U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–210 PDF 2016

PROTECTING AMERICA’S WORKERS: 

AN ENFORCEMENT UPDATE FROM THE 

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 23, 2015 

Serial No. 114–11 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman 

Duncan Hunter, California 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Dave Brat, Virginia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida, 

Ranking Member 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 23, 2015 .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections ... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Wilson, Hon. Frederica S., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce 

Protections ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Main, Hon. Joseph A., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety 

and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, Arlington, VA ............................. 10 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Additional Submissions: 

Assistant Secretary Main: ................................................................................

Responses to questions submitted for the record ................................... 52 

Rokita, Hon. Todd, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana: ................................................................................................................. 44 

Stakeholder Partnership Initiative .......................................................... 45 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce: ............................................................................ 50 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 51 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING

emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
(1) 

PROTECTING AMERICA’S WORKERS: AN 

ENFORCEMENT UPDATE FROM THE MINE 

SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 

Thursday, April 23, 2015 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:03 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Walberg (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Walberg, Rokita, Brat, Bishop, Russell, 

Stefanik, Wilson, Pocan, Adams, and DeSaulnier. 

Also present: Representatives Kline, Scott, and Courtney. 

Staff present: Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members Services 

Coordinator; Ed Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy; Callie Harman, Staff Assistant; Christie Herman, Professional Staff Member; 

Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; John Martin, Professional Staff Member; 

Zachary McHenry, Legislative Assistant; Brian Newell, Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Molly 

McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Alissa 

Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Loren 

Sweatt, Senior Policy Advisor; Alexa Turner, Legislative Assistant; 

Joseph Wheeler, Professional Staff Member; Tylease Alli, Minority 

Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority 

Staff Assistant; Melissa Greenberg, Minority Labor Policy Associate; Carolyn Hughes, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Brian 

Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Richard Miller, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; and Amy Peake, Minority Labor Policy 

Advisor. 

Chairman WALBERG. A quorum being present, the subcommittee 

will come to order. 

Good morning, Assistant Secretary Main. We are very pleased to 

have you with us and appreciate your attention to this request; and 

it has been a little while since we have had a chance to talk, and 

it is good to—well, I guess I should say it has been a little while 

since we have had a chance to talk in this forum, but I appreciated 

the opportunity that we had yesterday, as well. 

You have an important job to do, and we appreciate the time you 

have taken to participate in this oversight hearing. 

Today’s hearing is timely for two important reasons. First, in just 

a few days our nation will observe Workers’ Memorial Day, a time 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
2 

to remember the men and women who have been injured or killed 

at work. It is also a time to reaffirm our commitment to tough, responsible policies that will help protect the health and safety of 

America’s workers in the workplace of the twenty-first century. 

And secondly, just a few weeks ago the people of Montcoal, West 

Virginia and neighbors in surrounding communities observed the 

five-year anniversary of the Upper Big Branch mining disaster. 

There is no doubt that the families of the 29 miners who died live 

each and every day with the painful memory of this tragic event. 

Our thoughts and our prayers are with these families and every 

family that has lost a loved one while on the job. 

Upper Big Branch is a terrible reminder that bad actors will look 

for ways to cut corners and jeopardize the well-being of their workers despite a moral and legal obligation to make safety the number 

one priority. I am pleased that those who had a hand in the Upper 

Big Branch tragedy are being held responsible. It is taking some 

time, but justice is being served. 

An independent report from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health underscored why bad actors must be held 

accountable. The report said, and I quote: ‘‘If the Mine Safety and 

Health Administration had engaged in timely enforcement of the 

Mine Act and applicable standards and regulations, it would have 

lessened the chances of and possibly could have prevented the 

Upper Big Branch explosion.’’ 

That is why time and again this Committee has urged MSHA to 

do better and use every tool it has to keep miners safe. Under your 

leadership, Assistant Secretary Main, the agency has implemented 

a number of changes to its regulatory and enforcement practices. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine these efforts and 

determine whether they serve the best interests of America’s miners. We have a lot of ground to cover in a short period of time, including controversial changes to pattern of violations regulations, 

revised standards governing exposure to respirable coal dust, 

changes to the agency’s citations and penalty policies, and new 

rules on the use of proximity detectors on continuous mining machines. 

Clearly you have been busy, Secretary Main. As you know, we 

haven’t agreed on every issue, and when we haven’t, we have expressed our concerns and encouraged the agency to move in a different direction. However, when the agency does take responsible 

steps to improve health and safety enforcement, you have and will 

continue to have our full support. 

Both your agency and this Committee share the same goal: We 

want to ensure strong enforcement policies that are in place so that 

every miner returns home to his or her loved ones at the end of 

their shift. 

I look forward to a frank and robust discussion today and continuing our work together to help reach that shared goal. 

Again, I would like to thank you, Assistant Secretary Main, for 

joining us this morning. 

And I now recognize Ranking Member Wilson for her opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Walberg follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
3 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 94210A.001
4 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 94210A.002
5 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for 

holding this hearing today, this very important hearing. 

Assistant Secretary Main, I thank you so much for testifying 

here today. 

And to Deputy Assistant Secretary, Patricia Silvey, thank you for 

being with us in the audience. 

This month marks the five-year anniversary of the disaster at 

the Upper Big Branch Mine, where 29 miners were killed in a preventable coal dust explosion. 

To the friends and families of these 29 miners, please know that 

we continue to remember your loss and are committed to taking 

steps to prevent tragedies like this in the future. 

It has been three years since the Committee’s last hearing on 

mine safety. At that hearing, we heard testimony on five investigation reports that showed the mine operator at Upper Big Branch 

repeatedly violated mandatory safety standards. 

Number one, they failed to maintain adequate ventilation, which 

allowed flammable methane to build up. Number two, they failed 

to adequately rock dust the mine, which allowed explosive coal dust 

to accumulate. Number three, they also failed to properly maintain 

water sprays, which would have prevented ignition. 

We also heard how the mine operator concealed its noncompliance. They kept two sets of mine examination books: one for management, and a sanitized version for MSHA inspectors. Mine management also routinely warned foremen when mine safety inspectors were on the property, giving foremen the opportunity to conceal unsafe conditions from inspectors. 

Although mine operators are ultimately responsible for safety of 

miners, MSHA plays a vital role in holding mine operators accountable. 

We know that in the 18 months prior to the Upper Big Branch 

explosion, MSHA issued 692 citations and orders to this mine operator. During 2009 MSHA issued 53 withdrawal orders for unsafe 

conditions—more than any other mine in the nation. But even this 

was not enough. 

Since Upper Big Branch, MSHA has enacted many reforms. 

MSHA is using impact inspections to target high-risk mines. 

MSHA has issued final regulations for its most powerful administrative enforcement tool, the pattern of violations sanction, which 

is intended to bring serial violators into greater compliance. 

MSHA has issued a final rule increasing the required amount of 

rock dust to be deposited in underground mines, which will decrease the likelihood of coal dust explosion. MSHA has also issued 

a rule requiring continuous mining machines have proximity detection devices designed to prevent crushing or pinning miners. 

The tragedy at Upper Big Branch also brought to light weaknesses in the Mine Act. That is why yesterday I joined with Ranking Member Bobby Scott to reintroduce the Robert C. Byrd Mine 

Safety Protection Act. This bill gives MSHA the tools it needs to 

provide greater protections for mine workers. 

An important provision of this bill provides MSHA with greater 

subpoena authority. This means that MSHA would have the authority to compel the production of documents and witnesses during an inspection and investigation. Unlike other laws, the 1977 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
6 

Mine Act gave MSHA limited subpoena authority, forcing MSHA to 

ask the few states that have subpoena authority for their assistance. 

By contrast, Congress provided expansive subpoena authority 

under the OSHA to better protect worker safety. Similarly, Congress provided subpoena authority to the Labor Department under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act to ensure workers get the wages 

they are due. Congress has even provided subpoena authority to 

the Agriculture Department under crop promotion laws, such as 

the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act; the Pecan Promotion 

and Research Act; and the Popcorn Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act. I would ask that we join in a bipartisan effort to enact legislation 

to provide MSHA with expanded subpoena authority. Although it 

is only a piece of the Byrd bill, I hope we can reach a compromise 

on this issue. 

The Mine Act states that the first priority of the industry must 

be the health and safety of its most precious resource: the miner. 

By giving MSHA this investigative tool, we can advance the safety 

of the miners. By enacting this provision, we also respect requests 

from the families of deceased miners who have asked for our help 

in strengthening the law. 

Mr. Main, I thank you for all of your dedicated and sincere service towards protecting workers. We are the Workforce Protections 

Subcommittee, and I look forward to your testimony. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The statement of Ms. Wilson follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
7 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 94210A.003
8 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 94210A.004
9 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 94210A.005
10 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all subcommittee members will 

be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the 

permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing 

record will be open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for 

the record, and other extraneous material referenced during the 

hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to formally introduce today’s witness. The 

Honorable Joseph A. Main is the Assistant Secretary of Mine Safety and Health at the U.S. Department of Labor and has served in 

this position since 2009. 

Mr. Main began working in coal mines in 1967 and quickly became an advocate for miner safety and health. Mr. Main worked 

for the United Mine Workers of America in various positions from 

1974 to 2002 and was head of the UMWA’s Occupational Health 

and Safety Department for 22 years. 

Before he accepted President Obama’s nomination, Mr. Main 

worked as a mine safety consultant. His recent work focused on research and analysis on prevention of mine accidents and disasters; 

development of training programs and facilities to prepare miners, 

rescue teams, and emergency responders for mine emergencies; and 

international mine safety issues. 

He also has had a successful record in taking the chairman of 

this subcommittee into mines and bringing him out alive. 

And I thank you for that. 

I will now ask our witness to stand and to raise your right hand. 

This is the first time you have ever had to do this. It is a policy 

that we have now, and so, Secretary Main, if you would stand? 

[Witness sworn.] 

Let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. 

You may be seated. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

remind you of our lighting system. And you have done this, you 

have mentioned to me, 25 times appeared before Committees and 

subcommittees. You know the lighting system. It is a question 

whether I and my colleagues know the lighting system as well as 

we should. 

So we will certainly give you your five minutes of time. We won’t 

hold you to a strict time because we want to hear what you have 

to say, but we will have plenty of opportunity for questions, as 

well. 

And so I now recognize our witness, Assistant Secretary MAIN. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH A. MAIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

LABOR, ARLINGTON, VA 

Mr. MAIN. Chairman Walberg, Chairman Kline, thank you very 

much for the opportunity to be here, Ranking Members Wilson, and 

I believe Courtney was here a few minutes ago. I do appreciate the 

opportunity to appear here today to report on mine safety and 

health. 

We have made progress on many fronts, particularly in the last 

five years, following implementation of reforms that began in 2010. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
11 

The steps that we have taken along with the industry are changing, I believe, the culture of safety in a positive way. 

From 2010 through 2014, 46 miners died annually. That is half 

of the 96 deaths each year that we were seeing in the 1990s, when 

employment was roughly the same. 

At the same time, industry compliance has improved. In 2014 

there were 44 fatalities. Sixteen were at coal mines, which was the 

lowest number ever recorded in the coal mining industry; 28 were 

at metal-nonmetal mines, and that was part of an increasing trend 

that began back in October of 2013. These increases are concerning, especially after years of historic lows in mining deaths. 

But we still face challenges, including reversing the increases in 

metal and nonmetal deaths. We are making, I think, significant 

strides. 

On April 5, 2015 we observed the fifth anniversary of the Upper 

Big Branch Mine explosion. Our thoughts and prayers are with the 

families of the 29 miners who perished. We want them and you to 

know that we are using all of our tools—enforcement, education 

and training, and extensive outreach and assistance to the mining 

community—to carry out our responsibilities under the Mine Act 

In 2010, MSHA revised its pattern of violations procedures and 

began to conduct strategic impact inspections. The troubled mines 

receiving impact inspections, or undergoing the POV process, or 

both, have significantly improved their compliance. 

We have stepped up enforcement in metal-nonmetal mines, 

reaching out to the mining community, sharing best practices with 

them and asking them to assist as we work to reverse the trend— 

the recent trend of mining deaths. 

MSHA’s other initiatives include the End Black Lung—ACT 

NOW campaign and a Rules to Live By program, which is aimed 

at preventing the most common types of fatalities. 

On schedule, we completed action on about 100 reforms from reviews of MSHA’s actions at the Upper Big Branch Mine. We built 

accountability into MSHA’s internal process and developed a direct 

system to provide better oversight of agency policies. 

We are improving assistance to the mining community. In 2014 

MSHA combined its Educational Field Services and Small Mines 

program to expand MSHA services, and we now hold quarterly 

calls with industry trainers. 

We use technology to assist operators who want to do the right 

thing, and to support our enforcement for operators who do not, including an online POV tool which allows an operator to monitor 

whether a mine is approaching a POV. Last month we rolled out 

two more tools that allow operators, MSHA, and others to track a 

mine’s compliance with other key safety standards. 

We want to ensure that stakeholders understand and are aware 

of our initiative. MSHA’s leadership and I have crisscrossed the 

country to meet with them. 

Our outreach has led to initiatives that address stakeholder concerns. When the industry raised issues about some metal and 

nonmetal standards, we were able to clarify them, which has improved enforcement, mine safety, and compliance. 

We reduced MSHA’s backlog of contested violations by about 70 

percent from its highest levels in 2010 and revised our pre-contest 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
12 

conferencing procedures, conferencing over 15,000 violations since 

2012, as well. 

An essential component of preventing accidents is to allow miners to exercise their rights to report safety and health problems. 

Since 2010, MSHA has filed about 185 discrimination cases and 

157 actions for temporary reinstatement to help enforce those 

rights. 

MSHA finalized a number of rules critical to mine safety and 

health, including the recent respirable coal mine dust rule aimed 

at preventing black lung. 

MSHA has been conducting extensive outreach and support to 

the industry and before each phase of the dust rule goes into effect. 

Since phase one went into effect on August 1, 2014 through March 

31, 2015 we have seen nearly a 99 percent compliance with over 

41,000 samples collected from mines by operators at MSHA. 

With the mining community, we have made needed improvements to our mine emergency response capacity and capabilities. 

MSHA has taken the lead in development of game-changing technologies to make mine rescue safer and quicker, and we will equip 

our mobile mine sites with them very soon. The state grants program is being funded at $8.4 million at the 

fiscal year 2015 budget level, and the President’s request includes 

funding for 2016. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, just a quick oversight of what we are 

doing, what the industry is doing on mine safety, and appreciate 

the opportunity to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Main follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
13 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 94210A.006
14 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 94210A.007
15 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 94210A.008
16 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 94210A.009
17 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 94210A.010
18 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 94210A.011
19 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 94210A.012
20 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 94210A.013
21 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 94210A.014
22 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 94210A.015
23 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 94210A.016
24 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. 

Now, I will recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. 

MSHA finalized the Pattern of Violation (POV) regulation on 

January 23, 2013. Currently, there are two lawsuits pending regarding the regulation and its application. 

In November of 2014, an administrative law judge for the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission vacated citations 

against a mine that MSHA placed in POV status. The decision 

states, and I quote: ‘‘Dismissal of the pattern notice rested on two 

grounds: the Secretary’s process is inconsistent with procedural due 

process, and it is also inconsistent with the expeditious resolution 

of pattern matters.’’ 

Secretary Main, how do you respond to that statement? 

Mr. MAIN. Well, you know, probably a couple things. One is, as 

we all know, this is an issue in litigation and we are paying close 

attention to what is going on in the litigation process. And I need 

to, you know, probably not delve too much into this, in terms of the 

legal issues of this report. 

But I think it is important for folks to understand this, and I 

think—last year we didn’t have any mine that was placed on a pattern of violation, and I think this is a standard that should be in 

place across the country. There is no reason for any mine, I believe, 

to be on a pattern of violation if they follow the rules and use the 

tools that we have made to their disposal. 

We inspect about 13,000 to 14,000 mines a year, and the number 

of mines that we are seeing that are even subject to the pattern 

is so small that if you look historically, I think we had 51 mines 

when we first started our screening process back in 2010. In 2014 

there was only 12 mines out of around 13,500 that even met the 

screening. And because of actions they took and, I think, actions 

that we have taken as well, they met the standard. 

I think it is achievable. No mine should be on a pattern of violation. 

If you look at the program that has been in place, I think this 

has probably been one of the biggest game-changers in really reining in chronic violators in this country. The 51 mines that we identified back in 2010, the screening tool that we used is the same one 

that we used in 2014. There was a reduction of about 76 percent 

in the total number of mines that we identified in that same 

screening. 

And if you look at, as well, mines that have undergone either the 

potential pattern of violation in the prior system or the pattern of 

violations program currently, you are going to see a dramatic drop 

in the violations that we are issuing at those mines, particularly 

the serious violations. And one of the greater benefits is the reduced injuries we are seeing, cutting the injuries in half after these 

mines go through the program. 

So I think, you know, we are looking carefully at litigation that 

is ongoing and issues that you have raised as we move forward, 

but—— 

Chairman WALBERG. Well, let me expand on that more specifically, regarding the Pattern of Violations regulations. Stakeholders 

have expressed concerns that the criteria for placing a mine in 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
25 

POV status was not contained in the actual regulation, which 

means MSHA can change the criteria at any time. 

You have publicly stated, and even this morning, that MSHA 

would seek comments prior to changing the criteria. Future assistant secretaries will not be bound by this statement. 

So I guess the question comes, how did MSHA determine it was 

not necessary to include the criteria in the regulatory text? 

Mr. MAIN. So the criteria that we had been using for the screening process is basically the same criteria that we have for the 

screening process now. And that is what I was referring to when 

I said the screening process we used in 2014 and the mines that 

were identified were—the mines in 2014 were, you know, identified 

through the same screening process that we had used. 

And I understand there was, during the comment period on the 

rule, an urge by some stakeholders to set a specific standard, but 

I can tell you, one of the concerns that I have in terms of changing—of setting that in stone is because of the change of the landscape; we may wake up one morning and say, you know, the criteria that we have established—— 

Chairman WALBERG. But doesn’t that leave some type of limbo 

of concern? 

Mr. MAIN. Well, I think if you—we are—you know, we are staying with the same criteria that we have today—or, I mean, that we 

had back in 2014. 

Chairman WALBERG. Well, my time is expired. Appreciate the response. 

Now I recognize Mr. Scott, Ranking Member of the full Committee, for your five minutes of questioning. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Main, for all that you do. Your work really 

means life or death for many mine workers, so we appreciate your 

work. 

As the Ranking Member indicated, we have introduced the Robert C. Byrd Mine Safety Protection Act of 2015, and we would appreciate whatever analysis that your office could give about the 

provisions in that act. And if you could provide those as soon as 

you have had an opportunity to review it, we would appreciate it. 

Mr. MAIN. Okay. 

Mr. SCOTT. There are a couple of elements to it. One is the issue 

of subpoena power. 

As I understand it, the—you do not have general subpoena power 

for investigations. Is that true? And why would subpoena power be 

important? 

Mr. MAIN. So under our statute we have a very, very limited authority for subpoena power. It requires us to call for—hold a public 

hearing to be able to use it. Having said that, beyond that, we do 

lack subpoena authority and power. 

And if you look back at the mine disaster we were investigating 

back in 2010 in West Virginia, we had to rely on the state of West 

Virginia to exercise their subpoena power and authority to seek 

further questions of witnesses. And, you know, across the country, 

you know, there are a number of states that don’t provide that opportunity for us to do that. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
26 

So yes, we have a limitation on our ability to use subpoena authority, which, during normal investigations, we basically don’t 

have it. 

Mr. SCOTT. And most other investigatory authorities do have this 

power? 

Mr. MAIN. There are a number of other agencies, and I think the 

ranking member acknowledged some of those today, and I understand there are a number of other agencies that do have the authority. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Now, when you find violations do you frequently assess fines? Do you have problems collecting the fines? 

Mr. MAIN. So on the collection of penalties, and I know this has 

been a discussion for quite some time, at MSHA we believe we 

have one of the better collection rates in the—of any federal agency. We are collecting about 90 percent of the penalties that are 

final orders of the commission. And I think out of the last five or 

so years we have met that, with the exception of one year, which 

is—I think it is extraordinary. 

Having said that, there are still mine operators that make decisions to accrue violations that place miners at risk and do not pay 

their penalties. There is a mining company—I think it is in Tennessee—for example, that used that model, and at a point in time 

they just closed the mine and moved on, racking up several violations, and I don’t think they paid a dime in penalties. And we refer 

to those sometimes, as I think the normal person would, as scofflaws. 

So, you know, if you look at someone who may get speeding tickets and throw them in the back seat and decide to move out of the 

state on a given day and, you know, leave the speeding tickets, 

there are mine operators that, unfortunately, do that. 

Mr. SCOTT. What effect has the budget had on your ability to 

conduct investigations and inspections? 

Mr. MAIN. I am sorry? 

Mr. SCOTT. What effect has the budget cuts had on your ability 

to do inspections? 

Mr. MAIN. Well, you know, I think if you go back to the internal 

reviews that I spoke about and looked at what impact, you know, 

stagnant budgets or budget cuts have, I think there is a story that 

is in that internal review about MSHA. 

When I arrived at MSHA one of the things that I was learning 

about the time I was getting confirmed was that the agency had 

lost so much staff that the average experience of half the inspectors 

was two years or less. I am sure that was concerning to everybody. 

It sure was to me. 

And, you know, what had happened was I think just with the 

budgeting process over the years leading up to that left MSHA 

with a lot of inexperienced folks, and in particular, the mine that 

was in question in West Virginia where the explosion occurred, we 

had inspectors who had just received their, what we call their authorized representative cards. 

In terms of where we have been over the last few years, we have 

been on, you know, somewhat of a similar cycle. But, you know, 

from where I sit, I try to do everything that I can to make sure 

that we have money to allocate to staff-up the agency so I never 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
27 

leave another assistant secretary in a spot that I arrived at. And 

I think that is something that is important for everyone to take 

into consideration that, you know, an agency like MSHA does have 

to have the forward-looking budgets because it takes us about two 

years to train up our inspectors before they ever get to their A.R. 

card. So it is, you know, it is a concern. 

Chairman WALBERG. The gentleman’s time is expired. I thank 

the gentleman. 

I now recognize my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, 

Mr. Russell. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, sir, for being here today and all of the service 

that you have provided in this field for many years. MSHA has requested $394 million for the fiscal year 2016. The office of coal enforcement is slated for $175 million of that, while 

the metal-nonmetal has almost $94 million, although the number 

of nonmetal mines is more than three times the number of coal 

mines. Do you believe your budget request will adequately address 

safety enforcement issues in the metal-nonmetal sector? 

Mr. MAIN. That is a good question, and in terms of where we are 

at with our budgeting process, you know, we continue to look at 

that on a constant basis. We are trying to be more efficient at 

MSHA to utilize staff that we have. We actually have received 

some help from the coal side to help currently with the metalnonmetal inspection process. 

And probably going forward into the future with the changing 

landscape on the coal side, we probably will be doing more of that 

to help supplement our work. We are looking at training models to 

help us more efficiently do that. But as these changes occur in the 

mining industry, trying to be a more versatile agency. 

The one thing that I have looked at is trying to keep our authorized representative staffing levels up at MSHA, because it takes us 

18 months to two years to replace someone who loses that. So part 

of what we will be doing is looking at how we can use more efficiencies in having, as I say, on the coal side some help placed over 

to metal-nonmetal with training that is going to go with that to 

keep our staff levels up. 

And I think if you look back at the report that came out of Upper 

Big Branch and where there was a loss, and it was both the coal 

and the metal-nonmetal side, as far as AR’s that had to be—you 

know, took a couple years to get ramped back up. You can appreciate why we are trying to do that kind of a balance. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, I appreciate that. And with your long safety 

experience and observation of many of these issues over the years, 

you have highlighted an initiative to prevent fatalities in mining 

called Rules to Live By in speeches and public announcements. Can 

you describe what those are and how it is impacting the culture of 

the mining community? 

Mr. MAIN. Sure. The first program I actually launched when I arrived at MSHA in 2009 was the End Black Lung—ACT NOW campaign, and that was to deal with the disease that we are seeing on 

the coal side. In general, I believe that we need to have a focus. 

There are a lot of regulations that the industry has to look at, 

at MSHA has to look at to see they are in place, and what I felt 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
28 

that we needed was a focus on the core standards that were most 

commonly found following investigations of mining deaths. Let’s 

make sure that we are looking at the top end. 

So we took a look at mining deaths over a several-year period— 

I think the first one was for about nine or 10 years—and identified 

the standards that were connected with the most common causes 

of mining deaths. And we launched—I think it was around February—the Rules to Live By. 

We brought in the mining associations, the NSSGA, different 

state organizations that were—associations we work with, labor organizations—and walked them through the program. And there 

was a change also made with this as we kicked it off is that I started to develop the training model that—the training we were giving 

our inspectors to implement this program, we gave the same training program to the industry. I think it is still on our website. 

But it was to get a focus of the top standards that was linked 

to the most common mining deaths in the country. 

We, in about two years later, updated that, adding another component that dealt with catastrophic-type violations that were or 

could lead to mine explosions or disasters, and that became Rules 

to Live By II. And then we took another sweep, a 10-year look 

back—it was about two years ago—of the mining deaths that were 

most commonly identified, again, and we came out with Rules to 

Live By III, which actually included a lot of surface standards. 

So we recently launched a tool. About two months ago we had 

our stakeholders in and created a tool where every mine in the 

country can now punch in their I.D. number and see where they 

stack up in terms of compliance with those Rules to Live By standards, and it is a sort of like a green light, red light. If your text 

is green you are on the better half of the industry; if you are on 

the red you have work to do. 

And I know that the NSSGA just held a webinar to help—and 

they have been working with us as well as other associations to 

really focus attention on it. But the bottom line is, these are the 

standards that are most often cited when we have mining deaths. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, thank you. And speaking of red lights, I am 

out of time. And thank you, sir. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank the gentleman. 

Now I recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlelady from Florida. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Main, you have so eloquently described how subpoena power 

would help, but that is just a small part of the Robert C. Byrd Mine 

Safety Protection Act that was filed—reintroduced yesterday. 

Since it is named after such an important senator—we called 

him the miner’s senator—Robert C. Byrd, I wonder if you can reiterate to us today what provisions would be the most helpful, other 

than subpoena power, to MSHA in protecting miners, the workers. 

Mr. MAIN. Well, I think, you know, I have testified before a number of committees since the Upper Big Branch tragedy and when 

the bill was—the previous legislation was being crafted or had been 

introduced and noted there was—there are a number of issues that 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
29 

would be helpful to provide MSHA with greater tools and improve 

mine safety. 

We talked about the scofflaw issue a bit ago, and that is something that has been discussed a lot publicly, and it is an issue that 

if we had a better tool to deal with that it would help us rein in 

mines that decide that they do not want to pay their penalties 

quicker. 

I think there is a judge in Utah following litigation over a disaster that happened there in 2008 that probably best described 

frustration from that level over the weakness in our criminal penalty process of holding folks more accountable. And I think the 

statement by the judge—and I don’t want to say it because I will 

probably get it wrong, but I think there was clear frustration from 

his voice about the lack of tools that the judge had in his particular 

tool bag to deal with the issues that were of criminal nature that 

was brought before him. I think that is something that, you know, 

does strike a need. 

You know, one of the things that—I think we have, as far as the 

reporting system with mine operators in this country, a pretty good 

one. I think there was realization that not everybody fully complies 

with it. But when it comes to contractors, I think there is a weakness there. 

And this is one where it would be helpful for us to have more 

information—more valid information—about, you know, contractor 

man hours and injuries at a worksite. And I am going to give you 

a bit of a reason why that is probably even more important. 

If you look at the fatalities that we have been talking about that 

have occurred over the last 30 or—about the last 18 months, we 

are up to about 42 mining deaths now. A large number of those 

was contractors—I think actually 10 of the deaths. 

We had, in 2012, the lowest number of contractors ever to die on 

the job at five. In 2013 we had four, which became the lowest. In 

2014—I think it was eight contractor deaths out of the 28 that occurred. 

And, you know, and there is a concern that the recent rise that 

we have seen in the mining deaths, if you look at where most are— 

you know, what is the top line of those, if you look at the 38 there 

is I think 10 supervisors, 10 were contractors, about 11 or 12 were 

miners or laborers, and I think there are about 10 of those that 

was truck drivers. You are talking about three-fourths of them. 

But the contractor issue that is on the rise there has us concerned. And I am not sure we know what we need to know about 

how many is really out there, you know, and all the information 

about their injuries. So that would be another issue. 

Ms. WILSON. That would be another issue. Well, thank you so 

much. 

In your remaining 20 months, what are your top priorities for 

improving protections for our miners? 

Mr. MAIN. Well, you know, I think there is—for folks who know 

what I have done for the last five and a half years—and that is 

really spending quality time out at mines, out with our stakeholders, having a lot of discussions with them, still trying to figure 

out what is it we can do more so that every miner has a chance 

to go to work and really go home free of injury and illness every 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
30 

day. And, you know, the kind of things that we are doing—I am 

going to give you some examples of our stakeholder outreach that 

I think has been—and we are still trying to flesh out more. 

In 2010 we identified, of course, the top-cited standard in the 

metal-nonmetal sector was guarding. We launched a program piloted with the industry. Actually NSSGA provided mines for us to 

go out and do actual video shots of what a guarding should actually 

look like or be. 

We put it together. We piloted it with a number of the stakeholders, state associations, put it in place, and since 2010 we have 

dropped the number of citations that we are issuing on orders 43 

percent on guarding in this country. It is an effort that we collectively worked together with them. 

We have put together a similar effort on fall protection to reduce 

the number of violations and injuries and illnesses from falls, and 

we have basically adopted, in part, the OSHA standard, which was 

something supported by both labor and industry. We have seen a 

improvement in number of citations we are issuing in that direction. 

My view is to keep plowing away at fixing things like proximity 

detection. Miners getting crushed in underground coal mines is replacing, really, falls of roof as a leading cause. We just implemented the standard for continuous miners that stops this huge 

piece of machinery in this confined space from crushing a miner 

when a miner gets too close. 

We have worked with the industry to get us where we are at. As 

a matter of fact, I announced that rule at the Gibson Mine armin-arm with Alliance Resources, who was a pioneer to help us get 

that rule prepared. I think we had 80-some pieces of their continuous mining equipment equipped with these proximity detection 

devices. 

And we are now looking forward to moving on to other pieces of 

equipment that are on a mining section like scoops, coal-haulers, 

and we are well ahead of the day with that, with the mining industry having I think somewhere around 160 pieces of equipment now 

equipped with that life-saving device. 

Chairman WALBERG. Time is expired, but we look forward to 

hearing more of those successes, as well, and appreciate that. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank the gentlelady. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you very much for your testimony this morning. I appreciate your comments and your insight. 

The coal mining industry has seen substantial change over the 

past 10 years. The number of coal mines—working coal mines—in 

this country has sharply declined. 

I am wondering if you might comment on the impact that has 

had on the industry itself, and also reflect a little bit about how 

it has impacted MSHA and number of inspectors you have, and 

what may be going on inside MSHA to respond to the number of 

mine closures in this country. 

Mr. MAIN. It is an issue that has all of our attention without 

question at MSHA. And our role in life is to make sure whatever 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
31 

mines are operating on a daily basis that we are implementing the 

Mine Act there in the ways that Congress had intended for us to 

do. 

If you look at the boom and bust periods in the coal industry, it 

is a term that has been stated quite a lot. Pretty steep this time, 

there is no question about it. 

So as an agency, what we have to be able to do is have a staffing 

in place to make sure that we are out conducting the inspections 

that we need to carry out the Mine Act. And what that means in 

areas where we have lost mines, that we need to be—we need to 

understand that and be able to make adjustments in our inspection 

applications. 

In line with some of the things we talked about this morning 

where there has been some flat-line budgets that has—and it affects every federal agency, not just us—it has made some—a difference in the funding that we have available, which is not the 

same as it was. I think our budget is about $3 million over what 

it was in 2012, and with inflationary costs. 

So the short message is that we are shifting our resources to 

areas where they are in need. As of late, coal has been out providing support to the metal-nonmetal industry, with the increase of 

fatalities. 

You know, we all look at where the market may go and try to 

adjust to that, as others do. But, you know, from the standpoint, 

yes, there is reduction on the coal side and we are trying to make 

all the adjustments we can to keep up with that. 

As a matter of fact, our average inspection hours, which I look 

at, has stayed pretty standard from 2012, 2013, 2014, so I know 

the amount of times, at least the data we are pulling in, that we 

are spending at mines is staying pretty much the same. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, sir. 

Let me switch gears real quick. I have a limited amount of time. 

Very interested and grateful for—appreciate your focus on safety. 

One of those areas of interest in this category has to do with refuge 

chambers, and I am wondering if you might be able to share with 

us exactly what that is and also address the concerns raised by the 

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health regarding 

heat generation and purging noxious air in those refuge chambers. 

Mr. MAIN. So one of the acts of Congress in the passage of the 

2006 MINER Act was to put into motion greater protections for 

miners during mine emergencies, and the outgrowth of that was 

the creation of standards that—and provisions under the MINER 

Act itself to require refuge—alternative to refuge units to be placed 

in coal mines—underground coal mines for miners. These were 

standards that were basically set back in, oh, I guess about 2007, 

2008, and have basically been in place since then, as far as the design and use of refuge alternatives. 

NIOSH is taking a look at some different factors. The heat temperature is one of those, and there are a few other issues, as well, 

that they are looking at. 

About two years ago I issued a request for information to really 

take a—just a thorough look at our whole refuge alternative standards. Is there a better model that we can build? What could we do 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
32 

differently here? And not only that, to deal as well with miners’ escape. 

I have been in a number of mine emergencies myself, going back 

to Wilberg, which was—we lost 27 miners in a fire. Took us a year 

to find the last miner that was lost. 

The Greenwich, Homer City mine explosions, where miners were 

lost. Unfortunately, they didn’t survive. 

We all know the case of Sago and miners who tried to build a 

temporary barricade that didn’t work, and by the time MSHA arrived it was too late. I set a course in 2010 to overhaul our mine 

emergency response program so we can get to those miners quicker 

if that happens again. 

And with the initiative that I have launched to really just take 

a hard look at what systems we need to have in place—refuge alternatives. We just closed the record on that I think April 2, and 

that is one of my plans. 

What do I expect to do before I get out of here, working with industry and everybody, is try to come up with a better model so we 

have miners with the best protections. But that is a very live issue. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. Gentleman’s time is 

expired. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Pocan. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Main, not only for your work with MSHA, 

but really your lifelong commitment to mining and to the workers. 

You know, I know from our conversations you started very young 

in life working in the mines, and here you are making sure that 

all those workers can get home to their families every single night, 

and we really appreciate that commitment. 

I want to ask—you talked just a little bit about the situation in 

Utah. I would just like to ask a little bit more about that—back 

in August 2007, when six miners were killed inside the Crandall 

Canyon Mine and then three more would-be rescuers, including an 

MSHA employee, were killed—crushed 10 days later. Following 

criminal referrals from this Committee and the Department of 

Labor, the U.S. attorney eventually charged a Murray Energy subsidiary with two misdemeanors and assessed a $250,000 fine for 

each, which was the maximum available under the Mine Act. 

And I think the judge you referred to was U.S. Federal District 

Judge David Sam, who was actually appointed under President 

Reagan, who said during sentencing that he was outraged because 

of the miniscule amount provided by the criminal statute in this 

matter. 

So I guess my question specifically is if a knowing and willful 

violation of the mandatory safety standard that causes the death 

or injury of a miner is a mere misdemeanor under the Mine Act, 

however if you make a false statement it is actually a felony under 

the Mine Act, does it make sense that killing a worker is a mere 

misdemeanor, however lying about the matter is a felony? And is 

there adequate deterrence in that current law? 

Mr. MAIN. Two things. I want to first say that my heroes are 

those who say, ‘‘I want to volunteer to be a mine rescuer.’’ And at 

Crandall Canyon there were those that were engaged in that that 

lost their lives. And if you understood what mine rescue really inVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:54 Sep 17, 2016 Jkt 094210 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A210.XXX A210

emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
33 

volved, I think we would all be taking our hats off in a thankful 

way. 

With regard to that protector issue, I think, you know—and I go 

back to this: I think the judge looked at the case that he had before 

him. He looked at the circumstances he had. He looked at the Mine 

Act, of which he had to be controlled by in the decisions he made, 

and found it inadequate. 

And I think that that speaks louder than anything that I could 

say with regard to the limitations of the Mine Act. A judge was 

faced with making a decision and felt that he couldn’t do what he 

wanted to do. 

Mr. POCAN. So, you know, in the Robert C. Byrd Mine Safety Act 

those penalties are increased. Have you had a chance to look at 

that? And what is your opinion on that? 

Mr. MAIN. So, you know, I think the need to have additional tools 

in our tool bag to deter folks from making decisions that has a 

judge like the judge in Utah having to render a decision—it is what 

we really need to do. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you. 

Black lung has taken the lives of about 76,000 miners since 1968. 

Your agency just issued some new health standards in this area, 

yet some mine operators have sued to try to block the implementation of these. 

Are the mine operators able to comply with the new requirements? And have mine operators gamed the system by underreporting miner exposures to coal dust that caused this disease? 

Mr. MAIN. You know, I have to say this: The reason that one of 

my first actions as assistant secretary was to launch the End Black 

Lung—ACT NOW campaign was to rid an industry of a disease 

that I think has long passed its time for action to be taken. 

And I am a believer that miners are still getting this disease. 

And just look at the miners whose autopsies were reviewed by the 

medical examiner in West Virginia that found 17 out of those 24 

of those miners, I believe, was the number that was diagnosed with 

pneumoconiosis, some as few as five years’ mining experience. 

This is a disease that, in regards to what Joe may say or someone else, if you look at the 76,000 deaths, as I understand it, those 

came from death certificates collected, filled out by physicians and 

medical examiners across the country that CDC’s NIOSH collects. 

So there is some, I think, independence here about, you know, the 

depth of this disease. It is one that without question I think we all 

need to come to terms with. 

We proposed a rule as part of our End Black Lung—ACT NOW 

campaign that was aimed directly at changing the way that we 

make sure that we have dust under control in the mines, because 

if you look at that data, it says that that wasn’t happening, okay? 

And I think the good news is that in phase one, which we spent 

a lot of time out working with the mining industry—I know Kevin 

Stricklin, who is behind me, and his staff ran from one end of this 

country to the other to work with any mine operator to get them 

ready for the phase one of the rule. And the great news out of that 

is after 41,000-plus samples, half by MSHA, half by the mine operators, we have pretty close to 99 percent compliance. And I think 

that speaks highly of both the—this rule being able to be effectively 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
34 

put in place and with the industry really stepping up to the plate 

to implement it. 

I will tell you this, though: The first part of the End Black 

Lung—ACT NOW campaign was really education and outreach. It 

was beefing up the enforcement of what we had. 

And since we put that in place in 2009, every year we were able 

to drop the dust levels in coal mines and the dust dislocations to 

historical levels every year. We were able to get in place better 

dust control systems that were in place more often than they ever 

had been before. 

This is making sure, these next steps, that we keep them there 

and rid the disease. 

As a personal story, a friend of mine named Mike South was out 

of the mines I believe in his 50s with black lung. Got so bad Mike 

and I would get from that door to that door, you might as well take 

about five minutes because the oxygen in his lungs were so depleted he couldn’t breathe. 

He got a double lung transplant. Called me from the hospital just 

thanking God that someone gave up two lungs for him, only just 

a few months later to die because it didn’t work. 

Chester Flack, who is a poster child, to a certain extent, for folks 

who really have this disease, he was an individual went through 

the same thing that Mike did—double lung transplant, died. The 

transplant didn’t take. 

We are really working hard with the industry and everyone to 

have measures in place that really ends—rids the coal industry of 

this terrible disease, and—— 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. 

And I now recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. 

Stefanik. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In May 2012, Chairman Kline wrote to you about the injury and 

illness rate of mine inspectors, and in your reply to his letter you 

noted latent hearing loss as one of the primary reasons for the high 

incidence rate levels. In 2014, the injury and illness incident rate 

for mine inspectors was 5.2 per 100 employees, whereas last year 

the industry average was 2.43 per 100. What is MSHA doing to 

protect inspectors? 

Mr. MAIN. I am sorry, I didn’t catch that last part. 

Ms. STEFANIK. What is MSHA doing to protect these—their inspectors? 

Mr. MAIN. So I think everyone probably pretty well understands 

that the folks that we hire are mining veterans that come to us 

from the mining industry. I am a believer in that five-year rule in 

the Mine Act, that we should have at least five years’ mining experience, should be the order of the day. 

So you have some folks that come to work with us that have already had, you know, whatever experience they have had. As a 

matter of fact, that is the reason, I have to say, drills in my left 

ear sort of, you know, had changed, you know, my hearing as well. 

So we have that, plus we have these mine inspectors going back 

into these same conditions with exposures. We provide them with 

the best protections that we can, the best guidance and training 

that we can. And it is something that concerns us, as well. I want 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
35 

our miners to be—our inspectors to be as safe if not safer than the 

mines, you know, that they inspect. 

So we are looking at a number of things to try to improve that. 

But I think if you look at both the terrain that they travel into and 

their backgrounds when they come to us as inspectors that there 

are some issues like that we have to address. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you. 

My second question relates to the consistency among inspectors, 

which is an issue that we continue to hear from stakeholders 

about. For example, one inspector may see a hazard and prescribe 

abatement in order for the operator to avoid future citations, 

whereas in another case another inspector arrives and in the same 

work area finds faults with that abatement and issues a different 

directive, requiring additional efforts to mitigate to address those 

concerns. 

What is being done to prevent these inconsistencies from happening? 

Mr. MAIN. I think if you look back—when I arrived here there 

was a number of things in place. The MINER Act had just went 

into effect. I think there was an escalation of enforcement—probably the heaviest for the first time in history on the metalnonmetal side. 

MSHA had just overhauled the penalty system that increased 

penalties from, you know, levels in the $20 million range up to the 

$140 million, $160 million range, in terms of the aftermath of the 

disasters that happened in 2006. And, as I noted, when I came 

here about half of the inspectors that was onboard at the time had 

2 years’ or less inspections. 

One of the very first things that we did to—and things have— 

from 2010 to now I can guarantee you things have changed. And 

I just talked to the industry folks out there who I just came from 

California, one of my last visits, that we talked about how much 

things have changed because of the actions we have taken. 

Those included setting up a training program for our front line 

field supervisors that are responsible for overseeing the inspections. We put into place, actually in May 2010, a training program 

that requires every field office advisor every two years to go 

through at least a week’s training. We are plowing back any inconsistency issues in that training. 

We have pretty much retrained most of our inspectors on the coal 

side and the metal-nonmetal side. We have rewritten the handbooks, and I know probably more extensively on the coal side we 

retrained everybody to those. 

I personally am out at mine sites, out meeting with our stakeholders across the country, and we have used that to reconnect the 

dialogue between our agency and our stakeholders out there. 

I put back in place a critical piece of helping to resolve issues, 

which is the pre-contest conferencing process. Went in effect in 

2012, and what this is is when a mine operator receives a citation, 

instead of waiting ’til the lawyers line up before the Review Commission, they can call up the district office, say, ‘‘We need to sit 

down; your fact is wrong here,’’ and settle those before you even assign a penalty to it. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
36 

We have done 15,000 violations since that time, and about 55 

percent of those have never went on to litigation as ways to resolve 

it. 

These meetings we have across the country in the Midwest with 

about eight or 10 aggregate associations, I think I am getting ready 

for my seventh trip since I have been here to go out. We just came 

from Texas about two weeks ago, California a couple weeks ago. 

But we are out basically on the front lines talking to folks. 

And violations are down. Penalties are down. Special assessments are down considerably; I think they are about half of what 

they were in 2010. 

We know these things are working. Our efforts to continue on 

with our stakeholders and meet and greet and have discussions, 

have workshops, they have got us where we are at and we are 

going to continue to do that. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you for the thoughtful answers. 

I yield back. 

Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. ROKITA. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chair. 

Thank you, Mr. MAIN. Appreciate you coming back. Been following your work now for a couple years and I have got a couple 

things I want to get through. 

First has to do with silica. In your 2014 regulatory agenda you 

suggest that you are going to do silica rules by October 2015. Now, 

you don’t have to abide by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act, but are you going to consider the impact of these proposed rules on smaller mining operations? 

Mr. MAIN. Well, I think the short answer is we are going to consider the impact on the whole mining industry, whether it is small 

or—— 

Mr. ROKITA. But not specifically the small mines? 

Mr. MAIN. Well, small and large. And whatever requirements we 

have, we are going to follow those. But I can tell you, in our rulemaking process we are a pretty good listener as far as commenters 

from the public. 

Mr. ROKITA. With regard to that listening, are you taking a look 

at the scientific documents that were provided to OSHA during the 

comment period? 

Mr. MAIN. I am sorry? 

Mr. ROKITA. The scientific documents that were provided to 

OSHA during the comment period regarding your silica regulation. 

Mr. MAIN. So, yes, their rulemaking is separate from ours, but 

I think the path that we are on is sort of looking to see what is 

going on at OSHA on their standard—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Will you commit to look at this weighing the scientific documents? 

Mr. MAIN. Oh, yes. I mean, you know, we are going to have— 

we are going to take a good look at the, you know, the development 

of the rule on the OSHA side. 

Mr. ROKITA. As to the scientific documents that were provided as 

comments to the rule, can you take—— 

Mr. MAIN. We will take a look at all the pertinent—yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
37 

Back to small mines, you know, there have been fatalities in the 

metal-nonmetal division, as you know. Your testimony notes that 

the Small Mines Consultation Program was moved to the Educational Field Services Division. Why the move, and can you provide data demonstrating more outreach to small mines actually has 

occurred with this move? 

Mr. MAIN. Okay. So why did we do it? As I sat down and looked 

at our resources that we had and how we were deploying those resources and I started looking at our field operations, what I found 

out is that we had two different staff that was in our training wing, 

our EFS Field Services Division and our Small Mines. 

And our Small Mines, which was a smaller staff, was not strategically located in places that I thought we ought to be in the country. As a matter of fact, some of the states with a large number 

of small mines, we didn’t have anybody there. And we had our EFS 

folks passing our Small Mines folks to go take care of business. 

So the logic is, let’s make everybody a field service trainer, which 

means that everybody is a small mines, you know—has the responsibility, as well as EFS. 

The other thing that happened is I had discussions—I have met 

with the state associations across the country. We have had this 

dialogue. It was ongoing for some time. 

And so one of the components that I had added to this was as 

we formed this new total service to the mining industry for all of 

our folks to go out and meet with all the state associations, the 

labor organizations, the state mining associations so we could let 

them know what we were doing and get feedback. And the bigger 

thing I have asked of them, ‘‘We want to leverage your resources.’’ 

And I know Joe Casper, who is in the audience here from NSSGA, 

has been in a few of these discussions where we have—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Do you have data? Does your office track those 

meetings? 

Mr. MAIN. Pardon? 

Mr. ROKITA. Do you have data that you can provide that would 

demonstrate that outreach? 

Mr. MAIN. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. How many associations have you been to, what your 

outreach visits—— 

Mr. MAIN. Yes. Well over 100 outreach visits that we have made. 

And to put the onus on my whole staff that this is done while I 

go out and meet with stakeholders, I sort of encourage, ‘‘If you 

haven’t heard from them, call them and let us know.’’ 

I can tell you this, that I am a firm believer that if we can leverage our resources together—because there is a number of these associations has far more contact and communication than we do, 

and we want to leverage what training resources that they have to 

help us get out to the small mines who have the—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. Do you keep track of those—these meetings? Do 

you write them down? 

Mr. MAIN. Yes. I am sure that our training—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Could you provide—— 

Mr. MAIN. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA [continuing]. The committee that? 

Mr. MAIN. Yes. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
38 

Mr. ROKITA. How long will it take you to do that? 

Mr. MAIN. Maybe a very short period of time. 

Mr. ROKITA. Send us a letter. 

Mr. MAIN. I know that the last—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Can you do it in two weeks? 

Mr. MAIN. I think we can do that, yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. I will put down two weeks then, okay? 

In January, MSHA issued proposed rulemaking changing the citation process and the assessment of civil penalties and suggested 

that the proposed rule was designed to eliminate subjectivity in the 

citation process. There has been controversy around this, specifically with the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. 

Do you think that when you assess a penalty the commission has 

to abide by it? 

Mr. MAIN. So as you see with all the rules we put out there— 

proposed rules—we get input from the public, and what we have 

done is put out proposed changes, and we put out the issues that 

we have requested comment back on to get some guidance. I can 

tell you this: Before we wrap that rule up we will be looking hard 

at all the comments that came in and making judgments that parallels both the law, our requirements, and really the valued input 

of the constituents. 

So I can’t really—since it is in the regulatory process I can’t really talk about what we are going to do because that, you know—— 

Mr. ROKITA. But you are going to have lawyers assess—and I 

gotta yield back—you are going to have lawyers assess the legality 

of trying to enforce a separate commission to do that. 

Mr. MAIN. Yes. We have noted a lot of comments, you know, one 

way or the other. 

If you go back to 2010 when I appeared before the full Committee, I believe it was, this is something I had talked about as far 

as reforms to deal with the backlog that we had. For those that 

may not be aware, we had a backlog the day I came here of about 

80,000 citation orders that was contested. That jumped up from an 

average that the agency was handling from about 5,000 to 6,000 

just a few years before. You can imagine, you know, what was 

going on. 

So we started looking at reforms: How can we both resolve the 

backlog, but forward-looking make some changes that removes litigation issues and gets us to a better process for mine operators and 

for miners? 

And part of this is reforms that we had from back in 2010, and 

a couple simple ones, that when an inspector goes out and looks 

at a mine they have to make a decision on five different levels of 

negligence: no negligence, low negligence, medium negligence, high 

negligence, reckless disregard. Sort of like a yes-no reckless disregard approach is what you will see as a proposed rule. 

They have to make a determination of how many miners was affected by that violation: one, five, 10, 20? And every one of those 

added penalty points and added fines. 

So when we come out with a proposal, you know, I am an old 

farm kid, went to work in the mines. Yes or no. Either folks were 

exposed or they weren’t. And trying to do some of those kind of 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
39 

things to resolve some of the—of what I thought was unnecessary 

litigation issues, quite frankly. 

So yes, there are a lot of moving pieces to the rule, but we are 

going to really listen well to the public and making hopefully some 

good determinations. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield my time 

to the Ranking Member. 

Chairman WALBERG. Without objection. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. DeSaulnier, for that. 

Following the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, MSHA began impact inspections in mines with a history of safety problems. When 

MSHA arrives at a mine site, one of the first actions is to seize the 

phones or electronic communication. 

Why does MSHA do this? Is there a problem with operators providing a tipoff? Would stronger sanctions, such as a felony, deter 

this kind of misconduct? What tools do you need to prevent mine 

operators from giving tipoffs? 

Mr. MAIN. Yes, we do that on occasion. It is just part of our impact inspections where our enforcement folks have some concern 

about advanced notice being provided to the workplace to change 

the conditions before they get there and do inspections. And I think 

if you look at some of the impact inspection reports that we issue, 

it identifies, you know, that concern quite well. 

There have been a number of impact inspections we have done 

where we have went in, say an underground coal mine, and been 

able to avoid notice that we were present and got to the mining 

section to find the ventilation controls not in place. Ventilation controls are necessary to control the dust that causes black lung; it is 

necessary to control methane that liberates from the coal seam to 

prevent mine explosions. 

Things like that have been evidenced by, you know, by our inspections where we have had to, as we say, capture the phones to 

get there. 

And I think that mines that operate like that, although I think 

they are fewer than what we were seeing back in 2010, still exist. 

And if you look at some of the more recent examples we have used, 

I know mines in Virginia and southern West Virginia where we 

have found those kind of concerning issues. 

So as we look forward, what next steps could be taken as far as 

other tools to remedy that, I think is something that is very worthwhile looking at, and I think at least in the Byrd bill there are 

some provisions that try to address that. One of them is the—increasing the attention on criminal actions that could be taken at 

the end of the day. 

Ms. WILSON. Another point I would like to bring up during this 

hearing: MSHA has accumulated or referred approximately $72 

million in delinquent fines to the Treasury Department. The Robert 

C. Byrd mine safety bill that was filed yesterday gives MSHA a 

new tool to address this problem. It authorizes MSHA to issue a 

withdrawal order to order miners out of the mine if fines are not 

paid within 180 days of a final order or a payment plan has not 

been put into place. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
40 

What is your view about this approach? 

Mr. MAIN. A tool like that, with the Wilberg mine that I talked 

about earlier, would probably change the attitude of that mine operator and it would require them to—it would put them on notice 

that the violations that you accrue putting miners in danger, you 

are going to be held accountable for them, which otherwise left the 

mine just to rack up violations, not pay any fines, and leave. So 

yes, that is a tool that would be helpful there. 

Ms. WILSON. You touched on it a bit but I would like for you to 

go into detail about the inexperience of mine inspectors and how 

budget cuts factor into that. And what caused this problem that 

MSHA had so many inexperienced inspectors? Did this allow violations to go undetected? 

Mr. MAIN. So I think we are in much better shape today, as far 

as the experience of our inspectors, than we were back in, you 

know, 2010. And it is something that we are very concerned about 

trying to shift whatever resources we can to make sure that we 

keep our inspectors hired up. 

If you do slip back to where we were back in 2000—probably 

about 2009 would have been more difficult, and even 2010, when 

I think there was a hiring that took place of about 170 coal inspectors around 2007 that were added to the mix that were not eligible 

inspectors for about two years. So if you look back into that era, 

you have got to be concerned about not getting there again. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. 

Now I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, and I guess the 

representative of Assistant Secretary Main as well, Mr. Brat. 

Mr. BRAT. Yes. Thanks for being here today. 

I have no questions so I am going to yield back to my Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MAIN. If I could just make a comment, I live in—north—just 

right on—north of Lake Anna—— 

Mr. BRAT. Oh, very good. 

Mr. MAIN [continuing]. So this is my congressman. 

Mr. BRAT. I was told and thank you for being here today. 

And I yield back my time to the chairman. 

Chairman WALBERG. Gentleman yield to—— 

Mr. BRAT. Yield my time to the chairman. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Main, when MSHA finalized the respirable coal dust regulation it expanded the NIOSH standards for occupational exposure to 

respirable coal dust by making significant changes to the medical 

surveillance program. 

Did you consider implementing a mandatory medical surveillance 

program? And I guess the follow up to that was, what are some of 

the issues that would need to be considered with respect to implementing such a program? 

Mr. MAIN. So I think in the record you are going to find that 

there was probably pros and cons about, you know, the mandatory 

medical—is that the issue that we are—— 

Chairman WALBERG. Yes. The mandatory medical surveillance—— 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
41 

Mr. MAIN. So yes, and coming from a mining culture that I did, 

and with the issue of black lung benefits, and with the issue of 

miners afraid that they may not get hired at mines, there has been 

for years an apprehension that I have seen, you know, outside of 

all this of concerns about a mandated chest x-ray that a mine operator may get to see. And it has been an issue that has been around 

for quite some time. 

I think in a record there was expression of folks that we should 

have this as a mandatory requirement. There was recommendations that it should not be. At the end of the day, I chose to leave 

the law where it was at. 

Chairman WALBERG. Okay. 

Take a little bit of time—and it is impressive, the amount of time 

you and Kevin and your team have spent going out to stakeholders, 

going out to the mines, meeting with people. Just talk a little bit 

about what you have seen on the other side of—well, not on the 

other side of ledgering—cooperation with the industry itself and 

the stakeholders, specifically mine operators, mine owners, in developing best case—best practices in the mining operation, working 

with their miners who, you know, as I have had an opportunity to 

meet with miners myself, impressive that every day they go to 

work and do a job that many of us wouldn’t do, and yet they enjoy 

doing it. They want to do that. That is their life. 

Talk to us a little bit about what you have seen in industry as 

best practices, what they are attempting to roll up their sleeves 

and bring about mine safety. 

Mr. MAIN. So about every mine I go to—and I spend a lot of time 

at mines; that is my favorite place with this job—but if you just 

go out and see where the rubber is meeting the road and what is 

going on, I think it plays into this narrative that the statistics tells 

us that we are seeing a cultural change of improvement in mine 

safety. 

I was at the—we took Secretary of Labor Perez to the Cumberland Mine in Pennsylvania, sit down and talk to folks. This was 

a mine that has been able to operate steadily in the Pittsburgh 

Seam, and they attribute their labor management, you know, dialogue and communications and working together as their success 

story. 

The next day we were at the Emerald Mine looking more at the 

technological changes at that mine. It is a sister mine to Cumberland. And we got to see one of the most innovative rock dusting 

systems that the miners working for management created, and 

may be on my website soon; they just sent it to me so I could show 

it. 

I saw probably some of the best state-of-the-art dust controls on 

the long wall that was designed by the miners that worked on that 

long wall, in conjunction with management, with the manufacturer, 

I think, in Germany, that they were able to develop that has them 

not worried about, you know, the MSHA dust standard because of 

the work they have done. 

I was just at two quarries out in California about two weeks ago, 

one of them been in operation since—for 100 years. And I believe 

this was the one that as far back, we could never find they had a 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
42 

lost-time accident. I went to another quarry that afternoon and 

had, I think, one since 2004. 

I said, ‘‘What is your secret of success here?’’ They empower the 

workers, have a good dialogue with the workers, and our training 

is minimal training to them, in terms of how they train folks up. 

I was at a coal mine in Alabama, one of the deepest in the country, the Jim Walter No. 7 mine, a few months ago. And when you 

look at transfer points in coal mines where the coal comes and 

dumps, you have a lot of spillage, you have a lot of dust. This was 

one of the cleanest ones I ever seen. 

They reengineered their whole transfer point to where it is worker friendly—you don’t have to take a shovel in; you could take a 

water hose—and the way they designed it to—I mean, these are 

the kind of things—the Leeds cement plant I was in Alabama, 100- 

year-old cement plant on its last leg, had all kinds of safety and 

injury problems. New management came in, management, the 

Steelworkers who represented the workers there, got together with 

our local MSHA office. And when I was there I got to see the benefits of a success story where that 100-year-old cement plant was 

able to go from the bottom of the barrel, about ready to not be 

around anymore in this economy, to one of the better plants that 

the company had. 

So, you know, there are a lot of things that are going on out 

there that we are trying to get these best practices sort of like embedded through the industry. And, of course, the one of the proximity detection, if it wasn’t for companies like Alliance, CONSOL, 

that spent the energy and money to build our proximity system to 

where it is at, we probably would have a more difficult time putting those rules in. 

Chairman WALBERG. Well, I appreciate that and your testimony. 

Thanks for taking the time to join us here. It has been a good update, and I am sure we have other questions, but that will come 

at a time. 

I now recognize my colleague and ranking member, Ms. Wilson, 

for her closing statement. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Very, very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for 

holding this hearing and giving all of us an opportunity to hear 

about the reforms MSHA is undertaking and how we here in Congress can support MSHA in its efforts to increase mine safety. This 

was very enlightening to me, and I appreciate all of your testimony, Honorable Mr. MAIN. 

I also want to thank our witness, Assistant Secretary Joe Main, 

for his testimony today, which I just did. 

You were fantabulous. This is new to me, and I really learned 

a lot just hearing your testimony and begin exposed to all of the 

questions today. I feel we are on the right track and I look forward 

to working with you in the future. 

As we have heard, since the tragedy of Upper Big Branch MHSA 

has taken substantial steps to better protect the safety of our miners, and that is what our committee is all about. These reforms include beginning monthly impact inspections and finalizing rules 

that prevent black lung disease and crushing injuries. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
43 

We applaud the work that has been done and the reforms that 

have been made. Last year, fatalities in coal mining dropped to 16, 

the lowest levels in years. 

However, we cannot forget that the preventable tragedy in Upper 

Big Branch took place a year after mine fatalities also hit record 

lows. We also cannot forget that last year metal-nonmetal mining 

fatalities reached a seven-year high. 

This reminds us that we must continue to be diligent. We here 

in Congress must ensure MSHA has the tools and funding it needs 

to check the mine operators that disregard the safety of miners. We 

are the Workforce Protections Subcommittee. 

And the Robert C. Byrd Mine Safety Protection Act provides 

MSHA with those much-needed tools, including expanded subpoena 

power. 

I hope, Chairman Walberg, that you and I can discuss legislation 

that gives MSHA expanded subpoena power. I look forward to 

working with you on this issue, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. Thank you. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. And we will certainly continue to work together in the best way possible where we 

meet necessary concerns. 

Again, Assistant Secretary Main, thank you for the work you do. 

Thanks for paying attention to our concerns, answering questions. 

And thank you for being out amongst the field. I know you enjoy 

being there, and that is a good thing. 

I think our concerns today are the fact that yes, we do, as has 

been mentioned by my colleague, we have a record now of success. 

We have safety that has been offered. 

The 16 deaths—or the 38 deaths, I guess, that you mentioned, 

last year cannot be discounted. And yet, the continued improvement that we have seen in the last several years has evidenced 

something that we ought to applaud and celebrate and build upon. 

I would just encourage continued working with the mining industry themselves on pattern of violation issues of concern, making 

sure that the clarity is there. I mean, the efforts that have been 

undertaken to deal with proximity detector regulations I think has 

shown how important and valuable and productive it is in working 

hand-in-hand with the industry itself. 

We have heard support from the industry on what has gone on 

there. I think that support is offered and will continue as you expand proximity detectors in other equipment and machine operations. 

Having stood next to and between the wall and the continuous 

mining machine, which is an awesome machine, from my 

uneducated evaluation, I can see why there is a need there. And 

yet, to hear that industry is producing and developing that is something that says that there has to continue being a teamwork aspect. 

Training and best practices—having been on site at some of the 

industry-provided training centers, that can be helpful not only for 

mining operations in this nation but also worldwide. The impact 

that could have, again, comes from the private sector and working 

in partnership—public—federal government working with the private sector. I think that can be extremely positive. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
44 

And then the funding area. As we look at the funds that have 

been used for the coal mining operations and the decrease in coal 

mining operations, which personally I would like to see that slide 

stop because there are jobs and there are people that depend upon 

those mining operations, and I think energy in our country and the 

world depend upon that, as well. 

Yet, we have seen dollars go there that could have gone to the 

metal-nonmetal operations, and I appreciate the testimony you 

have given about reconsidering and looking at that and shifting 

dollars to meet those needs. 

So I guess in conclusion I would say I think from what I have 

heard today versus what I heard several years ago, there have 

been successes. There have been improvements. And that continues. 

The concern that I will continue to express—maybe not so much 

a concern, but a direction from this subcommittee—is to make sure 

that we work hand in hand, a partnership with business and industry as well as with the regulator to make sure it is a partnership that promotes success and long-term growth in this industry. 

Having said that, I thank you again. 

I thank my colleagues for your attention to this hearing. 

And with no other concerns that come before the Committee at 

this time, it is adjourned. 

[Additional submission by Mr. Rokita follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
45 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 94210A.017
46 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 94210A.018
47 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 94210A.019
48 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 94210A.020
49 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
50 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 94210A.021
51 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 94210A.022
52 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 94210A.023
53 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 94210A.024
54 

[Whereupon, at 10:31 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING