.  From that modest beginning other industry groups,
     sensing something very good for the worker was underway,
     enthusiastically joined the coalition effectively doubling
     its size almost overnight.  
              The coalition, charged by Congress was producing a
     training proposal by February the 1st, worked feverishly
     throughout the fall of 1998, but unfortunately -- but
     fortunately, did not have to start from ground zero since an
     NSA draft was already extant.  
              All along, the coalition intended to involve
     labor, but was understandably hesitant because never before
     had it consulted with organized labor as equals and in an
     official way on the proposal that eventually would be used
     as a substantial basis for a rule to be enforced against the
     very industry which was writing it.  But everyone knew that
     inviting labor was the right thing to do, and so it was
     done.  Six humans were invited and four came, and coalition
     members fearing the worst, based largely on a fear of the
     unknown, were impressed at how knowledgeable, sincere, and
     cooperative the labor representatives were.  
              They represented their constituency with pride and
     grace and brought a perspective to the talks that simply was
     not there before.  The training proposal, the process, and
     the ultimate goal of improving the working environment of
     the miner were greatly enhanced by their presence and by
     their contributions.              
         
              For its part, MSHA has done itself proud, too.  It
     has always been willing to meet with industry on Part 46, to
     share its position forthrightly, and to extend the kind hand
     of assistance.  It promised to listen to the needs of
     operators, particularly small ones, and it did.  It promised
     to issue a proposed rule in the spring, and it did.  
              The Agency continues to reach out to small
     producers for their views in these hearings in the recently
     inaugurated Safety Initiative and by inviting and, indeed,
     encouraging remarks to the docket before the June 16th
     close.  I strongly suspect those of you on this panel today
     had a lot to do with all of this, and I'm here to tell you
     today that NSA is deeply grateful to each of you for what
     you've done for the working miner.  
              I am confident and extraordinarily optimistic that
     the final outcome of our collective efforts will be a
     training rule that provides the framework for delivery of
     effective training to miners and that our mutual reward will
     be a diminution to some unknown extent in the number of
     accidents and injuries this work force is experiencing.  You
     should be understandably proud of what you have accomplished
     so far.  
              I'm equally hopeful that the momentum from this
     singular experience will carry forward in the weeks and
     months ahead as industry, labor, and government grapple with
     other vexing safety and health issues -- the occupational
     noise exposure, hazard communication, surface haulage,
     diesel particulate exposure -- air contaminants, crystal,
     and silicon.  
              Part 46 will become the symbol of the
     extraordinary good we can do for the miner when we work
     together.  It is truly a model for the future and represents
     government reinvention in the very best of senses.  I
     implore you to help us make the Part 46 model the mechanism
     for interaction as we move through the tough issues that lie
     ahead.  
              Let me add just one more thought.  Our efforts
     have not taken place in a vacuum.  Congress has taken a keen
     interest in the process, and it's delighted with what it
     sees, so much so that congressional staffers inform us that
     they are telling other parties that bring grievances about
     regulatory agencies to their attention, about our Part 46
     experience, how they want others to follow our lead.  
              And at yesterday's hearing before the Senate
     Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training, where the
     theme was cooperation, Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming singled
     out the Part 46 rulemaking, quote: "A true rulemaking
     success story," end of quote, was how he characterized it.  
              The satisfaction that comes with knowing we have
     been a part of this collective effort is unfathomable, and
     we tell you this so you can share in the pleasure of it. 
     Part 48 was created 20 years ago in a buoyant caldron of
     annoyance and frustration with an industry suffering a
     persistent problem with serious injuries and fatalities.  
                   Fortunately, due to the
     Herculean efforts of dedicated professionals and labor,
     industry and government this environment no longer exists
     today.  Fatalities in all of mining last year were at their
     lowest level since 1869 when records were first kept.  
              It seems fitting, therefore, that a prescriptive,
     administratively burdensome regulation that actually
     boulders on the road to effective training be swept aside in
     favor of a rule that takes into account the unique
     circumstances of the industry and allows the operator to
     adapt his or her training methods and procedures to those
     unique circumstances.  
              Further, Section 115 of the Mine Act on which Part
     48 regulations are based does not prescribe a rigid approach
     to training.  MSHA's proposed rule is largely appropriate
     for the industry and retains the spirit of Section 115.  We
     look for the final rule to do the same.  
              We confess, though, to feeling some apprehension. 
     In the preamble to the propose rule, MSHA has thrown the
     spotlight on nearly every provision of its proposal asking
     leaders to truly offer comments.  While we loudly applaud
     this open-door policy, we cannot help but feel a little
     unease at where it might take the Agency in the final rule.  
              If sharp discrepancies between the two rules in
     key provisions occur, we will feel bamboozled because we
     will not have had the opportunity to comment on provisions
     that have not heretofore undergone the rigor of reasoned
     comment.  We appreciate that the Agency is sensitive to this
     issue and, therefore, trust the final rule will contain no
     surprises.  
              We further recognize that the short time frame in
     which this rule was hatched precluded issuance of an
     advanced notice of proposed rule-making, an early step in
     the rule-making process formally dedicated to information
     collection.  You have heard comments on both sides of the
     question of certified instructors throughout this
     rule-making period.  
              Some who want them, such as States Grants
     personnel, feel they have a personal stake in the issue,
     because many of them see it as an issue of livelihood.  But
     rather than take food from the mouths of States Grants
     personnel, we think instead it will be a feast for them. 
     They will have more work than they can reasonably handle.  
              Or even though producers will have the green light
     to do their own training many, particularly small ones, will
     choose not to do so, at least as far as the mining refresher
     training is concerned.  It was more convenient for them to
     contract out training under Part 48, and the same will
     remain true under Part 46.        
         Further, as you heard in hearings in December and
     January, some operators are not doing any training at all. 
     This new rule will put an end to that practice, increasing
     the pressure for training providers.  A related issue has to
     do with funding the States Grants Program.  
              Section 503 of the Mine Act has entitled
     assistance to states and stipulates that $10 million a year
     be appropriated to states with approved programs in large
     part to improve miner health and safety.  In terms of MSHA's
     budget, this is not a substantial amount of money.  NSA has
     repeatedly advocated this funding be approved, and now CEMT
     is taking up the issue.  
              With the new training rule coming, perhaps we will
     see it happen in FY 2000.  We honestly hope so.  We would
     also comment on the concern that the operator's in-house
     trainers, while long on know-how, may be short on teaching
     ability.  We heard the previous speaker mention that very
     thing.  
              As a former professional educator myself, I would
     be among the last to take issue with a need for a trainer
     who knows how to instruct.  Certification is, in part,
     designed to assure that trainers can teach, but it's no
     guarantee and never will be and there is professional
     certification by state education agencies.  I'm not implying
     that I ever was a bad instructor, by the way.  
              Time and again, I've heard about the
     ineffectiveness of some certified instructors.  You might
     say that only points to deficiencies in the certification
     process that, once corrected, would improve instructor
     competency, and that may be.  But I assert that the nature
     of the aggregates industry with thousands of small
     operations irrevocably widely disbursed many in rule areas
     makes the requirement for certified instructors impractical. 
     So it is in this imperfect world.  
              So in this imperfect world, it may come down to a
     choice between a trainer who knows his or her stuff but
     can't communicate it well, versus a certified trainer with
     insufficient experience.  If it were me, though, I'd choose
     the person who knows his or her stuff and trust most workers
     handed the safety information raw and unpolished will be
     able to sort it out for themselves.  
              This is preferable, in my view, to an instructor
     who can hold an audience spellbound, perhaps with a movie,
     as Mr. Main pointed out in his example, but with material
     devoid of substance.  Let me make one final point on this
     issue.  You have a -- (inaudible) -- docket from a
     representative of management from the sand and gravel
     operation in Texas.  
              Here's what he had to say about certified
     instructors, quote, "Certification of trainers is a problem
     for us, and it will be for other small companies.  Our plant
     manager does a lot of good safety talks, but is not
     certified.  If all of our training must be done by or under
     the direct supervision of a certified trainer, we have lost
     the race before we leave the gate.  We cannot call in an
     outside consultant who is a certified trainer each time we
     hire a new employee." 
              And then, parenthetically, he adds, "The last time
     I brought in such a person to the plant for one day, it
     costs just under $2000."  Without taking much more of your
     time, let me make several other points, and now we are
     getting into the specifics a bit here.  NSA believes that
     workers are entitled to see the training plan and work with
     management to change it if the workers see something here
     she doesn't like.  
              We also do not object to posting the plan, but we
     think no purpose is served by sending to Educational Field
     Services for review.  MSHA's inspectors have a twice-a-year
     opportunity to review the plan, and miners can complain to
     the district manager if they have a problem with it.  
              These built-in checks and balances should be
     sufficient.  And the final rule should allow an operator to
     voluntarily send it to EFS for approval if he or she so
     chooses for whatever reason.  NSA believes it is unnecessary
     to require the refresher training for newly hired
     experienced miners be completed within 90 days.  
              Operators should be permitted to conduct annual
     refresher training for newly hired miners when providing it
     to other employees.  The turnover in the stone, sand, and
     gravel industry is high, and most operators do not have the
     resources to provide 8-hour annual refresher training within
     90 days after hiring each individual employee.  
              This requirement will be an extreme burden for the
     aggregates industry.  Neither the Mine Act nor existing Part
     48 regulations go to this extreme.  To provide an historical
     perspective, the turnover issue was very much on the minds
     of senators debating the rider in the summer of 1979.  
              We submit that while turnover may be less than the
     50-plus percent per year mentioned during that debate, it
     remains unusually high to this day.  NSA concurs with MSHA's
     decision to require that four topics be covered before the
     miner begins work, as well as its recommendation not to set
     a time frame on this instruction, with the exception of task
     training which I'll talk about more in a minute.  
              Contractors should be expected to train their own
     employees, and MSHA should not require that operators do it
     for them.  NSA, therefore, recommends that MSHA make the
     appropriate change regarding site-specific hazard training
     in the final rule.  
              This, in no way, releases the operator from the
     requirement to inform contractor supervisory personnel of
     site-specific hazards, so the contractor can in turn pass it
     on to his or her employees.  We recommend that MSHA adopt a
     records-retention provision in Part 48, rather than what you
     have proposed.  
              Part 48 requires that training certificates of
     currently employed miners be retained for at least two years
     or for 60 days of termination of a miner's employment.  The
     proposal would require retention for at least 12 months
     after termination of employment.  We recognize you adopted
     the CEMT recommendation, but CEMT has since changed its
     position on this issue.  
              NSA did not believe that MSHA's definition -- does
     not believe that MSHA's definition of close supervision is
     practical.  Because the Agency defines the term as requiring
     the supervisor both to be physically near the miner in
     training and to give the miner his or her undivided
     attention, we believe the effect of this interpretation will
     be to force the operator to provide all required training at
     one time, which runs contrary to other provisions of the
     proposed rule, those provisions having to do with
     flexibility, so forth.  
              We recommend the supervisor be the judge of how
     closely the employee needs to be supervised.  The
     application of supervisory resources should depend on the
     supervisor's understanding of the employee's knowledge and
     experience and of the supervisor's knowledge of the risk
     involved in the task the employee in training is asked to
     perform.  
              MSHA's use of the term "task training" is
     confusing.  Section 115 calls for instruction in the, quote,
     "...health and safety aspects of the task," end of quote,
     both for new miners and -- both for new miners with no
     experience and for experienced miners reassigned to a new
     job for which they have had no previous experience.  This is
     task training.  
              Yet, MSHA requires that both task training be
     among the first four subjects taught and devotes an entire
     section, or point 46.7 to, quote, "task training," this
     confuses.  To clarify nomenclature, we recommend that MSHA
     drop use of the term altogether in favor of the Mine Act's,
     quote, "health and safety aspects of the task," end of the
     quote.        Further, since task training
     is at the core of the training the miner receives, task
     training is at the core of the training the miner receives. 
     NSA recommends that MSHA separate it from among the four
     topics and clearly required be taught before the miner
     begins work on a task with which he or she is unfamiliar.  
              By doing that and by stating you envision training
     in the health and safety aspects, health and safety of
     assigned tasks to be central to the training given the
     miner, you will accord it proper emphasis.  The act is
     supervised by a competent person is also task trained; that
     also needs to be made clear in the final rule.  We request
     that MSHA consider a grace period of a year before
     enforcement begins.  
              Small operators are going to need this time to
     prepare for the new rule.  During the period, outreach
     efforts to explain the rule to operators will need to occur
     and training materials to meet their needs developed.  Since
     some of these tools will be computer-based, an extensive
     developmental period to bring them online will be required.
              I'd also point out that these miners are also
     still subject to Part 48 training during this period of
     time, so it's not that they don't -- aren't required to do
     any training.  In the event a final rule is not released by
     September 30, 1999, and the rider is not renewed for the
     next year, we seek written assurance from the Agency that
     Part 48 will not be enforced within the aggregates industry,
     either within the exempt industries.  
              If a program policy, though, is the proper vehicle
     for doing this, we urge MSHA to take this action.  I will
     close with just one other comment that also confuses, and
     that is that I noticed that the HAZCOM standard when issued
     in 1990 was issued under Part 46, and now we're talking
     about Part 46 training.           
         It looks like we're crowding two regulations into one
     part, at least that's the untrained eye here commenting, and
     it would seem that that's not what you intend.  If it means
     that HAZCOM -- if it means that Part 46 cancels out HAZCOM,
     we wouldn't object.  May it rest in peace.  Thank you for
     your time.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you, Mr. Sharpe.  I just
     have one question myself.  As far as task training, is your
     point that there's redundancy in the proposed rule because
     health and safety aspects of tasks assigned is one of the
     subject areas that needs to be covered under miner training
     and newly hired experienced-miner training?  And then,
     there's also a separate new task training section.  
              MR. SHARPE:  That's part of my point.  The other
     part is that -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  
              MR. SHARPE:  -- that that just confuses.  You
     know, if health and safety aspects -- if health and safety
     aspects of the task is one of the four, if that's task
     training, then you have a separate section that says task
     training, it leads somebody to say, well, why are they
     calling the same thing by two different names.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  That's all I have.  Robert?
              MR. STONE:  No questions.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Rod?  
              MR. BRELAND:  You mentioned the turnover ratio in
     the industry.  Do you have some current numbers?  
              MR. SHARPE:  Kevin asked me that six months ago,
     and I was not really very successful in getting a turnover
     rate.  The best that -- I can give you a guesstimate of
     about 15 to 20 percent but I -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Annually?  
              MR. SHARPE:  -- wouldn't want to be quoted in the
     literature extensively on that.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Is that an annual rate?  
              MR. SHARPE:  Annual, uh-huh, in aggregates.  
              MR. BRELAND:  My understanding of it is that it
     really varies by location in an area.  In the
     Baltimore-Washington corridor where there's a lot of job
     opportunity, it may be higher -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  Right.  
              MR. BRELAND:  -- than it is in an area where
     there's very little job opportunities.  
              MR. SHARPE:  Right.  
              MR. BRELAND:  So, it can be very high in some
     areas and very -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  And that's why it's so difficult to
     put a figure together, to put a number together.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Would that include the seasonal
     operation that tends to hire the -- a lot of the places hire
     the same individuals every year to come, or try to at least
     -- their crusher operator or somebody they know they are not
     going to have to retrain.  
              MR. SHARPE:  My guess is that it would not include
     the seasonal operator.  
              MR. BRELAND:  But there really isn't a handle on
     it, apparently.  
              MR. SHARPE:  No, there isn't.  There isn't, no.
              MR. BRELAND:  The other thing on the competent
     person evaluating the -- I guess my question would be
     picking a mine superintendent or plant manager, I mean, it
     makes a lot of sense a lot of times if this person's
     certainly got the knowledge; that he's been around.  How do
     you determine, as a mine operator, would you think you could
     evaluate their effectiveness?  
              And we've heard some discussion on there are a lot
     of knowledgeable people really don't communicate well or
     they might not write well or they might not plan out the
     objectives.  Or they could change from one group of new
     miners to the next.  
              They don't necessarily follow some of the same
     formats, so how do you see -- you have this flexibility in
     determining, though, these competent people.  How would you
     determine the effectiveness of the training?  
              MR. SHARPE:  Well, certainly, somebody we know --
     his or her job is important and has experience in that.  I
     say I would choose my -- if I were the operator, I probably
     would choose my most -- the supervisor that that was the
     most effective, because that supervisor not only knows his
     job and has experience, but has effectiveness; he's an
     effective supervisor for other reasons.  
              And one of them is probably his ability to
     communicate.  So, that's probably how I would do it.  It's
     an issue; it requires thought.  I thought the woman who
     preceded me here had some very good ideas that, frankly, I'd
     like to think more about.  You're really asking about how
     you determine whether a teacher is going to be a good
     teacher.  
              Again, I'm getting back to my old educational
     principle days, and that debate goes on to the state and the
     public schools and even in the private schools and probably
     be debated from now out infinitum.  But, certainly, the
     ability to communicate is important, and a supervisor who
     shows effectiveness as a supervisor would strike me as
     having those skills.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Yes.  And I could understand that,
     but I guess the issue I was asking for some clarity on is
     that it could be kind of all over the board.  And also, the
     other issue with this competent person being often the most
     skilled, most knowledgeable on site is also the busiest, and
     taking time out to basically stop and walk somebody through
     a process could be difficult when you have some other
     urgency going on.                 
         Again, it might be difficult for that person to have
     the time to do if there's only one, and there's nothing that
     says there has to be one.
              MR. SHARPE:  Yes.  
              MR. BRELAND:  But it's an issue of how we would
     look at -- how would we handle that from, you know, even an
     enforcement standpoint; how does an operator handle it from
     knowing what would be expected, that type of thing.  
              MR. SHARPE:  Well, you make a point that in the
     small operation, you're not going to have the latitude to
     choose who your competent person is.  That would only be one
     person, I'm sure.  It's who it is, and that's it because
     there is no one else.  You know, you look behind you and
     there's no one there.  You also make the point that the
     supervisor's going to be busy.  He's obviously busy now;
     you're making him busier still.  
              That's true, and I see that over and over again. 
     Good people always get more work to do, but for some reason
     they seem to be able to handle it.  And, again, if I were
     the operator, I had a crackerjack supervisor, I had three
     people working for me, that supervisor would be responsible
     for training those people, because first of all, he'd be a
     good supervisor, and I would know he'd do the job.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  And just one other thing for
     clarification on the task training issue or task.  I wasn't
     sure, were you talking about task as an occupation versus
     the elements of the task or the safety aspects?  I guess I
     got a little confused with -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  I'm referring to -- I'm referring to
     the core of this whole training program in Part 46 is
     teaching people how to work safely.  I mean, that's the
     bottom line here.  Yes, of course, that's true; rights have
     something to do with that, but it's how you do the job well. 
     And that, by the way, is one way an inspector will be able
     to determine the effectiveness of the plan.  
              Yes, you can interview the employee to find out
     how much they know, but there are pitfalls with that, I can
     assure you, based upon my own training that I did in my
     previous job.  
              An employee will tend to get tight when you walk
     up to him and start asking him specific questions about
     statutory rights, for example.  He may know the answer, but
     he can't tell you what it is, because he wasn't expecting
     the question and he's tightened up.  So what does the
     inspector do if he can't answer the question?  Cite the
     operator for inadequate training?  I think that would be
     grossly unfair.  
              I think the key is more to observe the worker and
     his work habits and see if he does work safely.  I mean,
     that's really what you're -- you're trying to effect a
     behavior change here.  It's not so much what's in their head
     is how they can translate that into the labor that they are
     doing with their hands.  
              Are they working safely?  That seems to me to be
     where it is and that's been an inspector -- if I were an
     MSHA inspector in trying to evaluate this program, that's
     what I'd be looking for.  And I'd be looking for, you know,
     a whole culture of safety in that quarry or, you know, maybe
     not a quarry, but wherever.  
              If I saw a culture of safety, I'd be convinced
     that safety's being emphasized.  If I didn't see it, if I
     saw signs they were down or signs that should have been up
     and weren't there at all or site-specific hazard training
     that doesn't include everything or an operator who doesn't
     wear his hard hat out in the mine when he should and
     everybody else is required to, he doesn't, that's not a
     culture of safety.  There's something wrong there so that --
     have I answered your question or around the -- 
              MR. BRELAND:  Well, not exactly from the
     standpoint I want to make sure you weren't calling task as
     the occupation.  
              MR. SHARPE:  Yes.  I'm -- yes.  I'm talking the
     job, the person that's going to do.  That's what I mean by
     task --  
              MR. BRELAND:  So if -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  -- a specific job he's going to do.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Well, I'm a crusher operator,
     then that's my task is what --
              MR. SHARPE:  That's correct --
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  
              MR. SHARPE:  -- the health and safety aspects of
     operating a crusher.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  I just want to make sure I
     understood that's the point you were trying to make with
     that.  And then, on the training plan you see the issue of
     inclusiveness with the people at the site, including the
     miners, and so forth, but your concern was specifically with
     their ability to request a review of the plan?  
              MR. SHARPE:  You know, I actually think, my
     personal opinion is -- this is probably much ado about
     nothing or much ado about a little.  We've already, I think,
     heard -- Kevin, did you mention that you haven't seen a lot
     of this review under Part 48?  
              MR. BURNS:  As far as an abuse, no.  
              MR. SHARPE:  Yes, an abuse of it.  
              MR. BURNS:  No.  
              MR. SHARPE:  MSHA itself in talking about this
     rule-making in some of its public statements, Tom McCloud,
     for example, I mean there was an article in the Aggregates
     Manager in '98, May of '98 I think, that I quoted in some of
     the testimony that I submitted.  I've written so much on
     this I don't know what I submitted and what I wrote any
     longer, but MSHA was concerned about all this back and forth
     paperwork business, too.          
         What's -- this just -- you know, the bottom line is
     what does the guy know and how is he doing his job. 
     Shuffling paper back and forth doesn't accomplish anything. 
     What you need is a system of checks and balances that you
     have that operate the United States Government and you have
     that in place.  
              The worker, there's nothing in this law, this
     proposed rule, that says that that miner cannot go to the
     operator either through his representative or on his own and
     say there's something wrong with this plan, and here's what
     I think it is.  There's nothing wrong with that.  
              And by requiring that you be -- be posted,
     requiring that they get into the hands of the operator, you
     are doing what I consider to be your job to make sure that
     the miner's informed of what the training plan -- that he,
     first of all, knows that there is such a thing as a training
     plan and that he'd been given the opportunity to read it.  
              You have that and, all right, there are going to
     be some work places where a miner goes to the operator and
     says the training plan's inadequate and they are going to
     make a change.  There's going to be some operations where
     the miner's going to go to the operator and say your
     training plan's inadequate and you need to have some
     changes, and the miner's going to say no.  
              And there's other operations where the miner's
     going to look at the training plan and say it needs to be
     changed but be afraid to go to the operator.  And there's
     other work places where the miner's going to tell his
     workers the representative's going to go.  So, you have that
     part of a check and balance.  I mean, you have that much
     right there which is great, because it sort of takes you out
     of all of this.  
              That's what you want; you want the miner and the
     owner to be interacting here on this issue.  But on top of
     that if you're, you know, disquieted by that, you have the
     ultimate hammer of having an inspector take a look at it. 
     If it doesn't meet the requirements, bingo, and the
     inspector's there twice a year.  That's two reviews a year.
              That's not bad, and you also have the EFS now. 
     You're going to have 50 people across the country there. 
     The EFS is part of what they are to do is come out to the
     mine site.  I would think one of the things they would do is
     say let me see your mine plan, your training plan.  If they
     look at it and they said it doesn't have this, they come in
     and advise the operator to make a change.  You're free of
     the fear of a citation.  
              You have -- what I'm trying to say is that the
     checks and balances that are necessary, you have very
     skillfully written into this in my opinion.  I also think
     there's going to be some operators -- and this came up in
     the discussions with the coalition -- who are going to want
     their training plan sent to EFS.  They are going to want
     EFS's imprint (phonetic) on this thing, for whatever reason,
     legal or whatever.  
              They are just going to voluntarily ship it off. 
     I'm not so sure that I, as an operator, wouldn't do that.  I
     get free consultative advice from EFS on it, and hopefully I
     get protected from the vagaries of an inspector who, you
     know, and you have this problem.  
              Different inspectors provide or come to the --
     come to a mine site with different things that they
     emphasize, different levels of training so you have a little
     bit of an even enforcement.  If I were an operator, I'd be a
     little worried about that, so I'd take it to the EFS; I'd
     get their imprint, their letter; that's the end of that.  I
     could say I just -- this one troubles me.  I'm probably
     talking more on it than I think it's worth.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Well there's a -- you know, again,
     I'll quote some earlier discussion in a hearing where maybe
     we're looking for a bogeyman that might not be there.  Maybe
     it's not as big an issue; just like you said, much ado about
     nothing really.  But the -- some concern would be that a
     miner might not feel they have the inclusiveness to be a
     participant in the process if they weren't aware even of the
     regulation or reading it, but that's just one statement
     that's been made.  
              MR. SHARPE:  Well, we might be covered under
     statutory rights of miners in the training.  I mean, you
     covered it; there's a Part 46 Training Rule.  The miner is
     required to give you 24 hours and 8 hours.  The average
     training plan, you're required to look at it.  Wouldn't that
     be covered?  
              MR. BRELAND:  I would think it should be, yes. 
     One other thing just on the training plan submission that
     you brought up that is a good issue, there were some
     projections made that maybe some 20 percent might submit for
     review.  Basically, to get that approval, if you will, of
     that -- (inaudible) -- that this is good so you don't have
     somebody coming out and saying this is -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  Right.  
              MR. BRELAND:  -- and here's a violation or
     something like that.  Do you have some feel for that?  Would
     you expect most of your membership to submit?  
              MR. SHARPE:  I wouldn't expect my small ones to. 
     The real small ones, no.  I expect the larger ones.  In
     fact, some of the larger ones are just going to go with Part
     48, and the other larger ones are probably going to submit a
     training plan.  The smaller ones probably won't.  
              Again, it's the whole thing of resources for them,
     the whole thing of resources.  You know, you can tell them
     that they can submit it.  Then they say, oh, they'll make a
     note of it and then, you know, they just never get around to
     it, you know, and this kind of thing.  So, I think you'll
     see there's a big -- going to be a dichotomy there between
     the large and the small operators.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Do you see that some of the larger
     ones or even the associations maybe suggesting they might do
     that?  
              MR. SHARPE:  They'll certainly do it, sure.  
              MR. BRELAND:  I mean, it seems like that could be
     something that could happen; somebody might say they want to
     avoid that conflict.  You may -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  Well, I know what they'll say. 
     They'll say, I'm a member of your association.  You write
     the model training plan.  You get that sent to EFS and
     approved, and then send it to me.  Then, I'll fill in the
     details.  That's what they'll do.  Maybe, that's the way to
     go.  
              MR. BRELAND:  I'm not advocating that, because the
     paper issue is a concern.  I mean, it's important to have
     good paper, I think, to have outlines and follow and make
     sure you're doing things.  But the quality and effectiveness
     is, I think, what everybody is looking for so -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  Yes; yes.  That's true.  It's
     important to have good paper, but it doesn't tell you you're
     going to have good instruction.  I can write you a lesson
     plan as a teacher.  That's how I was trained.  I was trained
     every class I had to do a lesson plan.  Since I had five
     classes a day, it meant to spend an hour on a lesson plan
     after work; seriously cut into my tennis time, so I ended up
     ad libbing a lot of my classes.  
              You know what I found?  They went better; they
     went better than where I had a prepared outline.  I'm not
     trying to say that's what's going to happen here.  What I'm
     saying here is a -- examples of a plan, in and of itself, is
     no assurance.  If I had to emphasize a plan, what I would
     emphasize mostly would be the objectives.  
              What are you trying to teach here and put them in
     action terms to be sure the worker does so and so, but it's
     no assurance.  I will grant you that one is needed.  NSA is
     not here saying that that's not a part of what we're
     recommending, neither has the CEMT said that.  A good
     training plan is a good place to start.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Kevin?  
              MR. BURNS:  You're done already?  
              MR. BRELAND:  I just had one or two.  
              MR. BURNS:  I just had a couple of questions on
     the task training and the issue of health and safety aspects
     of the task to be performed.  One of the concerns is that
     task training is addressed in two separate parts, and that
     can be -- introduce some confusion.
              MR. SHARPE:  It's addressed in two parts, and you
     use two different terms.  One is health and safety aspects
     of the task and the other is task training, and that's
     correct.  
              MR. BURNS:  Are those two issues, though?  I mean,
     do you have a problem with the redundancy, because I don't
     necessarily see that as being a bad thing.  
              MR. SHARPE:  I don't have any problem with
     redundancy.  I just get the nomenclatures.  I read it and I
     was confused by it.  I went back to the Mine Act.  The Mine
     Act says nothing about task training.  It says health and
     safety aspects of the task, so I concluded that what you
     must be talking about is health and safety aspects of the
     task and task training being one in the same.
              And I just thought it would be clear and less
     confusing if people understood what task training actually
     was, that you used a common term.  And also, I think the
     concern I have, the second point I made in my testimony was
     that if you group it with -- among the first four, my
     concern is that it will be de-emphasized in that process,
     that you're going to have an operator who's going to be very
     interested in getting his new employee out there to get the
     work.  
              And so, but he says I've got to give him these
     four -- I've got to cover these four subjects.  I don't have
     a particular time period in which to do it, but I have four
     subjects that I have to teach.  And he may think he can do
     that in a two-hour time frame.  
              Task training, the core of Part 46, I don't know
     if you're going to be able to do that in half an hour.  I
     doubt it, so my suggestion is that you pull that out and
     emphasize task training and explain that you feel that this
     is the crux of this whole rule and give it the proper
     emphasis and give it the emphasis I think it properly
     deserves, so that it's not glossed over.  Have I confused
     you, Kevin?  
              MR. BURNS:  No; no.  But I guess one thing I could
     see where that would address that concern, rather than get
     rid of it out of new-miner training, is that it's clearly
     stated even in new-miner training that no miner shall do a
     task without receiving task training.  
              I see no problem with new-miner training also
     addressing the types of hazards and health and safety
     hazards that they may be faced with at that mine site as
     they perform different tasks, but also with the idea that
     before they perform those tasks, there'll be some additional
     and more in-depth training on those particular tasks.  
              So, I think maybe we can make that more clear that
     it isn't short-circuited through the new-miner training that
     they go over everything that you can possibly do in a rather
     short period of time and say that accomplishes our task
     training, too.  
              MR. SHARPE:  Right.  
              MR. BURNS:  That's not the intent, and so I wanted
     to be clear on that.  I wasn't quite clear on your
     discussion of the qualified trainer and how -- you gave the
     example, I believe, of the person, say, at a small mine
     where you have someone that understands all the mining
     aspects that are involved in mining, but may not be a great
     trainer; they may not be able to communicate that.  
              MR. SHARPE:  Yes.  He doesn't have educational
     principles to rely on to communicate the message.  He
     doesn't have that.  And that's what -- you know, I don't
     know what the curriculum-certified MSHA -- certified
     instructors are but, certainly -- and I think the previous
     speaker alluded to this -- there are certain educational
     principles that must go into that.  I mean, how you deliver
     the message, not just what the message is, but how you
     deliver the message?  That's what I'm getting at.  
              MR. BURNS:  Well, that's what I was asking here. 
     Are you saying that there should be something done to ensure
     that the -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  No; no.  
              MR. BURNS:  The previous speaker stated that, you
     know, make sure that that person has the total -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  I'm saying that -- I'm saying this,
     that it would be nice to have that, but it's not practical. 
     You call the operator from Texas who said certified MSHA
     instructors for me.  You know, we've lost the -- we've lost
     this before we get out of the gate.  It's not practical for
     those small operations way, way out there in the sticks.  
              So, in an imperfect world, you have to make -- you
     have to choose; you have to compromise here.  And my
     compromise is that I'll take every time, every time, a
     person who knows his job, who has experience in it, but who
     can't teach worth a lick over somebody who can wow me to
     death, who's a great entertainer when he stands up before me
     for 30 minutes or an hour -- I'm spellbound by his
     performance, but when I walk out of the room, what have I
     got?  
              I don't have anything, because there's no
     substance because that person doesn't have experience.  So,
     what I'm saying is the miner -- give the miner the benefit
     of the knowledge and the experience of a supervisor, even
     though it comes to him raw and unpolished and, hopefully,
     the miner who is highly motivated because his life is at
     stake is -- you know, he could be injured, so forth, he's
     living this every day; he can sort through it, and he has
     the ability to ask that supervisor questions.  
              But if I'm a student and I'm asking somebody who
     is a great instructor, who doesn't know what the hell he or
     she is talking about, a question that they can't answer,
     what good is that for me?  So, I'm saying that we have to
     compromise in this imperfect world.  And let's take a person
     with knowledge and experience over somebody who has a
     wonderful grounding in educational principles.  
              MR. BURNS:  I'm a little bit troubled by that. 
     You know, you're kind of describing a      lesser-of-two-
     evils scenario and I think -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  But tell me how you're going to solve
     this -- 
              MR. BURNS:  -- it's better than that.  
              MR. SHARPE:  But tell me how you're going to solve
     this practicality problem, Kevin?  
              MR. BURNS:  I think the previous speaker explained
     that this is -- I'd almost treat this person as the same as
     someone that you're training.  I mean, you've got to give
     that person the tools to do the job you're asking them to
     do, him or her to do.  
              MR. SHARPE:  Well I would -- 
              MR. BURNS:  So I think -- I mean, I think 
     that's -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  The NSA would be interested -- 
              MR. BURNS:  I guess what I'm saying is what we
     envision as a competent person may be different than what
     you're describing it as, because I think you are describing
     a lesser-of-two-evils scenario in some cases.  And I don't
     think that's really what -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  No; no.  Well, I'm making an
     implication that that may not hold up to.  I'm making an
     implication that the supervisor can't teach.  And I made an
     earlier comment in response to a comment from Rod is that a
     supervisor is a supervisor, because he has good
     communication skills so I'm sure of that.  I mean, there's
     some culling process that goes along with picking a
     supervisor, and they probably have good communication
     skills, and that's what we're talking about here.  
              MR. BURNS:  We've all had experiences otherwise.  
              MR. SHARPE:  And we've all been -- and some of us
     have been to college, and all of us have been through high
     school and we've gotten teachers who couldn't teach worth a
     lick and who had professional certifications that say they
     can.  
              MR. BURNS:  I just wanted to be clear on what
     you're saying.  I didn't want to get into a debate.  
              MR. SHARPE:  But what I'd like, Kevin -- 
              MR. BURNS:  But -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  -- Kevin, NSA's mind is not closed;
     its mind is not made up.  I probably could speak for the
     CEMT; its mind is not made up.  If you have -- MSHA has a
     proposal that it would like to put forth to address the
     issue raised by the previous speaker that you yourself
     raise.  Let's take a look at it.  Let's take a look at it. 
     I mean, like I say this is -- what we're talking about
     cooperation here.  Nobody's mind is foreclosing anything
     here.  
              MR. BURNS:  No.  I'm -- that's why I wanted to be
     clear on that, because I think she made a good point that
     that is important that, you know, whoever the person is
     that's doing the training should have the tools to be able
     to do the training.  
              MR. SHARPE:  I will remind you of a comment that
     you made in March of '98 that I've never forgotten.  MSHA
     does not want to see the village idiot do this training and
     neither do we.  
              MR. BURNS:  That's right.  
              MR. SHARPE:  Neither do we.  
              MR. BURNS:  Anybody else?  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Robert?  
              MR. STONE:  Yes.  Actually, I have several
     questions, really, many points of clarification.  Let me
     just ask you one question on this exact topic.  I'm curious
     to know your view on having supervisor instructor training,
     because it sounds like the example you're getting actually
     was very disturbing, I think, where the miner's being
     confronted by either not being able to have the information
     pointed to him or having the instructor not having the
     skills or knowledge to impart.
              MR. SHARPE:  Right.  
              MR. STONE:  And that has happened; that has
     already happened with certified MSHA instructors.  The
     people that you think can do the training aren't getting it
     done.  You heard Joe Main say that very thing in one
     example, and I've heard that example over and over and over
     again about certified MSHA instructors and certified
     instructors.  
              I've just heard it, and you hear -- your own kids
     come home and say oh, God, I've got several teachers; I had
     so many professionals in college that couldn't teach, I
     ended up having to teach myself.  
              MR. SHARPE:  That's not a happy experience; is it?
              MR. STONE:  No, it's not.  We're living in the
     real world here.  I mean, there's got to be some give and
     take and some compromise but I am -- I repeat, I liked the
     idea of the suggestion that was made earlier, at least it
     was intriguing.  I won't say I liked it; it was intriguing
     that we try to do something to assure that the competent
     person can teach.  But the devil is going to be in the
     details of that, folks, I can tell you.  The devil's going
     to be in the details, and that's what I want to see.  
              MR. SHARPE:  Okay.  
              MR. STONE:  You had indicated that the number of
     mines that might seek a review of the training plans would
     vary according to the size of the mine.  Basically, you
     think larger mines would tend to take advantage of having an
     MSHA review.  We had estimated across the board about 20
     percent, and we're taking into account the fact that some
     mines might, for reliability reasons or other reasons,
     prefer to have a formal review.  
              Do you have a sense of whether that number -- how
     you might estimate numbers by the size of the mine?  In
     other words, we estimated 20 percent across the board.  Do
     you think that might be a reasonable average?  And even if
     that were the case, do you have a sense of how you might
     allocate reviews for what percentage of large mines would
     have reviews, for example?  
              MR. SHARPE:  Well, I guess you've got to make a
     distinction between large mines and large -- and large
     producers --
              MR. STONE:  Okay.  
              MR. SHARPE:  -- large mines where there are lots
     of miners physically at one site -- 
              MR. STONE:  Right.  
              MR. SHARPE:  -- versus a large producer who's got
     a couple of hundred sites, some large, some medium, and some
     small.  
              MR. STONE:  I see.  
              MR. SHARPE:  It's very difficult for me to answer
     the question.  
              MR. STONE:  Right.  
              MR. SHARPE:  I, you know, I think I'm going to
     have to ask the membership about that.  I just -- I'd rather
     give you nothing than give you information that's not going
     to be right.  
              MR. STONE:  Okay.  
              MR. SHARPE:  And I can do that.  I can certainly
     do that.  
              MR. STONE:  Okay.  I appreciate that.  
              MR. SHARPE:  I've got to get an answer to you.  
              MR. STONE:  I'd appreciate it.  Thank you.  The
     other question is, another point of clarification, you had
     mentioned a rough estimate of annual turnover.  I think
     you'd said 15 to 20 percent.  Were you referring to the
     stone industry or to -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  The aggregates.  
              MR. STONE:  Really?  
              MR. SHARPE:  Aggregates, yes.
              MR. STONE:  Because we actually -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  Not the exempt industries, no. 
     Aggregates.
              MR. STONE:  Aggregates; okay.  And I think we were
     actually using a substantially large -- 
              MR. SHARPE:  Yes.  And I think -- 
              MR. STONE:  -- estimate and I think you were
     exempt for aggregates.  
              MR. SHARPE:  And I think you should, because my
     recollection of where that number came for me was from a
     small -- on a large operator or two.  
              MR. STONE:  Okay.  
              MR. SHARPE:  And I doubt that they are a
     representative, and I don't think that that number included
     sand and gravel.  
              MR. STONE:  Okay.  
              MR. SHARPE:  So if you have a larger estimate, I
     would put more money on that than mine.  
              MR. STONE:  Okay.  
              MR. SHARPE:  Sorry.  
              MR. STONE:  Thank you.  That's it.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Roslyn?  
              MS. FONTAINE:  Nothing.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Sharpe.  
              MR. SHARPE:  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  We have reached the end of our
     list of speakers who have signed up.  At this point, I'd
     like to ask if there's anyone here who has not spoken who
     would like to have the opportunity to speak.  Is there
     anyone here who has already spoken who would like the
     opportunity to present additional remarks?  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Let me say just one thing.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Sure, Mr. Prillaman?  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  I just wanted to follow-up on a
     couple of points.  On this issue that you were just
     discussing about a competent person, I think that Kevin put
     his finger on the real issue.  How do we make sure that the
     competent person has the tools that are needed to teach?  
              I think we're, perhaps, limiting ourselves a
     little too much if we think in terms of tools; has that
     person had a formal training course in how to teach. 
     There's a lot of other kinds of tools that are going to be
     used in training -- interactive training modules, CD ROMs,
     tapes.  I think a lot of times, the actual training is going
     to be supported by trade associations and by others,
     whoever's going to provide material.  
              I can tell you, my own association right now is
     looking into preparing a videotape that would be used as
     part of basic safety training at lime plants, and we've
     already allocated money to do that.  That's going to be part
     of the tools that someone would use.  
              So, I guess what I would say about it is the
     operator should have the obligation to evaluate whether the
     competent person has the appropriate tools to teach the
     miners.  And in some cases, that may mean that some
     supervisor has got to go and take an education course if
     they really don't have those things.  
              But I do think that it should be within the
     discretion of the operator to make those determinations,
     because only that operator can really see what tools are
     needed and what tools are available to that particular -- to
     that particular competent person.  So that was just what I
     wanted to add on that point.  
              I did just want to point out one sort of
     misconception that was raised earlier that the idea that
     hazard training can be conveyed by posting signs.  I do want
     to support the idea that site-specific hazard training
     should be a sliding scale, and it should be tailored to the
     risks that the individual is exposed to.  
              Someone who is going to go down to the mine site
     and be exposed to the real hazards of the mine, obviously,
     it would be inadequate to try to train that person with
     signage.  And I don't think that's anybody's intention,
     including the way you've written the rule.  
              The idea would be, though, that if there's someone
     who comes onto the mine site merely to deliver soft drinks
     to the office, that a sign that says "Do Not Enter This
     Area" might be sufficient for that person.  The idea is that
     rather than having some rigid set of site-specific training
     that has to be delivered, you know, lock-step fashion to
     everyone that comes on the site that it's going to be
     tailored to the risk of the people that are exposed to, and
     I think that's what we had in mind.  And I think -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes, I think that that was the
     intention of what's in the proposal is that it's going to
     depend on the circumstances and the individual, as far as
     what appropriate site-specific hazard training would be.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Okay.  The third and last issue I
     wanted to mention is something that it's a little more
     complicated issue, but you got into a little bit in some of
     the other discussions; and that is the issue of when is new-
     miner training requirement triggered?  Is it when you start
     working at a new mine site or when you start working as a
     miner?  
              This was raised in the context of a contractor who
     may go from mine to mine and those are concerned, well, this
     person may never get all his new-miner training.  I would
     think that that person should get new-miner training when he
     becomes a miner, even if he's going to work in a lot of
     different sites.  And this is something that there's some
     confusion in the rule, the preamble, about just how that's
     going to work.                    
         And I think you should be aware -- you probably are
     aware that this may be an issue for, not just for
     contractors, but for people who work for operators, because
     particularly in the aggregates industry and some of these
     others, there are people who work on more than one site on a
     pretty regular basis.  Maybe for a few months or maybe even
     on a weekly or monthly basis, they may go to different sites
     to work.      
         And so, we certainly wouldn't want to -- there to be a
     suggestion that they have to get new-miner training every
     time they switch sites within the same company.  So, this is
     just an issue that I think needs to be clarified.  
              The concept ought to be you get new-miner training
     when you become a miner or even -- and really ditto for
     experienced-miner training; you get that when you go to work
     for a new entity, but that you don't necessarily get
     complete new training every time you go to a new site if
     part of your job is going to multiple sites.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes.  We realize that intermittent
     employments is a problem in this segment of the industry,
     and we need to take a close look at that as we develop the
     final rule to make sure that we're, you know, we're not
     creating loopholes, and we're also ensuring that everybody
     gets the training that they need within an appropriate time
     period.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Yes.  There's some issues like
     that, and there's some people -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Right.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  -- other things like that I think
     need to be -- and that's all I have.  
              MR. BRELAND:  If I could just to follow-up on the
     contractor, you talked about the signage for the driver
     that's coming on site, you know, like "Keep Out" because
     they are supposed to go take care of the vending machine, or
     something.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Right.  
              MR. BRELAND:  How do you see the contractor that's
     coming on site, as far as hazard training that might go in
     the pit area to haul the materials, and what have you?  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Well, first of all, I make two
     distinctions.  If the contractor is a miner, then he should
     get miner training -- 
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  -- either from -- either for the
     specific site or if he's, like, a blaster or something, he
     should have miner training as a blaster.  And that person
     probably still needs -- for that person or one who's not a
     miner, they need to get site-specific hazard training that's
     commensurate with the risks that are involved.  
              And if he's going down into a pit area, well, I
     would suspect signage isn't enough.  But as to exactly what
     would be required, I don't know.  In some cases, a card
     saying, here, you know, read this and explain to me that you
     understand it; in some cases, a short class.  In some cases,
     more of a class.  I think the point is, it depends on what
     the risks the person is exposed to, and that should be
     determined by the person who's providing the training.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  
              MR. PRILLAMAN:  Okay?  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay; thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much.  Is there
     anyone else who would like the opportunity to speak?  
              MR. TURNER:  Thank you.  My name is James Turner,
     T-U-R-N-E-R.  I'm here representing the State of North
     Carolina, the North Carolina Department of Labor.  Most of
     my comments echo what Mr. Main and Ms. Roman said, and I'd
     like to first of all compliment MSHA for trying to make this
     new rule workable for everyone, especially considering the
     different varieties of metal and non-metal mines in the
     companies and the problems they have.  However, we do have
     some reservation about some specific issues.  
              First of all, as has been stated here quite a bit,
     competent person.  If MSHA is thinking about eventually
     doing away with the certified or approved instructors, we
     think this is a big mistake, because the majority of the
     mining operations, especially in North Carolina, has 10 or
     less employees and many of the operators and contractors do
     not know what mining laws are.  
              They don't know the people, liabilities involved
     in some of the mining laws, nor do they necessarily
     understand what hazards are, accident prevention techniques
     or -- and per se, of course, and these are critical
     components of having an effective training program.  Many
     production operators have not a clue to some of those --
     about some of these techniques and training requirements, so
     how can they pick a competent, what you call, a competent
     person?  
              What about one- and two-men operations or what we
     call mom and pop operations?  Are they going to train each
     other, train themselves?  There are two issues here that
     need to be addressed, the knowledge of the subject matter,
     and communication and teaching the skills.  
              Certainly, a task or task training needs to be
     taught by someone who knows the task, knows how to do the
     task, but there's still a need for effective instruction,
     someone who knows how to outline a lesson plan and to
     evaluate the effectiveness of that training.  Training
     instructors need to be approved either by MSHA's
     certification or they should have equivalent training and
     experience.  
              The definition of experienced miner, we think the
     language should include those persons having received OSHA
     training.  We do agree with that.  OSHA training equivalent
     to Part 48 or Part 46, Part 48 or Part 46 training, along
     with 12 months of experience in directly related tasks.  
              And what I mean by that, an OSHA employee who has
     operated a bulldozer and has been trained to operate that
     bulldozer safely and that person applies for a job on a mine
     site, if that person has applied for a dozer operator
     position, then he should be hired as an experienced miner,
     as long as he has had 12 months of experience.  
              The definition of a miner, distinctly, this
     definition should be more specific as to include the words,
     "employees of independent contractors".  It does not include
     the independent contractor.  It says, you know, working in
     an integral part of the production.  It doesn't really
     specify independent contractor, employees of independent
     contractors.  
              So if you have independent contractors working,
     extracting the minerals, or crushing the minerals, the
     product, then it needs to be more specific.  While the 46.5
     and 46.6, which address new-miner training and newly hired
     experienced-miner training, there should be one additional
     subject added to these categories, and that should be
     emergency medical procedures.  
              In Part 48, as far as experienced miners, they
     added that to experienced-miner training to get instruction
     in emergency medical procedures.  We're not requiring that
     to any new person at the mine site, because a person that's
     new to a mine site should have instructions in that subject
     matter.  
              Part 46.8, Annual Refresher Training, Section A,
     the way that this is worded, it sounds like the 8-hour
     training has to be given at one time.  It would be better
     stated that the training would be given within an
     established 12-month period, rather than saying that the
     training must be given -- 8 hours of training must be given
     at once.  What did it say?  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes.  It was -- I mean -- 
              MR. TURNER:  It says that at least once every 12
     months, you must provide miner with training, so it's like
     all at one time you give them -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes.  I mean, that's obviously --
     I mean, in the preamble, it's clear that that's not what we
     intended, but we understand why that would be confusing. 
     Okay.  
              MR. TURNER:  Finally, I would like to express some
     concerns about States Grants Programs since North Carolina
     is a grantee and how this new rule may affect its survival. 
     In the new rule, it doesn't require MSHA-approved
     instructors.  There would be less need for States Grant
     Program, but to provide that service.  
              I know in North Carolina, we have a very
     successful program for training instructors.  As of February
     1999, we have trained 797 MSHA-approved instructors, and we
     conduct an 80-hour program.  In order for a person to
     provide effective instructions on any subject matter, they
     need to know the law.  
              They need to know how to -- the law is being
     interpreted by MSHA, and they need to know why the training
     is needed.  And a company person all the time will not know
     why it says here, I must give you this, this, this, but why,
     I don't know.  But the person who knows the law, been
     properly trained as an instructor would be able to convey
     that message.  
              There will also be less need for a state to
     conduct operator designee, so-called "company person" to do
     the training.  The company person conducting the training
     would cut out a lot of the training that the state grantees
     are doing.  Why call in a state agency or a grantee to do my
     training when I can have my high school son here who
     finished high school come in and do the training for us? 
     He's my company person.  
              And lastly, what I'd like to share is that's going
     to be an increase -- with the increased demand that the
     Transportation Equity Act is going to create for mining,
     especially Crushed Stone Industry Aggregates Association,
     this is probably going to increase the likelihood of more
     accidents, because you're going to have less training, less
     time to provide the training, and more production demand.  
              So, therefore, the designated company person may
     be the operator, probably will end up getting -- assigning
     the person who has the less responsibility on my part; one
     that he can provide without more -- more expendable, you
     might say.  But those are some of the comments that I wanted
     to make.  
              I just want to make sure that I share with you all
     that some of these definitions are vague.  They leave it too
     much for interpretation, and if you leave it for
     interpretation, more than being specific, it's just going to
     lead to more problems.  Thank you.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Turner. 
     I've got a couple of questions and others may, as well.  I
     want to make sure I understand.  As far as competent person
     is concerned or approved instructor, people who are going to
     be providing this training, I thought I heard you say that
     you believe that people who provide training should either
     be approved by MSHA under something that's similar to the
     current certification program or that they have equivalent
     training or experience.  
              Now, are you saying that you could see that it
     might be appropriate to have -- I mean, do you think
     everyone needs to be formally approved, or if they need a
     certain, should we establish minimum standards in the rule
     itself that they need to meet?  I guess I'm not really clear
     on what your point was.  
              MR. TURNER:  If the rule contains language or
     minimum experience, training and experience -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  You know, specifically sets
     minimum training and experience requirements?  
              MR. TURNER:  Right.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  
              MR. TURNER:  Or they -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Or if they don't meet today's
     specific requirements, an alternate would be to be approved
     as a certified instructor by MSHA?  Is that -- 
              MR. TURNER:  That way and also -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  
              MR. TURNER:  -- through experience and training,
     they could submit that to MSHA to be approved, rather than
     going through a course.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay; which I think is sort of the
     way it happens now.  
              MR. TURNER:  That's the way that it happens;
     right? 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes.  I mean, they have minimum --
     either the minimum requirements -- 
              MR. TURNER:  Right.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  -- or they get, you know, they
     submit it and they get approved; okay.  
              MR. TURNER:  Approved.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  So, I guess what you're saying
     then is that you support a Part 48-type instructor-approval
     program?  
              MR. TURNER:  Yes.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And you also were making
     the point about the definition of experienced miner to make
     it clear that a person who has got 12 months of 
     experience -- 
              MR. TURNER:  Even if it's OSHA-related experience.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  You mean, it would be non-mining
     related, but the activities would be similar?
              MR. TURNER:  The tasks.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes.  I think that that -- I mean,
     that was the intention because I think it says that a miner
     who has, right, 12 months of surface mining or equivalent
     experience -- 
              MR. TURNER:  Yes, it does say in there about OSHA-
     equivalent training.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  I mean, the intent -- the
     intention was that we recognize -- I mean, as a result of
     comments that we got from some of the speakers in the
     pre-proposal public meetings that there are workers out
     there who did -- may have a lot of work at
     non-MSHA-regulated sites -- I mean, at OSHA-regulated sites,
     but that for all intents and purposes, I mean, the type of
     work that they do or the equipment that they operate is
     similar, if not identical, to the type of work they do on --
     might do on -- 
              MR. TURNER:  My point is that it's not stated, you
     know, in the rule.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay; yes.  I mean, I think by
     using the term, "equivalent experience", that's what we
     meant, but your point is that it's not clear in the rule
     that that's what we mean.  
              MR. TURNER:  Right.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Let's see.  You didn't address
     this, but I'll ask you.  And if you don't want to take a
     position on it, that's fine.  We are interested in getting
     some idea of what period of time the mining community is
     going to need to come into compliance with the requirements
     of the new rule.  Do you have any -- 
              MR. TURNER:  Well, I think that the stagnant
     period of up to six months to get a training plan if you're
     going to have training-plan approval, I also agree with that
     approval.  But to come up with a training plan, designer
     training plan, and then addition six months to have the
     training take place.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay; yes.  I just want to make a
     remark and, I mean, I understand your point.  As far as a
     definition of miner, you indicated a concern that it does
     not appear to include independent contractors.  
              And, I mean, our intention was that, you know,
     whoever works at a mine site, whether they are employed by
     the production operator or by the independent contractor, if
     they are exposed to -- I mean, if they are engaged in
     certain activity, they are miners and they would be required
     to get comprehensive training.  
              So whether they are independent contractors or
     not, I mean, those rules would be intended to apply the
     same.  But I guess your point is it's not clear in the
     definition that those workers are included in that
     definition.  
              MR. TURNER:  To me, a definition is supposed to
     define specific things, and these definitions leave too open
     for interpretation by the person what's supposed to be --
     it's supposed to be ruling, and therefore, it's just going
     to cause a lot of confusion and more, you know, violations.
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Well, we'll take a look at
     that.  Thank you.  That's all I have.  Robert?  
              MR. STONE:  No questions.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Rod?  
              MR. BRELAND:  Just a couple to make sure I'm
     really clear on the approval of instructors.  You say they
     should be approved or have, the way you first said, it was
     just equivalent experience and I guess I was -- 
              MR. TURNER:  Experience in training.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Experience in training?  
              MR. TURNER:  Yes.  
              MR. BRELAND:  That's what I was wondering, what
     criteria you meant, so something to show they have done some
     training before and not necessarily in the mines, but
     somewhere that shows -- 
              MR. TURNER:  Correct; a person who has experience
     maybe as an OSHA instructor, have worked around the mine
     sites sometime or a related industry such as construction,
     things of that nature, and have demonstrated the ability to
     instruct and convey information.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  And then, you say North
     Carolina does 80 hours of instruction.  Now, is that an
     initial, like, 24 hours of training that would be given?
              MR. TURNER:  No.  This is for instructor
     certification training.  
              MR. BRELAND:  That's what I mean, but does that
     include what would be expected to be taught in a 24-hour
     class?  
              MR. TURNER:  Yes.  The way our -- we call it the
     Instructor Institute -- the way it's laid out is that the
     first week is spent going over the Mine Act, how the
     standards evolved from the Mine Act, and the Policy Manual
     is used.  But we're tying all of these legal documents, as
     far as mining, and we have instructor's presentations during
     that brief -- instructor presentations during that period.  
              And then the second week, we go over the subject
     matter.  Accident prevention or the accident prevention
     course should pertain not how to teach one what information
     should be disseminated in such a course, how to put the
     information together; same thing about hazard recognition or
     electrical hazard, things of that nature -- 
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  
              MR. TURNER:  -- and first-aid for the second one. 
              MR. BRELAND:  Do you evaluate each of those
     modules or however you break those subjects up?  Or do you
     just do an overall course evaluation where you make a
     determination or recommendation?  
              MR. TURNER:  You mean, do we do it or does the
     participant do it?  
              MR. BRELAND:  Whoever's putting on the instruction
     or the training.  
              MR. TURNER:  We have the -- yes.  We have the
     participants evaluate the course themselves.  Then we, in
     turn, evaluate those evaluations to see what changes need to
     be made.
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  And then, just one other
     question, you said you had, North Carolina had instructed
     797 participants.  Was that for last fiscal year, or
     something, or calendar year?  
              MR. TURNER:  No.  That's since -- we've been doing
     this since 1978.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  
              MR. TURNER:  As a matter of fact, this week we're
     ending up a course with 13 in it.  
              MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Thank you.  That's all.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Kevin?  
              MR. BURNS:  Yes.  Just on the -- your 80-hour
     program, is that mine-specific or is that -- 
              MR. TURNER:  Yes.  
              MR. BURNS:  Okay.  I wasn't clear if that also
     included OSHA-type -- 
              MR. TURNER:  No.  OSHA, all mines.  
              MR. BURNS:  Okay.  Everything else I had has been
     asked.  I appreciate -- 
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Yes.  Robert?
              MR. STONE:  Yes.  I just had one question.  Do you
     have any sense from your experience in North Carolina what
     type of compliance rates you're observing there for mines?  
              MR. TURNER:  As far as training?  
              MR. STONE:  Yes, Part 48.  
              MR. TURNER:  We have a high percentage of
     compliance in North Carolina.  
              MR. STONE:  Okay.  You want a hazard percentage 
     or -- 
              MR. TURNER:  Percentage, I would say, 75 to 80
     percent.  
              MR. STONE:  All right.  
              MR. TURNER:  The majority of the people who are
     not compliant are the one- and two-man operations.  
              MR. STONE:  Okay.  Thank you.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Roslyn?  
              MS. FONTAINE:  No.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Turner.  
              MR. TURNER:  Thank you.  
              MS. ALEJANDRO:  I'd like to ask again is there
     anyone here who has spoken or not who would like the
     opportunity to make remarks?  If not, I'd like to thank
     everyone who attended and particularly thank those who have
     made oral presentations.  
              I'm going to give you a very short summary of what
     happens next.  As I indicated earlier, the rule-making
     record will be open until June 16th for submission of any
     written comments you may have to MSHA.  And if you need an
     address to send those comments, please feel free to come up
     here after the hearing closes and we can give you that
     information.  
              After the rule-making record closes on June 16th,
     we're going to move to develop and draft the final rule and
     with the intention of publishing it in the Federal Register
     on or before the congressionally mandated deadline of
     September 30, 1999.  
              Transcripts of this hearing and three other public
     hearings, which were held in the last couple of weeks, will
     be available on our web site at "www.MSHA.com".  There is a
     Part 46 Training Regulation button on the main home page,
     and if you click on that, that will take you to the area
     where Part 46-related information is included.  
              And I don't know what the line time is on these
     transcripts, but they probably all ought to be up there in a
     week or two.  Again, I thank you all very much for coming,
     and if you have any questions, please feel free to come up
     and talk to us after the hearing.  And otherwise, thank you
     very much, and I hope to see you all around later.  Take
     care.  Bye-bye.  
              (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing in the
     above-entitled matter was adjourned.) 
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //                        REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
     
     DOCKET NO.:        N/A
     CASE TITLE:        RETRAINING OF MINERS 
     HEARING DATE:      May 27, 1999
     LOCATION: Washington, DC
     
         I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are
     contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes
     reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the
     United State Department of Labor.
     
     
                        Date:  May 27, 1999
     
                           Sharon Cook        
                        Official Reporter
                        Heritage Reporting Corporation
                        Suite 600
                        1220 L Street, N. W.
                        Washington, D. C.  20005